I would LOVE to know a good explanation of how a character in the world of D&D would ever be able to practice low level spell attacks if they can only target creatures. By this restriction, a spellcaster can't even target practice dummies. So you're telling me that a spellcaster would only practice on living beings until they "learned" the spell?! So your telling me that an apprentice caster would be practicing FIREBOLT on other apprentices? You know, the ones who could die from one firebolt? Or are they practicing on defenseless animals? Oh no, i get it, they are practicing on prisoners of the realm cuz who cares about them?! This is stupid, ESPECIALLY for the low level stuff. A new spellcaster would be casting every attack spell at anything they could. And if i couldn't even FIREBOLT a friggin' rock for fun or practice, then i would quit and go into baking cuz i would consider magic useless. Limiting high level spells makes sense, I guess, too complicated for magic of that power to affect multiply types or something but a friggin cantrip I can use at will but never practice until I actually need it to survive?! This makes no sense and completely eliminates the imaginativeness of spellcasters.
Humorously, you picked one of the few spells that actually can target an object: "You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range."
To prevent the munchkin "target things with spell to see if they are objects or creatures" strategy I've seen it adducted as you can target, just does no damage without a life-force.
I would LOVE to know a good explanation of how a character in the world of D&D would ever be able to practice low level spell attacks if they can only target creatures. By this restriction, a spellcaster can't even target practice dummies. So you're telling me that a spellcaster would only practice on living beings until they "learned" the spell?! So your telling me that an apprentice caster would be practicing FIREBOLT on other apprentices? You know, the ones who could die from one firebolt? Or are they practicing on defenseless animals? Oh no, i get it, they are practicing on prisoners of the realm cuz who cares about them?! This is stupid, ESPECIALLY for the low level stuff. A new spellcaster would be casting every attack spell at anything they could. And if i couldn't even FIREBOLT a friggin' rock for fun or practice, then i would quit and go into baking cuz i would consider magic useless. Limiting high level spells makes sense, I guess, too complicated for magic of that power to affect multiply types or something but a friggin cantrip I can use at will but never practice until I actually need it to survive?! This makes no sense and completely eliminates the imaginativeness of spellcasters.
Few things to remember; the combat rules are an abstraction and focus on dealing damage and meaningful effects. Just because a spell says it can only target creatures (ie hit and do damage), that doesn't mean a character can't ping a firebolt at a rock or a dumb without actually doing anything as a narrative vignette. Combat rules are an abstraction from the narrative of the game.
Secondly, why wouldn't a wizard practise their against a summoned creature or a construct? Maybe they ping poison spray against a nibblewright, or firebolt against a lesser demon immune to fire? Creature doesn't mean living, it just means a specific class of entity within the rules. You could also rule that training dummies are objects that count as creatures for the purpose of targeting.
Wow, I've never seen anyone care so much about a D&D-rule in a long time. Anyway, there's nothing preventing you from allowing the players to practice on dummies.
Yeah this is why we have a DM running the game who has final say over rule disputes. At an actual table if this were brought up, the DM would simply hand-wave it and say "sure no problem you can shoot dummies." The developers knew they didn't have to spell that out for people.
... just because a spell says it can only target creatures (ie hit and do damage), that doesn't mean a character can't ping a firebolt at a rock or a dumb ...
This made me laugh :) I'm guessing there are no "village idiots" in your campaign world, anymore ( yes, I realize you meant dummy, and that auto-correct probably got you there - still made me do a double-take and chuckle )?
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
As others have pointed out, it's the rule for your playing for balance and ease, other targeting and uses can be granted on case-by-case basis by DM. Acid Spray only targets creatures but you might ask the DM if you can use it to melt through a rope given enough uses and providing you have the time. Most DMs would say you can. Or perhaps you use ray of frost to momentarily turn some falling water into ice, or similar such things. These are case-by-cases instance for the DM to adjudicate and decide what you can do with the cantrip, while the basic normal rules are there for standard combat and "main" uses.
The rules only serve as a quick simple framework, the DM builds upon this framework on an as needed, per-situation, basis.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Few things to remember; the combat rules are an abstraction and focus on dealing damage and meaningful effects. Just because a spell says it can only target creatures (ie hit and do damage), that doesn't mean a character can't ping a firebolt at a rock or a dumb without actually doing anything as a narrative vignette. Combat rules are an abstraction from the narrative of the game.
This. You have to consider most cantrips are extremely powerful in the context of the game world: they can be cast at will, require no objects, only need one hand, have very long range, and are roughly as deadly as an armed Fighter of the same level. Making cantrips like Acid Splash ineffective against objects stops them from being too useful and becoming the solution to every lock, cage, jail cell, shackle or manacle the party comes across.
Case in point, letting Ray of Frost also freeze water steps on the toes of Shape Water. It's not meant to be a spell with strong out of combat utility since it already has strong in combat utility.
Not sure why Fire Bolt was brought up since it's explicitly usable on objects and even automatically ignites unattended ones.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Forum Infestation (TM)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would LOVE to know a good explanation of how a character in the world of D&D would ever be able to practice low level spell attacks if they can only target creatures. By this restriction, a spellcaster can't even target practice dummies. So you're telling me that a spellcaster would only practice on living beings until they "learned" the spell?! So your telling me that an apprentice caster would be practicing FIREBOLT on other apprentices? You know, the ones who could die from one firebolt? Or are they practicing on defenseless animals? Oh no, i get it, they are practicing on prisoners of the realm cuz who cares about them?! This is stupid, ESPECIALLY for the low level stuff. A new spellcaster would be casting every attack spell at anything they could. And if i couldn't even FIREBOLT a friggin' rock for fun or practice, then i would quit and go into baking cuz i would consider magic useless. Limiting high level spells makes sense, I guess, too complicated for magic of that power to affect multiply types or something but a friggin cantrip I can use at will but never practice until I actually need it to survive?! This makes no sense and completely eliminates the imaginativeness of spellcasters.
Harley Heywood
A dragon playing a game about dragons.
Humorously, you picked one of the few spells that actually can target an object: "You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range."
To prevent the munchkin "target things with spell to see if they are objects or creatures" strategy I've seen it adducted as you can target, just does no damage without a life-force.
Calm down, it’s a game, not a simulation.
Few things to remember; the combat rules are an abstraction and focus on dealing damage and meaningful effects. Just because a spell says it can only target creatures (ie hit and do damage), that doesn't mean a character can't ping a firebolt at a rock or a dumb without actually doing anything as a narrative vignette. Combat rules are an abstraction from the narrative of the game.
Secondly, why wouldn't a wizard practise their against a summoned creature or a construct? Maybe they ping poison spray against a nibblewright, or firebolt against a lesser demon immune to fire? Creature doesn't mean living, it just means a specific class of entity within the rules. You could also rule that training dummies are objects that count as creatures for the purpose of targeting.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Wow, I've never seen anyone care so much about a D&D-rule in a long time. Anyway, there's nothing preventing you from allowing the players to practice on dummies.
Yeah this is why we have a DM running the game who has final say over rule disputes. At an actual table if this were brought up, the DM would simply hand-wave it and say "sure no problem you can shoot dummies." The developers knew they didn't have to spell that out for people.
This made me laugh :) I'm guessing there are no "village idiots" in your campaign world, anymore ( yes, I realize you meant dummy, and that auto-correct probably got you there - still made me do a double-take and chuckle )?
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
As others have pointed out, it's the rule for your playing for balance and ease, other targeting and uses can be granted on case-by-case basis by DM. Acid Spray only targets creatures but you might ask the DM if you can use it to melt through a rope given enough uses and providing you have the time. Most DMs would say you can. Or perhaps you use ray of frost to momentarily turn some falling water into ice, or similar such things. These are case-by-cases instance for the DM to adjudicate and decide what you can do with the cantrip, while the basic normal rules are there for standard combat and "main" uses.
The rules only serve as a quick simple framework, the DM builds upon this framework on an as needed, per-situation, basis.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Games contain rules. D&D is not, in any way, a simulation.
My AL DM hand waves these restrictions because they don't make sense (as you said).
This. You have to consider most cantrips are extremely powerful in the context of the game world: they can be cast at will, require no objects, only need one hand, have very long range, and are roughly as deadly as an armed Fighter of the same level. Making cantrips like Acid Splash ineffective against objects stops them from being too useful and becoming the solution to every lock, cage, jail cell, shackle or manacle the party comes across.
Case in point, letting Ray of Frost also freeze water steps on the toes of Shape Water. It's not meant to be a spell with strong out of combat utility since it already has strong in combat utility.
Not sure why Fire Bolt was brought up since it's explicitly usable on objects and even automatically ignites unattended ones.
The Forum Infestation (TM)