Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7325727" data-attributes="member: 6919838">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.</blockquote>

Verification