Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sagiro" data-source="post: 1479973" data-attributes="member: 726">I agree generally that defining locations only by objects/creatures is violating the spirit of the spell.  But consider your last paragraph, where (if I understand you correctly) you posit that:"The closest exit other than the one we came through" = OK"The exit guarded by the fewest number of creatures" = Not OKIn both of these cases, you're modifying a location's definition based on creatures.  In the first case, you're defining the exit by where creatures ("we") had or had not been.  In the second case, you're defining it by where creatures are right now.  Why the distinction?  When you get down to it, it's very hard to define a location without using any creatures or objects in the definition.  "Joe's house" is clearly a location, but you have to reference an object "Joe" to define it.  Put another way, I think we'd all agree that a) "Joe's house" is a legal target for this spell, and that "Joe's house" == "The house where Joe spends most of his time."  (Or perhaps "The house that Joe refers to as his own residence.")  Why, then could you not find "The dungeon exit where guardian monsters spend most of their time."  And while this is admittedly a stretch, it seems that if you can target "Joe's house," you should also be able to target "The Ogre King's lair," though both of these places are defined entirely by objects. (Joe, or the Ogre King.)Please excuse my devil's-advocatism, but I think it's necessary to get to the heart of the matter.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />-Sagiro</blockquote>

Verification