Question About the Spell Imprisonment

[NecessaryWeevil]

The caster can add a condition that will free the target, but it must "be reasonable and have a likelihood of coming pass."

Why?

Since the condition is entirely optional, why must it be "reasonable"? If I want my target to be released if and only if Asmodeus takes up ballet, why can't I make that choice?

[Sigreid]

My interpretation is that you have to have a condition and the DM must agree that it could happen. The devs just are giving flexibility. Basically you're required to have a true love's first kiss clause (non magical way to break the spell). It's all very fairy tail like.

[NecessaryWeevil]

My interpretation is that you have to have a condition and the DM must agree that it could happen. The devs just are giving flexibility. Basically you're required to have a true love's first kiss clause (non magical way to break the spell). It's all very fairy tail like.

That requirement would be sensible, especially (as you note) with reference to the fairytale source material. It would be a houserule; it's not what's in the book. "You can specify..." is not the same "you must specify...".

[SaintRidley]

In which case you can be the evil baddie using Imprisonment to set up a fairy tale type of story, or you can be one who says screw that. Flexibility, really.

[miner3203]

Well, when you think about it, if you didn't want the target to get released, you wouldn't specify anything. So the condition would only come into play if you want there to be a possibility to release the imprisoned creature--which would, in essence, imply that the condition ought to be reasonable anyway. Which really means that the clause is kind of useless in and of itself, but at least it doesn't hinder anything, either. (Unless you're trying to be really mean, and want to be able to tell your enemies while in a zone of truth that their friend will only be freed once they do, indeed, convince Asmodeus to take up ballet.)

[Sigreid]

In which case you can be the evil baddie using Imprisonment to set up a fairy tale type of story, or you can be one who says screw that. Flexibility, really.

Or, if you have someone suffering a disease or injury you can't deal with, you could use imprisonment to suspend them until a solution could be found and then use the trigger to release them.

[Sigreid]

That requirement would be sensible, especially (as you note) with reference to the fairytale source material. It would be a houserule; it's not what's in the book. "You can specify..." is not the same "you must specify...".

Hence my saying my interpretation. It makes sense to me though because as you point out, why else would you put such a condition, unless maybe it was to place them in to a holding pattern until they are needed, the city's greatest hero for example suspended until the city needs him.

[Temperjoke]

I could see it for a character that believes in rehabilitation, "Only once you truly regret the pain you have caused shall you be set free" or something like that.

[Saeviomage]

In previous editions, the closest spell to imprisonment was an 8th level spell called binding. If you chose to have a trigger condition for release, it increased the save DC against the spell. Similarly, the more restrictive versions of binding reduced the save DC.

[MaxWilson]

Well, when you think about it, if you didn't want the target to get released, you wouldn't specify anything. So the condition would only come into play if you want there to be a possibility to release the imprisoned creature--which would, in essence, imply that the condition ought to be reasonable anyway. Which really means that the clause is kind of useless in and of itself, but at least it doesn't hinder anything, either. (Unless you're trying to be really mean, and want to be able to tell your enemies while in a zone of truth that their friend will only be freed once they do, indeed, convince Asmodeus to take up ballet.)

If you were allowed to specify unreasonable conditions, you'd have an infallible divination spell. "You are freed only when the 4th Powerball digit on the next draw will be a four." "You are freed only if Elminster is down to a single clone." "You are freed only if I will survive the whole next month." Etc.

[Foxhound438]

2 things:

number one

"HAHAHA I've Imprisoned your true love, Hultizen of the Diamond Throne. Killing me will do you no good, because the only way for you to regain your beloved is to hand over your kingdom to me. If you kill me now, you'll never have her back, for only a mage of power equal to my own [non existent in most settings] can break the spell by any other means."

number two

jumanji. literal jumanji.

[Segev]

The caster can add a condition that will free the target, but it must "be reasonable and have a likelihood of coming pass."

Why?

Since the condition is entirely optional, why must it be "reasonable"? If I want my target to be released if and only if Asmodeus takes up ballet, why can't I make that choice?


In previous editions, the closest spell to imprisonment was an 8th level spell called binding. If you chose to have a trigger condition for release, it increased the save DC against the spell. Similarly, the more restrictive versions of binding reduced the save DC.

Saeviomage has what is the most likely cause of it: copy-paste from 3e into 5e, and they removed the part about saves being more difficult if you give the escape clause. Thus, the optional addition of the escape clause shifted from an inducement to the mage to put deliberate flaws in his prison in return for making it easier to trap them in the first place, to simply an option to make an escape clause if it suits you. But the requirements put into place to keep the mage from taking the increased DC while making it still technically impossible to escape were left in, likely in error.