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="Tzarevitch" data-source="post: 1480140" data-attributes="member: 1792">#1 Above = NO. There is a difference between "the forest where the green dragon Kizarvexius lives" and the Forest of Kizarevexius, where the green dragon lives. The first is asking the spell to locate where the dragon is, the second is asking to locate the specific definite location, i.e. the forest, which happens to contain the dragon. #2 Above = NO. The spell is actually being asked to find platinum pieces not a known location that contains platinum pieces. The phrasing is an attempt to disguise what the caster is actually looking for. There is a difference between, "lead me to a location that contains platinum pieces", and "lead me to this location, which contains platinum pieces". #3 Above = NO. If the spell does not locate creatures it certainly can't count them. #4  Above = I would say no to this. The caster isn't specifying a destination, he is trying to get a value call on which other exit is closest. The spell only shows the path to a specified location it does not judge how far that destination is. It also doesn't choose one from another. If the caster is looking for an exit, he must specify the exit. #5 Above = This is the same as #1 but with a spear instead of a dragon. The caster is really trying to find the spear and attaching the spear's name to a possible location in hopes of meeting the spell's requirements. What he caster is really asking is, "take me to where the spear is right now." "Take me to the Reliquary of the Spear" is a valid request for the spell. No. In my opinion, there is an area where the definition gets fuzzy, but it isn't where you are arguing that it is. Most of the examples you gave are rather obvious attempts to find Joe not find Joe's Place. A location for the purposes of the spell can't be one that is defined simply because a creature or an object HAPPENS to be there otherwise effectively the spell CAN be used to find creatures and objects and it doesn't do that. There needs to be some sense of permanency to the reference you are using to the location.The real interesting question comes up if Joe has been in the house you are looking for for a while but then goes away to another house. If you are looking for Joe's House and that is the only reference you have for it (say you find a map that says Joe may have hidden his treasure somewhere in his house) does the spell take you to it? Joe's Old House may work as a reference for the spell, but what if he had several "old houses". Which one if any would the spell take you to? Does the spell reference by most recent? Oldest? Closest? Could the spell even find the old houses because they are no longer "Joe's House"? Is it still a valid location for the spell when the one reference that you had to the location was valid for a while but is questionable now. That is where the definition gets fuzzy.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> Tzarevitch</blockquote>

Verification