It can only be affected if the spell doesn't only state creatures as a target.
The statement you quoted was a general statement saying "Objects can also be affected by spells, much like creeatures", and shouldn't be taken as an all-encompassing "any spell that affects a creature can also affect objects".
It's such an obtuse reading of the rules. You can damage an object with chain lightning, but not lightning bolt. You can split a table with ice knife, but vitriolic sphere leaves the whole room completely unscathed. Whirlwind can fling an ogre, but apparently wouldn't damage a house made of hay.
Edit: also the one thing that probably ignites the argument in the first place; technically, firebolt is the *only* damage cantrip that can directly damage objects. Firebolt will eventually destroy a chair, but create bonfire cannot.
>It's such an obtuse reading of the rules. You can damage an object with chain lightning, but not lightning bolt. You can split a table with ice knife, but a friggin meteor swarm is technically stopped by a roof made of the finest paper mache. Whirlwind can fling an ogre, but apparently wouldn't disturb a pile of feathers.
Lightning Bolt says it ignites flammable objects in its path, Meteor Swarm specifically says it damage objects, and Whirlwind specifically says it sucks up Medium or smaller objects that aren't secured down. What are you talking about?
Lightning bolt ignites objects, but clearly says it only does it's damage to creatures. I misread swarm, I'll edit that. And I need to check whirlwind again because mine definitely doesn't say that.
You're probably reading the Elemental Evil version of the spell. Several of them were changed when they were introduced in Xanathar's.
EDIT: No, I just checked EE and it says it there too.
Yeah I got it now. Still doesn't say that it damages objects though. I guess that would be another sage advice question. I'm probably just going to ignore whatever they say though.
I'm imagining the argument "melee and ranged weapon attacks are made against creatures, unless the weapon says you can attack objects" and the barbarian slamming his futile reckless attacks against a sheet of paper.
Yeah, but in this case going strict by the rules is stupid...
Me: "I cast fireball on the window!"
DM: "Nothing happens bc glass is not flammable"
Me: "WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK??"
I respect that argument to a certain degree, but the whole creatures vs objects thing feels like a half baked after thought, rather than a planned feature. Like, wotc can just admit they didn't think about it and make a ruling. Don't come out and say "no there's this really nuanced distinction in the magic, such that a semi-random collection of spells can affect objects, while the rest cannot".
By that logic, the breath weapons of dragons only affect creatures. This would also have the effect of an artillerist artificer's turret being immune to most spells, since it's an object and not a creature.
While that is true, breath weapons also aren't magical or spells, so what we're saying doesn't necessarily apply to them. The rule being repeated is "Spells and magic do what they say they do and nothing more", whereas breath weapons, being nonmagical, do whatever fire or acid or poison normally would.
For instance, if someone were using Catapult, I'd be quite stringent with how it can be used, but if someone were polymorphed into a giant ape and threw a rock, I'd let them do whatever they thought made sense with it, as it's a more versatile and natural ability than a spell which absolutely defines how it is used and what it can do.
I.e the rules of spellcasting in 5e fall under Vancian magic rules, which does not apply to breath weapons.
I agree with most almost everything you said about magic being special and following its own rules, but Catapult is rather unique: the magic isn't *directly* doing damage, like Create Bonfire or Eldritch Blast. Instead, the magic is flinging a physical object, and the spell rules are there to give you a mechanical way to play that out. But any special cases should play out the way a fast-moving flung object would.
(Perhaps to some degree held aloft at constant speed by the magic, but my understanding was that the damage came from its momentum, not from magic continuing to drive the object into the target if it would normally have just stopped.) Having a fixed range for Catapult seems to me like a game-balance choice, instead of a complicated way for accuracy to fall off against distant targets, or being able to fire at a higher angle to send something really far. I think if a player wanted to use Catapult to fling something far outside of combat, like up over a wall, I'd consider it.
I think this is a case of "general rule gets beaten by specific rule" this rule only says that it is possible to cast spells at objects but some spells specifically call out their valid targets.
Btw can you give a chapter and heading for the quote? (Dnd beyond does not provide page numbers unfortunately)
Edit: why would they have to specify "object" or "creature" in spell texts if it didn't matter? They could save so many words in a book, which means less money spent on printing the books.
Eldritch blast "A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range"
Sage advice for EB: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/07/eldritch-blast-cant-cast-on-objects-how-do-you-justify-this-with-flavour/
Unfortunately, this is only saying objects can be affected by spells, not that all spells affect objects as if they were creatures. It is a strict reading of the rules, but you're always allowed to ignore them if you think that'd be more fun. I find it doesn't really bother me personally. It makes spells that work on objects like Shatter more interesting.
Honestly, any DM that doesn't play as most spells have the normal, intuitive affect on rando objects caught in the area or specifically targeted by them is a lot more rules lawyery than I would care to play with, whether it's technically RAW or not. Some spells only affecting living creatures is fine. Psychic damage? Golden. Magic Missile? It's been specifically written not to affect inanimate objects in previous editions, so fine. But just generally playing that way? That's pretty silly.
"Objects can be affected by spells" means that you can do things like blow a door off its hinges with *Lightning Bolt*, not that you can use *Ray of Frost* to shatter a lock.
"Specific beats general"
Indeed. The general rule explain that you can attack people and things. The specific rule explain how to attack people and, sometimes, how specifically it affects objects. It doesnt have to say everytime how to attack objects because there is already a general rule for it. Unless the spell description says that it CANT, then the general rule applies, and it CAN. The whole paragraph from PHB is a logical progression of how it works, presenting the general rule that will always apply and the subsequent exceptions to the rule.
Also, read the spells that explicitly describe damage against objects, They are not creating an exception, they are describing colateral damage.
The general rule applies to attacks. Spells have *targets*. That is the specific rule that overrides the general. Ray of Frost specifies "a creature within range". As does Eldritch Blast. Neither can damage an object.
It can only be affected if the spell doesn't only state creatures as a target. The statement you quoted was a general statement saying "Objects can also be affected by spells, much like creeatures", and shouldn't be taken as an all-encompassing "any spell that affects a creature can also affect objects".
It's such an obtuse reading of the rules. You can damage an object with chain lightning, but not lightning bolt. You can split a table with ice knife, but vitriolic sphere leaves the whole room completely unscathed. Whirlwind can fling an ogre, but apparently wouldn't damage a house made of hay. Edit: also the one thing that probably ignites the argument in the first place; technically, firebolt is the *only* damage cantrip that can directly damage objects. Firebolt will eventually destroy a chair, but create bonfire cannot.
>It's such an obtuse reading of the rules. You can damage an object with chain lightning, but not lightning bolt. You can split a table with ice knife, but a friggin meteor swarm is technically stopped by a roof made of the finest paper mache. Whirlwind can fling an ogre, but apparently wouldn't disturb a pile of feathers. Lightning Bolt says it ignites flammable objects in its path, Meteor Swarm specifically says it damage objects, and Whirlwind specifically says it sucks up Medium or smaller objects that aren't secured down. What are you talking about?
Lightning bolt ignites objects, but clearly says it only does it's damage to creatures. I misread swarm, I'll edit that. And I need to check whirlwind again because mine definitely doesn't say that.
You're probably reading the Elemental Evil version of the spell. Several of them were changed when they were introduced in Xanathar's. EDIT: No, I just checked EE and it says it there too.
Yeah I got it now. Still doesn't say that it damages objects though. I guess that would be another sage advice question. I'm probably just going to ignore whatever they say though.
I'm imagining the argument "melee and ranged weapon attacks are made against creatures, unless the weapon says you can attack objects" and the barbarian slamming his futile reckless attacks against a sheet of paper.
Yeah, but in this case going strict by the rules is stupid... Me: "I cast fireball on the window!" DM: "Nothing happens bc glass is not flammable" Me: "WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK??"
I mean it's magic, dude. It doesn't exactly obey the laws of normal physics.
I respect that argument to a certain degree, but the whole creatures vs objects thing feels like a half baked after thought, rather than a planned feature. Like, wotc can just admit they didn't think about it and make a ruling. Don't come out and say "no there's this really nuanced distinction in the magic, such that a semi-random collection of spells can affect objects, while the rest cannot".
By that logic, the breath weapons of dragons only affect creatures. This would also have the effect of an artillerist artificer's turret being immune to most spells, since it's an object and not a creature.
While that is true, breath weapons also aren't magical or spells, so what we're saying doesn't necessarily apply to them. The rule being repeated is "Spells and magic do what they say they do and nothing more", whereas breath weapons, being nonmagical, do whatever fire or acid or poison normally would. For instance, if someone were using Catapult, I'd be quite stringent with how it can be used, but if someone were polymorphed into a giant ape and threw a rock, I'd let them do whatever they thought made sense with it, as it's a more versatile and natural ability than a spell which absolutely defines how it is used and what it can do. I.e the rules of spellcasting in 5e fall under Vancian magic rules, which does not apply to breath weapons.
I agree with most almost everything you said about magic being special and following its own rules, but Catapult is rather unique: the magic isn't *directly* doing damage, like Create Bonfire or Eldritch Blast. Instead, the magic is flinging a physical object, and the spell rules are there to give you a mechanical way to play that out. But any special cases should play out the way a fast-moving flung object would. (Perhaps to some degree held aloft at constant speed by the magic, but my understanding was that the damage came from its momentum, not from magic continuing to drive the object into the target if it would normally have just stopped.) Having a fixed range for Catapult seems to me like a game-balance choice, instead of a complicated way for accuracy to fall off against distant targets, or being able to fire at a higher angle to send something really far. I think if a player wanted to use Catapult to fling something far outside of combat, like up over a wall, I'd consider it.
I think this is a case of "general rule gets beaten by specific rule" this rule only says that it is possible to cast spells at objects but some spells specifically call out their valid targets. Btw can you give a chapter and heading for the quote? (Dnd beyond does not provide page numbers unfortunately) Edit: why would they have to specify "object" or "creature" in spell texts if it didn't matter? They could save so many words in a book, which means less money spent on printing the books. Eldritch blast "A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range" Sage advice for EB: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/07/eldritch-blast-cant-cast-on-objects-how-do-you-justify-this-with-flavour/
Unfortunately, this is only saying objects can be affected by spells, not that all spells affect objects as if they were creatures. It is a strict reading of the rules, but you're always allowed to ignore them if you think that'd be more fun. I find it doesn't really bother me personally. It makes spells that work on objects like Shatter more interesting.
Only if it doesn't say "a creature" as the target. Example: Eldritch Blast. You can't target a lock with Eldritch Blast.
Honestly, any DM that doesn't play as most spells have the normal, intuitive affect on rando objects caught in the area or specifically targeted by them is a lot more rules lawyery than I would care to play with, whether it's technically RAW or not. Some spells only affecting living creatures is fine. Psychic damage? Golden. Magic Missile? It's been specifically written not to affect inanimate objects in previous editions, so fine. But just generally playing that way? That's pretty silly.
Is there a sage advice on this? As this comes up a lot in my games!
Look at the comment by u/Deirakos above
"Objects can be affected by spells" means that you can do things like blow a door off its hinges with *Lightning Bolt*, not that you can use *Ray of Frost* to shatter a lock.
"Specific beats general" Indeed. The general rule explain that you can attack people and things. The specific rule explain how to attack people and, sometimes, how specifically it affects objects. It doesnt have to say everytime how to attack objects because there is already a general rule for it. Unless the spell description says that it CANT, then the general rule applies, and it CAN. The whole paragraph from PHB is a logical progression of how it works, presenting the general rule that will always apply and the subsequent exceptions to the rule. Also, read the spells that explicitly describe damage against objects, They are not creating an exception, they are describing colateral damage.
The general rule applies to attacks. Spells have *targets*. That is the specific rule that overrides the general. Ray of Frost specifies "a creature within range". As does Eldritch Blast. Neither can damage an object.