I wouldn't normally describe an attack spell as save-or-suck; I usually use it to mean spells where there is no effect at all if the save is passed (versus half damage and such). Attack spells are less save or suck because there are a bunch of ways to boost attack rolls to make them a lot less likely to fail, but most of the time whether or not a save-or-suck fails is up to the target; even some of the common save debuffs are relatively small (d4's like Bane, which itself requires a save) so it's harder to tip the scale without more specific combos/builds, whereas boosting attacks is comparatively easier (Bless is automatic and boosts your attacks and saves, a whole load of effects can grant persistent or temporary advantage and so-on).
There are a bunch of ways to boost attack rolls as compared to Save Spells in 5th edition. But remember Phrases like Save or Suck are older than 5th edition. Even if 5th edition might helped to give it a good bit of new popularity. In something like 3.x/PF there were a lot of ways to do things like Boost DC's. To boost or penalize Saves and things like that. Just like still exist in the fairly simplified format of 5e. 3.x/PF also possessed a lot of stuff to mitigate Attack roll damage that very little of exists and made it into 5th edition as well. so both save spells and attack spells had a variety of different modifiers and potentials for partial damage or no damage.
Also keep in mind that a d4 on something like a save... Or an attack roll. Is really a whole lot much more potent in 5e than they ever would have been in editions like 3.x/PF as well. A high level total modifier of +11 is huge in 5e. A +11 is roughly second Tier in those older systems so less than half Of what we got in 5e.
Otherwise I pretty much agree wit Haravikk though I would mention that Sometimes even having 2 save spells is a good idea. One that attacks mentals and one that attacks Physicals. As well as the Attack roll spell. This covers your bases in a lot of ways because it's rather that something has strong stats in all three. usually they are lacking in at least one. However that is a bit much to ask of many Casters. Even Some wizards have trouble really fielding that much depending on their primary build purpose. So I only make it a suggestion to consider as one of your options because it can come in very handy at times.
For firebolt I'd say it cant just ignite objects its can attack objects. At 1d10 that is probably meaningless, at 3d10 it can come in handy as a way to destroy things at range without a spell slot. It might not ignite, but it can be broken. Unless a GM decides everything in the world is immune to fire damage for some reason, but there are basic damage object rules in the game. Its not a massive plus or anything but wizards usually have low strength so their options in that regard are limited. I'd normally say let the fighter kick down the door, but people get separated or incapacitated etc. Still I think chill touch is better for a attack roll based spell.
I think its nice to have an attack and save so when going against a high AC use the save, low ac the attack roll. Mind sliver though going again int probably will hit all the time, where as normally in my experience hit rates flip from save based attacks being better to hit rolls being better midish campaign.
As for acid splash.It just does damage, its range isn't great, while it can hit two targets if you are just going for damage more damage to one target is usually better as you have a better chance of removing one of them from the field so they can no longer hurt you. All the lower damage cantrips usually have useful riders. I'd rather have that than 2 1d6 attacks.
@Fateless just out of curiosity do you call weapon attacks save or sucks too?
If you miss does the cantrip do any damage? Attack or suck vs save or suck is not much of a difference outside hit rates based on monster demographics where attack generally becomes a better choice.
@Fateless just out of curiosity do you call weapon attacks save or sucks too?
My only real reason not to call weapon attacks save or suck is primarily because People tend to need a kind of mental seperation between physical weapon based combat and that of casting spells. So Save or Suck is pretty much reserved to spells for me. The other I just tend to refer to weapons stuff as Martial Combat and that immediately clues the majority of people that I mean physically hitting something with a usually permanent object and that there is not a 100% success rate in doing so.
And I tend to call anything that is primary rolling a skill on the sheet as laid out in the skills section. Whether it is combat capable or primary in usage as Skill Based. Because it's a quick easy reference to a general part of the sheet and a general overall grouping of what I mean.
Edit: and for reference. If I'm refering to spells in general. I just say spells. I try not to break it down farther than spells as much in forums because I want to be more concise for regional parlance differences. But "save or suck" for me is spells that either work or they don't with no in the middle, And I tend to refer to those that still have partial effects as "Half Damage" because Half Damage is the most shared thing in common for spells that can only be partially blocked by saves. Though most often instead of worrying about "Save or Suck" unless getting into specifics I tend to worry more about Single Target vs. AoE because in general conversation those tend to mean a lot more.
They are all meant as quick and easy general lumping terms. I don't use "Attack Spells" because in dealing with people from lots of places that's often been confusing because basically any spell that is meant to damage the enemy is an attack spell. The difference is how they attack (you rolling vs. the opponent rolling to resolve the effect). This is why you also tend to see me say either Save Spell or Attack Roll Spell in likeliness most often when refering to those differences.
Further Edit: You will often also see me use the term "Offensive spell" more than "attack spell" to talk about spells hurting enemies. This is primarily because Attack is nebulous and the multiple ways it is used in the martial side with Attack Action, attacks, and yada yada. I just prefer to limit that whole confusing mess as much as possible when speaking unless that's the topic I'm speaking about. "Offensive Spell" also pairs quite Naturally with "Defensive Spell" which is another kind of general category of spell type anyway.
For firebolt I'd say it cant just ignite objects its can attack objects.
The spell itself specifically says that it ignites flammable objects; but it's important to remember that there is a difference between igniting something and it being fully on fire. Wood for example won't go from catching fire to fully on fire right away, it takes time, and without proper kindling, fire on larger pieces of wood will usually just go out on its own (not strong enough to overcome the moisture). This is why you're really looking for either ideal items (fantasy era curtains for example should go right up pretty quickly) or things that you've prepared in advance like objects soaked in lamp oil, dried wood etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Paper has moisture too, and the curtains could be made of asbestos.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
For firebolt I'd say it cant just ignite objects its can attack objects.
The spell itself specifically says that it ignites flammable objects; but it's important to remember that there is a difference between igniting something and it being fully on fire. Wood for example won't go from catching fire to fully on fire right away, it takes time, and without proper kindling, fire on larger pieces of wood will usually just go out on its own (not strong enough to overcome the moisture). This is why you're really looking for either ideal items (fantasy era curtains for example should go right up pretty quickly) or things that you've prepared in advance like objects soaked in lamp oil, dried wood etc.
That is an additional effect beyond doing damage. It can target creatures or objects, targets hit take Xd10 fire damage. It hits an object just as much as a axe does. So like how a axe might break a lock, a firebolt can. The description on how the item breaks would vary just as they would vs different melee damage type. You apply enough heat almost anything will melt or burn, you apply enough blunt force almost anything will break. They have damage thresholds and HP of some items in the DMG, go from there. You might not catch the door on fire, but you may burn a hole through it.
Notice the difference between the wording in firebolt and fireball. Fireball only targets creatures in the area for the damage, but has a additional effect of igniting unattended flammable objects. Firebolt actually targets objects for damage and may ignite them.
For firebolt I'd say it cant just ignite objects its can attack objects.
The spell itself specifically says that it ignites flammable objects; but it's important to remember that there is a difference between igniting something and it being fully on fire. Wood for example won't go from catching fire to fully on fire right away, it takes time, and without proper kindling, fire on larger pieces of wood will usually just go out on its own (not strong enough to overcome the moisture). This is why you're really looking for either ideal items (fantasy era curtains for example should go right up pretty quickly) or things that you've prepared in advance like objects soaked in lamp oil, dried wood etc.
That is an additional effect beyond doing damage. It can target creatures or objects, targets hit take Xd10 fire damage. It hits an object just as much as a axe does. So like how a axe might break a lock, a firebolt can. The description on how the item breaks would vary just as they would vs different melee damage type. You apply enough heat almost anything will melt or burn, you apply enough blunt force almost anything will break. They have damage thresholds and HP of some items in the DMG, go from there. You might not catch the door on fire, but you may burn a hole through it.
Notice the difference between the wording in firebolt and fireball. Fireball only targets creatures in the area for the damage, but has a additional effect of igniting unattended flammable objects. Firebolt actually targets objects for damage and may ignite them.
Fireball does not only target Creatures in the area. it hits everything in the area. But it assumes that it's not going to do significant damage to anything that is not a creature or a Flammable object. nor is there any actual guarantee that Fire Bolt will actually deal damage to all items despite the way that it is written. But being single target it needs to have the or object clause in there to target objects and light them on fire that Fireball doesn't need to specify because the very nature of fireball targets everything in it's area anyway. It doesn't need that Or Object clause in it to hit objects. It does not define Target as purely creature. It only says that any target that is a creature needs to make a Dexterity saving throw to partially avoid it. These differences in the way they are written are purely because of the difference in one being single target and the other being an AoE spell. It just so happens that most people do not actually bother to have fireballs destroy items all that often but that's not strictly because the spell can't. But more because DM's and Players don't often excerise that part of the spell. Just like there are not things to end up flammable quite a bit of the time so people may forget thta curtains in the middle of a Fireballs radius would in fact go up in flames, as would potentially a wooden door. This is a matter of lacking the realization of the environmental Storytelling while Focusing on Creature to Creature Combat.
Firebolt is the only cantrip that specifically allows you to target a creature or object.
So it 100% does guarantee that you do the damage to objects, and ignite those that are ignitable.
That is all the spell actually does do, it doesn't turn you invisible or allow you to fly... it sets things on fire.
You're right about Fireball, many do ignore that unattended flammable objects will ignite. That's on those DM's and players. This thread is more about addressing why people don't have more love for the Acid Splash cantrip.
There are very few cantrips that target multiple creatures, or allow you to include multiple creatures in their damaging effects.
Yet another reason to give Acid Splash more love. It is my preferable cantrip for damage. I have to force myself to try other lesser damaging cantrips so that all my characters won't seem like their from a cookie cutter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
Firebolt is the only cantrip that specifically allows you to target a creature or object.
So it 100% does guarantee that you do the damage to objects, and ignite those that are ignitable.
That is all the spell actually does do, it doesn't turn you invisible or allow you to fly... it sets things on fire.
You're right about Fireball, many do ignore that unattended flammable objects will ignite. That's on those DM's and players. This thread is more about addressing why people don't have more love for the Acid Splash cantrip.
There are very few cantrips that target multiple creatures, or allow you to include multiple creatures in their damaging effects.
Yet another reason to give Acid Splash more love. It is my preferable cantrip for damage. I have to force myself to try other lesser damaging cantrips so that all my characters won't seem like their from a cookie cutter.
it does not guarantee you do damage to objects. Because the rules for Objects and structures state that some kind of damage may be reduced or even entirely inneffective. So Fire Bolt can do damage but it is not guaranteed to actually do damage. For Example you could fire bolt a castle wall but it is unlikely to do any damage what so ever. First of all because it might not cross the damage thresh-hold with such an item to actually count as causing damage. And second off because it's fire and it might be deemed that stone walls are resistant or even immune to fire damage.
As a bit of a twist and within the matter of Acid bolt for this thread. Where as Fire Bolt Might not deal damage to that Stone Wall despite it's clearly called out ability to target objects. Acid Splash might actually do the job because Acid is known to some times break down things like Stone It might not do it quickly mind you but it could work. Conversely Acid Splash would likely do nothing to a glass pitcher or even a massive glass structure but Fire Bolt might cause it to shatter from the rapid heat change and damage of the cantrip.
Nice try to introduce physics into the RAW rules of a fantasy game.
Fire Bolt can and does damage stuff because it says in the spell if it hits it does damage and ignites combustibles.
Acid Splash cannot target objects and therefore cannot damage stone or anything else, just what it can target... creatures.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
Nice try to introduce physics into the RAW rules of a fantasy game.
Fire Bolt can and does damage stuff because it says in the spell if it hits it does damage and ignites combustibles.
Acid Splash cannot target objects and therefore cannot damage stone or anything else, just what it can target... creatures.
I didn't introduce physics. I introduced actual rules in the game. You might want to do yourself a favor and look up the details on the hardness and hp of objects and how it's calculated instead of making ignorant excuses like "that's not true! this is a fantasy game!"
Acid Splash cannot target objects and therefore cannot damage stone or anything else, just what it can target... creatures.
While this is true in strictest RAW, I think you'd be hard pressed to find many DM's that stick to that inrepretation in general, as it leads to some ridiculous situations with anything DEX based; it could mean that a dragon breathing fire in through the window of a farmer's hovel could only harm the farmer while leaving the building itself totally unscathed.
The key thing is that spells like Fire Bolt and Fireball explicitly ignite objects, but it doesn't necessarily mean that other spells are incapable of causing damage to objects if that's what you're trying to with them, and it's reasonable to do so (i.e- no viciously mocking a chair to pieces).
Now whether Acid Splashspecifically should or should not affect objects, I'd say it should but that the effect in a single round would be minor, i.e- it might eat through something fine like paper, but a wooden table or whatever might just be a bit pitted but otherwise fine; if you want to destroy it it'd take several rounds, or a more powerful spell like Vitriolic Sphere (if your DM is happy to put an HP amount to the table, or just rule that bigger spell = more success).
I've recently asked my DM to let me use Acid Splash to dissolve a few dead bodies to prevent them from being raised as zombies, but we negotiated it as taking a while (I think 20-30 minutes), basically similar to building a non-magical fire to do it, but more in keeping with my characte'rs theme. Magical fire could of course have been quicker.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Nice try to introduce physics into the RAW rules of a fantasy game.
Fire Bolt can and does damage stuff because it says in the spell if it hits it does damage and ignites combustibles.
Acid Splash cannot target objects and therefore cannot damage stone or anything else, just what it can target... creatures.
I didn't introduce physics. I introduced actual rules in the game. You might want to do yourself a favor and look up the details on the hardness and hp of objects and how it's calculated instead of making ignorant excuses like "that's not true! this is a fantasy game!"
Using those rules, firebolts can still wreck things that they don't ignite. Unless its a item of a large size like castle walls most objects don't have damage thresholds, they just have a Ac and hit points. A DM can make a call to make an item resistant or immune, but thats a DM call. A DM can always say no to a character. But stone melts and becomes magmna, in various adventures lava when you full on fall into it does like 4d10, so saying a firebolt doing 3d10 can melt small amounts of stone given 4d10 is molten stone isn't a stretch, heat is used in forges to shape and melt metal. I'm sure if asbestos walls or something came up, they could logically make that call otherwise its a stretch. Though a GM can make that call but they should be saying no you can't do bludgeoning and slashing as well all the time as well then.
stone melts and becomes magmna, in various adventures lava when you full on fall into it does like 4d10, so saying a firebolt doing 3d10 can melt small amounts of stone given 4d10 is molten stone isn't a stretch
I think it's wrong to assume that the damage values inform whether or not stone can be melted; lava as an environmental hazard is dealing the damage from extreme heat, and deals that damage continuously, Fire Bolt by comparison just deals a small burst of instantaneous damage to a single target.
Lava is formed when rock is superheated to the point of becoming semi-liquid, but those are extreme, persistent temperatures. I could see ruling it for an ancient fire dragon blasting a wall if you're going for cinematic effect (i.e- ignore recharge so it can do it for several rounds in a row, like maybe it had a spicy lunch?) but taking stone from solid to turning into lava is definitely way beyond the realm of possibility for a cantrip, and really most fire spells, as we don't have an official giant persistent fire beam spell iirc.
If you take fires in churches/cathedrals as examples; usually the stone walls are relatively undamaged despite persistent extreme heat from fires, what is damaged are any wooden structures and, if you're unlucky, the mortar between the stones will crack, which can weaken the wall (risking a collapse), but you'd have to be chipping away at one stone for quite a long time to stand any chance of dislodging just one stone with Fire Bolt. But I don't think I'd fancy your chances with Acid Splash either, there's a reason that we have Passwall.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Nice try to introduce physics into the RAW rules of a fantasy game.
Fire Bolt can and does damage stuff because it says in the spell if it hits it does damage and ignites combustibles.
Acid Splash cannot target objects and therefore cannot damage stone or anything else, just what it can target... creatures.
I didn't introduce physics. I introduced actual rules in the game. You might want to do yourself a favor and look up the details on the hardness and hp of objects and how it's calculated instead of making ignorant excuses like "that's not true! this is a fantasy game!"
Using those rules, firebolts can still wreck things that they don't ignite. Unless its a item of a large size like castle walls most objects don't have damage thresholds, they just have a Ac and hit points. A DM can make a call to make an item resistant or immune, but thats a DM call. A DM can always say no to a character. But stone melts and becomes magmna, in various adventures lava when you full on fall into it does like 4d10, so saying a firebolt doing 3d10 can melt small amounts of stone given 4d10 is molten stone isn't a stretch, heat is used in forges to shape and melt metal. I'm sure if asbestos walls or something came up, they could logically make that call otherwise its a stretch. Though a GM can make that call but they should be saying no you can't do bludgeoning and slashing as well all the time as well then.
Objects of all sizes still have potential for resistances and immunities, and potentially even vulnerabilities based upon things like what they are made out of, potential enchantments on them, and things like that. So even without damage thresh-holds it's possible for some things to be highly effective and some things to basically be ineffective. This detail is in the same rules that I mentioned and suggested for the DM to consider.
Also... Forging kind of proves my point. Do you actualy know what Most Forges are made out of before the modern age? They are made of sand, Stone, and Clay. Because they take the heat far more and far longer than the metal can. Even today Forges that are made out of metals are made out of Tempered and specially prepared metals that withstand massive amounts more heat than the ore that they are using to make new metal which makes them highly resistant to the point of almost immunity against fire and heat.
Nice try to introduce physics into the RAW rules of a fantasy game.
Fire Bolt can and does damage stuff because it says in the spell if it hits it does damage and ignites combustibles.
Acid Splash cannot target objects and therefore cannot damage stone or anything else, just what it can target... creatures.
I didn't introduce physics. I introduced actual rules in the game. You might want to do yourself a favor and look up the details on the hardness and hp of objects and how it's calculated instead of making ignorant excuses like "that's not true! this is a fantasy game!"
Using those rules, firebolts can still wreck things that they don't ignite. Unless its a item of a large size like castle walls most objects don't have damage thresholds, they just have a Ac and hit points. A DM can make a call to make an item resistant or immune, but thats a DM call. A DM can always say no to a character. But stone melts and becomes magmna, in various adventures lava when you full on fall into it does like 4d10, so saying a firebolt doing 3d10 can melt small amounts of stone given 4d10 is molten stone isn't a stretch, heat is used in forges to shape and melt metal. I'm sure if asbestos walls or something came up, they could logically make that call otherwise its a stretch. Though a GM can make that call but they should be saying no you can't do bludgeoning and slashing as well all the time as well then.
Objects of all sizes still have potential for resistances and immunities, and potentially even vulnerabilities based upon things like what they are made out of, potential enchantments on them, and things like that. So even without damage thresh-holds it's possible for some things to be highly effective and some things to basically be ineffective. This detail is in the same rules that I mentioned and suggested for the DM to consider.
I'm pretty sure I mentioned that. Yes, when I said its a DMs call on if and what is resistant or immune. They did not create a rules list. Its a DMs call. And heat does melt stone and metal. So immunity would be a hard sell. Maybe resistant, but I'm not sure why a DM would make that call as the game world is set up in a way that lesser damaging fires forge metal and molten stone is about the same heat as a high level firebolt and that's for falling into it not a directed bolt, so I'd assume a 4d10 firebolt is actually hotter than magma. Though I guess you could argue its all shock damage(not electricity shock)
Nice try to introduce physics into the RAW rules of a fantasy game.
Fire Bolt can and does damage stuff because it says in the spell if it hits it does damage and ignites combustibles.
Acid Splash cannot target objects and therefore cannot damage stone or anything else, just what it can target... creatures.
I didn't introduce physics. I introduced actual rules in the game. You might want to do yourself a favor and look up the details on the hardness and hp of objects and how it's calculated instead of making ignorant excuses like "that's not true! this is a fantasy game!"
Using those rules, firebolts can still wreck things that they don't ignite. Unless its a item of a large size like castle walls most objects don't have damage thresholds, they just have a Ac and hit points. A DM can make a call to make an item resistant or immune, but thats a DM call. A DM can always say no to a character. But stone melts and becomes magmna, in various adventures lava when you full on fall into it does like 4d10, so saying a firebolt doing 3d10 can melt small amounts of stone given 4d10 is molten stone isn't a stretch, heat is used in forges to shape and melt metal. I'm sure if asbestos walls or something came up, they could logically make that call otherwise its a stretch. Though a GM can make that call but they should be saying no you can't do bludgeoning and slashing as well all the time as well then.
Objects of all sizes still have potential for resistances and immunities, and potentially even vulnerabilities based upon things like what they are made out of, potential enchantments on them, and things like that. So even without damage thresh-holds it's possible for some things to be highly effective and some things to basically be ineffective. This detail is in the same rules that I mentioned and suggested for the DM to consider.
I'm pretty sure I mentioned that. Yes, when I said its a DMs call on if and what is resistant or immune. They did not create a rules list. Its a DMs call. And heat does melt stone and metal. So immunity would be a hard sell. Maybe resistant, but I'm not sure why a DM would make that call as the game world is set up in a way that lesser damaging fires forge metal and molten stone is about the same heat as a high level firebolt and that's for falling into it not a directed bolt, so I'd assume a 4d10 firebolt is actually hotter than magma. Though I guess you could argue its all shock damage(not electricity shock)
Your mistaking damage potential for effectiveness. I'd also like to point out that Lava damage is not necessarily consistant across modules and various rules. It's variable based upon survivability, how much of an environmental threat it's supposed to be to the lives of the characters, and level of the campaign. You see it in lower numbers in most campaigns because it's not meant to be instant death. However if you find it in high level campaign portions you find thta the damage has often been upped to keep that same level of threat to life without being instant death.
I'm pretty sure I mentioned that. Yes, when I said its a DMs call on if and what is resistant or immune. They did not create a rules list. Its a DMs call. And heat does melt stone and metal. So immunity would be a hard sell. Maybe resistant, but I'm not sure why a DM would make that call as the game world is set up in a way that lesser damaging fires forge metal and molten stone is about the same heat as a high level firebolt and that's for falling into it not a directed bolt, so I'd assume a 4d10 firebolt is actually hotter than magma. Though I guess you could argue its all shock damage(not electricity shock)
Metal and stone can melt, but the heat required to do it is huge, and needs to be applied consistently for a time, not just in a single burst; the temperature required to melt metal of stone immediately is enormous. To use magic as an excuse you'd have to have some magic that actually gives a real justification for being able to do this; you want to destroy castle walls, that's Meteor Swarm level stuff, not the My First Fire spell cantrip any 1st level mage can take fresh out of mages pre-school.
You cannot use the damage rolls as justification because a) many forms of environmental damage are actually way too weak (fall damage isn't that bad, lava damage is definitely too low since in reality the heat would kill you before you could even fall into it and so-on) but also b) you could argue that almost literally anything can melt stone on that basis. A fighter with a longbow for example can do the same (actually better) damage than a fire bolt in a single turn, but they still shouldn't be able to destroy a castle wall using only arrows.
It's also worth noting that the lava damage isn't the degree of energy required to create lava, it's the amount of damage you take for touching it, but again, it's far too low. Unless the player fell into the lava through some misunderstanding (in which case a DM should always show leniency), it really shouldn't be survivable without fire resistance at the very least.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There are a bunch of ways to boost attack rolls as compared to Save Spells in 5th edition. But remember Phrases like Save or Suck are older than 5th edition. Even if 5th edition might helped to give it a good bit of new popularity. In something like 3.x/PF there were a lot of ways to do things like Boost DC's. To boost or penalize Saves and things like that. Just like still exist in the fairly simplified format of 5e. 3.x/PF also possessed a lot of stuff to mitigate Attack roll damage that very little of exists and made it into 5th edition as well. so both save spells and attack spells had a variety of different modifiers and potentials for partial damage or no damage.
Also keep in mind that a d4 on something like a save... Or an attack roll. Is really a whole lot much more potent in 5e than they ever would have been in editions like 3.x/PF as well. A high level total modifier of +11 is huge in 5e. A +11 is roughly second Tier in those older systems so less than half Of what we got in 5e.
Otherwise I pretty much agree wit Haravikk though I would mention that Sometimes even having 2 save spells is a good idea. One that attacks mentals and one that attacks Physicals. As well as the Attack roll spell. This covers your bases in a lot of ways because it's rather that something has strong stats in all three. usually they are lacking in at least one. However that is a bit much to ask of many Casters. Even Some wizards have trouble really fielding that much depending on their primary build purpose. So I only make it a suggestion to consider as one of your options because it can come in very handy at times.
@Fateless just out of curiosity do you call weapon attacks save or sucks too?
For firebolt I'd say it cant just ignite objects its can attack objects. At 1d10 that is probably meaningless, at 3d10 it can come in handy as a way to destroy things at range without a spell slot. It might not ignite, but it can be broken. Unless a GM decides everything in the world is immune to fire damage for some reason, but there are basic damage object rules in the game. Its not a massive plus or anything but wizards usually have low strength so their options in that regard are limited. I'd normally say let the fighter kick down the door, but people get separated or incapacitated etc. Still I think chill touch is better for a attack roll based spell.
I think its nice to have an attack and save so when going against a high AC use the save, low ac the attack roll. Mind sliver though going again int probably will hit all the time, where as normally in my experience hit rates flip from save based attacks being better to hit rolls being better midish campaign.
As for acid splash.It just does damage, its range isn't great, while it can hit two targets if you are just going for damage more damage to one target is usually better as you have a better chance of removing one of them from the field so they can no longer hurt you. All the lower damage cantrips usually have useful riders. I'd rather have that than 2 1d6 attacks.
If you miss does the cantrip do any damage? Attack or suck vs save or suck is not much of a difference outside hit rates based on monster demographics where attack generally becomes a better choice.
My only real reason not to call weapon attacks save or suck is primarily because People tend to need a kind of mental seperation between physical weapon based combat and that of casting spells. So Save or Suck is pretty much reserved to spells for me. The other I just tend to refer to weapons stuff as Martial Combat and that immediately clues the majority of people that I mean physically hitting something with a usually permanent object and that there is not a 100% success rate in doing so.
And I tend to call anything that is primary rolling a skill on the sheet as laid out in the skills section. Whether it is combat capable or primary in usage as Skill Based. Because it's a quick easy reference to a general part of the sheet and a general overall grouping of what I mean.
Edit: and for reference. If I'm refering to spells in general. I just say spells. I try not to break it down farther than spells as much in forums because I want to be more concise for regional parlance differences. But "save or suck" for me is spells that either work or they don't with no in the middle, And I tend to refer to those that still have partial effects as "Half Damage" because Half Damage is the most shared thing in common for spells that can only be partially blocked by saves. Though most often instead of worrying about "Save or Suck" unless getting into specifics I tend to worry more about Single Target vs. AoE because in general conversation those tend to mean a lot more.
They are all meant as quick and easy general lumping terms. I don't use "Attack Spells" because in dealing with people from lots of places that's often been confusing because basically any spell that is meant to damage the enemy is an attack spell. The difference is how they attack (you rolling vs. the opponent rolling to resolve the effect). This is why you also tend to see me say either Save Spell or Attack Roll Spell in likeliness most often when refering to those differences.
Further Edit: You will often also see me use the term "Offensive spell" more than "attack spell" to talk about spells hurting enemies. This is primarily because Attack is nebulous and the multiple ways it is used in the martial side with Attack Action, attacks, and yada yada. I just prefer to limit that whole confusing mess as much as possible when speaking unless that's the topic I'm speaking about. "Offensive Spell" also pairs quite Naturally with "Defensive Spell" which is another kind of general category of spell type anyway.
The spell itself specifically says that it ignites flammable objects; but it's important to remember that there is a difference between igniting something and it being fully on fire. Wood for example won't go from catching fire to fully on fire right away, it takes time, and without proper kindling, fire on larger pieces of wood will usually just go out on its own (not strong enough to overcome the moisture). This is why you're really looking for either ideal items (fantasy era curtains for example should go right up pretty quickly) or things that you've prepared in advance like objects soaked in lamp oil, dried wood etc.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Paper has moisture too, and the curtains could be made of asbestos.
That is an additional effect beyond doing damage. It can target creatures or objects, targets hit take Xd10 fire damage. It hits an object just as much as a axe does. So like how a axe might break a lock, a firebolt can. The description on how the item breaks would vary just as they would vs different melee damage type. You apply enough heat almost anything will melt or burn, you apply enough blunt force almost anything will break. They have damage thresholds and HP of some items in the DMG, go from there. You might not catch the door on fire, but you may burn a hole through it.
Notice the difference between the wording in firebolt and fireball. Fireball only targets creatures in the area for the damage, but has a additional effect of igniting unattended flammable objects. Firebolt actually targets objects for damage and may ignite them.
Fireball does not only target Creatures in the area. it hits everything in the area. But it assumes that it's not going to do significant damage to anything that is not a creature or a Flammable object. nor is there any actual guarantee that Fire Bolt will actually deal damage to all items despite the way that it is written. But being single target it needs to have the or object clause in there to target objects and light them on fire that Fireball doesn't need to specify because the very nature of fireball targets everything in it's area anyway. It doesn't need that Or Object clause in it to hit objects. It does not define Target as purely creature. It only says that any target that is a creature needs to make a Dexterity saving throw to partially avoid it. These differences in the way they are written are purely because of the difference in one being single target and the other being an AoE spell. It just so happens that most people do not actually bother to have fireballs destroy items all that often but that's not strictly because the spell can't. But more because DM's and Players don't often excerise that part of the spell. Just like there are not things to end up flammable quite a bit of the time so people may forget thta curtains in the middle of a Fireballs radius would in fact go up in flames, as would potentially a wooden door. This is a matter of lacking the realization of the environmental Storytelling while Focusing on Creature to Creature Combat.
I was being sarcastic in my last post.
Firebolt is the only cantrip that specifically allows you to target a creature or object.
So it 100% does guarantee that you do the damage to objects, and ignite those that are ignitable.
That is all the spell actually does do, it doesn't turn you invisible or allow you to fly... it sets things on fire.
You're right about Fireball, many do ignore that unattended flammable objects will ignite. That's on those DM's and players. This thread is more about addressing why people don't have more love for the Acid Splash cantrip.
There are very few cantrips that target multiple creatures, or allow you to include multiple creatures in their damaging effects.
Yet another reason to give Acid Splash more love. It is my preferable cantrip for damage. I have to force myself to try other lesser damaging cantrips so that all my characters won't seem like their from a cookie cutter.
it does not guarantee you do damage to objects. Because the rules for Objects and structures state that some kind of damage may be reduced or even entirely inneffective. So Fire Bolt can do damage but it is not guaranteed to actually do damage. For Example you could fire bolt a castle wall but it is unlikely to do any damage what so ever. First of all because it might not cross the damage thresh-hold with such an item to actually count as causing damage. And second off because it's fire and it might be deemed that stone walls are resistant or even immune to fire damage.
As a bit of a twist and within the matter of Acid bolt for this thread. Where as Fire Bolt Might not deal damage to that Stone Wall despite it's clearly called out ability to target objects. Acid Splash might actually do the job because Acid is known to some times break down things like Stone It might not do it quickly mind you but it could work. Conversely Acid Splash would likely do nothing to a glass pitcher or even a massive glass structure but Fire Bolt might cause it to shatter from the rapid heat change and damage of the cantrip.
Nice try to introduce physics into the RAW rules of a fantasy game.
Fire Bolt can and does damage stuff because it says in the spell if it hits it does damage and ignites combustibles.
Acid Splash cannot target objects and therefore cannot damage stone or anything else, just what it can target... creatures.
I didn't introduce physics. I introduced actual rules in the game. You might want to do yourself a favor and look up the details on the hardness and hp of objects and how it's calculated instead of making ignorant excuses like "that's not true! this is a fantasy game!"
While this is true in strictest RAW, I think you'd be hard pressed to find many DM's that stick to that inrepretation in general, as it leads to some ridiculous situations with anything DEX based; it could mean that a dragon breathing fire in through the window of a farmer's hovel could only harm the farmer while leaving the building itself totally unscathed.
The key thing is that spells like Fire Bolt and Fireball explicitly ignite objects, but it doesn't necessarily mean that other spells are incapable of causing damage to objects if that's what you're trying to with them, and it's reasonable to do so (i.e- no viciously mocking a chair to pieces).
Now whether Acid Splash specifically should or should not affect objects, I'd say it should but that the effect in a single round would be minor, i.e- it might eat through something fine like paper, but a wooden table or whatever might just be a bit pitted but otherwise fine; if you want to destroy it it'd take several rounds, or a more powerful spell like Vitriolic Sphere (if your DM is happy to put an HP amount to the table, or just rule that bigger spell = more success).
I've recently asked my DM to let me use Acid Splash to dissolve a few dead bodies to prevent them from being raised as zombies, but we negotiated it as taking a while (I think 20-30 minutes), basically similar to building a non-magical fire to do it, but more in keeping with my characte'rs theme. Magical fire could of course have been quicker.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Using those rules, firebolts can still wreck things that they don't ignite. Unless its a item of a large size like castle walls most objects don't have damage thresholds, they just have a Ac and hit points. A DM can make a call to make an item resistant or immune, but thats a DM call. A DM can always say no to a character. But stone melts and becomes magmna, in various adventures lava when you full on fall into it does like 4d10, so saying a firebolt doing 3d10 can melt small amounts of stone given 4d10 is molten stone isn't a stretch, heat is used in forges to shape and melt metal. I'm sure if asbestos walls or something came up, they could logically make that call otherwise its a stretch. Though a GM can make that call but they should be saying no you can't do bludgeoning and slashing as well all the time as well then.
I think it's wrong to assume that the damage values inform whether or not stone can be melted; lava as an environmental hazard is dealing the damage from extreme heat, and deals that damage continuously, Fire Bolt by comparison just deals a small burst of instantaneous damage to a single target.
Lava is formed when rock is superheated to the point of becoming semi-liquid, but those are extreme, persistent temperatures. I could see ruling it for an ancient fire dragon blasting a wall if you're going for cinematic effect (i.e- ignore recharge so it can do it for several rounds in a row, like maybe it had a spicy lunch?) but taking stone from solid to turning into lava is definitely way beyond the realm of possibility for a cantrip, and really most fire spells, as we don't have an official giant persistent fire beam spell iirc.
If you take fires in churches/cathedrals as examples; usually the stone walls are relatively undamaged despite persistent extreme heat from fires, what is damaged are any wooden structures and, if you're unlucky, the mortar between the stones will crack, which can weaken the wall (risking a collapse), but you'd have to be chipping away at one stone for quite a long time to stand any chance of dislodging just one stone with Fire Bolt. But I don't think I'd fancy your chances with Acid Splash either, there's a reason that we have Passwall.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Objects of all sizes still have potential for resistances and immunities, and potentially even vulnerabilities based upon things like what they are made out of, potential enchantments on them, and things like that. So even without damage thresh-holds it's possible for some things to be highly effective and some things to basically be ineffective. This detail is in the same rules that I mentioned and suggested for the DM to consider.
Also... Forging kind of proves my point. Do you actualy know what Most Forges are made out of before the modern age? They are made of sand, Stone, and Clay. Because they take the heat far more and far longer than the metal can. Even today Forges that are made out of metals are made out of Tempered and specially prepared metals that withstand massive amounts more heat than the ore that they are using to make new metal which makes them highly resistant to the point of almost immunity against fire and heat.
I'm pretty sure I mentioned that. Yes, when I said its a DMs call on if and what is resistant or immune. They did not create a rules list. Its a DMs call. And heat does melt stone and metal. So immunity would be a hard sell. Maybe resistant, but I'm not sure why a DM would make that call as the game world is set up in a way that lesser damaging fires forge metal and molten stone is about the same heat as a high level firebolt and that's for falling into it not a directed bolt, so I'd assume a 4d10 firebolt is actually hotter than magma. Though I guess you could argue its all shock damage(not electricity shock)
Your mistaking damage potential for effectiveness. I'd also like to point out that Lava damage is not necessarily consistant across modules and various rules. It's variable based upon survivability, how much of an environmental threat it's supposed to be to the lives of the characters, and level of the campaign. You see it in lower numbers in most campaigns because it's not meant to be instant death. However if you find it in high level campaign portions you find thta the damage has often been upped to keep that same level of threat to life without being instant death.
Metal and stone can melt, but the heat required to do it is huge, and needs to be applied consistently for a time, not just in a single burst; the temperature required to melt metal of stone immediately is enormous. To use magic as an excuse you'd have to have some magic that actually gives a real justification for being able to do this; you want to destroy castle walls, that's Meteor Swarm level stuff, not the My First Fire spell cantrip any 1st level mage can take fresh out of mages pre-school.
You cannot use the damage rolls as justification because a) many forms of environmental damage are actually way too weak (fall damage isn't that bad, lava damage is definitely too low since in reality the heat would kill you before you could even fall into it and so-on) but also b) you could argue that almost literally anything can melt stone on that basis. A fighter with a longbow for example can do the same (actually better) damage than a fire bolt in a single turn, but they still shouldn't be able to destroy a castle wall using only arrows.
It's also worth noting that the lava damage isn't the degree of energy required to create lava, it's the amount of damage you take for touching it, but again, it's far too low. Unless the player fell into the lava through some misunderstanding (in which case a DM should always show leniency), it really shouldn't be survivable without fire resistance at the very least.
Anyway, this is way off topic.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.