Mining With Eldrich Blast and Other Mundane Tasks - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 shintashi Jun 10, 2015 12:38:29	So one of our group has a Warlock with Eldrich Blast, the Charisma Mod bonus to damage, and the knock back 10' effect. I'm wondering if this effect can be used to smash things, like blasting walls, and if so, how effective? Speaking of Cantrip effects for mundane tasks, can other cantrips like those that start fires or frost things, can they be used to create frozen ponds or places to stand on by freezing the water? Can a big witches pot be set to boil or a forest fire started? I'm curious about the utility aspect of Cantrips outside combat. Thanks
#2 jaelis Jun 10, 2015 13:00:22	EB says it targets a creature, doesn't it? If so then you can't target an object. As the book says: A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect.
#3 Tempest_Stormwind Jun 10, 2015 13:19:33	jaelis wrote:
#4 Nevvur Jun 10, 2015 14:04:14	A thought milling around in my head, not something I plan to implement at my table... While cantrips have unlimited uses, I still think of them as requiring effort. That is, a wizard can cast a cantrip about as often as a fighter can swing a sword. After awhile, they both get tired. This would be house rule territory, though.
#5 Xeviat-DM Jun 11, 2015 1:56:26	Even 4E had a rule that attacks that target creatures could target objects. If your DM rules that way, then it just depends on how your DM things the substance fairs against force damage.
#6 intently Jun 11, 2015 11:37:41	RAW the book tells you what can be targeted. As a DM, I'd let me players use spells creatively as long as the uses didn't invalidate other characters' abilities.
#7 guachi Jun 11, 2015 11:53:01	intently wrote:
(Reply to #6) OoftaMeg	intently wrote:
#9 shintashi Jun 11, 2015 12:44:46	I think when you are looking at the flavor text, that's a bad way to rule against players being creative. The first sentence is flavor text. The second sentence says exactly the same thing without flavor, but uses 'target', not 'creature'. And yes, it is Force damage. Amplified, this force damage can knock creatures back up to 10 feet. Now magic is dumb, i get that, so magic may not be allowed to shoot a wall. But what about a living wall? What if the walls aren't living, and there's a golem? What if your friend is petrified and is now a statue, is he still a creature? What about a machine, that is mobile, and is trying to kill you? Is a Tree a creature? It doesn't appear to move, but it's alive. See, this is the kind of stuff that comes up when we start getting nit picky about what a Cantrip can or can't do because of flavor text or intention. Simple is best. It does 1d10 force damage to a target within range, for each blast provided, based on level. The damage is higher for some warlocks. Should it do structural damage? Yes. How much? Probably 1d10 per blast, with any bonuses from Warlock modifiers. What about the 10 ft knock back option? Add 1d6 to emphasize hitting it harder. How much damage can walls take? Stone is AC 17, Wood is AC 15, Metal is AC 19, and something like Adamantium is AC 23. A good hit roll would represent double dice. Presummably, a determined character out of combat is looking at 6d12 (39) hp for Huge objects, and 7d20+ (73+) hp for Gargantuan Objects. So blowing apart a Marble Statue of Zeus that's like 30' high is AC 17, 73 hit points, whereas an Eldritch Blast with 3 bolts per round might yield 1d10 + 5 (20 charisma), 63 damage every other round, or about 82 damage in two rounds if we used my 10 ft knock back = +1d6 to innanimate objects from "falling". I don't know why people would be bothered by this kind of thing.
#10 Mad_Jack Jun 12, 2015 1:51:31	I've personally always felt that if a character is willing to use a combat resource - which are generally limited in some way, such as a limited number of spell slots - specifically for a non-combat purpose (even if it's attempting to cause damage), then they most likely should be able to accomplish what they want. Within reason, of course. For example, Acid Splash doesn't say it damages objects (so the wizard's not going to unintentionally melt the scenery pitching a few of them in a bar fight), but if he's not in a fight and wants to deliberately use it to weaken a rope or try eating through a pair of handcuffs, I'm certainly willing to make a judgement on it based on the specific task and the current circumstances. In the case of a warlock trying to blast through a wall or using his EB to mine rock, given the amount of damage he's capable of doing vs the amount of time it'd take him to achieve any significant effect, it doesn't seem particularly unbalanced to allow it. (In most cases where the character is simply attempting to do something narratively cool but that isn't going to have any major mechanical impact I don't even bother asking them to expend resources to do so just as long as they had those resources available - for example, if the player of a fire-themed wizard or dragon sorceror wants to have their character always use fire magic to light their pipe, their torch or the party's campfire, then as long as they're able to cast a fire spell they can just snap their fingers and spark it up without actually needing to Fire Bolt it.)
#11 turri Jun 12, 2015 14:50:52	intently wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

shintashi

Jun 10, 2015 12:38:29

So one of our group has a Warlock with Eldrich Blast, the Charisma Mod bonus to damage, and the knock back 10' effect. I'm wondering if this effect can be used to smash things, like blasting walls, and if so, how effective?

Speaking of Cantrip effects for mundane tasks, can other cantrips like those that start fires or frost things, can they be used to create frozen ponds or places to stand on by freezing the water? Can a big witches pot be set to boil or a forest fire started?

I'm curious about the utility aspect of Cantrips outside combat.

Thanks

jaelis

Jun 10, 2015 13:00:22

EB says it targets a creature, doesn't it? If so then you can't target an object. As the book says:

A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect.

Tempest_Stormwind

Jun 10, 2015 13:19:33

jaelis wrote:

Nevvur

Jun 10, 2015 14:04:14

A thought milling around in my head, not something I plan to implement at my table...

While cantrips have unlimited uses, I still think of them as requiring effort. That is, a wizard can cast a cantrip about as often as a fighter can swing a sword. After awhile, they both get tired. This would be house rule territory, though.

Xeviat-DM

Jun 11, 2015 1:56:26

Even 4E had a rule that attacks that target creatures could target objects. If your DM rules that way, then it just depends on how your DM things the substance fairs against force damage.

intently

Jun 11, 2015 11:37:41

RAW the book tells you what can be targeted.

As a DM, I'd let me players use spells creatively as long as the uses didn't invalidate other characters' abilities.

guachi

Jun 11, 2015 11:53:01

intently wrote:

(Reply to #6)

OoftaMeg

intently wrote:

shintashi

Jun 11, 2015 12:44:46

I think when you are looking at the flavor text, that's a bad way to rule against players being creative. The first sentence is flavor text. The second sentence says exactly the same thing without flavor, but uses 'target', not 'creature'. And yes, it is Force damage. Amplified, this force damage can knock creatures back up to 10 feet. Now magic is dumb, i get that, so magic may not be allowed to shoot a wall.

But what about a living wall?

What if the walls aren't living, and there's a golem? What if your friend is petrified and is now a statue, is he still a creature? What about a machine, that is mobile, and is trying to kill you? Is a Tree a creature? It doesn't appear to move, but it's alive.

See, this is the kind of stuff that comes up when we start getting nit picky about what a Cantrip can or can't do because of flavor text or intention. Simple is best. It does 1d10 force damage to a target within range, for each blast provided, based on level. The damage is higher for some warlocks. Should it do structural damage? Yes. How much? Probably 1d10 per blast, with any bonuses from Warlock modifiers. What about the 10 ft knock back option?

Add 1d6 to emphasize hitting it harder. How much damage can walls take? Stone is AC 17, Wood is AC 15, Metal is AC 19, and something like Adamantium is AC 23. A good hit roll would represent double dice.

Presummably, a determined character out of combat is looking at 6d12 (39) hp for Huge objects, and 7d20+ (73+) hp for Gargantuan Objects.

So blowing apart a Marble Statue of Zeus that's like 30' high is AC 17, 73 hit points, whereas an Eldritch Blast with 3 bolts per round might yield 1d10 + 5 (20 charisma), 63 damage every other round, or about 82 damage in two rounds if we used my 10 ft knock back = +1d6 to innanimate objects from "falling". I don't know why people would be bothered by this kind of thing.

#10

Mad_Jack

Jun 12, 2015 1:51:31

I've personally always felt that if a character is willing to use a combat resource - which are generally limited in some way, such as a limited number of spell slots - specifically for a non-combat purpose (even if it's attempting to cause damage), then they most likely should be able to accomplish what they want. Within reason, of course.

For example, Acid Splash doesn't say it damages objects (so the wizard's not going to unintentionally melt the scenery pitching a few of them in a bar fight), but if he's not in a fight and wants to deliberately use it to weaken a rope or try eating through a pair of handcuffs, I'm certainly willing to make a judgement on it based on the specific task and the current circumstances.

In the case of a warlock trying to blast through a wall or using his EB to mine rock, given the amount of damage he's capable of doing vs the amount of time it'd take him to achieve any significant effect, it doesn't seem particularly unbalanced to allow it.

(In most cases where the character is simply attempting to do something narratively cool but that isn't going to have any major mechanical impact I don't even bother asking them to expend resources to do so just as long as they had those resources available - for example, if the player of a fire-themed wizard or dragon sorceror wants to have their character always use fire magic to light their pipe, their torch or the party's campfire, then as long as they're able to cast a fire spell they can just snap their fingers and spark it up without actually needing to Fire Bolt it.)

#11

turri

Jun 12, 2015 14:50:52

intently wrote: