Casting Light on a stick, then breaking it

[yougi]

My players are in a situation where they'd need numerous floating illuminated things. They've talked about casting light on a table, then breaking it into small pieces so they can illuminate a large lake. I think their plan is brilliant, but I don't know if it would work per RAW. I don't see anything in the description of the light spell, but am I missing something?

[NeoPhoenix0]

i don't think there is any RAW but i think i remember a dragon mag article that talked about using light on a piece of chalk and only causing one random particle in the piece of chalk.

i can't remember the name of the article or mag number. you're the DM if you think it will work let it work.

personally i would have either only one piece light up or have the pieces light up at a fraction of the illumination like the light of a torch over number of pieces amount of illumination.

edit: mainly to preserve the balance of the spell it is only level zero. if i did allow it because it was a good plan i would have the players understand not allow it again.

[Tulya]

When a magical item is destroyed, it loses all of its magical properties. I'd treat magically enchanted mundane objects the same way: Breaking the table apart destroys it, causing the spells on it to dissipate.

[hymer]

It's a can of worms, I wouldn't open it.
Cast light on a stick. Break stick in two. Now have two smaller sticks, one of which sheds light.

[Demorden]

When a magical item is destroyed, it loses all of its magical properties. I'd treat magically enchanted mundane objects the same way: Breaking the table apart destroys it, causing the spells on it to dissipate.

Yes, you're right, except that I can remember the chalk thing too, and since chalks write because they leave part of their mass on the writte surface, this would encourage the OP's players' solution.

EDIT TO CLARIFY:
I misunderstood NeoPhoenix0's post. I remembered that all the words glowed, and I understood that's what she (?) remembered too. Was I wrong?!

I try to anticipate a possible answer to this argument: a glowing word is not the same as illuminating a large surface. Right.

Just as NeoPhoenix0 said, maybe you could let them do it, but each piece would barely glow. So the pieces would be visible, but they wouldn't really illuminate pretty much anything. The result, as I imagine it, would be something similar to this:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nLABkfvFz1I/TeXRPSg8_EI/AAAAAAAAAXY/wuQ0KJVO768/s1600/_DSC0434.JPG

[GenericMook]

Instead of dealing with spells and the like, I'd take a look at coating small objects with Hearthfire (Races of Stone, pg. 160), which is a gel. Since it's a gel, there should be little-to-no problem. The length of these things lasting might be a bit of a problem, but that's more DM fiat than anything.

It might cost a bit, depending on the amount of hearthfire you want to use. It's definitely not a permanent solution, though.

[yougi]

Thanks to all. While I did find the plan quite ingenious, I do not want to set a precedent for level 0 spells having that kind of impact.

The chalk thing makes very little sense to me: if its one particle that shines, why does the whole thing end up shining? If you write, does only one letter end up shining? What if you write in cursive?

I think I'm going to state that the pieces of a broken table still only illuminates the same area as if they were still together (i.e. a 20^2x3.14 = 1250sq. ft., divided by the number of pieces).

As for hearthgel, the problem is that they have a water naga between them and the exit of the dungeon they just raided. And none of them sees in the dark. Hence the necessity to use light spells, because that's all they have.

[Slipperychicken]

Two ways I could see it working:


1. The object is destroyed. The spell fails because its target is gone.

2. Give 50/50 odds for which part still has the enchantment on it.