Ok so first, I know most will point to Sage advice, but ignoring that what are your thoughts.
This mainly involves Pact of the Chain Imp but I suppose it could be for any Familiar.
The spell states. "When the familiar drops to 0 hit points, it disappears, leaving behind no physical form. It reappears after you cast this spell again. As an action, you can temporarily dismiss your familiar to a pocket dimension. Alternatively, you can dismiss it forever. As an action while it is temporarily dismissed, you can cause it to reappear in any unoccupied space within 30 feet of you. Whenever the familiar drops to 0 hit points or disappears into the pocket dimension, it leaves behind in its space anything it was wearing or carrying."
So I'm going to be that guy who states "holding" something is not "wearing" or "carrying" something. I"m 99% sure RAI would include holding, but technically its not written. So am I crazy to think RAW states if a Familiar is holding an object, gets dismissed and then immediately summoned back beside you it would still be holding said object?
If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn’t being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness.
If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn’t being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness.
Sure, and given that 1) based on how these words are defined and used in English, anyone holding a thing is also carrying it, and 2) the rules of D&D never specifically define hold or carry to mean anything other than their common meanings, we can conclude that this is an instance of the rules saying more than they strictly need to.
If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn’t being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness.
Sure, and given that 1) based on how these words are defined and used in English, anyone holding a thing is also carrying it, and 2) the rules of D&D never specifically define hold or carry to mean anything other than their common meanings, we can conclude that this is an instance of the rules saying more than they strictly need to.
Well yes I see what you mean but i'd assume in D&D some things may stretch the English language in order to be able to use certain mechanics in certain ways. In this scenario, the Darkness spell clearly shows a distinction between something being held that is not being carried. If it didn't, then you couldn't cast Darkness on any object because in your classification anything you are holding you are always carrying. Wouldn't something like this set a precedent in identifying something being held is not necessarily equal to be carried? There may be other examples of this wording in other spells I just used Darkness as an example to show something being held is clearly being shown to not be something carried in order for the spell to function.
If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn’t being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness.
Sure, and given that 1) based on how these words are defined and used in English, anyone holding a thing is also carrying it, and 2) the rules of D&D never specifically define hold or carry to mean anything other than their common meanings, we can conclude that this is an instance of the rules saying more than they strictly need to.
Well yes I see what you mean but i'd assume in D&D some things may stretch the English language in order to be able to use certain mechanics in certain ways. In this scenario, the Darkness spell clearly shows a distinction between something being held that is not being carried. If it didn't, then you couldn't cast Darkness on any object because in your classification anything you are holding you are always carrying. Wouldn't something like this set a precedent in identifying something being held is not necessarily equal to be carried? There may be other examples of this wording in other spells I just used Darkness as an example to show something being held is clearly being shown to not be something carried in order for the spell to function.
Not at all. You're misunderstanding what the text of darkness says and means (and to be fair, so was I when I initially responded to you; I wasn't reading super closely). Darkness lets you cast it on an object that you are holding, or on an object that isn't being worn or carried (by anyone, including you). If we take your position at face value, this would mean you can cast Darkness on an object that an enemy is holding. It would also mean that the first condition (that you are holding) is unnecessary, because if you're holding it, then it is automatically an item that isn't being worn or carried. That's not how it works. "Or" means that a valid target is one that satisfies either condition, even if it fails the other.
If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn’t being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness.
Sure, and given that 1) based on how these words are defined and used in English, anyone holding a thing is also carrying it, and 2) the rules of D&D never specifically define hold or carry to mean anything other than their common meanings, we can conclude that this is an instance of the rules saying more than they strictly need to.
Well yes I see what you mean but i'd assume in D&D some things may stretch the English language in order to be able to use certain mechanics in certain ways. In this scenario, the Darkness spell clearly shows a distinction between something being held that is not being carried. If it didn't, then you couldn't cast Darkness on any object because in your classification anything you are holding you are always carrying. Wouldn't something like this set a precedent in identifying something being held is not necessarily equal to be carried? There may be other examples of this wording in other spells I just used Darkness as an example to show something being held is clearly being shown to not be something carried in order for the spell to function.
Not at all. You're misunderstanding what the text of darkness says and means (and to be fair, so was I when I initially responded to you; I wasn't reading super closely). Darkness lets you cast it on an object that you are holding, or on an object that isn't being worn or carried (by anyone, including you). If we take your position at face value, this would mean you can cast Darkness on an object that an enemy is holding. It would also mean that the first condition (that you are holding) is unnecessary, because if you're holding it, then it is automatically an item that isn't being worn or carried. That's not how it works. "Or" means that a valid target is one that satisfies either condition, even if it fails the other.
Oh I see what you mean, that makes sense if the first part can negate the 2nd part, you're right I thought they both had to be satisfied for the spell to work.
So in a different scenario, would you say if a character casts Invisibility on themselves, and picks up something off a table, does it immediately become invisible in their hand as they are technically "carrying" it or would they have to say put it in their pocket for item to become invisible? Basically if you're invisible and picking up and putting down a bunch of books they'd become invisible and visible every few seconds of being picked up and put down? (this was an actual issue we had in our campaign lol)
So in a different scenario, would you say if a character casts Invisibility on themselves, and picks up something off a table, does it immediately become invisible in their hand as they are technically "carrying" it or would they have to say put it in their pocket for item to become invisible? Basically if you're invisible and picking up and putting down a bunch of books they'd become invisible and visible every few seconds of being picked up and put down? (this was an actual issue we had in our campaign lol)
There's not really a clear answer to that question (it's been asked before). I think there's a valid interpretation that only things you're wearing or carrying when you cast the spell become invisible (not anything you pick up later). I think most people would find that really inconvenient, so it's probably more common to say "yes, they'd become invisible and visible every few seconds as they're picked up and put down," but I'm 100% speculating about the relative prevalence, and at the end of the day, it'll be whatever the DM decides.
The reason the Darkness spell refers to "hold" for you and "worn or carried" for other targets is because you hold only what is in your hand, so to cast on an item you must hold it in hand, you can't cast it on your clothes or backpack. For other targets it uses "carry" because this includes things being held as well as things carried in other ways like a bag carried on the shoulder or crook of your elbow, for instance. Carry is generic. Holding something is "anything carried in your hand or gripped by it". There is no need to also specify "hold"/"held" because "carry" already includes it.
Let's examine a scenario of "Robin picks up their handbag and nestles the handle in the crook of their elbow then picks up their books before heading out the door".
You can say "Robyn is carrying a handbag." But you cannot say "Robyn is holding a handbag." This is because they are carrying the handbag with their arm but is not holding it with their hand.
You can say "Robyn is carrying books." And, you can say "Robyn is holding books." Because they are holding books in their hand which means they are also carrying them by the hand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
If you are holding something, you are carrying it. I mean, if you can find a DM who lets you get away with this nonsense, more power to you, but good luck with that.
If you are holding something, you are carrying it. I mean, if you can find a DM who lets you get away with this nonsense, more power to you, but good luck with that.
I realize that now, I was getting confused with the Darkness spell that talks about holding objects vs carried or worn ones but now realize it meant carried or worn by others which includes holding. I should probably close this post as its clear I was wrong haha
If you are holding something, you are carrying it. I mean, if you can find a DM who lets you get away with this nonsense, more power to you, but good luck with that.
I realize that now, I was getting confused with the Darkness spell that talks about holding objects vs carried or worn ones but now realize it meant carried or worn by others which includes holding. I should probably close this post as its clear I was wrong haha
For Darkness, you have to be holding (i.e. in your hand) the object if you are casting the spell on it - whereas the spell will not work if somebody is merely carrying the object (they don't have to be holding it).
Anything you are holding and able to move freely with you is by definition being carried by you. If you were to hold say a doorknob, it is not carried, not part of your inventory, and you would not expect to be able to take it with you either physically or magically without extra steps.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok so first, I know most will point to Sage advice, but ignoring that what are your thoughts.
This mainly involves Pact of the Chain Imp but I suppose it could be for any Familiar.
The spell states. "When the familiar drops to 0 hit points, it disappears, leaving behind no physical form. It reappears after you cast this spell again. As an action, you can temporarily dismiss your familiar to a pocket dimension. Alternatively, you can dismiss it forever. As an action while it is temporarily dismissed, you can cause it to reappear in any unoccupied space within 30 feet of you. Whenever the familiar drops to 0 hit points or disappears into the pocket dimension, it leaves behind in its space anything it was wearing or carrying."
So I'm going to be that guy who states "holding" something is not "wearing" or "carrying" something. I"m 99% sure RAI would include holding, but technically its not written. So am I crazy to think RAW states if a Familiar is holding an object, gets dismissed and then immediately summoned back beside you it would still be holding said object?
Thoughts and opinions much appreciated.
I don't think there's any practical way to define hold and carry such that if you're holding something you're not carrying it.
Although the Darkness spell does specify this
Darkness
If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn’t being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness.
Sure, and given that 1) based on how these words are defined and used in English, anyone holding a thing is also carrying it, and 2) the rules of D&D never specifically define hold or carry to mean anything other than their common meanings, we can conclude that this is an instance of the rules saying more than they strictly need to.
Well yes I see what you mean but i'd assume in D&D some things may stretch the English language in order to be able to use certain mechanics in certain ways. In this scenario, the Darkness spell clearly shows a distinction between something being held that is not being carried. If it didn't, then you couldn't cast Darkness on any object because in your classification anything you are holding you are always carrying. Wouldn't something like this set a precedent in identifying something being held is not necessarily equal to be carried? There may be other examples of this wording in other spells I just used Darkness as an example to show something being held is clearly being shown to not be something carried in order for the spell to function.
Not at all. You're misunderstanding what the text of darkness says and means (and to be fair, so was I when I initially responded to you; I wasn't reading super closely). Darkness lets you cast it on an object that you are holding, or on an object that isn't being worn or carried (by anyone, including you). If we take your position at face value, this would mean you can cast Darkness on an object that an enemy is holding. It would also mean that the first condition (that you are holding) is unnecessary, because if you're holding it, then it is automatically an item that isn't being worn or carried. That's not how it works. "Or" means that a valid target is one that satisfies either condition, even if it fails the other.
Oh I see what you mean, that makes sense if the first part can negate the 2nd part, you're right I thought they both had to be satisfied for the spell to work.
So in a different scenario, would you say if a character casts Invisibility on themselves, and picks up something off a table, does it immediately become invisible in their hand as they are technically "carrying" it or would they have to say put it in their pocket for item to become invisible? Basically if you're invisible and picking up and putting down a bunch of books they'd become invisible and visible every few seconds of being picked up and put down? (this was an actual issue we had in our campaign lol)
There's not really a clear answer to that question (it's been asked before). I think there's a valid interpretation that only things you're wearing or carrying when you cast the spell become invisible (not anything you pick up later). I think most people would find that really inconvenient, so it's probably more common to say "yes, they'd become invisible and visible every few seconds as they're picked up and put down," but I'm 100% speculating about the relative prevalence, and at the end of the day, it'll be whatever the DM decides.
The reason the Darkness spell refers to "hold" for you and "worn or carried" for other targets is because you hold only what is in your hand, so to cast on an item you must hold it in hand, you can't cast it on your clothes or backpack. For other targets it uses "carry" because this includes things being held as well as things carried in other ways like a bag carried on the shoulder or crook of your elbow, for instance. Carry is generic. Holding something is "anything carried in your hand or gripped by it". There is no need to also specify "hold"/"held" because "carry" already includes it.
Let's examine a scenario of "Robin picks up their handbag and nestles the handle in the crook of their elbow then picks up their books before heading out the door".
You can say "Robyn is carrying a handbag." But you cannot say "Robyn is holding a handbag." This is because they are carrying the handbag with their arm but is not holding it with their hand.
You can say "Robyn is carrying books." And, you can say "Robyn is holding books." Because they are holding books in their hand which means they are also carrying them by the hand.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
In this case, there is not a meaningful distinction to be made between holding an item and carrying an item.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
If you are holding something, you are carrying it. I mean, if you can find a DM who lets you get away with this nonsense, more power to you, but good luck with that.
I realize that now, I was getting confused with the Darkness spell that talks about holding objects vs carried or worn ones but now realize it meant carried or worn by others which includes holding. I should probably close this post as its clear I was wrong haha
For Darkness, you have to be holding (i.e. in your hand) the object if you are casting the spell on it - whereas the spell will not work if somebody is merely carrying the object (they don't have to be holding it).
Anything you are holding and able to move freely with you is by definition being carried by you. If you were to hold say a doorknob, it is not carried, not part of your inventory, and you would not expect to be able to take it with you either physically or magically without extra steps.