Noticed that some spells need targets for them; Eldritch Blast targets a creature, Shatter targets a point, Magic Mouth targets an object, Raise Dead targets a dead creature, etc. I was wondering what happens when someone tries to use a spell improperly. For example, if someone casts eldritch blast trying to damage an object (an inanimate door), what happens? Does the spell simply fizzle, do the blasts ring out but the object (door) is unphased since it is not a valid target? In the case of a leveled spell, is a spell slot used or the action wasted? If someone tries to cast Raise Dead on a creature that is merely unconscious, is the hour, spell slot, material component, etc. be wasted?
Additionally, do spells that target creatures influence dead creatures? For example, could eldritch blast be launched at a dead creature and deal damage, or cure wounds be used on a dead creature to heal its wounds (though the creature would still be dead)? Does a dead creature count as a creature, an object, etc. for these purposes?
If you cannot target the spell, you cannot cast it. Targeting is part of casting.
Yes, dead creatures are still creatures, but the effects are based on the spell and rules. A dead creature is dead - doesn't matter if you can give it 10 billion hit points, it remains dead and you wasted a spell - because that's how the spell and the rules on death work.
A dead creature is a creature. Some people like to say they're also basically objects - but there is no actual rule (it's just something that often makes sense). Talk to the DM.
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.
Xanathar's contains a section on casting spells against invalid targets. (if you decide to use it).
"Invalid Spell Targets
A spell specifies what a caster can target with it: any type of creature, a creature of a certain type (humanoid or beast, for instance), an object, an area, the caster, or something else. But what happens if a spell targets something that isn’t a valid target? For example, someone might cast charm person on a creature believed to be a humanoid, not knowing that the target is in fact a vampire. If this issue comes up, handle it using the following rule.
If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn’t attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target."
Other DMs might just tell the player they can't cast the spell for some reason though this might give away meta information that the DM would not want the player to have. e.g. The humanoid looking creature is actually a dragon, hag, construct, vampire or something else that would be unaffected by the spell being cast - the DM might just want to use the Xanathar's rule and say that nothing seems to happen (or perhaps the target takes no damage or something else).
Noticed that some spells need targets for them; Eldritch Blast targets a creature, Shatter targets a point, Magic Mouth targets an object, Raise Dead targets a dead creature, etc. I was wondering what happens when someone tries to use a spell improperly. For example, if someone casts eldritch blast trying to damage an object (an inanimate door), what happens? Does the spell simply fizzle, do the blasts ring out but the object (door) is unphased since it is not a valid target? In the case of a leveled spell, is a spell slot used or the action wasted? If someone tries to cast Raise Dead on a creature that is merely unconscious, is the hour, spell slot, material component, etc. be wasted?
There are two answers. The first is the original one: all abilities in the game "leak" information as necessary for a creature using that ability to use the ability. In your eldritch blast example, this would mean that as soon as you need to know if your spell target is an object - which is when you pick the target for the spell - the DM informs you that the object is not a valid target for the spell. You don't cast the spell and then it fizzles, because you had to be told by the DM back when you attempted targeting that you were entering an invalid game state.
This is the general answer for all game effects that can't work without leaking. The most popular example of this is OAs, which only work on hostile targets and are blocked by Disengage, an action all creatures have. As soon as a creature leaves your reach, if you have a reaction available, you're entitled to ask if an OA is provoked, and the DM has to answer you honestly.
One of the stupidest examples of this in practice is that you can automatically determine when transparent total cover would block an attack you want to make - as soon as you attempt to target, the DM will tell you you can't.
The second answer is optional - Xanathar's contains a suite of rules to fix a bunch of stuff from the PHB that was unplayably broken. Under that rule, spells can violate targeting rules at targeting time, they just don't do anything when they resolve against an invalid target. Unlike the above answer, this does mean you waste a caste of Raise Dead by casting it on a living creature (or most objects).
Additionally, do spells that target creatures influence dead creatures?
No. With a few exceptions to fix WOTC's inability to write spell text, all dead creatures are objects, not creatures.
For example, could eldritch blast be launched at a dead creature and deal damage, or cure wounds be used on a dead creature to heal its wounds (though the creature would still be dead)? Does a dead creature count as a creature, an object, etc. for these purposes?
Object. However, there are some very poorly written spells in the game, like Resurrection (absolutely 0% of all dead creatures are undead because only creatures can be undead since it's a creature type), in terms of corpses being objects. So far as I know, all of the problematic ones are the ones used to bring the dead back to life. You can generally fix them by back-solving the RAI - for example, Resurrection appears to be intended to fail on a creature that was Undead when it was last alive, so if you kill a humanoid, Resurrection, True Resurrection, and Revivify are all expected to work and bring the humanoid back. If you kill a humanoid and then raise it as a zombie via Animate Dead and then kill the zombie, the apparent RAI is that Revivify on the corpse will get you a zombie, True Resurrection on the corpse will get you the original humanoid, and Resurrection will...
Resurrection doesn't use the word "target", so you may find you have a DM arguing that it obeys different rules from invalid targeting. In that case you're well into DM fiat territory. Otherwise, Resurrection would obey whatever ruling your DM is going with for invalid spell targeting: either trying it on the zombie corpse tells you that this is not a valid spell target and you keep your resources, or the spell tries to resolve and nothing happens.
My personal favorite answer is: Talk to your DM (or your players, if you're the DM)
IMO, Wizards wrote a lot of spells with the idea that their uses would be fairly straightforward, and didn't think of some of the more utilitarian things you could do with some spells.
IE: Say you had repelling blast on your eldritch blast, and you wanted to try and use it to knock a weapon from someone's hand, without causing lethal damage to them. RaW, you couldn't do that because Eldritch blast has to target a creature, so you're shoehorned into either killing the dude, since most magic can't be non-lethal, or wrestling the weapon from their hands, by hand, which most spell casters would have trouble with.
I usually say, so long as it's agreed upon in the player/dm relationship, that the word "creature" can be replaced with "target" in most circumstances. Some things should just be common sense, like you can't toll the dead a door from it's hinges, but you wanna use thorn whip to rip the door from it's frame? Fine by me. Don't have water to put out the fire that the wizard caused by using fireball in the middle of the woods, so you wanna use ray of frost to put it out? Sure, why not. Just don't expect to use the friends cantrip on the chest to get it to open, since no one took mage hand.
Again, this is just my personal preference as the crazy dm that uses the legendary rest system, and spell points over spell slots. RaW, the people above are correct though.
If it served the story, I might let someone fire off a fire bolt into the sky as a signal or something, which works well enough with Xanathar's Guide guidance. But if someone tries to target an invalid target because they misunderstand the rule or the spell, I'll gently remind the player that their character would be familiar enough with the spell to know they cannot cast it at that target. That seems like the diplomatic way of saying "no."
If it served the story, I might let someone fire off a fire bolt into the sky as a signal or something, which works well enough with Xanathar's Guide guidance. But if someone tries to target an invalid target because they misunderstand the rule or the spell, I'll gently remind the player that their character would be familiar enough with the spell to know they cannot cast it at that target. That seems like the diplomatic way of saying "no."
The problem isn't so much with casting a spell at a target you know (or using firebolt as a signal - I'd totally allow that) - it is casting the spell at a target you don't know.
e.g. Can a warlock say they are casting eldritch blast at a mimic? A mimic is a creature and a valid target for the spell but to the character the mimic looks like a chest. How about a warlock entering a cave and then trying to target the various stalagmites? The one that they can target is likely the roper.
There are a number of creatures that can appear like inanimate objects. There are quite a number of cantrips that target only creatures. Can a character spend a minute at the entrance to a room trying to target various apparent objects in the room - suits of armor, chests, weapons hanging on the walls - using spells like chill touch, eldritch blast, or ray of frost to figure out which (if any) of these objects are creatures and which might be objects just because the spell can only target creatures?
Firebolt is one of the few spells that can target creatures or objects. A character could firebolt a room to their heart's content. The interaction with the spell might give some information as to whether the target was really an object. However, in the case of the other cantrips, just trying to cast it will presumably tell the caster whether their intended target is a creature or an object. Which is where it becomes useful to have some house rules in place to handle this type of situation.
Noticed that some spells need targets for them; Eldritch Blast targets a creature, Shatter targets a point, Magic Mouth targets an object, Raise Dead targets a dead creature, etc. I was wondering what happens when someone tries to use a spell improperly. For example, if someone casts eldritch blast trying to damage an object (an inanimate door), what happens? Does the spell simply fizzle, do the blasts ring out but the object (door) is unphased since it is not a valid target? In the case of a leveled spell, is a spell slot used or the action wasted? If someone tries to cast Raise Dead on a creature that is merely unconscious, is the hour, spell slot, material component, etc. be wasted?
Additionally, do spells that target creatures influence dead creatures? For example, could eldritch blast be launched at a dead creature and deal damage, or cure wounds be used on a dead creature to heal its wounds (though the creature would still be dead)? Does a dead creature count as a creature, an object, etc. for these purposes?
If you cannot target the spell, you cannot cast it. Targeting is part of casting.
Yes, dead creatures are still creatures, but the effects are based on the spell and rules. A dead creature is dead - doesn't matter if you can give it 10 billion hit points, it remains dead and you wasted a spell - because that's how the spell and the rules on death work.
A dead creature is a creature. Some people like to say they're also basically objects - but there is no actual rule (it's just something that often makes sense). Talk to the DM.
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.
Xanathar's contains a section on casting spells against invalid targets. (if you decide to use it).
"Invalid Spell Targets
A spell specifies what a caster can target with it: any type of creature, a creature of a certain type (humanoid or beast, for instance), an object, an area, the caster, or something else. But what happens if a spell targets something that isn’t a valid target? For example, someone might cast charm person on a creature believed to be a humanoid, not knowing that the target is in fact a vampire. If this issue comes up, handle it using the following rule.
If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn’t attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target."
Other DMs might just tell the player they can't cast the spell for some reason though this might give away meta information that the DM would not want the player to have. e.g. The humanoid looking creature is actually a dragon, hag, construct, vampire or something else that would be unaffected by the spell being cast - the DM might just want to use the Xanathar's rule and say that nothing seems to happen (or perhaps the target takes no damage or something else).
There are two answers. The first is the original one: all abilities in the game "leak" information as necessary for a creature using that ability to use the ability. In your eldritch blast example, this would mean that as soon as you need to know if your spell target is an object - which is when you pick the target for the spell - the DM informs you that the object is not a valid target for the spell. You don't cast the spell and then it fizzles, because you had to be told by the DM back when you attempted targeting that you were entering an invalid game state.
This is the general answer for all game effects that can't work without leaking. The most popular example of this is OAs, which only work on hostile targets and are blocked by Disengage, an action all creatures have. As soon as a creature leaves your reach, if you have a reaction available, you're entitled to ask if an OA is provoked, and the DM has to answer you honestly.
One of the stupidest examples of this in practice is that you can automatically determine when transparent total cover would block an attack you want to make - as soon as you attempt to target, the DM will tell you you can't.
The second answer is optional - Xanathar's contains a suite of rules to fix a bunch of stuff from the PHB that was unplayably broken. Under that rule, spells can violate targeting rules at targeting time, they just don't do anything when they resolve against an invalid target. Unlike the above answer, this does mean you waste a caste of Raise Dead by casting it on a living creature (or most objects).
No. With a few exceptions to fix WOTC's inability to write spell text, all dead creatures are objects, not creatures.
Object. However, there are some very poorly written spells in the game, like Resurrection (absolutely 0% of all dead creatures are undead because only creatures can be undead since it's a creature type), in terms of corpses being objects. So far as I know, all of the problematic ones are the ones used to bring the dead back to life. You can generally fix them by back-solving the RAI - for example, Resurrection appears to be intended to fail on a creature that was Undead when it was last alive, so if you kill a humanoid, Resurrection, True Resurrection, and Revivify are all expected to work and bring the humanoid back. If you kill a humanoid and then raise it as a zombie via Animate Dead and then kill the zombie, the apparent RAI is that Revivify on the corpse will get you a zombie, True Resurrection on the corpse will get you the original humanoid, and Resurrection will...
Resurrection doesn't use the word "target", so you may find you have a DM arguing that it obeys different rules from invalid targeting. In that case you're well into DM fiat territory. Otherwise, Resurrection would obey whatever ruling your DM is going with for invalid spell targeting: either trying it on the zombie corpse tells you that this is not a valid spell target and you keep your resources, or the spell tries to resolve and nothing happens.
My personal favorite answer is: Talk to your DM (or your players, if you're the DM)
IMO, Wizards wrote a lot of spells with the idea that their uses would be fairly straightforward, and didn't think of some of the more utilitarian things you could do with some spells.
IE: Say you had repelling blast on your eldritch blast, and you wanted to try and use it to knock a weapon from someone's hand, without causing lethal damage to them. RaW, you couldn't do that because Eldritch blast has to target a creature, so you're shoehorned into either killing the dude, since most magic can't be non-lethal, or wrestling the weapon from their hands, by hand, which most spell casters would have trouble with.
I usually say, so long as it's agreed upon in the player/dm relationship, that the word "creature" can be replaced with "target" in most circumstances. Some things should just be common sense, like you can't toll the dead a door from it's hinges, but you wanna use thorn whip to rip the door from it's frame? Fine by me. Don't have water to put out the fire that the wizard caused by using fireball in the middle of the woods, so you wanna use ray of frost to put it out? Sure, why not. Just don't expect to use the friends cantrip on the chest to get it to open, since no one took mage hand.
Again, this is just my personal preference as the crazy dm that uses the legendary rest system, and spell points over spell slots. RaW, the people above are correct though.
If it served the story, I might let someone fire off a fire bolt into the sky as a signal or something, which works well enough with Xanathar's Guide guidance. But if someone tries to target an invalid target because they misunderstand the rule or the spell, I'll gently remind the player that their character would be familiar enough with the spell to know they cannot cast it at that target. That seems like the diplomatic way of saying "no."
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The problem isn't so much with casting a spell at a target you know (or using firebolt as a signal - I'd totally allow that) - it is casting the spell at a target you don't know.
e.g. Can a warlock say they are casting eldritch blast at a mimic? A mimic is a creature and a valid target for the spell but to the character the mimic looks like a chest. How about a warlock entering a cave and then trying to target the various stalagmites? The one that they can target is likely the roper.
There are a number of creatures that can appear like inanimate objects. There are quite a number of cantrips that target only creatures. Can a character spend a minute at the entrance to a room trying to target various apparent objects in the room - suits of armor, chests, weapons hanging on the walls - using spells like chill touch, eldritch blast, or ray of frost to figure out which (if any) of these objects are creatures and which might be objects just because the spell can only target creatures?
Firebolt is one of the few spells that can target creatures or objects. A character could firebolt a room to their heart's content. The interaction with the spell might give some information as to whether the target was really an object. However, in the case of the other cantrips, just trying to cast it will presumably tell the caster whether their intended target is a creature or an object. Which is where it becomes useful to have some house rules in place to handle this type of situation.