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

[iserith]

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.

I find the "hard line" easier than creating extra house rules or exceptions during play. I otherwise don't disagree that when I look at certain spells, it would make sense that they target objects even when they say creatures only. That said, constraint often spurs further creativity, so if players find they want really want to do a cool thing and their spell just won't get them there, they'll come up with some other creative ways to make it happen.

 

[Bupp]

B/C.
I had characters locked in a cell and the wizard used acid splash on the lock.

 

[Voadam]

I stick pretty hard to the written descriptions but I am flexible on a lot of applications.

I would have no problem with using a mordenkainen's sword to cut a rope, but magic missile would depend on the version, in some editions they worked only on the creature targeted and I went with a concept of them working like Shadowrun mana spells that could not target inanimate objects, just the animating life force of a creature (including constructs and undead).

My first step is to look up the wording of the spell and try to work from there.

 

[ad_hoc]

No to the Magic Missile example. I believe the magic is particular to targeting a creature. Spells are specific have rules that don't always make sense to our scientific minds. It's part of being magic.

Melf's Acid Arrow on the other hand is tailor made for this sort of thing. It specifically says 'target' in it not 'target creature'. It isn't the greatest combat spell but it is an arrow made of acid.

Yes to the Cone of Cold example. You can aim it wherever you want.

 

[Nefermandias]

Nope. Never.
Spells are powerful enough when you run them as written. You don't need to give casters any more help.

Also, Magic Missile to destroy inanimate objects was a bad example.

 

[J.Quondam]

Speaking about D&D generally, I mainly clock in at "B".
When RAW is clear, I try not to deviate from it. (Eg, since text of magic missile specifically is about targeting creatures, I'd no-go the chandelier rope case.)
But if RAW is not clear or silent on a particular case, I try remain flexible and let players come up with new ideas, "within reason." (Eg, because cone of cold can flash-freeze creatures in its AoE, it seems reasonable to me that it could also flash-freeze a pond.) If a ruling like that later proves to be overpowered or abused, I've got no problem putting a stop to it.**



* Unless it's a bad rule and needs to be corrected. Sometimes, yes, the designers are just plain wrong.
** "Revocable rulings" is a basic part of the table contract established at the start of most any game of mine.

 

[Shiroiken]

Having spells affect the environment is something that I've allowed, assuming the spell description doesn't have any reason why it shouldn't. I've almost never seen a scenario where this is unbalanced, since this result can often be done in a nonmagical way as well (usually just takes longer). The cost of the spell slot is seldom worth the benefit IMO.

Creative uses should be considered, but weighed against the existing rules. Water Walk is a 4th level ritual, while Cone of Cold is 5th level, so I wouldn't necessarily have an issue with it (I'd have the PCs making checks to get across before it melts though). There are lots of different ways spells can be used that aren't "as intended," and I think that creative uses should be looked into, albeit cautiously.

 

[HammerMan]

after being told time and time again since 5e came out that martial character 'roleplay' there way to having the options a spell caster does, I have to go with as written no creativity, or that argument is bunk.

 

[DEFCON 1]

B/C. I don't specifically tell them to use their spells in these creative ways, but if they bring it up I absolutely consider it. For me I look at what the spell does narratively in the fiction and go along with most things that make sense. A Cone of Cold freezing a pond being a great example. It's a higher-powered spell for a function that has no real ability to be done magically otherwise (as far as I can remember)... so if they suggest it as something they want to try, I'm all for it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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 used to be C, then around half way through 3.5 I switched to A...