The spell specifically says that the container has to be open, and I'd argue that people instinctively close the flap to their bronchial tubes when something (especially water) enters their mouth.
I wouldn't allow this in any of my games, for sure. It's an overpowered use of low level spell.
Lungs are not a container. "an object that can be used to hold or transport something." Key-word being object. If a DM would like to allow a creature's body part to count as a container, that is up to the DM, but rules as written and as intended seem to be clear that this low-level non-damaging spell is not intended to be used to extract/input water to a living thing.
The distinction between targeting creatures and objects is pretty important for spells in 5e, Mellie makes a good point about that being some good language to hang a "no" on
Huh. I always thought that cover only affected whether the effect spread from the point of origin... but you're right, it actually blocks where that point of origin can even be placed in the first place!!!
A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
I didn't think that that was how it worked, remembering that Dimension Door can move you to a point within range even if its on the other side of a wall... but now that I'm reading closer, I see that Dimension Door actually comes with its own specific language exempting it from the general cover rule. While Create or Destroy Water does not require line of site to a target container, it contains no such language exempting it from the general cover rule.
So... you can fill up pots that you see through a window (behind cover, but have line of sight), or pots in dark room (no line of sight, but not behind cover), but you can't fill up pots locked in a cupboard (or lungs in a cadaver's chest). Huh.
True, but suffocating isn't doing damage. I'm not aware of a rule that prevents indirectly killing people in ordinary ways using the elements that the cantrips manipulate, they just aren't supposed to be used mid-combat as damage-dealing spells. Gust can push someone off a cliff, Control Flames can spread a house fire that burns someone to death, Move Earth can bury someone under a pile of dirt in a pit, and Shape Water can drown someone (but probably only if you can find a way to hold them still while you move water up and over their face and hold it there for several minutes)
No, but it's far deadlier. Suffocation can drop any creature's hit points to 0 and prevent them from recovering hit points in a small number of turns, as long as they need to breathe to survive.
I'm not aware of a rule that prevents indirectly killing people in ordinary ways using the elements that the cantrips manipulate, they just aren't supposed to be used mid-combat as damage-dealing spells.
Correct, but it's very difficult to use most non-damaging spells in ways that are deadly.
Sure, but anyone can push someone off a cliff, with or without magic.
Control Flames can spread a house fire that burns someone to death,
If you can trap your victim in a burning house you don't need Control Flames unless you're in a hurry.
Move Earth can bury someone under a pile of dirt in a pit,
"Because the terrain's transformation occurs slowly, creatures in the area can't usually be trapped or injured by the ground's movement."
and Shape Water can drown someone (but probably only if you can find a way to hold them still while you move water up and over their face and hold it there for several minutes)
If you can already hold them and have a body of water you can just drown them the normal way.
None of those examples come anywhere close to being as deadly or gamebreaking as instantly filling someone's lungs with water. When applicable, that's basically Power Word Kill with no HP limit and a slightly delayed death.
I didn't suggest that these are arguments in favor of filling lungs with water. I was just disagreeing with Wysterra's implication that non damaging spells can never cause death through means like drowning. There's good reasons that create water can't fill up lungs (like your point about cover), but being a non-damaging spell isn't one of them.
I'm allowing use of this in my campaign. If they hold the person's mouth open they can use it to waterboard (they are interrogating an NCP for information). When asked I said they can attempt to cast it as an attack spell (against AC) assuming it would be challenging to land the water in their trachea and the creature then has to contest the water with a CON save if they aren't amphibious (or cast alter self to become amphibious) to cough out the water. At minimum a hit would delay them / cost the player a turn and at most it would cause some damage as they cough it up. I think doing so rewards creativity without over powering a low level spell.
Fill the brain cavity with water. It is a container, It holds the brain. It is technically open, ear holes, nose ect. you can see it to target it. And it would kill. :)
Fill the brain cavity with water. It is a container, It holds the brain. It is technically open, ear holes, nose ect. you can see it to target it. And it would kill. :)
In reality, ears, while being connected to the brain, aren't open, and noses don't connect to the brain, they connect to the throat and more importantly the trachea. However, its true that brain cavities are technically containers.
I believe that specifically creating water within someone's lungs would hurt them, however as previously mentioned could be considered a bit overpowered. Alternatively, consider this - what about destroying the water in someone's body? Effectively one could drain an enemy's skin or eyes of water, shriveling the person or dehydrating their brain. This could be similarly overpowered, I suppose, if you were to use it in the right place. :)
All in all I think it could be disastrous for any enemy however you use this spell. As a DM I would say that the inside of a human body can't be seen so you can't place water directly in the lungs.
This comes up so often on here and other places that it might as well be a meme at this point.
Even if I allowed one of my players to do this, I'd still rule that the creature would just be held to the Suffocating environmental variable allowing it to either expel the water or keep fighting while just holding its breath. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/adventuring#Suffocating
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
...cryptographic randomness!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
would something like using Create or destroy water to put water directly into someones lungs ,to drown them, be a generally allowed thing??
The spell specifically says that the container has to be open, and I'd argue that people instinctively close the flap to their bronchial tubes when something (especially water) enters their mouth.
I wouldn't allow this in any of my games, for sure. It's an overpowered use of low level spell.
If you need it, I can homebrew it.
it wouldnt be in their mouth just directly inside their lungs but i get what you mean
Lungs are not a container. "an object that can be used to hold or transport something." Key-word being object. If a DM would like to allow a creature's body part to count as a container, that is up to the DM, but rules as written and as intended seem to be clear that this low-level non-damaging spell is not intended to be used to extract/input water to a living thing.
The distinction between targeting creatures and objects is pretty important for spells in 5e, Mellie makes a good point about that being some good language to hang a "no" on
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Besides lungs not being containers, even if the DM were to entertain that notion, their lungs would be behind total cover anyways.
Huh. I always thought that cover only affected whether the effect spread from the point of origin... but you're right, it actually blocks where that point of origin can even be placed in the first place!!!
I didn't think that that was how it worked, remembering that Dimension Door can move you to a point within range even if its on the other side of a wall... but now that I'm reading closer, I see that Dimension Door actually comes with its own specific language exempting it from the general cover rule. While Create or Destroy Water does not require line of site to a target container, it contains no such language exempting it from the general cover rule.
So... you can fill up pots that you see through a window (behind cover, but have line of sight), or pots in dark room (no line of sight, but not behind cover), but you can't fill up pots locked in a cupboard (or lungs in a cadaver's chest). Huh.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If a spell can be used to cause damage it would say so.
"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
True, but suffocating isn't doing damage. I'm not aware of a rule that prevents indirectly killing people in ordinary ways using the elements that the cantrips manipulate, they just aren't supposed to be used mid-combat as damage-dealing spells. Gust can push someone off a cliff, Control Flames can spread a house fire that burns someone to death, Move Earth can bury someone under a pile of dirt in a pit, and Shape Water can drown someone (but probably only if you can find a way to hold them still while you move water up and over their face and hold it there for several minutes)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
No, but it's far deadlier. Suffocation can drop any creature's hit points to 0 and prevent them from recovering hit points in a small number of turns, as long as they need to breathe to survive.
Correct, but it's very difficult to use most non-damaging spells in ways that are deadly.
Sure, but anyone can push someone off a cliff, with or without magic.
If you can trap your victim in a burning house you don't need Control Flames unless you're in a hurry.
"Because the terrain's transformation occurs slowly, creatures in the area can't usually be trapped or injured by the ground's movement."
If you can already hold them and have a body of water you can just drown them the normal way.
None of those examples come anywhere close to being as deadly or gamebreaking as instantly filling someone's lungs with water. When applicable, that's basically Power Word Kill with no HP limit and a slightly delayed death.
I didn't suggest that these are arguments in favor of filling lungs with water. I was just disagreeing with Wysterra's implication that non damaging spells can never cause death through means like drowning. There's good reasons that create water can't fill up lungs (like your point about cover), but being a non-damaging spell isn't one of them.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'm allowing use of this in my campaign. If they hold the person's mouth open they can use it to waterboard (they are interrogating an NCP for information). When asked I said they can attempt to cast it as an attack spell (against AC) assuming it would be challenging to land the water in their trachea and the creature then has to contest the water with a CON save if they aren't amphibious (or cast alter self to become amphibious) to cough out the water. At minimum a hit would delay them / cost the player a turn and at most it would cause some damage as they cough it up. I think doing so rewards creativity without over powering a low level spell.
If a spell can be used to cause damage it would say so.
"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
No, I wouldn't allow it. It is a first level spell that allows you, in that interpretation, to kill any air breathing being.
Fill the brain cavity with water. It is a container, It holds the brain. It is technically open, ear holes, nose ect. you can see it to target it. And it would kill. :)
In reality, ears, while being connected to the brain, aren't open, and noses don't connect to the brain, they connect to the throat and more importantly the trachea. However, its true that brain cavities are technically containers.
I believe that specifically creating water within someone's lungs would hurt them, however as previously mentioned could be considered a bit overpowered. Alternatively, consider this - what about destroying the water in someone's body? Effectively one could drain an enemy's skin or eyes of water, shriveling the person or dehydrating their brain. This could be similarly overpowered, I suppose, if you were to use it in the right place. :)
All in all I think it could be disastrous for any enemy however you use this spell. As a DM I would say that the inside of a human body can't be seen so you can't place water directly in the lungs.
I would allow Destroy Water if the creature were a water creature like an elemental or water weird.
This is absolutely not RAI or RAW, and should not be allowed, ever.
DICE FALL, EVERYONE ROCKS!
This comes up so often on here and other places that it might as well be a meme at this point.
Even if I allowed one of my players to do this, I'd still rule that the creature would just be held to the Suffocating environmental variable allowing it to either expel the water or keep fighting while just holding its breath.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/adventuring#Suffocating
...cryptographic randomness!