Cool. That's hardly relevant to the verb "to shed" though
Internal shedding is also a thing. It just requires the things that is shedding have internal spaces... like a chest.
It's not, at least not outside of a metaphysical sense, but good try
It is, but good try. Since you are determined to stick to a biological definition of shedding instead of an appropriate one. Shedding blood, mucous, and whatnot from the inside of your mouth would be examples of internal shedding. Another example would be intestinal shedding. If you are experiencing any of these systems, call your doctor, not your DM.
So, now that we have conclusive evidence that shedding includes internal spaces, the internal space of a chest would be included in the definition of "shedding" light.
Cool. That's hardly relevant to the verb "to shed" though
Internal shedding is also a thing. It just requires the things that is shedding have internal spaces... like a chest.
It's not, at least not outside of a metaphysical sense, but good try
It is, but good try. Since you are determined to stick to a biological definition of shedding instead of an appropriate one. Shedding blood, mucous, and whatnot from the inside of your mouth would be examples of internal shedding. Another example would be intestinal shedding. If you are experiencing any of these systems, call your doctor, not your DM.
So, now that we have conclusive evidence that shedding includes internal spaces, the internal space of a chest would be included in the definition of "shedding" light.
My dude, "intestinal shedding" refers to the wall of the intestines expelling old cells (or other material, like a virus). It is not an internal process for the intestinal wall. Not a good try at all, really, since you clearly didn't bother to read the thing you Googled
The overwhelming usage of "shed" as a verb is to describe expelling or discharging something: you shed tears, shed blood, shed clothes, shed a virus when you're contagious. None of these refer to something happening internally, and even your clumsy attempt to find a counter-example failed
You guys should just stick to the "let's treat it like an Emanation" argument, since this one isn't working out for you at all
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)
You touch one Large or smaller object that isn't being worn or carried by someone else. Until the spell ends, the object sheds Bright Light in a 20-foot radius and Dim Light for an additional 20 feet.
Looking at the rules and thinking about the spell, I and my DM were trying to come up with a decision one way or another, which carried over into the next day where we continued to talk about it.
Light cantrip on the chest ONLY illuminates the outside.
Light cantrip on the chest illuminates the entire object that is defined as chest, including the inside.
Light cantrip on the chest illuminates the entire object that is defined as chest, including the inside, however because the insides are "covered" by the chest itself, the light on the inside is blocked, aka nullified.
Interpretation #2 is the correct interpretation. The inside of the chest is within the 20-foot "radius" away from the object, which is the chest. There are no other objects within that space (that we know of) which block this space from being included in the AoE (although, see an earlier example of a bag full of stuff located within the chest -- the bag itself would be visible, but there would be no light inside the bag).
On a side note, the use of the word "radius" in this description is questionable. Typically, a radius is measured from a point in space. The object in question could be of side "Large", which can take up a 10x10x10 volume of space. Is the reader supposed to assume that we are measuring from the "center" of such an object? This would end up affecting a much smaller space than people might think.
The overwhelming usage of "shed" as a verb is to describe expelling or discharging something: you shed tears, shed blood, shed clothes, shed a virus when you're contagious. None of these refer to something happening internally, and even your clumsy attempt to find a counter-example failed
You previously claimed that their choice of word didn't matter, so I don't see the point of arguing the particular shades of meaning of the word "shed".
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
They used a colloquial phrase in the spell description. Since it's not a term of art in the rules, it has the exact same mechanical weight as any synonymous phrase for "gives off light".
There is absolutely no way that they chose that phrase just to apply this particular interpretation. RAW, the illumination of the inside of the chest is undefined. You can interpret it either way, but I think my reason why you shouldn't still stands.
Edit: I think the interpretation really rests on whether you think the object itself emits light, or whether there's a magical field around the object that emits light. If the object itself is emitting, there's no reason why the spell should differentiate between inner and outer surfaces.
Also, does the spell's behavior change when you open the box? What about if the box was open when the spell was cast?
Cool. That's hardly relevant to the verb "to shed" though
Internal shedding is also a thing. It just requires the things that is shedding have internal spaces... like a chest.
It's not, at least not outside of a metaphysical sense, but good try
It is, but good try. Since you are determined to stick to a biological definition of shedding instead of an appropriate one. Shedding blood, mucous, and whatnot from the inside of your mouth would be examples of internal shedding. Another example would be intestinal shedding. If you are experiencing any of these systems, call your doctor, not your DM.
So, now that we have conclusive evidence that shedding includes internal spaces, the internal space of a chest would be included in the definition of "shedding" light.
My dude, "intestinal shedding" refers to the wall of the intestines expelling old cells (or other material, like a virus). It is not an internal process for the intestinal wall. Not a good try at all, really, since you clearly didn't bother to read the thing you Googled
My dude, that is the purpose of the definition you are choosing to follow. The sloughing of cells and matter of an animal or plant. Animals or plants do not typically get classified in D&D as objects, but an argument could be made that a nonsentient plant is not a creature and therefore is an object.
The overwhelming usage of "shed" as a verb is to describe expelling or discharging something: you shed tears, shed blood, shed clothes, shed a virus when you're contagious. None of these refer to something happening internally, and even your clumsy attempt to find a counter-example failed
See above. This is referring to the usage of sloughing off biological matter. It is clearly not relevant to interpreting the definition of "shedding light" but you cling to that argument even though it doesn't give you the win you think it does because that shedding can indeed happen internally. Your counterargument has failed and only exposed the frailty and internal (no pun intended) inconsistency of your stance.
My dude, "intestinal shedding" refers to the wall of the intestines expelling old cells (or other material, like a virus). It is not an internal process for the intestinal wall.
By that definition, neither is a chest illuminating its contents; shedding light is not an internal process for the wall of the chest.
The ghost couldn't see what was inside the chest because, surprise surprise, it was dark inside.
So I know this doesn't answer the original question, but looking through the thread and not finding any mention of "darkvision", did no one notice the ghost should have been able to see inside because ghosts have Darkvision?
Wow, thank you all for the answers. Genuinely was figuring only a couple of people would answer and give a quick "Yeah it is #" answer and move on. I'm glad to see that there is a lot of interpretation over this cantrip, and I gotta say I like that cantrips can be used in such weird ways like this because it makes them so much more powerful.
The ghost couldn't see what was inside the chest because, surprise surprise, it was dark inside.
So I know this doesn't answer the original question, but looking through the thread and not finding any mention of "darkvision", did no one notice the ghost should have been able to see inside because ghosts have Darkvision?
LMAO! I did not realize ghosts had Darkvision, that is great and does kind of make this whole thing moot. I am assuming that my DM friend didn't want to just tell us what was in the chest, but me pressing the issue and casting Light on it, he had to figure out some answer for it.
And as a few people have mentioned, there was a bag and a small box inside the chest, and their contents remained hidden because the light was only coming from the internal surface of the chest. We just had a bunch of us at the table getting our Brad Pitt on and needing to know what was in the box.
I'd just be careful with this thinking. "Useful" might be a better term to keep in your head. Players sometimes try to circumvent the fact that they are low level and try to justify outsized effects on very low level spells because "...technically...". A good check is to see if the effect you are trying to get out of the cantrip is basically the same or better than a leveled spell. If so, that is not its intended use and should not be allowed.
Obviously, I don't think this particular case of lighting the inside of a chest with the Light cantrip is one of those instances.
I'd just be careful with this thinking. "Useful" might be a better term to keep in your head. Players sometimes try to circumvent the fact that they are low level and try to justify outsized effects on very low level spells because "...technically...". A good check is to see if the effect you are trying to get out of the cantrip is basically the same or better than a leveled spell. If so, that is not its intended use and should not be allowed.
Obviously, I don't think this particular case of lighting the inside of a chest with the Light cantrip is one of those instances.
Very true. I didn't mean powerful like they would change the course of a battle, but under-utilized and useful are more appropriate terms. I feel like cantrips can be more spells for narrative role play and fun times.
I operate under the assumption that the entire thing emits light.
I've spent a bit of time (TOO MUCH TIME) thinking of ways to cast Light on an object then stick it inside something so it can act as a flashlight which could be concealed quickly. Such as a piece of straw or a twig you drop into a small opaque bottle or flask. Or a scrap of cloth which you could scrunch up into a ball, but would expand on the inside so it wouldn't fall out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It is, but good try. Since you are determined to stick to a biological definition of shedding instead of an appropriate one. Shedding blood, mucous, and whatnot from the inside of your mouth would be examples of internal shedding. Another example would be intestinal shedding. If you are experiencing any of these systems, call your doctor, not your DM.
So, now that we have conclusive evidence that shedding includes internal spaces, the internal space of a chest would be included in the definition of "shedding" light.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
My dude, "intestinal shedding" refers to the wall of the intestines expelling old cells (or other material, like a virus). It is not an internal process for the intestinal wall. Not a good try at all, really, since you clearly didn't bother to read the thing you Googled
The overwhelming usage of "shed" as a verb is to describe expelling or discharging something: you shed tears, shed blood, shed clothes, shed a virus when you're contagious. None of these refer to something happening internally, and even your clumsy attempt to find a counter-example failed
You guys should just stick to the "let's treat it like an Emanation" argument, since this one isn't working out for you at all
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)
Interpretation #2 is the correct interpretation. The inside of the chest is within the 20-foot "radius" away from the object, which is the chest. There are no other objects within that space (that we know of) which block this space from being included in the AoE (although, see an earlier example of a bag full of stuff located within the chest -- the bag itself would be visible, but there would be no light inside the bag).
On a side note, the use of the word "radius" in this description is questionable. Typically, a radius is measured from a point in space. The object in question could be of side "Large", which can take up a 10x10x10 volume of space. Is the reader supposed to assume that we are measuring from the "center" of such an object? This would end up affecting a much smaller space than people might think.
You previously claimed that their choice of word didn't matter, so I don't see the point of arguing the particular shades of meaning of the word "shed".
Edit: I think the interpretation really rests on whether you think the object itself emits light, or whether there's a magical field around the object that emits light. If the object itself is emitting, there's no reason why the spell should differentiate between inner and outer surfaces.
Also, does the spell's behavior change when you open the box? What about if the box was open when the spell was cast?
My dude, that is the purpose of the definition you are choosing to follow. The sloughing of cells and matter of an animal or plant. Animals or plants do not typically get classified in D&D as objects, but an argument could be made that a nonsentient plant is not a creature and therefore is an object.
See above. This is referring to the usage of sloughing off biological matter. It is clearly not relevant to interpreting the definition of "shedding light" but you cling to that argument even though it doesn't give you the win you think it does because that shedding can indeed happen internally. Your counterargument has failed and only exposed the frailty and internal (no pun intended) inconsistency of your stance.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
By that definition, neither is a chest illuminating its contents; shedding light is not an internal process for the wall of the chest.
So I know this doesn't answer the original question, but looking through the thread and not finding any mention of "darkvision", did no one notice the ghost should have been able to see inside because ghosts have Darkvision?
Wow, thank you all for the answers. Genuinely was figuring only a couple of people would answer and give a quick "Yeah it is #" answer and move on. I'm glad to see that there is a lot of interpretation over this cantrip, and I gotta say I like that cantrips can be used in such weird ways like this because it makes them so much more powerful.
LMAO! I did not realize ghosts had Darkvision, that is great and does kind of make this whole thing moot. I am assuming that my DM friend didn't want to just tell us what was in the chest, but me pressing the issue and casting Light on it, he had to figure out some answer for it.
And as a few people have mentioned, there was a bag and a small box inside the chest, and their contents remained hidden because the light was only coming from the internal surface of the chest. We just had a bunch of us at the table getting our Brad Pitt on and needing to know what was in the box.
I'd just be careful with this thinking. "Useful" might be a better term to keep in your head. Players sometimes try to circumvent the fact that they are low level and try to justify outsized effects on very low level spells because "...technically...". A good check is to see if the effect you are trying to get out of the cantrip is basically the same or better than a leveled spell. If so, that is not its intended use and should not be allowed.
Obviously, I don't think this particular case of lighting the inside of a chest with the Light cantrip is one of those instances.
Very true. I didn't mean powerful like they would change the course of a battle, but under-utilized and useful are more appropriate terms. I feel like cantrips can be more spells for narrative role play and fun times.
I operate under the assumption that the entire thing emits light.
I've spent a bit of time (TOO MUCH TIME) thinking of ways to cast Light on an object then stick it inside something so it can act as a flashlight which could be concealed quickly. Such as a piece of straw or a twig you drop into a small opaque bottle or flask. Or a scrap of cloth which you could scrunch up into a ball, but would expand on the inside so it wouldn't fall out.