I am wondering what limits the spell Detect Object has when searching for a specific item. "Alternatively, the spell can locate the nearest object of a particular kind, such as a certain kind of apparel, jewelry, furniture, tool, or weapon."
My example is this:
I cast the spell in a room full of items with the target of the spell as "cursed item". Is that wording too vague to be applicable to this spell? Is there any precedence for this spell being used to search for obscure, but very specific, things? Would target phrases such as "wand that casts evocation based spells", "a coin in the possession of a guilty person in the case of (insert murder scenario here)", or even "the shirt of a person who is invisible"?
I can think of tons of ways to target specific items, but I want to know if these are all legal, or if there is a set boundary on what can and cannot be detected.
A lot of that is going to be up to the DM. Generally the Brecht should be familiar/known to the caster. But just how familiar is open for questioning. As a DM I would rule as follows on your examples: ”cursed” item - too vague - what sort of curses do you (the PC) know of AND what sort of item are you thinking about ( ring, sword, bow, cloak, etc) evocation wand - too vague but I might allow wand of fireballs, wand of magic missiles etc or even staff of power for that matter ( if the caster had ever knowingly been within 30’ of one at least) murder’s coin - nope no way are you solving the crime that way invisible shirt (and person) - this I might allow if the setup was right but not as a general thing, even then it would not eliminate the invisible person’s advantage on attacks and your disadvantage. You would know ( at best) something like 300’ WNW of you moving towards you.
The spell is locate object, not “detect object.” It’s not really an object detection spell at all, it’s an object location spell. It just finds you something within range, it doesn’t “detect” and reveal objects you otherwise wouldn’t know exist. So, for example, that murderer’s coin would only be locatable if you had already seen that specific coin, otherwise you would say “coin” or “gold coin,” and the spell would locate the nearest one. As to your “invisible shirt” example, you would already have to have some idea there was an invisible shirt in the AoE to even try it, and then it still wouldn’t negate the invisibility, it would just give you an idea of where the shirt is. I could see a case for the “cursed object” example, but again, it would only give you an idea of where the nearest cursed object is, it wouldn’t reveal the specific object for you. If it’s a cursed dagger in a chest full of other stuff, the spell wouldn’t reveal the dagger to be the cursed item, only that something in the chest is cursed.
I can think of tons of ways to target specific items, but I want to know if these are all legal, or if there is a set boundary on what can and cannot be detected.
The only one of those examples that's at all reasonable is the wand. It would be extremely weird to say that a shirt worn by an invisible person is a "type of shirt." It doesn't pass the smell test. Rules written in natural language should be read as though they're written in natural language, not with a thesaurus in one hand, an Intro to Analytic Philosophy textbook in the other, and a desire to try to get away with something.
There's definitely some ambiguity in the description, but if you say, "What type of coin is in your pocket?" and I answer, "In my pocket, of course," you'd think it was a weird exchange, right? "In my pocket" isn't a type of coin. Sure, there are jokes: "What's your favorite type of coin?" "The type in your pocket." But those kind of bits capitalize on the disconnect between natural language and technical use as the source of their humor - which is to say, the fact that that usage is a joke tells us that it's not how it would be used naturally.
Of course, everything's a DM call. I think most DMs would say no to any of it, and I think that's probably the best RAW call. I'd probably go completely off-rules and let you locate the example wand with a difficult arcana check, but if your character hasn't been using locate object regularly or hasn't really dealt with wands, I might reject the plan.
Thanks for the assistance everyone! Yeah, I forgot the spell name was "Locate Object", and as for all those crazy examples, I'm just testing the waters. If I were a DM, I'd like to think I'd put a limit on what items could be detected within reason, but I still wanted to double check and see if there any sort of validity to the craziness. Thanks!
"The spell can locate a specific object known to you, as long as you have seen it up close--within 30 feet--at least once" make is clear you have to have seen the object to locate a specific object if you have not you have to rely on:
"Alternatively, the spell can locate the nearest object of a particular kind such as a certain kind of apparel, jewelry, furniture, tool, or weapon" which implies if you have not seen the item you can not be very specific you only specify the kind. A DM might say that a "kind of weapon" would locate the nearest long sword, a more generous one might allow "a magic long sword" but "a cursed item" isn't a kind of item it is an item with a particular property.
In our game we were looking for a blue satchel with gold braiding which had been described to us but we had not seen it. We were also told it was in a particular building. I asked the DM how specific I could be but expected to only be able to locate the nearest "satchel" which led us to a large treasure hoard with a number of satchels but not the one we were looking for. (The search continues next week)
My general rule is that if you aren't looking for a specific item that you know about, you can only search for items that your character could easily recognize as being what they're searching for. So, for example, if you were looking for a blue satchel with gold braiding based on a description, you could, but if there was more than one, you would only find the nearest. If you cast it searching for a cursed item, you would at best only be directed to items that you already knew were cursed.
I cast the spell in a room full of items with the target of the spell as "cursed item". Is that wording too vague to be applicable to this spell? Is there any precedence for this spell being used to search for obscure, but very specific, things? Would target phrases such as "wand that casts evocation based spells", "a coin in the possession of a guilty person in the case of (insert murder scenario here)", or even "the shirt of a person who is invisible"?
To me Locate Object is more generic than that and doesn't care if the item is cursed or has magic property of some sort. It either locate an object familiar to you or a generic object a particular kind, such as a certain kind of apparel, jewelry, furniture, tool, or weapon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am wondering what limits the spell Detect Object has when searching for a specific item. "Alternatively, the spell can locate the nearest object of a particular kind, such as a certain kind of apparel, jewelry, furniture, tool, or weapon."
My example is this:
I cast the spell in a room full of items with the target of the spell as "cursed item". Is that wording too vague to be applicable to this spell? Is there any precedence for this spell being used to search for obscure, but very specific, things? Would target phrases such as "wand that casts evocation based spells", "a coin in the possession of a guilty person in the case of (insert murder scenario here)", or even "the shirt of a person who is invisible"?
I can think of tons of ways to target specific items, but I want to know if these are all legal, or if there is a set boundary on what can and cannot be detected.
A lot of that is going to be up to the DM. Generally the Brecht should be familiar/known to the caster. But just how familiar is open for questioning. As a DM I would rule as follows on your examples:
”cursed” item - too vague - what sort of curses do you (the PC) know of AND what sort of item are you thinking about ( ring, sword, bow, cloak, etc)
evocation wand - too vague but I might allow wand of fireballs, wand of magic missiles etc or even staff of power for that matter ( if the caster had ever knowingly been within 30’ of one at least)
murder’s coin - nope no way are you solving the crime that way
invisible shirt (and person) - this I might allow if the setup was right but not as a general thing, even then it would not eliminate the invisible person’s advantage on attacks and your disadvantage. You would know ( at best) something like 300’ WNW of you moving towards you.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The spell is locate object, not “detect object.” It’s not really an object detection spell at all, it’s an object location spell. It just finds you something within range, it doesn’t “detect” and reveal objects you otherwise wouldn’t know exist. So, for example, that murderer’s coin would only be locatable if you had already seen that specific coin, otherwise you would say “coin” or “gold coin,” and the spell would locate the nearest one. As to your “invisible shirt” example, you would already have to have some idea there was an invisible shirt in the AoE to even try it, and then it still wouldn’t negate the invisibility, it would just give you an idea of where the shirt is. I could see a case for the “cursed object” example, but again, it would only give you an idea of where the nearest cursed object is, it wouldn’t reveal the specific object for you. If it’s a cursed dagger in a chest full of other stuff, the spell wouldn’t reveal the dagger to be the cursed item, only that something in the chest is cursed.
The only one of those examples that's at all reasonable is the wand. It would be extremely weird to say that a shirt worn by an invisible person is a "type of shirt." It doesn't pass the smell test. Rules written in natural language should be read as though they're written in natural language, not with a thesaurus in one hand, an Intro to Analytic Philosophy textbook in the other, and a desire to try to get away with something.
There's definitely some ambiguity in the description, but if you say, "What type of coin is in your pocket?" and I answer, "In my pocket, of course," you'd think it was a weird exchange, right? "In my pocket" isn't a type of coin. Sure, there are jokes: "What's your favorite type of coin?" "The type in your pocket." But those kind of bits capitalize on the disconnect between natural language and technical use as the source of their humor - which is to say, the fact that that usage is a joke tells us that it's not how it would be used naturally.
Of course, everything's a DM call. I think most DMs would say no to any of it, and I think that's probably the best RAW call. I'd probably go completely off-rules and let you locate the example wand with a difficult arcana check, but if your character hasn't been using locate object regularly or hasn't really dealt with wands, I might reject the plan.
Thanks for the assistance everyone! Yeah, I forgot the spell name was "Locate Object", and as for all those crazy examples, I'm just testing the waters. If I were a DM, I'd like to think I'd put a limit on what items could be detected within reason, but I still wanted to double check and see if there any sort of validity to the craziness. Thanks!
This actually came up in my game last week.
"The spell can locate a specific object known to you, as long as you have seen it up close--within 30 feet--at least once" make is clear you have to have seen the object to locate a specific object if you have not you have to rely on:
"Alternatively, the spell can locate the nearest object of a particular kind such as a certain kind of apparel, jewelry, furniture, tool, or weapon" which implies if you have not seen the item you can not be very specific you only specify the kind. A DM might say that a "kind of weapon" would locate the nearest long sword, a more generous one might allow "a magic long sword" but "a cursed item" isn't a kind of item it is an item with a particular property.
In our game we were looking for a blue satchel with gold braiding which had been described to us but we had not seen it. We were also told it was in a particular building. I asked the DM how specific I could be but expected to only be able to locate the nearest "satchel" which led us to a large treasure hoard with a number of satchels but not the one we were looking for. (The search continues next week)
My general rule is that if you aren't looking for a specific item that you know about, you can only search for items that your character could easily recognize as being what they're searching for. So, for example, if you were looking for a blue satchel with gold braiding based on a description, you could, but if there was more than one, you would only find the nearest. If you cast it searching for a cursed item, you would at best only be directed to items that you already knew were cursed.
To me Locate Object is more generic than that and doesn't care if the item is cursed or has magic property of some sort. It either locate an object familiar to you or a generic object a particular kind, such as a certain kind of apparel, jewelry, furniture, tool, or weapon.