Use Magic Missile to determine whether a statue is an Object or a Creature?(!)

I would not want to get in the habit of having a player walk into every room and try to target everything to see if it is a creature or not. I get where the players may have thought that the statue was another creature since they just fought one. I may not have asked for initiative just yet and told the players that nothing is threatening them just yet so there is no need. I do like the fact that you did not let the player waste a spell trying to cast MM.

I would let the PC cast the spell if I thought the player was armed with all the information in the situation or if I said that there is no visible threat and the player still wanted to not take chances or such. I guess I would also have some sort of damage mechanic imposed on the fighter if he went around hitting everything with his sword.

Travis Henry said:

.

Then I realized that Magic Missile can be used as a utility spell to determine whether something that looks like an Object (such as a statue, icicle, or stalactite) is really just an Object or whether it's a Creature (a Golem, Living Statue, Animated Object, Ice Mephit, Gargoyle, Piercer, or Mimic). Is that y'all's understanding as well?

Click to expand...

Of course, if that creature wasn't hostile before, it sure is gonna be now! And if it's got friends around the players might have just made things a whole lot worse for themselves.

So, it's a risk.

Maybe they should research a new spell, like that detect life one I really liked in Oblivion or Skyrim.

aco175 said:

I guess I would also have some sort of damage mechanic imposed on the fighter if he went around hitting everything with his sword.

Click to expand...

Well, as first person to hit the statue with a metal weapon, the Fighter did receive an electric shock (2hp dmg). The statue was a trap, not a creature.

the Jester said:

From the perspective of my playstyle preferences, the real question here is this: in the in-game fiction- to the pcs in the game- what's the difference between how this went down and "living statue loses initiative and hasn't done anything yet"? At least sometimes, the two instances are indistinguishable from the perspective of the pcs. So the issue is whether you want to give the players information that the characters don't have by telling them not to roll initiative.

Click to expand...

If you really want to get technical (and who doesn't?!), the DM is the only one who makes the call for ability checks which is what initiative is. So if that rule had been followed, then the players will had to have acted solely on the information they had from the DM's description of the environment rather than the meta-information of the DM's call for initiative that implied the statue was a creature.

I would not allow these 'attack' spells to be used as an automatic creature detector, as that is meta-gaming the spells, imho. It is magic, and treating it like shooting an arrow and some such, while having a certain logic, does not necessarily follow.

iserith said:

I make no judgment as to the outcome and believe the OP when he or she says that everyone had a good time with it. I still think the assent to roll initiative in this case is worth examining.

Click to expand...

Haha, yeah I was aware in moment that it was a judgement call as to whether to assent to their request for Initiative. But I happily decided on "Okay, Yes", because:

1) there have been a few other times in our campaign when the players themselves have asked if they could go into, or stay in, Initiative mode outside of combat, so that everyone could take their turn (in talking or making skill checks) in an orderly fashion. And so, it was not a novel or anomalous ruling to allow (call for) Initiative in what was not necessarily a combat encounter...but which certainly *appeared* to be a combat encounter to the players.

And 2), it would be a bit of fun. Anyway, the players were satisfied. They are still proud they so roundly defeated the Bronze Statue. It's not like I made fun of them (except on this ENWorld thread! haha)

Even if it were clear to everyone that it was just an Object, such as the broad side of a barn (or a dread gazebo), if two or more PCs are kinda competing to see who hits the barn or gazebo first, then let's roll Initiative!

Following the previous fight with the Living Rock Statue, they had clearly dropped out of the previous Initiative, having regrouped themselves into marching order to walk down the hall. And their blitz approach to the second statue was not that different from their blitz approach to the previous statue. The only difference being that I told them the Living Rock Statue had started to move, at which point I'd asked for Initiative. Yet as they approached the second statue, I told them that the statue was not moving. Yet they were still set on preemptively wailing on it, just in case it turned out to be animated. So, if they're going to take turns in melee attacks on an Object, let's roll Initiative! And it really mattered who went first, because the first person to hit the Bronze Statue with a metal melee weapon would receive an electric shock. (Yes, that was all in the BD&D adventure-as-written.)

The Initiative question is a separate matter - and I know it was a fine ruling, though understand it could've been ruled in other valid ways, as other posters have voiced.

The question of targeting an Object with a magic missile would've still been there even if they'd stayed in Initiative order following the previous encounter.

The two issues are only related because they both relate to whether and when the players can know, in a meta-gaming way, whether an entity is an Object or Creature (in the case of targeting Magic Missile) or whether the entity represents a Non-Combat Encounter or Combat Encounter (in regard to whether Initiative is called for).

My question wasn't whether the "presence or absence of a call to roll Initiative" can be used by the players to determine whether an encounter is a "combat" or "non-combat" encounter. haha

iserith said:

Xanathar's Guide to Everything (p. 85-86): "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."

This section is presented as an expansion on the spellcasting rules in the PHB and DMG. If the DM isn't aware of it or the group doesn't use this book (or the relevant section thereof), then obviously it may not apply.

Click to expand...

Thanks iserith. Yes, this is what I was wondering.
I feel that my ruling in the moment - since we have only the core rules - was valid in that context. Xanathar's Guide wouldn't have addressed that topic if it hadn't been an unresolved question in the core rules-as-written.
I described it to the player as (something like): "Your wizard can tell the spell formula is not able to affix the spell to that target."

I see that Xanathar's Guide provides an official ruling. Good to know. I'll probably bring that to the group as a rules update at our table.

Travis Henry said:

Haha, yeah I was aware in moment that it was a judgement call as to whether to assent to their request for Initiative. But I happily decided on "Okay, Yes", because:

1) there have been a few other times in our campaign when the players themselves have asked if they could go into, or stay in, Initiative mode outside of combat, so that everyone could take their turn (in talking or making skill checks) in an orderly fashion. And so, it was not a novel or anomalous ruling to allow Initiative in what was not necessarily a combat encounter...but which certainly *appeared* to be a combat encounter to the players.

Click to expand...

Sure, I sometimes use Initiative just as a means to control the spotlight. I'm just careful to mention that it isn't necessarily because I expect or an implying a combat may break out.

Travis Henry said:

Following the previous fight with the Living Rock Statue, they had clearly dropped out of the previous Initiative, having regrouped themselves into marching order to walk down the hall. And their blitz approach to the second statue was not that different from their blitz approach to the previous statue. The only difference being that I told them the Living Rock Statue had started to move, at which point I'd asked for Initiative. Yet as they approached the second statue, I told them that the statue was not moving. Yet they were still set on preemptively wailing on it, just in case it turned out to be animated. So, if they're going to take turns in melee attacks on an Object, let's roll Initiative! And it really mattered who went first, because the first person to hit the Bronze Statue with a metal melee weapon would receive an electric shock. (Yes, that was all in the BD&D adventure-as-written.)

Click to expand...

In this situation, I likely would have told the player who asked about rolling initiative "No, as there is no conflict right now..." or words to that effect. Then if they wanted to wail on the statue, I would have asked which character would be the first to approach the statue and do that, resolving the electric shock accordingly and revealing that the statue did not animate in response. This likely would have ended the mystery there, though again I make no judgment as to whether that's a better outcome than the one you had.

Travis Henry said:

The Initiative question is a separate matter - and I know it was a fine ruling, though understand it could've been ruled in other valid ways, as other posters have voiced.

The question of targeting an Object with a magic missile would've still been there even if they'd stayed in Initiative order following the previous encounter.

The two issues are only related because they both relate to whether and when the players can know, in a meta-gaming way, whether an entity is an Object or Creature (in the case of targeting Magic Missile) or whether the entity represents a Non-Combat Encounter or Combat Encounter (in regard to whether Initiative is called for).

My question wasn't whether the "presence or absence of a call to roll Initiative" can be used by the players to determine whether an encounter is a "combat" or "non-combat" encounter. haha

Click to expand...

Yes, I would say the issues are related, but your question is more on the utility of spells to determine whether something is a creature or object, as you say. I personally don't care about "metagaming" even a little bit. I do try to be very careful about what I say to the players though so that they can make informed decisions and that includes what mechanics I call into play.

Travis Henry said:

Thanks iserith. Yes, this is what I was wondering.
I feel that my ruling in the moment - since we have only the core rules - was valid in that context. Xanathar's Guide wouldn't have addressed that topic if it hadn't been an unresolved question in the core rules-as-written.
I described it to the player as (something like): "Your wizard can tell the spell formula is not able to affix the spell to that target."

I see that Xanathar's Guide provides an official ruling. Good to know. I'll probably bring that to the group as a rules update at our table.

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I think that the "official ruling" of expending a spell slot is a bit harsh.

iserith said:

For what it's worth, I think that the "official ruling" of expending a spell slot is a bit harsh.

Click to expand...

It may be harsh, but I think it's totally fair.

If the caster doesn't want to waste a slot, they can make a better decision than blindly throwing any old spell at the problem.