D&D 5E The semantics of the spell Sending

[J.Quondam]

A few different spells use the word "familiar" (and there's probably more)....

Both locate object and locate creature use verbiage like:

"Describe or name an object (creature) that is familiar to you. ... The spell can locate a specific object (creature) known to you, as long as you have seen it up close--within 30 feet--at least once."

Similarly, the spell clairvoyance refers to familiarity with respect to a location:

"You create an invisible sensor within range in a location familiar to you (a place you have visited or seen before) ...."

On the other hand, the scrying spell has a table defining the term:

"Familiar (you know the target well)"

There might be a little more nuance in the complete spell descriptions? But generally, the first few make it sound like a meeting in passing is sufficient; whereas the last one is specifically about more intimate acquaintance.
So... make of that what you will.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Interesting. This could have relevance to my campaign in the near future. There is an NPC I was going to have contact a party member through having another NPC (who has never met the party member) cast sending. I was just assuming that the first NPC could just give the name and explain who the person is and then the sending would seek her out, but now I'm wondering whether that should work or not. On the one hand, anything that nerfs sending is fine in my book (I made it a 5th-level spell because I think it changes the world too much at 3rd-level), but on the other hand I'd have to come up with a different approach to present the scenario I want to present. Hmm.

 

[Maxperson]

I go with the common definition of familiar. A long, close relationship. It takes a long time to become really familiar with someone.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I'd take it as "familiar with" as in the sense of "having a basic knowledge of". You can't just send it to someone about whom you know nothing but a name, nor could you just target the fellow PCs father as just "X's father" knowing nothing about him.

We got past this by having my character cast sending into a ring of spell storing and then let the other PC cast the sending to his own father.

Another question - what happens if the recipient is asleep? Do they 'receive' the message when they wake up and can reply then, or does the message wake them up? The spell description says 'can answer in a like manner immediately', which very tenuously implies the latter. But that'd be a fairly nasty way of fighting a known spellcaster in that case - organise your party to send Sendings to them every 7 hours for a few days to make sure they can't get a long rest, then come at them when their spells are depleted and when they've got a few levels of exhaustion stacked on.

I think it only interrupts a long rest if you do an hour of exertion? Waking up occasionally probably wouldn't ruin your sleep. In any case, Dream does exactly that.

The "disguise" part might get interesting for characters who have innate disguise capabilities, such as changelings or firbolgs. You might even have such a character as a PC in the party, but who has never revealed their true race or appearance to their companions.

If that's sufficient to foil the "familiar" requirement, then the first the other players know of it may be when they try to use Sending while split up.

Lets add the complication of Magic Jar...does the sending get sent to the body of the person or the 'soul' of the person?

Interesting. This could have relevance to my campaign in the near future. There is an NPC I was going to have contact a party member through having another NPC (who has never met the party member) cast sending. I was just assuming that the first NPC could just give the name and explain who the person is and then the sending would seek her out, but now I'm wondering whether that should work or not. On the one hand, anything that nerfs sending is fine in my book (I made it a 5th-level spell because I think it changes the world too much at 3rd-level), but on the other hand I'd have to come up with a different approach to present the scenario I want to present. Hmm.

As I mentioned above, we circumvented this by casting it into a spell storing ring and letting the person most familiar with person cast it.

I'm not totally upset with the DM's adjudication. I find it limits some good plot stuff (like setting up meetings with important NPCs that we are having troubles tracking down) but allows elusive NPCs (that we want to set up and ambush) remain enigmatic and...elusive.

 

[Maxperson]

I think it only interrupts a long rest if you do an hour of exertion? Waking up occasionally probably wouldn't ruin your sleep. In any case, Dream does exactly that.

A long rest is ruined by 1 hour of walking, any fighting, any spellcasting, or other similar strenuous activity.

 

[Ancalagon]

A long rest is ruined by 1 hour of walking, any fighting, any spellcasting, or other similar strenuous activity.

since this is a thread about semantics...

Do you mean "ruined by one hour of the following: walking, fighting, spellcasting..." or "ruined by one hour of walking OR any fighting, any spellcasting...."

 

[Maxperson]

since this is a thread about semantics...

Do you mean "ruined by one hour of the following: walking, fighting, spellcasting..." or "ruined by one hour of walking OR any fighting, any spellcasting...."

1 hour of fighting or spellcasting is pretty much unheard of in D&D, in fiction anyway. A 10 round fight is only 1 minute. It has to be any fighting or spellcasting at all, which would be strenuous, or 1 hour of walking which gets strenuous after a long time.

 

[jeffh]

since this is a thread about semantics...

Do you mean "ruined by one hour of the following: walking, fighting, spellcasting..." or "ruined by one hour of walking OR any fighting, any spellcasting...."

I don't think this is ambiguous; it's definitely the second one. There's no reason for the "any"s to be there if they aren't quantifying the relevant amount of fighting or spellcasting.

 

[Dragonsbane]

This is an odd topic. Isn't the answer whatever the DM rules is how the spell works?

Personally, I would be very liberal with Sending, and I am a grognard nerfherder.

 

[R_J_K75]

I go with the common definition of familiar. A long, close relationship. It takes a long time to become really familiar with someone.

Exactly. I wouldn't consider myself familiar with the person I struck up a conversation at a bar for an hour. Clearly another instance where a spell description (or rule in general) could benefit from more specific language.