Does this make sense? Is it intended? I would guess not and I wouldn't play it that way
We are now on page 4 of people saying "But that's what it SAYS! I mean, I would never play it that way and it makes no sense and there's no way that's what they meant, but that's what it SAYS!"
Pedantic thought experiments and deconstructions of written rules can be fun from time to time, but they seem to have become particularly frequent on this subforum of late, and they tend to get a lot of traction due to the confidence with which absurd positions are presented and defended as well as the incredulity with which the rest of us appeal to common sense. Tribes form, people upvote positions supporting their own, and threads reach hundreds of replies.
Meanwhile, nobody on either side of the argument would likely suggest running the game this way at the table.
I'd be quite happy to run Faerie Fire as per RAW. All it would mean is that one fairly niche spell could automatically reveal invisible creatures that were carrying items. It could even lead to some fun moments should creatures choose to shed their carried items.
What deconstructions do you consider are involved?
Why do you object?
Because that is neither what the spell says what it does nor implies that it should do.
Does this make sense? Is it intended? I would guess not and I wouldn't play it that way
We are now on page 4 of people saying "But that's what it SAYS! I mean, I would never play it that way and it makes no sense and there's no way that's what they meant, but that's what it SAYS!"
Pedantic thought experiments and deconstructions of written rules can be fun from time to time, but they seem to have become particularly frequent on this subforum of late, and they tend to get a lot of traction due to the confidence with which absurd positions are presented and defended as well as the incredulity with which the rest of us appeal to common sense. Tribes form, people upvote positions supporting their own, and threads reach hundreds of replies.
Meanwhile, nobody on either side of the argument would likely suggest running the game this way at the table.
I'd be quite happy to run Faerie Fire as per RAW. All it would mean is that one fairly niche spell could automatically reveal invisible creatures that were carrying items. It could even lead to some fun moments should creatures choose to shed their carried items.
What deconstructions do you consider are involved?
Why do you object?
Because that is neither what the spell says what it does nor implies that it should do.
Oh, it's definitely what the spell says and I've presented rationales on potential implications on what it might do.
However, on a further specific question as to whether the spell could differentiate objects on a recipient of, say, an invisibility spell?
A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends. Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisibleas long as it is on the target's person. ...
The specific invisibility "as long" wording can be considered to override the Faerie Fire "Each object" wording.
Had invisibility been written to say something such as "Items the target is wearing or carrying are also made invisible by the spell's effects" then the utility of Faerie fire might be different. That's not the case.
If they're invisible, and fail their save, sure, they'd be revealed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Right. That isn’t automatic. Automatic would be they don’t get a save.
I don't believe the book uses the word "automatic" in this way, in either direction. What are you asking?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The only person asking if faerie fire "says it automatically reveals creatures" here is you. It doesn't use the word automatic. But it does reveal creatures if they fail their save. if that isn't what you're asking about it may be helpful to rephrase your question.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Read post 102 including the quotes and you might follow what gerg said. They said the spell should do something automatically. It is their term, and I was using it like English would suggest. [REDACTED]
Notes: Please keep posts respectful and constructive.
Read post 102 including the quotes and you might follow what gerg said. They said the spell should do something automatically. It is their term, and I was using it like English would suggest. Don’t jump down my throat on a conversation you jumped into the middle of and can’t seem to follow.
At no point did he say the spell "says it automatically reveals creatures".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That is the point. The spell doesn’t say that but gerg wants it to do that.
You may not be picking up what he was putting down.
He was saying that if you were to rule the spell at your table how it is RAW written, that if you tagged a creature's clothes with faerie fire you'd see their clothes. Not that it'll allow you to target the creature as if you could see them or anything like that.
To see the creature you tried to faerie fire they'd need to fail their save. But RAW it does , more or less, say all object are automatically affected. (based on your definition in #106)
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
So, mechanically speaking, there isn't much difference between you being invisible and all of your worn or carried gear being visible versus you and all of your worn or carried being invisible. You still have the invisible condition, and you can still benefit from it. I just think it makes describing the situation more complicated, and it feels unnatural to rule it that way.
Player: So even though I made my saving throw, all my clothes and equipment are now visible and glowing? DM: Yes, but you still have the invisible condition, so don't worry. Player: But everyone knows It's me over here in this moving suit of armor next to the fountain. DM: Yeah, but you're still invisible, so it's cool. Player: :(
One way in which it would be handy would be if you cast heat metal on an invisible creature's newly-revealed chain armor.
Read post 102 including the quotes and you might follow what gerg said. They said the spell should do something automatically. It is their term, and I was using it like English would suggest. Don’t jump down my throat on a conversation you jumped into the middle of and can’t seem to follow.
At no point did he say the spell "says it automatically reveals creatures".
"All it would mean is that one fairly niche spell could automatically reveal invisible creatures that were carrying items."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Read post 102 including the quotes and you might follow what gerg said. They said the spell should do something automatically. It is their term, and I was using it like English would suggest. Don’t jump down my throat on a conversation you jumped into the middle of and can’t seem to follow.
At no point did he say the spell "says it automatically reveals creatures".
"All it would mean is that one fairly niche spell could automatically reveal invisible creatures that were carrying items."
Yeah, that isn't him claiming the spell "says it automatically reveals creatures". He is explaining "what it would mean".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The spell, faerie fire doesn't offer objects a saving throw. It just affects them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Would darkness dispel faerie fire? The spell itself isn't shedding the dim light with a 10' radius, but the effect is created by the spell.
The light is created by the spell, so yes it would dispel the spell if any of the light from the spell enters the area of darkness. Darkness can dispel quite a few spells people might not immediately assume it can, a whole host of fire based spells, for example, are also susceptible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Because that is neither what the spell says what it does nor implies that it should do.
Oh, it's definitely what the spell says and I've presented rationales on potential implications on what it might do.
However, on a further specific question as to whether the spell could differentiate objects on a recipient of, say, an invisibility spell?
No.
The invisibility spell says:
A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends. Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person. ...
The specific invisibility "as long" wording can be considered to override the Faerie Fire "Each object" wording.
Had invisibility been written to say something such as "Items the target is wearing or carrying are also made invisible by the spell's effects" then the utility of Faerie fire might be different. That's not the case.
It says it automatically reveals creatures? Are you sure?
If they're invisible, and fail their save, sure, they'd be revealed.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Right. That isn’t automatic. Automatic would be they don’t get a save.
I don't believe the book uses the word "automatic" in this way, in either direction. What are you asking?
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The only person asking if faerie fire "says it automatically reveals creatures" here is you. It doesn't use the word automatic. But it does reveal creatures if they fail their save. if that isn't what you're asking about it may be helpful to rephrase your question.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Read post 102 including the quotes and you might follow what gerg said. They said the spell should do something automatically. It is their term, and I was using it like English would suggest. [REDACTED]
At no point did he say the spell "says it automatically reveals creatures".
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That is the point. The spell doesn’t say that but gerg wants it to do that.
You may not be picking up what he was putting down.
He was saying that if you were to rule the spell at your table how it is RAW written, that if you tagged a creature's clothes with faerie fire you'd see their clothes. Not that it'll allow you to target the creature as if you could see them or anything like that.
To see the creature you tried to faerie fire they'd need to fail their save. But RAW it does , more or less, say all object are automatically affected. (based on your definition in #106)
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
So, mechanically speaking, there isn't much difference between you being invisible and all of your worn or carried gear being visible versus you and all of your worn or carried being invisible. You still have the invisible condition, and you can still benefit from it. I just think it makes describing the situation more complicated, and it feels unnatural to rule it that way.
Player: So even though I made my saving throw, all my clothes and equipment are now visible and glowing?
DM: Yes, but you still have the invisible condition, so don't worry.
Player: But everyone knows It's me over here in this moving suit of armor next to the fountain.
DM: Yeah, but you're still invisible, so it's cool.
Player: :(
One way in which it would be handy would be if you cast heat metal on an invisible creature's newly-revealed chain armor.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
"All it would mean is that one fairly niche spell could automatically reveal invisible creatures that were carrying items."
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yeah, that isn't him claiming the spell "says it automatically reveals creatures". He is explaining "what it would mean".
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Would darkness dispel faerie fire? The spell itself isn't shedding the dim light with a 10' radius, but the effect is created by the spell.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
...
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Why wouldn't objects get a saving throw?
"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
What would an object's saving throw modifier be?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The spell, faerie fire doesn't offer objects a saving throw. It just affects them.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The light is created by the spell, so yes it would dispel the spell if any of the light from the spell enters the area of darkness. Darkness can dispel quite a few spells people might not immediately assume it can, a whole host of fire based spells, for example, are also susceptible.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.