The Sacred Flame "is it a creature" test

[Dalebert]

Does it bother you? There's a thread about it on Facebook and it appears to really bother some DMs that apparently PCs are casting Sacred Flame on doors and chests to test if they're mimics and on bodies to see if they're actually undead.

Personally, it bugs me that many cantrips have limits on not being able to target objects that often feel arbitrary and silly. I feel like if you decide to add strange contrived rules to a spell and someone discovers shenanigans to take advantage of that, it's on you (the designer of said contrived limit).

I mostly let people target objects with just about any cantrip if it's a homebrew but this came up in AL. That would solve the issue immediately while not breaking anything. For instance, Ray of Frost should be useful for putting out small fires or making metal brittle.

[pwykersotz]

It doesn't bother me at all, not only because my players seldom try such asinine gimmicks, but also because the results are entirely dependent upon descriptions I give to the players. And the funny thing is that even if I play it straight it's still fine. As a player, are you having fun determining if every inanimate object is a mimic? Is that level of paranoia justified? Then more power to you, carry on.

Edit: With regard to spells that should be usable like your Ray of Frost example, there are two primary ways to look at spells, both of which are fun in their own way. The first is that they should act like science and that the ray is actually a beam of cold energy that has all the effects of cold energy. The second is trying to figure out why it only works on creatures. Maybe the ray is a dimensional shortcut between the Plane of Frost and the Material Plane that can only be generated between two living beings (or the closest approximation thereof). Figuring out why magic is unique is sometimes more fun than trying to shoehorn it into what we currently understand.

[RulesJD]

The only way this is a problem is if you have a terrible DM.

"I cast Sacred Flame"

"Your radiant light hits the chest, it doesn't react"

"I move forward and open the chest"

"The chest attacks you, it's a mimic, it doesn't have to reveal itself"


This isn't a computer game where you get a return error - invalid target. This is not an issue.

[Yagyujubei]

The only way this is a problem is if you have a terrible DM.

"I cast Sacred Flame"

"Your radiant light hits the chest, it doesn't react"

"I move forward and open the chest"

"The chest attacks you, it's a mimic, it doesn't have to reveal itself"


This isn't a computer game where you get a return error - invalid target. This is not an issue.

that would piss me off so much if I was a PC and my DM did that lol.

also anyone who gets mad about this usage of the spell can suck a D, if i were a real life adventurer, and things like undead and mimics existed, you better believe I would use any means necessary to make sure i don't get caught with my pants down.

If you're a DM and you get mad when your party does something clever to avoid one of your traps you're a bad DM.

[Zene]

It seems like a simple fix to me... any cantrip that can't target a creature, you also can't target something you don't know is a creature. So if there's an int/investigation/arcana/perception check etc for you to realize what it is, and you pass it, you can target it with that kind of spell. If not, you can't. Simple as that.

[Tanarii]

I predict this thread can only go good places.

*sees two instances of the phrase "terrible/bad DM" already*

Damn, guess I better not take up soothsaying

[JackPhoenix]

also anyone who gets mad about this usage of the spell can suck a D, if i were a real life adventurer, and things like undead and mimics existed, you better believe I would use any means necessary to make sure i don't get caught with my pants down.

If you're a DM and you get mad when your party does something clever to avoid one of your traps you're a bad DM.

What if your pants is a mimic? Better not to wear any.

Also, the DM in the example isn't getting mad. He's reacting to party's "clever" (not really) exploit with clever answer. After all, if you miss with Eldritch Blast, what happens? Do the beam suddenly stops in mid-air next to you, or doesn't form in the first place if it would've missed and hit object instead? (like if you had cover from object between you, or if you were standing in front of a wall) Or would it hit the object, but with no effect? What about if the target is using a shield? Sacred Flame is one of few spells that can be blocked by Shield Master, how does that work if it can't hit an object?

[Zene]

how does that work if it can't hit an object?

It can't target an object. It can hit objects if its target dodges or throws a shield in the way.

[Arenabait]

It can't target an object. It can hit objects if its target dodges or throws a shield in the way.

What exact reason is there that you couldn't target an inanimate object? Is there an actual reason for that?

[Yagyujubei]

What if your pants is a mimic? Better not to wear any.

Also, the DM in the example isn't getting mad. He's reacting to party's "clever" (not really) exploit with clever answer. After all, if you miss with Eldritch Blast, what happens? Do the beam suddenly stops in mid-air next to you, or doesn't form in the first place if it would've missed and hit object instead? (like if you had cover from object between you, or if you were standing in front of a wall) Or would it hit the object, but with no effect? What about if the target is using a shield? Sacred Flame is one of few spells that can be blocked by Shield Master, how does that work if it can't hit an object?

obviously in this instance i would sew all of my own clothes duh lol. cant take any chances

[Yagyujubei]

What exact reason is there that you couldn't target an inanimate object? Is there an actual reason for that?

the thing about sacred flame is that it specifies that it can only target a creature, so RAW if you targeted a chest the spell would fizzle, but if the chest was in fact a mimic the spell would go off. so the situation I quoted above wouldn't even work in the first place unless your DM broke the rules of the game...which is fine if there's meaning, but doing it just to spite your players is lame imho.

[MrStabby]

Well I feel the appropriate DM response is to roll a dex save in secret for everything they target and ask for damage rolls. If the players are happy with that then fine. Sure it might not take damage but the PC can't tell that. To be honest I am not sure what the damage done by radiant energy would look like anyway. Slashing, Piercing, bludgeoning, fire, acid I could maybe spot. Cold I might be able to spot in something rich in water - otherwise difficult to distinguish from other damage types. But radiant? If a DM described an object to me i wouldn't be able to tell if it had taken radiant damage or not.

To me both radiant and necrotic damage are kind of spiritual damage types that are manifest more internally and less likely to have any outward signs. That you couldn't see the damage wouldn't mean it wasn't happening.

[JackPhoenix]

obviously in this instance i would sew all of my own clothes duh lol. cant take any chances

Mimics are cunning. They'll replace your pants when you take them off for the night, and when you put them on back again, bam! Barbarians know this, that's why they run around naked. Or mostly naked, civilised people who foolishly underestimate the danger forced them to wear loincloths. Best way to make sure your clothes are safe is to stab them few times before putting them on, and then Mending the holes.


Well I feel the appropriate DM response is to roll a dex save in secret for everything they target and ask for damage rolls. If the players are happy with that then fine. Sure it might not take damage but the PC can't tell that. To be honest I am not sure what the damage done by radiant energy would look like anyway. Slashing, Piercing, bludgeoning, fire, acid I could maybe spot. Cold I might be able to spot in something rich in water - otherwise difficult to distinguish from other damage types. But radiant? If a DM described an object to me i wouldn't be able to tell if it had taken radiant damage or not.

To me both radiant and necrotic damage are kind of spiritual damage types that are manifest more internally and less likely to have any outward signs. That you couldn't see the damage wouldn't mean it wasn't happening.

I think radiant damage may look very similar to fire damage: Sacred Flame and Flame Strike both refers to fire, while Sunbeam and vampiric sunlight vulnerability brings about the idea it's similar to sunburns, which in turn are similar to actual fire damage. In a way, radiant damage is fire+ that's able to hurt things immune to fire. Holy water in previous editions was described to burn evil creatures "like acid", it does radiant damage in 5e, and while the actual mechanic is different, acid burns are somewhat similar to normal burns.

[Temperjoke]

Side question, do mimics react if they're hit with an attack of some sort? Like, would they react if someone shot an arrow into it?

[Contrast]

It can't target an object. It can hit objects if its target dodges or throws a shield in the way.

Aha! Get a player to stand behind the chest and then duck behind it just as you cast it on them!

[Yagyujubei]

Side question, do mimics react if they're hit with an attack of some sort? Like, would they react if someone shot an arrow into it?

i think the question at that point is what level of intelligence does a mimic have. would they be smart enough to sit there and take dmg without moving to keep their trap in tact, or would they react and attack at the first sign of aggression. this seems like it would be up to the DM.

[Tanarii]

http://2static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Mimic+meme_a1e237_6105496.jpg

[eastmabl]

What if your pants is a mimic? Better not to wear any.

What is the fabric is a mimic?

[Telwar]

What if your pants is a mimic? Better not to wear any.

And now we know why cohorts aren't in 5e.

I so totally want a mimic as a cohort.

"...what do you mean your pants drop off and roll initiative?!?!"

[Ruslan]

What exact reason is there that you couldn't target an inanimate object? Is there an actual reason for that?
Not sure what's the deal about Sacred Flame, but for Eldritch Blast, allowing it to target objects would make the Warlock the ultimate lockpicker. Not to mention the schenanigans of pushing objects 10' with Repelling Blast.

Anyway, the way I play it, those spells can target objects, can be fired at objects, but have no effect on objects. I don't mind the occasional "creature test". If they find out the statue is really a Stone Golem, good for them. I mean, not good, since the Golem is now pissed off.

[Addaran]

The point of casting Sacred Flame on a chest/corpse is not to have the spell fizzle. It's that if it's actually a mimic or undead, the sacred flame will hurt them (unless they do a dex save....but you can't do that without moving). Depending on your interpretation of radiant ( divine flame, laser, soul-damage) you would probably notice an effect on the chest.

[Keltest]

Not sure what's the deal about Sacred Flame, but for Eldritch Blast, allowing it to target objects would make the Warlock the ultimate lockpicker. Not to mention the schenanigans of pushing objects 10' with Repelling Blast.

Anyway, the way I play it, those spells can target objects, can be fired at objects, but have no effect on objects. I don't mind the occasional "creature test". If they find out the statue is really a Stone Golem, good for them. I mean, not good, since the Golem is now pissed off.

This is generally how I handle it too, unless the object in question is one that would logically be damaged by whatever youre throwing at it.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

Anyway, the way I play it, those spells can target objects, can be fired at objects, but have no effect on objects. I don't mind the occasional "creature test". If they find out the statue is really a Stone Golem, good for them. I mean, not good, since the Golem is now pissed off.

Agreed. It's not like you couldn't just hit the object with a sword or arrow and tell it was alive or not by how it reacted.

[Dimers]

Aha! Get a player to stand behind the chest and then duck behind it just as you cast it on them!

No, sorry, sacred flame ignores all cover for the target. :smalltongue:

[MasterMercury]

Acid Splash is another cantrip that comes to mind. It can only target creatures, but it's acid so my players have tried to use it to do everything from melt locks to wash dishes. I let them, because I can't think of a good reason why not.

Woe to me the day they try bottling it to sell.

Eltritch Blast, though, I have ruled as having no effect on objects at all. Force damage is weird.

[Theodoxus]

Eldritch Blast, though, I have ruled as having no effect on objects at all. Force damage is weird.

It's almost as if it should have been psychic damage...

[JackPhoenix]

No, sorry, sacred flame ignores all cover for the target. :smalltongue:

Nope. Sacred Flame uses a Dex save, and cover give bonuses to Dex saves as well as to AC

[Tanarii]

Nope. Sacred Flame uses a Dex save, and cover give bonuses to Dex saves as well as to AC
Sacred flame specifically says the target gets no benefit from cover.

[Sicarius Victis]

Acid Splash is another cantrip that comes to mind. It can only target creatures, but it's acid so my players have tried to use it to do everything from melt locks to wash dishes. I let them, because I can't think of a good reason why not.

Woe to me the day they try bottling it to sell.

Eltritch Blast, though, I have ruled as having no effect on objects at all. Force damage is weird.

Well, AFAIK Force damage is basically super-magical B/P/S. Magical to the point where it's more Magic than B/P/S, but still about the same thing.


It's almost as if it should have been psychic damage...

I do believe the 3.5 Warlock's Eldritch Blast did untyped damage, though I suppose I could be wrong about that. While 5e doesn't have untyped damage, Force damage simulates it rather well.

Also, Necrotic would have some noticable physical effects on its targets. Biological targets would rot and wither, while non-biological targets would erode and corrode. You know, death and entropy and stuff.

[Spore]

Honestly if a Cleric would overuse this I would even consider shutting off his cantrip uses for the day. Hear me out before you get all angry. I have always felt that while Wizards control reality with the power of their mind and sorcerers with their willpower, Clerics have been graced with the power of a god. They should act responsibly.

Advisor: Lord, one of your Heralds is using your granted powers every turn to try and burn random objects like books.
Pelor: I am sure he just tries to illuminate the darkest corners with My fire. Let him continue.
Advisor: But sir, he is not casting 'Light'. He spams 'Sacred Flame' onto books, doors and objects.
Pelor: WHAT? I will have none of that. That is so bad PR for me. What if he burns something down. Then people might start to realize my sinister plans...
Advisor: What?
Pelor: Nothing. Cancel out his cantrips for the day until he apologizes with a prayer.
Pelor, to Pelor: Switch his Sacred Flame with Fireball. The world shall know the wrath of PELOR, THE BURNING HATE (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?443306-quot-Pelor-the-Burning-Hate-quot-(from-Wizards-forum))!

http://i.imgur.com/VcAOLmJ.jpg

If someone could photoshop the Kermit meme to portray Pelor I would be soooo happy.

[Spellbreaker26]

If someone could photoshop the Kermit meme to portray Pelor I would be soooo happy.

https://imgflip.com/i/1iebln

[JackPhoenix]

Sacred flame specifically says the target gets no benefit from cover.

Welp, that's what I get from using my memory instead of actually opening the book (or online grimoire for faster use)

[TheTeaMustFlow]

https://goo.gl/photos/GubKeyg6WYs81nKm6

That's not displaying for me. Alas, for I am bereft of Pelor's all consuming flames purifying light!

[Beleriphon]

Lets see if that worked this time.

https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder376/500x/75058376.jpg

[Deleted]

Does it bother you? There's a thread about it on Facebook and it appears to really bother some DMs that apparently PCs are casting Sacred Flame on doors and chests to test if they're mimics and on bodies to see if they're actually undead.

Personally, it bugs me that many cantrips have limits on not being able to target objects that often feel arbitrary and silly. I feel like if you decide to add strange contrived rules to a spell and someone discovers shenanigans to take advantage of that, it's on you (the designer of said contrived limit).

I mostly let people target objects with just about any cantrip if it's a homebrew but this came up in AL. That would solve the issue immediately while not breaking anything. For instance, Ray of Frost should be useful for putting out small fires or making metal brittle.

You can use Eldritch Blast the same way.

The designers wanted to try and balance something that didn't need balance... Got to let those Barbarians and Fighters break stuff! That makes the game balanced!

I find it to be funny.

[Segev]

Tangent, but I view fire damage as, well, burns. Scorch marks or melted bits or char. Radiant damage, though, is more like radiation damage. Skin is sunburnt and flakey, not charred and melty. Wood is bleached and brittle. Metals likewise. Necrotic damage is putrification. Flesh turns black and simply dies in patches. Wood rots. Metal rusts or corrodes. Fabric becomes threadbare and torn.

Force damage gave me trouble for a while. Why isn't it just bludgeoning damage? I mean, my initial picture of, say, magic missile was green energy balls that smack into something like hard-thrown pebbles.

Then I thought about how Force had to work. It isn't solid. It's literally a vector of force acting to accelerate matter that encounters it in a given direction. (Yes, it's oft portrayed as just a transparent solid barrier, but that goes back to "why isn't it bludgeoning?") So a wall made of force is impenetrable because it is a perfect normal force exactly equal to that which is necessary to stop all motion in the direction that would cause something to pass through it. This results in what seems to be a perfectly elastic surface with no "give" but perfect rebound. Inelastic objects still splut against it, because of their own nature causing the parts not exposed to the force effect to still move into the parts exposed to it.

So, then, how do MOVING force effects work? They're imparting momentum directly to whatever they intersect. That momentum is a sort of crushing, ripping effect when the force effect actually is inside matter. It's literally causing parts of the being to spontaneously accelerate, not as bludgeoning or slashing or piercing damage but as a sourceless uneven acceleration. As if parts of the attacked substance just decided to spontaneously be hooked and yanked about inside. It looks like bruising or tearing, but that's cosmetic similarity, only.

Force effects also impart momentum to incorporeal matter, which is why they can hurt ghosts and the like.

[ApplePen]

Radiant damage is lasers. Look at the Sunblade. It's a lightsaber that deals pure radiant. Look at Spirit Guardians. Angels made of lasers that fly through people.

[sir_argo]

PHB says, "a typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic." I don't see anything in there that says you can't pick a target that will be unaffected.

In other words, you can target object just fine. They just might not be affected the way you would want. So go ahead and cast Charm Person at the door... it has no affect. Mark off the spell slot.

Cast Sacred Flame on a chest? I see no problem with that and I don't see it is against the rules. If it is a mimic, he gets hurt. If it's just a chest, nothing happens. Guess what, if I shoot an arrow at a chest, if it is a mimic it gets hurt and if it is just a chest the arrow doesn't do squat. What's the difference?

[ChubbyRain]

Tangent, but I view fire damage as, well, burns. Scorch marks or melted bits or char. Radiant damage, though, is more like radiation damage. Skin is sunburnt and flakey, not charred and melty. Wood is bleached and brittle. Metals likewise. Necrotic damage is putrification. Flesh turns black and simply dies in patches. Wood rots. Metal rusts or corrodes. Fabric becomes threadbare and torn.

Force damage gave me trouble for a while. Why isn't it just bludgeoning damage? I mean, my initial picture of, say, magic missile was green energy balls that smack into something like hard-thrown pebbles.

Then I thought about how Force had to work. It isn't solid. It's literally a vector of force acting to accelerate matter that encounters it in a given direction. (Yes, it's oft portrayed as just a transparent solid barrier, but that goes back to "why isn't it bludgeoning?") So a wall made of force is impenetrable because it is a perfect normal force exactly equal to that which is necessary to stop all motion in the direction that would cause something to pass through it. This results in what seems to be a perfectly elastic surface with no "give" but perfect rebound. Inelastic objects still splut against it, because of their own nature causing the parts not exposed to the force effect to still move into the parts exposed to it.

So, then, how do MOVING force effects work? They're imparting momentum directly to whatever they intersect. That momentum is a sort of crushing, ripping effect when the force effect actually is inside matter. It's literally causing parts of the being to spontaneously accelerate, not as bludgeoning or slashing or piercing damage but as a sourceless uneven acceleration. As if parts of the attacked substance just decided to spontaneously be hooked and yanked about inside. It looks like bruising or tearing, but that's cosmetic similarity, only.

Force effects also impart momentum to incorporeal matter, which is why they can hurt ghosts and the like.

I know how you feel, personally I have 9 damage types that my groups uses.

Acid, Bludgeoning, Cold, Fire, Lightning, Necrotic, Piercing, Radiant, and Slashing

Though, we also hand out resistances and weaknesses to them more like you would see in Final Fantasy.

Recently thought about dropping necrotic.

[Deleted]

PHB says, "a typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic." I don't see anything in there that says you can't pick a target that will be unaffected.

In other words, you can target object just fine. They just might not be affected the way you would want. So go ahead and cast Charm Person at the door... it has no affect. Mark off the spell slot.

Cast Sacred Flame on a chest? I see no problem with that and I don't see it is against the rules. If it is a mimic, he gets hurt. If it's just a chest, nothing happens. Guess what, if I shoot an arrow at a chest, if it is a mimic it gets hurt and if it is just a chest the arrow doesn't do squat. What's the difference?

That's adding things to the game that doesn't exist.

Well, my burning hands spell DOESN'T SAY I can't freeze the souls of my enemies and cause them to instantly die!

Plus the devs have straight up explained things counter to your idea.

[Ruslan]

PHB says, "a typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic." I don't see anything in there that says you can't pick a target that will be unaffected.

I like it how people stop reading at exactly the point where information contrary to their assertion starts to appear. C'mon, one more sentence... push yourself... you caaaan dooooo iiiiiiit!

[Deleted]

I like it how people stop reading at exactly the point where information contrary to their assertion starts to appear. C'mon, one more sentence... push yourself... you caaaan dooooo iiiiiiit!

They like their alternative facts.

[Willie the Duck]

I feel like this whole thing could have been avoided by not putting targeting creatures into the spell description, but instead having a 'damaging objects' sidebar in the main play mechanics section. Something perhaps humorously titled: "Player: So how many hp of damage do I have to do with my rapier to make a 10' doorway in the stone wall?" Then a nice, two paragraph explanation that the damage rules are meant for player vs. monster and any interactions such as attacking walls, using acid splash on locks, etc. etc. are strictly on a "as the DM sees them play out" basis.

[djreynolds]

Agreed. It's not like you couldn't just hit the object with a sword or arrow and tell it was alive or not by how it reacted.

Sorry there is an errata on that also.... arrow shortage.

What if your mimic is an atheist and doesn't believe in the gods providing you with sacred flame?

[ChubbyRain]

Sorry there is an errata on that also.... arrow shortage.

What if your mimic is an atheist and doesn't believe in the gods providing you with sacred flame?

Atheist wouldn't stop you from specifically receiving sacred flame, it would stop you from getting spells (mostly, one would think)

[djreynolds]

Well it sucks to be an infidel

[Joe the Rat]

Radiant is lasers and ionizing radiation and holy light. Because all that is holy is nuclear powered, apparently.
Necrotic is material degradation, various forms of decohesion, and also antimatter. Thanks, DMG.

Force seems to do a lot with fundamental forces - electromagnetics, atomic bonds and exclusion principle shenanigans, possibly gravity via timespace and dimensional barriers.
What does force damage?
"Pure energy" magic (magic missiles, eldritch blast)
Teleporting into or ending your turn inside another object while incorporeal (See spectres and wraiths).
Breaking you down at a fundamental level (disintegrate)
Falling does not, mostly as it's the hitting the planet at the bottom that does the damage (hence, bludgeoning)

That might explain how repelling blast works. You hit something, and it is suddenly subjected to .791 seconds worth of gravitational acceleration in the direction of the blast (per blast).
Damned if I could explain how monks do it.

[Armok]

Personally, I don't see the issue. I'd find a cool way to flavor it, like creating a small trembling white flame that springs from your hand if it really is a creature... It's not so is dissimilar from throwing flour over a chest to see if the air moves like it's breathing. (I have no clue if mimics breathe, but it sounded neat.)

However, it also comes with a caveat. That being that this method always attacks what it senses as a creature. I would then begin to include encounters where it becomes an issue at times. Like yeah, that stalactite totally was a roper, but now you've also woken the stirges that nest on it. Or maybe you successfully revealed the rug of smothering, but now you've singed the favorite rug of the resident banshee. I hope you have decent saves! That carrion crawler trying to blend in was only trying to avoid you, but now that you hurt it...

Of course I wouldn't do it all the time, just an encounter here or there, but hopefully they begin being a little cautious with it. If not, whatever, it's their strategy and they're entitled to stick with it.

[Socratov]

Atheist wouldn't stop you from specifically receiving sacred flame, it would stop you from getting spells (mostly, one would think)


Well it sucks to be an infidel

Well, even 3.5 had rules for ideals over gods for both paladins and clerics where you receive your divine magic because you believe in a cause rather then a god.

[pwykersotz]

Well, even 3.5 had rules for ideals over gods for both paladins and clerics where you receive your divine magic because you believe in a cause rather then a god.

I hated those rules so much. Of course, I hate all rules that divorce power from consequences. D&D doesn't have enough of that as it is.

^Unpopular opinion :smalltongue:

[Davemeddlehed]

Nope. Sacred Flame uses a Dex save, and cover give bonuses to Dex saves as well as to AC


Flame-like radiance descends on a creature that you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 radiant damage. The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw.

The spell's damage increases by 1d8 when you reach 5th level (2d8), 11th level (3d8), and 17th level (4d8).

Specific beats general.

[Theodoxus]

Acid splash doesn't affect objects because it's a weak acid - say, carbonic, possibly diluted hydrochloric.

It evaporates before it has a chance of eating through that metal lock... it's why it doesn't damage armor or clothing either...

Radiant is more difficult... it's certainly not fire - there's already an energy type for that. It must look like fire, though, given the various spell names and items that utilize it. It's probably similar to solar radiation - high energy that penetrates tissue and causes a sunburn type damage.

I'm a pretty visual guy though, so my video gaming experiences definitely bleed into and bias my outlook...

[Tanarii]

Or, you know, because it's magic acid that only affects creatures.

Didn't you know? That's what enables it to be summoned out of thin air over and over again, and hurled 60ft away. By adding in a special limitation. Gives the wizard who invested it bonus points to spend on range, damage, and frequency of use. #ingamemetaconfusion :smallamused:

[Vogonjeltz]

Does it bother you? There's a thread about it on Facebook and it appears to really bother some DMs that apparently PCs are casting Sacred Flame on doors and chests to test if they're mimics and on bodies to see if they're actually undead.

Personally, it bugs me that many cantrips have limits on not being able to target objects that often feel arbitrary and silly. I feel like if you decide to add strange contrived rules to a spell and someone discovers shenanigans to take advantage of that, it's on you (the designer of said contrived limit).

I mostly let people target objects with just about any cantrip if it's a homebrew but this came up in AL. That would solve the issue immediately while not breaking anything. For instance, Ray of Frost should be useful for putting out small fires or making metal brittle.

How often do mimics show up in your games?

That being said, if they can't tell that something is a creature, I would never allow them to cast it in the first place.


It seems like a simple fix to me... any cantrip that can't target a creature, you also can't target something you don't know is a creature. So if there's an int/investigation/arcana/perception check etc for you to realize what it is, and you pass it, you can target it with that kind of spell. If not, you can't. Simple as that.

Pretty much this.


What if your pants is a mimic? Better not to wear any.

What was I scared of? by Dr. Seuss


the thing about sacred flame is that it specifies that it can only target a creature, so RAW if you targeted a chest the spell would fizzle, but if the chest was in fact a mimic the spell would go off. so the situation I quoted above wouldn't even work in the first place unless your DM broke the rules of the game...which is fine if there's meaning, but doing it just to spite your players is lame imho.

Correction, by the RAW you could not even cast the spell if you don't see a creature. If your character doesn't know it's a mimic, they don't see a creature, ergo they can't even try.


Acid Splash is another cantrip that comes to mind. It can only target creatures, but it's acid so my players have tried to use it to do everything from melt locks to wash dishes. I let them, because I can't think of a good reason why not.

Woe to me the day they try bottling it to sell.

Eltritch Blast, though, I have ruled as having no effect on objects at all. Force damage is weird.

A good reason would be: It doesn't say it can target objects and the spells say if they can target objects.

If they want to target objects so badly, get Fire Bolt.

[comk59]

Well, even 3.5 had rules for ideals over gods for both paladins and clerics where you receive your divine magic because you believe in a cause rather then a god.

3.5 also had the feat Divine Denial. It was ridiculous. You could just make a will save to ignore any Divine spell, even ones that didn't usually give saves. It made atheists literally immune to religion magic, which I thought was hilarious.

[Socratov]

I hated those rules so much. Of course, I hate all rules that divorce power from consequences. D&D doesn't have enough of that as it is.

^Unpopular opinion :smalltongue:

The thing is, I understand your opinion, but in this specific case I think that removing gods from the equation and substituting that with an ideal doesn't remove the consequences: if anything it really requires the player to keep believing and woe the moment that he loses faith in himself or his ideal. No atonement that can make up for that. That really requires a whole new personal quest of introspection and self discovery. Though I will admit, that is harder for the DM to make happen then to just straight up say "your god doesn't love you anymore, no spells today."

[Fishyninja]

Woe to me the day they try bottling it to sell.


Does it sell for well?

[Spellbreaker26]

For the Sacred Flame, I would treat it like poking everything with a sword. You can use it to check if the thing's a Mimic or whatever just like you could if you bonked it with a hammer, but it isn't some sort of scanner for targets.


The thing is, I understand your opinion, but in this specific case I think that removing gods from the equation and substituting that with an ideal doesn't remove the consequences: if anything it really requires the player to keep believing and woe the moment that he loses faith in himself or his ideal. No atonement that can make up for that. That really requires a whole new personal quest of introspection and self discovery. Though I will admit, that is harder for the DM to make happen then to just straight up say "your god doesn't love you anymore, no spells today."

The problem with that is that so many of the cleric's abilities are fine tuned to act as if they have a god (Divine Intervention, for one. It also explains why they learn their spells differently from, say, wizards). It would be like retconning out the Warlock's patron. I don't particularly mind if the god is something hazy like the Light from Warcraft, but I don't see why the people who don't want to have their character worship a god don't just go for Druid, Ranger or Paladin, who don't have to worship a god and have access to similar spells, instead of trying to sand down the lore differences between classes.

[Spore]

Acid splash doesn't affect objects because it's a weak acid - say, carbonic, possibly diluted hydrochloric.

Please don't bring science into your D&D sessions. It ruins everything. For the specific question at hand, acid = any corrosive material, so they can also be bases. Secondly, hydrofluoric acid RUINS almost everything, yet it can be easily contained in glass bottles. But honestly, for everyday use, most lyes are worse than acids.

But D&D doesn't work on our world's physics. Steel in D&D could be reinforced salt crumbs supported by Fey Magic for all you know.

[pwykersotz]

The thing is, I understand your opinion, but in this specific case I think that removing gods from the equation and substituting that with an ideal doesn't remove the consequences: if anything it really requires the player to keep believing and woe the moment that he loses faith in himself or his ideal. No atonement that can make up for that. That really requires a whole new personal quest of introspection and self discovery. Though I will admit, that is harder for the DM to make happen then to just straight up say "your god doesn't love you anymore, no spells today."

The problem for me is that ideals are often far more nebulous. I regularly saw completely bizarre justifications for all sorts of things on the 3.5 boards with relation to worshiping ideals. A deity with tenants is far easier to play off of. And it's not about denying spells, it's about all those edge cases where a deity might nudge things one way or the other for the character. Or even send an emissary or appear in prayers. It's easy to understand that a god of fire might send a flame spirit, but what on earth does the ideal of hope or peace send? And how do you justify its interaction with the world?

I don't mean consequences as punishment, I just mean that knowing where the power comes from and what interactions it has is valuable. If the table wants to put extra RP baggage on top of that, that's fine too. I just want something to work with. Something I can sink my teeth into. Ideals as a worship source are the opposite of that to me.

[Millstone85]

Well, even 3.5 had rules for ideals over gods for both paladins and clerics where you receive your divine magic because you believe in a cause rather then a god.That's pretty much the default fluff for paladins in 5e. Divine magic can come from "gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin's oath" (PHB page 205).

See also Forces and Philosophies, page 13 of the DMG.

[iamoger]

Mimics are cunning. They'll replace your pants when you take them off for the night, and when you put them on back again, bam! Barbarians know this, that's why they run around naked. Or mostly naked, civilised people who foolishly underestimate the danger forced them to wear loincloths. Best way to make sure your clothes are safe is to stab them few times before putting them on, and then Mending the holes.



I think radiant damage may look very similar to fire damage: Sacred Flame and Flame Strike both refers to fire, while Sunbeam and vampiric sunlight vulnerability brings about the idea it's similar to sunburns, which in turn are similar to actual fire damage. In a way, radiant damage is fire+ that's able to hurt things immune to fire. Holy water in previous editions was described to burn evil creatures "like acid", it does radiant damage in 5e, and while the actual mechanic is different, acid burns are somewhat similar to normal burns.

I picture sacred flame effects similar to a sausage in a microwave (radiant damage = radiation?).

[Aett_Thorn]

Thread necro, ahoy!

[stoutstien]

How many mimics are y'all dms using that this is a issue? I you're my universe I made mimics, Ropers and Pinchers all the same organism just a different states of its life so if they're not in a cave or another location where that creature would be found they shouldn't be worried. Now I do have a Syndicate of changeling assassins.........

[Sagitta]

Woe to me the day they try bottling it to sell.

If something like that came up, I would have it loses its potency after a few seconds.


Or, you know, because it's magic acid that only affects creatures.

Or a digestive enzyme. An acid in D&D doesn't have to be a proton donor; the term covers other corrosive substances.

[greenstone]

Does it bother you? There's a thread about it on Facebook and it appears to really bother some DMs that apparently PCs are casting Sacred Flame on doors and chests to test if they're mimics and on bodies to see if they're actually undead.

Doesn't bother me because it doesn't really work. In my game, if a player has their character cast sacred flame on a chest then I roll a d20 behind the screen, look at it and say "The chest made its saving throw."

This doesn't really give the player's any useful information.

[Boci]

Doesn't bother me because it doesn't really work. In my game, if a player has their character cast sacred flame on a chest then I roll a d20 behind the screen, look at it and say "The chest made its saving throw."

This doesn't really give the player's any useful information.

So the player casts it again, then again, another 10 times, and if the chest makes its saving throw 10 times in a row, its probably a real chest.

[BurgerBeast]

This comes down to what it means for a target to be valid, and this is an issue that has been raised in other discussions.

When a spell description states that it "targets a creature," this can be taken to mean a number of things, but if you spend some time thinking through the various possibilities and the implications of those possibilities, you will land on a system of ruling that works for you and your style.

For me, I personally find it absurd that spell casters cannot target invalid targets. Of course you can cast sacred flame on a chest, or a door, or any other object. The spell is cast, it "strikes" (or whatever verb makes the most sense) the invalid target but has no effect on the target because it is an invalid target.

Some people have told me that they think of the act of spell casting as similar to video games, wherein the caster can "mouse over" a target and it will be known to the caster if it is a valid target. I think this is ridiculous, because it turns many spells into detection spells, but it obviously works for some people.

Some people even play in a way so that if you try to cast a spell at an "invalid" target, you not only do not cast the spell, but you don't even lose the action, and can try something else. I think this is ridiculous, because it allows you to effectively instantly identify concealed enemies in some situations, but it obviously works for some groups.

The thing is, for groups that play in a different way, they often play other parts in the game in different ways, so that the interactions produce a coherent universe that is different than the way you play. So unless you are looking at the whole picture, it's hard to know whether there are glaring absurdities.

This is one topic, though, that I really have trouble with. I don't think I'd play at a table with players or a DM who think in that spell targeting functions in this way.

[Digimike]

This is where a DM's rulling overriding written rules clearly makes the most sense.

If my players did try something like this, they'd probably find that sacred flame will singe chests of any type regardless if it's a creature or not.

And if it is a mimic, they'd still see a singed chest and have to encounter a hungry mimic regardless after someone starts to interact with it.

Fortunately none of the people in my group try for these shenanigans.

It's not fun.

[Boci]

This is where a DM's rulling overriding written rules clearly makes the most sense.

If my players did try something like this, they'd probably find that sacred flame will singe chests of any type regardless if it's a creature or not.

And if it is a mimic, they'd still see a singed chest and have to encounter a hungry mimic regardless after someone starts to interact with it.

Yeah, the mimic will totally stay still whilst is sacred flamed 10 times, and not once move.


Fortunately none of the people in my group try for these shenanigans.

It's not fun.

Checking for monsters disguising themselves as objects isn't fun? Is checking for traps permitted beyond a perception check or is that unfun too?

[Tanarii]

Or a digestive enzyme. An acid in D&D doesn't have to be a proton donor; the term covers other corrosive substances.
Please do not quote things I posted over 18 months ago.

[Dalebert]

The "only can target a creature" cantrips are dumb. Even in AL I generally allow them to target objects. If no one complains its fine. No one has complained.

[BurgerBeast]

This is where a DM's rulling overriding written rules clearly makes the most sense.

If my players did try something like this, they'd probably find that sacred flame will singe chests of any type regardless if it's a creature or not.

And if it is a mimic, they'd still see a singed chest and have to encounter a hungry mimic regardless after someone starts to interact with it.

Fortunately none of the people in my group try for these shenanigans.

It's not fun.


The "only can target a creature" cantrips are dumb. Even in AL I generally allow them to target objects. If no one complains its fine. No one has complained.

I’m pretty sure the RAW are silent on what happens when a PC attempts to target an invalid target with a spell.

Invalid can be interpreted in a variety of ways.

Though, alarm bells are going off in my head saying that XGtE might have rules for this.

[gloryblaze]

I’m pretty sure the RAW are silent on what happens when a PC attempts to target an invalid target with a spell.

Invalid can be interpreted in a variety of ways.

Though, alarm bells are going off in my head saying that XGtE might have rules for this.

XGtE does have rules for this. In fact, you and I once discussed them in your Mirror Image thread :smallbiggrin:

[BurgerBeast]

XGtE does have rules for this. In fact, you and I once discussed them in your Mirror Image thread :smallbiggrin:

Thank you.* It's a shame that they had to put that in XGtE when it belongs in the PHB.

It reads exactly as I'd expect to read, and it ends this thread. The shenanigans are not possible. However I may have misread the "shenanigans."

If the idea is that you can simply attack chests to find out if they are mimics, then I don;t find this to be a problem at all. I agree that it is clever gaming.

If the idea was to exploit stupid DMs who think that when you try to cast a spell at an invalid target, it is impossible, which means that you still get your action and there's no negative consequence... well, then I think that's poor DMing.

* Now there alarm bells going off in my head saying that, even though I read the XGtE rules to perfectly match my expectations, the people espousing the other side of that argument read XGtE in such a way that is fully supported their arguments...

[Pex]

PHB says, "a typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic." I don't see anything in there that says you can't pick a target that will be unaffected.

In other words, you can target object just fine. They just might not be affected the way you would want. So go ahead and cast Charm Person at the door... it has no affect. Mark off the spell slot.

Cast Sacred Flame on a chest? I see no problem with that and I don't see it is against the rules. If it is a mimic, he gets hurt. If it's just a chest, nothing happens. Guess what, if I shoot an arrow at a chest, if it is a mimic it gets hurt and if it is just a chest the arrow doesn't do squat. What's the difference?

The difference is DMs have an instinctive fear of a player trying to get away with something. Archers won't use arrows to fire at chests because it uses up ammo. Players can't bring themselves to do it because 99% of the time it is a chest and the arrow is wasted. A Cantrip is infinite use that doesn't cost the player anything, so is able to test chests for mimics willy nilly. That it doesn't cost a player anything is the getting away with something the DM will not stand for. A number of other DMs are bothered by the supposed metagame aspect. The players know a mimic exists in the Monster Manual, but why should the characters know they exist at all until they encounter one?

My opinion is players shouldn't be casting Sacred Flame on every chest they encounter or door or whatever. It's paranoia taken to ridiculousness. When the chest really is a mimic so be it. You deal with it. It's when after the party encounters their second mimic the DM should not complain the PCs test every chest and door and whatever they meet if only to force the DM never to have a mimic appear again because it'll never surprise the players.

[Louro]

I’m pretty sure the RAW are silent on what happens when a PC attempts to target an invalid target with a spell.
You sure the PHB doesn't say the spell fizzles if the target is invalid?
Can't check now.

[Ganymede]

This isn't a computer game where you get a return error - invalid target. This is not an issue.


This is obliquely addressed in Xanathar's.

"If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn’t attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target."

[qube]

Acid Splash is another cantrip that comes to mind. It can only target creatures, but it's acid so my players have tried to use it to do everything from melt locks to wash dishes. I let them, because I can't think of a good reason why not.

Woe to me the day they try bottling it to sell.

Eltritch Blast, though, I have ruled as having no effect on objects at all. Force damage is weird.
+1

Also
1. personally I've always rules that Acid Splash quickly loses it potency.

Or, if you don't want that ... "Hmmm ... congratulation. Lets see, you can roll a constitution check each day (as repeated casting eventually gets exhaused), and that's the amount of gold you can earn."

if that's too much for the characters, you can even add

"Compeding alchemists however are mad to your destruction of the economy, an Waulkeen has heard their prayers. You have also incured the wrath of Waulkeen. More and more, shopkeepers* have a tendency to dislike you and don't want to sell their goods, or only want sell them at high prices. A cleric notifies you, that you can appease Waulkeen with forfilling this queste."

[Aett_Thorn]

Again, this thread is a year and a half old. Do we need to keep discussing it?

[Boci]

This is obliquely addressed in Xanathar's.

"If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn’t attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target."

Which means the trick works by RAW, you just beed to cast it 6-10 times. DMs may not like it and try to houserule it, but you can force a mimic to reveal itself by cantrip spam.


Please do not quote things I posted over 18 months ago.

You should probably never become a celebrity. :smallbiggrin:

[Willie the Duck]

You should probably never become a celebrity. :smallbiggrin:

In general, the cultural expectations of this place seem to be facilitating conversation, rather than squelching it.

When people quote you on a living thread, there's a (possibly unreasonable) expectation that you will have kept reading the thread and are available to respond. Thus, not responding is often (again, perhaps unreasonably) taken as you don't have a good response to what they have to say. Quoting people on an ancient, 'why-have-the-mods-not-locked-this?' necro-thread thus puts a perceived burden upon people who are on this forum for any given length of time to somehow know exactly what they were talking about 18 months ago, or go reread the whole thread and figure out what the argument was 18 months ago and what their response was all about so that they can respond. On some rather sprawling threads, that's a huge burden, and if we put that expectation upon people, we can expect people not to bother posting things, lest they then have to come back and defend themselves months or years later.

[Boci]

In general, the cultural expectations of this place seem to be facilitating conversation, rather than squelching it.

When people quote you on a living thread, there's a (possibly unreasonable) expectation that you will have kept reading the thread and are available to respond. Thus, not responding is often (again, perhaps unreasonably) taken as you don't have a good response to what they have to say. Quoting people on an ancient, 'why-have-the-mods-not-locked-this?' necro-thread thus puts a perceived burden upon people who are on this forum for any given length of time to somehow know exactly what they were talking about 18 months ago, or go reread the whole thread and figure out what the argument was 18 months ago and what their response was all about so that they can respond. On some rather sprawling threads, that's a huge burden, and if we put that expectation upon people, we can expect people not to bother posting things, lest they then have to come back and defend themselves months or years later.

That is
a. Only aplicable when the mods don't lock a thread, which should be an aberration
b. relies on you assume the poster realized it was 18 months old as oppose to not checking the posting date and just assuming that 2 pages couldn't be that long ago
c. you responding to a joke with a short dissertation on forum etiquiette

[Dalebert]

Which means the trick works by RAW, you just beed to cast it 6-10 times.

Or just cast Eldritch Blast or Chill Touch until you hit, removing any ambiguity.

[Boci]

Or just cast Eldritch Blast or Chill Touch until you hit, removing any ambiguity.

If you have those cantrips sure, but its good to know there are other options available.

[Willie the Duck]

you responding to a joke with a short dissertation on forum etiquiette

Sorry if you felt singled out. I could have grabbed Tanarii's post and agreed with his position, or responded to Sagitta directly regarding their quoting of Tanarii. Your post was simply the closest and thus easiest to quote. Since I wasn't taking your actions to task, it didn't seem problematic at the time. I did catch the tongue in cheek nature of your comment. Regardless, we're all talking about the same action (Sagitta's quoting of Tanarii), and I was simply stating the argument for how doing so leads to a community which doesn't talk.