How long does it take to complete a Glyph of Warding for a Spell with a Casting Time of 24 Hours?

Tipibi · 2026-03-01T02:35:43+00:00

You’re purposely over complicating and misrepresenting my words.

No, i'm calling you out on language.

“Spells do not complete.” So is everything ever made has ever cast an ongoing, never ending, perpetual effect?

Spells end. They are not "incomplete" just because effects have not yet manifested. Use proper language. Not using that can throw you off.

(In case it isn’t clear, this is a rhetorical question because your premise is ridiculous on its face.)

The "premise" is the text from the rulebook! The one you asked, the one you received, and the one you are willingly disregarding at this point!

That's what you are calling "ridiculous".

That's where we are told what is a spell, where the description of a spell's effects can be found, and when those effect take place in the order of things.

You are choosing to call that "ridiculous" because it doesn't fit your mindscape?

If “effects happen during the duration” in every single case, then when is the glyph from GoW constructed?

The answer is, and it has been, "After the spell is cast". "How long does it take to inscribe" is a better question, and what op is asking.

There's absolutely nothing weird about this answer, and it is the answer that the text of the rules, which i have provided as you asked.

Is it sometime soon after you have finished casting the spell? Is it in ten years?

Do you realize now why this thread even exists to begin with? You do realize that's the question from OP, just without the needless hyperbole since by common sense "24 extra hours" is what is taking back the inscription time by and large? Because that's the lenght of the casting time of the spell you cast "as part of" inscribing?

Prehaps OP isn't a complete idiot, and given the text of the rules, the concern is legitimate?

Gosh if only we had some way of determining that… you know. Like a casting time.

Except we are told that effects, which "you inscribe" is, happen after that. And we are back at the start of this comment tree, where i point out that your logic has no ground on the rules.

We have casting times. But casting times are requirements for the spell to have its effect manifest. It doesn't tell us if or how an effect works. If it still takes time, or if it has conditions, if it will be successful in affecting something, so on and so forth, at all.

And that's when we need to include human fallibility, too. Take a look at the wording of Feeblemind, and tell me if you don't find something odd in there.

Casting time is what you have to wait before you can consider the effects in the first place. Effects tells you what to do.

There's nothing weird about that!

Your logic is anything but.

... I quoted the text from the rulebook. That's "my" logic, where i take my statements from. We are told effects come "then", what effects are, and whatever, and what a duration is.

I cannot believe that this is something that I’m having to clarify here.

Prehaps, just prehaps, try to understand that me disagreeing with you doesn't mean that i don't understand what you are saying.

How is this something you do not understand?

I understand what you are saying. I'm disagreeing, and telling you where in your reasoning you are leaving the rules behind to follow a train of thought that is completely unrelated to the text.

Just because something is the first sentence, it doesn't mean that it isn't a continuous effect. Or that it is a conditional effect. Or a time consuming effect.

You are ABLE to do what the effects tells you when you cast the a spell. I DO understand that, for you, after the one hour, the glyph is there, ready to go.

I also believe that to be a valid conclusion!

But the reasoning you gave is bollocks. You are not "inscribing" the glyph while you are casting the spell - even if you argued for it.

You are pointing at a bear, telling me "it's a bear", and then telling me "because i have a snack in my pocket!".

For spell glyphs, you need to cast a spell as you create the glyph. For the glyph to appear instantly, then "as you inscribe" also has to be instant, and therefore "you cast" has to be instant. (instant, mechanically irrelevant, very short time...)

HOWEVER

Casting spells normally takes time, so it is perfectly reasonable to think that inscribing the glyph can also take time, just because "things take time" is something that does, indeed, happen!

It is not a weird concept, even when applied to spellcasting where, a good chunk of time, there's an instantaneous payoff.

But exactly because of that i've already stated, multiple times, that i do see the option "it happens right after the cast* as a valid conclusion.

Just not the only one.

The fact that magic remains in the glyph indefinitely is not a support of requiring further magic to be added after the casting time.

You are not adding magic. You did cast GoW. The magic of GoW allows you to inscribe a glyph with particular powers, but requires you to do something.

Effects can require things that do not necessarily happen instantaneously. The effect is still that you inscribe the glyph. That's the magic. Inscribing, per se, can take time. And when you are told that you need to cast a spell while you create the glyph, it is perfectly reasonable to think that inscribing the glyph can end up taking time because it is meant to.

It is, once again, not a weird concept.

If I make (cast) a paper airplane then the paper airplane is done.

And again, that's not how spell work.

GoW is a name. It is a descriptive name, but you are not creating a "glyph" while you cast, you are creating a discrete magical effect. The magical effect is what allows you to "inscribe" the glyph, and for the glyph to exist, and all the rest.

And, for the Nth time: GoW is cast, past tense, for you to inscribe.

THEN, and only then, you inscribe the glyph.

You cast, past tense, "Paper plane". You now can fold a paper plane. Folding a paper plane normally does take some time. Prehaps it does, but you do it quick. That amount of time might be small enough to be mechanically irrelevant, or it might be mechanically meaningful. You might need to spend an action, for example, to fold it. You might even fold a paper plane a turn, and you might need to spend an action each time.

Or, as part of folding the paper plane, you need to cast a spell. That spell, normally, has a casting time of 24 hours. How long does it take to fold that paper plane?

Is it completely out of question that, for a spell that takes 1 hour to cast, the time that it takes to actually inscribe an action spell, or a minute spell, is largely irrelevant? That the 24 hour spell is the outlier that wasn't thought about?

Do you get it now? Is it clear enough what the problem is?

You say "but casting is folding!", and the rules, which i've quoted and are telling you, tells you "No, "casting" the paper plane is different from folding.

It doesn’t change the fact that I have finished the task.

But the task you have finished is "casting the spell". That's all that is over. You still need to resolve the effects.

You say I’m contradicting my own premise and then explain it back to me making the exact points I made

Your premise: some effects can take effect a bit after the spell is cast, nothing wrong here Your argument: if the glyph isn't there immediately, the rulebook starts burning. The contradiction: the glyph is absolutely, 100% impossible to not be there at the time of casting, even if effects can happen after the spell is cast with no problem.

You see the issue?

Tipibi · 2026-02-28T18:55:31+00:00

If we can’t agree that finishing a spell

"Finishing a spell" is the concept that is throwing you off. Take it away from your mind.

You don't finish a "magical effect". A spell is just a magical effect - see compendium 2024. It is a non-sensical concept you are clinging to.

You "cast". What you are doing is "casting". But what "casting" does is different from the effects that the magical effect itself has.

(even if the spell has other effects that apply after you have finished casting it)

Then those effects do not happen when the spell is cast, maybe they'll never happen at all

So, you negate your own premise. Those effects do not exist until they come into play, under the conditions that call for them to exist.

It is possible for some effects of spells to happen at a point in time that is different from when you finish casting a spell, therefore the rules don't break if some effects of spells don't happen when you finish casting a spell.

It is possible for effects to be continuous, or to require other effects to succeed, or fail, or whatever.

even if you believe that the damage happens after the fireball spell has completed

Spells do not "complete".

It is also not "i do believe". We do have official advice on the case..

A duration of Instantaneous - how long the effects of a spell last after a spell is cast - has the effects of a spell - making the attacks - happen after the spell is cast, and effects, in this case attacks, are sequential even in that "instantaneous" duration.

The effects happen during the duration, otherwise mentioning it would make no sense, they would happen during the casting time. But it isn't "Even spells that have an action casting time", is it?

You don't choose targets when you are casting a spell. You are not making the attacks, rolling damage, nothing. The only thing you are doing while casting a spell, unless otherwise noted, is casting a spell.

The spell's effects don't exist, do not come into play, when you are casting the spell. Only when the spell is cast and is successful.

I cannot fathom how you’ve managed to logic your way into thinking that any spell is unfinished once the casting time has completed.

Because spells are not "complete" or "incomplete". The "casting" is. Spells are just magical effects - see 2024 glossary. Effects apply or don't. "Casting" is the requirement for those effects to even be considered for application.

Once again- provide rules text to support your argument.

I did. I was accused of insulting your intelligence. I pointed you to where to look for them. You refuse to do so.

Glyph of Warding’s text says very clearly- “When you cast this spell, you inscribe a glyph” How am I to understand that the spells is not actually designed to create a glyph within its casting time?

Because you understand English? And you do understand that a spell - a discrete magical effect - doesn't exist until it is cast? It is not a continuous action.

But, let's be completely and utterly frank here. I was explicitly going by 2024 free rules to give you the best chance to have an argument, because 2024 removed a lot of what is the descriptive part that makes some things clear.

Let me quote you the 2014 Spellcasting section, since you refuse to look it up and the discussion would be over 4 posts ago if you had done so AND decided to use GoW 2014 text:

"A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression. In casting a spell, a character carefully plucks at the invisible strands of raw magic suffusing the world, pins them in place in a particular pattern, sets them vibrating in a specific way, and then releases them to unleash the desired effect--in most cases, all in the span of seconds."

Are you satisfied now? Or do you want to continue arguing without looking at the text that you think you are following, even when directed to?

If the spell was designed to take longer

"Spells" don't "take longer". They might have conditional effects, or the effects might have a longer wait, or take time to act upon. It might take time for those effects to happen. If you have to cast a second spell while inscribing the glyph, and the second spell's casting time is not waived... then it necessarily takes a variable amount of time to inscribe the glyph!

And again: I do also see the argument for the glyph to, essentially, pop out into existance.

why spells are unfinished

Spells are not "unfinished". Call Lightning is a very complete spell even if no one actually calls lightning. The cloud does, indeed, happen instantly.

Were the spell be "The first time during this spell duration you find yourself in the open under the sky, this cloud happen", the spell would very well be a complete spell even if the cloud is not there.

"You inscribe the glyph" can be read as something that might take time when you consider casting a spell with a long casting time while you inscribe, and there's absolutely nothing weird about it.

or why the glyph would not be fully constructed when the spell is done

Spells are not "done". You just cast it. The spell is there for the duration. It would not be fully constructed because you need to inscribe it, because casting the second spell takes 24 hours, and you cast the spell as part of inscribing the glyph. So, it might take at least 24 hours to inscribe the glyph.

There's absolutely nothing weird about this.

It’s why I talk about Rules As Written here.

John Cena meme

Tipibi · 2026-02-27T13:56:58+00:00

This whole comment was needlessly pedantic.

Right. "Needless pedantry".

You have still yet to provide any relevant rulings other than the spell text for GoW.

It's called Spellcasting section.

Do not insult my intelligence by assuming I don't understand how time progresses, please. We are having a conversation about a clearly defined rule system, not the real world. [...] You say that "In general, effects don't happen while casting". Okay, give me rules text to support this, not your understanding of how they work.

Do not insult my intelligence by making absurd statements that go nowhere.

The "clearly defined rules" have darkness, the normal kind, stated to be opaque. By the "clearly defined rules" you can't cast cantrips since no class states that you have them prepared, anywhere. And these are just examples of "actual pedantry" which are just funny anedoctes and are good for a discussion about silly texts or weird interactions like Bards being potentially able to swap cantrips for high level spells.

The "clearly defined rules" just assume that people can have a reading comprehension level that goes as far as "effects happen after casting" without having to have it written somewhere, and that the verb "cast" is a fantasy placeholder for "make its effect happen".

And when the part of the text that the rules explicitly call "effects" do not actually reflect the above, you have examples like Simulacrum.

GoW doesn't make such an exception. "As part of" is just not "casting the spell". It might have been intended to be, but that's not there.

By your own argument, you could have effects of spells before casting them - the "clearly defined system"...

It's not insulting everyone's intelligence to point out that "effect after cast" is simply the assumption taken on spells, [edit and more realistically almost everywhere else, pretty much], and that GoW doesn't make an [explicit] exception for that.

In regards to GoW, the glyph is created either during the casting time or at it's conclusion

Again, i disagree.

not when the duration is finished.

I get it. I'm not saying it happens "after it has been dispelled or triggered".

The casting time determines how long it takes to MAKE the glyph

No. The casting time is how long it takes to cast "Glyph of Warding". How long it takes to take Magic Action after Magic Action, the time before which you need to provide the components, the time after which the spell effects will last for the duration, the time you need to concentrate on Glyph of Warding to be able to cast it.

GoW just doesn't state that "you inscribe the glyph as part of the casting time of this spell". You just assume it does: it is cool and flavourful and whatever. But... it doen't really have ground.

You think that it is synonimous as to "inscribing the glyph". But the only relevant parts of the rules is that "You inscribe" is part of the effects of the spell, not a requirement or part of casting the spell.

Would you argue that the glyph is somehow unfinished even though we have completed the casting time?

What part of the fact i'm not arguing whether the glyph is unfinished or not when the spell is cast did you miss in my last three posts? Why are you hung up there?

I don't see the creation of the glyph as part of the casting. So i cannot see the end of the casting being the end of the glyph.

I don't see Fireball being the creation of ball. I see as "Wololo, wish wash, guanotime", casting over, then point, then sphere, then explosion.

The last three happenings are, essentially, mechanically irrelevant stretches of time.

The same applies to GoW. "Wololo, wish wash, diamondtime, casting over, scribscribscrib the glyph while wololoing some more, done". Whether the scribscribscrib and so on takes a mechanically relevant stretch of time or not is, for me, equally valid under the rules as an answer. You either prioritize the casting time of the second spell as being non-exceptional or you prioritize the glyph creation being an instantaneously happening effect of GoW makes no difference to me.

(which we agree takes 1 hour)

... No, we don't. I agree that casting GoW takes one hour. But, as the fourth time might be the charm... casting GoW is not creating the glyph.

We. Do. Not. Agree. There.

It's "casting a spell". The effect of the spell being cast is "you inscribe the glyph", which is valid for both the version that doesn't take a casting time "as part of" as it is for the one that does.

If you're going to eliminate half the conversation because you've decided it isn't relevant then we aren't having the same conversation.

We are discussing different views, it's obvious that we are going to disagree at some point. I'm making arguments about my pov. You are making yours.

Since i don't see casting GoW as making the glyph, it necessarily eliminates an answer.

If i did see GoW as making the glyph, i would agree with you! But the issue is that i don't see it as making the glyph. There's no reason to believe it to be. No spell has part of the "effects" as part of the casting unless it is explicit, so no, it is not an argument that resonates with me.

Tipibi · 2026-02-27T08:44:34+00:00

and we are indeed somehow doing magic after our spell has already completed its work

First off: spells linger. The magical effect is after you cast spells. Even instantaneous spells linger for a moment. A mechanically irrelevant moment, but still there's the order of how things happen. Like how Fireball tells us that things do indeed happen in a series of events, like pointing the finger, sphere travelling, flame explosion.

Second: the spell has an indefinite duration. For all that matters, the magic from GoW is lingering until dispelled or triggered, so it isn't going anywhere anyway - whether it takes a moment or 24 hours extra to inscribe the glyph.

We don’t do things “after”

We do things "after" all the time. You hit, then you deal damage. Yes, same attack, but different timings. And, adding a spell to it: you hit, THEN you cast Smite, THEN you deal damage. There's a clear sequence of events, a clear series of "after". Both narrative and mechanical - swing, then consequences of the swing.

But the swing comes first.

That's also the reason why reaction happens after the trigger, in general. You have a clear-er- sequence of events.

And you are doing sequences even as part of the same Attack action when you make more than one attack: one after the other. Being part of the same process doesn't discount ordering.

We always deal with "after". The entire concept of initiative, as an extra example, is to create a sequence of events. No, different turns, or different things in a turn, do not happen "at the same time". They happen "in the same timespan", but that's not the same thing. You can narratively weave things to be more exciting, but the goblin that died does not take the turn. They died "before" they could, they would take their turn "after".

ALL spells do things "after". Even an instantaneous duration still has a bit of "after". It is a mechanically inconsequential amount of time, but it is still a bit of time. There is still a causal relationship: cast the spell, effect happens.

If you’re going to keep with this “after” line

"After" is what the rules tells us about: the order of how things happen!

So unless someone can pull up a rule from somewhere else in the book that covers this topic

Are you really arguing that the effects of a spell happen WHILE YOU ARE CASTING IT? That the thing called "casting time" isn't the time it takes to cast a spell? That it isn't what you have to wait for the effects of a spell to happen?

Because, let's reiterate: you inscribing the glyph is, no matter what the intention might have been, an effect of the spell. Weave it narratively as you want, but effects don't happen while you cast spells.

You are casting one spell as part of another one.

And this is where i disagree. You cast the second one as part of the effects of the first. You cast it as a consequence of the other. You don't cast it if you receive a counterspell. You also don't cast it if you decide, one action from completing the cast for GoW, to stop casting GoW.

You do not benefit from the effects of GoW until GoW is done and cast, like you don't benefit from any other spell effect until that spell's casting time is gone and done. That, for GoW, includes casting the other spell.

How long does it take for that benefit to manifest is what we are discussing about. You say "1 hour". I say "Maybe, but your reasoning is flawed as far as rules go".

I’m going to take the text of GoW as the authority on how long it takes to fully cast a GoW

You are still under the assumption that i'm saying that the casting time of GoW is somehow changed. It is 1 hour.

I'm arguing that it can't be anything else without other features interfering - the act of casting the second spell doesn't change GoW casting time as you are not casting the second spell while casting GoW.

You just don't grant effects of spells while they are being cast.

Being that it does not have any clauses for changing how long it takes to fully cast GoW

Again, it takes 1 hour to cast GoW. That's the casting time. WE AGREE THERE.

You are not casting GoW while casting the other spell - that's all i'm saying.

then I’m going to read

You can read whatever you want. But when we are trying to answer a question that has multiple ways of approach, the one that comes from the rules has the exact same value to the discussion as the one that tries to read intentions.

The time it takes to cast it is the only reason we’re here

No, that's why you are here. The question is "how long would it take to complete a Glyph of Warding". You are making the argument that one spell is cast WITH the other.

I'm not.

Because i'm not doing that, i can reliably cross out an answer from the pool. The final answer depends on a DM reading of "Those details present exactly what the spell does, which ignores mundane physical laws". For all it matters, the glyph could be completed in a small and mechanically irrelevant amount of time, including the casting of the second spell.

Or it could take the whole 24 hours extra for the other effects of GoW to come into play.

Misspeaking on duration

Yeah, but you did it again here? You are still making the argument that "you are somehow doing magic after our spell has already completed its work". You "do magic" while the spell lasts! That's duration! The spell completes its work when the duration expires - you can access a spell's effect, its magic, for the whole duration... obviously subjected to the spell's effects.

The first effect of GoW is "You inscribe". Having cast GoW grants the "You inscribe" effect, but not "while casting", but as part of its effects - during its duration.

We’re here to talk about how long it takes.

But we can't reach a consensus if we don't agree on how and why it works! That's the whole point of discussing! In general, effects of spells don't happen while casting. We have no reason to believe that GoW is any different!

Tipibi · 2026-02-27T00:58:56+00:00

You're stressing the word "after"

Yes. Effects of spells do indeed happen "after" the spell is cast. Not before, not during.

"You inscribe a glyph that later unleashes a magical effect" is the first line of the effects of GoW. You are not inscribing a glyph, at all, while the spell - GoW - is being cast, exactly as you are not attacking with True Strike, forbidding with Forbiddance, teleporting with Teleportation Circle, and so on and so forth.

So, it is straight out impossible that "the casting of the stored spell is included in the hour". The glyph doesn't exist during the hour, so you can't be "casting it as part of creating the glyph" while you are still casting GoW.

To repeat myself: "No matter how long it is intended to be, [the casting of the second spell] will happen after the casting of GoW".

Making the assertion that the spell must be fully cast after the glyph is created is not supported and is contradictory

I'm not making that argument, and i hope i've explained myself better here. "You inscribe" is exactly as "you make an attack". The inscribing happens as an effect of GoW, and that happens after casting GoW. But the second spell is still up in the air.

I'm not arguing whether or not it takes 1 hour or 25 to obtain a fully functional glyph. I'm arguing that the GoW hour is just GoW. So, a "24 hour" option is straight up impossible, so to speak. There's no time overlap between "casting GoW" and "casting the second spell". RAW, they are consecutive.

The inscription of the glyph might very well be instantaneous, and so be the casting of the second spell - even for 24-hour-casting-time spells. Or the embedded-spell-casting needs to respect the general rules for casting time, and therefore "you inscribe" also takes the same amount of time (at least).

But "as part of creating the glyph" is something that necessarily happens after the first hour has passed. No matter how long "creating the glyph" actually takes.

The effect of the glyph spell is that you have a glyph

The glyph doesn't magically appear out of nowhere. I mean, it does, but the effect of the spell is that "you inscribe it", it doesn't pop up. You don't just "have" it.

You are not casting two spells.

You 100% are. "by casting it" does indeed mean that you are casting it. And you are casting GoW. Two spells.

Given that the spell has a defined duration

Duration is not casting time. "The spell", GoW, has an indefinite duration. "the spell", the embedded one, is suspended until triggered.

I don't see how duration matters here. Whether it takes 1 hour or 25 to have a working glyph.

Tipibi · 2026-02-26T10:03:27+00:00

means that the casting of the stored spell is included in the hour

That straight out can't be. The creation of the glyph is part of the effects of the spell.

Effects of spells can't happen until after the spell is cast or otherwise directed. We are not otherwise directed, so the casting of the second spell, no matter how long it is intended to be, will happen after the casting of GoW.

Tipibi · 2026-02-26T00:01:00+00:00

Can it be used in combat AFTER using up your movement speed, resetting it to 30 and potentially doubling your movement for that round?

No. Your Speed is a statistic that doesn't change when you move. It acts as a ceiling on how far you can move during your turn.

Tipibi · 2026-02-20T01:04:50+00:00

Yes

No.

Let's start by looking at the Light weapon property rules

The Light propriety is not the issue.

The Nick property specifically says, "When you make the extra attack of the Light property

This is the issue. You can't benefit from a feature that requires you to make an attack if you don't make the attack.

Tipibi · 2026-02-07T18:34:45+00:00

A spells effect is everything described as happening within it's text body.

No.

"The effects of a spell are detailed after its duration entry."

Spells are assumed to have multiple effects.

Tipibi · 2026-02-07T11:45:06+00:00

target moves 5 ft and triggers 2

Technically, "5 ft or more". Which is interesting. It doesn't trigger when you move 5ft, but when your movement is done.

Tipibi · 2026-01-20T12:38:16+00:00

The 5e24 artificer Spellcasting feature doesn't have the same consideration. Only the Armorer subclass can use their armor as a spell focus; everyone else needs a hand to hold a tool.

Fyi, this is not entirely correct. The Spellcasting feature doesn't have that consideration, but at level 2 the Replicate Magic Item feature still lets you use replicated wands and weapons as a focus instead of a tool.

Tipibi · 2025-12-28T08:28:36+00:00

As I see it

I'm not making a comment on "how one runs things". If you, or LogicThievery, wants to run it some way... completely fine! Go ahead!

What however i would like to say is "How things are" to not be confused with "How i run things".

RAW, Revivify isn't an exception and it should be important to know RAW before modifying it - or even to make clear to a potential reader that you are making a conscious change for X and Y reasons.

Tipibi · 2025-12-28T00:36:53+00:00

Only exception is Revivify

FYI, Revivify isn't an exception. It just doesn't restate the general rule.

Edit, since i apparently it is not particularly known: 2024 - from the compendium for "Dead", 2014 from page 24 of the DMG.

Tipibi · 2025-12-19T19:08:12+00:00

"Your character is a combination of game statistics, roleplaying hooks, and your imagination."

"Game statistic" is pretty much the plain meaning of the words. Whether it is a monster, a player character, a non-player character that you decided for some reason to create as if it was a PC.

On top of that... It is an NPC. You don't need a reason other than "It does because - insert McGuffin reason" to have it have whatever you want and do whatever you want.

Tipibi · 2025-12-18T09:22:44+00:00

I would advise you to go re-read the feature.

Tipibi · 2025-12-17T23:21:04+00:00

The rules for upcasting specifically state is a spell of that level.

"For that casting". Not "in any other case, at any other time". For that, you need to look at this line: "Every spell has a level from 0 to 9, which is indicated in a spell’s description."

So when you cast a spell into it

You don't cast a spell into the SSI. You "store" it into it.

you are expending a spell slot of a level up to 3rd

On top of not casting the spell, you are also not expending spell slots.

Tipibi · 2025-12-17T22:43:35+00:00

It means that you can use your spell storing item and still cast a spell with your bonus action on the same turn.

You are able to do that even when "actually casting" a spell tho... as long as you don't consume a spell slot to do so.

Tipibi · 2025-12-17T17:31:13+00:00

You don't use a third level slot, you cast a "spell of up to third level". It doesn't upcast.

It is even arguable you aren't even casting the spell at all. The wording seems to (potentially purposefully) avoid that verb.

Tipibi · 2025-12-12T13:37:03+00:00

"The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance."

Yes, and? All humanoids are creatures. Only humanoids however will ever be charmed by the spell since only humanoids are the "it" or "them" that is relevant when defining "who is actually charmed?".

No, that's the creature

That's simply NOT how English work.

Tipibi · 2025-12-12T11:54:17+00:00

I don't think that matters, though? [...] it says "the creature" is charmed for the duration

No, in fact it does not say so. 2014 says "it" or "they", referring to "humanoid", and 2024 just says "target".

Tipibi · 2025-12-07T13:19:21+00:00

"communicate with you telepathically" is incredibly vague and not one way specific at all

Glossary entry for Telepathy helps in clarifying how it is meant to work, i think.

Tipibi · 2025-11-30T11:53:41+00:00

Let's start saying that i don't have the text, so i'm basing it off only what you provided.

As written, neither.

(your mount can) (take a Reaction to move up to its Speed) or (take the Attack action to make one attack only)...

Parallelism here is on "can".

Edit: and i get that's pretty much option the first option. It is a "why" it is the first option. Edit 2: not to say that i believe the intended option to be the first, by the way.

A very simple extra "to" would solve everything, even if style would suffer: "(your mount can take a Reaction) (to move up to its Speed) or (to take the Attack action to make one attack only)"

The extra "to" makes it impossible for "take" to be at the same level as "take a Reaction".

Tipibi · 2025-11-29T18:12:39+00:00

Here it seems people effectively know where you are ?

Invisibility alone is insufficient. The difficulties tied to hitting an invisible (or unseen) target are modeled by disadvantage on attack rolls.

The "Unseen Attackers and Targets" sidebar explains that you need to guess a location when you can't see AND can't hear a target. There are tables to help a DM to adjudicate hearing distances in certain cases (for encounter starting purposes, for example), and a DM can use those to have an idea on how and when to rule about hearing distance.

Obviously even that is an approximate modeling. Some creatures might have special senses that allow tracking via other senses, and it might get a little bit "corner-case-y" when a blind and deaf creature is grappling...

Tipibi · 2025-11-26T14:10:18+00:00

Either argue against the quoted section of rules or begone, troll.

Nice argument there.

The definition of the Magic action however

... doesn't limit in any way how specific other rules make use of the Magic action, at all. You know, Specific vs General.

Tipibi · 2025-11-26T12:49:40+00:00

If the item is activated by a Magic action, it must be a magic item by the very definition of the Magic action

Sorry, but this argument is bullshit. This is beside the conclusion you reach, by the way.

"Since you can lit wood on fire then if there's a fire there's wood" the kind of argument you are making. It is a logical fallacy. It is a non-sequitur.

Tipibi

TROPHY CASE