Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
Well the spell doesn't say many things that we still assume to be true simply because they are strongly implied.
By your logic:
- D&D worlds are rotating planets orbiting a sun. The spell doesn't say the glyph moves with the planet. If "remaining in place" means stationary in absolute space, the moment you cast it on the book, the planet's rotation should instantly hurl the glyph into the vacuum of space at 1,000 miles per hour. Or it immediately breaks because the planet's rotation moves the book.
- The spell text says the triggered glyph "fills a 60-foot-radius Sphere with Dim Light." and nothing else. So there's no air, immediately suffocating everyone inside.
And many other preposterous things I can't think of right now. Rules are written in natural language, and we're supposed to apply Occam's Razor: when you see a hoof print, you think "horse" before you think "zebra". But what you suggest jumps straight to "unicorn". And for what? To pedantically apply a rule of thumb that we're supposed use with common sense.
Those are some fairly bad faith comparisons; AoEs are core mechanics with specific functions, ergo they apply only in the way explicitly described unless there is additional language modifying them. Trying to analogize that to abstracts not covered by the rules like velocity in space is apples to oranges.
These are just examples to illustrate the fact that we're supposed to use common sense and not throw RAI out the window. If the spell says that the glyph is inscribed on an object, doesn't force that object to be anchored in space, and the glyph glows, and the light from that glows inflicts an effect, then moving the object also moves the glyph, and the glyph is still glowing, and its range is unchanged. Any other interpretation goes against the common sense of natural language reading that we're supposed to apply instead of applying RAW to the letter.
No it doesn't. It just means that moving the symbol doesn't trigger it.
Which would not need to be said if it was still meant to apply after the spell is already triggered. And yet, they felt the need to. Again, natural language. This is not programming or legalese.
You're half right. It's not programming or legalese, true, but that's why you're wrong. The clear intent is that a glyph or symbol cannot be moved, period, end of story, but because it's natural language, they were sloppy with their wording and thus the actual wording is unclear (whether 'ends' and 'without being triggered' are separable is not specified).
I see a double-standard here as you only consider "sloppy" some parts and "clearly intended" others while the other way around is just as likely.
I consider all of it sloppy. The thing is, you only have an interesting rules anomaly if RAW cannot be interpreted in a way consistent with RAI.
Which is the case here. This is a 7th level spell with a 1000GP consumed component intended to trigger a powerful trap. And it can be ended just by moving the object on which it's applied, even after triggering it? No way that's the intent...
I mean, you can always NOT cast it on an object that can be easily moved. Or not cast it on an object at all. I don't feel like a lack of proper planning on the part of the caster means the spell is underpowered. Seems like there isn't much reason to cast it on an object at all, unless you're going for something cinematic like "The Queen opens the journal and suddenly she and her entire guard fall into a mysterious slumber."
At the point when you are dealing with NPC's, would they even know that they needed to move the book to end the spell? Would a normal guard or thief or whatever think "Whoa, there is literal Death spilling from this object, causing me immense pain or damage! I'd better grab it!"
That's why you cast it in something immovable. It's not the responsibility of spells to protect the user from their own stupidity.
Then why even suggest this if it's meant to be a "stupid" option as you say?
"or within an object that can be closed (such as a book or chest)."
The examples given in the spell description are literally moveable objects (book or chest). That ain't 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)
My suspicion is that it's a translation error from prior editions, because in prior editions the whole duration effect was mostly moot (for example, symbol of death lasted for 10 minutes, or until it had affected 150 hp worth of creatures. In practice, this meant its duration was 1 round).
Honestly, symbol in 2024 is pretty busted, being able to neutralize it in one round is actually balanced.
I do agree with Natrel that once the glyph is triggered, moving the object it was on wouldn't end the spell
There are only ways two ways listed in the description to end it:
and
If it's already been triggered, the first circumstance can no longer apply because you can't rewind time and not trigger 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)
Oh wait, symbol affects a sphere, not a emanation. Sphere effects, unless specifically noted otherwise, are immobile once created.
Alright, let's be as pedantic as you suggest then. Sphere also says it's an "area" of effect. So it only affects a circle...
Sarcasm aside, if there's an oversight here, it's probably that they forgot to change it to Emanation when they generalized the rules of Emanation in 2024.
Because your justification doesn't address the fact that you can still move the object around within 10ft, and I have yet to see an explanation of how the glyph behaves when that happens that just doesn't straight up sacrifices RAI on the altar of RAW by making up new rules that don't exist, like "the glyph magically detaches from the object".
Didn't you say earlier that "Spells do what they say they do. They don't do things they don't say they do."? Or does that rule of thumb only applies when you want it to?
Or they didn't want/expect it to be moved once created. If the intent is for the effect to be immobile, sphere does exactly that.
Given that both glyph of warding and symbol are trap spells, the real intent of the limit on movement is "You must use this as a trap spell, not as an offensive spell to destroy your enemies". Naturally, people try to turn them into offensive spells, because they're grossly overpowered if you can somehow turn them into a mobile effect.
I've been trying to get that point across for a while but it hasn't sunk in yet.
pronouns: he/she/they
Then that "10ft" rule makes no sense and there is no way to resolve how the spell behaves when the glyph is moved within that limit.
They wouldn't have written this rule if they intended for the glyph to be 100% static even after being triggered.