In a single situation? Nah, disagree. You'd need to (a) be in combat against a water elemental, (b) have a party member that prepared/knows Destroy Water, and (c) have them try the spell, which is normally non-combat related, against said water elemental. If a player does all those things in the interest of making something cool happen to this water elemental, then yeah I'm going to let them get some extraordinary benefits.
Creative use of low levels spells is something I'd like to encourage much, much more than boring usage of higher level spells.
Nobody would try it because the spell specifically does not state damage or effects against creatures.
I've DMed a total of like six times and I've had players ask about creative uses for spells (yes, including attempting to do damage with non-damage spells) in at least half of them. Embrace creativity.
I have no problem with embracing creativity, but I'm not going to nerf every water elemental (water weirds, etc) and every water spell in the game. Nor fire things come to think of it.
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?"
Creativity is doing something like casting Shatter on a steep mountainside in order to trigger a rockslide. Using a spell that explicitly doesn't effect creatures to duplicate the effect of a damage-dealing spell three levels higher than it is just saying that you're ignoring the rules and playing Calvinball.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Like I said, if a PC has Destroy Water prepared/known and faces off against a creature literally made from water, then yes I am going to have that spell, in that specific instance, have some special effects. Maybe it would mimic the 8d8 of Blight, maybe it would mimic Enlarge/Reduce, maybe it would slow the water elemental. I don't know. But I'd rather a player see that encounter and approach it by thinking "Wow, maybe my spell that specifically affects water in certain ways will be useful against this water monster!" rather than "I Fireball it."
I've DMed a total of like six times and I've had players ask about creative uses for spells (yes, including attempting to do damage with non-damage spells) in at least half of them. Embrace creativity.
So basically, you are a very new and inexperienced DM, being advised by multiple DM's with in some cases decades of experience, all of whom are telling you not to do it as it's a bad idea. And your response is "well Ima do it anyway".
I look forward to your posts in the coming months where you ask for advice because your players are destroying the enemies you put up against them.
Flooding someone lungs by trying to define the lungs as an open container was only creative the first time it was thought of, nearly every player who tries this saw the idea in the internet rather than thought of it themselves.
If you really do want to allow this creativity the effect MUST be similar to spells of the same level. Magic missile does 3d4+3 damage so allowing someone to do the same damage with a different 1st level spell is not game breaking and allows the rule of cool, but until you are more experienced it will be hard to come up with a suitable effect each time your players come up with something different. Blight and slow are FAR to powerful to be allowed with a 1st level slot.
Yes, I'd absolutely allow Create or Destroy Water to damage a water elemental. I agree creativity should be encouraged. That shouldn't be the issue here, the issue is dealing 8d8 damage with a level 1 slot.
Benchmarks for single target attack would be somewhere in the range of 4d6 (14avg) Guiding Bolt or 3d8 (13.5avg) Chromatic Orb. If you want it to be automatic or area damage, I'd skew down towards Magic Missile's 3d4+3 or Burning Hands at 3d6 (both 10.5avg).
So depending on how you want the damage to be dealt, I'd use the above to determine the dice to roll.
As a DM and a player with the create or destroy water spell, I would find it incredibly amusing if one of my players did that and I would just roll with it. Of course, doing something like that would mean giving them a couple hoops to jump through (ex: an insight check with a DC of 15 just to see if it would work on the creature they're targeting). For damage I would say something similar to a medium damage first level spell like guiding bolt with 4d6 or inflict wounds with 3d10.
I have no problem with embracing creativity, but I'm not going to nerf every water elemental (water weirds, etc) and every water spell in the game. Nor fire things come to think of it.
"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
Creativity is doing something like casting Shatter on a steep mountainside in order to trigger a rockslide. Using a spell that explicitly doesn't effect creatures to duplicate the effect of a damage-dealing spell three levels higher than it is just saying that you're ignoring the rules and playing Calvinball.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Like I said, if a PC has Destroy Water prepared/known and faces off against a creature literally made from water, then yes I am going to have that spell, in that specific instance, have some special effects. Maybe it would mimic the 8d8 of Blight, maybe it would mimic Enlarge/Reduce, maybe it would slow the water elemental. I don't know. But I'd rather a player see that encounter and approach it by thinking "Wow, maybe my spell that specifically affects water in certain ways will be useful against this water monster!" rather than "I Fireball it."
So basically, you are a very new and inexperienced DM, being advised by multiple DM's with in some cases decades of experience, all of whom are telling you not to do it as it's a bad idea. And your response is "well Ima do it anyway".
I look forward to your posts in the coming months where you ask for advice because your players are destroying the enemies you put up against them.
Cool see you then!
I actually would be interested to hear some of the cool stories that happen in your game. Feel free to keep me posted. :)
Flooding someone lungs by trying to define the lungs as an open container was only creative the first time it was thought of, nearly every player who tries this saw the idea in the internet rather than thought of it themselves.
If you really do want to allow this creativity the effect MUST be similar to spells of the same level. Magic missile does 3d4+3 damage so allowing someone to do the same damage with a different 1st level spell is not game breaking and allows the rule of cool, but until you are more experienced it will be hard to come up with a suitable effect each time your players come up with something different. Blight and slow are FAR to powerful to be allowed with a 1st level slot.
Yes, I'd absolutely allow Create or Destroy Water to damage a water elemental. I agree creativity should be encouraged. That shouldn't be the issue here, the issue is dealing 8d8 damage with a level 1 slot.
Benchmarks for single target attack would be somewhere in the range of 4d6 (14avg) Guiding Bolt or 3d8 (13.5avg) Chromatic Orb. If you want it to be automatic or area damage, I'd skew down towards Magic Missile's 3d4+3 or Burning Hands at 3d6 (both 10.5avg).
So depending on how you want the damage to be dealt, I'd use the above to determine the dice to roll.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
As a DM and a player with the create or destroy water spell, I would find it incredibly amusing if one of my players did that and I would just roll with it. Of course, doing something like that would mean giving them a couple hoops to jump through (ex: an insight check with a DC of 15 just to see if it would work on the creature they're targeting). For damage I would say something similar to a medium damage first level spell like guiding bolt with 4d6 or inflict wounds with 3d10.
What if they were talking?
Whether or not the target's mouth is open is irrelevant.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.