D&D 5E Can a fireball melt ice?

[Yardiff]

From page 102 of the SRD:

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

And here is Scorching Ray, from p 174 of the SRD:

You create three rays of fire and hurl them at targets within range. You can hurl them at one target or several.​

So first, the statement on p 102 is literally false. Not all spell descriptions tell us whether they target creatures or objects.

Second, the Tweet is not just a restatement of this rule, because this rule does not establish any default in favour of targeting creatures or objects, whereas the Tweet does: it establishes a presumption against targeting objects.

Third, can a character use Scorching Ray to set fire to a scroll rack? Or does s/he have to light a torch to do that?

Or suppose the PCs are cold at night and have no tinderbox - can they use Scorching Ray to light a campfire? Or are the rays of fire rays of pseudo-fire that is not capable of igniting flammable material?

If you take Jeremy Crawford's Tweet at face value, then Scorching Ray cannot set fire to a scroll rack, or a torch, or a campfire, because "If a spell can target objects, its description says so", and the spell description doesn't say so.

Let me get this straight.....

You actually need the text in each spell to tell you that 'target' means either an object or a creature? You couldn't figure that out on your own?

Edit

 

[Maxperson]

From page 102 of the SRD:

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

And here is Scorching Ray, from p 174 of the SRD:

You create three rays of fire and hurl them at targets within range. You can hurl them at one target or several.​

So first, the statement on p 102 is literally false. Not all spell descriptions tell us whether they target creatures or objects.

So the spell left out key language. That doesn't make 102 wrong. It makes the spell wrong.

Second, the Tweet is not just a restatement of this rule, because this rule does not establish any default in favour of targeting creatures or objects, whereas the Tweet does: it establishes a presumption against targeting objects.

Seriously? A rule specifically about how spells target creatures and objects doesn't establish a default about targeting creatures and objects?

Third, can a character use Scorching Ray to set fire to a scroll rack? Or does s/he have to light a torch to do that?

Given the error in language of the spell, it would up up to the DM to decide what can be targeted. The spell was supposed to say, but it doesn't.

If you take Jeremy Crawford's Tweet at face value, then Scorching Ray cannot set fire to a scroll rack, or a torch, or a campfire, because "If a spell can target objects, its description says so", and the spell description doesn't say so.

Not true. His tweet is about the rule on page 204 and the language written into spells. If a spell was written in error like scorching ray and has no language in it specifying what it targets, his tweet has no bearing on that spell. The DM must step in and correct the hole in the rules like DMs have done since the game was invented.

 

[Maxperson]

Let me get this straight.....

You actually need the text to in each spell to tell you that 'target' means object and/or creature? You couldn't figure that out on your own?


Edit: Here is what its says about targets....

[h=2]Targets[/h]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 (described below).
Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise

His point is valid. The rule is that the spell tells you. Where the spell does not tell you, like scorching ray, the DM has to decide. The spell in this case could target creatures, objects, or both. How are we supposed to know just by reading it? We can't. Personally, I would allow it to target one or the other, but not both at once. That would keep it consistent with the other fire spells that don't damage worn objects.

 

[Yardiff]

His point is valid. The rule is that the spell tells you. Where the spell does not tell you, like scorching ray, the DM has to decide. The spell in this case could target creatures, objects, or both. How are we supposed to know just by reading it? We can't. Personally, I would allow it to target one or the other, but not both at once. That would keep it consistent with the other fire spells that don't damage worn objects.

Maybe...

Myself if the spell says target and doesn't specify object or creature you can choose which when you target. Scorching ray is a more pin point spell then fireball.

 

[Maxperson]

Maybe...

Myself if the spell says target and doesn't specify object or creature you can choose which when you target. Scorching ray is a more pin point spell then fireball.

Right, but that's how you would do it, not how the rules say to do it. You and I are basically running it the same way, but by the straight reading of the rules one page 204 and the spell itself, it would be equally valid to limit it to objects or creatures and not allow it to affect both. This is because the spell doesn't say.

 

[Yardiff]

Let me get this straight.....

You actually need the text in each spell to tell you that 'target' means either an object or a creature? You couldn't figure that out on your own?

Edit

Sorry pemerton that post came of more snarky then wanted.

 

[Yardiff]

Right, but that's how you would do it, not how the rules say to do it. You and I are basically running it the same way, but by the straight reading of the rules one page 204 and the spell itself, it would be equally valid to limit it to objects or creatures and not allow it to affect both. This is because the spell doesn't say.

I think your forgetting 'specific trump general', general spell targets object or creature or AoE. Scorching ray 'specific' doesnt specify object or creature so it can target either/or. Again thats how I read it as 'common sense'/'makes sense'.

 

[Maxperson]

I think your forgetting 'specific trump general', general spell targets object or creature or AoE. Scorching ray 'specific' doesnt specify object or creature so it can target either/or. Again thats how I read it as 'common sense'/'makes sense'.

It's not specific, though. That's the problem. It's vague and unspecific. I do see where you are coming from, though.

 

[pemerton]

Let me get this straight.....

You actually need the text in each spell to tell you that 'target' means either an object or a creature? You couldn't figure that out on your own?

You seem to have me confused with some other poster. I think the rules are perfectly clear, but I'm also not the one who's putting forward Jeremy Crawford's own house rules and rulings (via Twitter) as authoritative interpretations of the SRD.

 

[Maxperson]

You seem to have me confused with some other poster. I think the rules are perfectly clear, but I'm also not the one who's putting forward Jeremy Crawford's own house rules and rulings (via Twitter) as authoritative interpretations of the SRD.

It's not a house rule. He's stating page 204 rules on targeting. The spell description will tell you if something can target objects. If it isn't in the description, it cannot by RAW target objects.