Magic mouth rulings

[Willowhelm]

I recently started playing a new PC and, as a scribes wizard, I've been picking up spells i normally wouldn't have room for. This includes Magic Mouth (MM).

Depending on the way your DM interprets this spell it can be anything from fun to totally game breaking. As I understand it, this was more of a dungeon building/DM spell originally and in past editions it has been supremely broken (detecting alignment, age, contents of closed containers etc).

Depending on the responses to this thread, I may write up something that builds on The Arcane Programmer Guide (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?539861-The-Arcane-Programmer-Guide-(-Official-Rules-Technique-)) because some of the challenges presented in there have more simple solutions than suggested there.

So... Which of these do you think are reasonable for the DM to accept? For the most part I am not attempting to push the limits on the perceptibility of the triggers, just what counts as valid. (I'm not going near whether it sees illusion vs reality, invisible creatures, sounds so quiet no PC would hear them etc etc)

Triggers:

Any creature moves within 30 feet of the object (example from spell - is this enter range?)
Any creature is moving within 30 feet of the object (re-worded to specify that it is not just on entering range)
A silver bell rings within 30 feet of it (example from spell)
Any creature moves within 30 feet of the object OR when a silver bell rings within 30 feet of it
A silver (colour) bell rings
A silver (material) bell rings
An coin is currently face up
Specific MM is saying Beep
Specific MM is not saying Beep
Two specific MM's both are say beep at the same time
Exactly one of two specific MMs is saying beep
Clock hand moves
Whenever at least one of two MMs are not saying beep
2 creatures move within 30 ft
Every other time the clock ticks
On the first tick of the clock and every other time after that
A specific MM1 (A) is saying beep at the same time another (C) is saying beep OR another specific MM1 (B) is saying beep at the same time another (D) is saying beep.
When the second hand is half way between two positions
After a silver bell is rung twice
Every other time a clock ticks
On the 10th tick of the clock and every third tick after that
A creature moves half way between point A and point B
A creature moves within 1 ft of point A
A creature other than these 3 visible creatures (my party) moves within range
A creature moves within 30 unless i have pointed at them and said "ignore this creature"
A specific card is played (face up)
A specific card is played (face down) Eg. Ace seen by object, placed in deck, shuffled, placed face down - all within range.
A cat moves within range
A siamese cat moves within range
A guard moves within range
A specific creature the caster has never seen moves within range (eg t rex)
A specific individual known to the caster moves within range (their mother)
A specific individual not known to the caster moved within range (the mad mage)


Messages.

BeepBoop
Beep
Buh (beep without the eep)
The sound of lips parting to begin to form the b of beep
<Silence>Beep<9 mins Silence>Boop
<9 mins Silence>Beep
<Silence> (of arbitrary length)
A beep sound (not the word)
Singing
Whistling


Specific interpretation questions:
"When that circumstance occurs, a magical mouth appears on the object and recites the message in your voice and at the same volume you spoke. If the object you chose has a mouth or something that looks like a mouth (for example, the mouth of a statue), the magical mouth appears there so that the words appear to come from the object's mouth."

Do you think that the mouth of the statue actually moves or is it just illusory?
Does the object become a magical object?
Can you cast more than once on the same object?

[Bobthewizard]

RAW these are probably all fine.

When I DM, I probably wouldn't allow 8-11, 13 or 17, since it will slow the game down and you are clearly trying to make some sort of contraption instead of just using the spell as intended. I'd be skeptical of any complicated contraption you try to make.

For your specific questions, I'd say the mouth is an illusion, the object is not magical, and you cannot cast it more than once on the same object. You could probably convince me to let you cast it more than once on the same object though, depending on what you planned.

[quindraco]

The message can be the empty message, yes. That would be like leaving someone a voice mail and not making any sound. The spell copies actual sounds you actually make, so if you just don't make any, you record silence.

[Segev]

31 and 33 are questionable; I would say that they work iff the caster would, himself, correctly identify the specific individuals were the caster there to see and hear them.


If you want to make complicated logic-devices, I would suggest just using item-crafting rules and working the devices out with your DM rather than trying to do the engineering, yourself, and then expecting the DM to decide that it either works as you hope it will regardless of whether you got the logic right, or to painstakingly execute the logic functions, himself, when a potential trigger arises.

[Thunderous Mojo]

All of the triggering options seem fine.


Do you think that the mouth of the statue actually moves or is it just illusory?
👄Magic Mouth is an illusion spell.

Does the object become a magical object?
No, it remains a mundane object that also happens to be the holder of a spell.

A door with Explosive Runes cast on it, doesn't become a Magic door, neither does a mundane Longsword with a Magic Mouth spell placed on it become a Magical Sword; able to bypass certain resistances that creatures have.

A Weapon, (or any object),with a Magic Mouth spell with an unknown trigger, would make an interesting Trinket.

Can you cast more than once on the same object
Nothing says that you can not.
If you or your party ever own an Inn or Tavern, Magic Mouth is a great way for a Ritual Caster to help secure the place from infiltration.

Place a lucky mantle piece, above the entrance way of the tavern. The Object shouldn't be visible from the ground. Place Multiple applications on the spell to yell out when a specific type of creature comes in.

Be Afraid when it screams out Vampire!

Magic Mouth records in your voice, so Kenku characters can cause a bit of mischief, as can characters with the Actor feat. One wag in a Waterdeep campaign started exchanging "Your Mama" jokes with Halaster via Magic Mouth in Undermountain.

Cracked us all up.

Of course Halaster sometimes leaves a Spell Glyph of Delayed Blast Fireball timed to go off at the end of his joke. That was found to be much less humorous.🃏

[dafrca]

One wag in a Waterdeep campaign started exchanging "Your Mama" jokes with Halaster via Magic Mouth in Undermountain.

Cracked us all up.

Of course Halaster sometimes leaves a Spell Glyph of Delayed Blast Fireball timed to go off at the end of his joke. That was found to be much less humorous.🃏

Wonderful story. Love it. :smallsmile:

[Willowhelm]

RAW these are probably all fine.

When I DM, I probably wouldn't allow 8-11, 13 or 17, since it will slow the game down and you are clearly trying to make some sort of contraption instead of just using the spell as intended. I'd be skeptical of any complicated contraption you try to make.

For your specific questions, I'd say the mouth is an illusion, the object is not magical, and you cannot cast it more than once on the same object. You could probably convince me to let you cast it more than once on the same object though, depending on what you planned.

Interesting that you sense the cheesiness of those ones when they are far less exploitable than others which you’d allow. Thanks for your thoughts.


The message can be the empty message, yes. That would be like leaving someone a voice mail and not making any sound. The spell copies actual sounds you actually make, so if you just don't make any, you record silence.

It doesn’t explicitly copy sounds. It copies a “message” that you “speak”. Hence the need for a DM ruling.


31 and 33 are questionable; I would say that they work iff the caster would, himself, correctly identify the specific individuals were the caster there to see and hear them.


If you want to make complicated logic-devices, I would suggest just using item-crafting rules and working the devices out with your DM rather than trying to do the engineering, yourself, and then expecting the DM to decide that it either works as you hope it will regardless of whether you got the logic right, or to painstakingly execute the logic functions, himself, when a potential trigger arises.

The suggested triggers listed are more about getting a set of abilities that the dm agrees the spell is capable of. The use is making objects with practical uses but they wouldn’t require complex logic parsing on the part of the player or the DM. It’s a fun “how broken is this spell” thought experiment. You can recreate magical items or create new ones or duplicate/exceed other spells with MM. Simple examples are weapons of warning and permanent alarms etc but (again DM dependent) it can do so much more and for low cost. Crafting custom magic items with the DM is all good (my players are doing that in their downtime right now) but breaking the game at 3rd level is a different kind of fun.


All of the triggering options seem fine.

👄Magic Mouth is an illusion spell.

No, it remains a mundane object that also happens to be the holder of a spell.

A door with Explosive Runes cast on it, doesn't become a Magic door, neither does a mundane Longsword with a Magic Mouth spell placed on it become a Magical Sword; able to bypass certain resistances that creatures have.

A Weapon, (or any object),with a Magic Mouth spell with an unknown trigger, would make an interesting Trinket.

Nothing says that you can not.
If you or your party ever own an Inn or Tavern, Magic Mouth is a great way for a Ritual Caster to help secure the place from infiltration.

Place a lucky mantle piece, above the entrance way of the tavern. The Object shouldn't be visible from the ground. Place Multiple applications on the spell to yell out when a specific type of creature comes in.

Be Afraid when it screams out Vampire!


I agree with those rulings but illusion spells can create physical changes. Iirc phantom steed, creation, shadow blade and maybe others?

The magic item thing is more about durability and whether it is still a valid target for other spells than need a non-magic object. Eg. If I cast magic mouth on a piece of fruit and it lasts forever… what happens when the fruit starts to rot?

I do like the tavern idea but you’re thinking too small (or too big?). Don’t cast it on stones in a building. Cast it on beads on a necklace (or hairpins or buttons if your DM needs line of sight). Way more useful for adventurers actually out adventuring!

[Willowhelm]

So these seem like they're not controversial rulings at all then?

How about the perceptibility issue:

Does the object require line of sight for a visual trigger?
Does it work in darkness?
Does it see illusion or reality?
Behind cover?
How quiet can the audible trigger be?

[Xervous]

The magic mouth is not particularly perceptive (+0) and it’s not devoting effort to seeking things out (passive) so it seems fair to say it can’t pick up anything that would be ruled beyond a DC10.

Though there’s an argument to be made for it having 0 WIS and thus only being able to catch things up to DC5. I’d be far more likely to run it as DC5 cutoff because that doesn’t screw with the world as much as DC10.

[Willowhelm]

The magic mouth is not particularly perceptive (+0) and it’s not devoting effort to seeking things out (passive) so it seems fair to say it can’t pick up anything that would be ruled beyond a DC10.

Though there’s an argument to be made for it having 0 WIS and thus only being able to catch things up to DC5. I’d be far more likely to run it as DC5 cutoff because that doesn’t screw with the world as much as DC10.

Other than your choice to rule that way (which I respect) do you have any reason for this? Anything until the rules that state anything as a foundation for this?

It seems just as reasonable to say it has an infinitely high perception based on the spell wording. There are no DCs listed at all for any kind of check for the trigger conditions. Detect magic doesn’t require an arcana check to figure out what school of magic something is - it just knows. Alarm doesn’t get bypassed by high stealth abilities etc

[Xervous]

Pretty much yeah, welcome to 5e where the uncertainty of climbing a tree is uncertain. It’s going to be a case of ask your GM what you can get away with.

[Darth Credence]

So these seem like they're not controversial rulings at all then?

How about the perceptibility issue:

Does the object require line of sight for a visual trigger?
Does it work in darkness?
Does it see illusion or reality?
Behind cover?
How quiet can the audible trigger be?

Since it needs a visual condition that occurs within 30' (or audible, but I'm on the visual part), it has to have line of sight. I would say the place where the mouth appears would act like an eye and an ear for this spell.
I would rule it does not work in complete darkness, since the eye couldn't "see" the trigger.
It has no reason to disbelieve any illusion, so it will take any illusion at face value.
Behind cover is just another way of asking about line of sight.
As far as I know, there are no rules which govern how loud something is, so this question doesn't mean much. If the sound is audible at the point of the spell, and it originates within 30', then it works as a trigger. Each DM would have to determine for themselves what makes something audible at various distances. My ruling would be that if you don't attempt to be quiet, and noise made is audible in 30'. If you are trying to be stealthy, then I'd probably say that any noise made is audible to some distance minus the stealth roll. My gut feel is that that distance is 30', but I don't know for sure.

As to the original triggers:
16 needs to be more clear, as it can be read that it goes off every time a clock ticks, or every odd numbered tick.
15 and 20 are the same thing, right?
27 no, because they couldn't see the card. Yes if the card is shown then laid face down, but not if shuffling is involved.
31 and 33 I would not allow, because the caster doesn't have the ability to know what those are. How would it know the difference between a T. Rex and an Allosaur? How would it know who the mad mage is to set it off? Nothing about the spell indicates it can tell anything beyond what is visually and audibly apparent.

Messages:
7. I would rule the spell fails, as there is no message there.
4, 8, 9, and 10. No, because you do not speak any of those, and the spell requires that you speak the message.

Specific questions:
The movement is illusory - while illusion spells can cause physical effects, 2nd level illusion spells generally do not (Nathair's Mischief may be the exception).
It does not become magic, any more than casting light on an object makes it magic. There is a difference between a magic item and an item that had a spell cast on it, and a big part of that is what dispel magic would do to it. Dispel magic would do nothing to a magic sword, but would eliminate the mouth cast on a sword.
Yes you can cast multiple times on an object, but if the triggers went off simultaneously, it would be difficult to understand what was being said.

[ad_hoc]

The Magic Mouth is not omniscient and relies on visual and auditory input within 30 feet of it.

The caster can't have it trigger if a 'vampire' comes within range for example because what does a vampire look like? Could look like all manner of different things. This is also true for a specific person. Is it based on clothes? Hair cut? What if the person wore a mask? The Magic Mouth needs to be able to determine who the creature is based on visual and auditory input. Whether it is able to is up to the DM to decide.

The DM determines whether something detects something else, fails to do so, or if the outcome is in doubt. If the outcome is in doubt there is a roll. The DM then determines the parameters of the roll for the Magic Mouth. If I'm making a ruling on the MM's ability to perceive I'm going to default to PP 10 with senses of an average human.

Let's say a creature is sneaking around. Even if the MM detects movement how does it know that it was from a creature and not just an object moving around with the limited visual and auditory information available? The rules dictate that the DM decides.

One solution is to make the trigger vague such as 'any movement within 30ft' but then the information gained from that will not be as good.

[Willowhelm]

As to the original triggers:
16 needs to be more clear, as it can be read that it goes off every time a clock ticks, or every odd numbered tick.
15 and 20 are the same thing, right?
27 no, because they couldn't see the card. Yes if the card is shown then laid face down, but not if shuffling is involved.
31 and 33 I would not allow, because the caster doesn't have the ability to know what those are. How would it know the difference between a T. Rex and an Allosaur? How would it know who the mad mage is to set it off? Nothing about the spell indicates it can tell anything beyond what is visually and audibly apparent.

Messages:
7. I would rule the spell fails, as there is no message there.
4, 8, 9, and 10. No, because you do not speak any of those, and the spell requires that you speak the message.

Specific questions:
The movement is illusory - while illusion spells can cause physical effects, 2nd level illusion spells generally do not (Nathair's Mischief may be the exception).
It does not become magic, any more than casting light on an object makes it magic. There is a difference between a magic item and an item that had a spell cast on it, and a big part of that is what dispel magic would do to it. Dispel magic would do nothing to a magic sword, but would eliminate the mouth cast on a sword.
Yes you can cast multiple times on an object, but if the triggers went off simultaneously, it would be difficult to understand what was being said.

16 is vague, you’re right. That’s why I actually rewrote it. There was a copy/paste error which resulted in the duplicates (15 and 20). Still interesting that people accepted it despite this. Because the spell doesn’t actual state how you specify the trigger I would rule that it is the casters intention and the imprecise language doesn’t matter.

On that note you can cast the spell in 1 min but the message can take 10 mins to input and then you determine the trigger (so how long it takes to i out the trigger is undetermined.) It could be instantaneous and just the intention of the caster. It could require the caster to dictate (with no time limit) or perhaps some other form… how do you imagine it?

27 - why would shuffling prevent the card being tracked visually? Would you allow the MM to win at three card Monte/cup and balls?

31 and 33 - the spell allows for “creature”. That is a set (in the math sense) of things in the world and the caster doesn’t know everything that could be a creature. They may not even be able to distinguish one on sight (eg a mimic), or know they exist (eg T. rex) but the spell can distinguish creature vs non-creature. Everything in that section is just more specific sets. I agree that 31 and 33 really push that to the extreme but I also think the example from the spell (creature) is broken. Similarly the “silver bell” vs the same sound from a spell - MM really is over powered even in its examples (check out the old edition versions for even more broken power)


The Magic Mouth is not omniscient and relies on visual and auditory input within 30 feet of it.

The caster can't have it trigger if a 'vampire' comes within range for example because what does a vampire look like? Could look like all manner of different things. This is also true for a specific person. Is it based on clothes? Hair cut? What if the person wore a mask? The Magic Mouth needs to be able to determine who the creature is based on visual and auditory input. Whether it is able to is up to the DM to decide.

The DM determines whether something detects something else, fails to do so, or if the outcome is in doubt. If the outcome is in doubt there is a roll. The DM then determines the parameters of the roll for the Magic Mouth. If I'm making a ruling on the MM's ability to perceive I'm going to default to PP 10 with senses of an average human.

Let's say a creature is sneaking around. Even if the MM detects movement how does it know that it was from a creature and not just an object moving around with the limited visual and auditory information available? The rules dictate that the DM decides.

One solution is to make the trigger vague such as 'any movement within 30ft' but then the information gained from that will not be as good.

You’re limiting the power of the spell. It’s reasonable but it is a ruling on your part. As you say, the DM decides. What distinguishes a creature from a magically manipulated taxidermy puppet? What distinguishes the sound of a silver bell from the same sound from a spell? The example triggers from the spell description give it the ability to distinguish these things and yet they are not purely visualy or audibly distinct.


Pretty much yeah, welcome to 5e where the uncertainty of climbing a tree is uncertain. It’s going to be a case of ask your GM what you can get away with.

I agree. I think MM is an extreme example even for 5e though.

I know how I would rule on this but I am lenient, my players are not trying to break anything, and I have no issue just retconning something if it is overpowered. They’re simply not interested in “breaking” the world. They’re not too to take a cantrip and use the violation of the laws of thermodynamics to change society forever. They’re not going to take MM and make a creature detector etc.

On the other hand I enjoy thinking about the consequences. To me, MM in a world like Ebberon would bring around the digital revolution even with the strictest of rulings.

I’m curious how others would rule and why though. There are already some pretty varied responses here from “all reasonable” to questioning even the most basic examples from the spell description!

[ad_hoc]

You’re limiting the power of the spell. It’s reasonable but it is a ruling on your part. As you say, the DM decides. What distinguishes a creature from a magically manipulated taxidermy puppet? What distinguishes the sound of a silver bell from the same sound from a spell? The example triggers from the spell description give it the ability to distinguish these things and yet they are not purely visualy or audibly distinct.


You're using the word 'ruling' as though it isn't just the rules.

The rules are to make a ruling.

The spell is limited by the spell description.

The spell uses auditory and visual input to distinguish the sound of a silver spell from a spell. There must be a silver bell that can be seen within 30 feet and it must make sound. If the bell cannot be visually detected the trigger doesn't happen even if it makes a sound.

Granting omniscience to a 2nd level spell is giving it powers that are greater than the gods. That's just a silly ruling to make.

[Darth Credence]

16 is vague, you’re right. That’s why I actually rewrote it. There was a copy/paste error which resulted in the duplicates (15 and 20). Still interesting that people accepted it despite this. Because the spell doesn’t actual state how you specify the trigger I would rule that it is the casters intention and the imprecise language doesn’t matter.
I wouldn't disallow because of the language, I would just clarify with the caster which they were going for.


On that note you can cast the spell in 1 min but the message can take 10 mins to input and then you determine the trigger (so how long it takes to i out the trigger is undetermined.) It could be instantaneous and just the intention of the caster. It could require the caster to dictate (with no time limit) or perhaps some other form… how do you imagine it?
I read the intent of the spell at that point is a minute (or 11 if done by ritual) where the caster is casting. Then, up to 10 minutes where it records the next up to 25 words the caster says (I think it records because it plays them back in the casters voice and volume). If the caster moves on to the trigger, the spell stops recording. Then the caster sets the trigger. This would be will of the caster, so if they want it on every odd numbered tick they would get that, with the confusion only being trying to interface with the game.


27 - why would shuffling prevent the card being tracked visually? Would you allow the MM to win at three card Monte/cup and balls?
Because you specified place in deck and shuffle, I assumed a deck of cards and someone shuffling them, not three card monte. If the deck is straightened, there is no reasonable way that it can continue to track the exact card they are looking for, so no face down card will trigger the effect. If it is just three card monte, then I would say that it is no better at watching for the tricks than the caster, and likely worse. If the dealer breaks line of sight between the card and the mouth for even an instant, it could not be sure which is the right card.


31 and 33 - the spell allows for “creature”. That is a set (in the math sense) of things in the world and the caster doesn’t know everything that could be a creature. They may not even be able to distinguish one on sight (eg a mimic), or know they exist (eg T. rex) but the spell can distinguish creature vs non-creature. Everything in that section is just more specific sets. I agree that 31 and 33 really push that to the extreme but I also think the example from the spell (creature) is broken. Similarly the “silver bell” vs the same sound from a spell - MM really is over powered even in its examples (check out the old edition versions for even more broken power)

The text in the spell says "creature", which I read to be any creature, not a specific one. So you could have it trigger when anything crosses a line. I have no problem with it being able to trigger when a human, or an orc, or whatever crosses the line. But when the caster knows no more than the name of something, then the caster couldn't recognize one, so the mouth can't either. I see the mouth as an extension of the caster. So, sure, T. Rex is a specific type of creature, but if you don't know whether a T. Rex is a 10-12 ton creature, a 3-4 ton creature, or a 1-2 pound creature, the spell would fail.
As for the sound of a silver bell vs a silver bell, the mouth would have to be able to hear the bell and see the bell to know it is silver if the trigger was "a silver bell ringing within 30 feet". If the trigger was "the sound of a silver bell ringing in 30 feet", then I'd allow either.

[Willowhelm]

You're using the word 'ruling' as though it isn't just the rules.

The rules are to make a ruling.

The spell is limited by the spell description.

The spell uses auditory and visual input to distinguish the sound of a silver spell from a spell. There must be a silver bell that can be seen within 30 feet and it must make sound. If the bell cannot be visually detected the trigger doesn't happen even if it makes a sound.

Granting omniscience to a 2nd level spell is giving it powers that are greater than the gods. That's just a silly ruling to make.

I am distinguishing between the text of the spell and how you as a DM interpret it. The spell text is not clear cut. As such you are making a decision to limit it in certain ways and those choices are different to other people’s interpretations. That is what I am calling a “ruling”. Just as a judge makes a ruling based on the law. See the first meaning here https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ruling

I think that’s an entirely normal way to use the word ruling and I don’t think it is “just the rules” unless you are referring to the fact that the DM gets to make rulings. If that’s the case I don’t know what point you’re trying to convey. Sorry.

There is nothing that says the silver bell needs to be visible. That’s a choice you are making. You can hear something without seeing it.

I agree omniscience is over powered. I don’t agree that having no limit on the visual and audio acuity is omniscience. I don’t think it is out of line with other 2nd level spells and it certainly isn’t near the hyperbole of “powers that are greater than the gods”.

As a DM if I felt a player was looking to abuse the spell I would restrict its “power” in other ways, some of which are already mentioned in this thread. I’d start with the spoken output and be strict with that. I’d also limit the triggers so that the MM cannot hold state because that’s where I see the truly abusable functionality.

To me it can be as simple as the DM saying that <use case> is too powerful for the spell. Bobthewizard makes this distinction - they say the triggers are all valid “RAW” but they just arbitrarily wouldn’t allow some. You don’t need to apply additional logic or reasoning at all but I am curious how people come to their decisions.

I do not think it is as simple as saying “The spell is limited by the spell description.” because the spell description has stupidly vague terms like “as detailed as you like”.

[ad_hoc]

I am distinguishing between the text of the spell and how you as a DM interpret it. The spell text is not clear cut. As such you are making a decision to limit it in certain ways and those choices are different to other people’s interpretations. That is what I am calling a “ruling”. Just as a judge makes a ruling based on the law. See the first meaning here https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ruling

I think that’s an entirely normal way to use the word ruling and I don’t think it is “just the rules” unless you are referring to the fact that the DM gets to make rulings. If that’s the case I don’t know what point you’re trying to convey. Sorry.

There is nothing that says the silver bell needs to be visible. That’s a choice you are making. You can hear something without seeing it.

I agree omniscience is over powered. I don’t agree that having no limit on the visual and audio acuity is omniscience. I don’t think it is out of line with other 2nd level spells and it certainly isn’t near the hyperbole of “powers that are greater than the gods”.

As a DM if I felt a player was looking to abuse the spell I would restrict its “power” in other ways, some of which are already mentioned in this thread. I’d start with the spoken output and be strict with that. I’d also limit the triggers so that the MM cannot hold state because that’s where I see the truly abusable functionality.

To me it can be as simple as the DM saying that <use case> is too powerful for the spell. Bobthewizard makes this distinction - they say the triggers are all valid “RAW” but they just arbitrarily wouldn’t allow some. You don’t need to apply additional logic or reasoning at all but I am curious how people come to their decisions.

I do not think it is as simple as saying “The spell is limited by the spell description.” because the spell description has stupidly vague terms like “as detailed as you like”.

Do you respond to every poster that way? Every time you quote someone do you say 'that's your ruling' or 'well those are the rules'

If not, why do it when you responded to me?

The implication you're making here is that I'm making house rules and altering the spell outside the scope of the rules.

You're also saying I 'put limits' on the spell as though I did it and not the spell and rules did. The spell has limits. Everything has limits.

Rules lawyers have a difficult time with 5e because it is balanced by having DMs make rulings in unclear situations. It doesn't rely on legalize and literalness to communicate so lawyers have a difficult time. So they come up with their abuse and then say 'house ruling!' 'DM fiat!' and such to anyone who actually uses the tools in the rules to make rulings as the game is designed.

[Willowhelm]

Do you respond to every poster that way? Every time you quote someone do you say 'that's your ruling' or 'well those are the rules'

If not, why do it when you responded to me?

The implication you're making here is that I'm making house rules and altering the spell outside the scope of the rules.

You're also saying I 'put limits' on the spell as though I did it and not the spell and rules did. The spell has limits. Everything has limits.

Rules lawyers have a difficult time with 5e because it is balanced by having DMs make rulings in unclear situations. It doesn't rely on legalize and literalness to communicate so lawyers have a difficult time. So they come up with their abuse and then say 'house ruling!' 'DM fiat!' and such to anyone who actually uses the tools in the rules to make rulings as the game is designed.

I apologise for any lack of clarity or any combative tone you sense in my responses. I was only attempting to clarify that the statements you made are not written-in-stone facts, they are only your reading of the text. Just as we’re having miscommunication in this thread, there is miscommunication between the people who wrote the spell and us reading it. We’re in complete agreement in the purpose of the DM in the game as far as I can tell. I believe my responses elsewhere in the thread reflect that.

The spell does have limits. The spell description does not make a clear delineation of what those are. The DM (you) has to make them instead and I am interested in different peoples’ interpretations and reasoning as to why they set the limits where they do. If you had said “I would rule like this” vs “this is the way it should be ruled” then I don’t think we’d be having this discussion.

Again - apologies for any implication I was attacking you or invalidating your choice in how to run your game. That was not and is not my intention.

[Xervous]

I’d rule rather restrictively on the spell because there’s a clear intent to the design that fits the typical D&D setting. The abuse of such a commonly accessible low level spell promises to warp the setting. If it works the players wouldn’t be the first to think of it and so the setting would be notably different. Given the choice between campaign coherency and allowing this supposed function of the spell I’m going to stick to having a good campaign.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Why the use of the word Abuse?

To my mind, a person that abuses the rules is a cheater.
Cheating requires intent.

I've played D&D since 1980. Was I attempting to 'abuse' the rules when I stated you could use Magic Mouth to yell 'Vampire' when a fanged humanoid gets into range.....no...I had forgotten that 5e's version of Magic Mouth had the explicitly stated requirement that the cue had to be visual or auditory based cue, and not an existential cue.

Prior versions of the spell, in other editions, had no such limitation.

So is misremembering something, is making a mistake, Abuse?

Again, in my mind claiming Abuse is calling people Cheaters, which I find to be offensive.

Since the word Abuse, has seen an uptick in usage that last few weeks,
I'm asking those who are using the word Abuse in relationship to the rules:

Are you intending to call your fellow posters on this board cheaters?

I can't tell if the use of the charged word 'Abuse' is intentionally intended to offend, or is just a happenstance of word choice, and the offense the word generates is just unintentional.

The fact the word keeps being used is interesting.

[stoutstien]

I’d rule rather restrictively on the spell because there’s a clear intent to the design that fits the typical D&D setting. The abuse of such a commonly accessible low level spell promises to warp the setting. If it works the players wouldn’t be the first to think of it and so the setting would be notably different. Given the choice between campaign coherency and allowing this supposed function of the spell I’m going to stick to having a good campaign.

I tend to agree but it is strangely apt for humans to invent or discovery something and mostly use it as a gag for a long time period before someone comes up for a practical use for it. See steam, electricity, magnets, Doppler, acoustics, and so on. So magic mouth being one of the most power as world changing spells, along side continual flame, yet used mostly to hurl insults at passing people is spot on.

[Xervous]

Starting from the assumption that the typical D&D setting or scenario isn’t a Minecraft redstone simulator or a world where a level 2 spell yields omniscient responses... layering on the assumption that the standards and expectations for the campaign are discussed in advance... tempered by over a decade of observed pedantry in the word for word description of spells and features...

Any player bringing the questionable bits up is trying to get away with something beyond the scope of the game we already agreed to play.

If the rules quite explicitly lead to tippyverse it’s one thing. Arguing for extra features in that direction? Eh

[Thunderous Mojo]

Starting from the assumption that the typical D&D setting or scenario isn’t a Minecraft redstone simulator or a world where a level 2 spell yields omniscient responses... layering on the assumption that the standards and expectations for the campaign are discussed in advance... tempered by over a decade of observed pedantry in the word for word description of spells and features...

Any player bringing the questionable bits up is trying to get away with something beyond the scope of the game we already agreed to play.


My understanding of what you stated above is:
your starting assumption is that all people on this board have nigh identical experiences and aesthetic sensibilities, and therefore the line between a 'reasonable request' and someone 'Trying to get away with something' is Crystal Clear, Universally.

While I think that may be true for a particular Gaming Group, (especially one that has played together for years), that also seems to me, to be an unrealistic and unproductive assumption to apply to an internet message board.

Thank you for the honest response, Xervous...it helps me understand your position.👍

Be Well, Good Luck, and Good Gaming to you.🍻

[Xervous]

My understanding of what you stated above is:
your starting assumption is that all people on this board have nigh identical experiences and aesthetic sensibilities, and therefore the line between a 'reasonable request' and someone 'Trying to get away with something' is Crystal Clear, Universally.

While I think that may be true for a particular Gaming Group, (especially one that has played together for years), that also seems to me, to be an unrealistic and unproductive assumption to apply to an internet message board.

Thank you for the honest response, Xervous...it helps me understand your position.👍

Be Well, Good Luck, and Good Gaming to you.🍻

Beyond the reasonable suggestion for how perceptive a MM might be I wandered off to talk about my preferences for tables that I attend (the we in the various statements). When questioned on such a preference I elaborated. There’s no claim for universal truths, just a smattering of sentences amounting to “we agreed to play a simulation of themes and that reading is clearly off theme.”

I’m at a bit of a loss where all the hostility is coming from.

[MoiMagnus]

My "computer scientist answer" here is:

Whatever trigger you put, you can't know if MM has understood it correctly without testing it. "Standard" triggers have been tested and approved by generations of spellcasters, hence anybody who learn the spells also knows what exact words to use for those trigger to work reliably.

But any non-standard MM trigger that could not have reasonably been tested and "debugged" during the previous downtime (like triggering on a creature you never encountered) is subject to potential random failure to represent that you didn't chose exactly the adequate wording for your request.

As for using multiple MM in the same area, there is a question on how to interpret the rule "The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don’t combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect—such as the highest bonus—from those castings applies while their durations overlap.". One could argue for two MM to interfere with each other if it covers the same area.

In general, any pseudo-realistic approach to magic would probably gives "spell interaction is a mess, full of randomness and non-reproducibility, because even in situations that look identical from our user's eye, the state of the weave might be very slightly different, resulting in an opposite result when confronting two spells".

[Thunderous Mojo]

I’m at a bit of a loss where all the hostility is coming from.

I intended no hostility, and I apologize if you perceived hostility.
I asked for additional information on your position, you kindly provided it.
I commented on it, and ended by sincerely thanking you for explaining further.

I then wished you well.
Which I will do again.

Be Well, Good Luck, and Good Gaming to you.🍻

[Segev]

Much as I am a fan of this kind of thing in theory, in practice, it tends to be outside the genre expectation of D&D. And, if you're playing a game where it's more inside the genre expectation, you should probably research a more thematic spell rather than using this form factor.

Now, maybe your game is exactly the sort where this aesthetic and this functionality combine in an awesome way; if so, more power to you! But for most D&D games, I would restrict yourself to extremely simple combinations of magic mouths, more focused on lots of contingencies than extensive logic and programming-with-mouths-as-transistors.

And for anything you come up with a final effect for, I suggest just making that magic item directly, working out how with your DM. If "I could do it with magic mouths is an argument you want to make for why it should be less expensive/simpler to make, by all means make that argument to your DM, but I recommend against trying to shoehorn modern programming logic and EE design philosophy into making pseudo-medieval magic items out of a spell that is more designed for dramatic effect than anything else.