Everburning Torch question ...
- Thread starter Lucius Foxhound
- Start date
candidus_cogitens
Explorer
Stalker0 said:
Or maybe, the torch would be as bright as a real torch as long as you didn't make the saving throw. If you successfully disbelieved it, then the light would go out!
(Actually, I think 2/5 sounds about right, although I don't know how you arrived at that specific fraction.)
the Jester
Legend
It seems clear to me that an everburning torch is, just like it says, the result of casting a continual flame spell on a torch.
It can be dispelled- a duration of permanent means it's subject to dispel magic.
Come on, now.
It can be dispelled- a duration of permanent means it's subject to dispel magic.
Come on, now.
Lucius Foxhound
First Post
dcollins said:
Yeah, dude ... I think your troll radar needs some adjustment..
Lucius Foxhound
First Post
It's interesting. No other magic item listed in the DMG says that no feat is required to create it. An Everlasting Torch cast be dispelled... but it probably should have been listed in the PHB under equipment instead of the DMG. For example, Holy Water, which is just water with Bless Water cast on it, is listed in the PHB.
Hmm... but unlike an Everlasting Torch, Holy Water can't be dispelled since its duration is instantaneous. I guess the writers didn't want to put an item under "Special Equipment" in the PHB that could be dispelled. Hence, they listed it in the DMG under magic items... but couched it by saying that no feat was needed to create this item.
Makes sense to me.
Hmm... but unlike an Everlasting Torch, Holy Water can't be dispelled since its duration is instantaneous. I guess the writers didn't want to put an item under "Special Equipment" in the PHB that could be dispelled. Hence, they listed it in the DMG under magic items... but couched it by saying that no feat was needed to create this item.
Makes sense to me.
candidus_cogitens
Explorer
Lucius Foxhound said:
I still think the "no feat required" thing is completely irrelevant and uninformative. But I do think you have raised an interesting point, which is that if it were not listed under Magic Items, the only other place to put it would be under Equipment, which also seems inappropriate. Of course, one option would have been to not list it in either place! But if we assume that the thing just HAD to be listed somewhere, then perhaps we should not read to much into the fact that it is found among the Magic Items--since it may be there only by default.
So maybe we should look at it as a magic item that is not really to be treated as a magic item, rather than as a spell that is not to be treated like similar spells.
(I kinda wish they had put it with the "Superior Items" in the Equipment section. What's wrong with having an equipment item that can be rendered useless by dispel magic? At least it would be clear!)
I don't know. I might be coming around to the other side in this discussion--especially since no one seems to be joining me on the "no, you can't dispel it" side of the debate.
candidus_cogitens
Explorer
kreynolds said:
All men like beer.
So, then what happens when you encounter a strange person who looks like a man but doesn't like beer? More than one conclusion is possible.
a) The individual only SEEMS to be a man, but is not. Or ...
b) The premise may be usually true, but there are exceptions.
Unless I see it somewhere in the books that "All magic items must incur an XP cost" or "All magic items must be made by an individual who has an Item Creation feat", then I see no reason that there cannot be exceptions.
