- Apr 25, 2017
- Reaction score
Okay I think I understand now. If a spell is meant to be able to target an inanimate object it will say so in the description. "Target" is very literal and tied to the nature of a spell. Noted.I don't understand why a spell would have to be directed like a conventional projectile weapon simply because an attack roll is made. Typically, the spell's success is determined by the caster's skill at sorcery and the target's ability to resist.
I don't have an issue with the damage types, only that they are meaningless outside of the spell's description (ie, a firebolt spell won't set something inanimate on fire). That's fine, I just didn't realize that the system was so specific. I expected it to be looser for some reason. I assumed that there'd be some flexibility with non-combat damage use of those damage types. I was wrong.The way 5e damage types are presented is a good example of exception-based design which has been the gold standard since Magic the Gathering was released. The main purpose of having different damage types in the core rules is facilitating resistances, vulnerabilities, and immunities. Making it more granular than that in the core rules would be both needlessly complex and restricting.
My bad. I think that I've seen too many forum debates about earlier editions where this was more ambiguous.Special exceptions can be presented in the relevant spell or weapon description. For example, in this case if you read the spell description you will see that fireball lights things on fire.
Honestly I'm not sure anymore. The things that I want to change about D&D would make it not-D&D. It's better for me to just move onto a different system instead of griping about this one.What would you change?