Damaging inanimate objects in battles to indirectly gain advantage in battles

  1. I was thinking of using Spell damage to knockdown a dead Tree trunk in order for it to land on two/three skeletons and therefore pinning them effectively in place.

  2. Assuming having 1 Torch lit only with an all-human party (and I am Chaotic Evil), I was thinking of aiming my spell on the Torch effectively putting it out and make my quick getaway.

Are these possible scenarios?

This is for the Table Top game Dungeons and Dragons (DnD-e5). (sorry about that)

Can you alter the base item without damaging an enchantment?

I am running a 3.5 campaign and in this game I have decided that I will give out treasure entirely randomly, as opposed to tailoring loot based on the party as I usually do. In this instance, the party seriously lucked out and got a "Holy Avenger" the specific item. There are no paladins in the group, but even the base +2 effect is attractive for our fighter who only has a +1 burning greatsword at level 13. He has died a few times, so he is starting fall behind the rest of the party, who average 15.

We have a dwarven cleric in the party who is a master blacksmith and has “Craft Magic Arms and Armor”, and she asked if she has the ability to change the longsword into a greatsword and keep the enchantment. I don’t know of any rules about this. I want to say no, but I want to be sure that there isn’t some obscure entry somewhere in the encyclopedia of all D&D knowledge offering guidance.

My knee-jerk reaction is to require the cleric to add an additional effect to the weapon; a rule I have already home-brewed which allows items to be upgraded by paying only half the cost of its current effect when adding additional effect. I would call it something like “Morphing”, which would be a +1 effect that just allowed a weapon with this quality to take the form of any other weapon with a command from its wielder as a standard action. But if I do this, then the Holy Avenger, a traditionally +5 effect, would have to become +6, which would necessitate “Craft Epic Arms and Armor”.

Thus I want to ask the internet what it thinks I should do.

If a player rolls 33-34 on the wild magic table (maximize damage), what happens if they miss the target on the damaging attack?

On the Wild Magic Sorcerer’s Wild Magic Table, (PHB p.104), getting a roll of 33-34 results in:

Maximize the damage of the next damaging spell you cast within the next minute.

What happens if the sorcerer casts an attack roll spell that deals damage, and misses the target? I am being confused by the term "damaging." Is a "Damaging Spell" a hidden category of spell that can be cast, and thus means casting the spell ends this effect? or does the spell need to apply damage in order to be damaging, and would therefore need to hit for the effect to happen?

Are the insects from Insect Plague spell affected by other damaging spells?

Are the locusts created by the Insect Plague spell affected by other spells like Fireball, Cloudkill, Abi-Dalzim’s Horrid Wilting or similar spells? By similar spells I mean spells that deal damage on an area greater or equal than the 20-foot-radius sphere of the Insect Plague spell.

The Insect Plague spell does not describe the locusts as a creature (as a Swarm of Insects, for example) nor gives HP or clues on how damage them. I strongly believe that if someone throws a Fireball inside this swarm some effect would arise, which will be different by the effect provided by an Ice Storm or by a Cloudkill: I find the wording of Insect Plague quite ambiguous.

This question is an offspring of this one: the comments give some insights about the presented issue, but I think the topic deserves a full answer.

Can a level 17 Aasimar Light Domain Cleric cause every saving throw for their damaging spells to be made with disadvantage?

Reading through the features of the light domain Cleric I’ve discovered:

Corona of Light which states (Emphasis added):

Starting at 17th level, you can use your action to activate an aura of sunlight that lasts for 1 minute or until you dismiss it using another action. You emit bright light in a 60-foot radius and dim light 30 feet beyond that. Your enemies in the bright light have disadvantage on saving throws against any spell that deals fire or radiant damage.

Now the Aasimar race has subrace racial features that allow them to add radiant damage to any spell that deals damage, which causes that spell to now do radiant damage as well as their normal damage.

These features are: Radiant Soul and Radiant Consumption

Which both state (Emphasis added):

You can deal extra radiant damage to one target when you deal damage to it with an attack or a spell

So if you combine these two features you can cause any damage dealing spell saving throw to be made at disadvantage. As far as I know this all perfectly works RAW. What I want to know is if there is any rule (excluding adventure league rules) I am forgetting that would prevent me from using this combination in games?

Extra Damaging can be turned off for Move Objetcs effect?

I’m using the Portuguese version of the 3rd edition. The general rule for Extras is that they can’t be turned off, changing the power effects permanently. But the Damaging Extra describes that ‘your effect can inflict damage…

Should I assume that this Extra can be turned off? The 2nd edition was more clear regarding this since you had Feats (on/off) and Extras (always on).

Question on Damaging Animated Objects in 5e

This came up in a discussion with a fellow 5e DM:

A player casts Animate Object on 10 daggers. This makes 10 animated daggers with 20 HP and 18 AC according to the 5e PHB. Now according to the spell “When the animated object drops to 0 hit points, it reverts to its original object form, and any remaining damage carries over to its original object form.” This is all fine and good.

The 5e MM says something similar regarding animated objects: “An animated object reduced to 0 hit points becomes inanimate and is too damaged to be of much use or value to anyone.” Everything seems to agree.

Now, the DMG lists tables destructible objects. Daggers we presumed to be Tiny objects which according to the DMG would have 2 HP if fragile, and 5 HP if resilient. Under Object Armor Class it lists Iron/Steel with a 19 AC.

Here’s where the argument comes in:

According to the PHB, Animate Object changes the form of the object to a construct creature with 20 HP and 18 AC for Tiny objects. When it reaches 0 HP it reverts back to its original form (We’re assuming an object with 5 HP and 19 AC), with any excess damage carrying over to that original form.

So what happens when the daggers reach 0 HP taking into account the PHB, DMG, and MM?

Argument 1: When the animated dagger reaches 0 HP, it reverts back to a regular dagger with 5 HP (a la Wild Shape Druid feature), suggesting that it needs to take at least 25 damage to become unusable. The animated creature construct form is separate from the inanimate original form, therefore damage applied to the object in animated form is separate from damage applied to the object as a whole.

Argument 2: When the animated dagger reaches 0 HP, it becomes inanimate and is too damaged to be used, suggesting that it only needs 20 damage to become unusable (a la Shapechanger NPC feature). The animated creature construct form and the inanimate original form are still the same entity, therefore damage applied to the object in one form applies to the object as a whole rather than just to its animated nature.

So when or how do the daggers become so damaged that they’re unusable?

I’ve seen this answered for 3.5e and Pathfinder, but not for 5e and after hours of trying, unsuccessfully, to find a 5e answer, any insight in this would be appreciated 🙂

Would Affliction with Attribute Penalty for Will without damaging IQ cost the same as Affliction for IQ penalty?

Suppose you have a telepath who wants to be able to soften up the resistance of targets with high willpower. The plan is to reduce the target’s will score and then hit the target with Mind Probe or Mind Control.

This telepath might be interrogating stalwart warriors with IQ 9 and Will 16. To speak a language requires an IQ of 6. Thus the telepath does not want to reduce IQ very low. Ideally, the affliction should sap the target’s Will without affecting IQ.

A possibility might be to use Affliction with Attribute Penalty. Presumably the cost for a penalty to Will would be the same as the cost for a penalty to IQ. I presume the Cumulative modifier would be necessary to make the effects stack.

Affliction (-1 to Will) level 1= 10 pts: Malediction/Ranged +190%, -1 attribute penalty +10%, Cumulative +400% Based on Will +20% =72 points

It would be much more expensive to use a version of Leech that saps Will instead of IQ. Presumably this would cost as much as a version of Leech that saps IQ.

Leech (drains Will) level 1 =25 pts: Malediction/Ranged +190%, Affects Will +300%, only heals FP -20%, Based on Will +20% = 148 points

Question: Is it reasonable to have an attack to Will cost the same as an attack to IQ?

What damaging options does a lich have while in an anti-magic field?

Magical and magical effects are rendered ineffective in an antimagic field spell.

The lich’s Paralyzing Touch is described as a Melee Spell Attack. Disrupt Life and Frightening Gaze are listed as needing saving throws against “this magic.” Presumably all three of these attacks would be negated as well as any of the lich’s spells.

What amount and type of damage is left that a lich could inflict if within an antimagic field spell? (e.g. such as the damage of their unarmed attack?)