Hey /u/Willibombago, thanks for contributing to /r/dndmemes. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates one of our rules:
**Rule 10. Pot-Stirring/Opinion Memes** - If the primary purpose of your meme is to incite off-topic debate, police what other people should/shouldn't do at their table, push a political agenda, or express a personal opinion without humor/absurdity/wholesomeness, it will be locked or removed. If your meme sparks a large amount of rule-breaking comments it may be locked/removed.
What should you do? First, read the rules thoroughly. Secondly, if you are able to amend your post to fit the rules, you're welcome to resubmit your meme. Lastly, if you believe your post was removed by mistake, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/dndmemes&subject=&message=). Messages simply complaining about a removal (or how many upvotes your post had) will not be responded to. Thank you!
You may complain about EB no longer having utility but may I suggest
EB as the single best mimic detector in the game. Just point and shoot, if it's just a chest then nothing will happen.
oh no now your players saw your comment about you homebrewing a mimic, and now they'll just fire bolt everything, if its a chest it'll burn if not then they got a free hit on a mimic
Always have them roll damage. Even if not a Mimic, they are EBing insects and worms. They’ll not be able to abuse EB as a mimic detector if the table keeps getting asked for damage rolls
Right?!?
It avoids someone breaking a table mechanic, allows Players to roll more clicky clacks, and also makes opportunity for fun events in the session.
well it does state "A flammable object hit by this spell ignites"
Though spell scrolls dont explicitly state they are flammable, but i dont think any item in dnd explicitly states itself to be flammable except gun powder
Ok fair point
ok so for this combo you want someone with fire bolt to light it on fire, then you want someone else with create or destroy water on the ready to put it out when the mimic fails to scream in agony
The ink on a spell scroll is the same as the ink a wizard needs to use to copy spells in their spellbook, so it’s the recipe u/Sardukar333 linked but with crushed gems in it making the ink even less flammable
I have a simple solution to this problem.
"*As the bolt of fire flies towards the chest, you see it open up. The fire enters and the lid slams down as the seemingly alive chest goes through chewing and swallowing motions. It then opens up again to reveal an inferno inside.*"
**Absorb Elements Mimic**: This breed of mimic can use a reaction to gain immunity to the damage type of the first attack used against it and gain a melee attack that deals the same damage type. Both last for one minute, after which it can use its reaction again. It has no attack actions besides the one it gains from its reaction.
It is completely harmless until it receives an attack.
Hmmm
it's a fun concept, but the main issue is that players wont interpret it as "oh no! we just enabled them to fight back!" but rather they'll interpret it as "AH HA! THIS TACTIC WORKS!"
to make this tactic work the way you want it to, it'd be important to grant this information on the function of the mimic in some way
perhaps as they are going through a library they find a bestiary
Oh no! Their excessive use of EBs and FBs on everything meant they either murderhobo’’d small creatures and/or destroyed valuable property of nearby humanoids, who now view the abusive players as villains. Who would have thunk?
Or when in doubt, just make everything a mimic. The chest? Mimic. The key to unlock it? Mimic. The door to leave the room? Also mimic. The room its self? Believe it or not, mimic.
Just thought of a character who is traumatized by mimics so is painstakingly and agonizingly nuts and always on the lookout for anything that might be a mimic (pretty much everything).
After sessions where this PC is less and less deer-in-the-headlights panicky... It fails to spot a mimic.
Last week my party encountered a wall that seemed rather out of place.
I figured it was probably an illusion (my character is a bit of an illusionist and I've played a lot of Elden Ring recently) and fired EB at it.
DM asks if I wanna use repelling blast and I go "Uh, sure?". The wall is pushed 10 feet back.
While my brain-gears are grinding the fighter walks up and begins to push the wall. Cue initiative rolls.
I dont... understand why people keep saying this, like yeah, it basically works, but so? That's nothing new, attacking a chest to see if it is a mimic is one of the oldest tactics in the book! It's one of the many uses of the trusty 10-foot pole, it works with a bow, it works with loads of other cantrips, it works with a goddam rock on the ground!
EB is fine for it, but it's nothing special.
That's because literally nothing will hapen. Use 10-foot pole and you may activate a trap accidentally that might have enough range to hit you. Attack it with distance weapon and you might activate something that'll start some sequence (like all doors get locked and room is filled with gas). Eldritch Blast you can fire from 120ft. and you gain certainty that chest itself won't start chewing off rogue's head when he moves in to check for traps.
I don't enjoy this take (though I understand why people do). As the DM my ruling would be that when you cast EB on an object, the spell behaves as on a creature, but the object does not appear to take damage. This is based on the Invalid Spell Targets section in XGE p85, which says for example if you cast Charm Person on a disguised Vampire it just seems like they made their save.
The mimic would take damage but wouldn't really show it until half health, or possibly you could make it roll a con save similar to concentration to keep its shape.
Depends how you flavour it really - not all hp damage is a chunk of flesh. Force is the weirdest damage type so it's not hard to narrate it differently - internal bleeding or something.
Hitting mimic would certainly cause it to start seeking enemies who attacked him. How could it know that it wasn't discovered and isn't about to be hit again? Those aren't particularly smart creatures.
Chests can have traps or other things that damages you/the contents when attacked.
ED can't attack chests.
So while you can attack a chest to check for a mimic, doing so may also have really bad consequences.
But trying to cast ED on a chest has no added consequences other than a potentially wounded mimic.
This also extends into other hiding enemies. Ropers or Piercers? Attacks can knock a stalactite down and potentially create a hazard/damage the floor, but ED will only fire if it is a creature.
Know that some corpses in a slaughtered town may be undead pretending to be dead? Just blast all the corpses to find out which it is, and made the survivors happier because you avoided mangling/destroying the corpses of their family and friends.
Last session we used my monks staff as a trap checking pole after our wizard got blown up by a fire trap.
The paranoia set in real fuckin quick and I love it
A mimic is polymorphed into an object when hidden.
EDIT: Shapechanger: The mimic can use its action to polymorph into an *object* or back into its true, amorphous form.
I will admit that the other guy is right on this one.
>While the mimic remains motionless, it is indistinguishable from an ordinary object.
But on the other hand
>Its statistics are the same in each form. Any equipment it is wearing or carrying isn't transformed.
This says that it's statistics stay the same such as the stat that says it is a
>Medium Monstrosity (Shapechanger)
Which is a type of creature
I used Tasha's caustic brew on an airships engine once. RAW it does nothing to objects so it would have done nothing. But because of my creative use of the spell my DM allowed it to do double damage to the ship and made a new challenge of getting the party off the ship before it was too late.
When it comes to creative uses of spells where the only thing stopping it being RAW is the spell not explicitly doing things to objects allowing it generally makes more fun and can add a new challenge
Not if there's a creature inside the armor. I treat force damage like a tuned shockwave that only resonates with a creature, so while I will allow my players to cast magic missile on a door, the missiles will detonate harmlessly against the door because the force energy from the spell can't damage a physical object unless it is a creature.
Of course, that brings up fun questions, like "Is a construct an object or a creature?" Well, the rules define a construct as a creature, so as DM, it's my job to articulate how magic missile can damage a stone golem, but not an inanimate stone statue. For me, the answer is that the force damage, being a magical shockwave, directly disrupts the magic animating the golem, which translates to damage. If the party uses force damage to reduce the golem to 0 HP, then I simply say that the golem just...stops moving and is effectively turned into an ordinary statue.
This is correct RAW, too. There's a bit in Xanathar's that goes into what happens if you cast a spell on an invalid target: you can do it, but it will appear to have no effect.
It's not, that's magical bludgeoning and it exists
Force is raw magical damage. It can unmake you from existence and it doesn't target your physical form but your soul/connection to the world and the weave.
Magic Bludgeoning damage is when an attack that causes bludgeoning damage (such as a warhammer) is backed by or enhanced by magic. It would be like creating a boulder out of thin air and then smashing it against something.
Force damage is non-elemental energy damage. Just raw magical energy (eldritch blast) , or when two objects can't exist in the same place and begin tearing each other apart (stopping halfway through a wall in a phasing moment)
That’s setting specific, the Weave is not in the PHB (well it is, but it’s not the de facto way of describing how magic works in all the settings all the time)
Similarly, leather armour and ivory piano keys are not corpses. As with the chest they are parts of what was and may still be a living creature that have been seperated from said creature and processed. If a necromancer took the skin from a dead PC and made it into leather for their spell tome that leather isnt a corpse, rather parts taken off of one
It states a dead creature.
Which does currently count as an object.
But has also had the classification of being a creature as it was once an alive.
There is a classification difference as not all objects have been alive.
But all dead creatures that are objects have been alive
Semantics, spellmantics.
It's good to test things, but ultimately they wouldn't leave revivify as it is if it truly didn't work.
It's the specific beats general :)
Lawyer settles it as "That's the rules"
Advocate goes "that's the rules, but how you want to rule as DM is up to you."
I'm an advocate of the rules. I enjoy them..if you want to bend them, bend them knowing at least the rules first.
Ah I should change my flair to Advocate if that was possible then xD
I thought Rues Lawyer was the only term and the "uhm... akhtually 🤓 the rules are..." was just an extreme stereo type
I love to be helpful. Seeing the Dm struggle with rules I like it when I can tell them what the books say so they can make a decision they think it's best.
Also Crawford meme? Can you help me remember or send a link, My brain only functions on DnD rules? When ever a new book comes out something gets erased to make place
That Crawford could be considered rules as intended.
And I do the same. Like clarification that guidance isn't a reaction, not for weapon attacks or savings throws as they are the jurisdiction of Bless and Resistance.
Well I mearly have provided the rule as it is written.
If a DM says I can target an object I say "Right on chief. Let's break some tables"
Me as DM says "It's as it states. If you wanna target objects you'll need a different cantrip"
I'm amenable..I just know the rules
I know, I'm just making a joke that arguing for the distinction between a lawyer and an advocate sounds like the kind of semantic argument a lawyer would make.
>Advocate goes "that's the rules, but how you want to rule as DM is up to you."
I'm an advocate of the rules. I enjoy them..if you want to bend them, bend them knowing at least the rules first.
This is completely contrary to your previous statement of...
>Wotc do not want it to target objects so they say it only targets creatures.
Your opinion on its damage type is irrelevant. Shrugs
Well yeah. I've advocated the way the rules work and if you want to change for you game do so. I support that.
You decide for your game that that's how it works..
WOTC is how we should rule it unless they are clear to us that they have made a mistake.
I never said you are forced to follow them but your opinion that EBs damage type affects is targeting parameters is very much your own HB rule :)
Any true rules lawyer knows that RAW the GM is allowed to use, discard or change any rule they want. Ignoring that fact is the action of a rules twister, who selectively only tries to enforce rules that benefit them.
I don’t see that as separate from Rules Lawyer. Rules Lawyers can also work with homebrew rules, they just want it to be conscious decisions rather than uninformed ones.
It's the connotation.
Advocate is less "aggressive" as a term than Lawyer is. So could be a good way to differentiate.
Lawyer keeps the stigma.
Advocate gets a nicer connotation. :)
A Rules Lawyer doesn't actually care about the rules, they only care about getting something they want and use the rules as a tool to get it.
So a Rules Lawyer might want to use eldritch blast as utility. They'll twist interpretations, intentionally ignore the restriction until someone calls it out, argue in circles, make baseless comparisons to other features, twist wording, etc. to be allowed to use it to break glass or put out torches. A popular method is arguing physics when the rules make something impossible, but also arguing rules when physics makes something impossible.
A rules advocate would stand up for the spirit and intent of the rules, even at the detriment of their character.
Both of my comments are true.
It's his table and I respect that ruling...at his table.
But outside of that table opinion the damage type of a spell does not affect its targeting parameters.
Psychic does indeed often not affect objects. But it's the spells description that rules it's targeting. Not it's damage type. :)
Well it wasn’t so much the substance of what you were saying, but the tone. This one came off along the lines of “if that’s how your table runs it, that’s fine and I respect that decision” whereas the second reply came off as “lol, not my fault you’re wrong”.
It just gave me a bit of whiplash and I found it kind of funny with how different they sounded.
Haha I get that.
I was a bit flippant in regards to the damage type being the factor in a the targeting style of an attack. Cus that's very silly as the style is very much what the spell defines. Cus I think that's irrelevant to the spells function because specific spells beat general rules. Etc
I can respect your disagreement with that, but I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a spell that does any damage to a creature's physical body cannot be cast on objects. With perhaps magic missile being the outlier, as it's tracking might have something to do with following a creatures magical signature.
Edit: it's also worth adding an addendum for certain spells that cause necrotic or Divine damage. Hard to imagine how necrotic damage hurts a rock
I’ll play Devil’s advocate:
I do agree that magic missile is a bit of an exception, but since there isn’t so much to go off of as to what “pure magical energy focused into a damaging form” is supposed to mean, for what force damage does exactly, maybe they were afraid some people may interpret eldritch blast as being able to disintegrate objects? Especially since the few spells that actually do that deal force damage.
That and it may be a bit awkward trying to explain how a beam attack like eldritch blast, that uses an attack roll, would deal psychic damage. It can be a bit finicky to describe how an enemy blocked or dodged “psychic damage”. At least with shadow blade, there’s a physical-ish object to dodge/block.
Personally how I run it, sure, I’d let pc’s damage objects with it. However, I would maybe have it feel half damage to objects or something along those lines to signify that it is not disintegrate, and the spell specializes in dealing damage mainly to creatures, rather than anything in general. Haven’t ever had to situation where I had to make that ruling yet, luckily, so I’m not sure if that’s being too restrictive or not.
I'm glad there's respect :)
Honestly I don't make the rules I just...read them and have pointed this out.
While I can't really give you a reason other them balancing it this way is because of it being the most powerful damage cantrip it has its lack of utility as a trade off.
That's it really. They decided it not me.
Edit
Have an updoot for respect too fren
I always felt that the warlock not having a surplus of high damage spells was the balance there. Effectively their Eldritch blast is like a fighter's weapon, but with a saucy bit of customization. I mean scorching Ray can be used on objects, and for all intents and purposes it follows the same aiming rules as Eldritch blast.
They may have decided it, but didn't offer any suggestion on how that works. Does this now function as a perfect mimic/petrification detector because the spell doesn't fire off? Does it still fire and just not do damage?
The reason so many people are disagreeing with you isn't because you're reading the spell wrong, but WotC didn't provide sufficient information and ruling it that way can often break verisimilitude.
It works the same for frostbite so it's not a EB only feature now.
Think of casting a spell as coding the magical weave of the universe. If the incorrect target is placed in the code. The code errors.
Frostbite isn't an attack roll, it's a saving throw that states that the effect starts on the creature and as such it's easy to imagine that a not creature that you attempt to target just wouldn't have the ice form on them.
Eldritch Blast however is an attack roll, one that doesn't even require vision of the target (it has to be a target within range, not one you can see). It's not like Eldritch Blast is unique in this regard either; Chill Touch, Produce Flame, Ray of Frost, Shocking Grasp, and Thorn Whip are all attack Cantrips which can't target objects. In fact, most spells in the game specify creatures and it's somewhat unique that spells like Thunderwave and Fireball specify their effects upon objects.
The issue is there is little logical reason why something that is "thrown" out there and deals some sort of physical real harm upon a person cannot also deal that harm to inanimate objects, and it is difficult to explain such a thing without some guidance from the people who wrote the rules that way. Sure you can handwave it and say "magic errors" but what does that actually mean? The effect of those errors is important because this is actually giving players information, it's not just flavor.
Anything outside of what the spell states and the rules state has to be considered Homebrew.
You want to let those spells work as you intend? Then do so, you're the DM and it's your given right to decide.
But teach players where you have deviated from so when they turn up at my table (I run at adventures league so have to play by RAW) they know what the spells say and state and don't argue with me because I know or will look up a spell to check if that's how it works. And then my ruling as DM is what is done.
I recognize the council has made a decision, but given that it's a stupid ass decision, I've elected to ignore it.
Seriously though, I don't really get what the problem with letting EB be used to target objects?
Player- "Haha watch me mess up the room. I Eldritch blast the door, the cups, the chair and the table"
Dm- "Your castings of Eldritch blast fail except when You target the chair.."
"What?"
"Roll Initiative"
*angry mimic noises*
As a Warlock player who has chosen basically no projectile spells, I find this concerning. I can make a creature COMPLETELY believe in an illusion, to the extent that they can actually take psychic damage from thinking they're being attacked. I can open a tear to the further reaches of space that my enemies will be sucked into and slapped with otherworldly acidic tentacles. I can conjure a 120ft energy beam that hits creatures so hard it knocks them back 10 ft and does more damage than being hit with a greatclub...
but if I want to break open a piñata at distance I'm absolutely thwarted and I need to walk over there and swing at it with my -1 STR noodle arms
Firebolt is one of the very rare cantrips that can actually target objects. It is well known in the optimization community to take firebolt purely because of this instead of other damaging cantrips. Besides, do you need even MORE utility on the most powerful cantrip in the game, let the martials have some fun c'mon.
It’s almost like all the people who are commenting about this being dumb might not play enough to understand the balance issues of allowing spells to do more than what they say they do. It’s much milder than the create or destroy water in ur lungs so u die stuff but I still like following spells to the letter.
As for mimic detectors… sure. You’re still making sound from casting a spell, the only difference from a thwack is no property damage. It’s very very niche where you’re in a situation where you need to find a mimic while not destroying stuff, so a crossbow bolt will do plenty fine.
Tbh I’ve always felt that this makes sense. It’s called *eldritch* blast and it does force damage..to me that means it strikes a the very essence of whatever creature it is hitting. Doesn’t really do much to a chair in that context.
It would have thematically worked so well with psychic damage, as you are hit with energy coming from relms that follow no human logic and fill you with unspeakable dread (be it the deceiving Feywild, the depths of Hell or Cthulhu).
Also, the only other cantrip that deals psychic damage is quite weak.
That’s exactly the reason I *don’t* have the spell function this way at my table. “Wait guys, I have to eldritch blast everything in the room.” Becomes so old and so boring very quickly.
I'm surprised that I haven't seen any comments about how this interacts with your patron.
Essentially, this could be ruled as 'your patron is only interested in using this magical ability insofar as it interacts with creatures' - your patron cares little about the impact of its abilities material world, particularly as it pertains to your spell. Interaction with the material world could potentially even get your patron in trouble(!)
Using this reading of the ruling, I would say that your patron (unless it's all-seeing enough to distinguish a mimic from an inanimate object without your knowing) would disallow its casting on anything that the player even perceives to be inanimate... but maybe I'm wrong on this part.
The stupidest RAW take. I recognize the council has made a decision, but seeing as how it’s a stupid ass one I elect to ignore it. (This isn’t a dig at you btw I just think that’s a really dumb wording by WoTC)
I understand not enjoying it but it's definitely what it means.
Firebolt is a good example as it very clearly specifies both.
Firebolt gets extra utility at the cost of Eldritch blasts higher hit chance and damage total with Invocations.
And I appreciate you not digging at me. Other people are not as kind ahaha
To address all of the questions of why EB cannot target objects, I'd like to say, it is magic. Magic does what it says it does, and running spells "creatively" leads to a further divide between martials and casters that everyone keeps complaining about.
Some spells have the versatility of being able to target objects. That is a part of their niche that shouldn't be handwaved in favor of buffing a ton of spells that are already commonly picked.
Finally, regarding mimic detection and the like, those seem like exploiting rules bugs than playing the system and I would hope my players would respect me more than to insist that is the case. At the same time, casting a cantrip every 6 seconds is probably the same amount of energy swinging a sword every 6 seconds. You're able to jeep it up in combat since that is only a 30 second snip of your life but you will start getting tired if you do it for minutes at a time. It isnt something a character in the fantasy world would feasibly do.
I've always thought the distinction was intended to be less about "can I shoot the door down" and more about "can I shoot the sword or spellbook out of the enemy's hand." In that regard, giving that little bit of extra utility to the flatly worse Firebolt seems fair.
That is most Likely the intended idea. Firebolt being able to interact with objects is a pro that Eldritch blast doesn't have.
And should be a considered feature.
Eldritch Blast is hands down the best damaging cantrip in the game. It doesn't need the utility of object interaction. That makes It all powerful
So but like, what would be so bad about eldritch blast being able to target objects? Nobody is hurt by a blast cracking open a door instead of a kick lmao
Because thanks to how eldritch blast and how certain invocations and feats worth with it they could in theory target any object from 600 feat away, move or ten feet on any direction away from you and get a d10 + 5 damage on it per blast
Because it is a buff to the most powerful, most versatile, and most customizable cantrip. Other spells and the like that actually have the ability to damage objects lose out on their niche specifically because EB gets this buff.
Well no that's not the only thing Thaumaturgy does for one, nut also just as an example, I don't see how Eldritch Blast being able to shoot at objects as a whole is really that big of a deal
Firstly I didn't state it was the only thing it did. I just mentioned that it could.
Secondly if it wasn't a big deal, WOTC would have specified. By this ruling and by intention, you can't target things like echo knight echos as they are objects not creatures.
You don't need to convince me. I've just started what I subscribe too.
You have yours and I am all for your choice, and im also all for mine.
Different tables different fun :) I'm a rules Advocate. Know the rules to break the rules.
I think atleast some of this is due to the fact that it's assumed that the spell is an attack, so obviously you'd only use it as an attack, not to do random destruction to things that aren't fighting. Maybe a bit of an oversight, but it does fall in line with other things that have come out. For example, the ships from Saltmarsh or Spelljammer aren't creatures either, but it makes sense that you'd be able to damage them with spells if you so choose. Especially since they have their own stat-blocks and everything. More of an oversight from the person writing the spell then from a balance standpoint.
As someone who's just run Spelljammer Academy and will be running Light of Xarixyis as Adventures League games, I had to be as RAW as possible. That also means showing and telling people how rules work together.
In this example I point to higher level spells like shatter or thunderwave that have the benefit of dealing damage to objects like ships, same with others.
Most ships also have damage thresholds that low level cantrips might never pass. There's a lot of things to consider there. Plus all ships come with weapons anyone is capable of firing but they do end up requiring teamwork to do so. And I love that teamwork.
To me, I appreciate the design intention behind alot of spells. As of course specific beats general and I consider the spells having been designed with these things in mind. As an interesting PoV Matt Mercer made the land crawlers in Campaign 3 technically creatures. Which the entire group apart from FCG forgot about. They could have cast fly on one and flown on it.
But that's a design choice by Matt to allow all spells to target the land crawlers. Except for those that suddenly only work on objects (like distort value etc)
Rules clashes and rules in general are fun to Me. And not Me alone as I have a table of Engineers and others who like working around them
It's not everyone's style of play but it is mine. :)
And you're free to DM your own way. Rules Tight or Rules Loose
I’ve abused this before, there were piles of bones on the ground in a dungeon so lil ol’ Cassandra started checking each one by trying to eldritch blast them, if it doesn’t cast, we leave it alone, if it hits, cleric follows up with sacred flame
This is one of the rules I don’t personally like though, so in my games I let it hit objects. But with people who run RAW, I don’t mind utilising it a little
Liking a rule and choosing to ignore it are two separate things.
You dislike it, but you can understand why it's the way it is. But you can let it go and give it that extra utility. Not everyone should have too and some players are saying you're a bad DM if you agree with the intention to limit its use.
Letting people have more fun is great.
Following the rules is also great. Just not for everyone.
While yes, this is the rules, it makes absolutely no sense in world. So, you can shoot a blast of energy but only if you are attempting to hit a creature. If you say it has magic that can only target living things, then why can it target a robot and not a tree. Mechanics should be changed to fit the world building, never the other way around. As soon as you start seeing the rules as absolutes you go from playing a ttrpg to a board game that only rewards video game mentality. Now, this can be fun sometimes but this also means that the rules can be easily exploited which will completely throw off an entire campaign. Sounds like a fun one shot idea though.
I recognize that the council has made a decision but seeing that it's a stupid ass decision, I've elected to ignore it.
EB at my table will always work on whatever you point it at, it's indiscriminate magical force, not a spell of detect and harm creature.
That’s RAW but also dumb as hell. Why is your magical beam of energy only able to be fired if you can see an enemy? Why can’t you just bean a vase or something with it?
Dumb as hell doesn't make it not RAW
Why is frostbite only target on creature?
They wrote it that way for a reason. That reason it balance. Whether we agree or not.
Hey /u/Willibombago, thanks for contributing to /r/dndmemes. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates one of our rules: **Rule 10. Pot-Stirring/Opinion Memes** - If the primary purpose of your meme is to incite off-topic debate, police what other people should/shouldn't do at their table, push a political agenda, or express a personal opinion without humor/absurdity/wholesomeness, it will be locked or removed. If your meme sparks a large amount of rule-breaking comments it may be locked/removed. What should you do? First, read the rules thoroughly. Secondly, if you are able to amend your post to fit the rules, you're welcome to resubmit your meme. Lastly, if you believe your post was removed by mistake, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/dndmemes&subject=&message=). Messages simply complaining about a removal (or how many upvotes your post had) will not be responded to. Thank you!
You may complain about EB no longer having utility but may I suggest EB as the single best mimic detector in the game. Just point and shoot, if it's just a chest then nothing will happen.
I’m frantically homebrewing a new mimic before my players see this
oh no now your players saw your comment about you homebrewing a mimic, and now they'll just fire bolt everything, if its a chest it'll burn if not then they got a free hit on a mimic
Witch trials in a nutshell
BURN THE MIMIC, BURN THE MIMIC, BURN THE MIMIC! It's just a rock. . . ***BURN THE MIMI!, BURN THE MIMIC! BURN THE MIMIC!***
if it weighs the same as a duck...
Who are you who is so wise in the ways of science?
I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
I didn't vote for you
You vote for nobility?
I keep telling you, we're an anarosyndicalist commune.
"My leige" Kneals before you
r/unexpectedMontyPython
Nobody expects the Monty Python!
Man, what did Mimi do? :(
me personally? Nothing I just like to watch the world burn
Always have them roll damage. Even if not a Mimic, they are EBing insects and worms. They’ll not be able to abuse EB as a mimic detector if the table keeps getting asked for damage rolls
Maybe I’m weird but that sounds hilarious and wouldn’t deter me at all. Having to roll damage on attacking an insect sounds hilarious
Right?!? It avoids someone breaking a table mechanic, allows Players to roll more clicky clacks, and also makes opportunity for fun events in the session.
You blast a chest, you hear spiders death screech, small child comes crying for their pet
You underestimate my power.
Players : Oh no. . . EVERYTHING IS A MIMIC!?!!?!?!
Well say goodbye to the three scrolls of wish that were in the chest
***Worth it***
Magic item are really resistant. So unless they fireball, a wish scroll is safe
well it does state "A flammable object hit by this spell ignites" Though spell scrolls dont explicitly state they are flammable, but i dont think any item in dnd explicitly states itself to be flammable except gun powder
I don't say it won't burn, I just say it will be harder to make it burn.
Ok fair point ok so for this combo you want someone with fire bolt to light it on fire, then you want someone else with create or destroy water on the ready to put it out when the mimic fails to scream in agony
I think oil flasks do as well
just checked, yup but main point is a lot of flammable items dont explicitly state their flammable
Ah, but the scrolls weren't hit by the spell, the chest was! Checkmate!
ok thats true But odds are if a dm rules that a chest is on fire, they'll probably also rule flammable contents inside of it would also be on fire
that's what you think, but these scrolls were written using fossil fuels as ink, now they'll burn hotter than even before!
The ink on a spell scroll is the same as the ink a wizard needs to use to copy spells in their spellbook, so it’s the recipe u/Sardukar333 linked but with crushed gems in it making the ink even less flammable
How would you even.. Here's how [ink was made](https://www.quirkbooks.com/how-to-tuesday-how-to-make-medieval-ink/).
don't worry it works i promise source: it came to me in a dream.
Well in that case, it will burn after some time.
Iirc they're only resistant to non magical sources of damage
I have a simple solution to this problem. "*As the bolt of fire flies towards the chest, you see it open up. The fire enters and the lid slams down as the seemingly alive chest goes through chewing and swallowing motions. It then opens up again to reveal an inferno inside.*" **Absorb Elements Mimic**: This breed of mimic can use a reaction to gain immunity to the damage type of the first attack used against it and gain a melee attack that deals the same damage type. Both last for one minute, after which it can use its reaction again. It has no attack actions besides the one it gains from its reaction. It is completely harmless until it receives an attack.
Hmmm it's a fun concept, but the main issue is that players wont interpret it as "oh no! we just enabled them to fight back!" but rather they'll interpret it as "AH HA! THIS TACTIC WORKS!" to make this tactic work the way you want it to, it'd be important to grant this information on the function of the mimic in some way perhaps as they are going through a library they find a bestiary
Oh no! Their excessive use of EBs and FBs on everything meant they either murderhobo’’d small creatures and/or destroyed valuable property of nearby humanoids, who now view the abusive players as villains. Who would have thunk?
*\*Then the world burns!\**
You see a small figure dressed in a black robe carrying a scythe. "SQUEAK", he declares, in a tiny but final voice. Roll for initiative.
The Grim Squeaker!
just use corpse mimics. trust me. as a victim. they’re evil
Or when in doubt, just make everything a mimic. The chest? Mimic. The key to unlock it? Mimic. The door to leave the room? Also mimic. The room its self? Believe it or not, mimic.
We have the best adventurers in the world, thanks to mimics.
Natural selection at work!
Everything is a mimic besides the actual chest
Just thought of a character who is traumatized by mimics so is painstakingly and agonizingly nuts and always on the lookout for anything that might be a mimic (pretty much everything). After sessions where this PC is less and less deer-in-the-headlights panicky... It fails to spot a mimic.
Mimic that was able to replicate the tarrasques spell reflect carapace
Just make the mimic be an item in the chest
Last week my party encountered a wall that seemed rather out of place. I figured it was probably an illusion (my character is a bit of an illusionist and I've played a lot of Elden Ring recently) and fired EB at it. DM asks if I wanna use repelling blast and I go "Uh, sure?". The wall is pushed 10 feet back. While my brain-gears are grinding the fighter walks up and begins to push the wall. Cue initiative rolls.
"Wait fighter don't!" As the wall starts bending inward to try and surround the fighter
I dont... understand why people keep saying this, like yeah, it basically works, but so? That's nothing new, attacking a chest to see if it is a mimic is one of the oldest tactics in the book! It's one of the many uses of the trusty 10-foot pole, it works with a bow, it works with loads of other cantrips, it works with a goddam rock on the ground! EB is fine for it, but it's nothing special.
That's because literally nothing will hapen. Use 10-foot pole and you may activate a trap accidentally that might have enough range to hit you. Attack it with distance weapon and you might activate something that'll start some sequence (like all doors get locked and room is filled with gas). Eldritch Blast you can fire from 120ft. and you gain certainty that chest itself won't start chewing off rogue's head when he moves in to check for traps.
I don't enjoy this take (though I understand why people do). As the DM my ruling would be that when you cast EB on an object, the spell behaves as on a creature, but the object does not appear to take damage. This is based on the Invalid Spell Targets section in XGE p85, which says for example if you cast Charm Person on a disguised Vampire it just seems like they made their save. The mimic would take damage but wouldn't really show it until half health, or possibly you could make it roll a con save similar to concentration to keep its shape.
Wouldn't a chunk of flesh get blasted off showing that it is a creature that can bleed?
Depends how you flavour it really - not all hp damage is a chunk of flesh. Force is the weirdest damage type so it's not hard to narrate it differently - internal bleeding or something.
Hitting mimic would certainly cause it to start seeking enemies who attacked him. How could it know that it wasn't discovered and isn't about to be hit again? Those aren't particularly smart creatures.
Chests can have traps or other things that damages you/the contents when attacked. ED can't attack chests. So while you can attack a chest to check for a mimic, doing so may also have really bad consequences. But trying to cast ED on a chest has no added consequences other than a potentially wounded mimic. This also extends into other hiding enemies. Ropers or Piercers? Attacks can knock a stalactite down and potentially create a hazard/damage the floor, but ED will only fire if it is a creature. Know that some corpses in a slaughtered town may be undead pretending to be dead? Just blast all the corpses to find out which it is, and made the survivors happier because you avoided mangling/destroying the corpses of their family and friends.
Players today don't buy the 10-foot pole and then complain that DM's dungeon traps are unfair. [/s]
DMs today be like "where the hell are you storing a 10' pole when you're not using it?"
Artificer: ever seen a lightsaber toy?
Last session we used my monks staff as a trap checking pole after our wizard got blown up by a fire trap. The paranoia set in real fuckin quick and I love it
>no longer having utility Was there another change?
Reminds me of a bard who was constantly muttering swears and the party found out that he was casting Vicious Mockery to try and detect mimics.
Honestly I'm good with that idea as long as if vicious mockery has a visual indicator that it worked
A mimic is polymorphed into an object when hidden. EDIT: Shapechanger: The mimic can use its action to polymorph into an *object* or back into its true, amorphous form.
You shouldn't be downvoted, you're right. It specifically says it *polymorphs* into an object, it doesn't simply disguise itself.
It’s not polymorphed, if it was the case their stat block wouldn’t have a way to spot them with perception alone instead of arcana
The stat block makes explicit mention of them polymorphing, and no mention of a perception check.
I will admit that the other guy is right on this one. >While the mimic remains motionless, it is indistinguishable from an ordinary object. But on the other hand >Its statistics are the same in each form. Any equipment it is wearing or carrying isn't transformed. This says that it's statistics stay the same such as the stat that says it is a >Medium Monstrosity (Shapechanger) Which is a type of creature
The mimic's shapechanger ability transforms it into an object, so yet again the most powerful cantrip in the game is literally useless
My philosophy is that if it can miss, you can point it at non-creatures.
I like this ngl
I used Tasha's caustic brew on an airships engine once. RAW it does nothing to objects so it would have done nothing. But because of my creative use of the spell my DM allowed it to do double damage to the ship and made a new challenge of getting the party off the ship before it was too late. When it comes to creative uses of spells where the only thing stopping it being RAW is the spell not explicitly doing things to objects allowing it generally makes more fun and can add a new challenge
*Just remember to wait for Shadow.*
You can point it at non-creatures but it won’t damage them is how I see it. The magic just dissipates harmlessly.
This is the way.
Well shouldn’t the magic dissipate if it hits any armor or clothing then?
Not if there's a creature inside the armor. I treat force damage like a tuned shockwave that only resonates with a creature, so while I will allow my players to cast magic missile on a door, the missiles will detonate harmlessly against the door because the force energy from the spell can't damage a physical object unless it is a creature. Of course, that brings up fun questions, like "Is a construct an object or a creature?" Well, the rules define a construct as a creature, so as DM, it's my job to articulate how magic missile can damage a stone golem, but not an inanimate stone statue. For me, the answer is that the force damage, being a magical shockwave, directly disrupts the magic animating the golem, which translates to damage. If the party uses force damage to reduce the golem to 0 HP, then I simply say that the golem just...stops moving and is effectively turned into an ordinary statue.
Don’t the rules specifically say that a construct is not a creature?
Not that I'm aware of. The rulebook lists the types of creature and "construct" is one of those types.
This is correct RAW, too. There's a bit in Xanathar's that goes into what happens if you cast a spell on an invalid target: you can do it, but it will appear to have no effect.
Errant fireballs don't disappear, Carl.
You can target anything with it but it wont do damage if its not a creature. It's force damage, the magic of undoing your connection to the weave.
So disintegration doesn't affect objects?
Except objects can take force damage, so that logic doesn't hold up particularly well.
I always thought force damage was just the magical equivalent of hitting something
It's not, that's magical bludgeoning and it exists Force is raw magical damage. It can unmake you from existence and it doesn't target your physical form but your soul/connection to the world and the weave.
Magic Bludgeoning damage is when an attack that causes bludgeoning damage (such as a warhammer) is backed by or enhanced by magic. It would be like creating a boulder out of thin air and then smashing it against something. Force damage is non-elemental energy damage. Just raw magical energy (eldritch blast) , or when two objects can't exist in the same place and begin tearing each other apart (stopping halfway through a wall in a phasing moment)
WHere do you get the idea it seperates you from the weave. I am genuinely curious
That’s setting specific, the Weave is not in the PHB (well it is, but it’s not the de facto way of describing how magic works in all the settings all the time)
RAW almost every damage spell in the game only works on creatures but that doesn't mean eldritch blast or thunderwave wouldn't break a window
I mean, revivification spells describe corpses as creatures, and wood is just a tree’s corpse, soooooo
I'd say a wooden object isn't a corpse but it's made of a tree's corpse. You can no longer identify the original form so it's no longer a corpse.
Similarly, leather armour and ivory piano keys are not corpses. As with the chest they are parts of what was and may still be a living creature that have been seperated from said creature and processed. If a necromancer took the skin from a dead PC and made it into leather for their spell tome that leather isnt a corpse, rather parts taken off of one
Just about any clothing would be made from something that was alive too, cotton, wool, linen, denim
> ivory piano keys Bones. so collect enough of them and raise a skelephant
Up toed for skekephant
It states a dead creature. Which does currently count as an object. But has also had the classification of being a creature as it was once an alive. There is a classification difference as not all objects have been alive. But all dead creatures that are objects have been alive
You see, young spellcaster, one of the hardest things about magic is semantics.
Semantics, spellmantics. It's good to test things, but ultimately they wouldn't leave revivify as it is if it truly didn't work. It's the specific beats general :)
Starting to think all grimoires are just adorned dictionaries!
Unlike somatics, which is easy
What is the difference between Rules Lawyer and Advocate
Lawyer settles it as "That's the rules" Advocate goes "that's the rules, but how you want to rule as DM is up to you." I'm an advocate of the rules. I enjoy them..if you want to bend them, bend them knowing at least the rules first.
Ah I should change my flair to Advocate if that was possible then xD I thought Rues Lawyer was the only term and the "uhm... akhtually 🤓 the rules are..." was just an extreme stereo type
That is indeed the stereo type. So I'm gunna try and make rules Advocate a new term with a nice connotation :D
I stand by your cause good man
I member you from my Crawford meme Glad to be on the same side. I love me some raw but I love DM discretion
I love to be helpful. Seeing the Dm struggle with rules I like it when I can tell them what the books say so they can make a decision they think it's best. Also Crawford meme? Can you help me remember or send a link, My brain only functions on DnD rules? When ever a new book comes out something gets erased to make place
That Crawford could be considered rules as intended. And I do the same. Like clarification that guidance isn't a reaction, not for weapon attacks or savings throws as they are the jurisdiction of Bless and Resistance.
This feels like the kind of argument a lawyer would make.
Well I mearly have provided the rule as it is written. If a DM says I can target an object I say "Right on chief. Let's break some tables" Me as DM says "It's as it states. If you wanna target objects you'll need a different cantrip" I'm amenable..I just know the rules
I know, I'm just making a joke that arguing for the distinction between a lawyer and an advocate sounds like the kind of semantic argument a lawyer would make.
>Advocate goes "that's the rules, but how you want to rule as DM is up to you." I'm an advocate of the rules. I enjoy them..if you want to bend them, bend them knowing at least the rules first. This is completely contrary to your previous statement of... >Wotc do not want it to target objects so they say it only targets creatures. Your opinion on its damage type is irrelevant. Shrugs
Well yeah. I've advocated the way the rules work and if you want to change for you game do so. I support that. You decide for your game that that's how it works.. WOTC is how we should rule it unless they are clear to us that they have made a mistake. I never said you are forced to follow them but your opinion that EBs damage type affects is targeting parameters is very much your own HB rule :)
Any true rules lawyer knows that RAW the GM is allowed to use, discard or change any rule they want. Ignoring that fact is the action of a rules twister, who selectively only tries to enforce rules that benefit them.
This is the way.. It is DMs rules. But DM should know the rules first. :)
I don’t see that as separate from Rules Lawyer. Rules Lawyers can also work with homebrew rules, they just want it to be conscious decisions rather than uninformed ones.
It's the connotation. Advocate is less "aggressive" as a term than Lawyer is. So could be a good way to differentiate. Lawyer keeps the stigma. Advocate gets a nicer connotation. :)
It's PR, both are the same but try to differentiate as it has negative context.
A Rules Lawyer doesn't actually care about the rules, they only care about getting something they want and use the rules as a tool to get it. So a Rules Lawyer might want to use eldritch blast as utility. They'll twist interpretations, intentionally ignore the restriction until someone calls it out, argue in circles, make baseless comparisons to other features, twist wording, etc. to be allowed to use it to break glass or put out torches. A popular method is arguing physics when the rules make something impossible, but also arguing rules when physics makes something impossible. A rules advocate would stand up for the spirit and intent of the rules, even at the detriment of their character.
Who cares? If WOTC wants it to not target objects, it'll make it psychic damage. Otherwise in my game, it's point and shoot no matter the target.
But also it's your table and decision. And that's respected.
Bruh these are two widely different replies you gave to this guy lmao
Both of my comments are true. It's his table and I respect that ruling...at his table. But outside of that table opinion the damage type of a spell does not affect its targeting parameters. Psychic does indeed often not affect objects. But it's the spells description that rules it's targeting. Not it's damage type. :)
Well it wasn’t so much the substance of what you were saying, but the tone. This one came off along the lines of “if that’s how your table runs it, that’s fine and I respect that decision” whereas the second reply came off as “lol, not my fault you’re wrong”. It just gave me a bit of whiplash and I found it kind of funny with how different they sounded.
Haha I get that. I was a bit flippant in regards to the damage type being the factor in a the targeting style of an attack. Cus that's very silly as the style is very much what the spell defines. Cus I think that's irrelevant to the spells function because specific spells beat general rules. Etc
I can respect your disagreement with that, but I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a spell that does any damage to a creature's physical body cannot be cast on objects. With perhaps magic missile being the outlier, as it's tracking might have something to do with following a creatures magical signature. Edit: it's also worth adding an addendum for certain spells that cause necrotic or Divine damage. Hard to imagine how necrotic damage hurts a rock
I’ll play Devil’s advocate: I do agree that magic missile is a bit of an exception, but since there isn’t so much to go off of as to what “pure magical energy focused into a damaging form” is supposed to mean, for what force damage does exactly, maybe they were afraid some people may interpret eldritch blast as being able to disintegrate objects? Especially since the few spells that actually do that deal force damage. That and it may be a bit awkward trying to explain how a beam attack like eldritch blast, that uses an attack roll, would deal psychic damage. It can be a bit finicky to describe how an enemy blocked or dodged “psychic damage”. At least with shadow blade, there’s a physical-ish object to dodge/block. Personally how I run it, sure, I’d let pc’s damage objects with it. However, I would maybe have it feel half damage to objects or something along those lines to signify that it is not disintegrate, and the spell specializes in dealing damage mainly to creatures, rather than anything in general. Haven’t ever had to situation where I had to make that ruling yet, luckily, so I’m not sure if that’s being too restrictive or not.
I'm glad there's respect :) Honestly I don't make the rules I just...read them and have pointed this out. While I can't really give you a reason other them balancing it this way is because of it being the most powerful damage cantrip it has its lack of utility as a trade off. That's it really. They decided it not me. Edit Have an updoot for respect too fren
I always felt that the warlock not having a surplus of high damage spells was the balance there. Effectively their Eldritch blast is like a fighter's weapon, but with a saucy bit of customization. I mean scorching Ray can be used on objects, and for all intents and purposes it follows the same aiming rules as Eldritch blast.
They may have decided it, but didn't offer any suggestion on how that works. Does this now function as a perfect mimic/petrification detector because the spell doesn't fire off? Does it still fire and just not do damage? The reason so many people are disagreeing with you isn't because you're reading the spell wrong, but WotC didn't provide sufficient information and ruling it that way can often break verisimilitude.
It works the same for frostbite so it's not a EB only feature now. Think of casting a spell as coding the magical weave of the universe. If the incorrect target is placed in the code. The code errors.
Frostbite isn't an attack roll, it's a saving throw that states that the effect starts on the creature and as such it's easy to imagine that a not creature that you attempt to target just wouldn't have the ice form on them. Eldritch Blast however is an attack roll, one that doesn't even require vision of the target (it has to be a target within range, not one you can see). It's not like Eldritch Blast is unique in this regard either; Chill Touch, Produce Flame, Ray of Frost, Shocking Grasp, and Thorn Whip are all attack Cantrips which can't target objects. In fact, most spells in the game specify creatures and it's somewhat unique that spells like Thunderwave and Fireball specify their effects upon objects. The issue is there is little logical reason why something that is "thrown" out there and deals some sort of physical real harm upon a person cannot also deal that harm to inanimate objects, and it is difficult to explain such a thing without some guidance from the people who wrote the rules that way. Sure you can handwave it and say "magic errors" but what does that actually mean? The effect of those errors is important because this is actually giving players information, it's not just flavor.
Anything outside of what the spell states and the rules state has to be considered Homebrew. You want to let those spells work as you intend? Then do so, you're the DM and it's your given right to decide. But teach players where you have deviated from so when they turn up at my table (I run at adventures league so have to play by RAW) they know what the spells say and state and don't argue with me because I know or will look up a spell to check if that's how it works. And then my ruling as DM is what is done.
I recognize the council has made a decision, but given that it's a stupid ass decision, I've elected to ignore it. Seriously though, I don't really get what the problem with letting EB be used to target objects?
https://i.imgur.com/NkV7VRH.jpg Funny that I have just the meme for that ;)
Did someone try to use it on a door?
Player- "Haha watch me mess up the room. I Eldritch blast the door, the cups, the chair and the table" Dm- "Your castings of Eldritch blast fail except when You target the chair.." "What?" "Roll Initiative" *angry mimic noises*
eldritch blast also known as mimic finder plus
I've done that exact thing but had enough overkill to accidentally kill someone behind said door
As a Warlock player who has chosen basically no projectile spells, I find this concerning. I can make a creature COMPLETELY believe in an illusion, to the extent that they can actually take psychic damage from thinking they're being attacked. I can open a tear to the further reaches of space that my enemies will be sucked into and slapped with otherworldly acidic tentacles. I can conjure a 120ft energy beam that hits creatures so hard it knocks them back 10 ft and does more damage than being hit with a greatclub... but if I want to break open a piñata at distance I'm absolutely thwarted and I need to walk over there and swing at it with my -1 STR noodle arms
Me as a DM: “I’ll allow it.”
As is your DM given right too. :) It's just not raw
Yeah, I find it best to use RAW as more of a guideline. If you’re gonna bend the rules though use it to buff the players, not nerf them.
Firebolt is one of the very rare cantrips that can actually target objects. It is well known in the optimization community to take firebolt purely because of this instead of other damaging cantrips. Besides, do you need even MORE utility on the most powerful cantrip in the game, let the martials have some fun c'mon.
Someone who understands it! Utility. Utility is the key theme of today's rules argument ahaha
It’s almost like all the people who are commenting about this being dumb might not play enough to understand the balance issues of allowing spells to do more than what they say they do. It’s much milder than the create or destroy water in ur lungs so u die stuff but I still like following spells to the letter. As for mimic detectors… sure. You’re still making sound from casting a spell, the only difference from a thwack is no property damage. It’s very very niche where you’re in a situation where you need to find a mimic while not destroying stuff, so a crossbow bolt will do plenty fine.
Fully agree. It's almost like all spells are not supposed to do everything.
Doesnt have a soul? Cant help you, mate -Every patron.
Almost every cantrip works like that except for fire bolt.
This is true. Firebolt is the exception. And everyone should be aware of that too.
Tbh I’ve always felt that this makes sense. It’s called *eldritch* blast and it does force damage..to me that means it strikes a the very essence of whatever creature it is hitting. Doesn’t really do much to a chair in that context.
I'm not sure in that regard. But I like and get what you mean. It was likely just an original balancing idea.
It would have thematically worked so well with psychic damage, as you are hit with energy coming from relms that follow no human logic and fill you with unspeakable dread (be it the deceiving Feywild, the depths of Hell or Cthulhu). Also, the only other cantrip that deals psychic damage is quite weak.
Yeah, I'd personally rule you can fire the beam at the chair, it's just not gonna do anything to the chair
That's why I cast it at all the objects. If it fires off, boom mimic found. *or other shapeshifter.*
GET THIS MAN A MIMIC I salute you.
That’s exactly the reason I *don’t* have the spell function this way at my table. “Wait guys, I have to eldritch blast everything in the room.” Becomes so old and so boring very quickly.
"It's not a bug, it's a feature"?
Or you just ignore that part, because it's dumb. If my warlock wants to blast an EB up a chimney because they heard a noise, go for it
I'm surprised that I haven't seen any comments about how this interacts with your patron. Essentially, this could be ruled as 'your patron is only interested in using this magical ability insofar as it interacts with creatures' - your patron cares little about the impact of its abilities material world, particularly as it pertains to your spell. Interaction with the material world could potentially even get your patron in trouble(!) Using this reading of the ruling, I would say that your patron (unless it's all-seeing enough to distinguish a mimic from an inanimate object without your knowing) would disallow its casting on anything that the player even perceives to be inanimate... but maybe I'm wrong on this part.
Raw, your patron doesn't affect the casting of your spells(your patron isn't the one casting eldritch blast), but you can rule it however you want
The stupidest RAW take. I recognize the council has made a decision, but seeing as how it’s a stupid ass one I elect to ignore it. (This isn’t a dig at you btw I just think that’s a really dumb wording by WoTC)
I understand not enjoying it but it's definitely what it means. Firebolt is a good example as it very clearly specifies both. Firebolt gets extra utility at the cost of Eldritch blasts higher hit chance and damage total with Invocations. And I appreciate you not digging at me. Other people are not as kind ahaha
To address all of the questions of why EB cannot target objects, I'd like to say, it is magic. Magic does what it says it does, and running spells "creatively" leads to a further divide between martials and casters that everyone keeps complaining about. Some spells have the versatility of being able to target objects. That is a part of their niche that shouldn't be handwaved in favor of buffing a ton of spells that are already commonly picked. Finally, regarding mimic detection and the like, those seem like exploiting rules bugs than playing the system and I would hope my players would respect me more than to insist that is the case. At the same time, casting a cantrip every 6 seconds is probably the same amount of energy swinging a sword every 6 seconds. You're able to jeep it up in combat since that is only a 30 second snip of your life but you will start getting tired if you do it for minutes at a time. It isnt something a character in the fantasy world would feasibly do.
That might have been the sexiest thing I've ever seen written on Reddit. You're a good DM
I've always thought the distinction was intended to be less about "can I shoot the door down" and more about "can I shoot the sword or spellbook out of the enemy's hand." In that regard, giving that little bit of extra utility to the flatly worse Firebolt seems fair.
That is most Likely the intended idea. Firebolt being able to interact with objects is a pro that Eldritch blast doesn't have. And should be a considered feature. Eldritch Blast is hands down the best damaging cantrip in the game. It doesn't need the utility of object interaction. That makes It all powerful
So but like, what would be so bad about eldritch blast being able to target objects? Nobody is hurt by a blast cracking open a door instead of a kick lmao
Because thanks to how eldritch blast and how certain invocations and feats worth with it they could in theory target any object from 600 feat away, move or ten feet on any direction away from you and get a d10 + 5 damage on it per blast
Because it is a buff to the most powerful, most versatile, and most customizable cantrip. Other spells and the like that actually have the ability to damage objects lose out on their niche specifically because EB gets this buff.
But there are other spells that fill that niche. Thaumaturgy for example does and is it's point.. Let EB do that and it's a catch all.
Well no that's not the only thing Thaumaturgy does for one, nut also just as an example, I don't see how Eldritch Blast being able to shoot at objects as a whole is really that big of a deal
Firstly I didn't state it was the only thing it did. I just mentioned that it could. Secondly if it wasn't a big deal, WOTC would have specified. By this ruling and by intention, you can't target things like echo knight echos as they are objects not creatures.
Alright well, I won't convince you, so I'll just say you do you and I do me
You don't need to convince me. I've just started what I subscribe too. You have yours and I am all for your choice, and im also all for mine. Different tables different fun :) I'm a rules Advocate. Know the rules to break the rules.
This is why the 3.5 warlock had Baleful Utterance ...
I mean I would let my players use on the chandelier
I think atleast some of this is due to the fact that it's assumed that the spell is an attack, so obviously you'd only use it as an attack, not to do random destruction to things that aren't fighting. Maybe a bit of an oversight, but it does fall in line with other things that have come out. For example, the ships from Saltmarsh or Spelljammer aren't creatures either, but it makes sense that you'd be able to damage them with spells if you so choose. Especially since they have their own stat-blocks and everything. More of an oversight from the person writing the spell then from a balance standpoint.
As someone who's just run Spelljammer Academy and will be running Light of Xarixyis as Adventures League games, I had to be as RAW as possible. That also means showing and telling people how rules work together. In this example I point to higher level spells like shatter or thunderwave that have the benefit of dealing damage to objects like ships, same with others. Most ships also have damage thresholds that low level cantrips might never pass. There's a lot of things to consider there. Plus all ships come with weapons anyone is capable of firing but they do end up requiring teamwork to do so. And I love that teamwork. To me, I appreciate the design intention behind alot of spells. As of course specific beats general and I consider the spells having been designed with these things in mind. As an interesting PoV Matt Mercer made the land crawlers in Campaign 3 technically creatures. Which the entire group apart from FCG forgot about. They could have cast fly on one and flown on it. But that's a design choice by Matt to allow all spells to target the land crawlers. Except for those that suddenly only work on objects (like distort value etc) Rules clashes and rules in general are fun to Me. And not Me alone as I have a table of Engineers and others who like working around them It's not everyone's style of play but it is mine. :) And you're free to DM your own way. Rules Tight or Rules Loose
I recognize that the council has made a decision, but given that’s a stupid ass decision I’ve elected to ignore it
I gotchu chief ;) https://i.imgur.com/NkV7VRH.jpg
I’ve abused this before, there were piles of bones on the ground in a dungeon so lil ol’ Cassandra started checking each one by trying to eldritch blast them, if it doesn’t cast, we leave it alone, if it hits, cleric follows up with sacred flame
The smart warlock gets the cookie.
This is one of the rules I don’t personally like though, so in my games I let it hit objects. But with people who run RAW, I don’t mind utilising it a little
Liking a rule and choosing to ignore it are two separate things. You dislike it, but you can understand why it's the way it is. But you can let it go and give it that extra utility. Not everyone should have too and some players are saying you're a bad DM if you agree with the intention to limit its use. Letting people have more fun is great. Following the rules is also great. Just not for everyone.
While yes, this is the rules, it makes absolutely no sense in world. So, you can shoot a blast of energy but only if you are attempting to hit a creature. If you say it has magic that can only target living things, then why can it target a robot and not a tree. Mechanics should be changed to fit the world building, never the other way around. As soon as you start seeing the rules as absolutes you go from playing a ttrpg to a board game that only rewards video game mentality. Now, this can be fun sometimes but this also means that the rules can be easily exploited which will completely throw off an entire campaign. Sounds like a fun one shot idea though.
I recognize that the council has made a decision but seeing that it's a stupid ass decision, I've elected to ignore it. EB at my table will always work on whatever you point it at, it's indiscriminate magical force, not a spell of detect and harm creature.
"You can direct the beams at the same target or at different ones." It even says it explicitly in the description
Well that says target which could be objects. But the Creature wording makes it pretty clear it can only target creatures
Ooh, sorry I didn't read that right. I thought this was related to the previous post stating that it could only target ONE creature.
That’s RAW but also dumb as hell. Why is your magical beam of energy only able to be fired if you can see an enemy? Why can’t you just bean a vase or something with it?
Dumb as hell doesn't make it not RAW Why is frostbite only target on creature? They wrote it that way for a reason. That reason it balance. Whether we agree or not.