Ok, so the spell Gaseous Form says, "You transform a willing creature you touch, along with everything it's wearing and carrying, into a misty cloud for the duration." My question is this: if the creature you touch happens to have another creature in it's stomach do both creatures turn into the misty cloud? To me, RAW would say that is the case, but I'm wondering what everyone else thinks?
The reason I'm asking is because, in the campaign I'm playing in, the DM has homebrewed a golem making system for my wizard. One of these golems can carry another creature inside of it's stomach to provide cover/transportation. I'm thinking this could be a good way to protect someone by giving the golem the instructions to go to a specific location, casting gaseous form on it, then fighting off whatever threat we might be trying to deal with.
This is one of those things where the DM must interpret as best as it can.
My opinion is that the "everything" in that sentence refers to objects and items, not a creature. Therefore, the swallowed creature won't be transformed in gas form.
I agree that it should be up to the DM. I've already talked to my DM about it, and he's open to the idea. I was just curious if someone knew of some rule I was missing, or had a compelling reason why it wouldn't work that way.
I appreciate your insight! I agree that "everything" does seem to imply objects. Unless you are racist against goblins or something. Then you could refer to them as "things."
It's pretty obvious "everything" refers to objects in this context; the rules are consistent about distinguishing between creatures and objects, and the spell isn't meant to affect as many creatures as you can carry.
I can understand saying "You can't grab all your party members and turn them into gas, it only affects one target you touch."
However, if I cast it on a Kraken after it eats my buddy...they're both mist. I have a hard time seeing how you can avoid turning something into mist if it has been consumed.
Again, if I swallowed a cherry whole, then cast the spell, would that then make the cherry fall to the ground?
--Please don't mistake this for being aggressive or belligerent, I truly am trying to understand the counter argument.
Again, if I swallowed a cherry whole, then cast the spell, would that then make the cherry fall to the ground?
If it was an awakened cherry (i.e. a creature), then maybe. As a DM, I'd certainly consider it an option (say if, the cherry's wizard friend tried to use gaseous form on you to save the sentient cherry). By RAW, the spell only gets one target, same as if the awakened creature was in a belt-pouch, or on someone's shoulder. Of course: if the awakened cherry was already dead, then it'd just be an object. D&D seems pretty consistent in differentiating such things.
Exactly what MattV said. If your buddy's still alive, then they're not going to turn into mist; otherwise they're a corpse, and corpses are objects. Likewise, banishing the Kraken won't banish your buddy too, and the Kraken casting Misty Step won't bring them along for the ride either.
Alright, the idea that a creature being held in a pouch, bag, pocket, or a harness like Master Blaster from Mad Max would not be affected by the Gaseous form spell is easy enough to get behind.
For the idea of a swallowed/consumed creature, I feel as though I'm the odd man out. I don't mind, it's not uncommon :)
To the OP, I guess filcat put it best when he said it's up to DM interpretation.
It is hard to see the two states as parallel since it has been agreed upon, by each of us, that a creature being carried or held is not affected by the spell. In a grapple the creature is being held or carried for all intents and purposes.
For the sake of swallowed; the creature is not being held or carried in the same nature. Instead the creature is being digested and consumed, they have been eaten. I get that it may seem a semantic or minutiae argument, but I feel that it holds some weight.
If you don't consider "eaten" to be "carried" or "worn" then the spell shouldn't affect something or someone that's been eaten anyways. Only things that the target is carrying or wearing become gaseous too.
I think it's important to note that the target must be a willing creature. So in the example of using it on a kraken, it wouldn't work anyways. If it was used in the situation I offered in the original post, where every creature involved was willing, then I think that is where the crux of what DMThac0 and myself are saying is.
After swallowing your last bite of a burger do you refer to the meal as being "carried" in your stomach, or "worn" in your stomach? No, you refer to it as being "digested" in your stomach. That is probably the best way I can approach your rebuttal.
Yes, one could consider that the creature is being "carried" in the stomach after being swallowed, thus working with your argument that the spell would not affect them. It is a valid argument and one that can be understood easily. It is a fair ruling, and it can really impact the uses of that type of spell in a game. A veritable "Get out of Kraken free" card if you would.
In my games, I'll be ruling it differently, but only because I feel differently about it. It makes things like being swallowed more dangerous, I get it, but it's also the approach I take to my games. I do not believe either interpretation is "wrong", and I have my understanding of the counter argument, thank you.
I don't think you're understanding me. Gaseous Form transforms 1) the willing creature the caster touches and 2) "everything" that creature is carrying and wearing.
My initial argument was that "everything" only refers to objects; other creatures are never affected, regardless of how you choose to interpret the words "carrying" or "wearing".
Then you said you don't consider something that's being eaten to be carried or worn. That's fine, I don't disagree. But if that's the case, then Gaseous Form wouldn't affect an eaten creature or object regardless of because Gaseous Form only affects "everything" the creature is carrying or wearing. That's true regardless of how you choose to interpret the word "everything".
The only way a creature eaten by the target is affected is if you assume that "everything" includes creatures and that being eaten counts as being carried.
Ok, so the spell Gaseous Form says, "You transform a willing creature you touch, along with everything it's wearing and carrying, into a misty cloud for the duration." My question is this: if the creature you touch happens to have another creature in it's stomach do both creatures turn into the misty cloud? To me, RAW would say that is the case, but I'm wondering what everyone else thinks?
The reason I'm asking is because, in the campaign I'm playing in, the DM has homebrewed a golem making system for my wizard. One of these golems can carry another creature inside of it's stomach to provide cover/transportation. I'm thinking this could be a good way to protect someone by giving the golem the instructions to go to a specific location, casting gaseous form on it, then fighting off whatever threat we might be trying to deal with.
This is one of those things where the DM must interpret as best as it can.
My opinion is that the "everything" in that sentence refers to objects and items, not a creature. Therefore, the swallowed creature won't be transformed in gas form.
I agree that it should be up to the DM. I've already talked to my DM about it, and he's open to the idea. I was just curious if someone knew of some rule I was missing, or had a compelling reason why it wouldn't work that way.
I appreciate your insight! I agree that "everything" does seem to imply objects. Unless you are racist against goblins or something. Then you could refer to them as "things."
Where as I feel that "everything" is inclusive.
e.g.: Does that mean whatever lunch they had 15 minutes earlier is now sitting on the ground?
It's pretty obvious "everything" refers to objects in this context; the rules are consistent about distinguishing between creatures and objects, and the spell isn't meant to affect as many creatures as you can carry.
I can understand saying "You can't grab all your party members and turn them into gas, it only affects one target you touch."
However, if I cast it on a Kraken after it eats my buddy...they're both mist. I have a hard time seeing how you can avoid turning something into mist if it has been consumed.
Again, if I swallowed a cherry whole, then cast the spell, would that then make the cherry fall to the ground?
--Please don't mistake this for being aggressive or belligerent, I truly am trying to understand the counter argument.
If it was an awakened cherry (i.e. a creature), then maybe. As a DM, I'd certainly consider it an option (say if, the cherry's wizard friend tried to use gaseous form on you to save the sentient cherry). By RAW, the spell only gets one target, same as if the awakened creature was in a belt-pouch, or on someone's shoulder. Of course: if the awakened cherry was already dead, then it'd just be an object. D&D seems pretty consistent in differentiating such things.
Exactly what MattV said. If your buddy's still alive, then they're not going to turn into mist; otherwise they're a corpse, and corpses are objects. Likewise, banishing the Kraken won't banish your buddy too, and the Kraken casting Misty Step won't bring them along for the ride either.
Alright, the idea that a creature being held in a pouch, bag, pocket, or a harness like Master Blaster from Mad Max would not be affected by the Gaseous form spell is easy enough to get behind.
For the idea of a swallowed/consumed creature, I feel as though I'm the odd man out. I don't mind, it's not uncommon :)
To the OP, I guess filcat put it best when he said it's up to DM interpretation.
Thought experiment: would you rule that the other creature turns into mist if the Kraken completely surrounds them in tentacles?
As the creature is grappled, no.
It is hard to see the two states as parallel since it has been agreed upon, by each of us, that a creature being carried or held is not affected by the spell. In a grapple the creature is being held or carried for all intents and purposes.
For the sake of swallowed; the creature is not being held or carried in the same nature. Instead the creature is being digested and consumed, they have been eaten. I get that it may seem a semantic or minutiae argument, but I feel that it holds some weight.
If you don't consider "eaten" to be "carried" or "worn" then the spell shouldn't affect something or someone that's been eaten anyways. Only things that the target is carrying or wearing become gaseous too.
I think it's important to note that the target must be a willing creature. So in the example of using it on a kraken, it wouldn't work anyways. If it was used in the situation I offered in the original post, where every creature involved was willing, then I think that is where the crux of what DMThac0 and myself are saying is.
After swallowing your last bite of a burger do you refer to the meal as being "carried" in your stomach, or "worn" in your stomach? No, you refer to it as being "digested" in your stomach. That is probably the best way I can approach your rebuttal.
Yes, one could consider that the creature is being "carried" in the stomach after being swallowed, thus working with your argument that the spell would not affect them. It is a valid argument and one that can be understood easily. It is a fair ruling, and it can really impact the uses of that type of spell in a game. A veritable "Get out of Kraken free" card if you would.
In my games, I'll be ruling it differently, but only because I feel differently about it. It makes things like being swallowed more dangerous, I get it, but it's also the approach I take to my games. I do not believe either interpretation is "wrong", and I have my understanding of the counter argument, thank you.
I don't think you're understanding me. Gaseous Form transforms 1) the willing creature the caster touches and 2) "everything" that creature is carrying and wearing.
My initial argument was that "everything" only refers to objects; other creatures are never affected, regardless of how you choose to interpret the words "carrying" or "wearing".
Then you said you don't consider something that's being eaten to be carried or worn. That's fine, I don't disagree. But if that's the case, then Gaseous Form wouldn't affect an eaten creature or object regardless of because Gaseous Form only affects "everything" the creature is carrying or wearing. That's true regardless of how you choose to interpret the word "everything".
The only way a creature eaten by the target is affected is if you assume that "everything" includes creatures and that being eaten counts as being carried.
Yup, I crossed some wires there somewhere. I apologize for the confusion and frustration.
No problem, happens to everyone from time to time.