Has anyone had exp using a cantrip as a non atk item. I wanted to use Ray of Frost to make steps slippery so when the enemy came up, hopefully they'd slip and fall back down, the DM didn't allow it since the spell doesn't have a saving throw, anyone know how to work around something like this? Also was planing to use it on the hinges to make them break on locked doors
Most attack cantrips say that the target is a creature. For instance, Acid Splash says creature so that you can’t just use the cantrip to dissolve every door, lock, wall etc. that you come across. There are some exceptions. Fire Bolt says creature or object. I guess they don’t care if you burn the door down.
That really comes down to DM call. Some DMs will adhere to the Rules As Written making it so that you get rulings like you received and Trirhabda describes. There are some DMs who are much more lenient about the RAW and will allow you to do just about anything so long as you can give a good reasoning behind your actions. If your DM says that your idea doesn't work, and explains the why, then you'll be able to understand how close to the rules your DM plays.
I wouldn't allow that use of ray of frost as a DM either, but I think your DMs justification is wrong. Trirhabda has it right that ray of frost doesn't target objects and I think that would be a good reason to disallow this use of ray of frost. My reason for disallowing this use is that I think shape water is your go to cantrip for trying to freeze objects. Just splash some water on the steps and then cantrip freeze it. Bonus points if the event is some kind of demon/undead and you use holy water.
One of my players combined using Shocking Grasp and an iron rod as a makeshift cattle prod to move some slimes they didn't want to fight.
My rule of thumb is that if a player wants to use a spell for different than the intended purpose I allow them to make a skill check to see if they can "warp" the spell. Arcana for Wizards, Sorcerers, Bards and sometimes warlocks. Nature for rangers and sometimes druids and warlocks. Religion for clerics and sometimes druids or warlocks.
I use a scaling DC. For cantrips to 1st level spells a DC 10, for 2nd to 3rd levels a DC 15, and for 4th to 5th level DC 20. Anything higher than 5th level is too powerful and too specialized to be warped. The "warping" has to make sense, for example, warping an acid splash to melt/corrode a lock makes sense but using an acid splash to make a floor slippery doesn't.
I use a similar rule for homebrewing spells, for example, a DC 10 Arcana check to design a version of Magic Missle that does cold damage instead of force damage. But only if they know the base spell/have access to it. For cantrips or classes that have limited spell library like Warlocks, Sorcerers, and so on they can design the spell but can't use it until they hit a point that they can either learn new spells or swap out spells they know.
GM of The Bonus Role - We are playing a 5E game set in my homebrew world of Audra check us out Sunday's at 10 AM CST and follow us at the following social media links. https://www.twitch.tv/thebonusrole @BonusRole
I think when allowing these kinds of creative uses of spells the DM needs to question if something will be prone to abuse. Shocking grasp cattle prod is probably okay. Melting locks with acid splash probably not. The biggest difference here is the ubiquity of locks and other stuff that a player might want to melt. I get annoyed as a DM if the thing that is clever the first time just becomes standard operating procedure. As a player though, why shouldn't it become standard operating procedure of it worked great the first time?
It's easy enough to let the players know "I love that idea, I'll let it happen this time, but it may not work every time." this way you can reward the creative thinking but allow the ability to stop players from abusing a good will gimme. I'm all for the creative uses of skills, abilities, spells and everything else, but I won't let players abuse the system because they think they've created a "go to" answer to problems.
I allowed a player to use mage hand to create a missile attack with a rock, but there were serious problems with the idea when it came to actually hitting a target and damage. It ended up becoming a completely different "go to" that I did let happen often, which was using mage hand to create a distraction by having it drop or toss items to divert attention.
Personally, I don't see why you couldn't target an object with an attack cantrip. One time, when my party was staking out a canyon, my wizard used Minor Illusion to disguise himself as a rock, and then fired a Fire Bolt into the sky as a beacon when the people we were watching out for arrived. The DM pointed out that technically I couldn't do that, but he allowed it anyway.
Personally, I don't see why you couldn't target an object with an attack cantrip. One time, when my party was staking out a canyon, my wizard used Minor Illusion to disguise himself as a rock, and then fired a Fire Bolt into the sky as a beacon when the people we were watching out for arrived. The DM pointed out that technically I couldn't do that, but he allowed it anyway.
It is purely for balance reasons and has no in-game logic. In your situation I would allow it, but as others have stated, if the rules allowed it all the time it would be horribly abused, especially with acid splash. Most DMs will allow it occasionally as long as it's not the go to method of circumventing obstacles.
Has anyone had exp using a cantrip as a non atk item. I wanted to use Ray of Frost to make steps slippery so when the enemy came up, hopefully they'd slip and fall back down, the DM didn't allow it since the spell doesn't have a saving throw, anyone know how to work around something like this? Also was planing to use it on the hinges to make them break on locked doors
This would come down to DM choice. But, without being to blunt about it, That's just Lazy DM'ing by your DM. Ray of Frost doesn't have a saving throw. but if he was DM'ing you, into an icy area, those patches of ice would have a DC rating for an athletics/acrobatics check or a dex save, or you'd fall prone, or have difficult terrain, etc.
By not even bothering to do a minor DC thing for ice that you created by being imaginative (the core concept of D&D), he's more or less discouraging anything out of the box, and that's not cool
As to the Acid Splash, which seems to be the common one people point out as being abusive, easy enough fix as DM: "The lock appears to be made out of something that is unaffected by this"
There are atleast 18 monsters with acid resistance and 15 with acid immunity.
not to mention potions and such to create/manufacture similar effects.
if its a shoddy town jail, yeah, maybe they can't make an acid proof lock.
If its an evil alchemist's lair. maybe the guy, is smart enough and paranoid enough, to have his locks, a little more special than a run of the mill general store lock, and it is not susceptible to the acid splash.
Literally NOTHING can be abused, unless the DM allows it to be abused. Which is why I think its downright horrible, for DMs to just not even bother with anything at all, and stifle the creativity before it starts.
DMThac0 sounds like the kind of DM I'd enjoy playing with. as his answer, which I'll quote and highlight, is all the DM has to do, to set the precedent for future uses/etc.
It's easy enough to let the players know "I love that idea, I'll let it happen this time, but it may not work every time." this way you can reward the creative thinking but allow the ability to stop players from abusing a good will gimme. I'm all for the creative uses of skills, abilities, spells and everything else, but I won't let players abuse the system because they think they've created a "go to" answer to problems.
I allowed a player to use mage hand to create a missile attack with a rock, but there were serious problems with the idea when it came to actually hitting a target and damage. It ended up becoming a completely different "go to" that I did let happen often, which was using mage hand to create a distraction by having it drop or toss items to divert attention.
Another thing, is Acid has a VERY strong and distinctive, and pungent odor. Sure, you could go around splashing acid everywhere to get through locks, but you're very clearly, leaving behind a horrible smell, that is very distinct, and takes away any element of surprise.
As to the Acid Splash, which seems to be the common one people point out as being abusive, easy enough fix as DM: "The lock appears to be made out of something that is unaffected by this"
There are atleast 18 monsters with acid resistance and 15 with acid immunity.
not to mention potions and such to create/manufacture similar effects.
if its a shoddy town jail, yeah, maybe they can't make an acid proof lock.
If its an evil alchemist's lair. maybe the guy, is smart enough and paranoid enough, to have his locks, a little more special than a run of the mill general store lock, and it is not susceptible to the acid splash.
This is fine in theory, but I think in practice it doesn't work. What percentage of locks should be dissolvable by acid? As a player, I would expect most locks to be dissolvable by acid. If the evil alchemist's locks are not, I would understand. However, if most locks are not dissolvable, it's reasonable for players to assume DM metagaming is the reason why seemingly every lock is suddenly magically warded, made of special metal, or coated in copper dragon blood.
Literally NOTHING can be abused, unless the DM allows it to be abused. Which is why I think its downright horrible, for DMs to just not even bother with anything at all, and stifle the creativity before it starts.
DMs certainly do have the power in these situations, but why do you think it's stifling creativity for the DM to enforce the rules of the game? Acid splash only targets creatures and players should expect that to be the case. I like being creative as a player and I try to reward creativity as a DM, but I don't think asking the DM for an exception to the rules is necessarily creative. Creativity (to me) is solving a problem/puzzle in an interesting and novel way using the tools you have at your disposal. Creativity is not asking for new tools that then allow for an interesting and novel solution.
Another thing, is Acid has a VERY strong and distinctive, and pungent odor. Sure, you could go around splashing acid everywhere to get through locks, but you're very clearly, leaving behind a horrible smell, that is very distinct, and takes away any element of surprise.
Only some acids smell. HCl is odorless. Would you really penalize using acid splash (in or out of combat), by having it smell horribly?
As to the Acid Splash, which seems to be the common one people point out as being abusive, easy enough fix as DM: "The lock appears to be made out of something that is unaffected by this"
There are atleast 18 monsters with acid resistance and 15 with acid immunity.
not to mention potions and such to create/manufacture similar effects.
if its a shoddy town jail, yeah, maybe they can't make an acid proof lock.
If its an evil alchemist's lair. maybe the guy, is smart enough and paranoid enough, to have his locks, a little more special than a run of the mill general store lock, and it is not susceptible to the acid splash.
This is fine in theory, but I think in practice it doesn't work. What percentage of locks should be dissolvable by acid? As a player, I would expect most locks to be dissolvable by acid. If the evil alchemist's locks are not, I would understand. However, if most locks are not dissolvable, it's reasonable for players to assume DM metagaming is the reason why seemingly every lock is suddenly magically warded, made of special metal, or coated in copper dragon blood.
Literally NOTHING can be abused, unless the DM allows it to be abused. Which is why I think its downright horrible, for DMs to just not even bother with anything at all, and stifle the creativity before it starts.
DMs certainly do have the power in these situations, but why do you think it's stifling creativity for the DM to enforce the rules of the game? Acid splash only targets creatures and players should expect that to be the case. I like being creative as a player and I try to reward creativity as a DM, but I don't think asking the DM for an exception to the rules is necessarily creative. Creativity (to me) is solving a problem/puzzle in an interesting and novel way using the tools you have at your disposal. Creativity is not asking for new tools that then allow for an interesting and novel solution.
Another thing, is Acid has a VERY strong and distinctive, and pungent odor. Sure, you could go around splashing acid everywhere to get through locks, but you're very clearly, leaving behind a horrible smell, that is very distinct, and takes away any element of surprise.
Only some acids smell. HCl is odorless. Would you really penalize using acid splash (in or out of combat), by having it smell horribly?
Firstly, since, you're a stickler for the RAw. Please show me where in RAW, it says Acid Splash is Hydrochloric acid, and therefore odorless. Secondly, going along your point of the majority of locks and such being resistant or not resistant, Are the majority of acids odorless or are they not? Additionally. Even though HCL is odorless, thats not to say, that the chemical reaction it has when you put it in contact with anything else, does not cause an odor either, so even in your HCL is odorless example, that doesn't necessarily apply anyways unless the HCL is not interacting with anything else.
In regards to "Creativity (to me) is solving a problem/puzzle in an interesting and novel way using the tools you have at your disposal. Creativity is not asking for new tools that then allow for an interesting and novel solution." Your spells/cantrips that you have and prepared, how do they differ from tools at your disposal? Additionally, just because you the player think it up, doesn't necessarily mean the character can. I've encountered many Dms that have you do a intelligence roll, with different DCs based off the idea's complexity, as well as your char's Intelligence score. Even when you have the correct tools, a piton, rope, and a hammer. if your char is 4 int. does that mean, with no background in mountain climbing he would know how to use those?
"This is fine in theory, but I think in practice it doesn't work. What percentage of locks should be dissolvable by acid? As a player, I would expect most locks to be dissolvable by acid. If the evil alchemist's locks are not, I would understand. However, if most locks are not dissolvable, it's reasonable for players to assume DM metagaming is the reason why seemingly every lock is suddenly magically warded, made of special metal, or coated in copper dragon blood."
Why would you expect most locks to be dissolvable? I would have completely different expectations based on what is locked, and what's inside. As a person locking something up, would you not think why you're locking it up? if you don't want others to have it or get to it, would you then not think of ways you yourself would get to it or break in to get past the lock if you wanted it yourself and then try and prevent that? Everything is situationally dependent, black and white things aren't existant in life, and shouldn't be in D&D, there's always different situations. A farm peasent locking his barn, isn't going to use the same lock, as a dictator, that has locked up a magic artifact that grants him immortality, and for you to expect both of them to put in the same level of thought when it comes to using locks doesn't seem well thought out.
As to, the issue of Acid Splash is an attack on a creature, RAW. Sure its different than weapon attacks which say "target" or vs one that says "object". 1. Is it impossible to hit anything at all thats not a creature with Acid splash if you miss? 2. Is it impossible to carry around a cricket, or a canary, or make a familiar, or some other "creature" that you can then place on/direct contact with the lock in question, and then attack it then? 3. At what point does a creature not become a creature based off RAW? Can i target a severed hand? At what point can a body part severed off no longer be targeted?
You're just creating more questions, and more scenarios, all of which, don't necessarily back up your argument in this case, regarding the RAW, and why one shouldn't be allowed to do it.
When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check. Typically, you use persuasion when acting in good faith, to foster friendships, make cordial requests, or exhibit proper etiquette. Examples of persuading others include convincing a chamberlain to let your party see the king, negotiating peace between warring tribes, or inspiring a crowd of townsfolk.
someone. or a group of people.
Is an "entity" a someone, or a something? its not a group of people?
Dragons, are they considered "someone" or "something"?
Why then can we persuade non-humanoids (someones)?
the definition of someone (real life RAW) is "a person who is not known, named, or specified "
RAW persuasion is only able to be used against people.
basically... When DM'ing, there's a fine line between RAW and RAI (rules as intended). And, I can only speak from my own personal experience both as a player, and as a DM. But games that were completely and utterly 100% RAW. Were always quite stale, quite boring, mostly railroaded, and all of which, didn't spur on the people involved to want to do a 2nd or 3rd campaign with the same group of people and etc. I myself, didn't play D&D for over 13 years, because of how stale a lot of the games could be when things were only taken as their exact writing said. It also reminds me too much of modern day political nonsense regarding wording of stuff, and applying it, or not applying it, to things because of "RAW".
Again, hence, why its up to the DM. Control it, have chars roll for it, set DCs, come up with situations, etc. D&D being from a timeline (campaign dependent) that exists before mass produced locks from factories... no 2 locks are probably the same, and don't use the same key. Not like when you buy a Master Lock today from Home Depot and they are all made off the same assembly line, and therefore if they are all of the same model number, they use the same key.
and now that this has de-railed completely. lets go back to the OP
Why would you not allow Ray of Frost to be used to create ice, which can make the ground slippery? because there's no creature to target. Okay, DM discretion, it is what DM says. I personally, think thats lazy, and, to go on a stretch. Unless that area of ground was recently cleaned pretty thoroughly, there could be thousands-billions of bacteria (creatures) livinging on it. So DM says, visible. Still could be bugs and insects. So DM says there's not. Well, there you go. find a different manner. But that's completely different than just going. "nope. spell doesn't have a saving throw, therefore not possible at all. RAW." Wow. What a fun guy. There's no saving throw for Piano wire or Human hair to strangle someone, so i guess I can only strange someone with rope and chain, since there's a DC for rope and chain
For freezing the stairs with Ray of Frost: It's a 1d8. It's not *that* strong, unless you are higher level. A single cast of it won't freeze the entire thing, only a small spot of it. Without spending at least 20+ turns spamming the stairs with it, it won't even be close to freezing.
Even if you do that and the entire flight of stairs are icy cold when you touch it, why would it mean that it's slippery? How often do you slip on stairs during the winter? If you do, it's because of ice. There was no water on the stairs, and because of its naturally rough surface, it'd be around DC 1 to slip on it.
If you threw water on it before freezing it, then it's okay. You have to freeze one step at a time though, and do beware that it's possible to break the thin ice by stomping on it, so it probably won't last for long, unless you spend a long time thickening the ice. It's also rather easy to walk up icy stairs without slipping if you have something to support yourself on, although you have to walk slowly (This is from experience, I used to go up a set of stone stairs covered with ice on my way to and from my secondary school. Without support, I'd say around 20 DC for every step if the ice is completely smooth. With support, it's something like full movement + action + bonus action to move 5 feet, no save needed. Much less costs to go down the stairs).
As for throwing acid on a lock to open it: Yeah, sure. The acid is in contact with the metal for about half a second before it flows out of the keyhole. The acid isn't so strong that it dissolves things it touches in an instant. Even if the players continue to spam this until the lock breaks completely, that's fine. The bolt is still holding the door shut, and they just melted the mechanism that opens it. They need a pin to push in the bolt (assuming that there aren't leftovers from the lock blocking the bolt), and at that point it'd be much easier to simply pick the lock. If they try to melt the bolt from the beginning, that'd also take a very long time, since very little of the acid from acid spray goes into the doorcrack to begin with, coupled with the fact that it doesn't instantly dissolve the bolt.
The story is quite different if the players decide to use higher level spell slots though. A Lightning Bolt could easily scorch through a wooden door, a Cone of Cold can freeze over the entire room without much difficulty, and Melf's Acid Arrow would undoubtly eat through things faster than Acid Splash at lower levels.
Short story: I'd let players do whatever they imagine. The result will probably not be as effective as they think though, it is a cantrip after all. If they spend a lot of time preparing it, then I'd give it better effects, but it's rare that players have that much time to prepare.
Short story: I'd let players do whatever they imagine. The result will probably not be as effective as they think though, it is a cantrip after all. If they spend a lot of time preparing it, then I'd give it better effects, but it's rare that players have that much time to prepare.
Agreed completely! I used Mold Earth to create cover from an ambush for my character and another character. It took 2 rounds and our DM gave us a +2 bonus to our AC when we stayed behind it which saved my character’s life and which made the difference between us winning the fight and us losing it. But, it was a cantrip. It took me 2 full rounds of casting it and it still only gave us 1/2 cover. Some other cantrips scale somewhat as you hit 5th, 10th, etc. levels so some of their effects will more powerful but not Mold Earth. But when you have 5 minutes, that cantrip can be used to create a rough fort!
Every cantrip can be used creatively that way. None of them are over powering, but with a little bit of creativity they can be useful even though they’re low powered. Their effects are minor, but the impact of those effects can be huge when used carefully.
Firstly, since, you're a stickler for the RAw. Please show me where in RAW, it says Acid Splash is Hydrochloric acid, and therefore odorless. Secondly, going along your point of the majority of locks and such being resistant or not resistant, Are the majority of acids odorless or are they not? Additionally. Even though HCL is odorless, thats not to say, that the chemical reaction it has when you put it in contact with anything else, does not cause an odor either, so even in your HCL is odorless example, that doesn't necessarily apply anyways unless the HCL is not interacting with anything else.
In regards to "Creativity (to me) is solving a problem/puzzle in an interesting and novel way using the tools you have at your disposal. Creativity is not asking for new tools that then allow for an interesting and novel solution." Your spells/cantrips that you have and prepared, how do they differ from tools at your disposal? Additionally, just because you the player think it up, doesn't necessarily mean the character can. I've encountered many Dms that have you do a intelligence roll, with different DCs based off the idea's complexity, as well as your char's Intelligence score. Even when you have the correct tools, a piton, rope, and a hammer. if your char is 4 int. does that mean, with no background in mountain climbing he would know how to use those?
I can certainly concede the acid smell, but I still don't think I would penalize the use of acid splash by having it ruin stealth or something along those lines. I also agree that spells and cantrips are tools at your disposal. Targeting a creature with acid splash is an available tool, but targeting an object with acid splash is not an available tool. To continue with the tool metaphor, if your tool is a screwdriver and the description says Phillips-head, don't expect to be able to use that to manipulate flat-head screws no matter how clever you think it is.
Why would you expect most locks to be dissolvable? I would have completely different expectations based on what is locked, and what's inside. As a person locking something up, would you not think why you're locking it up? if you don't want others to have it or get to it, would you then not think of ways you yourself would get to it or break in to get past the lock if you wanted it yourself and then try and prevent that? Everything is situationally dependent, black and white things aren't existant in life, and shouldn't be in D&D, there's always different situations. A farm peasent locking his barn, isn't going to use the same lock, as a dictator, that has locked up a magic artifact that grants him immortality, and for you to expect both of them to put in the same level of thought when it comes to using locks doesn't seem well thought out.
As to, the issue of Acid Splash is an attack on a creature, RAW. Sure its different than weapon attacks which say "target" or vs one that says "object". 1. Is it impossible to hit anything at all thats not a creature with Acid splash if you miss? 2. Is it impossible to carry around a cricket, or a canary, or make a familiar, or some other "creature" that you can then place on/direct contact with the lock in question, and then attack it then? 3. At what point does a creature not become a creature based off RAW? Can i target a severed hand? At what point can a body part severed off no longer be targeted?
I would expect most locks to be dissolvable because they are made using similar methods and materials. If acid (or magic) is very common in your world, then I would maybe expect differently. The bog standard D&D world is based roughly on medieval Europe with magic sparingly thrown in. This certainly doesn't preclude acid, but it should be somewhat rare
Some things are black and white. Either the acid has an effect or it doesn't.
I would expect the dictator to use a lock of a higher quality on such an artifact, but that's an extreme case. What about the chest containing 100 gp, 300 gp, 1000 gp, 3000 gp? Where should the line be drawn when considering stepping up in lock quality?
I don't think players want to deal with the possibility of "missing" with acid splash. That possibility for friendly fire doesn't sound like fun to me, but maybe that's just me.
A creature becomes not a creature when it dies. A corpse is an object and not a creature. A severed hand is something that the DM should adjudicate, but most things don't live in some questionable state between object and creature.
Agreed completely! I used Mold Earth to create cover from an ambush for my character and another character. It took 2 rounds and our DM gave us a +2 bonus to our AC when we stayed behind it which saved my character’s life and which made the difference between us winning the fight and us losing it. But, it was a cantrip. It took me 2 full rounds of casting it and it still only gave us 1/2 cover. Some other cantrips scale somewhat as you hit 5th, 10th, etc. levels so some of their effects will more powerful but not Mold Earth. But when you have 5 minutes, that cantrip can be used to create a rough fort!
Every cantrip can be used creatively that way. None of them are over powering, but with a little bit of creativity they can be useful even though they’re low powered. Their effects are minor, but the impact of those effects can be huge when used carefully.
This is an example of using mold earth perfectly within the rules. I think I would even have given it the full +5 bonus for being 3/4 cover it is a 5' cube after all.
In an attempt to finish pwhimp and EightPackKilla's talk about this:
It doesn't specify what type of acid it is. Some acids smell, some doesn't, and I think this should be a DM choice that is made first time this matters. Some other acid spells may or may not have the same smell, depending on the DM.
As for whether or not this can be used on an object, personally I'd just allow whatever seems reasonable. Acid Splash mentions that you create a bubble of acid and throw it, right? Is there any reason for why you have to throw it specifically at living creatures other than the RAWs? If they pass the saving throw, you don't even hit them, so it's very reasonable that you would be able to do the same thing without having creatures stand there.
If you decide that magic in your world requires a target before it can be cast, then I can understand that. I'm not a fan of that idea myself though, I'd let people cast stuff like Command or Compel Duel on things like rocks if they wanted to. Because the target cannot actually do anything, nothing would happen and the spell slot would be wasted. If someone tried to cast 4th level Polymorph on and object, I'd simply say that he tried to, but the spell wasn't strong enough to create a lifeform of an inanimate object, and it ended up with nothing changing. Heck, if someone continuously wasted all their lvl 3 spell slots and higher to cast heal on a rock every day for a year without knowing if this would do anything, I'd even give them a holy rock and say that they discovered a new spell for their dedicated efforts.
I dont think of the RAWs as very important, as they are not laws for DnD, but guidelines. That is why we have homebrew. Again, if you want to say that magic in your world HAS to have a target of the type specified in the RAWs to be cast (because when the gods created magic, they set up an automatic system that controls the requirements for casting a spell or something along those lines), then I'm completely fine with that too.
And the last thing about if the acid-lock thing would work or not: This is simple. Again, the spell doesn't specify type of acid. The world doesn't consist of one type of metal either. You can rule that *some* metals are immune to acid, although rare (like adamantite or mithril, or you can have them be enchanted with durability magic). The rest of them can resist acid at different levels. Some may be very vulnerable to it and fall apart like rotten leaves upon contact, while some other metals takes hours to break down even with the strongest type of acid. And it would be an automatic hit, since the target (the lock) doesn't resist in any way.
The main reason for allowing a spell to work as written or not is if it would take away from another class or spell. If you want to light a hex on fire with Fire Bolt, the answer is no, use Create Bonfire. You want to burn out a lock with Acid Spray, no because locks are what lock picks and Rogues are for.
Use the spell that does the thing you want and don't steal another player's thunder.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Has anyone had exp using a cantrip as a non atk item. I wanted to use Ray of Frost to make steps slippery so when the enemy came up, hopefully they'd slip and fall back down, the DM didn't allow it since the spell doesn't have a saving throw, anyone know how to work around something like this? Also was planing to use it on the hinges to make them break on locked doors
Most attack cantrips say that the target is a creature. For instance, Acid Splash says creature so that you can’t just use the cantrip to dissolve every door, lock, wall etc. that you come across. There are some exceptions. Fire Bolt says creature or object. I guess they don’t care if you burn the door down.
That really comes down to DM call. Some DMs will adhere to the Rules As Written making it so that you get rulings like you received and Trirhabda describes. There are some DMs who are much more lenient about the RAW and will allow you to do just about anything so long as you can give a good reasoning behind your actions. If your DM says that your idea doesn't work, and explains the why, then you'll be able to understand how close to the rules your DM plays.
Prestidigitation seems like it could be used that way though. It could make the steps damp and then chill them.
Professional computer geek
I wouldn't allow that use of ray of frost as a DM either, but I think your DMs justification is wrong. Trirhabda has it right that ray of frost doesn't target objects and I think that would be a good reason to disallow this use of ray of frost. My reason for disallowing this use is that I think shape water is your go to cantrip for trying to freeze objects. Just splash some water on the steps and then cantrip freeze it. Bonus points if the event is some kind of demon/undead and you use holy water.
One of my players combined using Shocking Grasp and an iron rod as a makeshift cattle prod to move some slimes they didn't want to fight.
My rule of thumb is that if a player wants to use a spell for different than the intended purpose I allow them to make a skill check to see if they can "warp" the spell. Arcana for Wizards, Sorcerers, Bards and sometimes warlocks. Nature for rangers and sometimes druids and warlocks. Religion for clerics and sometimes druids or warlocks.
I use a scaling DC. For cantrips to 1st level spells a DC 10, for 2nd to 3rd levels a DC 15, and for 4th to 5th level DC 20. Anything higher than 5th level is too powerful and too specialized to be warped. The "warping" has to make sense, for example, warping an acid splash to melt/corrode a lock makes sense but using an acid splash to make a floor slippery doesn't.
I use a similar rule for homebrewing spells, for example, a DC 10 Arcana check to design a version of Magic Missle that does cold damage instead of force damage. But only if they know the base spell/have access to it. For cantrips or classes that have limited spell library like Warlocks, Sorcerers, and so on they can design the spell but can't use it until they hit a point that they can either learn new spells or swap out spells they know.
GM of The Bonus Role - We are playing a 5E game set in my homebrew world of Audra check us out Sunday's at 10 AM CST and follow us at the following social media links.
https://www.twitch.tv/thebonusrole
@BonusRole
I think when allowing these kinds of creative uses of spells the DM needs to question if something will be prone to abuse. Shocking grasp cattle prod is probably okay. Melting locks with acid splash probably not. The biggest difference here is the ubiquity of locks and other stuff that a player might want to melt. I get annoyed as a DM if the thing that is clever the first time just becomes standard operating procedure. As a player though, why shouldn't it become standard operating procedure of it worked great the first time?
It's easy enough to let the players know "I love that idea, I'll let it happen this time, but it may not work every time." this way you can reward the creative thinking but allow the ability to stop players from abusing a good will gimme. I'm all for the creative uses of skills, abilities, spells and everything else, but I won't let players abuse the system because they think they've created a "go to" answer to problems.
I allowed a player to use mage hand to create a missile attack with a rock, but there were serious problems with the idea when it came to actually hitting a target and damage. It ended up becoming a completely different "go to" that I did let happen often, which was using mage hand to create a distraction by having it drop or toss items to divert attention.
Personally, I don't see why you couldn't target an object with an attack cantrip. One time, when my party was staking out a canyon, my wizard used Minor Illusion to disguise himself as a rock, and then fired a Fire Bolt into the sky as a beacon when the people we were watching out for arrived. The DM pointed out that technically I couldn't do that, but he allowed it anyway.
It is purely for balance reasons and has no in-game logic. In your situation I would allow it, but as others have stated, if the rules allowed it all the time it would be horribly abused, especially with acid splash. Most DMs will allow it occasionally as long as it's not the go to method of circumventing obstacles.
This would come down to DM choice. But, without being to blunt about it, That's just Lazy DM'ing by your DM. Ray of Frost doesn't have a saving throw. but if he was DM'ing you, into an icy area, those patches of ice would have a DC rating for an athletics/acrobatics check or a dex save, or you'd fall prone, or have difficult terrain, etc.
By not even bothering to do a minor DC thing for ice that you created by being imaginative (the core concept of D&D), he's more or less discouraging anything out of the box, and that's not cool
Blank
As to the Acid Splash, which seems to be the common one people point out as being abusive, easy enough fix as DM:
"The lock appears to be made out of something that is unaffected by this"
There are atleast 18 monsters with acid resistance and 15 with acid immunity.
not to mention potions and such to create/manufacture similar effects.
if its a shoddy town jail, yeah, maybe they can't make an acid proof lock.
If its an evil alchemist's lair. maybe the guy, is smart enough and paranoid enough, to have his locks, a little more special than a run of the mill general store lock, and it is not susceptible to the acid splash.
Literally NOTHING can be abused, unless the DM allows it to be abused. Which is why I think its downright horrible, for DMs to just not even bother with anything at all, and stifle the creativity before it starts.
DMThac0 sounds like the kind of DM I'd enjoy playing with. as his answer, which I'll quote and highlight, is all the DM has to do, to set the precedent for future uses/etc.
Another thing, is Acid has a VERY strong and distinctive, and pungent odor. Sure, you could go around splashing acid everywhere to get through locks, but you're very clearly, leaving behind a horrible smell, that is very distinct, and takes away any element of surprise.
Blank
This is fine in theory, but I think in practice it doesn't work. What percentage of locks should be dissolvable by acid? As a player, I would expect most locks to be dissolvable by acid. If the evil alchemist's locks are not, I would understand. However, if most locks are not dissolvable, it's reasonable for players to assume DM metagaming is the reason why seemingly every lock is suddenly magically warded, made of special metal, or coated in copper dragon blood.
DMs certainly do have the power in these situations, but why do you think it's stifling creativity for the DM to enforce the rules of the game? Acid splash only targets creatures and players should expect that to be the case. I like being creative as a player and I try to reward creativity as a DM, but I don't think asking the DM for an exception to the rules is necessarily creative. Creativity (to me) is solving a problem/puzzle in an interesting and novel way using the tools you have at your disposal. Creativity is not asking for new tools that then allow for an interesting and novel solution.
Only some acids smell. HCl is odorless. Would you really penalize using acid splash (in or out of combat), by having it smell horribly?
Firstly, since, you're a stickler for the RAw. Please show me where in RAW, it says Acid Splash is Hydrochloric acid, and therefore odorless. Secondly, going along your point of the majority of locks and such being resistant or not resistant, Are the majority of acids odorless or are they not? Additionally. Even though HCL is odorless, thats not to say, that the chemical reaction it has when you put it in contact with anything else, does not cause an odor either, so even in your HCL is odorless example, that doesn't necessarily apply anyways unless the HCL is not interacting with anything else.
In regards to "Creativity (to me) is solving a problem/puzzle in an interesting and novel way using the tools you have at your disposal. Creativity is not asking for new tools that then allow for an interesting and novel solution." Your spells/cantrips that you have and prepared, how do they differ from tools at your disposal? Additionally, just because you the player think it up, doesn't necessarily mean the character can. I've encountered many Dms that have you do a intelligence roll, with different DCs based off the idea's complexity, as well as your char's Intelligence score. Even when you have the correct tools, a piton, rope, and a hammer. if your char is 4 int. does that mean, with no background in mountain climbing he would know how to use those?
"This is fine in theory, but I think in practice it doesn't work. What percentage of locks should be dissolvable by acid? As a player, I would expect most locks to be dissolvable by acid. If the evil alchemist's locks are not, I would understand. However, if most locks are not dissolvable, it's reasonable for players to assume DM metagaming is the reason why seemingly every lock is suddenly magically warded, made of special metal, or coated in copper dragon blood."
Why would you expect most locks to be dissolvable? I would have completely different expectations based on what is locked, and what's inside. As a person locking something up, would you not think why you're locking it up? if you don't want others to have it or get to it, would you then not think of ways you yourself would get to it or break in to get past the lock if you wanted it yourself and then try and prevent that? Everything is situationally dependent, black and white things aren't existant in life, and shouldn't be in D&D, there's always different situations. A farm peasent locking his barn, isn't going to use the same lock, as a dictator, that has locked up a magic artifact that grants him immortality, and for you to expect both of them to put in the same level of thought when it comes to using locks doesn't seem well thought out.
As to, the issue of Acid Splash is an attack on a creature, RAW. Sure its different than weapon attacks which say "target" or vs one that says "object". 1. Is it impossible to hit anything at all thats not a creature with Acid splash if you miss? 2. Is it impossible to carry around a cricket, or a canary, or make a familiar, or some other "creature" that you can then place on/direct contact with the lock in question, and then attack it then? 3. At what point does a creature not become a creature based off RAW? Can i target a severed hand? At what point can a body part severed off no longer be targeted?
You're just creating more questions, and more scenarios, all of which, don't necessarily back up your argument in this case, regarding the RAW, and why one shouldn't be allowed to do it.
Blank
Let me give an example here of RAW for you:
Persuasion
When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check. Typically, you use persuasion when acting in good faith, to foster friendships, make cordial requests, or exhibit proper etiquette. Examples of persuading others include convincing a chamberlain to let your party see the king, negotiating peace between warring tribes, or inspiring a crowd of townsfolk.
someone. or a group of people.
Is an "entity" a someone, or a something? its not a group of people?
Dragons, are they considered "someone" or "something"?
Why then can we persuade non-humanoids (someones)?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/someone
the definition of someone (real life RAW) is "a person who is not known, named, or specified "
RAW persuasion is only able to be used against people.
basically... When DM'ing, there's a fine line between RAW and RAI (rules as intended). And, I can only speak from my own personal experience both as a player, and as a DM. But games that were completely and utterly 100% RAW. Were always quite stale, quite boring, mostly railroaded, and all of which, didn't spur on the people involved to want to do a 2nd or 3rd campaign with the same group of people and etc. I myself, didn't play D&D for over 13 years, because of how stale a lot of the games could be when things were only taken as their exact writing said. It also reminds me too much of modern day political nonsense regarding wording of stuff, and applying it, or not applying it, to things because of "RAW".
Again, hence, why its up to the DM. Control it, have chars roll for it, set DCs, come up with situations, etc. D&D being from a timeline (campaign dependent) that exists before mass produced locks from factories... no 2 locks are probably the same, and don't use the same key. Not like when you buy a Master Lock today from Home Depot and they are all made off the same assembly line, and therefore if they are all of the same model number, they use the same key.
and now that this has de-railed completely. lets go back to the OP
Why would you not allow Ray of Frost to be used to create ice, which can make the ground slippery? because there's no creature to target. Okay, DM discretion, it is what DM says. I personally, think thats lazy, and, to go on a stretch. Unless that area of ground was recently cleaned pretty thoroughly, there could be thousands-billions of bacteria (creatures) livinging on it. So DM says, visible. Still could be bugs and insects. So DM says there's not. Well, there you go. find a different manner. But that's completely different than just going. "nope. spell doesn't have a saving throw, therefore not possible at all. RAW." Wow. What a fun guy. There's no saving throw for Piano wire or Human hair to strangle someone, so i guess I can only strange someone with rope and chain, since there's a DC for rope and chain
Blank
For freezing the stairs with Ray of Frost:
It's a 1d8. It's not *that* strong, unless you are higher level. A single cast of it won't freeze the entire thing, only a small spot of it. Without spending at least 20+ turns spamming the stairs with it, it won't even be close to freezing.
Even if you do that and the entire flight of stairs are icy cold when you touch it, why would it mean that it's slippery? How often do you slip on stairs during the winter? If you do, it's because of ice. There was no water on the stairs, and because of its naturally rough surface, it'd be around DC 1 to slip on it.
If you threw water on it before freezing it, then it's okay. You have to freeze one step at a time though, and do beware that it's possible to break the thin ice by stomping on it, so it probably won't last for long, unless you spend a long time thickening the ice. It's also rather easy to walk up icy stairs without slipping if you have something to support yourself on, although you have to walk slowly (This is from experience, I used to go up a set of stone stairs covered with ice on my way to and from my secondary school. Without support, I'd say around 20 DC for every step if the ice is completely smooth. With support, it's something like full movement + action + bonus action to move 5 feet, no save needed. Much less costs to go down the stairs).
As for throwing acid on a lock to open it: Yeah, sure. The acid is in contact with the metal for about half a second before it flows out of the keyhole. The acid isn't so strong that it dissolves things it touches in an instant. Even if the players continue to spam this until the lock breaks completely, that's fine. The bolt is still holding the door shut, and they just melted the mechanism that opens it. They need a pin to push in the bolt (assuming that there aren't leftovers from the lock blocking the bolt), and at that point it'd be much easier to simply pick the lock. If they try to melt the bolt from the beginning, that'd also take a very long time, since very little of the acid from acid spray goes into the doorcrack to begin with, coupled with the fact that it doesn't instantly dissolve the bolt.
The story is quite different if the players decide to use higher level spell slots though. A Lightning Bolt could easily scorch through a wooden door, a Cone of Cold can freeze over the entire room without much difficulty, and Melf's Acid Arrow would undoubtly eat through things faster than Acid Splash at lower levels.
Short story: I'd let players do whatever they imagine. The result will probably not be as effective as they think though, it is a cantrip after all. If they spend a lot of time preparing it, then I'd give it better effects, but it's rare that players have that much time to prepare.
Agreed completely! I used Mold Earth to create cover from an ambush for my character and another character. It took 2 rounds and our DM gave us a +2 bonus to our AC when we stayed behind it which saved my character’s life and which made the difference between us winning the fight and us losing it. But, it was a cantrip. It took me 2 full rounds of casting it and it still only gave us 1/2 cover. Some other cantrips scale somewhat as you hit 5th, 10th, etc. levels so some of their effects will more powerful but not Mold Earth. But when you have 5 minutes, that cantrip can be used to create a rough fort!
Every cantrip can be used creatively that way. None of them are over powering, but with a little bit of creativity they can be useful even though they’re low powered. Their effects are minor, but the impact of those effects can be huge when used carefully.
Professional computer geek
I can certainly concede the acid smell, but I still don't think I would penalize the use of acid splash by having it ruin stealth or something along those lines. I also agree that spells and cantrips are tools at your disposal. Targeting a creature with acid splash is an available tool, but targeting an object with acid splash is not an available tool. To continue with the tool metaphor, if your tool is a screwdriver and the description says Phillips-head, don't expect to be able to use that to manipulate flat-head screws no matter how clever you think it is.
I would expect most locks to be dissolvable because they are made using similar methods and materials. If acid (or magic) is very common in your world, then I would maybe expect differently. The bog standard D&D world is based roughly on medieval Europe with magic sparingly thrown in. This certainly doesn't preclude acid, but it should be somewhat rare
Some things are black and white. Either the acid has an effect or it doesn't.
I would expect the dictator to use a lock of a higher quality on such an artifact, but that's an extreme case. What about the chest containing 100 gp, 300 gp, 1000 gp, 3000 gp? Where should the line be drawn when considering stepping up in lock quality?
I don't think players want to deal with the possibility of "missing" with acid splash. That possibility for friendly fire doesn't sound like fun to me, but maybe that's just me.
A creature becomes not a creature when it dies. A corpse is an object and not a creature. A severed hand is something that the DM should adjudicate, but most things don't live in some questionable state between object and creature.
This is an example of using mold earth perfectly within the rules. I think I would even have given it the full +5 bonus for being 3/4 cover it is a 5' cube after all.
In an attempt to finish pwhimp and EightPackKilla's talk about this:
It doesn't specify what type of acid it is. Some acids smell, some doesn't, and I think this should be a DM choice that is made first time this matters. Some other acid spells may or may not have the same smell, depending on the DM.
As for whether or not this can be used on an object, personally I'd just allow whatever seems reasonable. Acid Splash mentions that you create a bubble of acid and throw it, right? Is there any reason for why you have to throw it specifically at living creatures other than the RAWs? If they pass the saving throw, you don't even hit them, so it's very reasonable that you would be able to do the same thing without having creatures stand there.
If you decide that magic in your world requires a target before it can be cast, then I can understand that. I'm not a fan of that idea myself though, I'd let people cast stuff like Command or Compel Duel on things like rocks if they wanted to. Because the target cannot actually do anything, nothing would happen and the spell slot would be wasted. If someone tried to cast 4th level Polymorph on and object, I'd simply say that he tried to, but the spell wasn't strong enough to create a lifeform of an inanimate object, and it ended up with nothing changing. Heck, if someone continuously wasted all their lvl 3 spell slots and higher to cast heal on a rock every day for a year without knowing if this would do anything, I'd even give them a holy rock and say that they discovered a new spell for their dedicated efforts.
I dont think of the RAWs as very important, as they are not laws for DnD, but guidelines. That is why we have homebrew. Again, if you want to say that magic in your world HAS to have a target of the type specified in the RAWs to be cast (because when the gods created magic, they set up an automatic system that controls the requirements for casting a spell or something along those lines), then I'm completely fine with that too.
And the last thing about if the acid-lock thing would work or not:
This is simple. Again, the spell doesn't specify type of acid. The world doesn't consist of one type of metal either. You can rule that *some* metals are immune to acid, although rare (like adamantite or mithril, or you can have them be enchanted with durability magic). The rest of them can resist acid at different levels. Some may be very vulnerable to it and fall apart like rotten leaves upon contact, while some other metals takes hours to break down even with the strongest type of acid. And it would be an automatic hit, since the target (the lock) doesn't resist in any way.
All good then?
The main reason for allowing a spell to work as written or not is if it would take away from another class or spell. If you want to light a hex on fire with Fire Bolt, the answer is no, use Create Bonfire. You want to burn out a lock with Acid Spray, no because locks are what lock picks and Rogues are for.
Use the spell that does the thing you want and don't steal another player's thunder.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale