Everburning Torch question ...

[candidus_cogitens]

Still, I think the fact that you can create this item WITHOUT the Craft Wonderous Item feat means that it ain't a wonderous item.

In that case, wouldn't it be odd that it should be listed in the "Wondrous Item" section of the DMG, with no statement to the effect that it is not really like every other item listed there?

Maybe you would say that it is only there for convenience, so that when the DM rolls for random treasure, the torch might be included. But if that were the case, then why don't Holy Water and Alchemist's fire appear there as well? They could be considered magical, in a sense. But the DMG makes a distinction between the Everburning Torch and those other items, by including some and not including others in the Wondrous Item section, in order to indicate that these are magical items and others are not.

 

[Crothian]

Continual Flame has a duration of Permanent, so a dispel magic will be able to dispel it.

 

[Lucius Foxhound]

Not the PHB I'm looking at! Has it been changed in subsequent printings??

That's odd... I've got the second printing (Nov 2000) and it's Evocation.

I just checked the PHB Errata off the WotC web site and there it is:

Page 188 column 1, Continual Flame: change Illusion [Figment] to Evocation [Light]

Curse those first printings... curse them!

 

[candidus_cogitens]

Continual Flame has a duration of Permanent, so a dispel magic will be able to dispel it.

Bestow Curse has a duration of permanent, yet it cannot be dispelled.

Someone is bound to say that most spells (other than instantaneous durations) can be dispelled, unless the spell descriptions specifically says that it cannot be, as is the case with Bestow Curse. But, the Dispel Magic description is somewhat vague: "Some spells, as detailed in their descriptions, can't be defeated by dispel magic." That clearly implies that in most cases it will be specifically stated, but it does not go so far as to say that it will always be stated. What I am saying is that perhaps Continual Flame is unusual in this regard.

The fact that it says "permanent" does not mean a whole lot, since there is no more appropriate designation to use. It doesn't have a limited time, so ... what else would you put there for "duration"?

It would be nice if the spell description said either:
a) This spell permanently transforms an object into a magical item and cannot be dispelled, or ...
b) Although this spell permanently alters the object, it does not turn it into a magical item, and can be dispelled.

.... but it doesn't.

In all likelihood, this is not a matter that the writers carefully considered. It seems that in some ways they thought of it as a magic item, but in other ways it is different.

 

[Crothian]

If it was an exception, it would say. We can't be second guesing every spell that has a permanent duration which is what would happen if you allow even one to be an exception. That's why bestow curse says so in the psell description.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

That's odd... I've got the second printing (Nov 2000) and it's Evocation.

I just checked the PHB Errata off the WotC web site and there it is:

Page 188 column 1, Continual Flame: change Illusion [Figment] to Evocation [Light]

Curse those first printings... curse them!

I stand corrected. I guess you could try to make a profit. However, I still have some doubts about whether the shadow version would be as useful as the real version. The DM could reasonably decide that the torch itself would glow brightly, but that it would not illuminate anything else. Perhaps it would cast some light, but not as bright, or it would have a smaller range. Somehow, the illusory nature of the effect would have to come into play, and there might be a will save involved.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

If it was an exception, it would say. We can't be second guesing every spell that has a permanent duration which is what would happen if you allow even one to be an exception. That's why bestow curse says so in the psell description.

I would agree with this reasoning, wholeheartedly, if not for the fact that unlike most other permanent spell effects, this one produces a wondrous item. That's the only reason I have to believe that this is to be treated differently.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the DMG and the player's handbook are just not in sync on this point. If you only look at the PHB, then it would seem that you could dispell the effect. But if you just look at the DMG, there is no doubt that it could NOT be dispelled.

 

[Crothian]

I would agree with this reasoning, wholeheartedly, if not for the fact that unlike most other permanent spell effects, this one produces a wondrous item. That's the only reason I have to believe that this is to be treated differently.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the DMG and the player's handbook are just not in sync on this point. If you only look at the PHB, then it would seem that you could dispell the effect. But if you just look at the DMG, there is no doubt that it could NOT be dispelled.

That is a good point. The right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.

I'm under the impression that it can be dispelled becasue it is based off of a spell and not feats. I know it says a feat isn't needed, but that might be why it is weaker.

 

[Stalker0]

I stand corrected. I guess you could try to make a profit. However, I still have some doubts about whether the shadow version would be as useful as the real version. The DM could reasonably decide that the torch itself would glow brightly, but that it would not illuminate anything else. Perhaps it would cast some light, but not as bright, or it would have a smaller range. Somehow, the illusory nature of the effect would have to come into play, and there might be a will save involved.

There would be a will save required for people to believe that light is coming out of it, but since it is partly real (as all shadow spells are) it would create some illumination.

Although when the customers realized that the illumination was really dim (2/5 as powerful) they will probably think they got a crap torch.

 

[Lucius Foxhound]

There would be a will save required for people to believe that light is coming out of it, but since it is partly real (as all shadow spells are) it would create some illumination.

Although when the customers realized that the illumination was really dim (2/5 as powerful) they will probably think they got a crap torch.

That's why I'd also have Expeditious Retreat memorized...