Do spells that target creatures also target objects?

[Tanarii]

It's a common mantra that spells must say they target objects. If they only specify creatures, they can only target creatures.

But here's what the PHB tells players about Objects on page 185 under a section titles INTERACTING WITH OBJECTS:
Characters can also damage objects with their weapons and spells. Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage, but otherwise they can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can. The DM determines an object's Armor Class and hit points, and might decide that certain objects have resistance or immunity to certain kinds of attacks. (It's hard to cut a rope with a club, for example.) Objects always fail Strength and Dexterity saving throws, and they are immune to effects that require other saves. When an object drops to 0 hit points, it breaks.

The key here is that any player reading this can see the sentence "Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage, but otherwise they can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can" and assume that their spells that can target creatures could also target objects. At least damaging ones.

[Warder]

Funny that you brought this up, I thought the same thing and found the same text not that long ago when I was thinking about wizard apprenticeships. I had a hard time justifying the text of the spells - targetting creatures only - in relation to how a mage would go about learning magic, and especially cantrips which are supposed to have been cast so many times they're practically second nature. If every such cast had to be aimed at a creature rather than like, a training dummy, that's a lot of animal lives (et al) taken on the way to wizardhood, which doesn't really make any sense.

I'd say with a few exceptions - spells that specifically mention draining life force or other stuff innate to creatures - all spells can probably be aimed at whatever. Yet another reason fire bolt remains one of the last damage cantrips I'd pick!

[Rukelnikov]

As usual I'd go with specific beats general. The general rule says:

"Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage, but otherwise they can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can"

However, the specifics of a spell may tell you to choose creatures as targets, like Magic Missile does. Thus, beating the generalist statement of the previous rule.

Also the general rule can be read as, the way they are affected, ie: taking damage, works the same way as for creatures.

Personally, I lift the spell restriction a lot of times when I just don't like how the mechanics interact with the narrative. Eldritch Blast is supposed to be bolts you shoot and have to aim, why can't you target them at a door? IDK, thus I allow it.

[Tanarii]

As usual I'd go with specific beats general. The general rule says:

"Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage, but otherwise they can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can"

However, the specifics of a spell may tell you to choose creatures as targets, like Magic Missile does. Thus, beating the generalist statement of the previous rule.But that's the point. The general rule tells you to extend the specific rule of targeting creatures to also include objects. So the general rule specifically beats the specific rule, in this case.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Eldritch Blast is supposed to be bolts you shoot and have to aim, why can't you target them at a door? IDK, thus I allow it.

My particular head canon is that eldritch blast acts much like the Shardblades from Brandon Sanderson's novels. That is, ignore the flesh, attack the spirit. Unlike necrotic, which rots the flesh, or radiant (which overloads it) or fire (which burns), etc, force is a "catch all" for all the other ways. In this case, EB breaks the bonds not of molecules[1], but those between the spirit and the flesh. So of course it only affects things with souls (or the artificial facsimiles of such that animate golems and undead). It leaves no physical trace by default, but tears holes in the spirit.

This is because I think it's cool and thematic for warlocks to be mostly about that edge case (pun intended) and different than more physically (including the elements as physical things) oriented wizards and sorcerers, while bards by default sit at the other end, mostly affecting minds[2]. And because I like trying to see if there's a coherent, reasonable fiction that includes the mechanics. If there is and it fits with the rest of the setting, I'd prefer (out of laziness) to use the mechanics and make that fiction canon in the setting.

[1] if such things exist in a D&D world made out of 4 elements and 2 energies, not N elements and M fundamental forces.
[2] I subscribe to a trinune model of the D&D soul: body, self, and the spirit that ties them together. Mind is a component of the body/spirit interaction. Psychic damage attacks that interface; EB's force damage attacks the self-spirit interface.


But that's the point. The general rule tells you to extend the specific rule of targeting creatures to also include objects. So the general rule specifically beats the specific rule, in this case.

That's not how this works. General rules cannot, by definition, override specific rules. There's only one direction that things go. General rules define defaults, which specific rules (and individual spell entries are always specific rules) can override. Not vice versa.

A spell that doesn't specify can affect either if and only if it uses an attack roll (general rule). A spell that specifies one or the other can only affect that one (specific beats general, never the reverse).

[Rukelnikov]

My particular head canon is that eldritch blast acts much like the Shardblades from Brandon Sanderson's novels. That is, ignore the flesh, attack the spirit. Unlike necrotic, which rots the flesh, or radiant (which overloads it) or fire (which burns), etc, force is a "catch all" for all the other ways. In this case, EB breaks the bonds not of molecules[1], but those between the spirit and the flesh. So of course it only affects things with souls (or the artificial facsimiles of such that animate golems and undead). It leaves no physical trace by default, but tears holes in the spirit.

This is because I think it's cool and thematic for warlocks to be mostly about that edge case (pun intended) and different than more physically (including the elements as physical things) oriented wizards and sorcerers, while bards by default sit at the other end, mostly affecting minds[2]. And because I like trying to see if there's a coherent, reasonable fiction that includes the mechanics. If there is and it fits with the rest of the setting, I'd prefer (out of laziness) to use the mechanics and make that fiction canon in the setting.

[1] if such things exist in a D&D world made out of 4 elements and 2 energies, not N elements and M fundamental forces.
[2] I subscribe to a trinune model of the D&D soul: body, self, and the spirit that ties them together. Mind is a component of the body/spirit interaction. Psychic damage attacks that interface; EB's force damage attacks the self-spirit interface.

I can get behind that, but then, why can't they SHOOT them at a door? They wouldn't damage it, and I totally think thats fine, but they should still be able to shoot them.


That's not how this works. General rules cannot, by definition, override specific rules. There's only one direction that things go. General rules define defaults, which specific rules (and individual spell entries are always specific rules) can override. Not vice versa.

Yeah.


A spell that doesn't specify can affect either if and only if it uses an attack roll (general rule). A spell that specifies one or the other can only affect that one (specific beats general, never the reverse).

Wait, why does it need to use an attack roll? Why wouldn't an AoE work?

[Amnestic]

It's weird that Firebolt says "creatures or objects" given that would seem to be the standard, unless there's a third class of [thing] that Firebolt can't target but Scorching Ray (that simply specifies "targets") can hit.

Magic Missile might not be able to attack the Darkness in 5e, but Scorching Ray probably can.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I can get behind that, but then, why can't they SHOOT them at a door? They wouldn't damage it, and I totally think thats fine, but they should still be able to shoot them.


They can (at least in my games). See Xanathar's optional rules for what happens when the target is invalid (the spell works, expends the resource, but nothing happens). You can walk around blasting EB at anything and nothing, but it ain't gonna do anything to the "target" (ie the spell cannot affect it and it is thus not a target for mechanical purposes) unless it's a creature.



Wait, why does it need to use an attack roll? Why wouldn't an AoE work?

Going off of a (slightly over-precise, mostly for snark) reading of the quote: "Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage, but otherwise they can be affected by physical and magical attacks...". Note that it later specifies that objects have AC, but does not mention saving throws. In fact, in my (head canon) reading, one of the main differences between objects and creatures is that creatures have defined saving throws and can make saving throws, while objects do not and cannot. And it's not "their saving throw result is always zero", it's "their modifier is NaN and adding NaN to any number results in NaN and comparing NaN to any number returns NaN, which is neither true nor false but simply invalid" (ie objects cannot make saving throws as a default). Specific saving-throw based spells and effects must specify how they affect objects (which fireball, as does disintegrate. Note that the latter doesn't require an object or creation of magical force to make a saving throw. It just automatically works.

Head canon again--the soul can resist, letting the spirit/aura deny the effect. Which for some effects only reduces the damage taken to the whole combined thing, but prevents things like outright disintegration from if they still have energy left (ie HP).

Note: in my head canon, magic missile is the guided version (guided by locking on to a spirit, which is why you can't dodge it) of eldritch blast. Both attack the spirit directly, not than the body. Which is why both only affect creatures.

[Amnestic]

Note that it later specifies that objects have AC, but does not mention saving throws. In fact, in my (head canon) reading, one of the main differences between objects and creatures is that creatures have defined saving throws and can make saving throws, while objects do not and cannot.

PHB 185:

Objects always fail Strength and Dexterity saving throws, and they are immune to effects that require other saves.

Some spells with Con saves (like Shatter) then carve out specific exemptions to that, of course.

[Tanarii]

That's not how this works. General rules cannot, by definition, override specific rules. There's only one direction that things go. General rules define defaults, which specific rules (and individual spell entries are always specific rules) can override. Not vice versa.
That's exactly how it works in this case.

General rule: if specific rule says A, then also B.
Specific rule: A
Therefore: Also B.

Edit: This of course depends on a generous interpretation that is what the general rule is actually saying with "but otherwise they can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can." But if it is, then it absolutely extended each and every "target creatures" in an attack spell (which IMO includes fireball and magic missile) to be "target creatures or objects".

[Rukelnikov]

They can (at least in my games). See Xanathar's optional rules for what happens when the target is invalid (the spell works, expends the resource, but nothing happens). You can walk around blasting EB at anything and nothing, but it ain't gonna do anything to the "target" (ie the spell cannot affect it and it is thus not a target for mechanical purposes) unless it's a creature.

Yeah, that works, and is internally coherent, since EB is aimed.


Going off of a (slightly over-precise, mostly for snark) reading of the quote: "Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage, but otherwise they can be affected by physical and magical attacks...". Note that it later specifies that objects have AC, but does not mention saving throws. In fact, in my (head canon) reading, one of the main differences between objects and creatures is that creatures have defined saving throws and can make saving throws, while objects do not and cannot. And it's not "their saving throw result is always zero", it's "their modifier is NaN and adding NaN to any number results in NaN and comparing NaN to any number returns NaN, which is neither true nor false but simply invalid" (ie objects cannot make saving throws as a default). Specific saving-throw based spells and effects must specify how they affect objects (which fireball, as does disintegrate. Note that the latter doesn't require an object or creation of magical force to make a saving throw. It just automatically works.

They totally have saves, "Objects always fail Strength and Dexterity saving throws, and they are immune to effects that require other saves"


Head canon again--the soul can resist, letting the spirit/aura deny the effect. Which for some effects only reduces the damage taken to the whole combined thing, but prevents things like outright disintegration from if they still have energy left (ie HP).

Note: in my head canon, magic missile is the guided version (guided by locking on to a spirit, which is why you can't dodge it) of eldritch blast. Both attack the spirit directly, not than the body. Which is why both only affect creatures.

Yeah, I agree with MM not being allowed to target objects, since its not an aimed spell, my gripe is aimed spells, where it becomes weird if you shoot and miss, where RAW, EB cant target a door, but if I target someone between a door and myself and miss am now hitting the door and damaging it? Makes zero sense.


That's exactly how it works in this case.

General rule: if specific rule says A, then also B.
Specific rule: A
Therefore: Also B.

If the spell says "pick a creature", that's more specific than the general rule, so you can't pick an object.

[Tanarii]

If the spell says "pick a creature", that's more specific than the general rule, so you can't pick an object.
Not if the general rule says, in effect: any time a spell says you target a creature, you can also target an object instead. Then it extends those specific rules.

A foolish consistency insisting on general can never reference and extend specific would result in e.g. impossible to have things like conditions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1. They totally have saves, "Objects always fail Strength and Dexterity saving throws, and they are immune to effects that require other saves"

2.Yeah, I agree with MM not being allowed to target objects, since its not an aimed spell, my gripe is aimed spells, where it becomes weird if you shoot and miss, where RAW, EB cant target a door, but if I target someone between a door and myself and miss am now hitting the door and damaging it? Makes zero sense.


1. Oops. Missed that line. Scratch that paragraph then.

2. Target has two meanings. There's "can be shot at" and "can affect". What happens on a miss for anything is not defined at all. So if you shoot at a creature and hit, it can affect it (can target it). If you shoot at an object, it can't affect it (the object is not a legal target). If you shoot at a creature standing in front of an object and miss, the result is that nether creature but nor object are affected--the first because you missed, the second because the spell can't affect objects, even if they're "hit". Or because you missed everyone and hit the ceiling/floor/wall 3 squares away. Or the beam might have to be focused, so if it didn't hit the intended target it just dissipates. That's not specified anywhere.

Basically, in mechanical terms, there is no difference between "is not a legal target for" and "suffers no effect from". It can get hit, but it can't get affected. Anything can get aimed at. Only some things can get targeted (in the "have affect imposed on them once the conditions are met" sense).


Not if the general rule says, in effect: any time a spell says you target a creature, you can also target an object instead. Then it extends those specific rules.

A foolish consistency insisting on general can never reference and extend specific would result in e.g. impossible to have things like conditions.

No. Not at all. I've never heard or read such an interpretation and it breaks just about everything to allow circular references like that. That's like saying that a parent class can inherit from a class that inherits from it. That's a compiler error.

General rule: Objects can be affected by physical and magical attacks.
Necessary implication from specific beats general: Unless the specific effect says otherwise.
Specific rule: This magical attack can only affect creatures. Therefore, it's said otherwise.

Conditions are specific rules. Specific rules can interact with other specific rules. Specific rules are conditional; general rules are defaults that occur when those conditions aren't met. They're the fallback clause, the else {} clause, the default: branch of the switch. They can never match any specific pattern (otherwise they'd be specific rules). That's the definition of general and specific. And you can't reason from specific rules at all (you can't extract a general rule out of a collection of specific rules).

[Miele]

Force damage for me is simply applied force, such as a push, but in a very small area, works pretty much like any real world projectile thrown at very high speed.
There is usually little to no reason to stop spells working on objects, as there is often little advantage in using those instead of some martial action, say shove a blocked door open or burn down something flammable with a torch.
We just go with what makes sense at the moment.

I remember several months ago, someone used a cantrip to burn a rope, it made sense, so why not?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Force damage for me is simply applied force, such as a push, but in a very small area, works pretty much like any real world projectile thrown at very high speed.


That would be bludgeoning damage. Or piercing, if small enough. A bullet or other real-world projectile applies force to the body on impact.

The definition from the PHB is "Force is pure magical energy focused into a damaging form."

[Rukelnikov]

2. Target has two meanings. There's "can be shot at" and "can affect". What happens on a miss for anything is not defined at all. So if you shoot at a creature and hit, it can affect it (can target it). If you shoot at an object, it can't affect it (the object is not a legal target). If you shoot at a creature standing in front of an object and miss, the result is that nether creature but nor object are affected--the first because you missed, the second because the spell can't affect objects, even if they're "hit". Or because you missed everyone and hit the ceiling/floor/wall 3 squares away. Or the beam might have to be focused, so if it didn't hit the intended target it just dissipates. That's not specified anywhere.

Basically, in mechanical terms, there is no difference between "is not a legal target for" and "suffers no effect from". It can get hit, but it can't get affected. Anything can get aimed at. Only some things can get targeted (in the "have affect imposed on them once the conditions are met" sense).

Hmm, I mean, I think that's a valid interpretation, but I'm not sure that's RAW (and don't feel like going back to the PHB to check it because im lazy rn). I don't think you can target illegal targets, but I do like the way you handle it, and its similar to how I do.

Notice though, that hitting the ceiling walls, etc, presents the same situation as hitting the door.

[Xetheral]

General rule: Objects can be affected by physical and magical attacks.
Necessary implication from specific beats general: Unless the specific effect says otherwise.
Specific rule: This magical attack can only affect creatures. Therefore, it's said otherwise.

(Blue emphasis added.) The point Tanarii is making (and I think it's a good one) is that some spells that say they target creatures don't specify that they only target creatures, so they aren't a specific rule that overrides the general rule Tanarii found--they lack the necessary exclusionary text.

There is an interpretative principle that spells only do what they say they do, which implies that spells that only mention creatures can't affect anything else, but that principle isn't codified in the text and thus doesn't rise to the level of a rule (general or specific). Since that principle isn't a rule, it can't override the general rule that objects take damage from spells like creatures do.

This is going to change how I interpret a great many spells, but I think the general rule Tanarii found does indeed control for any damaging spell that doesn't explicitly say it only damages creatures.

[Unoriginal]

It's a common mantra that spells must say they target objects. If they only specify creatures, they can only target creatures.

But here's what the PHB tells players about Objects on page 185 under a section titles INTERACTING WITH OBJECTS:
Characters can also damage objects with their weapons and spells. Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage, but otherwise they can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can. The DM determines an object's Armor Class and hit points, and might decide that certain objects have resistance or immunity to certain kinds of attacks. (It's hard to cut a rope with a club, for example.) Objects always fail Strength and Dexterity saving throws, and they are immune to effects that require other saves. When an object drops to 0 hit points, it breaks.

If you cast a spell that says "You target a creature" and try to target an object can *aim* at the object, it will just have 0 effect:


Invalid Spell Targets


A spell specifies what a caster can target with it: any type of creature, a creature of a certain type (humanoid or beast, for instance), an object, an area, the caster, or something else. But what happens if a spell targets something that isn't a valid target? For example, someone might cast charm person on a creature believed to be a humanoid, not knowing that the target is in fact a vampire. If this issue comes up, handle it using the following rule.

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.


Xanathar's Guide to Everything, p.85.



The key here is that any player reading this can see the sentence "Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage, but otherwise they can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can" and assume that their spells that can target creatures could also target objects. At least damaging ones.

If a player reads the sentence "target a creature" or "X creature is affected" and still think they can target objects with it, they are misreading the sentences.

There are plenty of spells that deals damage that don't have the "target a creature" wording or equivalent.

Ex: the text of spell Thunderous Smite states that if the target gets hit, additional damage applies. It then adds that "if the target is a creature", said creature gets pushed away.

I don't think it can be argued that spells stating they're affecting/targeting creatures would also apply to objects.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I agree with the original post, though I do think such a ruling is best applied on an ad hoc basis.

P.P’s posts are good examples of world building based exceptions.
Magic Missile, specifically, is a bad candidate to target objects due to objects by RAW having low HP totals.

Win Initiative, Upcast Magic Missile and destroy Excalibur, Make King Arthur Cry…will be a thing🃏

Artillerists added the idea of Magical Objects…which is a bit of a muddled mess. I would allow Magic Missile to Target an Eldritch Canon. Magical Object as a category should be removed. The Eldritch Canon should be a construct.

Between the various 5e books, the spell notation is also different, based on the book.

Tasha’s Caustic Brew has a range of Self (30’ line)…no line about targeting objects.

Aganazzar’s Scorcher has a range of 30’…no line about targeting objects.

Both spells should be able to damage objects. Objects in a 30’ line of fire or acid should not receive damage immunity. Objects fail their saving throws automatically, so in effect, one does not need to target an object.

On only needs to place the object in the spell’s area of effect.

A Lightning Bolt spell should be able to blast a tunnel in rock.

[Xetheral]

If a player reads the sentence "target a creature" or "X creature is affected" and still think they can target objects with it, they are misreading the sentences.

If a damaging spell states that it targets a creature, but is silent on whether it can target an object, then the general rule Tanarii found that objects can be damaged from spells like creatures can be should control.

In other words, now that the general rule has been identified, we have a default for how to handle spells that are silent about whether they can damage objects.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If a damaging spell states that it targets a creature, but is silent on whether it can target an object, then the general rule Tanarii found that objects can be damaged from spells like creatures can be should control.

In other words, now that the general rule has been identified, we have a default for how to handle spells that are silent about whether they can damage objects.

Spells say what they do, not what they don't do. And including one but not both implies excluding the unmentioned item. That's a basic principle of interpretation. Saying you can do X or Y implies that Z is not included.

Also, that would turn all those targeting lines into confusing surplus. None of them would do anything, because none of them exclude targets except by implication.

[Witty Username]

I think this sidesteps a thing that would be important for general rules. There are magical attacks that aren't spells, mostly in monster stat blocks but also things like sun soul monk.
The specific overrides general is not the text of the spells, but the spell targeting rules.

[Unoriginal]

If a damaging spell states that it targets a creature, but is silent on whether it can target an object, then the general rule Tanarii found that objects can be damaged from spells like creatures can be should control.

In other words, now that the general rule has been identified, we have a default for how to handle spells that are silent about whether they can damage objects.

A spell that state that targets a creature only target a creature. Silence when listing what is affected does not imply inclusion.

The specific of the spell's text override the general rule about how spells can damage objects.

If the spell's does not states what kind of target is affected, then the general rule is applied. Otherwise the specific applies.

Ex: the text of the spell Thunderwave states:


A wave of thunderous force sweeps out from you. Each creature in a 15-foot cube originating from you must make a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, a creature takes 2d8 thunder damage and is pushed 10 feet away from you. On a successful save, the creature takes half as much damage and isn't pushed.

The general rule is that objects are affected by spells. The specific rule of Thunderwave's text is that only creatures are affected by the spell.

Claiming that you can damage and push a wooden crate 10ft away with Thunderwave because the spell is silent on how it affects objects is incorrect.


Spells say what they do, not what they don't do.

Indeed. And as noted even in the OP, they *only* do what they say they do.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A spell that state that targets a creature only target a creature. Silence when listing what is affected does not imply inclusion.

The specific of the spell's text override the general rule about how spells can damage objects.

If the spell's does not states what kind of target is affected, then the general rule is applied. Otherwise the specific applies.

Ex: the text of the spell Thunderwave states:
The general rule is that objects are affected by spells. The specific rule of Thunderwave's text is that only creatures are affected by the spell.

Claiming that you can damage and push a wooden crate 10ft away with Thunderwave because the spell is silent on how it affects objects is incorrect.

Indeed. And as noted even in the OP, they *only* do what they say they do.

And the other position is unbounded. Thunder wave doesn't say that it doesn't make flowers bloom halfway across the world when cast. But the reading that says it does is disfavored strongly.

[Xetheral]

Spells say what they do, not what they don't do. And including one but not both implies excluding the unmentioned item. That's a basic principle of interpretation. Saying you can do X or Y implies that Z is not included.

I agree that that's a basic principle of interpreting spells. But an interpretive principle can't override an explicit game rule. Tanarii has identified an explicit rule that objects can be affected by magical attacks much like creatures can. That explicit rule takes precedence over general interpretive principles.


A spell that state that targets a creature only target a creature. Silence when listing what is affected does not imply inclusion.

The specific of the spell's text override the general rule about how spells can damage objects.

If the spell's does not states what kind of target is affected, then the general rule is applied. Otherwise the specific applies.

I completely agree that the specifics of the spell's text can override the general rule Tanarii found. But silence is not specificity. We previously read silence regarding objects as excluding objects based on the general interpretive principle that spells only do what they say they do. But that principle is not a codified rule, and thus has to give way to the rules written in the book.

There are multiple general rules about how spells work, and those apply to every spell unless a spell explicitly says otherwise. The general rule Tanarii found should likewise apply to all spells expect for spells that explicitly say otherwise.

[Sigreid]

My particular head canon is that eldritch blast acts much like the Shardblades from Brandon Sanderson's novels. That is, ignore the flesh, attack the spirit. Unlike necrotic, which rots the flesh, or radiant (which overloads it) or fire (which burns), etc, force is a "catch all" for all the other ways. In this case, EB breaks the bonds not of molecules[1], but those between the spirit and the flesh. So of course it only affects things with souls (or the artificial facsimiles of such that animate golems and undead). It leaves no physical trace by default, but tears holes in the spirit.

This is because I think it's cool and thematic for warlocks to be mostly about that edge case (pun intended) and different than more physically (including the elements as physical things) oriented wizards and sorcerers, while bards by default sit at the other end, mostly affecting minds[2]. And because I like trying to see if there's a coherent, reasonable fiction that includes the mechanics. If there is and it fits with the rest of the setting, I'd prefer (out of laziness) to use the mechanics and make that fiction canon in the setting.

[1] if such things exist in a D&D world made out of 4 elements and 2 energies, not N elements and M fundamental forces.
[2] I subscribe to a trinune model of the D&D soul: body, self, and the spirit that ties them together. Mind is a component of the body/spirit interaction. Psychic damage attacks that interface; EB's force damage attacks the self-spirit interface.



That's not how this works. General rules cannot, by definition, override specific rules. There's only one direction that things go. General rules define defaults, which specific rules (and individual spell entries are always specific rules) can override. Not vice versa.

A spell that doesn't specify can affect either if and only if it uses an attack roll (general rule). A spell that specifies one or the other can only affect that one (specific beats general, never the reverse).

But if that's what EB was doing, then armor shouldn't have any bearing on it. The fact that you have to get past the AC of that fighter in plate armor with a shield indicates that it can, in fact, hit non-living physical objects.

[Unoriginal]

We previously read silence regarding objects as excluding objects based on the general interpretive principle that spells only do what they say they do. But that principle is not a codified rule, and thus has to give way to the rules written in the book.

There are multiple general rules about how spells work, and those apply to every spell unless a spell explicitly says otherwise. The general rule Tanarii found should likewise apply to all spells expect for spells that explicitly say otherwise.

Is your claim that since Thunderwave specifically states creatures within the AoE are affected, but does not state that objects are not affected, it must affect objects?


But if that's what EB was doing, then armor shouldn't have any bearing on it. The fact that you have to get past the AC of that fighter in plate armor with a shield indicates that it can, in fact, hit non-living physical objects.

By the rule section quoted in the OP, the AC of a non-worn Mithral plate armor is 21. The AC of a character wearing a Mithral plate armor and nothing else is 18.

EB is not "hitting" the mithral armor when it damages the wearer's HPs.

[Valmark]

Imo they don't unless otherwise stated. In my home games I tipically ignore that, but officially you wouldn't be able to, say, Eldritch Blast an object as it requires a creature.

The fact that an object can be affected like a creature doesn't mean it can be affected by the same things that affect creatures.

[Kane0]

I dont really have a problem if the mage wants to Shocking Grasp the door handle just in case its a mimic.

[Tanarii]

I agree that that's a basic principle of interpreting spells. But an interpretive principle can't override an explicit game rule. Tanarii has identified an explicit rule that objects can be affected by magical attacks much like creatures can. That explicit rule takes precedence over general interpretive principles.



I completely agree that the specifics of the spell's text can override the general rule Tanarii found. But silence is not specificity. We previously read silence regarding objects as excluding objects based on the general interpretive principle that spells only do what they say they do. But that principle is not a codified rule, and thus has to give way to the rules written in the book.

There are multiple general rules about how spells work, and those apply to every spell unless a spell explicitly says otherwise. The general rule Tanarii found should likewise apply to all spells expect for spells that explicitly say otherwise.
Or to put it another way:
General rule: Spells that do damage to creatures will also do the same damage to objects.
Required specific rule to override: This spell does damage to creatures, but does not also do damage objects.

I don't see that specific vs general is a valid counter-point to the text I found, because if it's a correct interpretation, it's written in a way that extends all damaging spells from creatures to objects unless they specify they don't also do damage to objects.

I am, however, more than open to the idea that the sentence in question does not automatically translate into "Spells that do damage to creatures also do the same damage to objects". :smallwink:

[da newt]

"A spell that state that targets a creature only target a creature." - Unoriginal

The issue at hand is: does the spell state that it targets "creatures" or that it targets "creatures only"?

IMO the RAW is a mess of contradiction and requires interpretation -> a DM's ruling. Once a DM rules one way or the other precedence has been set and it should be applied consistently across all subsequent instances.

Personally I prefer Tenarii's interpretation: the general rule is always in place unless a spell specifically restricts the target by stating something like "creatures only" - this makes more sense to me logically, but I can understand folks who rule the opposite too.

[Unoriginal]

The issue at hand is: does the spell state that it targets "creatures" or that it targets "creatures only"?

A spell that state that it targets creatures and mentions nothing else states that it targets creatures only.

Spells that targets everything do not state they target anything specific.

Spells that have different effects depending on the target always specifically state so.


See Thunderous Smite. Is anyone here arguing that the additional-damage effect of the spell (where target is non-specific) applies to objects, but that the push-back-10ft effect of the spell, which mentions affecting creatures, also applies to objects?


I dont really have a problem if the mage wants to Shocking Grasp the door handle just in case its a mimic.

A mage can do it. It will just only have an effect if the door is in fact a mimic or another creature (or if there is a different effect that reacts to that kind of spells being cast on the door).


Or to put it another way:
General rule: Spells that do damage to creatures will also do the same damage to objects.
Required specific rule to override: This spell does damage to creatures, but does not also do damage objects.

I don't see that specific vs general is a valid counter-point to the text I found, because if it's a correct interpretation, it's written in a way that extends all damaging spells from creatures to objects unless they specify they don't also do damage to objects.

So you are arguing that all spells need to state "targets creatures and not object" to counter the general rule.

By the same reasoning, you can use Dominate Person on a Vampire.

After all, the spell mentions that you are attempting to beguile an humanoid, it does not specifically mentions that undead are not valid targets.

[Xetheral]

Is your claim that since Thunderwave specifically states creatures within the AoE are affected, but does not state that objects are not affected, it must affect objects?

Not exactly--you're missing the key step. My claim is that Tanarii has identified a general rule that spells can damage objects much like they can damage creatures. Like all general rules that govern spellcasting, that rule applies to any spell that doesn't specifically say otherwise. Thunderwave does not specifically say otherwise, therefore Thunderwave can damage objects like it can damage creatures.

This is no different than how Thunderwave follows the general rules for AoE placement, since Thunderwave doesn't specifically say otherwise.

[Unoriginal]

This is the general rule we should be taking into account:


Targets

A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect


Player's Handbook, p.204.

As the rule says, the spell description tells you what is targeted. If it says that it targets creatures, it targets creatures. If it says it targets objects, it targets objects. If it says it targets, no further indications, it targets everything the way described in the rest of the spell.


Not exactly--you're missing the key step. My claim is that Tanarii has identified a general rule that spells can damage objects much like they can damage creatures. Like all general rules that govern spellcasting, that rule applies to any spell that doesn't specifically say otherwise. Thunderwave does not specifically say otherwise, therefore Thunderwave can damage objects like it can damage creatures.

This is no different than how Thunderwave follows the general rules for AoE placement, since Thunderwave doesn't specifically say otherwise.

"Specific beats general" does not mean that something has to be specified to counter a general. The text has to be specific, not specify all the exceptions.

If a spell tells you the target has to be an humanoid, then the spell is specific about the target. It does not need to specify "and it does not target individual with the undead, fiend, fey, etc types", as the language is already specific.

This is the same for a spell with a description that states which is the specific target.

[Sigreid]

By the rule section quoted in the OP, the AC of a non-worn Mithral plate armor is 21. The AC of a character wearing a Mithral plate armor and nothing else is 18.

EB is not "hitting" the mithral armor when it damages the wearer's HPs.

But the armor must be able to be hit in order for it to provide non-dex based AC. The AC21 is to actually damage the armor as opposed to glancing off it.

[Tanarii]

So you are arguing that all spells need to state "targets creatures and not object" to counter the general rule.

By the same reasoning, you can use Dominate Person on a Vampire.

After all, the spell mentions that you are attempting to beguile an humanoid, it does not specifically mentions that undead are not valid targets.
No, because there isn't a general rule that says, in effect, that any spell that targets a humanoid also works on undead.

[Xetheral]

This is the general rule we should be taking into account:



Player's Handbook, p.204.

As the rule says, the spell description tells you what is targeted. If it says that it targets creatures, it targets creatures. If it says it targets objects, it targets objects. If it says it targets, no further indications, it targets everything the way described in the rest of the spell.



"Specific beats general" does not mean that something has to be specified to counter a general. The text has to be specific, not specify all the exceptions.

If a spell tells you the target has to be an humanoid, then the spell is specific about the target. It does not need to specify "and it does not target individual with the undead, fiend, fey, etc types", as the language is already specific.

This is the same for a spell with a description that states which is the specific target.

Specific-beats-general requires there to be a conflict between the specific and general. Here, there is no conflict between a spell that says it damages creatures and a general rule that says objects can be damaged by spells much like creatures. The spell text permits the spell to cause damage to creatures, and the general rule permits the spell to damage objects much like they were creatures. Both rules operate, and there is no conflict to resolve.


No, because there isn't a general rule that says, in effect, that any spell that targets a humanoid also works on undead.

Exactly. But if, hypothetically, there were a rule that said "Undead can be dominated by magic much like humanoids can be" then Dominate Person would indeed work on vampires, because the general rule permits it and the spell does not say otherwise.

[ender241]

The RAW definitely create room for debate. However two things make me disagree with the OP:

1) The rules about spell targeting that Unoriginal quoted. This clearly states that spells specify who/what they can target. No one on the pro-object side has addressed this yet.

2) There are spells that say specifically that you can target creatures and objects with them. Compare the wording for firebolt and ray of frost:


You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range.


A frigid beam of blue-white light streaks toward a creature within range.

Why bother specifying that one can target creatures and objects but only mention creatures for the other if both spells can target both anyway? It makes no sense. So even if the RAW is arguably a little ambiguous the RAI is very clear.

That being said, I think many reasonable DMs would let you try to freeze or cool down an object with ray of frost. When you start getting into things like chill touch however... I think you'll have a harder time getting that to fly.

Ultimately, the way I would interpret the rule quoted in the OP is not that "any spell that targets a creature can also target an object" but "generally, things that damage creatures (ie weapon attacks and spells) can also damage objects". But individual spells say what they target specifically. Could the rules have been clearer in this regard? Definitely.

[Keltest]

Exactly. But if, hypothetically, there were a rule that said "Undead can be dominated by magic much like humanoids can be" then Dominate Person would indeed work on vampires, because the general rule permits it and the spell does not say otherwise.

I disagree. The general rule of undead having the capacity to be dominated isnt a conflict with the specific rule of Dominate Person only being able to target humanoids. A specific rule would be "vampires count as humanoids as well as undead when being targeted by a domination spell."

[Kane0]

A mage can do it. It will just only have an effect if the door is in fact a mimic or another creature (or if there is a different effect that reacts to that kind of spells being cast on the door).


I was giving a sideways nod to the fact that this is a game where creatures can and will appear to be objects, leaving you with a situation in that such spells inadvertently become creature-detectors or you have to rule that such spells interact with objects same as they do creatures.

Spells are often reflavored and interpretations can vary too, so you could have Eldritch Blast being something that separates the soul from the body or is a partial disintegration effect or just wallops you with blunt trauma and they're all equally valid because 'Force damage' is pretty vague. In that light it's entirely justifiable for a DM to rule that a spell can't do anything more than it says it does to avoid 'scope creep'.

Also, something something revivify, corpses and creatures. The written words sometimes just aren't internally consistent.

[Tanarii]

Ultimately, the way I would interpret the rule quoted in the OP is not that "any spell that targets a creature can also target an object" but "generally, things that damage creatures (ie weapon attacks and spells) can also damage objects". But individual spells say what they target specifically. Could the rules have been clearer in this regard? Definitely.
Everything else aside, I do think that's also a reasonable way to interpret the sentence in question. Just taken alone, it's not a clear statement that any physical or magical attack that can damage a creature can also damage an object.

[Phhase]

Creature-only targeting is one of the most commonly ignored rules for good reason. It's much easier and more intuitive to just say "Sure you can hit the [object] with Acid Splash", than it is to have to get into the weeds special casing and elaborately justifying things like animated objects, using creature target spells to error check everything for being a mimic or a creature in disguise, or alternatively using minor illusions of rats or just drawing a smiley on objects you want to spell-at.

[Xetheral]

I disagree. The general rule of undead having the capacity to be dominated isnt a conflict with the specific rule of Dominate Person only being able to target humanoids. A specific rule would be "vampires count as humanoids as well as undead when being targeted by a domination spell."

But "undead have the capacity to be dominated" isn't the general rule in my hypothetical. The general rule in my hypothetical is that undead can be dominated by magic like humanoids. Since a vampire is undead, my hypothetical general rule would mean that magic that can dominate a humanoid can also dominate a vampire.

Also, I would note that your hypothetical general rule that "undead have the capacity to be dominated" wouldn't do anything, since every creature has the capacity to be dominated unless it has immunity, and undead don't have immunity. Similarly, interpreting the general rule Tanarii found to mean "objects have the capacity to be damaged by magic" would also not do anything.

If the rule is going to be functional, the operative part must be that objects can be damaged by physical and magic attacks like creatures, not merely that objects can be damaged by physical and magical attacks.

[Keltest]

But "undead have the capacity to be dominated" isn't the general rule in my hypothetical. The general rule in my hypothetical is that undead can be dominated by magic like humanoids. Since a vampire is undead, my hypothetical general rule would mean that magic that can dominate a humanoid can also dominate a vampire.

Also, I would note that your hypothetical general rule that "undead have the capacity to be dominated" wouldn't do anything, since every creature has the capacity to be dominated unless it has immunity, and undead don't have immunity. Similarly, interpreting the general rule Tanarii found to mean "objects have the capacity to be damaged by magic" would also not do anything.

If the rule is going to be functional, the operative part must be that objects can be damaged by physical and magic attacks like creatures, not merely that objects can be damaged by physical and magical attacks.

You are correct, it wouldnt do anything, because "has the capacity to be dominated" is a really weird example. Im just rolling with it.

If we go back to the original example, the general rule establishes that objects have hit points and can take damage and make (some) saves. It does not say they count as creatures for the purposes of what spells can target then, it simply compares them to creatures in the sense that they have hit points and can be smashed.

For example, are you going to suggest that a wooden crate is a valid target for Charm Person since that spell only targets humanoids and you can treat objects as humanoids, or do you believe thats exactly as silly as it sounds?

[da newt]

One of the issues that I have w/ RAW is the use of the word "can."

The word has a few meanings including:

auxiliary verb

1a: be physically or mentally able to
He can lift 200 pounds.
b: know how to
She can read.
c—used to indicate possibility
Do you think he can still be alive?
Those things can happen.
—sometimes used interchangeably with may
d: be inherently able or designed to
everything that money can buy
e: be enabled by law, agreement, or custom to
Congress can declare war.
f: be permitted by conscience or feeling to
can hardly blame her
g: be made possible or probable by circumstances to
He can hardly have meant that.
h: be logically or axiologically able to
2 + 2 can also be written 3 + 1.
2: have permission to —used interchangeably with may
You can go now if you like.

Did the writers want the word CAN to mean "be inherently able or designed to" or do they use it to mean "to indicate possibility" - that sometimes it could be and sometimes it couldn't be? Do they use CAN to differentiate from the more absolute WILL or DOES? If the rule includes the word CAN does this make it optional? If a PC CAN do X, does that mean they have a choice to do X or NOT do X?

So then what does the following RAW mean? "Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage, but otherwise they can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can."

Does it mean " ... objects are inherently able or designed to be affected by ... magical attacks ..." or does it mean " ... there is a possibility objects may be affected by ... magical attacks ..."?

[Psyren]

It's a common mantra that spells must say they target objects. If they only specify creatures, they can only target creatures.

But here's what the PHB tells players about Objects on page 185 under a section titles INTERACTING WITH OBJECTS:
Characters can also damage objects with their weapons and spells. Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage, but otherwise they can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can. The DM determines an object's Armor Class and hit points, and might decide that certain objects have resistance or immunity to certain kinds of attacks. (It's hard to cut a rope with a club, for example.) Objects always fail Strength and Dexterity saving throws, and they are immune to effects that require other saves. When an object drops to 0 hit points, it breaks.

The key here is that any player reading this can see the sentence "Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage, but otherwise they can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can" and assume that their spells that can target creatures could also target objects. At least damaging ones.

Even if you subscribe to the OP's "anything can target anything" reading, I think the underlined bit is the most important part. Whenever you target something, the DM still gets to decide whether the spell has an effect or not.. Even if you rule Toll The Dead can hit an object for instance, it's almost certainly not going to help you break out of your jail cell.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Does it mean " ... objects are inherently able or designed to be affected by ... magical attacks ..." or does it mean " ... there is a possibility objects may be affected by ... magical attacks ..."?

The second is the sane option. Because there are many objects that obviously can't be hurt by one or the other (force constructs, cutting a rope with a club, etc).

It's only saying that DMs can, if they choose (remember that assigning AC and HP to objects is entirely up to the DM, there is only vague guidance given), allow magic attacks to damage objects. If it makes sense in context. It's permission to the DM, not entitlement to the players.

[Xetheral]

You are correct, it wouldnt do anything, because "has the capacity to be dominated" is a really weird example. Im just rolling with it.

If we go back to the original example, the general rule establishes that objects have hit points and can take damage and make (some) saves. It does not say they count as creatures for the purposes of what spells can target then, it simply compares them to creatures in the sense that they have hit points and can be smashed.

For example, are you going to suggest that a wooden crate is a valid target for Charm Person since that spell only targets humanoids and you can treat objects as humanoids, or do you believe thats exactly as silly as it sounds?

No, I'm not suggesting you can charm a wooden crate. The general rule Tanarii found says that objects can be attacked and damaged (other than from poison and psychic damage) like creatures--it says nothing about status conditions. (Also, a couple sentences later it says objects are immune to effects that require wisdom saves, so you definitely can't use Charm Person to charm a wooden crate.)

And I disagree with you on what that general rule says. As you interpret it, the comparison "much like creatures can" doesn't do anything--you're not giving effect to all the words. Under my reading those words are functional: they specify that objects can be damaged like creatures.

Your reading is definitely possible. I don't know why the designers would go out of their way to make a non-functional comparison of how objects are damaged to how creatures are damaged, but that could be exactly what they were trying to say. I simply think my reading is a better reading: in addition to giving effect to all the words, it resolves a huge percentage of the IC/OOC problems created by arbitrary object/creature distinctions (e.g. eldritch cannon vs animated objects), and, consistent with 5e philosophy, it gives the DM latitude (via setting HP and resistence/immunities) to tailor the degree of environmental destruction caused by AoE spells to the table's preferences.

[Keltest]

No, I'm not suggesting you can charm a wooden crate. The general rule Tanarii found says that objects can be attacked and damaged (other than from poison and psychic damage) like creatures--it says nothing about status conditions. (Also, a couple sentences later it says objects are immune to effects that require wisdom saves, so you definitely can't use Charm Person to charm a wooden crate.)

And I disagree with you on what that general rule says. As you interpret it, the comparison "much like creatures can" doesn't do anything--you're not giving effect to all the words. Under my reading those words are functional: they specify that objects can be damaged like creatures.

Your reading is definitely possible. I don't know why the designers would go out of their way to make a non-functional comparison of how objects are damaged to how creatures are damaged, but that could be exactly what they were trying to say. I simply think my reading is a better reading: in addition to giving effect to all the words, it resolves a huge percentage of the IC/OOC problems created by arbitrary object/creature distinctions (e.g. eldritch cannon vs animated objects), and, consistent with 5e philosophy, it gives the DM latitude (via setting HP and resistence/immunities) to tailor the degree of environmental destruction caused by AoE spells to the table's preferences.

You've forgotten to take into account weapon attacks. The general rule establishes that objects have stats that allow people to interact with them. The specific rule for spell targeting determines whether a given spell can affect those stats. So you can always hit a crate with your sword because there is no specific rule telling you what you can or cannot attack with your sword. You can never hit a crate with magic missile because a crate is not a valid target for the spell, even though there is a general rule establishing that it has hit points and such.

[da newt]

Does it mean " ... objects are inherently able or designed to be affected by ... magical attacks ..." or does it mean " ... there is a possibility objects may be affected by ... magical attacks ..."?


The second is the sane option. Because there are many objects that obviously can't be hurt by one or the other (force constructs, cutting a rope with a club, etc).

It's only saying that DMs can, if they choose (remember that assigning AC and HP to objects is entirely up to the DM, there is only vague guidance given), allow magic attacks to damage objects. If it makes sense in context. It's permission to the DM, not entitlement to the players.

A perfectly reasonable interpretation, but also a very slippery slope as now every time that the RAW states 'CAN' you must also interpret that as 'could possibly or might not' - for example a warlock's Repelling Blast states "when you hit a creature with eldritch blast you can push the creature up to 10 feet away from you in a straight line" and now we know CAN means "could possibly or might not" so a DM can rule that it works or that it doesn't and who knows if it will in the future ... the rule is it might work or it might not and there is nothing that limits the arbitrary DM decision - the player is not entitled to expect his evocation to function ... I don't know about you, but that seems like terrible game design to me.

[Psyren]

Does it mean " ... objects are inherently able or designed to be affected by ... magical attacks ..." or does it mean " ... there is a possibility objects may be affected by ... magical attacks ..."?



A perfectly reasonable interpretation, but also a very slippery slope as now every time that the RAW states 'CAN' you must also interpret that as 'could possibly or might not' - for example a warlock's Repelling Blast states "when you hit a creature with eldritch blast you can push the creature up to 10 feet away from you in a straight line" and now we know CAN means "could possibly or might not" so a DM can rule that it works or that it doesn't and who knows if it will in the future ... the rule is it might work or it might not and there is nothing that limits the arbitrary DM decision - the player is not entitled to expect his evocation to function ... I don't know about you, but that seems like terrible game design to me.

Again though, even if you go with the broader reading of "'can' means 'will' barring external circumstances" - i.e. I can target any object with any spell - the DM does still have the explicit ability to no-sell the effects, including damage.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A perfectly reasonable interpretation, but also a very slippery slope as now every time that the RAW states 'CAN' you must also interpret that as 'could possibly or might not' - for example a warlock's Repelling Blast states "when you hit a creature with eldritch blast you can push the creature up to 10 feet away from you in a straight line" and now we know CAN means "could possibly or might not" so a DM can rule that it works or that it doesn't and who knows if it will in the future ... the rule is it might work or it might not and there is nothing that limits the arbitrary DM decision - the player is not entitled to expect his evocation to function ... I don't know about you, but that seems like terrible game design to me.

That's not how language works. Words have meaning in context. That kind of RAW-literalism literally makes a hash out of the entire text. You can't assume that a word has the same meaning in different contexts without checking the context. In this case, there's a critical difference in who gets to choose. "Can" here implies optionality (may or may not, neither option foreclosed). In the targeting example, the wording means that the game-level actor representing the struct object determines whether it is affected or not. In the invocation, the player (ie "you") decide.

But even then, it is a normal, natural thing for creatures to have a property like "immune to forced movement", either explicitly or implicitly from the fiction (consider Prometheus chained to the rock--if you hit him, does he move? He can't, he's chained down and immobile.). And that's what happens with exception-based design. Players never have assurance that their abilities will always work. Remember, players don't say what happens or even what they do. They say what they attempt and what factors influence the reaction. It's the DM who decides what happens (sometimes involving rules).

As a side note, if you rule that targeting restrictions in abilities are null (as to object vs creature) AND that Repelling Blast always works on a hit, you're saying that Repelling Blast can, with no save or chance of failure, move that castle up to 10' per hit. Or that you can push an anchored boulder around at will.

[Tanarii]

And I disagree with you on what that general rule says. As you interpret it, the comparison "much like creatures can" doesn't do anything--you're not giving effect to all the words. Under my reading those words are functional: they specify that objects can be damaged like creatures.
To continue arguing against my own OP, there is another thing "much like creatures can" could mean: Objects can have the mechanical traits of hit points, ACs, saves, and taking damage (from most damage types).

It's possible that's the way in which the Devs were referring to how objects can be damaged much like creatures can, that they share system resolution methods. Not that physical and magical attacks that affect creatures also default to affecting objects.

[ender241]

To continue arguing against my own OP, there is another thing "much like creatures can" could mean: Objects can have the mechanical traits of hit points, ACs, saves, and taking damage (from most damage types).

It's possible that's the way in which the Devs were referring to how objects can be damaged much like creatures can, that they share system resolution methods. Not that physical and magical attacks that affect creatures also default to affecting objects.

I think that's very likely the intention there. Notice that the passage says nothing about being able to target objects with spell attacks. It only says that objects can be damaged by spells and weapons. For that to be possible, an object must be a valid target. For determining what targets are valid for spells, we refer to the targeting rules that Unoriginal quoted.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To continue arguing against my own OP, there is another thing "much like creatures can" could mean: Objects can have the mechanical traits of hit points, ACs, saves, and taking damage (from most damage types).

It's possible that's the way in which the Devs were referring to how objects can be damaged much like creatures can, that they share system resolution methods. Not that physical and magical attacks that affect creatures also default to affecting objects.


I think that's very likely the intention there. Notice that the passage says nothing about being able to target objects with spell attacks. It only says that objects can be damaged by spells and weapons. For that to be possible, an object must be a valid target. For determining what targets are valid for spells, we refer to the targeting rules that Unoriginal quoted.

I agree that this is the most natural (to me) interpretation. Basically, it's just saying "hey this isn't an MMO where the environment can't be affected by default". But exactly how it's affected (if at all) is up to the individual thing trying to affect it.

Note that there are guidelines in the DMG around destroying/damaging objects as well (which I'd say have primacy over the PHB's player-facing ones, since the latter are just a limited summary of the former).



When characters need to saw through ropes, shatter a window, or smash a vampire’s coffin, the only hard and fast rule is this: given enough time and the right tools, characters can destroy any destructible object. Use common sense when determining a character’s success at damaging an object. Can a fighter cut through a section of a stone wall with a sword? No, the sword is likely to break before the wall does.

For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects.

Statistics for Objects
When time is a factor, you can assign an Armor Class and hit points to a destructible object. You can also give it immunities, resistances, and vulnerabilities to specific types of damage.

Armor Class. An object’s Armor Class is a measure of how difficult it is to deal damage to the object when striking it (because the object has no chance of dodging out of the way). The Object Armor Class table provides suggested AC values for various substances

...

Huge and Gargantuan Objects. Normal weapons are of little use against many Huge and Gargantuan objects, such as a colossal statue, towering column of stone, or massive boulder. That said, one torch can burn a Huge tapestry, and an earthquake spell can reduce a colossus to rubble. You can track a Huge or Gargantuan object’s hit points if you like, or you can simply decide how long the object can withstand whatever weapon or force is acting against it. If you track hit points for the object, divide it into Large or smaller sections, and track each section’s hit points separately. Destroying one of those sections could ruin the entire object. For example, a Gargantuan statue of a human might topple over when one of its Large legs is reduced to 0 hit points.

Objects and Damage Types. Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage. You might decide that some damage types are more effective against a particular object or substance than others. For example, bludgeoning damage works well for smashing things but not for cutting through rope or leather. Paper or cloth objects might be vulnerable to fire and lightning damage. A pick can chip away stone but can’t effectively cut down a tree. As always, use your best judgment.


The common theme here is "use your best judgement" and "decide if it's even possible at all".

[Chronos]

I don't think that the OP's reading is what the devs intended, and whether it's RAW is debatable. But I still stand behind it, because the whole "can't target objects" thing is silly to begin with. Most damaging spells should be able to damage objects, and in the cases where they can't, it should be by the DM's adjudication that certain objects just aren't susceptible to certain attacks (which of course they were always free to declare, but the RAW explicitly calls it out here). Why shouldn't you be able to knock down a door with a Spiritual Hammer, or dissolve a rope with Acid Splash? And of course, the whole mimic-detecting thing is silly: If you Eldritch Blast a treasure chest because it might be a mimic, you should end up with a blasted treasure chest.

This will lead to some fuzzy areas, but then, that's what the DM is for. I can see a DM, for instance, deciding that Sacred Flame hits a creature's moral character or something, and so it doesn't work on a door... but that it does work on a lich's phylactery. Or maybe not. It might vary from table to table. But some cases seem pretty clear.

Incidentally, you can't rule that force damage always targets the soul, because Bigby's Hand deals force damage, and explicitly can target objects. By slamming them with a fist. Why is that not bludgeoning? I dunno. But it isn't.

[JLandan]

My particular head canon is that eldritch blast acts much like the Shardblades from Brandon Sanderson's novels. That is, ignore the flesh, attack the spirit. Unlike necrotic, which rots the flesh, or radiant (which overloads it) or fire (which burns), etc, force is a "catch all" for all the other ways. In this case, EB breaks the bonds not of molecules[1], but those between the spirit and the flesh. So of course it only affects things with souls (or the artificial facsimiles of such that animate golems and undead). It leaves no physical trace by default, but tears holes in the spirit.

This is because I think it's cool and thematic for warlocks to be mostly about that edge case (pun intended) and different than more physically (including the elements as physical things) oriented wizards and sorcerers, while bards by default sit at the other end, mostly affecting minds[2]. And because I like trying to see if there's a coherent, reasonable fiction that includes the mechanics. If there is and it fits with the rest of the setting, I'd prefer (out of laziness) to use the mechanics and make that fiction canon in the setting.

[1] if such things exist in a D&D world made out of 4 elements and 2 energies, not N elements and M fundamental forces.
[2] I subscribe to a trinune model of the D&D soul: body, self, and the spirit that ties them together. Mind is a component of the body/spirit interaction. Psychic damage attacks that interface; EB's force damage attacks the self-spirit interface.



That's not how this works. General rules cannot, by definition, override specific rules. There's only one direction that things go. General rules define defaults, which specific rules (and individual spell entries are always specific rules) can override. Not vice versa.

A spell that doesn't specify can affect either if and only if it uses an attack roll (general rule). A spell that specifies one or the other can only affect that one (specific beats general, never the reverse).

I like your interpretation of how eldritch blast works, spirit to spirit. But that would, to me, seem more of a radiant or necrotic type rather than force, which implies, especially with some of the invocations, that it affects the physical. And therefore should be able to target objects.

Fire bolt targets creature or objects, seems fair EB would too. It hasn't come up in any of my games, but I would house rule that it does hit objects.

[Composer99]

Honestly I'm fine with spellcasters casting whatever spell they want at just about whatever target they want. Using the rule for choosing invalid targets from Xanathar's, whether straight or adapted, if a target isn't valid (casting charm person on an undead or an object, say) the spell has no effect.

Edit to add: I'm also fine with spells that do damage affecting objects even if they're not named as targets in the spell description, such as ray of frost damaging an object, as long as it makes sense for the damage type (psychic damage wouldn't work on objects, for instance).

[Spiritchaser]

I feel that the RAW, particularly that section on page 85 in Xanthars is pretty clear. If a spell doesn’t say it can target an object, the spell won’t have an effect on that object.

However, from a play enjoyment and or play balance point of view, does one improve the game if objects are more universally targetable?

Making the rules less persnickety is generally a good thing, so full points there. You don’t have to explain to a newer player why their eldritch blasts won’t be able to target… well, the case that I remember involved an offensive tree, and resulted in questions about when a plant becomes a creature… but anyway…

Casters can actually be a bit limited when it comes to targeting simple items.

I tend to think that’s a good thing

[Tanarii]

Casters can actually be a bit limited when it comes to targeting simple items.

I tend to think that’s a good thing
It does have the advantage that casters aren't the master of opening doors and chests, a la Neverwinter Nights campaign mode and Ray of Frost. :smallamused:

[Psyren]

Honestly I'm fine with spellcasters casting whatever spell they want at just about whatever target they want. Using the rule for choosing invalid targets from Xanathar's, whether straight or adapted, if a target isn't valid (casting charm person on an undead or an object, say) the spell has no effect.

Edit to add: I'm also fine with spells that do damage affecting objects even if they're not named as targets in the spell description, such as ray of frost damaging an object, as long as it makes sense for the damage type (psychic damage wouldn't work on objects, for instance).

I would definitely employ resistance if not immunity for several of these though. Ray of Frost should not be as effective vs. a wooden door as Firebolt for instance, and Toll the Dead should be especially useless.

[Chronos]

The use case I encountered: I was playing a warlock, and the party was in a cave. An enemy was trying to trap us in the cave and smoke us by building a big fire at the cave entrance. I was doing my part to put out the fire by Repelling Blasting the largest burning logs away. At least, until someone at the table (it might even have been me) remembered that Eldritch Blast was creatures-only.

[Telok]

An odd phrasing came up today and made me think of this. I don't know the answer off the top of my head and online sources are crappy for searching this sort of thing.

"The hacking attempt targeted the laptop, and was targeted to subvert the network connection." That was the statement, a bit clumsy but easily understood. There was a hack on a laptop trying to affect the network connection. It reminded me that the word "target" can be used in two ways.

So, question. Does it specify anywhere in the books (and do we think the assorted writers/editors managed to stick to or not) that the spell "target" is what you can cast a spell at, or what the spell affects? Because casting something like Banishment at a chair because you think its a uber-mimic or a wizard under a fancy illusion is the type of thing that I've seen happen in games.

[Psyren]

An odd phrasing came up today and made me think of this. I don't know the answer off the top of my head and online sources are crappy for searching this sort of thing.

"The hacking attempt targeted the laptop, and was targeted to subvert the network connection." That was the statement, a bit clumsy but easily understood. There was a hack on a laptop trying to affect the network connection. It reminded me that the word "target" can be used in two ways.

So, question. Does it specify anywhere in the books (and do we think the assorted writers/editors managed to stick to or not) that the spell "target" is what you can cast a spell at, or what the spell affects? Because casting something like Banishment at a chair because you think its a uber-mimic or a wizard under a fancy illusion is the type of thing that I've seen happen in games.

Do you mean something like Heat Metal targeting an object but damaging a creature?

As far as pre-emptively banishing a chair or a chest because you think it's a mimic, I think that's the point of the OP and the Xanathar's quote - you can do that, and if it's actually a mimic the spell will work, but if it's a normal chair then it sticks around and the spell slot is wasted.

[Composer99]

I would definitely employ resistance if not immunity for several of these though. Ray of Frost should not be as effective vs. a wooden door as Firebolt for instance, and Toll the Dead should be especially useless.

Oh, for sure. And the DMG has suggestions about how objects might be affected by different damage types.

(For what it's worth, toll the dead doesn't work on objects per RAW since they are immune to effects requiring Wisdom saving throws.)

[Telok]

Do you mean something like Heat Metal targeting an object but damaging a creature?

As far as pre-emptively banishing a chair or a chest because you think it's a mimic, I think that's the point of the OP and the Xanathar's quote - you can do that, and if it's actually a mimic the spell will work, but if it's a normal chair then it sticks around and the spell slot is wasted.

More clarity: I'm afb & the online stuff is cruddy. Do the core books, PH & DMG, specify that the spell stuff uses either meaning of 'target' or are we left another "plain english" mess with different applicable meanings?

[Psyren]

More clarity: I'm afb & the online stuff is cruddy. Do the core books, PH & DMG, specify that the spell stuff uses either meaning of 'target' or are we left another "plain english" mess with different applicable meanings?

There is no "Target" line in 5e spells if that's what you're asking. You have to read the spells' text to determine what exactly the spell acts on and the specific effect(s) it has.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There is no "Target" line in 5e spells if that's what you're asking. You have to read the spells' text to determine what exactly the spell acts on and the specific effect(s) it has.
Yeah.

And judging from the 3e forums, having a "Target" line in their spells didn't make things much more clear. There are still all sorts of arguments over all the details.

It's a not-entirely-substantiated assumption at this point that "more precise" language actually provides much extra clarity.

[greenstone]

Could the rules have been clearer in this regard? Definitely.

Agreed. There are a lot of inconsistencies. I'm guessing they are from multiple authors and a lack of consistent editing, but also from the desire to write rules in plain language, not legalese (for example, see Starfleet Battles).

My take on it is as follows.

If there is an attack roll (melee spell attack, ranged spell attack, melee weapon attack, ranged weapon attack) then you can attempt to target anything. Whether or not it does damage depends on the actual weapon or spell you are using. If you miss then its obvious you missed (the target dodged or blocked). If you hit and the target is immune to the effect then you see the lack of effect, giving you the information that the target is immune.

If there is a saving throw then you can target anything. If the target is immune then it appears as if it made the saving throw. Dissonant whispers can't be used for detecting mimics.

If it automatically hits (magic missile, for example) and you are targeting an invalid target then you know its an invalid target because you feel the spell faill to make a connection. Magic missile can be used to detect mimics. :-)

[Telok]

There is no "Target" line in 5e spells if that's what you're asking. You have to read the spells' text to determine what exactly the spell acts on and the specific effect(s) it has.

Ah, thats what I was talking about. Online stuff sometimes has target entries and some don't. The general casting stuff has targets but its general indefinite english language stuff again. So its just the usual guesswork then.

I really just don't recall any questions about the mimic check thing or targeting illusions with stuff like eldrich blast in previous editions. This never came up at our tables 2e through 4e, its only been a 5e thing.

[Psyren]

Ah, thats what I was talking about. Online stuff sometimes has target entries and some don't. The general casting stuff has targets but its general indefinite english language stuff again. So its just the usual guesswork then.

I really just don't recall any questions about the mimic check thing or targeting illusions with stuff like eldrich blast in previous editions. This never came up at our tables 2e through 4e, its only been a 5e thing.

Prior editions had tags, like "(object)" or target lines. There was no dispute or ambiguity because you were more rigidly shackled. I prefer 5e's more open/DM-forward approach.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Prior editions had tags, like "(object)" or target lines. There was no dispute or ambiguity because you were more rigidly shackled. I prefer 5e's more open/DM-forward approach.

Judging from the 3e forums, there's still lots of debate once you start getting past the surface. And lots more ways to cause nonsense to happen.

But I agree about preferring the 5e way.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I really just don't recall any questions about the mimic check thing or targeting illusions with stuff like eldrich blast in previous editions. This never came up at our tables 2e through 4e, its only been a 5e thing.

AD&D used the term ‘Target’. A Magic Missile struck it’s target, which could be an Illusion, a door, etc.

3rd edition D&D, was the edition that introduced many targeting specific restrictions, such as targeting only creatures, etc.

Original AD&D, as a collective ruleset, did not smoothly fit together.
It was just expected that people would make adjustments they deemed necessary for the game to function.

[Psyren]

Judging from the 3e forums, there's still lots of debate once you start getting past the surface. And lots more ways to cause nonsense to happen.

But I agree about preferring the 5e way.

Point, I should have said "different disputes and ambiguity" :smallbiggrin:


AD&D used the term ‘Target’. A Magic Missile struck it’s target, which could be an Illusion, a door, etc.

3rd edition D&D, was the edition that introduced many targeting specific restrictions, such as targeting only creatures, etc.

Original AD&D, as a collective ruleset, did not smoothly fit together.
It was just expected that people would make adjustments they deemed necessary for the game to function.

Which one lets you cast magic missile at the darkness?

[Thunderous Mojo]

Which one lets you cast magic missile at the darkness?

Well played!

Dr. Demento, a SoCal Deep Cut of the highest order, for a certain time period of SoCal history.👍

[JLandan]

Point, I should have said "different disputes and ambiguity" :smallbiggrin:



Which one lets you cast magic missile at the darkness?

Are The Dead Alewives returning to life? :smallbiggrin:

[Kane0]

My take on it is as follows.

If there is an attack roll (melee spell attack, ranged spell attack, melee weapon attack, ranged weapon attack) then you can attempt to target anything. Whether or not it does damage depends on the actual weapon or spell you are using. If you miss then its obvious you missed (the target dodged or blocked). If you hit and the target is immune to the effect then you see the lack of effect, giving you the information that the target is immune.

If there is a saving throw then you can target anything. If the target is immune then it appears as if it made the saving throw. Dissonant whispers can't be used for detecting mimics.

If it automatically hits (magic missile, for example) and you are targeting an invalid target then you know its an invalid target because you feel the spell faill to make a connection. Magic missile can be used to detect mimics. :-)

Bouncing off this, that could be a cool way to give attack roll spells a bit of a bigger niche given theyre pretty rare past tier 1. Attack roll spells cam target anything and the results are based off the damage dealt, whereas save spells simply fail if youre targeting the wrong thing (like hold person on a disguised Strahd).

[NaughtyTiger]

Based on this, Unoriginal is the only one allowed to call me a power-gamer every again.