Sage Advice - June 2016

[JumboWheat01]

So it seems that we're getting a bunch of rules answered this month.

It's here on WotC's site, by the way. (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-june-2016)

Of major note is that Bonus Actions are still Actions, I remember reading an argument about that on the Wind Walk thread.

[bid]

Wasn't there an argument about "when" too?

[pwykersotz]

Looks like a bunch of pretty standard answers. Nothing jumped out at me as weird or incorrect...or very interesting.

[Easy_Lee]

You can only target creatures, not objects, with Eldritch Blast. And that's intentional? That's dumb. I'm ignoring it.

[mgshamster]

A wizard multiclasses into Wild Magic sorcerer. Do spells cast from their spellbook trigger Wild Magic Surge if they are on the sorcerer spell list or do they have to gain them from Sorcerer to trigger? From the multiclassing rules: “Each spell you know and prepare is associated with one of your classes” (PH, 164). This rule means only the spells gained from levels in sorcerer trigger Wild Magic Surge.

Since each class is supposed to have their spells separated, does this mean that a sorc can't convert wizard spells into spell points?

Seems like if you can convert spell points, then you'd also trigger wild magic.

[Rysto]

Does the extra damage from hex only apply if there is an attack roll? The extra damage in the hex spell requires an attack that hits.

Is it just me, or did they not answer the question? Does Hex apply to a shove, for instance?

[Easy_Lee]

Since each class is supposed to have their spells separated, does this mean that a sorc can't convert wizard spells into spell points?

Seems like if you can convert spell points, then you'd also trigger wild magic.

Caster multiclassing rules are dumb. You basically need color-coded spell slots and spell lists in order to do it "right."

[Kryx]

You can only target creatures, not objects, with Eldritch Blast. And that's intentional? That's dumb. I'm ignoring it.
Spells specifically call out if they can target objects. This is entirely intentional. See Shatter.

The differentiation is important imo.



Is it just me, or did they not answer the question? Does Hex apply to a shove, for instance?
Shove is not an attack. Therefore it doesn't apply hex.

[Easy_Lee]

Spells specifically call out if they can target objects. This is entirely intentional. See Shatter.

The differentiation is important imo.


In the case of spells like shatter, sure, but only due to poor design. However, hitting an object with a spell meant for crratures? I don't see a problem with that.

But I do see a problem with not being able to target a door with an attack. That's bad video game logic, right there.

[Foxhound438]

all sensible answers as far as I could see.

there are a few things that are by all technical assessments correct, but don't really make sense thematically, like falling damage getting around damage resistance. Personally if I were on the design team, i'd word such things as "immune to damage of x types from nonmagical sources".

[Kryx]

You may rethink that as soon as you have a Warlock using EB force damage to break down any door as Force damage isn't reduced by DR of any kind.

I understand your position and mostly agree. But it would require rebalance of the spells that target objects (like shatter) as they're a bit weak to account for it. Though that isn't hard - just increase the die size by 1 typically.
The bigger issue is the EB vs doors issue. I experienced it and was very happy to have it not work.

[Easy_Lee]

Why not just make force-resistant doors? It sounds like the craftsman would make a fortune on them.

[Kryx]

Why not just make force-resistant doors? It sounds like the craftsman would make a fortune on them.
Because I then make acid resistant and fire resistant and cold resistant doors.

Suddenly every door costs 200g or more. That's not very believable either.

[smcmike]

Since each class is supposed to have their spells separated, does this mean that a sorc can't convert wizard spells into spell points?

Seems like if you can convert spell points, then you'd also trigger wild magic.

You don't convert spells into spell points at all, though. You convert spell SLOTS, which are not assigned to specific classes.

[Easy_Lee]

Because I then make acid resistant and fire resistant and cold resistant doors.

Suddenly every door costs 200g or more. That's not very believable either.

You say it's not believable, but it makes sense to me. If your PCs keep blowing doors down, someone's going to get wise to it.

Honestly, though, if that's the worst thing your PCs have done to your world, that's not so bad.

[DanyBallon]

all sensible answers as far as I could see.

there are a few things that are by all technical assessments correct, but don't really make sense thematically, like falling damage getting around damage resistance. Personally if I were on the design team, i'd word such things as "immune to damage of x types from nonmagical sources".

Resistance or immunity to B/S/P damage from a non-magical weapon attack is not immunity/resistance to non-magical B/S/P damage, hence the comment that it will still suffer from falling damage.

[mgshamster]

You don't convert spells into spell points at all, though. You convert spell SLOTS, which are not assigned to specific classes.

Fair point.

[R.Shackleford]

Looks like a bunch of pretty standard answers. Nothing jumped out at me as weird or incorrect...or very interesting.

What's funny is that their answers don't actually answer some questions.

The danger sense question wasn't actually answered. They just responded with part of the feature's wording...

Though I find it interesting that Magic Initiate doesn't let you prepare a spell, you just know it.

I find the idea of Evasion not needing a creature to move is hilarious.

Edit

Apparently prone is a great way to block space...

[Foxhound438]

Resistance or immunity to B/S/P damage from a non-magical weapon attack is not immunity/resistance to non-magical B/S/P damage, hence the comment that it will still suffer from falling damage.

by the rules you and they are entirely correct, but it doesn't make any sense. If a thing falls into a spike trap and takes piercing damage from the spikes, then a barbarian decides to break off one of those spikes and stab the thing with it, suddenly that spike loses its ability to do anything to the creature. it makes no sense.

[Pex]

Also of note is clarification Contagion's effect takes place after the three failed saving throws. Now perhaps people will stop commenting about how broken they think it is to use the Slimy Doom effect.

[R.Shackleford]

Non-magical weapon damage immunity doesn't stop a creature from "feeling the hurt of a fall".

So... I bash a creature in the bread basket with my hammer and nothing but if they fall 10' then it is ouchie time... Good to know.


Edit

My wife, who doesn't like D&D but is a videogamer, thinks this is dumb so I'm gonna go ahead and pretend they didn't just answer this question. I hate non-magical weapon immunity to begin with but... What are they smoking

[DanyBallon]

by the rules you and they are entirely correct, but it doesn't make any sense. If a thing falls into a spike trap and takes piercing damage from the spikes, then a barbarian decides to break off one of those spikes and stab the thing with it, suddenly that spike loses its ability to do anything to the creature. it makes no sense.

I could bring many examples to support that it make sense, and you would provide many more valid counter arguments that it doesn't and this would certainly derail the thread, so instead I'll just say that, from my perspective, I can easily see how it can make sense and will use this ruling in my home game. But I won't try to convince you to do so if you're not sure it will fly at your table. :smallwink:

[BigONotation]

The danger sense question wasn't actually answered. They just responded with part of the feature's wording...


Explain how the wording is unclear?

[R.Shackleford]

Explain how the wording is unclear?

The original wording nor is this unclear. The problem is that a question was asked, they responded with what the ability text already says, and don't give a definitive answer for people who are having an issues.


Also it is very... Sloppy to not answer a yes/no question directly.

It should be...

"Yes. Danger Sense...."

If you was having issues with danger sense before you would still have issues with it.

Edit

Q: Does the barbarian’s Danger Sense work against breath weapons and enemies’ special abilities?

A: A barbarian’s Danger Sense benefits any Dexterity saving throw against an effect that the barbarian can see.

The problem is that whoever is asking this question didn't get an answer. The text already says what they answered.

A better answer would be something like.

Yes, if the Barbarian can see the breath weapon or special attack then a barbarian's Danger Sense benefits any Dexterity saving throw they attempt against said effect.

All they did was rehash the initial feature.

[Xetheral]

So, should the answer about creature vs object spell targets also apply to spell effects? I'm trying to decide if this Sage Advice is intended to rule that fireball doesn't damage objects (other than igniting them if they're flammable) because the text only mentions doing damage to creatures.

[DeAnno]

I'm happy to see Contagion reigned in in black and white. Now if only they would do something about Wish-Simulacrum.

[Sigreid]

Since each class is supposed to have their spells separated, does this mean that a sorc can't convert wizard spells into spell points?

Seems like if you can convert spell points, then you'd also trigger wild magic.

Multiclassed spell casters don't have separate slots for each class, just separate spells. Since you convert slots and not spells, I don't see any reason to think you can't convert any slot you feel like.

[Sigreid]

I'm happy to see Contagion reigned in in black and white. Now if only they would do something about Wish-Simulacrum.

The Contagion ruling is exactly what I always interpreted the spell text to mean. Actually, this is a rare sage advice where I don't think any of their answers are bat crap crazy.

The Eldritch Blast ruling wasn't one I would have expected, but I rather like it actually. It lends itself more to the feel of arcane injuries attacking the mind and soul more than the body. Groovy.

[Sigreid]

Non-magical weapon damage immunity doesn't stop a creature from "feeling the hurt of a fall".

So... I bash a creature in the bread basket with my hammer and nothing but if they fall 10' then it is ouchie time... Good to know.


Edit

My wife, who doesn't like D&D but is a videogamer, thinks this is dumb so I'm gonna go ahead and pretend they didn't just answer this question. I hate non-magical weapon immunity to begin with but... What are they smoking

I could buy it as the world is tied to the fundamental nature of the universe and so effectively counts as magical, where as your hammer does not. Personally, I really like the idea of them not taking damage from the fall as it presents a more terrifying image if you're pursued by an opponent that can jump off cliffs to get you without fear of harm.

[RickAllison]

The Contagion ruling is exactly what I always interpreted the spell text to mean. Actually, this is a rare sage advice where I don't think any of their answers are bat crap crazy.

The Eldritch Blast ruling wasn't one I would have expected, but I rather like it actually. It lends itself more to the feel of arcane injuries attacking the mind and soul more than the body. Groovy.

Not to mention that it prevents the ridiculousness of Repelling Blast on structures. If objects could be targeted, a warlock could send the planet flying out of orbit. Any building on the edge of a cliff could be shoved off.

[Coidzor]

Is it just me, or did they not answer the question? Does Hex apply to a shove, for instance?

It's not just you, that's a non-answer. Not sure if because they felt like being douchey or if they just rolled a critical fumble.


Because I then make acid resistant and fire resistant and cold resistant doors.

Suddenly every door costs 200g or more. That's not very believable either.

Why are doors such a balance point? :smallconfused:

How often do your players want to break every door they see from across the room instead of up close and personal?

[R.Shackleford]

I could buy it as the world is tied to the fundamental nature of the universe and so effectively counts as magical, where as your hammer does not. Personally, I really like the idea of them not taking damage from the fall as it presents a more terrifying image if you're pursued by an opponent that can jump off cliffs to get you without fear of harm.

There is a multiquote and an edit button.

See, tying the world as being magical makes no sense still.

If the world is magical then the metal, the wood, or my player which are all from the planet would be magical.

If I pull metal from the ground and turn it into a sword... Magic sword?

If I get a tree branch as a club... Magic club?

If I pick up a rock and bash the creature's face in... Magic Rock?

No. Sorry, but it doesn't add up.


Edit

Eldritch Blast

Using a Force effect to move an object makes perfect sense and isn't ridiculous at all. Want to keep the plane(t) from moving? Fix repelling blast to limit by size. EB can move a gargantuan worm but not a door? *smh*

As far as I'm concerned, Eldritch Blast can target objects because it is downright silly to have a force effect that can't. Want it to be a mental attack? Change it to psychic or have it be a Wisdom/Charisma save.

WotC has put out yet another document that shows that they aren't putting effort into their product. They are really taking this "be like Apple" crap seriously.

[RickAllison]

There is a multiquote and an edit button.

See, tying the world as being magical makes no sense still.

If the world is magical then the metal, the wood, or my player which are all from the planet would be magical.

If I pull metal from the ground and turn it into a sword... Magic sword?

If I get a tree branch as a club... Magic club?

If I pick up a rock and bash the creature's face in... Magic Rock?

No. Sorry, but it doesn't add up.

I've actually had this discussion, about how it was different between throwing a rock large enough to deal 1d6 and falling on it to deal 1d6. The best I could figure is that the damage from falling comes from the rapid deceleration of parts of the body, where resistance can't really do much since it is internal. Still don't know how that figures in with traps and such...

[Kryx]

As far as I'm concerned, Eldritch Blast can target objects because it is downright silly to have a force effect that can't.
The vast majority of spells can't target objects. But as always DMs are able to change this.

[Sneak Dog]

There is a multiquote and an edit button.

See, tying the world as being magical makes no sense still.

If the world is magical then the metal, the wood, or my player which are all from the planet would be magical.

...

Clearly it's not the world that's magical, but physics!
So gravity, pressure, time and all those have once been created by a great deity or wizard, permanencied (is that a word?) and now count as magical for penetrating resistances/immunities.

Also explains why physics get changed by so many spells: it's just manipulating an epic-level spell in various manners.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

"There is no save against the philter of love. The love is just that strong".

Awwwwwwwwww, how romantic!

[Joe the Rat]

A flyer that lacks the hover trait can stay aloft without moving each round.
?beg pardon
What does hover actually do then?

[RickAllison]

?beg pardon
What does hover actually do then?

It doesn't fall if you knock it prone. Considering that is up to 20d6 damage and being next to some very unhappy melee-combatants on the ground, it is very useful.

[Anonymouswizard]

You can only target creatures, not objects, with Eldritch Blast. And that's intentional? That's dumb. I'm ignoring it.

I agree here. I can see why it would be like that for balance purposes, but that just doesn't feel right to me. I'm also of the opinion that force damage should be resisted about as much as other damage types (although not as much as most caster damage types, somewhere between there and bludgeoning). Heck, I don't like the split between force and bludgeoning, as I can't really see a way they meaningfully differ except for one being 'force' and the other being me whacking you with a big stick. Is this just me being silly? Is force damage not force, but rather something like an internal explosion?


Is it just me, or did they not answer the question? Does Hex apply to a shove, for instance?

The wording is ambiguous, but what I get is that to get the extra damage from hex you must:
a) make an attack.
b) have the attack hit.

Nothing about an attack roll (the focus of the question), so attacks that don't need one do get the extra damage. A shove is earlier specified as being part of the attack action, so we get two options here:
-To be an attack you must use the Attack (or Opportunity Attack) action, and so shove does count.
-To be an attack you must cause damage, so a Fireball gets the extra damage but a shove does not.

Going by the PhB an attack requires an attack roll, which means that fireball is out. Now, we would normally end it here, except that grappling and shoving specify that they are special melee attacks. Now, the answer depends on if a successful grapple/shove hits, which the rules suggest no, although I could see it being rules otherwise. This brings up a question I hope someone with a twitter account asks:

Does a successful grapple or shove count as a hit for effects that activate on successful hits?


A lot of my problems with these answers are the fact that simple yes/no answers just get the explanation, not 'answer, explanation...' For example:


Does a “melee spell attack” count as a “melee attack” for Touch of Death? A melee spell attack is, indeed, a melee attack and can qualify for the Death cleric’s Touch of Death feature.

Could be:


Does a “melee spell attack” count as a “melee attack” for Touch of Death? Yes, a melee spell attack is simply a melee attack performed as part of resolving a spell, and so can qualify for the Death Domain's Touch of Death feature.

[R.Shackleford]

The vast majority of spells can't target objects. But as always DMs are able to change this.

I can understand if spells like silence, darkness (even though it can target items), or other utility spells can't target objects.

However damaging spells not targeting objects, especially pure force effects, is just silly.

It would be as silly as saying "Wall of Force? I shoot right through it!" force effects don't mess with objects!

[Mr.Moron]

In the case of spells like shatter, sure, but only due to poor design. However, hitting an object with a spell meant for crratures? I don't see a problem with that.

But I do see a problem with not being able to target a door with an attack. That's bad video game logic, right there.

How does the spell work though? There are a lots of reasons a spell would work on a creature and not an object. There is perhaps some essential property of creature-ness that animation be it by soul, or by magic imparts something to the existence of that thing. It might be that that is what eldritch blast effects. You may be able to aim at a door, even hit the door but it'll have as much effect on it as rubbing the printed out code to a computer virus would on a person.

In general the approach seems to be that magic only interacts with the animate unless specified otherwise. Fireball sets things on fire and Flamestrike does not as another example. Spells are deliberate constructs be they formulated by wizards or handed down by gods. They're procedural manipulations of the magic that underscores the world, it seems pretty feasible that affecting things that are animated and affecting things that are not are different procedures in the world of magic and adding one or another to spell (or both) has varying levels of complexity and associated costs.

Now certainly it's fine to prefer a position of "All magic effects all things equally unless with otherwise specified" but I'm just not sure that's the default position and certainly not grounds to say that anything working otherwise is "bad video game logic".

EDIT:

It would be as silly as saying "Wall of Force? I shoot right through it!" force effects don't mess with objects!

...except wall of force explicitly states that nothing can physically pass through it. If it said that "creatures cannot pass through it" in the same way that offensive spells state they target creatures that wouldn't be silly at all. As is you can probably shoot through it with magic like say Scorching Ray since that isn't the passage of some physical bit of matter.

[R.Shackleford]

How does the spell work though? There are a lots of reasons a spell would work on a creature and not an object. There is perhaps some essential property of creature-ness that animation be it by soul, or by magic imparts something to the existence of that thing. It might be that that is what eldritch blast effects. You may be able to aim at a door, even hit the door but it'll have as much effect on it as rubbing the printed out code to a computer virus would on a person.

In general the approach seems to be that magic only interacts with the animate unless specified otherwise. Fireball sets things on fire and Flamestrike does not as another example. Spells are deliberate constructs be they formulated by wizards or handed down by gods. They're procedural manipulations of the magic that underscores the world, it seems pretty feasible that affecting things that are animated and affecting things that are not are different procedures in the world of magic and adding one or another to spell (or both) has varying levels of complexity and associated costs.

Now certainly it's fine to prefer a position of "All magic effects all things equally unless with otherwise specified" but I'm just not sure that's the default position and certainly not grounds to say that anything working otherwise is "bad video game logic".

EDIT:


...except wall of force explicitly states that nothing can physically pass through it. If it said that "creatures cannot pass through it" in the same way that offensive spells state they target creatures that wouldn't be silly at all. As is you can probably shoot through it with magic like say Scorching Ray since that isn't the passage of some physical bit of matter.

The point isn't what Wall of Force specifically says but the logic behind two things made up of the same *stuff* reacting differently.

You are getting into fiddly land.

Also I find it funny that spells that physically damage a creature can't do as such when that creature dies... I'm sure there is some really funny interactions with this one.

[Mr.Moron]

The point isn't what Wall of Force specifically says but the logic behind two things made up of the same *stuff* reacting differently.

You are getting into fiddly land.

Also I find it funny that spells that physically damage a creature can't do as such when that creature dies... I'm sure there is some really funny interactions with this one.

A human and human corpse are not made of the same stuff. A Human body is made of meat and bone, and a soul and is flowing with ki-energy. Even emotions and personality seem to generally be treated as a "Real" part of a creature.

A human corpse is made of meat and bone and that's it. No soul, no emotions, no ki, or whatever else. It's a very different thing than the human.

Even if magic doesn't affect a soul in any way the magic to "Burn a thing with all the following properties: Made of matter, has soul OR magic animation energy" may be a very different spell than "Burn a thing with the following properties: Made of matter".

See for example Hold Person and Hold Monster being different spells. Despite a Human and a Chimpanzee not only being made of the same stuff but even both being Apes the same sort of animal, Hold Person works on a human and not a chimp. Human body & brain chemistry are remarkably similar and we have all the same body parts. Spells clearly care about more than "What some thing is made of" or "How alike are these things".

Since the PHB isn't a setting a guide we don't get in-depth explanations of how magic works and even in a setting book such things may be beyond mortal ken. Unless they come out and tell us we can't really know if authors structured spells they way they are because they had some vision for how magic works, because that's what seemed balanced from a meta game position or because they were attached to legacy items for being legacy items. I would suspect the truth is some mix of all three.

Does "Eldritch Blast" only affect creatures because that's what they wanted it to do mechanically? Yeah, probably.
Does it mean they then didn't also conceptualize it as only affecting creatures because of some deeper property of magic in universe? No. In fact I'd wager they probably did.

[smcmike]

Does "Eldritch Blast" only affect creatures because that's what they wanted it to do mechanically? Yeah, probably.
Does it mean they then didn't also conceptualize it as only affecting creatures because of some deeper property of magic in universe? No. In fact I'd wager they probably did.

I doubt that it has anything to do with some deep concept of how magic works. There is very little evidence of such a unifying theory in the books, and that's the sort of thing that makes for nice fluff.

On the other hand, I don't have any problem with that. I like the idea of taking what is given and building unifying theories of your own, rather than critiquing the supposed errors of the makers.

My favorite example of this sort of thinking comes from Star Wars. Space combat in Star Wars is famously noisy. You could say that this is an (intentional) error on the part of the creators, for the purpose of making the dogfights more cinematic, and you wouldn't be wrong. On the other hand, isn't it more interesting to try to accommodate the noise? What if the noise of other starships is a form of user interface, created by the ship they are piloting? Wouldn't that actually make total sense, and also be a cool idea for more integrated controls?

Similarly, it's fun to take the "inconsistencies" in D&D magic and see what you can do with them.

[JumboWheat01]

My favorite example of this sort of thinking comes from Star Wars. Space combat in Star Wars is famously noisy. You could say that this is an (intentional) error on the part of the creators, for the purpose of making the dogfights more cinematic, and you wouldn't be wrong. On the other hand, isn't it more interesting to try to accommodate the noise? What if the noise of other starships is a form of user interface, created by the ship they are piloting? Wouldn't that actually make total sense, and also be a cool idea for more integrated controls?

There is a moment in Mass Effect 3 where one of your crewmates comments on occasionally turning off the "audio emulators" when watching ships come to dock, so there is some credence to that train of thought. We're a very "sense" based beings, us humanoids, and losing even one of them is very discombobulating.

[R.Shackleford]

A human and human corpse are not made of the same stuff. A Human body is made of meat and bone, and a soul and is flowing with ki-energy. Even emotions and personality seem to generally be treated as a "Real" part of a creature.

A human corpse is made of meat and bone and that's it. No soul, no emotions, no ki, or whatever else. It's a very different thing than the human.

Even if magic doesn't affect a soul in any way the magic to "Burn a thing with all the following properties: Made of matter, has soul OR magic animation energy" may be a very different spell than "Burn a thing with the following properties: Made of matter".

See for example Hold Person and Hold Monster being different spells. Despite a Human and a Chimpanzee not only being made of the same stuff but even both being Apes the same sort of animal, Hold Person works on a human and not a chimp. Human body & brain chemistry are remarkably similar and we have all the same body parts. Spells clearly care about more than "What some thing is made of" or "How alike are these things".

Since the PHB isn't a setting a guide we don't get in-depth explanations of how magic works and even in a setting book such things may be beyond mortal ken. Unless they come out and tell us we can't really know if authors structured spells they way they are because they had some vision for how magic works, because that's what seemed balanced from a meta game position or because they were attached to legacy items for being legacy items. I would suspect the truth is some mix of all three.

Does "Eldritch Blast" only affect creatures because that's what they wanted it to do mechanically? Yeah, probably.
Does it mean they then didn't also conceptualize it as only affecting creatures because of some deeper property of magic in universe? No. In fact I'd wager they probably did.

If you want to defend their silly inconsistent fiddly rules/ideology then that's fine...

But it is still silly, inconsistent, and fiddly and it goes against the principals of 5e that we were sold.

[Mr.Moron]

I doubt that it has anything to do with some deep concept of how magic works. There is very little evidence of such a unifying theory in the books, and that's the sort of thing that makes for nice fluff.

On the other hand, I don't have any problem with that. I like the idea of taking what is given and building unifying theories of your own, rather than critiquing the supposed errors of the makers.

My favorite example of this sort of thinking comes from Star Wars. Space combat in Star Wars is famously noisy. You could say that this is an (intentional) error on the part of the creators, for the purpose of making the dogfights more cinematic, and you wouldn't be wrong. On the other hand, isn't it more interesting to try to accommodate the noise? What if the noise of other starships is a form of user interface, created by the ship they are piloting? Wouldn't that actually make total sense, and also be a cool idea for more integrated controls?

Similarly, it's fun to take the "inconsistencies" in D&D magic and see what you can do with them.

Well like I said the PHB is not a setting book. Even if authors did develop nuanced and complete "The Physics of Magic" I wouldn't expect to see any evidence in the PHB. It's just not the place for such things. That said I agree they probably did not have any such grand unifying theory.

If I was to imagine a broad-strokes scenario that informs something like this it'd be:

Writer 1: "Eldritch Blast does X damage to creatures"
Writer 2: "Hey can I use this on objects?"
Writer 1: "No. It's not for blasting doors"
Writer 2: "Huh. Why is that?"
Writer 1: "Will first off it'd probably be too much utility, secondly I kind of envision this as a thing that attacks the soul"
Writer 2: "Should it not attack undead in that case?"
Writer 1: "Ahh, that's right. Probably not.... but I think we're trying to get away from that this edition. You remember how people went on and on about sneak attack."
Writer 2: "Fair enough. Then should we put in the attack objects thing?"
Writer 1: "Ah I don't think so, even if the soul thing exactly doesn't work I don't think it can just blast down doors or anything. It needs like a real target. I mean I don't think we're going to get an exact fit for how I see this really working, but I think the creatures restriction is close enough. I think there is something at least that living, undead and construct alike all share in being creatures."
Writer 2: "I think that's fair. It seems balanced and I get the flavor you're going for. "
Writer 1: "Yeah. It might be nice to get to flesh it out a bit more at some point though"
Writer 2: "OK. But we have like 50 other spells to get done before the next play testing deadline"



Which isn't to say that exact conversation ever took place, or if it did that it took place for any given spell. Hell "Writer 1" and "Writer 2" could just be a single guy going over in his own head what it means when he writes thing the way he does. My point is that even without a unified theory, my bet is that the writer(s) probably considered how a lot of their stuff interacts with the world and wouldn't be content to shrug and be "Just because that's what's balanced".

However since they can't fit every little thought and bit of internal justification into a book as it would be a 500 page long stream of conscious mess, the book is going to have holes that the author's "Head Canon" to borrow a fandom term, might fill. You're right about those being fun holes to fill, in fact I'm sure of some of them were meant to be.

As for the Star Wars thing that is/was an artitfact of making a movie with no in-universe reason even considered, total handwave job. The 5e rules and any game ruleset certainly contains some of these as well. However I'm not convinced the whole objects/creatures thing on every spell selection is the result of one. Certainly not to the degree that one would need to try and make an objective claim it's all necessarily nonsensical self-conflicting junk. (which you aren't doing.. but some folks are)

[Submortimer]

You may rethink that as soon as you have a Warlock using EB force damage to break down any door as Force damage isn't reduced by DR of any kind.

I understand your position and mostly agree. But it would require rebalance of the spells that target objects (like shatter) as they're a bit weak to account for it. Though that isn't hard - just increase the die size by 1 typically.
The bigger issue is the EB vs doors issue. I experienced it and was very happy to have it not work.

This sounds like a player using his abilities appropriately, just like a fighter breaking said door down with his axe.

[Kryx]

I find it rather funny the amount of people who haven't actually read the rules. There are many people surprised when Crawford reiterates rules that have been there since the beginning. It has happened here, on EnWorld, and Reddit.

As always if you don't want to use that rule then no one is forcing you to.

[smcmike]

This sounds like a player using his abilities appropriately, just like a fighter breaking said door down with his axe.

Ok, but how about a fighter breaking said door with his hand crossbow?

[RickAllison]

Ok, but how about a fighter breaking said door with his hand crossbow?

"Gregory, you aren't even hitting the door anymore. Your bolts are literally striking each other."

[Kryx]

"Gregory, you aren't even hitting the door anymore. Your bolts are literally striking each other."
But Riiiick, my ghostly skeletal hand that causes necrosis would melt steel doors too! Why you gotta stifle my character?

[Ruslan]

Spells specifically call out if they can target objects. This is entirely intentional. See Shatter.

The differentiation is important imo.



Shove is not an attack. Therefore it doesn't apply hex.

Shove IS an attack.


Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature
However Hex still doesn't apply.

Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6
necrotic damage to the target whenever you hit it with
an attack.Shove doesn't involve a "hit" in any way.

[R.Shackleford]

But Riiiick, my ghostly skeletal hand that causes necrosis would melt steel doors too! Why you gotta stifle my character?

Necrotic Hands can't melt steal beams?

[RickAllison]

Necrotic Hands can't melt steal beams?

1) Hex steel beams
2) Punch steel beams
3) ????
4) PROFIT! (On molten steel!)

[Kryx]

1) Hex steel beams
2) Punch steel beams
3) ????
4) PROFIT! (On molten steel!)
I think you just solved 9/11.

[R.Shackleford]

I think you just solved 9/11.

What?

No, we solved the mystery of the urinal turd.

[Grey Watcher]

Blergh. I know they're being consistent, but I find the idea that Arcane Ward doesn't benefit from resistances of the creature protected downright silly. Makes it way too easy for higher end monsters to just burn through it will nilly. Plus, the Abjurer is supposed to be a defensive magic expert. Why doesn't one of her main class features synergize with her staple spells (Resist Energy)?

[Ruslan]

This sounds like a player using his abilities appropriately, just like a fighter breaking said door down with his axe
Ok, but how about a fighter breaking said door with his hand crossbow?Not the best analogy. Eldritch Blast actually deals Force damage, which seems on the face of it very well-suitable for breaking objects.

[Vogonjeltz]

You can only target creatures, not objects, with Eldritch Blast. And that's intentional? That's dumb. I'm ignoring it.

Yeah the targeting rules for spells are found on PHB 204, every spell indicates if the target is a creature, object, or point in space.

Firebolt targets creatures or objects.

Acid Splash, Chill Touch, Eldritch Blast, Poison Spray, Produce Flame, Ray of Frost, Sacred Flame, Shocking Grasp, Thorn Whip, and Vicious Mockery target creatures.

Several higher level spells target creatures or objects.


All they did was rehash the initial feature.

Because it already answers the question. It was a bad question, not a bad answer.


So, should the answer about creature vs object spell targets also apply to spell effects? I'm trying to decide if this Sage Advice is intended to rule that fireball doesn't damage objects (other than igniting them if they're flammable) because the text only mentions doing damage to creatures.

It would be as various spells discuss if they harm unattended objects. Fireball is one such example: "The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried."


Is it just me, or did they not answer the question? Does Hex apply to a shove, for instance?

It means that if there is the character makes an attack and hits, then it applies the extra damage. It doesn't per se require an attack roll. For example presumably Acid Splash and Magic Missile constitute attacks (not "Attack") even though they require a saving throw and nothing at all to hit, respectively.


It would be as silly as saying "Wall of Force? I shoot right through it!" force effects don't mess with objects!

Except the clear path to the target rule (PHB 204) says that won't work. This is redundant with the cover rules (PHB 196).


But it is still silly, inconsistent, and fiddly and it goes against the principals of 5e that we were sold.

I don't find it silly, but it's not inconsistent at all, and it's unclear what 5e principals you think are being diverged from. If anything, it adheres to the basic spell design principal, that spells only do what they say they do, and nothing more.

[Telok]

Drinking a vial of water is using an object but drinking a potion is not using an object?

Wall of Fire, Ice Storm, and Incendiary Cloud have no effect on anything that is not a creature? Paper airplanes can fly through a Wall of Fire undamaged?

Seriously?

[RickAllison]

Blergh. I know they're being consistent, but I find the idea that Arcane Ward doesn't benefit from resistances of the creature protected downright silly. Makes it way too easy for higher end monsters to just burn through it will nilly. Plus, the Abjurer is supposed to be a defensive magic expert. Why doesn't one of her main class features synergize with her staple spells (Resist Energy)?

While it might not seem to mesh well, it fits perfectly with the flavor. Arcane Ward is ensuring you don't get touched. Resistance never applies because it never hits you. Of course, that same token means that any rider effects that rely on hitting you shouldn't apply either... Hmmm.

[smcmike]

Not the best analogy. Eldritch Blast actually deals Force damage, which seems on the face of it very well-suitable for breaking objects.

Actually, Force damage carries a pretty thin definition: "pure magical energy concentrated into a damaging form." In fact, this definition seems more vague than the term itself, which at least carries a connotation of something like a force-field smashing into the target. However it works, though, it's different in kind from bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage, all of which it is possible to conceptualize causing with magical "force" weapons.

Regardless, if you imagine your eldritch blast as something small, like a bullet, it really shouldn't be much good at smashing doors - which is to say only that there's plenty undefined, and making assumptions doesn't help.

The real trouble with out-of-combat usage is that it requires these sorts of definitions, where the game prefers to leave things vague and loose.

[bid]

For example presumably Acid Splash and Magic Missile constitute attacks (not "Attack") even though they require a saving throw and nothing at all to hit, respectively.
See, that's where "doesn't answer the question" hit IMO. There's no attack roll, therefore you cannot hit with acid splash... maybe?

[Naanomi]

Pro tip: have warlocks shoot inanimate objects; no harm if really a chest, but easy detection for mimics/golems

Also, if you try to shoot an illusion you'll know since you'll have projectile dysfunction if it isn't the real thing

[Belac93]

Actually, Force damage carries a pretty thin definition: "pure magical energy concentrated into a damaging form." In fact, this definition seems more vague than the term itself, which at least carries a connotation of something like a force-field smashing into the target. However it works, though, it's different in kind from bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage, all of which it is possible to conceptualize causing with magical "force" weapons.

I see it as tearing a creature apart by the atom, or turning them to dust. Disintegrate is a transmutation spell, seems like this definition would make sense.

[R.Shackleford]

Yeah the targeting rules for spells are found on PHB 204, every spell indicates if the target is a creature, object, or point in space.

Firebolt targets creatures or objects.

Acid Splash, Chill Touch, Eldritch Blast, Poison Spray, Produce Flame, Ray of Frost, Sacred Flame, Shocking Grasp, Thorn Whip, and Vicious Mockery target creatures.

Several higher level spells target creatures or objects.



Because it already answers the question. It was a bad question, not a bad answer.



It would be as various spells discuss if they harm unattended objects. Fireball is one such example: "The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried."



It means that if there is the character makes an attack and hits, then it applies the extra damage. It doesn't per se require an attack roll. For example presumably Acid Splash and Magic Missile constitute attacks (not "Attack") even though they require a saving throw and nothing at all to hit, respectively.



Except the clear path to the target rule (PHB 204) says that won't work. This is redundant with the cover rules (PHB 196).



I don't find it silly, but it's not inconsistent at all, and it's unclear what 5e principals you think are being diverged from. If anything, it adheres to the basic spell design principal, that spells only do what they say they do, and nothing more.


It is inconsistent when you look at the point of what I said and not just getting tied up in ancillary issues.

You are running down the road of fiddly rules when you rule that sometimes force effects can effect objects but other times they can't. Force is a physical thing in D&D, not a mental attack.

There is absolutely no reason to do this other than bringing inconsistent fiddly rules into the game.

What's next? Does a spell that create water only get creatures wet?


Why do I care? Because when new players come to my game I want them to be using the same base assumptions on rules. I don't want to have to houserule so Damn much. We are getting back to 3e.

[Mr.Moron]

It is inconsistent when you look at the point of what I said and not just getting tied up in ancillary issues.

You are running down the road of fiddly rules when you rule that sometimes force effects can effect objects but other times they can't. Force is a physical thing in D&D, not a mental attack.

There is absolutely no reason to do this other than bringing inconsistent fiddly rules into the game.

What's next? Does a spell that create water only get creatures wet?


Why do I care? Because when new players come to my game I want them to be using the same base assumptions on rules. I don't want to have to houserule so Damn much. We are getting back to 3e.

This is not an argument.
This does not address anything he said.

You're just restating your position over and over and ignoring any points people make in their challenges to that position, reasserting you're correct because you're correct.

[smcmike]

It is inconsistent when you look at the point of what I said and not just getting tied up in ancillary issues.

You are running down the road of fiddly rules when you rule that sometimes force effects can effect objects but other times they can't. Force is a physical thing in D&D, not a mental attack.

There is absolutely no reason to do this other than bringing inconsistent fiddly rules into the game.

What's next? Does a spell that create water only get creatures wet?


Why do I care? Because when new players come to my game I want them to be using the same base assumptions on rules. I don't want to have to houserule so Damn much. We are getting back to 3e.

I think it's actually more fiddly to expect a consistent and understandable system (I'm not criticizing this desire, though, as I think it is natural). There isn't really anything fiddly about reading a spell and doing what it says - a new player doesn't really even care what type of damage he is doing, so long as the enemy isn't immune to it and it sounds cool.

[Coidzor]

I think it's actually more fiddly to expect a consistent and understandable system (I'm not criticizing this desire, though, as I think it is natural).

Expectations can't be fiddly or unfiddly or nonfiddly. They're just expectations.

Making consistent rules is harder than making rules and not keeping in mind the rules you've already made or the part of the ruleset that another person was working on that was covered at yesterday's meeting(or even having such meetings or a person or group of people whose job it is to do quality assurance). Generally it's a better idea to at least try to some extent than to not bother at all and produces a more coherent product, especially if you have a group of people making the rules instead of just one dude.


There isn't really anything fiddly about reading a spell and doing what it says - a new player doesn't really even care what type of damage he is doing, so long as the enemy isn't immune to it and it sounds cool.

Until you get into system mastery and fridge logic territory where the verisimiltude is damaged by inconsistent rules.

[Zalabim]

Not the best analogy. Eldritch Blast actually deals Force damage, which seems on the face of it very well-suitable for breaking objects.


You are running down the road of fiddly rules when you rule that sometimes force effects can effect objects but other times they can't. Force is a physical thing in D&D, not a mental attack.

Just out of curiosity, what is the force damage spell that can deal force damage to objects?

[hymer]

Just out of curiosity, what is the force damage spell that can deal force damage to objects?

Disintegrate.

[Zalabim]

Disintegrate.

Does not deal force damage to objects.

[hymer]

Does not deal force damage to objects.

Right. more letters

[pwykersotz]

Mordenkainen’s Sword says target of your choice. It deals force damage.

[Zalabim]

In a similar vein, the Clenched Fist option on Bigby's Hand also specifically allows creatures or objects.

[Xetheral]

Until you get into system mastery and fridge logic territory where the verisimiltude is damaged by inconsistent rules.

How is it "fridge logic" if one's sense of verisimilitude is damaged by inconsistent rules?

[Coffee_Dragon]

How is it "fridge logic" if one's sense of verisimilitude is damaged by inconsistent rules?

It's a TV Tropes term for when the logic or illogic of something only hits you at a later moment, especially when you're interacting with a fridge.