D&D 5E Non-Combat use of Combat spells

[Professor Murder]

So was just musing on this. As a DM, how do you handle purely combat spells used in non-combat applications. As in, the use of a spell that its description or concept may support, but its mechanics either don't specify or clearly, rules as written, doesn't work that way. Simplest example would be say using Magic Missile to sever the rope of a chandelier, or Cone of Cold to freeze over a portion of a pond so the heroes can race across it.

A) RAW only. No such uses permitted.
B) Willing to listen when the players make the case.
C) Actively encourage players to come up with clever uses of spells.
D) Other.

 

[Negflar2099]

So was just musing on this. As a DM, how do you handle purely combat spells used in non-combat applications. As in, the use of a spell that its description or concept may support, but its mechanics either don't specify or clearly, rules as written, doesn't work that way. Simplest example would be say using Magic Missile to sever the rope of a chandelier, or Cone of Cold to freeze over a portion of a pond so the heroes can race across it.

A) RAW only. No such uses permitted.
B) Willing to listen when the players make the case.
C) Actively encourage players to come up with clever uses of spells.
D) Other.

I'm C all the way. I love it when my players are creative even if it violates RAW. Last session I was running my group through Hidden Shrine and (spoiler alert) one of the players got hit with the liquid light. Another player suggested using absorb elements to transfer it to a dead body. Awesome idea and I was all for it.

 

[iserith]

The role of the DM is, in part, to mediate between the players and the rules. The use of a spell that goes against what the spell specifies (e.g. trying to target objects with a spell that only targets creatures) is not something you can do in my games. This doesn't mean players can't be clever with spell usage. It just means they can't break the rules with them.

 

[Quickleaf]

I totally encourage creativity. If a player is starting to twist the spell beyond its design intent, then I'll often say "yes, you can do that, but you'll need to upcast the spell" or "yes, you can try that, but you'll need to make an Arcana check, and such-and-such a bad thing might happen if you fail."

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So was just musing on this. As a DM, how do you handle purely combat spells used in non-combat applications. As in, the use of a spell that its description or concept may support, but its mechanics either don't specify or clearly, rules as written, doesn't work that way. Simplest example would be say using Magic Missile to sever the rope of a chandelier, or Cone of Cold to freeze over a portion of a pond so the heroes can race across it.

A) RAW only. No such uses permitted.
B) Willing to listen when the players make the case.
C) Actively encourage players to come up with clever uses of spells.
D) Other.

B/C here.

I disagree with @iserith's hardline approach in that I think there are a few spells in 5E which have target which is kind of nonsensical given the spell description, and which I suspect might be the result of oversights or overbalancing. But there are far more where the targeting rules largely make sense and I would tend to stick with them.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

In our Curse of Strahd/Ravenloft West Marches game, one of the druids in our pool of characters used the 3rd level spell Erupting Earth to help remove the Gulthias Tree stump from the ground and then cast it a second time to unearth the Blood Spear of Kavan.

 

[Professor Murder]

Typically, I allow spells that have physical effects to affect non-creature targets. As in my above example, a rope has an AC and HP, so its not unreasonable to say a spell that does force damage like Magic Missile can target it. My concern is ultimately PCs bogging down encounters seeking for perfect corner case applications, or even abusing RAW.

Best example: In 3rd ed, I had a Cleric PC who wished to use Summon Monster to conjure a decidedly large creature, like say a whale or elephant, directly above an enemy at max range and just drop it on them. I turned him down.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I'm more of an A/C type. In combat, I am pretty strict about what a spell can and can't do (no, you can't target shocking grasp in someone's face to blind them). Spells do what they say they do.

Out of combat, I'm more forgiving - my general rule is that it can't contradict what the rules say and it can't duplicate an existing spell (especially one of a higher level), but between those two lines, there's still a lot that you can do if you get creative. There are a number of very good non-combat spells out there, and I think allowing combat spells to do the same thing as one of them isn't fair, for example, to the wizard that diversifies their spellbook vs. the one that just picks only damage-dealing spells.

 

[Li Shenron]

I generally play safe and stick to the intended use of each spell, if for no other reason than not making spellcasters even more tactically flexible.

I would let creativity loose only if playing with candid players such as children, or anyone who doesn't care for effective use of resources and for example tends to leave a lot of spells slots unused. But with players who look for how to get the most out of the RAW, I wouldn't give them anything beyond the RAW itself.

 

[CleverNickName]

I've sent a lightning bolt skyward as a threat, to demonstrate my wizard's power and to emphasize just how hard the marauding band of gnolls would have to work if they were to dare attack my caravan. Not only did I get Advantage on the Intimidation roll, but we got full XP for defeating the entire war band. And all it cost me was a single third-level spell slot.