Teleportation Question

[RSP]

So this question came up in our session tonight regarding teleport’s wording:

“This spell instantly transports you and up to eight willing creatures of your choice that you can see within range, or a single object that you can see within range, to a destination you select.”

Is that supposed to be

[you and up to eight willing creatures] or [a single object]

Or

You and [up to eight willing creatures] or [a single object]?

Thoughts?

[zinycor]

I believe the second interpretation is correct and you always teleport yourself.

[Ghost Nappa]

The latter makes more sense to me. If you're trying to move something wouldn't it make more sense to move with it? Technically speaking, you don't need to move with the object but it seems odd to draw the line and not permitting you to travel with objects. The napsack and armor doesn't break things but a wagon does?

The ruling doesn't affect the move with people one regardless.

[Mr Adventurer]

The first one.

[NecessaryWeevil]

[B]Technically speaking, you don't need to move with the object

Hmm. Why do you believe this? If you read it as "You and an object," why do you believe the "and" is optional?

[Segev]

It’s up to your DM.

I would personally tend towards permissiveness and use what the player wanted, unless I started to see it causing problems somehow.

That said, historically, teleport and teleport object were different spells, IIRC, and the latter didn’t teleport you along with it. So it’s probable that 5e unified them into one spell, as it did with Bigby’s hands. So the “you and eight others” or “an object” is the correct breakdown.

[Lunali]

Hmm. Why do you believe this? If you read it as "You and an object," why do you believe the "and" is optional?

I read it as (you and up to 8 creatures) or (an object). This means that if you choose to teleport the object, you don't even have the option of going with it.

[RSP]

I read it as (you and up to 8 creatures) or (an object). This means that if you choose to teleport the object, you don't even have the option of going with it.

This is what we decided on, though a push was made for RAI being the caster goes either way. Segev’s post makes me think we had it right though.

[Segev]

This is what we decided on, though a push was made for RAI being the caster goes either way. Segev’s post makes me think we had it right though.

I think any of the readings are fine, as long as the DM's okay with it. But yeah, my thought is that they just combined teleport object into teleport.

Worth noting that the object-targeting version is Twin-able, I believe.

[Mr Adventurer]

I think the spell is actually better if you don't go with the object, since it allows you to deliver things precisely without having to come back home.

[Segev]

I think the spell is actually better if you don't go with the object, since it allows you to deliver things precisely without having to come back home.

Depends on your purpose. But yes, that does make it more versatile since you still have the ability to cast it a second time for yourself.

Still, being able to port out with your stolen solid silver statue of the Sylvan Seer-Serpent is pretty sweet. Instead, you have to teleport it, then yourself.

[Greywander]

I feel like the best option in an ambiguous case like this is to take the most permissive interpretation possible, so long as it isn't being abused. This means that you could teleport:

You and up to 8 creatures.
You and an object.
An object, by itself.

Does this make the spell stronger than it was perhaps intended? Maybe. Is this a good reason to squash a player's idea to use it the "wrong" way? I don't think so. It's one thing if they're trying to use a spell or feature for something wildly out of line with the intended use, but saying "no" to borderline cases will squash creativity in the players. Different people are different, but I'd rather see players coming up with wacky and creative uses for their abilities, so long as it's logical that the ability could be used that way. And, of course, if it's fair for the players to use, then it's fair for the NPCs to use against the players, too.

That said, because of the position of the comma I think the intended reading is "[you and up to 8 creatures] or [an object]".

[da newt]

If I was DM I'd rule in favor of all options rather than limit anything.

You wanna go alone - Fine
You and an Object - Fine
Your 8 friends but not you - Fine
Just an object - Fine
8 friends and a object but not you - Fine

But I think RAW is [you and up to eight willing creatures] or [a single object].

[Mr Adventurer]

I'm generally of the opinion that spellcasters don't need any additional flexibility thrown their way, since they have the most of it already.

[Lunali]

I think any of the readings are fine, as long as the DM's okay with it. But yeah, my thought is that they just combined teleport object into teleport.

Worth noting that the object-targeting version is Twin-able, I believe.

No version is twinable because the spell is capable of targetting multiple creatures. Also, the target has to be a creature to be twinned.

[NecessaryWeevil]

I read it as (you and up to 8 creatures) or (an object). This means that if you choose to teleport the object, you don't even have the option of going with it.

Huh. Okay, guess I misunderstood you, sorry.

[Sigreid]

I read it as (you and up to 8 creatures) or (an object). This means that if you choose to teleport the object, you don't even have the option of going with it.

I can't read that any other way.

[smp4life]

I always thought it was you and 8 creatures.

or just an object.

Is there a sage advice on this?

[smp4life]

In my home-brew world there is a magic item called a teleportation sink which is a stone that the caster can give to the up to 8 willing creatures. This stone goes instead of the caster.

[Tanarii]

[you and up to eight willing creatures] or [a single object]
This one.

If it were thE other one, it'd be written as:
This spell instantly transports you, and up to eight willing creatures of your choice or a single object, that you can see within range, to a destination you select.

[Darth Credence]

The text reads: "This spell instantly transports you and up to eight willing creatures of your choice that you can see within range, or a single object that you can see within range, to a destination you select." That makes it very clear to me that it is people, or object, since they are set off as different clauses. If they didn't repeat 'within range' I don't think it would be as clear, but with it there it looks like it is intended to be one or the other. The other way would likely have been phrased something like 'you, and up to eight willing creatures or a single object that you can see within range'. Edit: I see Tanarii covered the same thing right above.

An additional question, that relates. What counts as a "single object"? Would a 10 ft cube (and is that 10 feet on a side, or ten cubic feet? I've always thought the former) box, filled with treasure and completely sealed up, count as one object and bring everything within with it? Or would the box go, leaving all of the goodies inside behind? If the stuff inside is left behind, then it seems that you would have to teleport any treasure back a piece at a time, or people carrying the treasure would have to go. If it's the entire box, well, how many people could you fit in a 10 foot cube box? Giving everyone 2.5 feet in each direction, you could easily get 16 people inside such a box, doubling what teleport can do if you take time to make a box, or a tent that everyone could get into.

[Segev]

The text reads: "This spell instantly transports you and up to eight willing creatures of your choice that you can see within range, or a single object that you can see within range, to a destination you select." That makes it very clear to me that it is people, or object, since they are set off as different clauses. If they didn't repeat 'within range' I don't think it would be as clear, but with it there it looks like it is intended to be one or the other. The other way would likely have been phrased something like 'you, and up to eight willing creatures or a single object that you can see within range'. Edit: I see Tanarii covered the same thing right above.

An additional question, that relates. What counts as a "single object"? Would a 10 ft cube (and is that 10 feet on a side, or ten cubic feet? I've always thought the former) box, filled with treasure and completely sealed up, count as one object and bring everything within with it? Or would the box go, leaving all of the goodies inside behind? If the stuff inside is left behind, then it seems that you would have to teleport any treasure back a piece at a time, or people carrying the treasure would have to go. If it's the entire box, well, how many people could you fit in a 10 foot cube box? Giving everyone 2.5 feet in each direction, you could easily get 16 people inside such a box, doubling what teleport can do if you take time to make a box, or a tent that everyone could get into.

It's ultimately a DM call what constitutes "a single object." I think it also is his call what constitutes "a single object within range." Does the object have to be entirely within the 10 foot range, or does only a portion of it have to be?

[RSP]

It's ultimately a DM call what constitutes "a single object." I think it also is his call what constitutes "a single object within range." Does the object have to be entirely within the 10 foot range, or does only a portion of it have to be?

With the 10’ range of the spell considered, I’d imagine the intent is the caster is right next to it, however, I’d say going with that as a rule over just having any part in range, would have implications on other spells. Such as, “the Fire Giant only has 5’ of its 15’x15’ area within range of the Cone of Cold, so the FG is not affected by the spell.”

If consistency in rulings is something a DM values, is just go with “any part of the item is within 10’.”

[Chronos]

Just looking at the creature version for a moment: I think everyone takes it for granted that when you go, your equipment goes with you, right? It'd be an awfully weak spell if you showed up naked.

And logically, the creature version should also bring things you're carrying, not just wearing. I mean, the fighter would get pretty upset with you if you left behind the sword they were swinging.

So if you want to take both yourself and an object, you'd just pick it up, and then teleport yourself. The spell wouldn't need an extra clause for that. I mean, I guess that it lets you take something bigger than you (or the party's fighter) can carry, but how many things are going to be that big, that you're going to want to transport?

But it does give us this extra option, to teleport an object. Why? I think that the simplest explanation is that it's for when you don't want to go with it.

[Tanarii]

I mean, I guess that it lets you take something bigger than you (or the party's fighter) can carry, but how many things are going to be that big, that you're going to want to transport?

But it does give us this extra option, to teleport an object. Why? I think that the simplest explanation is that it's for when you don't want to go with it.
Interesting. I've been assuming the first is the most likely reason. To move things too big to pick up. That seemed like a far more likely adventuring scenario to me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm generally of the opinion that spellcasters don't need any additional flexibility thrown their way, since they have the most of it already.

Agreed. I recommend reading spells as narrowly as possible while still letting them be functional.

A spellcaster's versatility comes from having a bunch of unitaskers. Letting them have Swiss army knife spells as well is just bonkers.