Mixing
Do the eyes need to be in the corpse for Gentle Repose to work?
$begingroup$
For the spell Gentle Repose, the components of the spell say:
Components: V, S, M (a pinch of salt and one copper
piece placed on each of the corpse's eyes, which must
remain there for the duration)
If a player wanted to use the spell for preservation of materials like a Dragon Heart but not carry an entire dragon with them, could they remove the dragon's eyes, tie the copper pieces around them, and carry both eyes and the heart (tied together) with them? Additionally, because the copper pieces are not actually consumed, does this matter at all if a spellcasting focus is used?
dnd-5e spells spell-components
edited Jan 27 at 9:11
lightcat
5,44212362
asked Jan 27 at 5:34
RallozarXRallozarX
63413
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For the spell Gentle Repose, the components of the spell say:
Components: V, S, M (a pinch of salt and one copper
piece placed on each of the corpse's eyes, which must
remain there for the duration)
If a player wanted to use the spell for preservation of materials like a Dragon Heart but not carry an entire dragon with them, could they remove the dragon's eyes, tie the copper pieces around them, and carry both eyes and the heart (tied together) with them? Additionally, because the copper pieces are not actually consumed, does this matter at all if a spellcasting focus is used?
dnd-5e spells spell-components
edited Jan 27 at 9:11
lightcat
5,44212362
asked Jan 27 at 5:34
RallozarXRallozarX
63413
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
related question considering material components rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/138808
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 27 at 9:48
$begingroup$
also see rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/136403
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 27 at 9:49
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For the spell Gentle Repose, the components of the spell say:
Components: V, S, M (a pinch of salt and one copper
piece placed on each of the corpse's eyes, which must
remain there for the duration)
If a player wanted to use the spell for preservation of materials like a Dragon Heart but not carry an entire dragon with them, could they remove the dragon's eyes, tie the copper pieces around them, and carry both eyes and the heart (tied together) with them? Additionally, because the copper pieces are not actually consumed, does this matter at all if a spellcasting focus is used?
dnd-5e spells spell-components
edited Jan 27 at 9:11
lightcat
5,44212362
asked Jan 27 at 5:34
RallozarXRallozarX
63413
$endgroup$
For the spell Gentle Repose, the components of the spell say:
Components: V, S, M (a pinch of salt and one copper
piece placed on each of the corpse's eyes, which must
remain there for the duration)
If a player wanted to use the spell for preservation of materials like a Dragon Heart but not carry an entire dragon with them, could they remove the dragon's eyes, tie the copper pieces around them, and carry both eyes and the heart (tied together) with them? Additionally, because the copper pieces are not actually consumed, does this matter at all if a spellcasting focus is used?
dnd-5e spells spell-components
dnd-5e spells spell-components
edited Jan 27 at 9:11
lightcat
5,44212362
asked Jan 27 at 5:34
RallozarXRallozarX
63413
edited Jan 27 at 9:11
lightcat
5,44212362
asked Jan 27 at 5:34
RallozarXRallozarX
63413
edited Jan 27 at 9:11
lightcat
5,44212362
edited Jan 27 at 9:11
lightcat
5,44212362
edited Jan 27 at 9:11
lightcat
5,44212362
5,44212362
asked Jan 27 at 5:34
RallozarXRallozarX
63413
asked Jan 27 at 5:34
RallozarXRallozarX
63413
asked Jan 27 at 5:34
RallozarXRallozarX
63413
63413
1
$begingroup$
related question considering material components rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/138808
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 27 at 9:48
$begingroup$
also see rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/136403
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 27 at 9:49
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
related question considering material components rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/138808
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 27 at 9:48
$begingroup$
also see rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/136403
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 27 at 9:49
1
1
$begingroup$
related question considering material components rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/138808
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 27 at 9:48
$begingroup$
related question considering material components rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/138808
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 27 at 9:48
$begingroup$
also see rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/136403
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 27 at 9:49
$begingroup$
also see rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/136403
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 27 at 9:49
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You don't need the eyes to preserve only the heart.
There are two kinds of targets for this spell. A corpse or other remains. The spell states (emphasis mine):
You touch a corpse or other remains. For the duration, the target is protected from decay and can't become undead.
As a note to the material component aspect the description adds:
(a pinch of salt and one copper piece placed on each of the corpse's eyes, which must remain there for the duration)
The note about placing the copper pieces on the eyes is for a corpse only. It says "On each of the corpse's eyes." The corpse has already been established as one of two potential targets.
In the example provided you are targeting a heart, which would fall under the category of other remains.
If you're not preserving a corpse you don't need to place the copper on the eyes. You don't need the eyes at all.
answered Jan 27 at 9:08
lightcatlightcat
5,44212362
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I would still recemend talking to DM and using the above answer as a recemendation, from what I have been looking though for spells or etc there is no RAW ruling saying that if a spell has multiple options but the flavor for components only makes sense for one option that its not necessary for both. Generally most DMs will go with it but I've had a few with chip on shoulder toward magic as solution to problems. Good answer though lighcat+1
$endgroup$
– Deceptecium
Jan 27 at 9:25
1
$begingroup$
@deceptecium What you say is sensible, however I'm not basing this answer on "what makes sense," I'm basing it on what the spell description clearly states.
$endgroup$
– lightcat
Jan 27 at 9:28
$begingroup$
Mhmm and that's good I just wanted to clarify for the person asking in case They are relatively new. And although sometimes it might clearly state to you doesnt mean the person dming will see it as clear. For me personally I hand wave any cost less than 50 gp because tracking materials isn't something I enjoy until it's something like a sapphire rod worth x thousand. This was in no way against your answer it was merely adding on that in the hand no matter how clear a ruling is you still talk to dm just to make sure.
$endgroup$
– Deceptecium
Jan 27 at 9:34
$begingroup$
Thanks for clarifying. I did not take it as "against my answer" and even if it were I'm happy to receive criticism. I agree, talking to GM is always a good idea. Also good idea to have your position supported by the language of the rules and to show that to your GM if there is disagreement. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– lightcat
Jan 27 at 9:47
$begingroup$
The material component doesn't say "on the corpse's eyes if using the spell on a corpse".
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
Jan 27 at 23:24
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
The answer will be up to the DM on whether the eyes need to be in socket or etc.
There isn't really any good way to give an answer other than "ask your DM".
If using a focus and any material cost is indicated in the description, the caster must have the specific component.
I am not sure if it's a cost; it doesn't sound like it, but if using a focus you might still have to have at least 2 copper on you for each casting of spell.(The copper isn't consumed, so recycle copper to save miners trouble.)
edited Jan 27 at 6:09
V2Blast
25.5k486156
answered Jan 27 at 6:06
DecepteciumDeceptecium
1,071319
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Related to your second point: Do I need to hold an actual copper piece in order to cast Detect Thoughts?
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Jan 27 at 6:10
$begingroup$
Page 203 phb. Material section says a character must have the Specefic component before they can cast spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free for the component-or to hold spell casting focus. (Since the or is there) I would say no. Worst case scenario just hold a copper piece with your focus , since your allowed to do somatic with same hand as focus or material component just juggle all 3 haha
$endgroup$
– Deceptecium
Jan 27 at 6:16
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f139939%2fdo-the-eyes-need-to-be-in-the-corpse-for-gentle-repose-to-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You don't need the eyes to preserve only the heart.
There are two kinds of targets for this spell. A corpse or other remains. The spell states (emphasis mine):
You touch a corpse or other remains. For the duration, the target is protected from decay and can't become undead.
As a note to the material component aspect the description adds:
(a pinch of salt and one copper piece placed on each of the corpse's eyes, which must remain there for the duration)
The note about placing the copper pieces on the eyes is for a corpse only. It says "On each of the corpse's eyes." The corpse has already been established as one of two potential targets.
In the example provided you are targeting a heart, which would fall under the category of other remains.
If you're not preserving a corpse you don't need to place the copper on the eyes. You don't need the eyes at all.
answered Jan 27 at 9:08
lightcatlightcat
5,44212362
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I would still recemend talking to DM and using the above answer as a recemendation, from what I have been looking though for spells or etc there is no RAW ruling saying that if a spell has multiple options but the flavor for components only makes sense for one option that its not necessary for both. Generally most DMs will go with it but I've had a few with chip on shoulder toward magic as solution to problems. Good answer though lighcat+1
$endgroup$
– Deceptecium
Jan 27 at 9:25
1
$begingroup$
@deceptecium What you say is sensible, however I'm not basing this answer on "what makes sense," I'm basing it on what the spell description clearly states.
$endgroup$
– lightcat
Jan 27 at 9:28
$begingroup$
Mhmm and that's good I just wanted to clarify for the person asking in case They are relatively new. And although sometimes it might clearly state to you doesnt mean the person dming will see it as clear. For me personally I hand wave any cost less than 50 gp because tracking materials isn't something I enjoy until it's something like a sapphire rod worth x thousand. This was in no way against your answer it was merely adding on that in the hand no matter how clear a ruling is you still talk to dm just to make sure.
$endgroup$
– Deceptecium
Jan 27 at 9:34
$begingroup$
Thanks for clarifying. I did not take it as "against my answer" and even if it were I'm happy to receive criticism. I agree, talking to GM is always a good idea. Also good idea to have your position supported by the language of the rules and to show that to your GM if there is disagreement. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– lightcat
Jan 27 at 9:47
$begingroup$
The material component doesn't say "on the corpse's eyes if using the spell on a corpse".
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
Jan 27 at 23:24
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
You don't need the eyes to preserve only the heart.
There are two kinds of targets for this spell. A corpse or other remains. The spell states (emphasis mine):
You touch a corpse or other remains. For the duration, the target is protected from decay and can't become undead.
As a note to the material component aspect the description adds:
(a pinch of salt and one copper piece placed on each of the corpse's eyes, which must remain there for the duration)
The note about placing the copper pieces on the eyes is for a corpse only. It says "On each of the corpse's eyes." The corpse has already been established as one of two potential targets.
In the example provided you are targeting a heart, which would fall under the category of other remains.
If you're not preserving a corpse you don't need to place the copper on the eyes. You don't need the eyes at all.
answered Jan 27 at 9:08
lightcatlightcat
5,44212362
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I would still recemend talking to DM and using the above answer as a recemendation, from what I have been looking though for spells or etc there is no RAW ruling saying that if a spell has multiple options but the flavor for components only makes sense for one option that its not necessary for both. Generally most DMs will go with it but I've had a few with chip on shoulder toward magic as solution to problems. Good answer though lighcat+1
$endgroup$
– Deceptecium
Jan 27 at 9:25
1
$begingroup$
@deceptecium What you say is sensible, however I'm not basing this answer on "what makes sense," I'm basing it on what the spell description clearly states.
$endgroup$
– lightcat
Jan 27 at 9:28
$begingroup$
Mhmm and that's good I just wanted to clarify for the person asking in case They are relatively new. And although sometimes it might clearly state to you doesnt mean the person dming will see it as clear. For me personally I hand wave any cost less than 50 gp because tracking materials isn't something I enjoy until it's something like a sapphire rod worth x thousand. This was in no way against your answer it was merely adding on that in the hand no matter how clear a ruling is you still talk to dm just to make sure.
$endgroup$
– Deceptecium
Jan 27 at 9:34
$begingroup$
Thanks for clarifying. I did not take it as "against my answer" and even if it were I'm happy to receive criticism. I agree, talking to GM is always a good idea. Also good idea to have your position supported by the language of the rules and to show that to your GM if there is disagreement. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– lightcat
Jan 27 at 9:47
$begingroup$
The material component doesn't say "on the corpse's eyes if using the spell on a corpse".
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
Jan 27 at 23:24
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
You don't need the eyes to preserve only the heart.
There are two kinds of targets for this spell. A corpse or other remains. The spell states (emphasis mine):
You touch a corpse or other remains. For the duration, the target is protected from decay and can't become undead.
As a note to the material component aspect the description adds:
(a pinch of salt and one copper piece placed on each of the corpse's eyes, which must remain there for the duration)
The note about placing the copper pieces on the eyes is for a corpse only. It says "On each of the corpse's eyes." The corpse has already been established as one of two potential targets.
In the example provided you are targeting a heart, which would fall under the category of other remains.
If you're not preserving a corpse you don't need to place the copper on the eyes. You don't need the eyes at all.
answered Jan 27 at 9:08
lightcatlightcat
5,44212362
$endgroup$
You don't need the eyes to preserve only the heart.
There are two kinds of targets for this spell. A corpse or other remains. The spell states (emphasis mine):
You touch a corpse or other remains. For the duration, the target is protected from decay and can't become undead.
As a note to the material component aspect the description adds:
(a pinch of salt and one copper piece placed on each of the corpse's eyes, which must remain there for the duration)
The note about placing the copper pieces on the eyes is for a corpse only. It says "On each of the corpse's eyes." The corpse has already been established as one of two potential targets.
In the example provided you are targeting a heart, which would fall under the category of other remains.
If you're not preserving a corpse you don't need to place the copper on the eyes. You don't need the eyes at all.
answered Jan 27 at 9:08
lightcatlightcat
5,44212362
edited Jan 27 at 9:14
answered Jan 27 at 9:08
lightcatlightcat
5,44212362
answered Jan 27 at 9:08
lightcatlightcat
5,44212362
answered Jan 27 at 9:08
lightcatlightcat
5,44212362
5,44212362
1
$begingroup$
I would still recemend talking to DM and using the above answer as a recemendation, from what I have been looking though for spells or etc there is no RAW ruling saying that if a spell has multiple options but the flavor for components only makes sense for one option that its not necessary for both. Generally most DMs will go with it but I've had a few with chip on shoulder toward magic as solution to problems. Good answer though lighcat+1
$endgroup$
– Deceptecium
Jan 27 at 9:25
1
$begingroup$
@deceptecium What you say is sensible, however I'm not basing this answer on "what makes sense," I'm basing it on what the spell description clearly states.
$endgroup$
– lightcat
Jan 27 at 9:28
$begingroup$
Mhmm and that's good I just wanted to clarify for the person asking in case They are relatively new. And although sometimes it might clearly state to you doesnt mean the person dming will see it as clear. For me personally I hand wave any cost less than 50 gp because tracking materials isn't something I enjoy until it's something like a sapphire rod worth x thousand. This was in no way against your answer it was merely adding on that in the hand no matter how clear a ruling is you still talk to dm just to make sure.
$endgroup$
– Deceptecium
Jan 27 at 9:34
$begingroup$
Thanks for clarifying. I did not take it as "against my answer" and even if it were I'm happy to receive criticism. I agree, talking to GM is always a good idea. Also good idea to have your position supported by the language of the rules and to show that to your GM if there is disagreement. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– lightcat
Jan 27 at 9:47
$begingroup$
The material component doesn't say "on the corpse's eyes if using the spell on a corpse".
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
Jan 27 at 23:24
|
show 1 more comment
1
$begingroup$
I would still recemend talking to DM and using the above answer as a recemendation, from what I have been looking though for spells or etc there is no RAW ruling saying that if a spell has multiple options but the flavor for components only makes sense for one option that its not necessary for both. Generally most DMs will go with it but I've had a few with chip on shoulder toward magic as solution to problems. Good answer though lighcat+1
$endgroup$
– Deceptecium
Jan 27 at 9:25
1
$begingroup$
@deceptecium What you say is sensible, however I'm not basing this answer on "what makes sense," I'm basing it on what the spell description clearly states.
$endgroup$
– lightcat
Jan 27 at 9:28
$begingroup$
Mhmm and that's good I just wanted to clarify for the person asking in case They are relatively new. And although sometimes it might clearly state to you doesnt mean the person dming will see it as clear. For me personally I hand wave any cost less than 50 gp because tracking materials isn't something I enjoy until it's something like a sapphire rod worth x thousand. This was in no way against your answer it was merely adding on that in the hand no matter how clear a ruling is you still talk to dm just to make sure.
$endgroup$
– Deceptecium
Jan 27 at 9:34
$begingroup$
Thanks for clarifying. I did not take it as "against my answer" and even if it were I'm happy to receive criticism. I agree, talking to GM is always a good idea. Also good idea to have your position supported by the language of the rules and to show that to your GM if there is disagreement. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– lightcat
Jan 27 at 9:47
$begingroup$
The material component doesn't say "on the corpse's eyes if using the spell on a corpse".
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
Jan 27 at 23:24
1
1
$begingroup$
I would still recemend talking to DM and using the above answer as a recemendation, from what I have been looking though for spells or etc there is no RAW ruling saying that if a spell has multiple options but the flavor for components only makes sense for one option that its not necessary for both. Generally most DMs will go with it but I've had a few with chip on shoulder toward magic as solution to problems. Good answer though lighcat+1
$endgroup$
– Deceptecium
Jan 27 at 9:25
$begingroup$
I would still recemend talking to DM and using the above answer as a recemendation, from what I have been looking though for spells or etc there is no RAW ruling saying that if a spell has multiple options but the flavor for components only makes sense for one option that its not necessary for both. Generally most DMs will go with it but I've had a few with chip on shoulder toward magic as solution to problems. Good answer though lighcat+1
$endgroup$
– Deceptecium
Jan 27 at 9:25
1
1
$begingroup$
@deceptecium What you say is sensible, however I'm not basing this answer on "what makes sense," I'm basing it on what the spell description clearly states.
$endgroup$
– lightcat
Jan 27 at 9:28
$begingroup$
@deceptecium What you say is sensible, however I'm not basing this answer on "what makes sense," I'm basing it on what the spell description clearly states.
$endgroup$
– lightcat
Jan 27 at 9:28
$begingroup$
Mhmm and that's good I just wanted to clarify for the person asking in case They are relatively new. And although sometimes it might clearly state to you doesnt mean the person dming will see it as clear. For me personally I hand wave any cost less than 50 gp because tracking materials isn't something I enjoy until it's something like a sapphire rod worth x thousand. This was in no way against your answer it was merely adding on that in the hand no matter how clear a ruling is you still talk to dm just to make sure.
$endgroup$
– Deceptecium
Jan 27 at 9:34
$begingroup$
Mhmm and that's good I just wanted to clarify for the person asking in case They are relatively new. And although sometimes it might clearly state to you doesnt mean the person dming will see it as clear. For me personally I hand wave any cost less than 50 gp because tracking materials isn't something I enjoy until it's something like a sapphire rod worth x thousand. This was in no way against your answer it was merely adding on that in the hand no matter how clear a ruling is you still talk to dm just to make sure.
$endgroup$
– Deceptecium
Jan 27 at 9:34
$begingroup$
Thanks for clarifying. I did not take it as "against my answer" and even if it were I'm happy to receive criticism. I agree, talking to GM is always a good idea. Also good idea to have your position supported by the language of the rules and to show that to your GM if there is disagreement. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– lightcat
Jan 27 at 9:47
$begingroup$
Thanks for clarifying. I did not take it as "against my answer" and even if it were I'm happy to receive criticism. I agree, talking to GM is always a good idea. Also good idea to have your position supported by the language of the rules and to show that to your GM if there is disagreement. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– lightcat
Jan 27 at 9:47
$begingroup$
The material component doesn't say "on the corpse's eyes if using the spell on a corpse".
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
Jan 27 at 23:24
$begingroup$
The material component doesn't say "on the corpse's eyes if using the spell on a corpse".
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
Jan 27 at 23:24
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
The answer will be up to the DM on whether the eyes need to be in socket or etc.
There isn't really any good way to give an answer other than "ask your DM".
If using a focus and any material cost is indicated in the description, the caster must have the specific component.
I am not sure if it's a cost; it doesn't sound like it, but if using a focus you might still have to have at least 2 copper on you for each casting of spell.(The copper isn't consumed, so recycle copper to save miners trouble.)
edited Jan 27 at 6:09
V2Blast
25.5k486156
answered Jan 27 at 6:06
DecepteciumDeceptecium
1,071319
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Related to your second point: Do I need to hold an actual copper piece in order to cast Detect Thoughts?
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Jan 27 at 6:10
$begingroup$
Page 203 phb. Material section says a character must have the Specefic component before they can cast spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free for the component-or to hold spell casting focus. (Since the or is there) I would say no. Worst case scenario just hold a copper piece with your focus , since your allowed to do somatic with same hand as focus or material component just juggle all 3 haha
$endgroup$
– Deceptecium
Jan 27 at 6:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The answer will be up to the DM on whether the eyes need to be in socket or etc.
There isn't really any good way to give an answer other than "ask your DM".
If using a focus and any material cost is indicated in the description, the caster must have the specific component.
I am not sure if it's a cost; it doesn't sound like it, but if using a focus you might still have to have at least 2 copper on you for each casting of spell.(The copper isn't consumed, so recycle copper to save miners trouble.)
edited Jan 27 at 6:09
V2Blast
25.5k486156
answered Jan 27 at 6:06
DecepteciumDeceptecium
1,071319
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Related to your second point: Do I need to hold an actual copper piece in order to cast Detect Thoughts?
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Jan 27 at 6:10
$begingroup$
Page 203 phb. Material section says a character must have the Specefic component before they can cast spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free for the component-or to hold spell casting focus. (Since the or is there) I would say no. Worst case scenario just hold a copper piece with your focus , since your allowed to do somatic with same hand as focus or material component just juggle all 3 haha
$endgroup$
– Deceptecium
Jan 27 at 6:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The answer will be up to the DM on whether the eyes need to be in socket or etc.
There isn't really any good way to give an answer other than "ask your DM".
If using a focus and any material cost is indicated in the description, the caster must have the specific component.
I am not sure if it's a cost; it doesn't sound like it, but if using a focus you might still have to have at least 2 copper on you for each casting of spell.(The copper isn't consumed, so recycle copper to save miners trouble.)
edited Jan 27 at 6:09
V2Blast
25.5k486156
answered Jan 27 at 6:06
DecepteciumDeceptecium
1,071319
$endgroup$
The answer will be up to the DM on whether the eyes need to be in socket or etc.
There isn't really any good way to give an answer other than "ask your DM".
If using a focus and any material cost is indicated in the description, the caster must have the specific component.
I am not sure if it's a cost; it doesn't sound like it, but if using a focus you might still have to have at least 2 copper on you for each casting of spell.(The copper isn't consumed, so recycle copper to save miners trouble.)
edited Jan 27 at 6:09
V2Blast
25.5k486156
answered Jan 27 at 6:06
DecepteciumDeceptecium
1,071319
edited Jan 27 at 6:09
V2Blast
25.5k486156
edited Jan 27 at 6:09
V2Blast
25.5k486156
edited Jan 27 at 6:09
V2Blast
25.5k486156
25.5k486156
answered Jan 27 at 6:06
DecepteciumDeceptecium
1,071319
answered Jan 27 at 6:06
DecepteciumDeceptecium
1,071319
answered Jan 27 at 6:06
DecepteciumDeceptecium
1,071319
1,071319
$begingroup$
Related to your second point: Do I need to hold an actual copper piece in order to cast Detect Thoughts?
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Jan 27 at 6:10
$begingroup$
Page 203 phb. Material section says a character must have the Specefic component before they can cast spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free for the component-or to hold spell casting focus. (Since the or is there) I would say no. Worst case scenario just hold a copper piece with your focus , since your allowed to do somatic with same hand as focus or material component just juggle all 3 haha
$endgroup$
– Deceptecium
Jan 27 at 6:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Related to your second point: Do I need to hold an actual copper piece in order to cast Detect Thoughts?
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Jan 27 at 6:10
$begingroup$
Page 203 phb. Material section says a character must have the Specefic component before they can cast spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free for the component-or to hold spell casting focus. (Since the or is there) I would say no. Worst case scenario just hold a copper piece with your focus , since your allowed to do somatic with same hand as focus or material component just juggle all 3 haha
$endgroup$
– Deceptecium
Jan 27 at 6:16
$begingroup$
Related to your second point: Do I need to hold an actual copper piece in order to cast Detect Thoughts?
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Jan 27 at 6:10
$begingroup$
Related to your second point: Do I need to hold an actual copper piece in order to cast Detect Thoughts?
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Jan 27 at 6:10
$begingroup$
Page 203 phb. Material section says a character must have the Specefic component before they can cast spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free for the component-or to hold spell casting focus. (Since the or is there) I would say no. Worst case scenario just hold a copper piece with your focus , since your allowed to do somatic with same hand as focus or material component just juggle all 3 haha
$endgroup$
– Deceptecium
Jan 27 at 6:16
$begingroup$
Page 203 phb. Material section says a character must have the Specefic component before they can cast spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free for the component-or to hold spell casting focus. (Since the or is there) I would say no. Worst case scenario just hold a copper piece with your focus , since your allowed to do somatic with same hand as focus or material component just juggle all 3 haha
$endgroup$
– Deceptecium
Jan 27 at 6:16
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f139939%2fdo-the-eyes-need-to-be-in-the-corpse-for-gentle-repose-to-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
related question considering material components rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/138808
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 27 at 9:48
$begingroup$
also see rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/136403
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 27 at 9:49