If moonbeam is used on a 45 ° mirror, will the beam become horizontal? The column of light is 40 feet high, if the mirror is placed 20 feet high, the horizontal reflection will be the remaining 20 feet?
This would be up to your DM on how they want to handle that. There's nothing in the rules that says it doesn't work that way... but there's also nothing there saying it does work that way, either.
A five foot radius is actually really big, so any mirror large enough to be effective here would be too heavy for an average Medium character to carry. Imagine trying to carry a ten foot wide dinner plate.
An interesting idea but tactically difficult. If you wanted any range on the reflected beam, the angle would be poor. I can understand wanting to catch multiple targets but again, the angles work against you. I think Sunbeam is what you're looking for.
This question is at its essence asking whether the mechanical effects of a spell are beholden to real world physics. Is the light the thing that is causing the damage? and If so does it behave as if it were regular light? I would say that maybe it is the light that causes the damage, but if that is so, then it behaves as the spell describes, and not as regular light.
I personally would allow it in my campaign, for being creative and stuff. Though i would limit the range of how far it would reflect (effective enough to do something) by 40ft, which is the height of the cylinder.
I personally would allow it in my campaign, for being creative and stuff. Though i would limit the range of how far it would reflect (effective enough to do something) by 40ft, which is the height of the cylinder.
To get any range out of it, you'd have to be 30-40 feet up. In which case, there's no point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I personally would allow it in my campaign, for being creative and stuff. Though i would limit the range of how far it would reflect (effective enough to do something) by 40ft, which is the height of the cylinder.
To get any range out of it, you'd have to be 30-40 feet up. In which case, there's no point.
This is true..., i didn't think about that. I would still limit the range somewhat, so maybe just say 40ft range after reflection? Somewhat arbitrary but not limiting the range at all could lead to some weird interaction.
I wouldn't allow it mostly because it opens the door to other abuse. If you allow moonbeam to be reflected, would you similarly allow a parasol to prevent damage?
Since radiant damage is holy damage and not radiation, probably not.
So the real question is, is the radiant damage of moonbeam connected to the light of the beam or not?
These things always go out of control in DnD somehow, physics interact weird with spell descriptions.
I mean... we don't know that radiation and holy damage aren't the same thing.
I agree though that D&D gets weird when you try to insert real world physics. I have a hard time knowing where to draw the line between "you can't do that in this game" and "this is D&D, you can attempt anything you want." Another thing like that is forced movement breaking a grapple. I've seen a lot of DMs that rule that more physically and less gamey.
If you mix "realistic" physics with "rules-based" physics you can get some really weird nonsensical things.
Personally, I think my ruling in a game I'm DMing would end up varying based on the situation. I'm all for finding creative uses of spells and environments, so if the PCs happened to be fighting in, say, a throne room and there were mirrors on the walls, they grabbed one and use it to reflect Moonbeam, I'd probably say sure, go for it. On the other hand, if it's a player just trying to cheese the spell - like if they level up, take Moonbeam, and immediately go shopping for a mirror and try to use woodworking to make a mirror-carrying-and-aiming contraption so that "Moonbeam" can be transformed into a line-based AOE that can be aimed with a free "use an object" interaction each turn - I'd probably say WTF that makes no sense, stop it.
If you mix "realistic" physics with "rules-based" physics you can get some really weird nonsensical things.
Personally, I think my ruling in a game I'm DMing would end up varying based on the situation. I'm all for finding creative uses of spells and environments, so if the PCs happened to be fighting in, say, a throne room and there were mirrors on the walls, they grabbed one and use it to reflect Moonbeam, I'd probably say sure, go for it. On the other hand, if it's a player just trying to cheese the spell - like if they level up, take Moonbeam, and immediately go shopping for a mirror and try to use woodworking to make a mirror-carrying-and-aiming contraption so that "Moonbeam" can be transformed into a line-based AOE that can be aimed with a free "use an object" interaction each turn - I'd probably say WTF that makes no sense, stop it.
That's a great idea for a druid\artificer character.
Time for the good-old RAF (Read as Fun) or "Rule of Cool." If the player and DM both like the idea and situation, the DM can make it happen. But RAW (Read as Written), there is nothing on the subject.
If moonbeam is used on a 45 ° mirror, will the beam become horizontal?
The column of light is 40 feet high, if the mirror is placed 20 feet high, the horizontal reflection will be the remaining 20 feet?
Sorry my inglish 😅
This would be up to your DM on how they want to handle that. There's nothing in the rules that says it doesn't work that way... but there's also nothing there saying it does work that way, either.
Yeah, up to DM. Moonbeam does not say the light is reflected.
A five foot radius is actually really big, so any mirror large enough to be effective here would be too heavy for an average Medium character to carry. Imagine trying to carry a ten foot wide dinner plate.
An interesting idea but tactically difficult. If you wanted any range on the reflected beam, the angle would be poor. I can understand wanting to catch multiple targets but again, the angles work against you. I think Sunbeam is what you're looking for.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Nope because magic.
This question is at its essence asking whether the mechanical effects of a spell are beholden to real world physics. Is the light the thing that is causing the damage? and If so does it behave as if it were regular light? I would say that maybe it is the light that causes the damage, but if that is so, then it behaves as the spell describes, and not as regular light.
I personally would allow it in my campaign, for being creative and stuff.
Though i would limit the range of how far it would reflect (effective enough to do something) by 40ft, which is the height of the cylinder.
To get any range out of it, you'd have to be 30-40 feet up. In which case, there's no point.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
This is true..., i didn't think about that.
I would still limit the range somewhat, so maybe just say 40ft range after reflection? Somewhat arbitrary but not limiting the range at all could lead to some weird interaction.
I wouldn't allow it mostly because it opens the door to other abuse. If you allow moonbeam to be reflected, would you similarly allow a parasol to prevent damage?
Since radiant damage is holy damage and not radiation, probably not.
So the real question is, is the radiant damage of moonbeam connected to the light of the beam or not?
These things always go out of control in DnD somehow, physics interact weird with spell descriptions.
I mean... we don't know that radiation and holy damage aren't the same thing.
I agree though that D&D gets weird when you try to insert real world physics. I have a hard time knowing where to draw the line between "you can't do that in this game" and "this is D&D, you can attempt anything you want." Another thing like that is forced movement breaking a grapple. I've seen a lot of DMs that rule that more physically and less gamey.
If you mix "realistic" physics with "rules-based" physics you can get some really weird nonsensical things.
Personally, I think my ruling in a game I'm DMing would end up varying based on the situation. I'm all for finding creative uses of spells and environments, so if the PCs happened to be fighting in, say, a throne room and there were mirrors on the walls, they grabbed one and use it to reflect Moonbeam, I'd probably say sure, go for it. On the other hand, if it's a player just trying to cheese the spell - like if they level up, take Moonbeam, and immediately go shopping for a mirror and try to use woodworking to make a mirror-carrying-and-aiming contraption so that "Moonbeam" can be transformed into a line-based AOE that can be aimed with a free "use an object" interaction each turn - I'd probably say WTF that makes no sense, stop it.
That's a great idea for a druid\artificer character.
Time for the good-old RAF (Read as Fun) or "Rule of Cool." If the player and DM both like the idea and situation, the DM can make it happen. But RAW (Read as Written), there is nothing on the subject.
Also, your English is very good.