Spells vs objects

[Addaran]

Something weird i noticed was that a lot of damage spells seem to specify "creature". While it makes sense for things like necromancy (chill touch, vampiric touch) to not affect objects, it seems weird that the other kind of spells wouldnt. The weirdest would be ice storm (There's hail capable of doing 2d8 bludgeoning in 6 seconds, but it leaves objects unarmed?) or wall of fire that mention only creatures...

Is it just an oversight with the langage used? Do you think some type of damage should work on objects as a general rule while others types don't? If so, wich ones?

[MaxWilson]

Something weird i noticed was that a lot of damage spells seem to specify "creature". While it makes sense for things like necromancy (chill touch, vampiric touch) to not affect objects, it seems weird that the other kind of spells wouldnt. The weirdest would be ice storm (There's hail capable of doing 2d8 bludgeoning in 6 seconds, but it leaves objects unarmed?) or wall of fire that mention only creatures...

Is it just an oversight with the langage used? Do you think some type of damage should work on objects as a general rule while others types don't? If so, wich ones?

If I'm the DM, not only will Fire Bolt/etc. work on objects, but Fireball will have a good chance of incinerating items (including magical items) a la AD&D item saving throws. The only damage types I can think of that wouldn't make sense for inanimate objects are poison, necrotic, and psychic damage. All the others seem like fair game to apply to objects.

A Cone of Cold IMG will wreck a small building, causing wood to split and crack and stones to shatter.

[JackPhoenix]

In 3.5, Magic Missile was incapable of targeting objects, but that's all

It makes sense that you could destroy houses with Fireball. Siege engines in DMG are immune to poison and psychic damage, though not necrotic (antimatter rifle in DMG does necrotic damage, so it sort of makes sense that necrotic isn't just negative energy, but instant rot/rusting/decay/matter annihilation too, which can work on objects)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

By RAW a lot of spells are either fully illusions or partially illusions when you think of them in regards to the in game physics.

By RAW, Fireball is an explosion of fire, that acts like a liquid, and has no chance of setting you on fire even if you are doused in oil.... You can reduce damage partially or fully not by resisting the effects (con saving throw) but by dodging the effect by staying in the same spot even though the fireball acts like a liquid and will surround you entirely.

It can set things on fire that isn't being worn or carried. I chalk this up to summoning the objects to the plane of fire and it not being an instantaneous summoning. A little bit of the item goes at a time.

Magic in D&D is weird for even it's own rules.

As a DM I allow spells to target items of it makes sense or the caster is using the improvise an action with the spell. But by base rules spells are down right weird with regard to their own in game universe.

[Addaran]

Most of the fire spells do say it will burn flammable object. ;)

Nice catch on necrotic damage, i hadn't though of it like that. It would depend on the spell i guess.

Nice to see i'm not the only one who think spells should work on objects.

edit: True... they always say un-worn or un-carried objects. But i think that might be more about balance issue. Imagine playing a fighter if every time you receive a fireball, your armor and weapon burns/melt.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Most of the fire spells do say it will burn flammable object. ;)

Nice catch on necrotic damage, i hadn't though of it like that. It would depend on the spell i guess.

Nice to see i'm not the only one who think spells should work on objects.

edit: True... they always say un-worn or un-carried objects. But i think that might be more about balance issue. Imagine playing a fighter if every time you receive a fireball, your armor and weapon burns/melt.

I don't see how ongoing fire damage would be unbalanced. You don't have to completely destroy everything, make a "broken" condition to where objects aren't as effective. As a DM of you don't want to burn your players then don't use fire.

Be it for balance or not, the physics are the way they say they are. Even when doused with oil, fire spells won't catch you on fire (baring rule 0, which can't really be accounted for by RAW).

I'm all for balance in a game but I thinking defining a baseline physics and explaining how things works is just as, if not, more important.

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight and don't bring all your gear into a dangerous situation. Leather armor may be resistant to catching fire but skin, hair, and small combustible items should be fair game for catching fire... IF it was actually fire (be it non-magical or plane of fire stuff).

[JackPhoenix]

The lightning ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried.

While this doesn't make sense from versimilitude perspective (I can set the whole room on fire and damage the character with Fireball, but his clothes will be unscathed even if they are soaked in oil), it's reasonable from gameplay perspective: losing your gear just because you were hit by AoE is not fun for most players. It would also make some spells stronger then they are supposed to (which is not necessarily a bad thing).

In 3.5, your equipment was damaged only if you rolled a nat 1 on save, and even then, only one item was damaged, according to a table (shield first, if you didn't have one, armor, if you weren't wearing armor either, then some other stuff...I'm not finding my books just to check the right order)...still not perfect, but 3.5 was much more willing to permanently screw up character stats or equipment...again, how good thing that was depends on the player's opinion and if he's on the wrong end of those rules.

I see most spells targeting "creatures" as an misused word...while you're targeting enemy creatures instead of random chairs, walls or whatever, there's no real reason why you couldn't (depending on spell...Chill Touch or Finger of Death or something like that targeting a door still shouldn't do anything.

edit: actually:
Make a ranged attack against a target creature or object, treating the oil as an improvised weapon. On a hit, the target is covered in oil. If the larget takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil. You can also pour a flask of oil on the ground to cover a 5-foot-square area, provided that the surface is level. If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds and deals 5 fire damage to any creature that enters the area ar ends its turn in the area. A creature can take this damage only once per turn.

[Kryx]

They are indeed intentional: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/621079560474329088


The target specifications (creature, object, or something else) in spells are intentional. A DM can make exceptions.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

They are indeed intentional: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/621079560474329088

Which falls under...

Improvising an Action
Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this chapter, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses, or calling for a parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character’s ability scores. See the descriptions of the ability scores in chapter 7 for inspiration as
you improvise.When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible
and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.

Changing the target of a spell as part of the "cast a spell action" should qualify.

[Kryx]

Changing the target of a spell as part of the "cast a spell action" should qualify.
Spells being able to target an object or not is defined in their sell description and is entirely RAW and RAI as verified by Crawford in that tweet.
The spells specifically say whether they target objects or not which he says is intentional.

There is a reason shatter isn't a bad spell - it can do damage to objects.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Spells being able to target an object or not is defined in their sell description and is entirely RAW and RAI as verified by Crawford in that tweet.
The spells specifically say whether they target objects or not which he says is intentional.

There is a reason shatter isn't a bad spell - it can do damage to objects.

Yes, I never said it wasn't intentional. However, what I'm saying is that the improvised action is the basis of JC's clarification that a DM can allow spells to change their targets.

I wasn't disagreeing with anytbing that I'm aware of.

Also, yes, shatter is a fantastic spell and I always pick it up. Not because it can damage objects but because it is so much fluff potential and it deals decent damage. Wish there was a Deafen status effect for it (1 round, save negates). Maybe when cast at higher levels? Hmm

[SharkForce]

Spells being able to target an object or not is defined in their sell description and is entirely RAW and RAI as verified by Crawford in that tweet.
The spells specifically say whether they target objects or not which he says is intentional.

There is a reason shatter isn't a bad spell - it can do damage to objects.

shatter isn't a bad spell because it's a rarely-resisted damage type, and is the first option for decent damage in a decent area that doesn't involve you putting a squishy wizard right next to the enemies said squishy wizard is about to make angry. if fireball wasn't around, it would still be great at level 5 whether it damages objects or not.