Hallow??

[SaibenLocke]

In the spell description it says you cast it on a point. Is a point considered an object, or creature? Or is it made for the ground?

[Bellberith]

In the spell description it says you cast it on a point. Is a point considered an object, or creature? Or is it made for the ground?

In the spell rules it says a point can also be a creature/object. Also darkness has almost the same wording as hallow and it says "if the point chosen is an object" even though in the beginning of the spell it never calls out objects as being part of the points available. It just says "choose a point", so that leads me to believe that choosing a "point" can also be an object.

[SaibenLocke]

In the spell rules it says a point can also be a creature/object. Also darkness has almost the same wording as hallow and it says "if the point chosen is an object" even though in the beginning of the spell it never calls out objects as being part of the points available. It just says "choose a point", so that leads me to believe that choosing a "point" can also be an object.

Point of origin can be a creature or object.

[odigity]

I don't think it can. For example, compare Darkness to Silence. Darkness says point or object, so you can cast it on an object and carry it around, which is very useful. Silence just says point, so I interpret that as meaning a point in space, not an object, and therefore not moveable after-the-fact. Probably a balance thing, since silence is only 2nd lvl and shuts down all magic.

So, if it says point, assume point in space. If it's castable on an object or creature, it will specify that.

[Bellberith]

I don't think it can. For example, compare Darkness to Silence. Darkness says point or object, so you can cast it on an object and carry it around, which is very useful. Silence just says point, so I interpret that as meaning a point in space, not an object, and therefore not moveable after-the-fact. Probably a balance thing, since silence is only 2nd lvl and shuts down all magic.

So, if it says point, assume point in space. If it's castable on an object or creature, it will specify that.

Darkness doesn't say point or object though.

It just says point and then later on says "if the point is an object"

[odigity]

Darkness doesn't say point or object though.

It just says point and then later on says "if the point is an object"

Damn, you're right:

"If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn’t being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it."

However, you'll notice Silence doesn't have something like this in the description, which still makes me want to assume that it's not a moveable point, which means not an object/creature.

Anyone want to add additional references?

[SaibenLocke]

Damn, you're right:

"If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn’t being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it."

However, you'll notice Silence doesn't have something like this in the description, which still makes me want to assume that it's not a moveable point, which means not an object/creature.

Anyone want to add additional references?

We have been looking. It looks like it would be up to the DM.

[odigity]

We have been looking. It looks like it would be up to the DM.

Just so we're clear, you realize how powerful (read: broken) it would be to have moveable silence, right? I mean, as a player I'd love to have it, but in the same way I'd love to have a holy avenger for my 1st lvl Paladin. It'd be fun for a bit, but eventually I'd have to admit that it's kind of ruining the balance of the game...

[GiantOctopodes]

Just so we're clear, you realize how powerful (read: broken) it would be to have moveable silence, right? I mean, as a player I'd love to have it, but in the same way I'd love to have a holy avenger for my 1st lvl Paladin. It'd be fun for a bit, but eventually I'd have to admit that it's kind of ruining the balance of the game...

Not nearly as powerful and game breaking as a mobile hallow, though, which is the effect in question.

In response to the thread in general, a mobile 60' interdiction sphere cutting off all dimensional travel is just... amazing, frankly, enough for me to want that to happen. However, when my sanity prevails, the way that I look upon it is that both hallow and silence indicate that the area around the point have the magical effect, and nothing indicates that moving the point also moves the affected area, unlike the darkness spell.

I would further posit that darkness needing to expressly indicate that moving the point in question also causes the effect to move indicates the assumption is that this is not the default behavior- if it were, there would not need to be that clause at all. This strengthens the idea that the other effects, sharing similar verbiage, but lacking that clause, expressly also lack that property.

As with all things, it's DM's call, and written loosely enough to allow an annoyingly large number of possible interpretations. However, the RAW does not expressly allow it.

[Dalebert]

Just so we're clear, you realize how powerful (read: broken) it would be to have moveable silence, right? I mean, as a player I'd love to have it, but in the same way I'd love to have a holy avenger for my 1st lvl Paladin. It'd be fun for a bit, but eventually I'd have to admit that it's kind of ruining the balance of the game...

Or like having a Staff of Striking at 4th level. :smallredface: But I digress. That conversation belongs elsewhere.

I agree. I don't think they intended for Silence or Hallow to be moveable and I think it's potentially problematic to interpret it that way.

[odigity]

Or like having a Staff of Striking at 4th level. :smallredface: But I digress. That conversation belongs elsewhere.

I agree, and have already said so:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18563904&postcount=2

However, if it's a choice between throwing it away or using it to benefit the party, I hope we can all agree on the latter, at least until the DM changes his mind on his own.

[odigity]

I agree, and have already said so:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18563904&postcount=2

However, if it's a choice between throwing it away or using it to benefit the party, I hope we can all agree on the latter, at least until the DM changes his mind on his own.

Alternatively...

I participated in a discussion a few weeks ago about creating magic items that scale with character level, so it's a +1 when you're lvl 1, and a +3 when you're level 20 (half prof bonus). If our DM decides giving me that staff was a mistake, I'll suggest modifying it to be a scaling weapon as I just described, which should restore sanity. Can also make the charges scale with half-level rounded up, like Sneak Attack dice are. So, at the moment it would only have 2 charges.

Also, I vote we get rid of that crappy "it could die if you use the last charge" bullcrap. All it means is that you basically have to pretend the last charge isn't there, in which case they should just have given you a 9 charge staff with no fizzle clause instead of the 10 charge with fizzle, just to keep things simple. And I hate odd numbers. So just make it 10 with no fizzle. I mean, what's the point of fizzle? That's like saying:

"This item has 9 charges, and restores 1d6+4 / day. However, when it gets down to 0, you have the option of drawing 1 more charge, one time, at the risk of destroying the item. You can only do this once per long rest."

Who would ever use that ability? No one. And therefore the fizzle clause is stupid.

[GiantOctopodes]

"This item has 9 charges, and restores 1d6+4 / day. However, when it gets down to 0, you have the option of drawing 1 more charge, one time, at the risk of destroying the item. You can only do this once per long rest."

Who would ever use that ability? No one. And therefore the fizzle clause is stupid.

The DM is supposed to roll for how many charges get restored, not the player. As such, the idea is that you don't know how many charges are left. Anything beyond 5, and you start pushing your luck. Of course if you want to play it safe, you could just wait 2 days (to where it's guaranteed full again) and use no more than 9 charges, or use no more than 5 charges per day, but the point is that those who draw further upon its power play with fire.

So if you want to eliminate the fizzle clause, it should look like this: "This item has a maximum of 9 charges, and restores 5 per day." This provides no upgrade in power whatsoever, but also has no chance of fizzling, and can be achieved by simply treating the item like that's what it already has. 10 with no fizzle changes the fundamental nature of it, as then you can just keep going after 5 in a day until it stops working, and then you know you've exhausted all charges, with no potential downside.

[odigity]

The DM is supposed to roll for how many charges get restored, not the player. As such, the idea is that you don't know how many charges are left. Anything beyond 5, and you start pushing your luck. Of course if you want to play it safe, you could just wait 2 days (to where it's guaranteed full again) and use no more than 9 charges, or use no more than 5 charges per day, but the point is that those who draw further upon its power play with fire.

I disagree. From DMG141:

"Some magic items have charges that must be expended to activate their properties. The number of charges an item has remaining is revealed when an identify spell is cast on it, as well as when a creature attunes to it. Additionally, when an item regains charges, the creature attuned to it learns how many charges it regained."

[GiantOctopodes]

I disagree. From DMG141:

"Some magic items have charges that must be expended to activate their properties. The number of charges an item has remaining is revealed when an identify spell is cast on it, as well as when a creature attunes to it. Additionally, when an item regains charges, the creature attuned to it learns how many charges it regained."

Ah. See, that's what I get for asking for a DMG for chistmas :smallsmile:

In that case, I agree with you entirely, though I still think it should be capped at 9, so it's not an increase in power for what is apparently an already very powerful item.

[Vogonjeltz]

In the spell description it says you cast it on a point. Is a point considered an object, or creature? Or is it made for the ground?

No. Per the Targeting guidelines on page 204, the spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin. If the spell does not specify creatures or objects, then the only remaining answer is a point in space.

As odigity mentions, Hallow only says a point.

Darkness and Daylight both specify in their text that an object can be cast on, which comports with the targeting guidelines. As mentioned before: Hallow only specifies a point and at no point in the text does it provide for targeting an object or creature. Ergo, it can not.

[odigity]

No. Per the Targeting guidelines on page 204, the spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin. If the spell does not specify creatures or objects, then the only remaining answer is a point in space.

As odigity mentions, Hallow only says a point.

Darkness and Daylight both specify in their text that an object can be cast on, which comports with the targeting guidelines. As mentioned before: Hallow only specifies a point and at no point in the text does it provide for targeting an object or creature. Ergo, it can not.

To be fair, there's no reason you can't use the creature or object's position as your "point". It just wouldn't move with them.

So we're not really debating the targetting aspect. My body contains infinite points, all of which are valid targets. We're merely debating the moveability aspect. And I think so far everyone in the thread agrees that Silence and Hallow either are not moveable (RAW) or should not be moveable (RAI).

[Bellberith]

To be fair, there's no reason you can't use the creature or object's position as your "point". It just wouldn't move with them.

So we're not really debating the targetting aspect. My body contains infinite points, all of which are valid targets. We're merely debating the moveability aspect. And I think so far everyone in the thread agrees that Silence and Hallow either are not moveable (RAW) or should not be moveable (RAI).

Yea, the moveability is the only thing up for debate at the moment. I agree.

Since it is clear by the darkness / daylight text in the beginning that you can only target a "point". However later in the spell it says "IF the point is an object".

It doesn't have a specific rule that the point can be an object, it has a specific rule if you happen to choose an object.

Also on silence in particular it says it is a 20ft radius sphere around the point..... If the point moves then wouldnt the radius move with it?

The only text on Hallow that makes me hesitant to say it would move with the object is the "you touch a point and infuse an area around it with holy(or unholy) power." But then that would mean everything BUT the point you touched is affected by the magic, which in my opinion makes 0 sense....