If I cast Faerie Fire on an area and a creature in that area succeeds on their saving throw, are all the objects/clothing worn by that creature still glowing?
Stuff worn by a creature is usually considered as a part of that creature (sort of) and thus suffers no damage or ill effects (like that of faerie fire).
I know that if a spell specifically targets an object, according to Jeremy Crawford, you are allowed to target a worn/carried object if you wish.
Spells such as Light specifically allow a creature to save for their worn/carried objects. But Faerie Fire does not seem to allow a creature to save for its worn/carried objects.
However, as that basically negates any success on the saving throw (at least for creatures wearing and/or wielding items), we can infer that the intent was if a creature succeeds on the save, their objects are also unaffected.
I know that if a spell specifically targets an object, according to Jeremy Crawford, you are allowed to target a worn/carried object if you wish.
Spells such as Light specifically allow a creature to save for their worn/carried objects. But Faerie Fire does not seem to allow a creature to save for its worn/carried objects.
Edit: added the link for Jeremy's advice tweet
Where did you get that idea? The spell specifically says you get a dex save.
Faerie Fire: Each object in a 20-foot cube within range is outlined in blue, green, or violet light (your choice). Any creature in the area when the spell is cast is also outlined in light if it fails a Dexterity saving throw. For the duration, objects and affected creatures shed dim light in a 10-foot radius.
As written, no exception is given for worn objects, unlike the spell Light, which is referenced. Specifically, Light says: If you target an object held or worn by a hostile creature, that creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw to avoid the spell.
Granted, the example of Light could just be because the creature is hostile, but it does indicate that the spell needs to list an explicit means of exemption.
Regardless, I still hold that because a creature can save to avoid the effect on itself, intent was likely that its success prevents the effect on objects it wears/carries.
Faerie Fire: Each object in a 20-foot cube within range is outlined in blue, green, or violet light (your choice). Any creature in the area when the spell is cast is also outlined in light if it fails a Dexterity saving throw. For the duration, objects and affected creatures shed dim light in a 10-foot radius.
As written, no exception is given for worn objects, unlike the spell Light, which is referenced. Specifically, Light says: If you target an object held or worn by a hostile creature, that creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw to avoid the spell.
Granted, the example of Light could just be because the creature is hostile, but it does indicate that the spell needs to list an explicit means of exemption.
Regardless, I still hold that because a creature can save to avoid the effect on itself, intent was likely that its success prevents the effect on objects it wears/carries.
I would hate to play in your game if that's how you rule area effects and damage. A single fireball or even burning hands could leave a party naked.
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?"
Wysperra, I would never rule that effects would destroy worn/carried items simply because they were in an area, and I have no idea where you got the idea that I would, as all I was discussing was the RAW (that I can tell) vs what I think the RAI was.
Truth be told, this spell, and those like it, are further evidence that the writing of spells and other mechanical aspects must be much more carefully handled.
Personally, I would go the simple route: include in the general rules that objects worn/carried by a creature are unaffected by spells & effects that mention objects, unless said spells/effects explicitly mention affecting worn/carried objects. Granted, that may have been the intent, but honestly, I could find nothing implying either way.
Personally, I would go the simple route: include in the general rules that objects worn/carried by a creature are unaffected by spells & effects that mention objects, unless said spells/effects explicitly mention affecting worn/carried objects. Granted, that may have been the intent, but honestly, I could find nothing implying either way.
That is already the intent and AFAIK there is text that says so explicitly, don't remember where atm though.
But you really have to go with that assumption otherwise the rules kind of break down and you end up with the problem Wysperra mentioned. And it isn't about igniting the worn gear, if you allow AOE's to target worn gear automatically then they would take damage and even an average Fire Ball would destroy most of the gear (magic weapons and armour would be the exception).
Personally, I would go the simple route: include in the general rules that objects worn/carried by a creature are unaffected by spells & effects that mention objects, unless said spells/effects explicitly mention affecting worn/carried objects. Granted, that may have been the intent, but honestly, I could find nothing implying either way.
That is already the intent and AFAIK there is text that says so explicitly, don't remember where atm though.
But you really have to go with that assumption otherwise the rules kind of break down and you end up with the problem Wysperra mentioned. And it isn't about igniting the worn gear, if you allow AOE's to target worn gear automatically then they would take damage and even an average Fire Ball would destroy most of the gear (magic weapons and armour would be the exception).
Fireball specifically excludes objects worn by a creature. Most aoe spells either only affect creatures (not objects) or specifically exclude worn objects when appropriate.
That is why I brought up the issue with Faerie Fire in the first place, as in fact it specifically states that it affects each object with the aoe, which is specifically not excluding those worn by a creature.
True, there will be players that comb language for such advantage, but such players are likely doing so in the first place.
To be perfectly honest, I would be surprised if it took something such as this thread for them to notice such a thing, given how clearly the language differs.
Should I go ahead and list spells which could be a problem? or hope to delay such issues by leaving them unsaid?
When you make a saving throw, it gotta include items worn or carried. Or else everythime you make a saving throw against an area of effect, you'd be forced to make multiple saves for everything on yourself.
Problem is that the spell doesn't give a save to objects so you'd only make a save for yourself but unless you're naked it is irrelevant as you clothes/gear would still light up and be visible.
It's true that as written, the spell doesn't exclude any object in the AoE that is worn or carried, automatically affecting them without any saving throw.
So if you go with a strict reading, any items a creature in the AOE wears or carry:
- shed dim light in a 10-foot radius
- can't benefit from being invisible
- any attack roll against an affected object has advantage if the attacker can see it
I'd also likely rule that saves against Farie Fire would also cover items carried, but it can also be noted that while: Faerie Fire is written to effect "Each object in a 20-foot cube within range...", fireball is written to effect "Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere..." and burning hands is similarly written to effect "Each creature in a 15-foot cone".
I think that there are issues either with the writing of Faerie Fire or with Crawford's tweet.
True, there will be players that comb language for such advantage, but such players are likely doing so in the first place.
To be perfectly honest, I would be surprised if it took something such as this thread for them to notice such a thing, given how clearly the language differs.
Should I go ahead and list spells which could be a problem? or hope to delay such issues by leaving them unsaid?
Yes please list them all. I suspect you are not going to find many (if any) other spells where this issue arises. The only one I've found otherwise is Misty Step, which RAW could be interpreted to not bring your items with you, but this has already been acknowledged in the Sage Advice Compendium and with plans to clarify in future updates.
It's true that as written, the spell doesn't exclude any object in the AoE that is worn or carried, automatically affecting them without any saving throw.
So if you go with a strict reading, any items a creature in the AOE wears or carry:
- shed dim light in a 10-foot radius
- can't benefit from being invisible
- any attack roll against an affected object has advantage if the attacker can see it
This is correct. The items shed light, do not benefit from being invisible, and attack rolls against the objects have advantage.
However, none of that applies to the creature wearing those items if it makes its saving throw. It can still benefit from being invisible. You do not get advantage on attacks against it. The only downside for the creature is that its position will be fairly obvious since you can see the items it is wearing.
Plaguescarred, that is why the rules should be written so that by default, worn/carried objects are counted as part of a creature for the purposes of spellcasting, and require a specific rule to be targeted. (I tried finding anything within the core 3 books matching this, but was unable)
As to the explicit reading of Faerie Fire and worn objects, while that is a RAW reading, it does still face the problem that the spell effectively prevents invisibility if a creature is wearing/carrying anything. Thus the above about needing to change the rules.
GergKyae, regardless of Crawford, the problem is indeed with the writing of Faerie Fire, and with spellcasting related to objects.
After reviewing the spells to see which have this issue, I personally would just rule that anything worn/carried is covered under the creature(s) impact on the Weave, and thus cannot be targeted independent of said creature(s). After all, none of the spells I could find which can only be used to target objects is limited to affecting objects.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If I cast Faerie Fire on an area and a creature in that area succeeds on their saving throw, are all the objects/clothing worn by that creature still glowing?
Stuff worn by a creature is usually considered as a part of that creature (sort of) and thus suffers no damage or ill effects (like that of faerie fire).
I know that if a spell specifically targets an object, according to Jeremy Crawford, you are allowed to target a worn/carried object if you wish.
Spells such as Light specifically allow a creature to save for their worn/carried objects. But Faerie Fire does not seem to allow a creature to save for its worn/carried objects.
Edit: added the link for Jeremy's advice tweet
According to the RAW, yes.
However, as that basically negates any success on the saving throw (at least for creatures wearing and/or wielding items), we can infer that the intent was if a creature succeeds on the save, their objects are also unaffected.
Where did you get that idea? The spell specifically says you get a dex save.
Thezzaruz
Faerie Fire: Each object in a 20-foot cube within range is outlined in blue, green, or violet light (your choice). Any creature in the area when the spell is cast is also outlined in light if it fails a Dexterity saving throw. For the duration, objects and affected creatures shed dim light in a 10-foot radius.
As written, no exception is given for worn objects, unlike the spell Light, which is referenced. Specifically, Light says: If you target an object held or worn by a hostile creature, that creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw to avoid the spell.
Granted, the example of Light could just be because the creature is hostile, but it does indicate that the spell needs to list an explicit means of exemption.
Regardless, I still hold that because a creature can save to avoid the effect on itself, intent was likely that its success prevents the effect on objects it wears/carries.
I would hate to play in your game if that's how you rule area effects and damage. A single fireball or even burning hands could leave a party naked.
"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
Wysperra, I would never rule that effects would destroy worn/carried items simply because they were in an area, and I have no idea where you got the idea that I would, as all I was discussing was the RAW (that I can tell) vs what I think the RAI was.
Truth be told, this spell, and those like it, are further evidence that the writing of spells and other mechanical aspects must be much more carefully handled.
Personally, I would go the simple route: include in the general rules that objects worn/carried by a creature are unaffected by spells & effects that mention objects, unless said spells/effects explicitly mention affecting worn/carried objects. Granted, that may have been the intent, but honestly, I could find nothing implying either way.
Wysperra, one more thing. I hope you read over the rules better before making a judgement, or I would hate to play in your games:
Fireball states "It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried."
Burning Hands states "The fire ignites any flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried."
So obviously these would never leave a party naked.
That is already the intent and AFAIK there is text that says so explicitly, don't remember where atm though.
But you really have to go with that assumption otherwise the rules kind of break down and you end up with the problem Wysperra mentioned. And it isn't about igniting the worn gear, if you allow AOE's to target worn gear automatically then they would take damage and even an average Fire Ball would destroy most of the gear (magic weapons and armour would be the exception).
Fireball specifically excludes objects worn by a creature. Most aoe spells either only affect creatures (not objects) or specifically exclude worn objects when appropriate.
That is why I brought up the issue with Faerie Fire in the first place, as in fact it specifically states that it affects each object with the aoe, which is specifically not excluding those worn by a creature.
TRUE! I made a kneejerk reaction.
But now there will be players that comb the language of spell text to achieve the desired destruction of object worn by others.
What better way to eliminate a caster as a threat than to wipe his component pouch or spell focus?
"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, there will be players that comb language for such advantage, but such players are likely doing so in the first place.
To be perfectly honest, I would be surprised if it took something such as this thread for them to notice such a thing, given how clearly the language differs.
Should I go ahead and list spells which could be a problem? or hope to delay such issues by leaving them unsaid?
When you make a saving throw, it gotta include items worn or carried. Or else everythime you make a saving throw against an area of effect, you'd be forced to make multiple saves for everything on yourself.
Problem is that the spell doesn't give a save to objects so you'd only make a save for yourself but unless you're naked it is irrelevant as you clothes/gear would still light up and be visible.
I'd also likely rule that saves against Farie Fire would also cover items carried, but it can also be noted that while:
Faerie Fire is written to effect "Each object in a 20-foot cube within range...",
fireball is written to effect "Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere..."
and burning hands is similarly written to effect "Each creature in a 15-foot cone".
I think that there are issues either with the writing of Faerie Fire or with Crawford's tweet.
Yes please list them all. I suspect you are not going to find many (if any) other spells where this issue arises. The only one I've found otherwise is Misty Step, which RAW could be interpreted to not bring your items with you, but this has already been acknowledged in the Sage Advice Compendium and with plans to clarify in future updates.
This is correct. The items shed light, do not benefit from being invisible, and attack rolls against the objects have advantage.
However, none of that applies to the creature wearing those items if it makes its saving throw. It can still benefit from being invisible. You do not get advantage on attacks against it. The only downside for the creature is that its position will be fairly obvious since you can see the items it is wearing.
Plaguescarred, that is why the rules should be written so that by default, worn/carried objects are counted as part of a creature for the purposes of spellcasting, and require a specific rule to be targeted. (I tried finding anything within the core 3 books matching this, but was unable)
As to the explicit reading of Faerie Fire and worn objects, while that is a RAW reading, it does still face the problem that the spell effectively prevents invisibility if a creature is wearing/carrying anything. Thus the above about needing to change the rules.
GergKyae, regardless of Crawford, the problem is indeed with the writing of Faerie Fire, and with spellcasting related to objects.
After reviewing the spells to see which have this issue, I personally would just rule that anything worn/carried is covered under the creature(s) impact on the Weave, and thus cannot be targeted independent of said creature(s). After all, none of the spells I could find which can only be used to target objects is limited to affecting objects.