Spells that target creatures but not objects

[Prakriti]

Is there any good reason not to let spells like Eldritch Blast or Ray of Frost target an object when other spells, like Fire Bolt, can?

It seems like a pointless limitation.

 

[Sleepy Walker]

Even if the spell said "This spell attack may only target creatures." I still would not play it that way. Too much fun interacting with environments.

 

[Josiah Stoll]

Well, I can see an “Eldritch Blast” targeting an inanimate object. But I can’t see a “Finger of Death” doing the same thing. I think it’s just a classification error.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Is there any good reason not to let spells like Eldritch Blast or Ray of Frost target an object when other spells, like Fire Bolt, can?

Specifically with Eldritch Blast, you could use the special ability that pushes your target to move objects at a distance, and that could get very difficult to adjudicate when you're throwing out three blasts in a round. With that kind of useful at-will magic, I'd be more prone to try and solve obstacles with an impromptu game of Portal than in the usual way, and that's not something that an inexperienced DM could deal with very easily.

For things like Ray of Frost, there's an issue where different objects may react in unusual ways. You probably can't harm a rock by freezing it, for example, but sufficient rules to explain that would be prohibitive in terms of complexity. Likewise for Chill Touch, however that one is supposed to work. To contrast with Fire Bolt, people have a pretty good understanding of how fire works, and there's plenty of reason why you might well want to attack a rope or torch or something.

I don't know if you consider that a good reason, but it's something. Ultimately, I would just recommend that the DM approach it on a case-by-case basis, and let those abilities target objects but sometimes not have an appreciable effect.

 

[Nevvur]

Can you define a "good reason?"

It's RAW, and that's a pretty good reason for most rules questions at my table. I think there's inherent value in playing the game as closely to the original parameters established by the system developers.

That said, I do allow it at my tables. It's not an official house rule I've brought to committee because it simply doesn't come up often enough to codify it. The biggest practical game change has been that PCs occasionally use their cantrips as magical probes. For instance, to determine whether that suspicious statue is in fact an animated object. Honestly, though, they could just shoot an arrow at it, instead, and get the same test results. The value in abiding by the RAW targeting requirements of spell descriptions seems questionable in this light.

Treating cantrips as a probe has happened maybe 3 or 4 times over 150ish sessions. If I had a player who was wasting a lot of time and disrupting game play with incessant probing, I have some ideas on how I would handle it. Fortunately for me, that's never come up, so I continue to run games with my unofficial house rule without a problem.

As with many house rules, objectively right and wrong answers are hard to come by. A lot hinges on the individuals within the group and how they will interact with a given rule.

 

[hbarsquared]

No. But it's silly to need to account for every possibility in every spell description.

I'm glad there's not a line that says "Target: any creature or object or square or image or blahblahblah"

That's what the DM is for.

 

[AmerginLiath]

“I disintegrate the king’s pants.”

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Can you define a "good reason?"

It's RAW, and that's a pretty good reason for most rules questions at my table. I think there's inherent value in playing the game as closely to the original parameters established by the system developers.

Because, an just about any game system out there, RAW and Common Sense do not always lead to the same result. And my houserules go in favor of common sense, even in a magical setting.

 

[Iry]

You can get an enormous amount of amazing and incredible fun casting spells on the environment.

So no, I would never sacrifice that much fun without an insanely good reason.

 

[Oofta]

From in-world justification, lower level spells that do force damage such as eldritch blast and magic missile don't do physical damage, they're doing life force damage. No life force, no damage. Even a construct has a magical life force. I think of it like magical Star Trek phasers. At high enough energy levels it can do physical damage. Of course it's not 100% consistent but ... magic.

Ray of frost? Last time I checked my mug didn't freeze to death even when I forgot and left in the car overnight in subzero temps. The temperature difference wasn't enough to harm it. Meanwhile take a blow torch to it would have melted it.