Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Nevvur Feb 23, 2015 9:02:06	Numerous damaging spells cite creatures as targets, with no text describing their effect on objects. So if one were to cast such a damaging spell at a non creature, how do you rule the outcome?   Does the action and spell slot get wasted if you attempt to cast at an invalid target, or do you not even allow the attempt?    Do you treat an illusionary monster as a creature for the spells that target only creatures, or does 'the magic know' it can't hit it? Does a dead creature count as a creature or an object?   What if I wanted to magic missile the connector between a chandelier and ceiling to make it drop on an enemy?  A chandelier isn't a creature. How about Ray of Frost vs a puddle of water, a puddle of water isn't a creature, but can the spell target it to freeze it, creating a slippery surface? Can I shocking grasp an apple to make it explode?
#2 mellored Feb 23, 2015 9:20:14	1: It's the DM's call.  But i imagine many spells, like charm person, would have no effect on a table, and damage spells would just break things (with bigger/harder things having more HP).   2: I would ask the DM to make a ruling first.  Presumably your character would know what magic missile does to furniture.   3a: I would rule that it is wasted.  But you would then know it was an illusion.  (my general rule, is that people will only fall for illusions once). 3b: I cound dead creatures as objects.   4a: I would allow it.  With rope having 1 HP to 10 HP, and chain having 10 to 20 HP.  So larger chandilers would take extra missiles to drop. 4b: I would allow it.  Roughly 1 cubic inch per cold damage, or 1 a square foot per damage for a wet floor (25 damage for a 5x5 patch). 4c: I would allow it.
#3 EmpactWB Feb 23, 2015 9:20:40	If it makes sense to affect an object, it works as written on both.   Illusions are valid targets, but can't be harmed, so it results in a No Sell. Dead creatures are objects, so valid target if the spell makes sense.   In my games, the answer to all of these is "Cool, it works." Or maybe you just roast the apple instead of blowing it up, but it ends up messy and delicious either way.
#4 Barky Feb 23, 2015 16:39:26	EmpactWB wrote:
(Reply to #4) Shade007	It's the DM's call but I generally interpret where the spell mentions 'creature targetted' with no information on 'object targetted' then it only works on creatures. If the writters had wanted such spells to effect objects they would have said 'creature or object'. There are spells that specifically allow characters to target objects, such as disintegrate and shatter.   For historical reference, in both D&D v3.5 and v4 spells usually had a 'Target' entry which specifies things like 'one creature' or 'one creature or object'.  Maggic missile could not be used to target objects.
#6 jaelis Feb 24, 2015 8:59:25	One issue to watch... I'd be careful about letting a spell target an item a creature is holding. I'd be fine with using MM to cut a rope holding up a chandelier or the like. But I wouldn't let you use it to cut an archer's bowstring.
#7 strider13x Feb 24, 2015 9:29:43	As to Illusions, you believe the Illusion completely when you fail a save. So in the case of attacking an illusion you may believe you injured the illusionary image. As DM I wouldn't auto-dismiss it because someone cast a spell at it but it may grant an additional save attempt.   Magic Missle a bowstring? Not sure how I would rule that one.
#8 Nevvur Feb 24, 2015 20:23:19	I'm the DM for my table and already know how I'd rule on these questions, was mostly looking for other points of view. One thing I strive to achieve is sensible reconciliation between game mechanics and the in-world narrative. On these questions, I see two possible interpretations for "how magic works" within the world, one supporting RAF and one RAW.   RAF in-world magic is like a gun. You press the trigger and the spell fires, releasing its energy on whatever it hits. Against a target which cannot be affected by this energy (ex: Flesh to Stone against a piece of metal), the energy is released (spell slot wasted) but there is no effect. Against a target which the energy type can affect, it does so normally (puddle of water gets frozen by Ray of Frost).   RAW is to interpret the spell descriptions literally. In this case, I reason that the nature of creature-only targets is that the magic seeks a specific signature upon which to unleash its energy. This view of magic is more like a taser. If you don't touch it against a non-conductive surface, the electricity isn't discharged. In the same way, a non-creature is a "non-conductive" surface for the way creature-only spells operate.
#9 cowleymen Feb 25, 2015 2:54:16	RAF stand for rules as functions? havent seen that one before,   Usually as long as adapting the spell like that doesnt encroach upon another spell, then it is probably okay. I defenitly dont see why firebolt cant be used to set a bale of hay on fire. What do you expect to happen if someone threw a torch on it? Hell, my DM let me magic missle a bunch of weak koblod locks off of some prisoners, made for a really cool story. IN the end, if your playing the game for more story then tatical combat, its easier to let things like that and others mentioned in earlier post happen
#10 mellored Feb 25, 2015 6:29:17	rules as fun previously known as the rule of cool. or the "say yes" idea.
#11 Bloodscythe Feb 25, 2015 8:26:19	Nevvur wrote:
(Reply to #9) Nevvur	cowleymen wrote: