Cleaning with Prestidigitation?

[The Shadowdove]

Hey spell type experts,

We have an average size height halfling ranger who refuses to bathe.

Our bard wants to prestidigitation him and clean his clothing.

The spell states that it must be 1 cubit feet worth of material...

Does this mean the clothing would have to be folded into a tiny, neat pile. Or can he cast it upon him while he's wearing it and have it affect up to 1 cu.ft. of material?


thanks people!

-dove

[Easy_Lee]

Up to the DM, though it should probably allow the full halfling to be cleaned one section at a time.

[C-Dude]

Since the spell describes a volume instead of a surface area it affects the same amount of material regardless of the orientation that material takes (Conservation of space).

From a purely mathematical stance I would say it works regardless of whether or not the clothes are being worn at the time.

Just for some fun math, consider a strip of material that for convenience is 1/12th of an inch thick and 1 inch wide. One use of prestidigitation would clean 20736 inches of a strip like this. That's 1728 feet. This is because, despite the incredibly long dimension, the three-dimensional fabric only occupies a volume of one cubic foot.

[The Shadowdove]

Since the spell describes a volume instead of a surface area it affects the same amount of material regardless of the orientation that material takes (Conservation of space).

From a purely mathematical stance I would say it works regardless of whether or not the clothes are being worn at the time.

Just for some fun math, consider a strip of material that for convenience is 1/12th of an inch thick and 1 inch wide. One use of prestidigitation would clean 20736 inches of a strip like this. That's 1728 feet. This is because, despite the incredibly long dimension, the three-dimensional fabric only occupies a volume of one cubic foot.

Maybe you could work your math Magic and tell me whether or not a 3foot tall halfling can be smooshed into 1 cubic foot too then

That'd be extra good

[goto124]

It's a spell to do small but cool RP stuff (cleaning, cooking, coloring, etc) even when not strictly within the rules.

Just have the DM decide if it's too powerful to be covered by the spell with the unpronouncable name.

[JFahy]

Maybe you could work your math Magic and tell me whether or not a 3foot tall halfling can be smooshed into 1 cubic foot too then

That'd be extra good

The random height/weight table has halfling weights right around 40 pounds.

People have almost exactly the same density as water, which is 62 pounds per cubic foot,
so a halfling's volume is 40lb x 1cu ft/62lb = 0.65 cubic feet.

Room to spare - if they're flexible enough they might even survive. :smallsmile:

[AvatarVecna]

Something I find amusing about this particular spell use is to think about the implications of its 1 hour duration. Anything cleaned using prestidigitation is clean for 1 hour, at which point it becomes dirty once more. Furthermore, since you aren't dirty until the spell ends, you can't use additional castings of the spell to extend the "clean duration"; you must wait until the filth returns before being able to clean it again. But it's actually worse than that, because in the hour that the old layer of filth was magic'd away, a new (albeit very thin layer) has taken its place, because that's how the world works.

It's little quirks like these that make me love this spell.

[The Shadowdove]

Something I find amusing about this particular spell use is to think about the implications of its 1 hour duration. Anything cleaned using prestidigitation is clean for 1 hour, at which point it becomes dirty once more. Furthermore, since you aren't dirty until the spell ends, you can't use additional castings of the spell to extend the "clean duration"; you must wait until the filth returns before being able to clean it again. But it's actually worse than that, because in the hour that the old layer of filth was magic'd away, a new (albeit very thin layer) has taken its place, because that's how the world works.

It's little quirks like these that make me love this spell.

I had no idea.....IF that's true, then there's some cool things you can do with the spell with cleaning alone! haha.


However, The 1 hour duration ones seem pretty verbal on the time thing.

For example, do candles and fires that are extinguished suddenly come back into flame after an hour?

Is the cleaned object actually still dirty then? as in, is it just an illusion...

Or does it actually create a minor effect that scrubs an object clean for you?

Confuzzling.

[KiltieMacPipes]

For example, do candles and fires that are extinguished suddenly come back into flame after an hour?


If this is so, Prestidigitation just became a detonator. Pack a barrel with sawdust, extinguish a candle, put it in there, and get the hell out. An hour later, KABOOM!!

As a DM, no freakin' way I'd let it happen twice. Someone comes up with the idea and he gets Rule of Cool and an attaboy, but then I houserule it out.

[some guy]

Something I find amusing about this particular spell use is to think about the implications of its 1 hour duration. Anything cleaned using prestidigitation is clean for 1 hour, at which point it becomes dirty once more. Furthermore, since you aren't dirty until the spell ends, you can't use additional castings of the spell to extend the "clean duration"; you must wait until the filth returns before being able to clean it again. But it's actually worse than that, because in the hour that the old layer of filth was magic'd away, a new (albeit very thin layer) has taken its place, because that's how the world works.

It's little quirks like these that make me love this spell.

I'd rule it other ways:


You create an instantaneous, harmless sensory effect, such as a shower of sparks, a puff of wind, faint musical notes, or an odd odor.
You instantaneously light or snuff out a candle, a torch, or a small campfire.
You instantaneously clean or soil an object no larger than 1 cubic foot.
You chill, warm, or flavor up to 1 cubic foot of nonliving material for 1 hour.
You make a color, a small mark, or a symbol appear on an object or a surface for 1 hour.
You create a nonmagical trinket or an illusory image that can fit in your hand and that lasts until the end of your next turn.

Only the last three options have a limited duration, the cleaning, soiling, lighting and snuffing effects are instantaneous.

[AvatarVecna]

I'd rule it other ways:



Only the last three options have a limited duration, the cleaning, soiling, lighting and snuffing effects are instantaneous.

If you wish to make that call as the DM, that's your right; one of the great things about 5e is how much wiggle room there is in the rules for DM judgement. That said, because the Duration listed is "up to 1 hour" instead of "Varies; see spell description" (or something to that effect), the maximum duration for any effect is 1 hour, since that is the spell's duration.

Of course, when I brought this up to my DM, he just rolled his eyes and said he was houseruling them to be instantaneous effects to make everything simpler, so make of that what you will :smalltongue:.

[AvatarVecna]

If this is so, Prestidigitation just became a detonator. Pack a barrel with sawdust, extinguish a candle, put it in there, and get the hell out. An hour later, KABOOM!!

As a DM, no freakin' way I'd let it happen twice. Someone comes up with the idea and he gets Rule of Cool and an attaboy, but then I houserule it out.

My only response to this is to remind you that the last line of the "Prestidigitation" spell description states that you can dismiss the spells effects as an action if you wish for them to end early.

[Mrmox42]

My personal rulig as DM would be that the Halfling now has clean clothes until he soils them again - which should be fast, considering the habits of Halflings. :smalleek:

[rollingForInit]

If you wish to make that call as the DM, that's your right; one of the great things about 5e is how much wiggle room there is in the rules for DM judgement. That said, because the Duration listed is "up to 1 hour" instead of "Varies; see spell description" (or something to that effect), the maximum duration for any effect is 1 hour, since that is the spell's duration.

Of course, when I brought this up to my DM, he just rolled his eyes and said he was houseruling them to be instantaneous effects to make everything simpler, so make of that what you will :smalltongue:.

I think it's fine to want to houserule on spells and rewrite them. After all, to each his own.

Given how the spell is written now, though, I don't see how it makes sense. The cleanliness isn't an illusion, it's actual reality. Just like the campfire, etc. Would you also rule that the campfire goes out after a minute, even though at that point the wood would be burning on its own? The spell isn't just disguising people as clean while they're in fact dirty. Why would the dirt just reappear after one hour, when it's already been gone? If the entire thing were an illusion, you should be able to just alter the appearance of the clothes in any way desirable.

I certainly don't mind houseruling spells, but it's a rather farfetched interpretation of the RAW spell.

[Daehron]

If you wish to make that call as the DM, that's your right; one of the great things about 5e is how much wiggle room there is in the rules for DM judgement. That said, because the Duration listed is "up to 1 hour" instead of "Varies; see spell description" (or something to that effect), the maximum duration for any effect is 1 hour, since that is the spell's duration.

Of course, when I brought this up to my DM, he just rolled his eyes and said he was houseruling them to be instantaneous effects to make everything simpler, so make of that what you will :smalltongue:.

Each effect is listed separately. Some have an instantaneous duration, some have a one hour duration. You cannot take a subordinate clause from one paragraph and apply it to another. Sorry, but your 'interpretation' is a willful misread of the text. If you tried that at my table, I'd tell you to go back to English class.

[AvatarVecna]

Each effect is listed separately. Some have an instantaneous duration, some have a one hour duration. You cannot take a subordinate clause from one paragraph and apply it to another. Sorry, but your 'interpretation' is a willful misread of the text. If you tried that at my table, I'd tell you to go back to English class.




Prestidigitation
Transmutation cantrip

Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 10 ft
Components: V, S
Duration: Up to 1 hour <---------------THIS PART RIGHT HERE.

This is what I have been referring to. I am aware that some effects use the word "instantaneous" in their description, but this is in direct disagreement with the duration listed for the spell as a whole. If the part I've pointed out instead read "Instantaneous or up to 1 hour", or "Varies, see text", or "Special, see text", or anything to that effect, I wouldn't be arguing the point. As it is, there is a disagreement by RAW, even if it's a rather laughable argument by RAI.

If you can point out a rule that specifically says that using the word "instantaneous" means that the effect described using said word can ignore the spell's overall duration (or anything to that effect), I will concede the RAW argument. And just pointing out, even if it's RAW that the spell only lasts an hour, it's clearly going against the RAI and is exactly the kind of thing that should be houseruled away for being too silly. But by RAW...

[Svata]

Well, instantaneous is less than 1 hour, correct? The effect of the spell is over in an instant, and from there on, the effect isn't caused by the spell. Therefore, there is no contradiction.

[goto124]

My personal rulig as DM would be that the Halfling now has clean clothes until he soils them again - which should be fast, considering the habits of Halflings. :smalleek:

Why does only the Halfling soil his clothes? Doesn't every bleeping adventurer get covered in copous amounts of monster blood and various other stuff? Why is the Halfling special in dirtying himself? :smalltongue:

After a while, I suspect the DM and entire party will get sick of and just ignore the whole dirty clothes thing, and pretend they magically stay clean or something.

[AvatarVecna]

Well, instantaneous is less than 1 hour, correct? The effect of the spell is over in an instant, and from there on, the effect isn't caused by the spell. Therefore, there is no contradiction.

It's still a contradiction in that, if the use of the word "instantaneous" does not override the "up to 1 hour" rule, then the spell effects wear off at the end of the hour.

[Svata]

No, the magic's effect is already done. The thing is clean, or lit, or doused. It happned, and the magic has already dissipated.

[AvatarVecna]

No, the magic's effect is already done. The thing is clean, or lit, or doused. It happned, and the magic has already dissipated.

That's only true if the word "instantaneous" is a mechanical function of the spell, rather than a descriptive fluff word that has no effect on the spell's mechanics. I have yet to see anybody actually produce a rule or quote from the books that proves that the way the word is being used should be given mechanical precedent over the spell's listed duration.

[Svata]

Logic, precedence from earlier editions, and importing the best rule 3.5 had. If something isn't defined in-game, use the real-world definition.

[AvatarVecna]

Logic, precedence from earlier editions, and importing the best rule 3.5 had. If something isn't defined in-game, use the real-world definition.

Like I've said multiple times, my argument holds no water by RAI. What I'm looking for is RAW that says I'm wrong. Can you find it, or are we just gonna keep bull****ting back and forth?

[Dalebert]

I am aware that some effects use the word "instantaneous" in their description, but this is in direct disagreement with the duration listed for the spell as a whole.

??? How is that direct disagreement in any shape or form? A duration of "instantaneous" falls within the realm of "up to 1 hour". Help me understand how an instant is not less than 1 hour.

[EvanescentHero]

That's only true if the word "instantaneous" is a mechanical function of the spell, rather than a descriptive fluff word that has no effect on the spell's mechanics. I have yet to see anybody actually produce a rule or quote from the books that proves that the way the word is being used should be given mechanical precedent over the spell's listed duration.

AFB, but "instantaneous" is defined in the PHB as the spell's magic taking place and then dissipating instantly, like a fireball spell. Every single effect that isn't listed as a duration in prestidigitation is listed as instantaneous, which is clearly defined earlier in the book. Thus, by RAW, prestidigitation does its work (cleaning, soiling, lighting, dousing, whatever) in an instant, and then the magic dissipates. In addition, none of the effects that say instantaneous specify that, say, the flame stays lit for only an hour before going out; thus, we can safely conclude that the word "instantaneous" is NOT fluff and in fact uses the exact same definition of instantaneous as every other instance in the book.

[AvatarVecna]

??? How is that direct disagreement in any shape or form? A duration of "instantaneous" falls within the realm of "up to 1 hour". Help me understand how an instant is not less than 1 hour.

Because the spell duration isn't "Instantaneous or up to an hour", it's "up to an hour". Because "Instantaneous" isn't listed in the spell's official duration, the argument exists that the use of the word "instantaneous" in the spell description is purely descriptive fluff with no mechanical relevance.


AFB, but "instantaneous" is defined in the PHB as the spell's magic taking place and then dissipating instantly, like a fireball spell. Every single effect that isn't listed as a duration in prestidigitation is listed as instantaneous, which is clearly defined earlier in the book. Thus, by RAW, prestidigitation does its work (cleaning, soiling, lighting, dousing, whatever) in an instant, and then the magic dissipates. In addition, none of the effects that say instantaneous specify that, say, the flame stays lit for only an hour before going out; thus, we can safely conclude that the word "instantaneous" is NOT fluff and in fact uses the exact same definition of instantaneous as every other instance in the book.

There's also no line saying "this overrides the spell's normal duration of 1 hour, changing it to instantaneous", leaving the spell's official duration of 1 hour as it's overall duration. Still, I'll concede the point; you've provided evidence that I agree supports the word "instantaneous" being a mechanical aspect of those uses rather than descriptive fluff words. Thanks for actually providing an argument.:smallsmile:

[SharkForce]

if anything, I would say that the spell allows you to force the object to remain clean for that hour. same way with a candle; you can put the candle out, and keep it out for one hour, whether or not someone tries to light it. after that, an additional casting is required (an easy matter if you're present, not so easy if you aren't).

[EvanescentHero]

There's also no line saying "this overrides the spell's normal duration of 1 hour, changing it to instantaneous", leaving the spell's official duration of 1 hour as it's overall duration. Still, I'll concede the point; you've provided evidence that I agree supports the word "instantaneous" being a mechanical aspect of those uses rather than descriptive fluff words. Thanks for actually providing an argument.:smallsmile:

In this case, I would pull out the "specific beats general" argument. The general rule is that prestidigitation lasts an hour; however, a few of its effects are classified as instantaneous. Either way, I agree with you that it's weird they didn't specify multiple durations for the multiple effects, but I would rule that when the clothing gets cleaned, it stays clean until dirtied again by natural means.

[The_Ditto]

Personally, I would think the spell would fail completely if cast on another creature, under the logic of affecting an "unwilling" target. Now, if the halfing "wanted" to be clean, but just didn't want to get wet ... ok, fine ... but running around casting spells, "of any kind" on another target? If it doesn't call out a hit or save, it should just fail vs an unwilling target. *shrug* .. that's just me, though :)

[Easy_Lee]

Prestidigitation is pretty clear. It can clean things, soil things, light fires, etc with a cast. Nothing about the spell in any way suggests that these effects suddenly disappear at a later time.

No save is specified, meaning a target cannot prevent itself from being cleaned short of staying out of range or interrupting the cast. After all, no save is specified for the initial effect of heat metal, but we wouldn't try to argue that that means an unwilling target can't be targeted by the spell.

[metaridley18]

Because the spell duration isn't "Instantaneous or up to an hour", it's "up to an hour". Because "Instantaneous" isn't listed in the spell's official duration, the argument exists that the use of the word "instantaneous" in the spell description is purely descriptive fluff with no mechanical relevance.

There's also no line saying "this overrides the spell's normal duration of 1 hour, changing it to instantaneous", leaving the spell's official duration of 1 hour as it's overall duration. Still, I'll concede the point; you've provided evidence that I agree supports the word "instantaneous" being a mechanical aspect of those uses rather than descriptive fluff words. Thanks for actually providing an argument.:smallsmile:

Everyone else provided an argument too: Instantaneous is less than an hour (EG; an instant) and is included in the "Up to an Hour" description. Each individual line item has a description of exactly how much of that duration it takes.

[AvatarVecna]

Everyone else provided an argument too: Instantaneous is less than an hour (EG; an instant) and is included in the "Up to an Hour" description. Each individual line item has a description of exactly how much of that duration it takes.

There arguments where varied reiterations of "But it says instantaneous!", to which I responded "Can you prove that's a mechanical effect instead of a fluff word?" They're the first person who offered any proof of such a thing beyond "BUT IT SAYS".

[Mellack]

There arguments where varied reiterations of "But it says instantaneous!", to which I responded "Can you prove that's a mechanical effect instead of a fluff word?" They're the first person who offered any proof of such a thing beyond "BUT IT SAYS".

How do you determine anything is fluff then? Fireball says it does fire damage in the description. Is that fluff or mechanical? It does what it says, and that is how we know. Some of prestidigitation effects are instant because it says so in the description of those effects.

[Easy_Lee]

How do you determine anything is fluff then? Fireball says it does fire damage in the description. Is that fluff or mechanical? It does what it says, and that is how we know. Some of prestidigitation effects are instant because it says so in the description of those effects.

Would like to point out that instantaneous does not mean the effect wears off. Many spells have a duration of instantaneous, but we don't assume that they automatically are undone at some later period. If one casts a lightning bolt, the damage it did doesn't heal off mysteriously an hour later.

[AvatarVecna]

How do you determine anything is fluff then? Fireball says it does fire damage in the description. Is that fluff or mechanical? It does what it says, and that is how we know. Some of prestidigitation effects are instant because it says so in the description of those effects.

We know it does fire damage because there isn't any text indicating it does anything other than fire damage. "Instantaneous" and "Up to X amount of time" are two different kinds of durations as defined by the rules; the spell's official duration is "Up to 1 Hour", and there is no text stating that the word "instantaneous" is replacing the standard duration, hence the argument.

[Easy_Lee]

We know it does fire damage because there isn't any text indicating it does anything other than fire damage. "Instantaneous" and "Up to X amount of time" are two different kinds of durations as defined by the rules; the spell's official duration is "Up to 1 Hour", and there is no text stating that the word "instantaneous" is replacing the standard duration, hence the argument.

What's telling about P-digi is that the efffects which have a one hour or one round duration say so, and the others (cleaning clothes, sniffing candles, shower or sparks) use the word instantaneous. This is further enforced by the spell specifying that you can have up to three of its non-instantaneous effects going at once.

So the candle doesn't relight itself, the boots don't resoil themselves, you foe's underwear don't unsoil themselves, and whatever you blew over with a gust of wind doesn't stand back up after one hour.

Honestly, though, what DM would interpret it otherwise? This is just silly, finding ways to make a mostly-fluff spell even less useful.

[Mellack]

We know it does fire damage because there isn't any text indicating it does anything other than fire damage. "Instantaneous" and "Up to X amount of time" are two different kinds of durations as defined by the rules; the spell's official duration is "Up to 1 Hour", and there is no text stating that the word "instantaneous" is replacing the standard duration, hence the argument.

Instantaneous is less than one hour. It does not need to replace the standard of up to one hour as it is already included in that description.

[AvatarVecna]

What's telling about P-digi is that the efffects which have a one hour or one round duration say so, and the others (cleaning clothes, sniffing candles, shower or sparks) use the word instantaneous. This is further enforced by the spell specifying that you can have up to three of its non-instantaneous effects going at once.

So the candle doesn't relight itself, the boots don't resoil themselves, you foe's underwear don't unsoil themselves, and whatever you blew over with a gust of wind doesn't stand back up after one hour.

Honestly, though, what DM would interpret it otherwise? This is just silly, finding ways to make a mostly-fluff spell even less useful.

This is the same argument that earlier convinced me, which this other person apparently just couldn't let go, but whatever. And yeah, it's incredibly silly, but I was looking for a RAW argument, not an RAI argument. As stated, most people's argument began and ended with "BUT IT SAYS!" without giving any reason why what it said should be considered a mechanical effect. Until that one dude did, and you did. The argument ended earlier today, but this guy brought it back up.

[Easy_Lee]

This is the same argument that earlier convinced me, which this other person apparently just couldn't let go, but whatever. And yeah, it's incredibly silly, but I was looking for a RAW argument, not an RAI argument. As stated, most people's argument began and ended with "BUT IT SAYS!" without giving any reason why what it said should be considered a mechanical effect. Until that one dude did, and you did. The argument ended earlier today, but this guy brought it back up.

Gotcha, I should have read the thread more closely before posting.

[AvatarVecna]

Instantaneous is less than one hour. It does not need to replace the standard of up to one hour as it is already included in that description.

Instantaneous is differently defined by RAW than "Up to X amount of time"; they are by RAW separate durations. Logically, yes, something that happens in an instant takes less than any specified amount of time, but logic doesn't necessarily have any business hanging around with RAW.

You keep arguing the RAI of RAW, when not only have I always been saying that my "side" has no argument by RAI, but that even the RAW argument has already by properly countered, and the argument ended...until you brought it back up.

[AvatarVecna]

Gotcha, I should have read the thread more closely before posting.

Nah, it's cool; it's not exactly the most thrilling read-through, if you catch my meaning. It's an incredibly silly RAW argument that been almost exclusively countered by RAI arguments. Not exactly entertainment central...

[RedMage125]

In case it was not clear, part of the "duration" of Prestidigitation is the duration under which you can perform any of those effects described in the spell. I.e. You cast the spell once, and for the next hour you can clean/soil 1 cu ft of object per round, make harmless hand-held illusions appear for a round, change the flavor of your snack, and so on.

This is how I read it, and this is how it has worked in previous editions, too (even when the spell was a 1st level spell called "cantrip" in 2e).

So in regards to cleaning a Halfling, do it while he's asleep, and within one casting you can probably clean the whole guy and his clothes. And yes, they remain clean when the spell ends.


If this is so, Prestidigitation just became a detonator. Pack a barrel with sawdust, extinguish a candle, put it in there, and get the hell out. An hour later, KABOOM!!

As a DM, no freakin' way I'd let it happen twice. Someone comes up with the idea and he gets Rule of Cool and an attaboy, but then I houserule it out.

If you do decide to go by this ruling, keep in mind also that Prestidigitation has a range of 10 feet. So once you got 10 ft. away from the barrel...

[AvatarVecna]

If you do decide to go by this ruling, keep in mind also that Prestidigitation has a range of 10 feet. So once you got 10 ft. away from the barrel...

Actually, I looked at that as well, in the Range section of the "how magic works" chapter. The lastinceP-digi doesn't say anything like "if you move more than 10 ft from the effect, it ends", it doesn't (things like this would make Charm/Dominate Person" ackward to pull off).

Of course, I could be misinterpreting this. Anyone care to verify one way or the other?

[RedMage125]

Actually, I looked at that as well, in the Range section of the "how magic works" chapter. The lastinceP-digi doesn't say anything like "if you move more than 10 ft from the effect, it ends", it doesn't (things like this would make Charm/Dominate Person" ackward to pull off).

Of course, I could be misinterpreting this. Anyone care to verify one way or the other?

If the effect only last as long as the spell's duration, then the spell's range is a factor, too, because 10 ft is the max range at which you can cause such an effect, and therefore maintain it.

This, by the way, is one reason the effects are "instantaneous" as per the PHB section on magic.

[AvatarVecna]

If the effect only last as long as the spell's duration, then the spell's range is a factor, too, because 10 ft is the max range at which you can cause such an effect, and therefore maintain it.

This, by the way, is one reason the effects are "instantaneous" as per the PHB section on magic.

Sorry, I accidentally cut out the relevant quote. Ahem...


Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise.

Prestidigitation contains no text contradicting this, so you only need to be within 10 ft to begin the effects, even the continuous ones. If the rule quoted above wasn't in place, Dominate Person would end if your target got more than 60 ft away from you, Bestow Curse would end if you stopped touching the target, Mind Blank would end if you stopped touching the target, etc.

[Dalebert]

If the effect only last as long as the spell's duration, then the spell's range is a factor, too, because 10 ft is the max range at which you can cause such an effect, and therefore maintain it.

Spells don't work that way, thank goodness. AvatarVecna already explained it well.

Also, by RAW you can't cast prestidigitation on a creature at all; only objects. I think most DMs house-rule that you can if the creature is willing. By RAW, you could clean their clothes or objects they're carrying though, and clothes absorb a lot of the funk of people. Also, you could clean a towel or handkerchief and use that to clean bodies.

[JNAProductions]

Just wondering, if you're aware you have absolutely no arguement by RAI, why are you that concerned about RAW?

[AvatarVecna]

Just wondering, if you're aware you have absolutely no argument by RAI, why are you that concerned about RAW?

It's about theoretical, DM-free optimization, the same as it was in 3.5e: it's about finding all the technical loopholes between what a thing is intended to do and what the wording actually says it does, and finding options that are written more powerful/broken than they were intended to be when they were made. The difference between wording and meaning can be quite vast, and in 3.5 in particular, the game designers attempted to have a rule for just about everything. A lot of stuff in 5e is up to the DM to rule on it, but without a DM, we have only the Rules As Written to go by. It's just interesting finding what can and cannot be done with these spells.

Also, if (as it turned out in this case), RAW says it doesn't work like that, then the DM doesn't need to houserule anything for it to make sense. If something's broken, it's best to find it so that the DM (or me, as a future DM) can houserule the broken option away.

[Dalebert]

Acknowledging that the argument is over, but just want to point out that it's silly to interpret "instantaneously" as fluff for an effect that has a duration longer than instantaneous. They don't need to say that or they would be doing it a lot more often. For instance, why don't they say that you become invisible instantaneously? When you cast Faerie Fire, why don't they say that your enemies instantaneously start to glow? Because it's assumed that a spell's effects take effect immediately upon casting unless they say otherwise. Since they left that out, am I think to think that I don't become completely invisible right away and that maybe it takes a couple of rounds for me to fade completely out of sight?

If they wrote the books for people who lawyer the wording in that way, the books would be four times as thick and extremely tedious to read. I think that's why people were so frustrated trying to explain this. We're just trying to find words for something that is so intuitively obvious to the point that it seemed like a rather silly thing to be arguing in the first place.

[AvatarVecna]

As it turned out, the RAW agreed with the RAI. However, if it hadn't, the argument of "It's just common sense" would not fly as a RAW argument. The fact that, in this particular case, it was an incredibly, mindbogglingly obvious thing doesn't mean that the RAW will always so obviously agree with the RAI. I'm not saying it wasn't an incredibly silly argument; not saying it didn't turn out that I was wrong about the RAW; not saying Prestidigitation should work the way I was arguing it did.

[AHF]

This is the same argument that earlier convinced me, which this other person apparently just couldn't let go, but whatever. And yeah, it's incredibly silly, but I was looking for a RAW argument, not an RAI argument. As stated, most people's argument began and ended with "BUT IT SAYS!" without giving any reason why what it said should be considered a mechanical effect. Until that one dude did, and you did. The argument ended earlier today, but this guy brought it back up.

(Looks like this discussion has ended. Glad everyone seems to be on the same page. My $.02, though now moot is below.)

You have been provided very clear an explicit raw arguments. It seems you are arguing that “up to an hour” means the same thing as “one hour.”

As others have pointed out, up to an hour encompasses every duration less than or equal to an hour. Spells with durations that meet that include (at least) instantaneous, one turn, one round, one minute, ten minutes, twenty minutes, etc up to one hour.

The spell is very explicit that different effects have different durations. Some are “instantaneous” which is one type of duration that is expressly defined by RAW and falls under the larger label of “up to 1 hour.”

You have certain effects with a duration “until the end of your next turn.” That is a duration expressly defined by RAW which falls under the larger label of “up to 1 hour.”

Finally, you have certain effects described as lasting “1 hour” which is another type of duration that falls under the larger label of “up to 1 hour.”

What makes prestidigitation different than most spells is that it can be used for very different tasks and the spell defines different durations for those specific effects but all for the spell description’s general “up to 1 hour” description. But every applicable duration fits under the general label and each is very explicitly defined by the RAW.

The spell thaumaturgy works the same way. The duration is “up to 1 minute” and lets the caster do one of a number of different effects and the duration for each effect is listed beside it. Likewise, the duration for each is “up to 1 minute” which encompasses instantaneous effects and effects that last for 1 minute. A window that instantaneously flies open doesn’t magically close after 1 minute. Like with other instantaneous effects, they happen immediately and the spell is done.

The reading that would see instaneous effects reverse and would re-light candles, close windows, re-soil clothes, re-open a door, etc. is utterly lacking in RAW.

[Mastikator]

My DM let me clean stuff that are larger than 1 cubic foot just by casting it multiple times. Sure my entire clothing set is probably bigger than that but my character isn't wearing a big onesie, he's wearing socks and shoes and pants and underwear and a shirt and a jacket and etc etc.

[Bobthewizard]

Instantaneous means the spell happens and the effects are no longer magical. You cannot use dispel magic to remove the clean condition. This separates it from a "permanent" or "until dispelled" effect that remains magical and can be dispelled.

Prestidigitation has three types of effects - instantaneous, until your next turn, and one hour. So the instantaneous effect is less than one hour even if the results of the spell might last longer than one hour. It does not revert to being dirty after one hour, since it is no longer magically clean.

Using your ruling, transmute rock to mud would never work. Its duration is instantaneous, but clearly the spell is meant to have an ongoing effect.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Bot posts removed. Bad bots! Necromancy just makes spam moldy and worse.