D&D 5E Light Spell on a stick and then breaking it into two limbs?

[Hawk Diesel]

I like the idea that the enchantment of the magic into an object utilizes its physical form as an aspect of the arcane energy matrix to give form and function to the magical effect. It doesn't matter what object is used to cast the spell, but once the magic is set within an object the physical object's integrity is necessary to maintain the magic. Once the object's integrity is compromised, so too is the magic.

This is similar to Dresden Files or Full Metal Alchemist. The object acts as a circle to bind the magic, but should that circle break then the magic destabilizes.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I can totally understand most of the reasoning folks have given for why only one half of the stick would glow, or that the spell would end. I could even see a case for each stick glowing...but only half as bright, illuminating half the normal area. All of those make sense to me.

But I'd probably just let it work. I don't really see a reason not to. It's not a major resource or anything. I mean, with just a little more effort, they could have two torches going, which would be the same. So why not? I try to reward creative behavior, and although it's not like this is the most clever idea in the world, it still qualifies.

The best trick I've ever seen along these lines...and I am sure some DMs would deny it, but in this instance it was allowed...a first time player had his Wizard cast light on a rope and then unfurled it down a long dark hallway, lighting the entire length. That was a clever idea and I was glad the DM rewarded it. It was also cool to see a first time player come in and figure that out, while several long time players had never even thought of it.

Sometimes, what we "know" of the rules and the mechanics gets in our way of thinking creatively. It takes someone with a fresh outlook to try something new. I think rewarding that kind of play helps keep us veteran players a little more open minded to try some unconventional ideas.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I totally agree. Whatever is most fun for the group is the right answer.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'd probably have limited the light on the rope to 2-3' worth of it.

...which would be amusing as the lit portion rolled past some nasty critter, giving the party just a glimpse of it...

 

[pukunui]

But I'd probably just let it work. I don't really see a reason not to.

Two spells for the price of one isn't a reason not to? Particularly since it's a spell that doesn't normally let you have more than one instance of it going at the same time? No, it's not a major thing. It's just a cantrip. But OKing it might open the door to abuses that are major. I would not allow it.

I would rule that breaking the stick means that the spell ends.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The question you have to ask if you rule other than "the spell ends"/"only one portion remains lit" is what, precisely, are the spell's tolerances? IOW, how many times can you subdivide the spell's target before the spell breaks? Because how you answer has consequences.

Imagine casting the light cantrip on a bag of marbles or beans. Then dumping the bag and scattering them. Or leaving a trail of them in a maze.*

What if it were ball bearings in the bag? Or sand?




* why did I just envision a Beholder gathering them up?

 

[Baumi]

If you cast light on a stick, then it becomes magic and clearly cannot any longer be broken. Also if you cast it on a weapon it becomes magic and can overcome resistance. Light is clearly the most overpowered Cantrip!

Ok, none of the above is correct, but it would be awesome

IMHO it would stop to work. Since it is only a Cantrip ist can just be cast again so thats no problem. But on the other side, having to glowing sticks is not really overpowered either, so I might let it go if the Spellcaster can make a successful Arcane check.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Imagine casting the light cantrip on a bag of marbles or beans. Then dumping the bag and scattering them. Or leaving a trail of them in a maze.*

What if it were ball bearings in the bag? Or sand?

It does not matter what is in the bag because you cast the spell on the bag, not what is inside it, and only the bag would continue to glow after you dumped it out.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Two spells for the price of one isn't a reason not to? Particularly since it's a spell that doesn't normally let you have more than one instance of it going at the same time? No, it's not a major thing. It's just a cantrip. But OKing it might open the door to abuses that are major. I would not allow it.

I would rule that breaking the stick means that the spell ends.

I can understand that ruling. I just personally don't think that this would open the door to anything I'd worry about.

 

[Ganymede81]

The OP is essentially asking for a DM ruling here, as this scenario is not covered by the rules.

I'd ask the player which end of the stick was glowing, and then allow only that part of the stick to glow once it is split in half.

It does not matter what is in the bag because you cast the spell on the bag, not what is inside it, and only the bag would continue to glow after you dumped it out.

This just kicks the problem down the road. The problem is still there.

If you have trouble with the marble bag, instead imagine the light spell was cast on a cherry pie. Now imagine the spellcaster hurling handfuls of this glowing cherry pie onto dungeon walls.