Playing a session last night where we had recovered a completely sealed chest, so no cracks or keyholes or anything, that was watched over by a ghost. The ghost couldn't see what was inside the chest because, surprise surprise, it was dark inside. I cast Light on the sealed chest and asked the ghost to look inside. This is where the session devolved into trying to figure this all out.
Light in 2014:
You touch one object that is no larger than 10 feet in any dimension. Until the spell ends, the object sheds bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet. The light can be colored as you like. Completely covering the object with something opaque blocks the light. The spell ends if you cast it again or dismiss it as an action.
If you target an object held or worn by a hostile creature, that creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw to avoid the spell.
Light in 2024:
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. The light can be colored as you like.
Covering the object with something opaque blocks the light. The spell ends if you cast it again.
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.
We were trying to think about it in terms of other things like potatoes and onions, and that just raised up whole new questions. If you cast light on an onion and then peel off the outermost layer, what remains lit? Does the outer layer stay lit because that is what was touched? Does the remaining layers of the onion stay lit because that is the original concept that the spell was cast on? Does the spell end because the object was broken, even though the spell doesn't say it would?
I know I am overthinking this because it is a simple cantrip spell, but I could not sleep last night as I was going back and forth with the possible outcomes and was unable to definitively come to a single conclusion. Currently for me, option number 2 is what makes the most sense. If you cast light on a piece of wood, all sides of the wood are illuminated. A chest is a series of pieces of wood assembled together, so why would the inside of a chest ALSO not light up?
Personally, I would assume that Light illuminates the entire object. Point 3 is most likely not how it works. I'm having a hard time understanding how the chest could cover the chest and block the light.
Definitely a DM ruling situation. Personally, in your case, I’d say it only lights the outside. If you cast on, for example, a door or a wall, I’d say it only lights the side of the wall you’re on, not both sides. Though I can easily see the argument that it would light the whole thing.
So, yeah, DM ruling and then just try to be consistent about the application going forward.
While I'd probably rule the opposite to Xalthu (I'd light the entire door, in that example), I do agree with both that it is 100% DM adjudication and that it needs to be consistent.
Breaking down the spell, "You touch one Large or smaller object that ...the object sheds Bright Light in a..."
You have to touch the outside, It uses the word "Sheds", so it seems it is outside only if the the object is hollow. If you have the chest open and touch the inside, then the light comes from the inside.
Along those same lines if the onion/apple/orange etc. is peeled, the part touched aka peel is the light source. So if Roy Hobbs hits the cover off the ball, the core is not lit, just the horse hide would be lit up.
I agree with the people who have said this is down to DM fiat. I don't think there's going to be anything in any of the rulebooks that would be specific enough for this situation.
To me personally, when I see "sheds light", I imagine the light is on the "outermost part" of the object - whatever that means. In the case of the chest, I would say that the outside of the chest is the part that is shedding light, and therefore the inside would still be dark.
I can totally see an argument for the entire "surface" of the chest being illuminated, however, which would include the inside.
As a DM, in this case as the way the player intends to use it is somewhat different than my interpretation of how the spell is meant to work, I might have them roll an Arcana check with a reasonable DC to stretch their magical ability to make the cantrip behave in a way that is slightly outside the bounds of the spell normally. I can't see an instance where doing this with the Light cantrip would be overpowered or misused.
Covering the object with something opaque blocks the light.
You cast light on your fighter's shield as you explore a cave. You hear a noise ahead, so the fighter drapes their cloak over the front of the shield to avoid giving away where you are
If you rule that blocks the light, then you're ruling 1 (Light cantrip on the chest ONLY illuminates the outside)
If you rule covering the front of the shield doesn't block the light, because the back of the shield is still lit up, then you're ruling 2 (Light cantrip on the chest illuminates the entire object that is defined as chest, including the inside)
I generally think of the light cantrip as allowing you to use an object as a temporary lantern, not causing the whole object to be lit up, so I'd lean 1
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 you rule covering the front of the shield doesn't block the light, because the back of the shield is still lit up, then you're ruling 2 (Light cantrip on the chest illuminates the entire object that is defined as chest, including the inside)
The back of the shield is still on the outside. There is a back to the chest as well. Because it is hollow and opens, it has an inside. Shields don't typically have an inside.
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.
I think it is written assuming a solid object. I don't see a difference between 2 and 3. When the chest is open, the interior sheds light but it is subsumed by the exterior's light, so it normally doesn't matter. When it is closed, the interior's light is blocked from the POV of creatures on the outside, but the interior would still be illuminated in case that mattered for anything or anyone inside.
If you rule covering the front of the shield doesn't block the light, because the back of the shield is still lit up, then you're ruling 2 (Light cantrip on the chest illuminates the entire object that is defined as chest, including the inside)
The back of the shield is still on the outside.
Which misses the point of my example
Nowhere does the spell say that it lights up every square inch of the outer surface of the object you touch. Just that the object "sheds light" in a radius
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)
Under my interpretation: Light does not say the object becomes luminous through its entire volume, nor that it produces light from every surface. I see it as behaving like a glowing object, so the object's surface emits light outward.
There's no evidence for "only part of the object sheds light", so I'd rule 2, but I would note that, depending on the contents of the chest, that may not help -- if the chest has a bag inside, for example, the inside of the bag won't be illuminated.
Under my interpretation: Light does not say the object becomes luminous through its entire volume, nor that it produces light from every surface. I see it as behaving like a glowing object, so the object's surface emits light outward.
IMO, option 1 then.
I agree it could be interpreted either way, but I don't like this ruling.
The players were clever. Ruling that it only illuminates the outside is stepping on their cleverness, for no good reason.
(I don't think it's reasonably disputable that the entirety of the object's outer surface sheds light. At no point in the spell description does it give you an option to determine which parts glow, so the question of which parts glow if it's not "all of it" would be arbitrary with no guidelines.)
If you rule covering the front of the shield doesn't block the light, because the back of the shield is still lit up, then you're ruling 2 (Light cantrip on the chest illuminates the entire object that is defined as chest, including the inside)
The back of the shield is still on the outside.
Which misses the point of my example
Nowhere does the spell say that it lights up every square inch of the outer surface of the object you touch. Just that the object "sheds light" in a radius
No, I understood. It says the object sheds 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. You need special text to omit a portion of an AoE like Fireball and you need special text to omit the doorknob from the door. Exceptions can be made for components which can be recognized as separate objects, such as maybe the Holy Symbol Emblem borne on a Shield as opposed to the shield in its totality, but that would be a case-by-case basis as to whether a component could be considered a distinct object. 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).
You can potentially make a case for the interior not being illuminated, particularly in a hollow object, but the back versus the front has no support. I believe that the spell affects the totality, including the interior because only affecting the exterior would also, in my opinion, need to be spelled out. However, I can see "shed light" being the equivalent of radiating light outwards (such as from the surface), effectively an Emanation with the object at its center.
Breaking down the spell, "You touch one Large or smaller object that ...the object sheds Bright Light in a..."
You have to touch the outside, It uses the word "Sheds", so it seems it is outside only if the the object is hollow. If you have the chest open and touch the inside, then the light comes from the inside.
Along those same lines if the onion/apple/orange etc. is peeled, the part touched aka peel is the light source. So if Roy Hobbs hits the cover off the ball, the core is not lit, just the horse hide would be lit up.
But the flaw in that logic is that continuous folded objects don't shed light except the outermost layer at time of casting. Or does a shirt, which usually stitched together from two or more pieces of cloth, only sheding light from one piece of cloth, delineated by the seams? The problem with the "layers" argument is now we're having to adjudicate if an apple is now two objects because of the peel. And does the peel light the inside of the apple if the apple was cored out first? Its a type of semantics that can spiral infinitely, because its predicated on the idea that the sum parts of an object are themselves objects.
Imagine casting light on a spool of string and unrolling it? Does it shed 20ft of light along the entire length of the string? Can you fabricate several miles of continuous string, and use it communicate between towns? If the string is cut while lit, which side stays lit, since its not longer part of the original object that was lit?
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
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
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)
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. You need a rule to restrict it to a part of the object.
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]..."
Your hypothetical was invalid interpretation that assumes that you can arbitrarily restrict an effect to less than what the spell describes.
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.
Starry Wisp does not specify that a subset of the creature or object emitting light, does it? No, then there is no portion of the creature or object that is not emitting light. Again, compare this to Continual Flame.
Are you going to argue that Heat Metal doesn't specify that the inside of metal armor is hot, so it is cool to the touch?
Magic Mouth has some specifics regarding where the mouth appears "on the object" or an existing mouth, etc.
Mending specifies the part of the object affected.
Passwall specifies that you choose a point on the surface.
Are you going to argue that flavoring food with the Minor Sensation of Prestidigitation only affects the left side of the potato because it doesn't specify the potato is flavored throughout?
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.
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
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
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
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
Starry Wisp does not specify that a subset of the creature or object emitting light, does it? No
It doesn't specify that whole creature is glowing either
, then there is no portion of the creature or object that is not emitting light. Again, compare this to Continual Flame.
Why? It's irrelevant
Are you going to argue that Heat Metal doesn't specify that the inside of metal armor is hot, so it is cool to the touch?
Oh, great example!
Choose a manufactured metal object, such as a metal weapon or a suit of Heavy or Medium metal armor, that you can see within range. You cause the object to glow red-hot. Any creature in physical contact with the object takes 2d8 Fire damage when you cast the spell.
That's the text of heat metal. It specifies that "you cause the object to glow red-hot" and do fire damage
Show me the comparable text in light that says the object glows
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)
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.
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.
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. Is the front of the shield the shield? No. It is a subset of the shield. A rivet on the shield is not the shield. Whether you can target an individual component of an object that itself can be identified as whole item is independently debatable (a strap/handle on a shield, a rivet, one whole piece of wood). Does an object stop being an independent object because it is incorporated into a larger whole? Theoretically no, but we don't really deal with components in D&D so I would say, RAW, yes; a shield is a shield and its components no longer exist from a rules perspective. However, targeting a subset of congruous material is definitely off the table while discussing RAW. The Light doesn't allow for it.
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.
The Light says that the object glows and therefore the object glows. Not a subset of the object, object.
Starry Wisp does not specify that a subset of the creature or object emitting light, does it? No
It doesn't specify that whole creature is glowing either
It doesn't say that you can choose what part to make glow. It doesn't say its hair glows. It says the creature glows. Are the creature's hands part of the creature? Yes, they're glowing. Is the creature's hair part of the creature? Yes, it's glowing. Are the creature's clothes part of the creature? Well, that's a special case since you normally cannot target carried equipment separately, so no but maybe yes; this is DM's purview time.
, then there is no portion of the creature or object that is not emitting light. Again, compare this to Continual Flame.
Why? It's irrelevant
Because the example you are choosing to ignore specifies that you target an object, just like Light and then specifies a specific part that is glowing, unlike Light.
Are you going to argue that Heat Metal doesn't specify that the inside of metal armor is hot, so it is cool to the touch?
Oh, great example!
Choose a manufactured metal object, such as a metal weapon or a suit of Heavy or Medium metal armor, that you can see within range. You cause the object to glow red-hot. Any creature in physical contact with the object takes 2d8 Fire damage when you cast the spell.
That's the text of heat metal. It specifies that "you cause the object to glow red-hot" and do fire damage
Show me the comparable text in light that says the object glows
Here you go.
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. The light can be colored as you like.
Covering the object with something opaque blocks the light. The spell ends if you cast it again.
Do you have an alternative definition for "shedding light"?
As GM I would say the whole chest inside and out lights up. As said above just because you can see inside might not help as the contents may be in a bag or box inside the chest.
For walls and such they might be too big. If the wall is larger than 10 feet the whole object is disqualified due to size. There would be no problem choosing a single brick in the wall though.
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?"
Under my interpretation: Light does not say the object becomes luminous through its entire volume, nor that it produces light from every surface. I see it as behaving like a glowing object, so the object's surface emits light outward.
IMO, option 1 then.
I agree it could be interpreted either way, but I don't like this ruling.
The players were clever. Ruling that it only illuminates the outside is stepping on their cleverness, for no good reason. [...]
Despite what I said (EDIT: I recognize that was just my first thought / Reaction), I fully agree with this.
Playing a session last night where we had recovered a completely sealed chest, so no cracks or keyholes or anything, that was watched over by a ghost. The ghost couldn't see what was inside the chest because, surprise surprise, it was dark inside. I cast Light on the sealed chest and asked the ghost to look inside. This is where the session devolved into trying to figure this all out.
Light in 2014:
Light in 2024:
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.
We were trying to think about it in terms of other things like potatoes and onions, and that just raised up whole new questions. If you cast light on an onion and then peel off the outermost layer, what remains lit? Does the outer layer stay lit because that is what was touched? Does the remaining layers of the onion stay lit because that is the original concept that the spell was cast on? Does the spell end because the object was broken, even though the spell doesn't say it would?
I know I am overthinking this because it is a simple cantrip spell, but I could not sleep last night as I was going back and forth with the possible outcomes and was unable to definitively come to a single conclusion. Currently for me, option number 2 is what makes the most sense. If you cast light on a piece of wood, all sides of the wood are illuminated. A chest is a series of pieces of wood assembled together, so why would the inside of a chest ALSO not light up?
Personally, I would assume that Light illuminates the entire object. Point 3 is most likely not how it works. I'm having a hard time understanding how the chest could cover the chest and block the light.
Definitely a DM ruling situation.
Personally, in your case, I’d say it only lights the outside. If you cast on, for example, a door or a wall, I’d say it only lights the side of the wall you’re on, not both sides. Though I can easily see the argument that it would light the whole thing.
So, yeah, DM ruling and then just try to be consistent about the application going forward.
While I'd probably rule the opposite to Xalthu (I'd light the entire door, in that example), I do agree with both that it is 100% DM adjudication and that it needs to be consistent.
Breaking down the spell, "You touch one Large or smaller object that ...the object sheds Bright Light in a..."
You have to touch the outside, It uses the word "Sheds", so it seems it is outside only if the the object is hollow. If you have the chest open and touch the inside, then the light comes from the inside.
Along those same lines if the onion/apple/orange etc. is peeled, the part touched aka peel is the light source. So if Roy Hobbs hits the cover off the ball, the core is not lit, just the horse hide would be lit up.
This is an interesting question.
I agree with the people who have said this is down to DM fiat. I don't think there's going to be anything in any of the rulebooks that would be specific enough for this situation.
To me personally, when I see "sheds light", I imagine the light is on the "outermost part" of the object - whatever that means. In the case of the chest, I would say that the outside of the chest is the part that is shedding light, and therefore the inside would still be dark.
I can totally see an argument for the entire "surface" of the chest being illuminated, however, which would include the inside.
As a DM, in this case as the way the player intends to use it is somewhat different than my interpretation of how the spell is meant to work, I might have them roll an Arcana check with a reasonable DC to stretch their magical ability to make the cantrip behave in a way that is slightly outside the bounds of the spell normally. I can't see an instance where doing this with the Light cantrip would be overpowered or misused.
You cast light on your fighter's shield as you explore a cave. You hear a noise ahead, so the fighter drapes their cloak over the front of the shield to avoid giving away where you are
If you rule that blocks the light, then you're ruling 1 (Light cantrip on the chest ONLY illuminates the outside)
If you rule covering the front of the shield doesn't block the light, because the back of the shield is still lit up, then you're ruling 2 (Light cantrip on the chest illuminates the entire object that is defined as chest, including the inside)
I generally think of the light cantrip as allowing you to use an object as a temporary lantern, not causing the whole object to be lit up, so I'd lean 1
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 back of the shield is still on the outside. There is a back to the chest as well. Because it is hollow and opens, it has an inside. Shields don't typically have an inside.
I think it is written assuming a solid object. I don't see a difference between 2 and 3. When the chest is open, the interior sheds light but it is subsumed by the exterior's light, so it normally doesn't matter. When it is closed, the interior's light is blocked from the POV of creatures on the outside, but the interior would still be illuminated in case that mattered for anything or anyone inside.
I would rule as 2/3.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Which misses the point of my example
Nowhere does the spell say that it lights up every square inch of the outer surface of the object you touch. Just that the object "sheds light" in a radius
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)
Under my interpretation: Light does not say the object becomes luminous through its entire volume, nor that it produces light from every surface. I see it as behaving like a glowing object, so the object's surface emits light outward.
IMO, option 1 then.
There's no evidence for "only part of the object sheds light", so I'd rule 2, but I would note that, depending on the contents of the chest, that may not help -- if the chest has a bag inside, for example, the inside of the bag won't be illuminated.
I agree it could be interpreted either way, but I don't like this ruling.
The players were clever. Ruling that it only illuminates the outside is stepping on their cleverness, for no good reason.
(I don't think it's reasonably disputable that the entirety of the object's outer surface sheds light. At no point in the spell description does it give you an option to determine which parts glow, so the question of which parts glow if it's not "all of it" would be arbitrary with no guidelines.)
No, I understood. It says the object sheds 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. You need special text to omit a portion of an AoE like Fireball and you need special text to omit the doorknob from the door. Exceptions can be made for components which can be recognized as separate objects, such as maybe the Holy Symbol Emblem borne on a Shield as opposed to the shield in its totality, but that would be a case-by-case basis as to whether a component could be considered a distinct object. 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).
You can potentially make a case for the interior not being illuminated, particularly in a hollow object, but the back versus the front has no support. I believe that the spell affects the totality, including the interior because only affecting the exterior would also, in my opinion, need to be spelled out. However, I can see "shed light" being the equivalent of radiating light outwards (such as from the surface), effectively an Emanation with the object at its center.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
But the flaw in that logic is that continuous folded objects don't shed light except the outermost layer at time of casting. Or does a shirt, which usually stitched together from two or more pieces of cloth, only sheding light from one piece of cloth, delineated by the seams? The problem with the "layers" argument is now we're having to adjudicate if an apple is now two objects because of the peel. And does the peel light the inside of the apple if the apple was cored out first? Its a type of semantics that can spiral infinitely, because its predicated on the idea that the sum parts of an object are themselves objects.
Imagine casting light on a spool of string and unrolling it? Does it shed 20ft of light along the entire length of the string? Can you fabricate several miles of continuous string, and use it communicate between towns? If the string is cut while lit, which side stays lit, since its not longer part of the original object that was lit?
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
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
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)
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. You need a rule to restrict it to a part of the object.
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]..."
Your hypothetical was invalid interpretation that assumes that you can arbitrarily restrict an effect to less than what the spell describes.
Are lanterns and torches spells? No.
Starry Wisp does not specify that a subset of the creature or object emitting light, does it? No, then there is no portion of the creature or object that is not emitting light. Again, compare this to Continual Flame.
Are you going to argue that Heat Metal doesn't specify that the inside of metal armor is hot, so it is cool to the touch?
Magic Mouth has some specifics regarding where the mouth appears "on the object" or an existing mouth, etc.
Mending specifies the part of the object affected.
Passwall specifies that you choose a point on the surface.
Are you going to argue that flavoring food with the Minor Sensation of Prestidigitation only affects the left side of the potato because it doesn't specify the potato is flavored throughout?
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.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
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.
No, you absolutely do not. You have invented that in your head
...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
The only effect light describes is that the object sheds light in a specified radius. I restricted nothing, arbitrarily or otherwise
Do they shed light? Yes. Just like the object you touch when you cast light
It doesn't specify that whole creature is glowing either
Why? It's irrelevant
Oh, great example!
That's the text of heat metal. It specifies that "you cause the object to glow red-hot" and do fire damage
Show me the comparable text in light that says the object glows
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)
Only that the object emits lights. That's how. Not the tip. Not the point you choose. Not the front. The object emits light.
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.
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.
You restricted the portion of the spell that said the object emits light. Is the front of the shield the shield? No. It is a subset of the shield. A rivet on the shield is not the shield. Whether you can target an individual component of an object that itself can be identified as whole item is independently debatable (a strap/handle on a shield, a rivet, one whole piece of wood). Does an object stop being an independent object because it is incorporated into a larger whole? Theoretically no, but we don't really deal with components in D&D so I would say, RAW, yes; a shield is a shield and its components no longer exist from a rules perspective. However, targeting a subset of congruous material is definitely off the table while discussing RAW. The Light doesn't allow for it.
The are not governed by the rules of Spell Effects and are therefore not relevant to the conversation. Emphasis added.
The Light says that the object glows and therefore the object glows. Not a subset of the object, object.
It doesn't say that you can choose what part to make glow. It doesn't say its hair glows. It says the creature glows. Are the creature's hands part of the creature? Yes, they're glowing. Is the creature's hair part of the creature? Yes, it's glowing. Are the creature's clothes part of the creature? Well, that's a special case since you normally cannot target carried equipment separately, so no but maybe yes; this is DM's purview time.
Because the example you are choosing to ignore specifies that you target an object, just like Light and then specifies a specific part that is glowing, unlike Light.
Here you go.
Do you have an alternative definition for "shedding light"?
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
As GM I would say the whole chest inside and out lights up. As said above just because you can see inside might not help as the contents may be in a bag or box inside the chest.
For walls and such they might be too big. If the wall is larger than 10 feet the whole object is disqualified due to size. There would be no problem choosing a single brick in the wall though.
"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
Despite what I said (EDIT: I recognize that was just my first thought / Reaction), I fully agree with this.