D&D 5E "Locate Object" Abuse?

[iserith]

I think I'm with you here, but I can see players argung the other way.

For example, using Location Object to find "a bottle of red wine" seems to be fine - it's an object of a particular kind. But how about "a container holding red wine"? Now it's a wide category more defined by what it's doing - does that still fit under "object of a particular kind"? I don't think it's particular, I think it's a broad class.

Would "a holy symbol" work for Locate Object? It's similar in that the representation need not be a particular kind of of object.

Players don't get to argue.

The spell reads: "Alternatively, the spell can locate the nearest object of a particular kind, such as a certain kind of apparel, jewelry, furniture, tool, or weapon." A "bottle" would be okay, but a "container" is too broad in my view as is "holy symbol," which according to the rules can be an amulet, an emblem on a shield, or a tiny box among other things.

As I see it, when it comes to liches, figuring out the nature and location of the phylactery is as much a part of the challenge as defeating the lich itself. So while locate object may be helpful, there's probably some legwork the PCs need to do on the front end to set themselves up for success using this spell. That's an expectation I would set long before the PCs ever busted out locate object during play.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I tend to think that looking for a particular kind of object means you need to be specific to what the object physically is, not it's intended purpose. Thus looking for a 'phylactry' (a purpose) does not work, but looking for a 'silver amulet' does.

 

[jayoungr]

As an example of the "particular kind of object" application, back when we were playing through Hoard of the Dragon Queen, they used locate object to figure out who the cultists in the caravan were. They cast the spell to find the locations of cult robes and masks, and then figured out in whose luggage they were. I allowed that use of the spell--do folks agree that was correct?

 

[jgsugden]

PCs are heroes. Their spells and abilities are some of things that make them heroic. Foiling those spells and powers because it makes something too easy takes them away from being heroic. However, that does not mean that we should always let PCs benefit from spells - we need to figure out whether the story makes sense for the spell or ability to work.

Is this a suitable situation where you should not have a locate object spell.... locate the object? If I were the DM, I'd check the rules, then check the story.

Rules: Describe or name an object that is familiar to you. You sense the direction to the object’s location, as long as that object is within 1,000 feet of you. If the object is in motion, you know the direction of its movement. The spell can locate a specific object known to you, as long as you have seen it up close—within 30 feet—at least once. Alternatively, the spell can locate the nearest object of a particular kind, such as a certain kind of apparel, jewelry, furniture, tool, or weapon. This spell can’t locate an object if any thickness of lead, even a thin sheet, blocks a direct path between you and the object.

This is a poorly written spell. The first sentence says it is an object that must be familiar to you, but then goes on to say it can locate a particular kind of object which implies that you do not have to be familiar with the particular item to find it, merely familiar with the type of item. There is also the nice language about blocking it with a thin layer of lead.

My interpretation of the rules is that the spell user must be *familiar* with phylacteries, in general, to try to find *a* phylactery within 1000 feet. That means they must have observed at least one phylactery within 30 feet of them, to try to find one with the spell. I would also allow a DC 20 Arcana check to replace the actual familiarity with an academic familiarity - but that is a house rule as far as I am concerned.

Then we look at story reasons and determine if the lich might predict that 'locate object' would be used and might take steps to protect the phylactery with lead (or other techniques that counter such a spell).

A lich is generally very knowledgeable, and generally focused on protecting his/her one weakness. As such, they would likely put some effort in to protect the phylactery. Would that extend to protecting against this spell? I'd roll an arcana check to see if they know about the spell (DC 12 - only a second level spell) and then, if successful, I'd allow them to have considered it in their planning. Most liches are going to automatically make this check - so most liches would take this step.

I might also have the lich consider this potential weakness as a way to trap the PCs... They might create a pseudo phylactery that can fool the spell, making the PCs think they destroyed the real phylactery, but allowing the lich to regenerate once destroyed. I also had a lich hide his phylactery within his magic staff. The PCs could not find the phylactery after they destroyed the lich, and walked off with the phylactery/staff as treasure.... which resulted in a rude awakening later on.

 

[Satyrn]

As an example of the "particular kind of object" application, back when we were playing through Hoard of the Dragon Queen, they used locate object to figure out who the cultists in the caravan were. They cast the spell to find the locations of cult robes and masks, and then figured out in whose luggage they were. I allowed that use of the spell--do folks agree that was correct?

I think I'd have ruled that they could find "robes" but not "cult robes." That said, in this case after I DMed it out, the result would work out the same with maybe one "sexy robe" among the bunch for some comedy.

See, I think I'd rule that they could use the spell to search for something that is described as a noun, only. Necklace, not silver necklace. Box, not lead box. That sort of thing. Although maybe that becomes too limiting . . .

 

[iserith]

As an example of the "particular kind of object" application, back when we were playing through Hoard of the Dragon Queen, they used locate object to figure out who the cultists in the caravan were. They cast the spell to find the locations of cult robes and masks, and then figured out in whose luggage they were. I allowed that use of the spell--do folks agree that was correct?

Yes, I think that's fine. It's likely they had already seen such masks and robes in previous encounters as well. That doesn't have an impact on the spell effects per se, but it seems reasonable to me to take that into account. As opposed to, say, the lich's phylactery.

 

[5ekyu]

To me the rule leaves a reasonable space for the Gm to interpret but to me in this case i have to say "find a phylactery" to be not specific enough.

"The spell can locate a specific object known to you, as long as you have seen it up close--within 30 feet--at least once. Alternatively, the spell can locate the nearest object of a particular kind, such as a certain kind of apparel, jewelry, furniture, tool, or weapon."

This seems to establish two very different cases - one where you have encountered a specific individual item up close and one where you just look for a particular kind of object. The examples of kind of object show clearly a rather broad type of object such as longsword or robe or dresser or chest etc.

But it does not provide for any sort of "used for" addition.

i could not use locate object to say "look for the sword which killed the baron" if i had not seen that sword and knew which one i was seeking.

Similarly, i do not see any indication that it can identify "magical" vs "non-magical" so i could not use it to find "a magic longsword"

Unless in the campaign in questions "phylacteries" have a common set description and form then "phylactery" would not be a valid choice. That represents its use or function not its nature.


"A phylactery is traditionally an amulet in the shape of a small box, but it can take the form of any item possessing an interior space into which arcane sigils of naming, binding, immortality, and dark magic are scribed in silver."

"Form of", "type of" seem close enough to me to say a phylactery is not distinctive enough to tell from other objects that match the same "form".

But to the poster... keep this in mind... your lich should know how locate object works. So do some of your merchants and barons and others.

So, why doesn't locate "phylactery" find a "phylactery" that turns out to be just a non-magical item that is indeed a phylactery but not the lich's? Then next cast it finds another. then another. Why aren't some of these traps, cursed? Why aren't some of them hard to get to and really not so much traps as tactical setups... getting there puts the PCs into a bad situation?

Part of the "problem" some magical effects produce in some campaigns comes from GMs applying "non-magical thinking" to the NPCs in a very high magic world. In a world where invisibility, flying, scrying, locate object, teleport, shapeshifting and a hundred other things exist - traditional locks, gates and hide it under the mattress just do not make sense for intelligent adversaries.

Also, as a Gm i make it clear that the spells and magic effects shown in the PHB just are not the sum total of magic in the world. players should expect to see areas which are "divination proof" by a variety of means. They should expect to see a wizard's ancient tower be defended at times with rituals and such cast over time that makes them "impossible" to teleport into or scry into etc.

it is not "unfairly nerfing" Locate Object to have there be items and areas where it wont work... as long as it works fine in most places and most **cases**.

So, to me it comes down to a mix of pre-planning and reasonable on-the-fly adjustment.

 

[jayoungr]

PCs are heroes. Their spells and abilities are some of things that make them heroic. Foiling those spells and powers because it makes something too easy takes them away from being heroic.

True, but the somewhat-devil's-advocate flip side of that: How heroic is it for level 16 PCs to undo the careful designs of a level 22 lich by using a level 2 spell?

 

[5ekyu]

As an example of the "particular kind of object" application, back when we were playing through Hoard of the Dragon Queen, they used locate object to figure out who the cultists in the caravan were. They cast the spell to find the locations of cult robes and masks, and then figured out in whose luggage they were. I allowed that use of the spell--do folks agree that was correct?

As long as the cult robes were distinctive - sure. "Robes of red and black with the star and moon symbol" is not really that much more than picking "shortblade" vs "longblade" when it comes to swords to me.

But, that brings to mind the following question for the campaign world - if that is an accurate use of the low level spell - "would secret organization carry around tell tale markers that can be found on a search or by a simple spell?"

I mean, what if actual bandits raid the travelers and sort thru the luggage and the robes are revealed? What if a local constable searches for any reason? Why carry a "tag" that identifies you as "bad guy" to your enemies?

Would it not make sense for each "ritual site" where the robes are needed to have robes there for use? Would it not make sense for major "tells" to be kept to more limited and more protected situations?

Then again, slipping cultist robes into someone else's bag and arranging for a search by PCs would be a great hook in and of itself. i could see some Spider sitting at her web being perfectly willing to serve up a cultist or two or ten early on to "sell" the "robes as evidence" if she wanted to use it in the next town to frame/derail an adversary... or even for some of her local commanders to figure that out.

 

[5ekyu]

True, but the somewhat-devil's-advocate flip side of that: How heroic is it for level 16 PCs to undo the careful designs of a level 22 lich by using a level 2 spell?

"Ok, so whew... locate led us here thru six guards, two demons and a hall of doom traps. This has to be the phylactery we are looking for, right?"

"I sure as Minerva's Chalice hope so. We are spent and if we had to fight something here on this unstable ledge it would be really really bad."

"hey, what is that noise...."

"Oh boy!"