Explorer's Guide to Wildemount [spell[immovable-object[/spell]
Each of the spells above can be used to attack or affect objects, but don't list that the objects cannot be worn or carried. All told, 18 spells to date. Of which a majority can be used to damage objects, and of that majority, a majority say nothing about magic items being immune.
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.
I agree, though I wouldn't criticise a DM for a choice to stick with Rules as Written. A goggle image search, for those interested, on "naked faerie" provides no shortage of results and nudity in source materials, such as Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's dream, was certainly a thing. If a DM took an interpretation that Faerie Fire was developed in connection to naked faeries, then objects RAW might certainly be dealt with separately. It's even possible that the specific wording of the spell could be a Joke as Intended, though that might be expecting too much.
I think that, most likely, RAI is that a dex save against Faerie Fire would also cover carried items.
though I wouldn't criticise a DM for a choice to stick with Rules as Written.
Neither would I.
Thanks for that about the naked faerie; it definitely helps to at least understand the possible intent, as problematic as the spell can potentially be.
It looks like you're mostly listing spells that involve melee spell attacks or ranged spell attacks. There is already a known issue with how to adjudicate spell or weapon attacks that target worn objects, as the rules do not explicitly state whether you can or can't. I agree that is seems ludicrous to attack the platemail armor of a knight, destroying it in one hit and trivializing the rest of the fight.
Each of the spells above can be used to attack or affect objects, but don't list that the objects cannot be worn or carried. All told, 18 spells to date. Of which a majority can be used to damage objects, and of that majority, a majority say nothing about magic items being immune.
It seems to me that even if, according to RAW, objects worn or carried could be affected by faerie fire, the successfully saving creature is still not. That means you do not have advantage against the creature and that creature could still be invisible and attempt to hide -- which knowing the locations of some objects should not affect since objects are not mentioned in the hiding rules at all (only in the rules about finding hidden objects).
Additionally, depending on the source of the invisibility, there is a direct contradiction in rules where there is (to my eye) no clear "more specific" rule -- objects on the invisible target worn and carried are invisible because the creature is (still) invisible, but objects affected by the spell are incapable of being invisible. At this point, only a DM can help us sort things out by making a ruling, and hopefully the DM will do the obvious thing and allow the objects on the unaffected creature to also remain unaffected.
The discussion on this thread goes only half way to coming to a conclusion on what the "RAW" but obviously unintended ruling means to actual play. If a creature passes it's save and remains unaffected, then there really is no effect. They're just as hard to find and hit.
The discussion on this thread goes only half way to coming to a conclusion on what the "RAW" but obviously unintended ruling means to actual play.
I already ruled that the creature and its objects would not be affected when this came up. I will continue to rule as such because I believe it is just poorly worded RAW.
Edit: I also don't allow called shots in my games, unless a scenario is being very specific about why this is being done. So no targeting the wizard's spell component pouch to render them useless.
If you read the text, come to a conclusion on what effect it has on the game, and that effect is exactly what the text was meant to express, what is the problem again?
Right. But again, there is nothing to clarify. The unaffected creature is unaffected, and the DM must rule whether that means that the items they wear or carry can remain invisible with them or not.
So, there is nothing that these forums could have added in the first place, other than pointing that out.
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.
Exactly, just the items, not the creature. While the creature can benefit from being invisible, part of the benefits would be wasted. The creature couldn't successfully hide it's location while carrying or wearring the visiblly lit items.
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.
I don't think there's such rules by default. But there is reflection to be made.
The creature could still be insivible itself. It would not be seen but it's items would be. DM may have to adjucate how that runs out.
The rules frequently refers to you or creature, that generally include everything worn or carried. Game elements that makes you invisible, such as Umbral Sight or One With Shadow normally should include what you wear or carry despite not specifying it like the spell Invisibility does.
Regarding Umbral Sight & similar: after reviewing the spells again, and those features, it seems only detrimental effect spells seem to feature a potential separation between worn/carried objects and not, while beneficial spells/features/traits assume worn/carried object inclusion.
Which would make sense, as not including worn/carried could pose a problem with using such spells/features/traits, but presenting the option could allow more strategy with detrimental spells.
Regardless, I do think it would be best to group worn/carried objects with the creature they are with, given the bizarre outcomes not doing so can lead to.
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.
Exactly, just the items, not the creature. While the creature can benefit from being invisible, part of the benefits would be wasted. The creature couldn't successfully hide it's location while carrying or wearring the visiblly lit items.
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.
I don't think there's such rules by default. But there is reflection to be made.
The creature could still be insivible itself. It would not be seen but it's items would be. DM may have to adjucate how that runs out.
The rules frequently refers to you or creature, that generally include everything worn or carried. Game elements that makes you invisible, such as Umbral Sight or One With Shadow normally should include what you wear or carry despite not specifying it like the spell Invisibility does.
Yet the PHb tells us that Specific Beats General and Faerie Fire specifies that "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. ..." This is solely an issue for RAI interpretation and DM adjudication.
Given the wording of Faerie Fire, I'm quite tempted with the idea that, while closely fitting items might move with a creature in a dex save, loosely fitting items might not fair so well in connection to that save. This could lead to an irony within a situation in which a creature may have disappeared from sight by means of a cloak of invisibility and yet this potentially flapping cloak might become one of the possessed objects to be outlined by the Faerie Fire's light.
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?
The Dragon Magazine article about Iymrith, the Dragon of Statues, gave her a spell that I tracked down to a 3.5e supplement, and basically it was a blaster type of spell that had a knock-on effect of ruining gemstones, mirrors, and other such things carried by the target. It was a weirdly complicated thing, as a lot of earlier D&D stuff is, and while I actually enjoy it at least in concept (it even has counterplay -- characters skilled with tools can attempt to fix the stuff!), I can certainly see why it didn't make the cut for 5e. I wrote up a 5e version of it for her spell list when I ran her in my SKT game, but I never end up casting it, because it wasn't that good. It might be interesting if a bunch of enemies had it, but then again, maybe not.
3.5e also had a table for determining what happened to your gear when you got hit by a spell! I've never seen it used.
So... If you *want* this kind of thing in your games, there's stuff to draw from, but the default mode in 5e is to leave all that stuff behind. And a consequence of that is, the stuff you're carrying doesn't get affected in any way by spells, really.
The Dragon Magazine article about Iymrith, the Dragon of Statues, gave her a spell that I tracked down to a 3.5e supplement, and basically it was a blaster type of spell that had a knock-on effect of ruining gemstones, mirrors, and other such things carried by the target. It was a weirdly complicated thing, as a lot of earlier D&D stuff is, and while I actually enjoy it at least in concept (it even has counterplay -- characters skilled with tools can attempt to fix the stuff!), I can certainly see why it didn't make the cut for 5e. I wrote up a 5e version of it for her spell list when I ran her in my SKT game, but I never end up casting it, because it wasn't that good. It might be interesting if a bunch of enemies had it, but then again, maybe not.
3.5e also had a table for determining what happened to your gear when you got hit by a spell! I've never seen it used.
So... If you *want* this kind of thing in your games, there's stuff to draw from, but the default mode in 5e is to leave all that stuff behind. And a consequence of that is, the stuff you're carrying doesn't get affected in any way by spells, really.
I'd be interested to see your 5E version of such spell, it looks fun.
I'd also be curious to see that 3.5 table you're talking about for i could have some use in my campaign
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 see no problem with this spell. This is the correct way to parse the effect.
The spell doesn't fail to illuminate objects in the area of effect. Only creatures get saves to be unaffected.No exceptions are carved out for held or worn objects, so they are immediately affected by the spell with no save.
This doesn't help you target the creature holding or wearing the object, however, other than maybe the illumination that the objects provide.
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.
Additionally, depending on the source of the invisibility, there is a direct contradiction in rules where there is (to my eye) no clear "more specific" rule -- objects on the invisible target worn and carried are invisible because the creature is (still) invisible, but objects affected by the spell are incapable of being invisible. At this point, only a DM can help us sort things out by making a ruling, and hopefully the DM will do the obvious thing and allow the objects on the unaffected creature to also remain unaffected.
The creature would be invisible but their held or worn affected objects would not be. Mechanically this is no different from being Invisible. The creature is still impossible to see. Their location would potentially be easier to deduce but that's about it. it could already be deduced anyway. You're presumed to just know every combatant's location unless they take the hide action.
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.
Why? To rule that way you would have to say that faerie fire is more specific than the source of invisibility that makes worn/carried items also invisible. How do you know?
Why? To rule that way you would have to say that faerie fire is more specific than the source of invisibility that makes worn/carried items also invisible. How do you know?
Are you asking why faerie fire prevents objects from becoming invisible?
The last line of the spell: "Any attack roll against an affected creature or object has advantage if the attacker can see it, and the affected creature or object can't benefit from being invisible."
The spell says they can't benefit from being invisible. So, they can't.
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.
PeteInCary, the list is longer than I thought; in alphabetical order, grouped by source:
Player's Handbook
chain-lightning
detect-magic
disintegrate
faerie-fire (obviously)
fire-storm
flame-blade
heat-metal
lightning-arrow
melfs-acid-arrow
meteor-swarm
mordenkainens-sword
scorching-ray
storm-of-vengeance
thunderous-smite
Xanathar's Guide to Everything
crown-of-stars
flame-arrows
holy-weapon
Acquisition's Incorporated
distort-value
Explorer's Guide to Wildemount
[spell[immovable-object[/spell]
Each of the spells above can be used to attack or affect objects, but don't list that the objects cannot be worn or carried. All told, 18 spells to date. Of which a majority can be used to damage objects, and of that majority, a majority say nothing about magic items being immune.
I agree, though I wouldn't criticise a DM for a choice to stick with Rules as Written.
A goggle image search, for those interested, on "naked faerie" provides no shortage of results and nudity in source materials, such as Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's dream, was certainly a thing.
If a DM took an interpretation that Faerie Fire was developed in connection to naked faeries, then objects RAW might certainly be dealt with separately. It's even possible that the specific wording of the spell could be a Joke as Intended, though that might be expecting too much.
I think that, most likely, RAI is that a dex save against Faerie Fire would also cover carried items.
Neither would I.
Thanks for that about the naked faerie; it definitely helps to at least understand the possible intent, as problematic as the spell can potentially be.
Journer - Wow that's a lot of spells!
It looks like you're mostly listing spells that involve melee spell attacks or ranged spell attacks. There is already a known issue with how to adjudicate spell or weapon attacks that target worn objects, as the rules do not explicitly state whether you can or can't. I agree that is seems ludicrous to attack the platemail armor of a knight, destroying it in one hit and trivializing the rest of the fight.
Only listing these because you listed Holy Weapon and Flame Arrows:
Not sure if any other spells should make the list.
It seems to me that even if, according to RAW, objects worn or carried could be affected by faerie fire, the successfully saving creature is still not. That means you do not have advantage against the creature and that creature could still be invisible and attempt to hide -- which knowing the locations of some objects should not affect since objects are not mentioned in the hiding rules at all (only in the rules about finding hidden objects).
Additionally, depending on the source of the invisibility, there is a direct contradiction in rules where there is (to my eye) no clear "more specific" rule -- objects on the invisible target worn and carried are invisible because the creature is (still) invisible, but objects affected by the spell are incapable of being invisible. At this point, only a DM can help us sort things out by making a ruling, and hopefully the DM will do the obvious thing and allow the objects on the unaffected creature to also remain unaffected.
The discussion on this thread goes only half way to coming to a conclusion on what the "RAW" but obviously unintended ruling means to actual play. If a creature passes it's save and remains unaffected, then there really is no effect. They're just as hard to find and hit.
I already ruled that the creature and its objects would not be affected when this came up. I will continue to rule as such because I believe it is just poorly worded RAW.
Edit: I also don't allow called shots in my games, unless a scenario is being very specific about why this is being done. So no targeting the wizard's spell component pouch to render them useless.
If you read the text, come to a conclusion on what effect it has on the game, and that effect is exactly what the text was meant to express, what is the problem again?
Right. But again, there is nothing to clarify. The unaffected creature is unaffected, and the DM must rule whether that means that the items they wear or carry can remain invisible with them or not.
So, there is nothing that these forums could have added in the first place, other than pointing that out.
Exactly, just the items, not the creature. While the creature can benefit from being invisible, part of the benefits would be wasted. The creature couldn't successfully hide it's location while carrying or wearring the visiblly lit items.
I don't think there's such rules by default. But there is reflection to be made.
The creature could still be insivible itself. It would not be seen but it's items would be. DM may have to adjucate how that runs out.
The rules frequently refers to you or creature, that generally include everything worn or carried. Game elements that makes you invisible, such as Umbral Sight or One With Shadow normally should include what you wear or carry despite not specifying it like the spell Invisibility does.
Regarding Umbral Sight & similar: after reviewing the spells again, and those features, it seems only detrimental effect spells seem to feature a potential separation between worn/carried objects and not, while beneficial spells/features/traits assume worn/carried object inclusion.
Which would make sense, as not including worn/carried could pose a problem with using such spells/features/traits, but presenting the option could allow more strategy with detrimental spells.
Regardless, I do think it would be best to group worn/carried objects with the creature they are with, given the bizarre outcomes not doing so can lead to.
Yet the PHb tells us that Specific Beats General and Faerie Fire specifies that "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. ..."
This is solely an issue for RAI interpretation and DM adjudication.
Given the wording of Faerie Fire, I'm quite tempted with the idea that, while closely fitting items might move with a creature in a dex save, loosely fitting items might not fair so well in connection to that save. This could lead to an irony within a situation in which a creature may have disappeared from sight by means of a cloak of invisibility and yet this potentially flapping cloak might become one of the possessed objects to be outlined by the Faerie Fire's light.
If you like to make list as this more easily readable you could use the tooltip function.
For spells you write it as [ spell ] name of the spell ] / spell ] (except with out all the spaces) and then it comes out as Flame Arrows.
The same can be done with "action", "monster", "item", "magicItem", "skill" and a few others. Just a tip!
The Dragon Magazine article about Iymrith, the Dragon of Statues, gave her a spell that I tracked down to a 3.5e supplement, and basically it was a blaster type of spell that had a knock-on effect of ruining gemstones, mirrors, and other such things carried by the target. It was a weirdly complicated thing, as a lot of earlier D&D stuff is, and while I actually enjoy it at least in concept (it even has counterplay -- characters skilled with tools can attempt to fix the stuff!), I can certainly see why it didn't make the cut for 5e. I wrote up a 5e version of it for her spell list when I ran her in my SKT game, but I never end up casting it, because it wasn't that good. It might be interesting if a bunch of enemies had it, but then again, maybe not.
3.5e also had a table for determining what happened to your gear when you got hit by a spell! I've never seen it used.
So... If you *want* this kind of thing in your games, there's stuff to draw from, but the default mode in 5e is to leave all that stuff behind. And a consequence of that is, the stuff you're carrying doesn't get affected in any way by spells, really.
I'd be interested to see your 5E version of such spell, it looks fun.
I'd also be curious to see that 3.5 table you're talking about for i could have some use in my campaign
I see no problem with this spell. This is the correct way to parse the effect.
The spell doesn't fail to illuminate objects in the area of effect. Only creatures get saves to be unaffected.No exceptions are carved out for held or worn objects, so they are immediately affected by the spell with no save.
This doesn't help you target the creature holding or wearing the object, however, other than maybe the illumination that the objects provide.
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 creature would be invisible but their held or worn affected objects would not be. Mechanically this is no different from being Invisible. The creature is still impossible to see. Their location would potentially be easier to deduce but that's about it. it could already be deduced anyway. You're presumed to just know every combatant's location unless they take the hide action.
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? To rule that way you would have to say that faerie fire is more specific than the source of invisibility that makes worn/carried items also invisible. How do you know?
Are you asking why faerie fire prevents objects from becoming invisible?
The last line of the spell: "Any attack roll against an affected creature or object has advantage if the attacker can see it, and the affected creature or object can't benefit from being invisible."
The spell says they can't benefit from being invisible. So, they can't.
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.