D&D 5E Light Spell on a stick and then breaking it into two limbs?

[Ganymede81]

I wouldn't let you cast it on a rope that was more than 10 ft long, coiled or not. It says the object can't be larger than 10 ft in any dimension, not that it has to fit in a 10 ft cube. I'd say a 50 ft rope is 50 ft long, regardless of how it is currently arranged

Would you let it be cast on a 10'x10' piece of linen, then allow the players to cut it vertically in a zigzag pattern so that it remained one piece but could then be extended to 50'?

 

[Oofta]

Would you let it be cast on a 10'x10' piece of linen, then allow the players to cut it vertically in a zigzag pattern so that it remained one piece but could then be extended to 50'?

Or cast it on a piece of 10X10X10 wet clay, then mold the clay into a piece that exceeds the boundary? Or for that matter, what happens if you cast it on a block of ice and then melt the ice?

I think the simplest solution is that light and continual flame only affect a single small point on an object, but neither spell really says that.

 

[jaelis]

Would you let it be cast on a 10'x10' piece of linen, then allow the players to cut it vertically in a zigzag pattern so that it remained one piece but could then be extended to 50'?

As before, academically I'd say no: if you cut the cloth it changes or destroys the object. I'd probably say only one 10 ft strip keeps glowing. But I wouldn't argue with someone who would say the spell just ends.

But at the table if this was a creative (and reasonable) solution to a real problem, I'd probably roll with it.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Rather than trying to quote and answer multiple posts, I will just say that the spell specifies One Object. Period. If that one object gets split into parts, then only one of those parts continues to glow as the source of the light spell. So one piece of the stick still glows, one piece of that pie still glows, one single marble glows. But only one marble glows to begin with because each marble is a different object. This is the definition of one, singular, only. This is not a DM ruling.

As for a larger object, the spell gives you a max size of 10 feet in any dimension, so a 10x10x10 cube could be used as the source for the spell, but a 50 foot length of rope would not because the length exceeds the max size, whether coiled up or not. The first 10 feet would not glow, the spell would fail.

Also, in my DM view, the spell still has a center point for the light radius, whether you are casting it on a penny or on a 10 foot boulder. So to me, it does not matter where on the object you touch it to cast the spell, the center point of the object is where the light emanates from. And if that one object gets split into parts, whichever part has that center point is the piece that still glows. The only way I would let this disrupt the spell is if you somehow split the item into precisely two halves, as that split would go through that center point, making that point no longer exist. In my DM opinion also, the center point of the spell would automatically shift to the new center point of the remaining piece of the object that it still glows from.

 

[MarkB]

I can totally understand most of the reasoning folks have given for why only one half of the stick would glow, or that the spell would end. I could even see a case for each stick glowing...but only half as bright, illuminating half the normal area. All of those make sense to me.

But I'd probably just let it work. I don't really see a reason not to. It's not a major resource or anything. I mean, with just a little more effort, they could have two torches going, which would be the same. So why not? I try to reward creative behavior, and although it's not like this is the most clever idea in the world, it still qualifies.

So, what if you cast it on a lump of cheese, and then grate the cheese? Do you have thousands of Light spells now? Because that would make for a very cheesy spell.

 

[Ganymede81]

What if we cast Light on a baby giant, and the giant grows up to be larger than a 10' cube?

 

[Dausuul]

Allowing the spell to be replicated at full strength is obviously out--the players will immediately break the stick into a thousand splinters and turn a utility cantrip into a blinding weapon. However, the idea of replicating the spell at half strength has intriguing possibilities. I feel like that strikes the right balance between rewarding creative play and enabling abuse.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So, what if you cast it on a lump of cheese, and then grate the cheese? Do you have thousands of Light spells now? Because that would make for a very cheesy spell.

I would demand the player hand over his character sheet immediately, and then when I saw no cheese grater listed in his inventory, I'd toss the character sheet back at him and say nice try, chump.

 

[Sunseeker]

I would demand the player hand over his character sheet immediately, and then when I saw no cheese grater listed in his inventory, I'd toss the character sheet back at him and say nice try, chump.

But what if they actually did have a cheese grater? I mean I've put some odd stuff in my inventory for kicks before.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But what if they actually did have a cheese grater? I mean I've put some odd stuff in my inventory for kicks before.

In that case, I'd fetch the actual cheese grater from my kitchen and then grab the player by the head and grate his face off.

Sorry...I'm kidding, obviously.

I just think that as a DM I have enough sense to say "hey breaking that stick in two was a clever way to get more from that light spell" and yet when they try to break the stick into several pieces, still be able to say "okay now you're pushing it".

There's no reason for one small allowance to open the door to the extremes that people can find.