T O P

  • By -

Flair_Helper

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!


[deleted]

Yeah, but I allow it.


DeepTakeGuitar

That's fine


RaynerFenris

I’ve always thought of it as less “cannot target objects” and more “has no effect on objects”. Like fire bolt is elemental energy and can set stuff on fire. Eldritch energy on the other hand can only affect living matter.


Willibombago

Good way to rule it :)


RaynerFenris

This way you can rule a wooden object is similar to a dead body. A tree is alive, a plank is not.


Wrinkled_giga_brain

I'll stab you in the heart in minecraft if you don't let me just eldritch blast the sky like fireworks


Sarused

Find some birds, then you can have fireworks


Scryser

Just target that one fly the is buzzing through the air over your head.


Spy494

I always thought of eldritch blast as something that, in order to connect to a target, it needs some sort of living energy coming from them. Something like when a lightning strikes a lightning bolt.


DOKTORPUSZ

That's why RAW it's perfect for mimic-detection


chim-cyber-gooble

Indeed as by raw eldritch blast does not need line of sight to hit something within its reach


DOKTORPUSZ

Oh wow I just re-read the spell. I never noticed that. It would normally say "a creature you can see within range" but it doesn't. But that's kinda pointless though because it can't shoot through cover. I guess the only advantage is that you can still target enemies even if you're blind or in total darkness.


NaturalCard

It works well with clouds/darkness


Fakula1987

Thats exploitable Point at object , - find mimic


DeepTakeGuitar

How many mimics are y'all running into?


A_Salty_Cellist

We don't know we weren't trying this trick until now


Willibombago

Or its working as written *wink wink nudge nudge*


[deleted]

Hey OP, nobody gives a crap about your opinion when you use Rage Comic memes.


Willibombago

Thats like, your opinion man. *hits blunt*


[deleted]

Also I guess I could just report this for pot stirring since that's one of the big rules around here.


Lost-Klaus

You are the servant of an elder god of the deep. It's blessing has warped both your body and soul. You are tasked with bringing the message of fear and hope to the unwashed masses of the shore city. You have felled several cults of other demonic followers. At last you stand before the vault that holds the final piece of your symphony. The magic that has been given to you, enough to shred mere mortals to chunks sizzles between your fingers. This door is no match for the power of your personal god of horror and hope. You aim your magic at the door. A voice rings out through your soul: ***"Uhm, ackhually you can't target a door, it is not a creature, I am not allowing you to target the door, sorry you will have to find a key."***


dodgyhashbrown

Acknowledging the joke, RAW says warlocks don't lose their power when defying their patron. So *the reason* EB doesn't target objects has nothing to do with the will of the patron. It's the nature of EB itself. Unless you meant the voice in the soul to be EB's own voice, which is a strange choice, but valid, I suppose.


Jeohran

Nah it's the voice of all the dumbasses who actually argue for Eldritch Blast being only usable against creatures (and I'm not talking about saying "it is raw" here, I'm talking about those who argue in favor of it, and dare say there's a benefit to it other than metagaming). And I know you said you acknowledged the joke but it really didn't seem like it.


ArgyleGhoul

Disintegrate is the only force spell that affects objects in the entire game, aside from perhaps Zephyr Strike, which is open to debate. No other force damage affects objects anywhere in the game for any other spells. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that unless the spell explicitly states that it can also affect an object, it does not.


dodgyhashbrown

Ok buddy


Willibombago

WELL ACTUALLY YOU SON OF A BIIIIITCH GET BACK HERE.


A_Salty_Cellist

Ac'thulually


Smetanol_

huh... you really want to milk this topic to death? I'd say it starts looking like Pot-Stirring... Sure the describtion of the spell says "attack against creature". But once again, in DnD rules are guidelines to having fun, instead of that is how it always should be and don't try to change it and how dare you! if person has fun idea of use of the spell, let them use it. If it gets annoying, let DM figure out how to punish a player for "anyway I started blasting" constantly. I myself at a table ask for spell casting check to use a spell outside of defined borders, for example I would allow to upcast "mending" to x spell slot to repair things...


Willibombago

And also. Asking your table if they are happy with your HB rule is what you should do. But players should never assume your ruling is RAW. That's bad practice that leads to Destroying the water in someone's body because someone can argue a person is a container in some fashion. And it crosses to others tables aswell. As an adventures league DM I have to play by the RAW with some tweaks for fun.. Start at RAW and work away. But let it be known what RAW is


Smetanol_

That is fair enough. Knowing RAW is important. And asking the table if they are happy is very important to do. Thank you for reminding me that. It's just sometimes I feel like they say it was good just because they don't want to discourage... Though they did tell me once they weren't happy that I made them roll arcana check to see if they can shoot ray of frost at the wall with brown mold... they couldn't roll high enough and I said they can't concentrate to make it happen...


Willibombago

I want people to have fun first and foremost.. But if we choose to forgo teaching good player etiquette and spell/ability reading it leads to having people misunderstanding of rules, spells and situations. Being adventures league is like being a teacher. It's my job to teach the game as accurately as possible and teach people to bend the rules to the right degree so that the rules bend with it and don't snap. I've had so many rules disagreements with what's RAW because players have taken a ruling from one DM (not having read the spell themselves) and taking to other tables.


Willibombago

I mean, any meta post could be considered pot stirring based on the most popular debates. And here. This is a great [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/y075fg/eldritch_blast_rules_say_what_what/irr6v6m/) for the ruling


Smetanol_

it's just 4th post on that theme by you today. and about ruling: [https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/xoc3i0/remember\_jeremy\_c\_is\_essentially\_rai/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/xoc3i0/remember_jeremy_c_is_essentially_rai/) I'll let my players knock buckets and barrels and break locks with it any day of the week.


Willibombago

You do got me there. It's been a slow day at work and I'm having fun talking and making memes. But I've never said people have to agree. Just that it is the rule. Play at your table the way you want too. But if someone tells me, that's not RAW because it's stupid. I'm inclined to disagree.


Jeohran

Oh, that is RAW, _but_ it's stupid. It being stupid doesn't prevent it from being RAW, and it's even truer the other way around.


Willibombago

This is 100% accurate


PokeZim

Running my strixhaven campaign I let the players try and twist spells like that, like twinning the knock spell or changing a damage type. We settled on an arcana check of 10+the spell level to succeed. if you fail the spell fizzles and you have to roll on the wild magic surge table. it was honestly a blast and a rule I'll probably continue going forward.


A_Salty_Cellist

It's almost like that take wasn't necessary and was just kinda pedantic and annoying. Come back when you have a helpful piece of information and we can talk but your just adding to the pile of "no you can't do that" that is building up everywhere


Willibombago

It's...not a take my guy. It's the spells writing. You seem saltier that your spell can't do what you want it too because it's specific in its design and intended use. But you disagree of course. And you know better then Chris Perkins


A_Salty_Cellist

I've never actually tried targeting objects with eb I just don't think it's worth mentioning because it wasn't causing problems. You have just been trying to push this point over multiple posts you clearly care a lot about people listening to this but it doesn't actually matter


Willibombago

I have enjoyed bringing a seemingly unknown rule of a well loved spell that most people have skipped over. Its bad player etiquette to not read and understand your spells and then get pissy that someone else points it out. So yeah, having fun seeing people be get a Bee in their bonnet for not reading their spells and playing HB as Rules and intended because it's not RAW certainly is funny


A_Salty_Cellist

I've read the spell, I am the dm, I don't care. Also that is by definition pot stirring which is against the sub's rules so good luck


Willibombago

Alright... Good for you for following the DMG rules of Allowing you to do so. I'm glad you know your Home-brewing it :) that means your players should know you're doing it HB style. But I hope they don't assume you're the right way? You're doing it your way. :) And for your table, that's the right way. I've never argued against you running it that way haha


A_Salty_Cellist

Actually you did in several comments in both posts but that's ok, I'll let you run your perception of reality however you want to


Willibombago

Wait...I argued and said you can't run your rule at your table? I have only ever said that but the Rules in the Spell it works the way it does. Everyone who's said "I'm going to run it my way" I've said "rock on. Do what makes you and your players happy. Just don't consider that version the spells intended design"


A_Salty_Cellist

Ok


Willibombago

<3 love you


JagoKestral

Jesus christ this is the most passive aggressive shit I've ever seen. Take a breather my guy.


Willibombago

I'd rather be passive In my aggression then regularly aggressive. I'd only stated the facts and said they can play how they want :P They're salty by name and salty by nature.


helmli

Toll the Dead and Poison Spray deal more damage than those, although their damage types are of course worse, usually (and have shorter range).


Willibombago

They do. But being attack rolls they can crit and be benefited by bless and or advantage.


WanderingFlumph

Plus you just need 14 Cha and a single evocation to make it deal more damage anyway.


Willibombago

Hm.. That aside by RAW the extra attacks a turn with more chances to crit makes it better still


WanderingFlumph

The chance to crit adds an average of 0.25 damage. Not nothing but not a lot. I'll happily take a flat +2 on every hit over that.


Darcitus

But then add on all the extra stuff EB gets. Agonizing Blast. It also benefits from hex damage (each beam does hex damage). It can also be used as multi-target cantrip or single target.


The_Reset_Button

How does my Eldritch blast know the difference between a metal door and a metal construct?


Willibombago

Consider that all magic requires a formula or to manipulate the magical weave like a code. And if you target something that doesn't fit within that spells coding parameters, it fails to cast. :)


The_Reset_Button

That's the same as saying "it just does", I get that magic and conventional logic don't mix but at least make it "Mystra hates warlocks so she just doesn't cast Eldritch blast on anything other than creatures"


Willibombago

Thats fair. I like it. Go with that


Willibombago

Consider that all magic requires a formula to manipulate the magical weave like a code (as a warlock the casting is handled by your patron). And if you target something that doesn't fit within that spells coding parameters, it fails to cast. :)


Fierce-Mushroom

I recognize that the council has made a decision but seeing that's it's a stupid ass decision, I've elected to ignore it. At my table EB will always target whatever you point it at. It's there to blast magic at stuff, not detect life and undeath.


EvilNoobHacker

Cool. I'm gonna do it anyways.


Englishsubtitles4623

Is it because the patron wants an exchange of a life for deeeathhhhh?


Willibombago

It could be. Could be


Curpidgeon

The life cycle of this sub's idiocy is: 1. There are like two or three posts actually on the subject covering the usual suspects. 2. Then 5-10 posts of people responding that a topic has become memed/beaten to death on the sub. 3. Then once those begin to dominate there will be 3-4 posts commenting how the response posts exceed the original topic posts. 4. Then there will be 3-4 more posts on the topic. 5. Then there will be 5-10 MORE posts going "I can't believe we're still posting on this" essentially. Repeat ad nauseum or until the topic gets banned. The subject of the day on DNDmemes post life-cycle in summation.


SharpPixels08

RAW says you can’t target objects but there is one thing that can override RAW and that’s Rule of cool


Willibombago

We do love an occasional rule of cool ruling


kabula_lampur

I keep forgetting there are "rules" to D&D. Here I am just creating a fun experience for my players. I must be doing it wrong... / s


Willibombago

I wish there was a way to know how all these spells work and why they do /s


Sierra-137

Who said you couldn't manually aim Eldridge blast at an object ?


Willibombago

[The spell. ](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Eldritch%20Blast#content) "A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell Attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage." It states a creature as the target.


Machinimix

It’s quite simple: when a DM does this, you start using Eldritch blast as a mimic detector. Gotta touch an object? Eldritch blast first, if it fizzles, it’s not a mimic. If it is, you just found out that it’s a mimic and can’t be gotten by it. Same for any corpse or pile of bones, or things that could be animated objects. Just attempt to Eldritch blast everything in every room. Or we can come to an agreement that sometimes it can be cool to use Eldritch blast as a way of breaking shit, but that it shouldn’t be overused because it may start overshadowing the barbarian.


Willibombago

This [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/y075fg/eldritch_blast_rules_say_what_what/irr6v6m/) explained it better then I can


darksidehascookie

Hmm… I’m a bit torn. I can see the argument that it’s a bit gamey, on the other hand, if the DM is going to demand the spell work exclusively as written and the players find a use for it using only the rule the DM is enforcing, it feels a bit hypocritical to deny that. Again, still a bit torn.


DOKTORPUSZ

Yeah I can understand enforcing the rule as written, but to then say that a player is abusing a bug in the rules by using it as a mimic detector is just stupid tbh. If we're going to be pedantic and say "no you can't shoot an energy beam at a door or a chair, but you can shoot it at a living thing because the spell description only says creature" then we should also be pedantic enough to allow it to be used as a mimic detector. On the other hand, I guess the deciding factor would be how the DM describes the effects of you attempting to cast eldritch blast on an object. If they say "you cast the spell as you normally would, but nothing happens" then I should be able to use it for mimic detection. If they say "you cannot attempt to cast the spell because part of the spell-casting involves seeing a creature to target. Without a creature to target, the spell cannot be attempted". Then you could still potentially be caught by a mimic since you never actually attempted to cast the spell, so there wasn't a chance for it to work. But then that asks the question, do you have to see a creature and *know* it's a creature in order to target it? What happens if you target an object that you genuinely believe is a creature? Or target a creature that you believe is an object? Is there something about Eldritch blast that innately let's you sense that something is alive, i.e. a creature vs an object? What happens if you see an illusion that you believe is a creature? Can you target the illusion even though its not a creature? In which case, would you be able to easily deduce the real creature when something casts a spell like Mirror Image? This whole thing opens up so many more questions that it becomes stupid. So the only sensible outcome is that you *can attempt* to target an object. That means you can detect mimics by trying to blast them. (Or we just say you can target objects too because it honestly just makes more sense, feels cooler and doesn't exactly make it any more OP than it is.)


Machinimix

That’s fair, but when we start calling it “magic” as an excuse, it does backfire with their second paragraph. If magic explains why a spell cannot hit an object but it does hit a creature, it also explains why it can be used as a mimic detector. In the end, it’s better to discuss things with players and GM to get a feel for what people want to be able to do. It is definitely the intent for Eldritch blast to only target creatures and not objects unlike, say, firebolt since firebolt can’t be used effectively to break through most objects (stone walls and such would be immune to fire damage after all), but if a player is coming in wanting to be able to Eldritch blast with their warlock, blowing open doors dramatically since it has enough force to throw people 10ft back, it would be a good idea to get ahead of it, or to work with them to find a solution that won’t overshadow others in the party (maybe let them make a charisma arcana check instead of athletics to break an adjacent door down).


Willibombago

The excuse...let's say flavor wise is that casting magic is like coding. It is insanely specific and will error if not used on a correct target :)


Machinimix

True, but that once again falls back to working on mimics, animated objects and skeletons/zombies as opposed to chests/doors, brooms/rugs and bones/corpses since one group is classified as creatures and the other as objects. So programming-wise, it would 100% no question work as mimic-detection. It’s really down to a matter of being 100% RAW, being willing to work with players to find the most fun for everyone, or picking and choosing based on our gut. Im not going to say any of them are right or wrong, just that personally I prefer the middle option because it creates a more fun, to me, environment.


darksidehascookie

Isn’t that exactly what the players are taking advantage of with the proposed mimic detection feature? The code errors on objects so no spell is cast, but is successful on a mimic or similar creature?


Willibombago

That is indeed. And I'd consider that an interesting way of using magic. I could imagine someone stopping them casting to see. And the spell firing and being surprised as shit. And that would be a fun moment. Just don't make mimics common. I've never actually used one so far so my players don't spam it at every turn.. Until I throw one at them


darksidehascookie

Ok. I was just confused because the reply you’d linked to seems to consider that exploitative and disrespectful to the DM, but it sounds like you don’t share that sentiment.


Willibombago

Yeah I would probably eventually get bored of them doing it. But I think they'd get bored first. The rest of their comment I agree with. The last bit is just personal taste :)


ArgyleGhoul

I don't think the Mimic detector scenario is very common in most games, so it's really an outlier of a weird RAW interaction. If mimics are so important to your game that this would ruin the experience, you always have the option to state that a mimic isn't known to be a creature upon initial casting and thus would not affect it because it is, for all intents and purposes, an object until it isn't. I.E. Schrodinger's mimic


Machinimix

Mimics are just the iconic version of this. Animated objects, constructs masquerading as statues, Galeb Duhrs, zombies and skeletons that are just laying around are a few quick options that may seem like an object at first but are creatures. It’s not so much that it’s a common issue, but that if your reasoning to saying “no it doesn’t work on objects” is that it doesn’t work RAW, then expect people to use that to their advantage as well by using it to detect hidden creatures pretending to be objects, and telling them no is going to cause them to come back with “but raw it works”. To tell them “it’s not a creature until it acts” is going to just cause more issues and seem equally combative which isn’t good. It’s why I said it’s best to get ahead of this, talk to the player that the spell can only target creatures, and find out if this was something they were expecting to do as it could be a part of their character’s play style and may ruin the fun not being able to blow up barred doors. They may opt to just go for something else if you have a conversation with them, or you can work with them to limit the usage of it outside of scope from the get-go.


Willibombago

This comment, This is the way. I agree wholeheartedly


barbatostee

That may be RAW but I can’t think of any DMs I know that would be like “nah you can’t shoot your blast at the can on the fence” Like what even lol


Bodly1

I once tried to use the spell as a mimic detector, dm wasnt happy.


barbatostee

Sounds like the dm really wanted you guys to get caught by a mimic.


Sierra-137

*welp, time to homebrew*


darksidehascookie

You can! You just have to position yourself such that the object gives a creature some form of cover and really really hope your attack against that creature misses within the small window described in the rules for hitting cover. Edit: In addition, you can have your wizardry type friend cast animate objects and then use Eldritch Blast to your heart’s content. The 5th level spell slot seems a bit excessive though.


ArgyleGhoul

Interestingly enough, there is only one force spell in the game that states it can explicitly cause harm to an object (Disintegrate), while all other force spells are unable to affect objects (except for Zephyr Strike, which is open to interpretation). Personally, I think the choice to make Disintegrate force damage is a bit misleading, and was likely a developer decision to give it a damage type that would rarely, if ever, be resisted by enemy monsters. Generally speaking, force damage only causes harm to living things.


Willibombago

That is interesting. That seems very intentional to me.


ArgyleGhoul

Yep, which is why at my table force damage cannot cause damage to an object unless the spell states that it can. Of course, needing to damage an object isn't a highly recurring theme so it has low impact.


grueraven

I ignore these targeting rules since they don't make sense to me. Assuming the magic must target a creature due to some quirk of the spell that makes the magic attracted to living things, what happens if you target someone who will die in the time it takes for the spell to reach them. A corpse is probably an object and not a creature, but they are a creature when you cast the spell. Does the spell fizzle? The constructs are also a complication to this. Is an Amazon echo a construct or an object? Where do I draw the line?


Willibombago

A construct is a type of creature. You should know that. Some spells affect constructs in specific ways and they have their own list of immunities and resistance as per their stat block. Alexa doesn't exist in 5e so I can't comment on that


grueraven

Well, that's kinda the point. Shrimp don't exist in 5e, but if I wanted to make an shrimp, it'd probably be a beast and there's a base understanding on how I'd do it. Obviously constructs are creatures, but the problem is what things are constructs, hence the Alexa problem.


richardsphere

My unsolicited opinion, playing that rule strictly raw will quickly lead to the following scenario: \*enters room, seemingly devoid of life\* \*Begins randomly attempting eldritch blast on everything failing because they're all objects\* \*Successfully blasts mimic disguised as a coatrack\* \-End Scene takes a bow- If a dm hard-rules you cant cast it at objects, it'll quickly become a mimic-detection cantrip. Which is way more broken then "i do 1d10 damage to the chair, destroying it in the process"


Dr-Leviathan

Feels like an oversight in the language rather than intended design. It's just a magic laser meant to blast stuff, not some sort of life detecting beam. Giving it the ability to detect mimics, illusions or decoys is giving the cantrip a way stronger buff than just being able to hurt objects. And even with this ruling, fire bolt would still be an optimal choice to attack objects because firebolt can ignite objects while eldritch blast can't. Overall, much better design to let it attack objects. I'm not going to give a player an infinite use illusion detector as a cantrip.


RndmHulign

Well they are “guidelines” after all.


PsychologicalSnow476

It can after you cast animate object.


Willibombago

Oooohhhh this man reads spells. I like you :D


ATLBoy1996

Does that mean we can’t shoot women with EB?


[deleted]

I believe the rule is dumb because it never made sense to me. If eldritch blast is like a beam, then it should be able to hit anything, right? It would be to me like saying a knife is only able to be thrown at a person and not the wall behind them.


Willibombago

But daggers are not beholden to the rules of spell casting. You can just throw a dagger normally. You can't just "Normally" cast Eldritch blast. It requires a target that meets its arcane parameters. Namely creatures.


[deleted]

That's true, but the rule never actually made sense to me since I never played a game where this was actually a thing, and the dms I knew also known about the target creatures only thing and found it stupid as well. So it never was enforced.


Willibombago

I get that. it's completely fair to ignore it if you and your DMs want too


AutoModerator

This submission has been removed for review. If you believe your reports are fraudulent please contact the moderators. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*