[....] When you can make a choice to reduce the effect of a spell, the spell tells you. Light affects an object with no option to reduce the portion of the object affected. You can choose the color of the Light and, because of that wording, you aren't necessarily restricted to one color. I would say that you are restricted to the visible spectrum because the color of the light must result in Bright Light followed by Dim Light.
It does not say that the object sheds light from the surface of your choice, or the front, or any other limitation or restriction on a subset of the totality. If the spell does not restrict the effect to the totality, it affects the totality.
No, that's entirely your assumption. There absolutely no guidance on that in the rules one way or the other. Mechanically, the spell causes objects to emit light in a radius. How it does that, the rules don't say
Which was the point of my hypothetical. How you think it works in your head in the shield example is probably how it should work in the sealed chest scenario. If you decide it's up to the caster exactly which parts are glowing, that's a valid answer too
It says "the object", not "the surface", "the side", "the facet", or anything else. Spells do what they say they do and the spell says the object sheds light.
Right. And that's all it says. If you're holding a staff, you have multiple options for how that staff could shed light in a radius without the whole staff glowing
The spell does not tell you how that radius of light is created. Only that it happens.
Only that the object emits lights. That's how. Not the tip. Not the point you choose. Not the front. The object emits light.
A torch is an object that emits light. The entire torch doesn't glow.
A lantern is an object that emits light. The entire lantern doesn't glow.
You need a rule to restrict it to a part of the object.
No, you absolutely do not. You have invented that in your head
You absolutely do. That is why the other spells I listed tell you what part of an object it effects. Be default, you do not affect part of a creature or part of an object. If you affect an AoE, you cannot exclude part of it because you feel like it; you need rules text to make the exclusion. You need rules text to allow you to affect less than the object or less than the creature.
You are taking liberties that are not present in the spell.
Compare it to Continual Flame. Light says the object emits light. Continual Flame says, "a flame springs forth from the object that you touch. The effect casts [light]..."
...so? light does not say it creates a separate light-emitting phenomenon. It just says the object itself sheds light, in some unspecified fashion. continual flame is irrelevant to the discussion
Light says the object emits light. Continual Flame says the effect and not the object touched emits light. It tells you explicitly that it is not the whole object that casts light.
Continual Flame explicitly says the object doesn't emit light at all. The flame you created and attached to the object is the thing shedding light. Hence, irrelevant.
Your hypothetical was invalid interpretation that assumes that you can arbitrarily restrict an effect to less than what the spell describes.
The only effect light describes is that the object sheds light in a specified radius. I restricted nothing, arbitrarily or otherwise
You restricted the portion of the spell that said the object emits light
You clearly didn't understand my hypothetical then. I restricted no mechanical effect of the spell at all. The shield Light had been cast on was still shedding bright light in a 20-foot radius, and dim light for an additional 20 feet
In addition, the spell explicitly states that is a radius as opposed to stating that it is an arc (or in D&D terms, a Cone).
A lantern or torch sheds light in a radius. Is the entire lantern or torch glowing?
Perhaps more relevant, if you hit a creature with starry wisp, it emits light in a 10-foot radius. Is the whole creature glowing, or just the spot where the mote hit them? The spell doesn't say
Are lanterns and torches spells? No.
Do they shed light? Yes. Just like the object you touch when you cast light
The are not governed by the rules of Spell Effects and are therefore not relevant to the conversation. Emphasis added.
The effects of a spell are detailed after its duration entry. Those details present exactly what the spell does, which ignores mundane physical laws; any outcomes beyond those effects are under the DM’s purview. Whatever the effects, they typically deal with targets, saving throws, attack rolls, or all three, each of which is detailed below.
No, it does not. The word "glow" does not appear once in the text for the Light spell -- which you yourself just confirmed
Thanks also for quoting the "ignores mundane physical laws" section too, which further confirms that while the Light spell does cause an object to shed light in a specified radius, how it does that is simply flavor, which is entirely up to the player and the DM. After all
Spells do what they say they do and the spell says the object sheds light.
There's no need to respond further. You've confirmed all my main points already.
The entire point of my hypothetical was to point out that people have different ways of visualizing how the spell works. Which is fine! If in your head the entire object glows, run it that way at your table, including in that sealed chest/ghost scenario. But that isn't RAW, or even RAI, and isn't supported anywhere in the rules. That's just the way you happen to visualize it.
If you really want to bake your noodle though, ask yourself this -- if you cast light on a lantern, does the whole lantern glow, or just the interior chamber of the lantern as though it had been lit normally?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The entire point of my hypothetical was to point out that people have different ways of visualizing how the spell works. Which is fine! If in your head the entire object glows, run it that way at your table, including in that sealed chest/ghost scenario. But that isn't RAW, or even RAI, and isn't supported anywhere in the rules. That's just the way you happen to visualize it.
If you really want to bake your noodle though, ask yourself this -- if you cast light on a lantern, does the whole lantern glow, or just the interior chamber of the lantern as though it had been lit normally?
The real answer is that the cosmetic effects of the spell will work as is aesthetically appropriate. The inside of the lantern will glow. The tip of your staff will glow. Because it doesn't matter.
But the question at hand isn't about cosmetics. If it's under control of the caster, then the inside of the chest will glow, because that's the point. If it's not under control of the caster, the inside of the chest should glow, because all we're working with is "the object emits light", and the inside of the chest is just as much part of the object as the outside.
If it's not under control of the caster, the inside of the chest should glow, because all we're working with is "the object emits light", and the inside of the chest is just as much part of the object as the outside.
The object sheds light in a radius. That does not automatically follow that the inside of the object will be just as lit up as the outside
If you want to go with the dictionary definition of "shed", it's a word generally used to indicate something being discharged or expelled -- you shed tears or blood, for instance
The clause in the spell about the light being blocked by covering it with something opaque also works against the idea that the inside is illuminated, for that matter. How would draping the sealed chest in a cloak stop any glow inside it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Light says the object emits light. Continual Flame says the effect and not the object touched emits light. It tells you explicitly that it is not the whole object that casts light.
Continual Flame explicitly says the object doesn't emit light at all. The flame you created and attached to the object is the thing shedding light. Hence, irrelevant.
No. It says that you touch the object, an effect springs forth, and the effect casts light. It is an example of a spell, affecting an object and telling you where the light is radiating from rather than the entire object. It is therefore relevant as an example of that precedence.
Your hypothetical was invalid interpretation that assumes that you can arbitrarily restrict an effect to less than what the spell describes.
The only effect light describes is that the object sheds light in a specified radius. I restricted nothing, arbitrarily or otherwise
You restricted the portion of the spell that said the object emits light
You clearly didn't understand my hypothetical then. I restricted no mechanical effect of the spell at all. The shield Light had been cast on was still shedding bright light in a 20-foot radius, and dim light for an additional 20 feet
You clearly don't understand the effects of the spell at all. The shield, not the front of the shield, the back of the shield, or the top of the shield, sheds light. This doesn't seem like a significant distinction when we are talking about a "small" object like a shield. However, if I cast it on a large item, the object itself takes up significant space and sheds light an additional distance beyond that. If only one side sheds light,
No, it does not. The word "glow" does not appear once in the text for the Light spell -- which you yourself just confirmed
Thanks also for quoting the "ignores mundane physical laws" section too, which further confirms that while the Light spell does cause an object to shed light in a specified radius, how it does that is simply flavor, which is entirely up to the player and the DM. After all
Shedding light is emitting light. Your alternative is that casting it on the object in Darkness leaves the object itself in darkness.
There's no need to respond further. You've confirmed all my main points already.
The entire point of my hypothetical was to point out that people have different ways of visualizing how the spell works. Which is fine! If in your head the entire object glows, run it that way at your table, including in that sealed chest/ghost scenario. But that isn't RAW, or even RAI, and isn't supported anywhere in the rules. That's just the way you happen to visualize it.
If in your head only part of the object glows, run it that way at your table. If I do, I will recognize that it isn't RAW, maybe or maybe not RAI (that topic hasn't been broached), and isn't supported anywhere in the rules. That's fine. Before making changes, or when discussing the rules in this forum, it is important to do so from a point of understanding RAW first.
I personally will be ruling from a point of player and storytelling flexibility, but that is not the point of this forum.
If you really want to bake your noodle though, ask yourself this -- if you cast light on a lantern, does the whole lantern glow, or just the interior chamber of the lantern as though it had been lit normally?
Does Light say that only the interior of the object glow? The lantern does.
If you want to go with the dictionary definition of "shed", it's a word generally used to indicate something being discharged or expelled -- you shed tears or blood, for instance
If only there was a common occurrence where blood was shed on the inside, some sort of internal bleeding ...
The clause in the spell about the light being blocked by covering it with something opaque also works against the idea that the inside is illuminated, for that matter. How would draping the sealed chest in a cloak stop any glow inside it?
It doesn't. Covering the object blocks the light. It never stops it from shedding light. If you cast Light on a pebble and cover it with a 20-foot cubic opaque box, the box blocks the light from extending beyond, but inside the box is still filled with Bright Light. It does not conflict at all with being internally illuminated at all.
[....] When you can make a choice to reduce the effect of a spell, the spell tells you. Light affects an object with no option to reduce the portion of the object affected. You can choose the color of the Light and, because of that wording, you aren't necessarily restricted to one color. I would say that you are restricted to the visible spectrum because the color of the light must result in Bright Light followed by Dim Light.
If you really want to bake your noodle though, ask yourself this -- if you cast light on a lantern, does the whole lantern glow, or just the interior chamber of the lantern as though it had been lit normally?
If you reach inside it to touch the wick and cast it on the wick (which is a separable object from the lantern), it will cast light, illuminating the interior and coming out of the lantern as if the wick was lit. If you just touch the lantern, the entire thing glows.
If it's not under control of the caster, the inside of the chest should glow, because all we're working with is "the object emits light", and the inside of the chest is just as much part of the object as the outside.
The object sheds light in a radius. That does not automatically follow that the inside of the object will be just as lit up as the outside
If you want to go with the dictionary definition of "shed", it's a word generally used to indicate something being discharged or expelled -- you shed tears or blood, for instance
If I had one wish, it would... wait. If I had two wishes, the second... wait, give me a moment...
If I had 734 wishes, #734 would be that people in 5e rules discussions would stop trying to parse out arbitrary word choices to give them game-mechanical meaning.
Would you be arguing any differently if it said it "emits" or "gives off" light?
Unless they used a defined game-mechanical term, we cannot get any level of precision from their word choice here. There are some situations where their choice of English word is clear enough. This is not one of them, and I do not believe that any of the colloquial terms for "is a light source" would suffice to establish either interpretation here.
The clause in the spell about the light being blocked by covering it with something opaque also works against the idea that the inside is illuminated, for that matter. How would draping the sealed chest in a cloak stop any glow inside it?
They write the rules for the general case. This is an edge case -- most of the time it does not matter if the inside of the enspelled object is illuminated or not, if it even has an inside.
But all that establishes is that the light can be blocked. It leaves adjudication of all the various edge cases, many of which will involve partial obscurement, to the DM, and this is one of them.
Would you be arguing any differently if it said it "emits" or "gives off" light?
No, because the only mechanical effect of the cantrip is to create an area of light around the object you touch, in a color of your choice
People are making up justifications for why the inside of the object would "glow", when there's just no support for it in the spell description. The spell says nothing at all about anything "glowing", unlike other spells, such as the as-noted heat metal -- h/t to Smite for pointing out the clear and obvious difference in the text between that one and light
If we were talking about a 10-foot square crate instead of a small chest, how big an area would be illuminated by casting light on it? For sure, a 20-foot radius around the crate would be in Bright light. Whether the 10x10x10 interior is also illuminated would be up to the DM -- although if a DM chooses to view the effect as being the equivalent of an 5e24 Emanation, that situation is covered by the rules
An Emanation’s origin (creature or object) isn’t included in the area of effect unless its creator decides otherwise.
It's not an Emanation per RAW though -- and that's a deliberate choice by WOTC, since there is an updated '24 version -- so a DM could well decide light simply does not illuminate the inside of the object it's cast on. No matter how much anyone insists the object, in whole or in part, is "glowing"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
No, because the only mechanical effect of the cantrip is to create an area of light around the object you touch, in a color of your choice
No, the mechanical effect of the cantrip is that the object 'sheds' light, and since there is no evidence that the object blocks itself, the inside is illuminated because nothing says it isn't illuminated.
If it's not an emanation, isn't the target included in the area of the effect?
I just looked. In '24, it depends on what type of AoE is it, but it looks like the options are either "Yes" or "Only if the caster wants it to". light doesn't have a listed AoE type at all, though
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If it's not an emanation, isn't the target included in the area of the effect?
I just looked. In '24, it depends on what type of AoE is it, but it looks like the options are either "Yes" or "Only if the caster wants it to". light doesn't have a listed AoE type at all, though
Mechanically, it probably ought to be an emanation, as the area of effect conforms to the target's dimensions.
Whether it's an Emanation or something else, it appears that the inside of the box either is or can be included.
Sorry. That's probably my fault. I probably used up the post's quota in my last comment.
I think your statements on not stepping on players' creativity and rules be written for the general case, not every edge case, are gems of this post.
We can argue RAW until we are blue in the face (or the fingers, there is a cold front moving in here), but I haven't seen that anyone is giving ground.
IMO, I don't think the Emanation (or Sphere) rules should be taken into account for ruling the Light spell one way or another, even when it has an area of effect that can be blocked by Total Cover.
No, because the only mechanical effect of the cantrip is to create an area of light around the object you touch, in a color of your choice
No, the mechanical effect of the cantrip is that the object 'sheds' light, and since there is no evidence that the object blocks itself, the inside is illuminated because nothing says it isn't illuminated.
Not to trigger jl83, but "shedding" is something that happens externally, not internally. Blood doesn't count as "shed" until it leaves your body
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Not to trigger jl83, but "shedding" is something that happens externally, not internally. Blood doesn't count as "shed" until it leaves your body
Internal bleeding is a thing.
Cool. That's hardly relevant to the verb "to shed" though
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Not to trigger jl83, but "shedding" is something that happens externally, not internally. Blood doesn't count as "shed" until it leaves your body
Internal bleeding is a thing.
Cool. That's hardly relevant to the verb "to shed" though
Yeah, but no. Your choice of shedding happening externally refers specifically to use of shed to represent matter leaving a body. This would include matter shed on the inside of a creature's mouth (Nature's organic chest, if you will). If this use of "shed" is not relevant to the discussion, it is because you chose an inappropriate use to defend your position rather than the appropriate definition that provides you with no support.
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Recalling the past :) Darkness from Light??? - Rules & Game Mechanics
A torch is an object that emits light. The entire torch doesn't glow.
A lantern is an object that emits light. The entire lantern doesn't glow.
Continual Flame explicitly says the object doesn't emit light at all. The flame you created and attached to the object is the thing shedding light. Hence, irrelevant.
You clearly didn't understand my hypothetical then. I restricted no mechanical effect of the spell at all. The shield Light had been cast on was still shedding bright light in a 20-foot radius, and dim light for an additional 20 feet
No, it does not. The word "glow" does not appear once in the text for the Light spell -- which you yourself just confirmed
Thanks also for quoting the "ignores mundane physical laws" section too, which further confirms that while the Light spell does cause an object to shed light in a specified radius, how it does that is simply flavor, which is entirely up to the player and the DM. After all
There's no need to respond further. You've confirmed all my main points already.
The entire point of my hypothetical was to point out that people have different ways of visualizing how the spell works. Which is fine! If in your head the entire object glows, run it that way at your table, including in that sealed chest/ghost scenario. But that isn't RAW, or even RAI, and isn't supported anywhere in the rules. That's just the way you happen to visualize it.
If you really want to bake your noodle though, ask yourself this -- if you cast light on a lantern, does the whole lantern glow, or just the interior chamber of the lantern as though it had been lit normally?
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The real answer is that the cosmetic effects of the spell will work as is aesthetically appropriate. The inside of the lantern will glow. The tip of your staff will glow. Because it doesn't matter.
But the question at hand isn't about cosmetics. If it's under control of the caster, then the inside of the chest will glow, because that's the point. If it's not under control of the caster, the inside of the chest should glow, because all we're working with is "the object emits light", and the inside of the chest is just as much part of the object as the outside.
The object sheds light in a radius. That does not automatically follow that the inside of the object will be just as lit up as the outside
If you want to go with the dictionary definition of "shed", it's a word generally used to indicate something being discharged or expelled -- you shed tears or blood, for instance
The clause in the spell about the light being blocked by covering it with something opaque also works against the idea that the inside is illuminated, for that matter. How would draping the sealed chest in a cloak stop any glow inside it?
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
These are not spells and not governed by the same rules. These are not relevant.
No. It says that you touch the object, an effect springs forth, and the effect casts light. It is an example of a spell, affecting an object and telling you where the light is radiating from rather than the entire object. It is therefore relevant as an example of that precedence.
You clearly don't understand the effects of the spell at all. The shield, not the front of the shield, the back of the shield, or the top of the shield, sheds light. This doesn't seem like a significant distinction when we are talking about a "small" object like a shield. However, if I cast it on a large item, the object itself takes up significant space and sheds light an additional distance beyond that. If only one side sheds light,
Shedding light is emitting light. Your alternative is that casting it on the object in Darkness leaves the object itself in darkness.
If in your head only part of the object glows, run it that way at your table. If I do, I will recognize that it isn't RAW, maybe or maybe not RAI (that topic hasn't been broached), and isn't supported anywhere in the rules. That's fine. Before making changes, or when discussing the rules in this forum, it is important to do so from a point of understanding RAW first.
I personally will be ruling from a point of player and storytelling flexibility, but that is not the point of this forum.
Does Light say that only the interior of the object glow? The lantern does.
If only there was a common occurrence where blood was shed on the inside, some sort of internal bleeding ...
It doesn't. Covering the object blocks the light. It never stops it from shedding light. If you cast Light on a pebble and cover it with a 20-foot cubic opaque box, the box blocks the light from extending beyond, but inside the box is still filled with Bright Light. It does not conflict at all with being internally illuminated at all.
Nice. I wasn't aware of that post. Great minds think alike? :D
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
If you reach inside it to touch the wick and cast it on the wick (which is a separable object from the lantern), it will cast light, illuminating the interior and coming out of the lantern as if the wick was lit. If you just touch the lantern, the entire thing glows.
If I had one wish, it would... wait. If I had two wishes, the second... wait, give me a moment...
If I had 734 wishes, #734 would be that people in 5e rules discussions would stop trying to parse out arbitrary word choices to give them game-mechanical meaning.
Would you be arguing any differently if it said it "emits" or "gives off" light?
Unless they used a defined game-mechanical term, we cannot get any level of precision from their word choice here. There are some situations where their choice of English word is clear enough. This is not one of them, and I do not believe that any of the colloquial terms for "is a light source" would suffice to establish either interpretation here.
They write the rules for the general case. This is an edge case -- most of the time it does not matter if the inside of the enspelled object is illuminated or not, if it even has an inside.
But all that establishes is that the light can be blocked. It leaves adjudication of all the various edge cases, many of which will involve partial obscurement, to the DM, and this is one of them.
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
(Quoting's gone completely kerfungled.)
If it's not an emanation, isn't the target included in the area of the effect?
No, the mechanical effect of the cantrip is that the object 'sheds' light, and since there is no evidence that the object blocks itself, the inside is illuminated because nothing says it isn't illuminated.
I just looked. In '24, it depends on what type of AoE is it, but it looks like the options are either "Yes" or "Only if the caster wants it to". light doesn't have a listed AoE type at all, though
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Mechanically, it probably ought to be an emanation, as the area of effect conforms to the target's dimensions.
Whether it's an Emanation or something else, it appears that the inside of the box either is or can be included.
Sorry. That's probably my fault. I probably used up the post's quota in my last comment.
I think your statements on not stepping on players' creativity and rules be written for the general case, not every edge case, are gems of this post.
We can argue RAW until we are blue in the face (or the fingers, there is a cold front moving in here), but I haven't seen that anyone is giving ground.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
IMO, I don't think the Emanation (or Sphere) rules should be taken into account for ruling the Light spell one way or another, even when it has an area of effect that can be blocked by Total Cover.
EDIT: for clarity.
Not to trigger jl83, but "shedding" is something that happens externally, not internally. Blood doesn't count as "shed" until it leaves your body
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Internal bleeding is a thing.
Cool. That's hardly relevant to the verb "to shed" though
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Internal shedding is also a thing. It just requires the things that is shedding have internal spaces... like a chest.
Yeah, but no. Your choice of shedding happening externally refers specifically to use of shed to represent matter leaving a body. This would include matter shed on the inside of a creature's mouth (Nature's organic chest, if you will). If this use of "shed" is not relevant to the discussion, it is because you chose an inappropriate use to defend your position rather than the appropriate definition that provides you with no support.
Shed: Verb: "to give off or out"
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
It's not, at least not outside of a metaphysical sense, but good try
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)