this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2025
167 points (94.2% liked)

RPGMemes

13912 readers
1037 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Dalimey@ttrpg.network
moondog@ttrpg.network
167
Those RAW-discussions are just gifts that keep on giving! (ttrpg.network)
submitted 4 days ago by jounniy@ttrpg.network to c/rpgmemes@ttrpg.network
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 30 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Yes.

You create a magical restraint to hold a creature that you can see within range.

While imprisoned, the target doesn’t need to breathe, eat, or drink, and it doesn’t age.

Until the spell ends, the target is also affected by one of the following effects of your choice:

The secondary effects in the case of immunity to Unconscious just wouldn't do much but the target is still under a magical restraint.

Now technically the magical restraint that holds the creature doesn't mechanically cause any particular condition. So depending on the definition of "held", this may or may not be a problem.

However it is worth noting that the spell also says the condition to end the spell must be something the DM agrees to AND is likely to happen in the next decade. So it won't be a cakewalk to be suddenly immune to aging.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

However it is worth noting that the spell also says the condition to end the spell must be something the DM agrees to AND is likely to happen in the next decade. So it won't be a cakewalk to be suddenly immune to aging.

The first part is hard, but 9.5 years passing is guaranteed to happen in the next decade.

[–] primrosepathspeedrun@anarchist.nexus 17 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Depends how gonzo you get with the fantasy, the setting's cosmology, and whether your gm is an engineer who does relativity math.

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'd say since spells work the way they do, they always use the relative frame of reference of the caster when cast and the relativ frame of reference of whatever it affects when counting the duration.

[–] primrosepathspeedrun@anarchist.nexus 5 points 4 days ago (2 children)

So it's not certain that 9.5 years will pass in the next decade, if you do relativity shenanigans?

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

9,5 year for whom in whose decade? 9,5 years for you in your next decade? Guaranteed to happen. 9,5 years for me in your next decade or for you in mine? Not guaranteed.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The method here would be to make it something like "9.5 years elapse from the prisoner's perspective" while sticking the prisoner in some environment where time passes more slowly for them. Do you remember the wave planet in Interstellar and how they spent a couple of hours on the surface, then when they returned it had been twenty years for the crew member that stayed behind? We're looking to exploit that, so we stick the prison in a extremely high-gravity environment or on a ship that's moving at ludicrous speeds

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Feywild would be possible but by RAW the time difference is only calculated once you leave the feywild.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

That's quite a funny gamble to take, actually. The chances actually are slightly in your favour for getting extra time (if you average enough trips out, you get about 15% more time spent in the Feywild) but with any individual case your 9.5 years could go anywhere from several millennia to less than three days

Edit: realised my maths for the 15% will be a bit off because I forgot that D&D uses a 10 day week, but I don't think it will have hugely affected the results

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The problem is that you only roll once they leave the feywild. Up to that point time between the two planes works in sync. You effectively just time travel when leaving depending on the result of your roll.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 1 points 3 days ago

Ahh, true, so it wouldn't help if you intended to return to the prison before the 9.5 year term was up. You'd need to instead wait for your prisoner to get out and return from the Feywild themselves, in which case it potentially buys you more time to prepare but may backfire

[–] Archpawn@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There's a 5% chance that days become years. Based on just that alone, for every 20 days spent in the feywild you're missing a year in the rest of the world. I got a factor of 22.7 on average for a 7-day week, and 23.3 if it's ten.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

jounniy is correct that the chance for a time warp is only rolled once when you leave the Feywild rather than each day spent within it, which is why we've got such different numbers (at least, in the current 5E DMG)

[–] Archpawn@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

They said if you average the trips out. It's not exactly helpful here, but for every one-day trip to the feywild, it will be on average, 23.3 days until you get back.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

"Subjectively true" is really the only kind of true anyway.

[–] primrosepathspeedrun@anarchist.nexus 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

'Yes but this planet is on a much longer orbit and its [time it takes to orbit] is the same, so it must be moving much faster then the one you're teleporting to, where...'

[–] entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 4 days ago

I wholeheartedly disagree. The passage of time within a given frame of reference is an objective fact. Relativity existing doesn't negate objectivity. If anything, it makes the gathering of objective evidence and reference points more necessary.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 7 points 4 days ago

Now technically the magical restraint that holds the creature doesn't mechanically cause any particular condition. So depending on the definition of "held", this may or may not be a problem.

I love the idea of it being a magical ankle monitor. Kinda sucks that you can't teleport the whole time though

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

You don’t have to specify. It says "You can specify" so you are free not to specify anything.

Beyond that, yes. I'd say even by RAW the slumber is supposed to be the restraint and no other restraint is listed so if not being put to sleep is enough to still get benefits you’re good to go.

[–] Archpawn@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It used to.

During the casting of the spell, in any of its versions, you can specify a condition that will cause the spell to end and release the target.

But the 2024 version says:

When you cast the spell, specify a trigger that will end it.

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ah I see. I was talking 2014, but yeah the means you have to make use of some other loopholes.

[–] Archpawn@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

I was also talking about it when I made the post you made this meme from. But not intentionally. I didn't know the changes.

[–] Archpawn@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Now technically the magical restraint that holds the creature doesn’t mechanically cause any particular condition.

Who said it holds the creature? It's created to hold the creature, but I'll decide not to and sell my magical restraint to help offset the costs of the spell.

However it is worth noting that the spell also says the condition to end the spell must be something the DM agrees to AND is likely to happen in the next decade.

In 2014, that was optional. On the bright side, now immunity to aging etc. are straight up effects of the spell, instead of something that happens as long as you're affected by the spell, making it so an elf would only be affected by those secondary conditions if they're affected by those secondary conditions. And also now you can just recast it the next day if they pass the save.

The simplest would be that it breaks if the next coin flipped lands heads. You'll have to recast it a few times, but once it sticks, it's permanent.

You could recast it each time it breaks, but it has a costly component. It's probably cheaper than Clone, except you could just Wish for Clone and get it for free, so not really.

I also notice that this breaks an exploit I had for truely defeating an opponent. In 2014, you could cast Hedged Prison, then destroy the special component, and there'd be no target to use Dispel Magic on. But I think I found another way to do it. First, cast Demiplane, then for 364 days cast Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum inside the demiplane. It can fill up to a 100-foot cube, and Demiplane is only a 30-foot cube, so it fills the whole plane. Then capture your target and cast Stone to Flesh on them (you can do this earlier, but you'll have to be careful storing them). Then you bring them to the demiplane, and have a Glyph of Warding cast Private Sanctum one last time after you leave. Nobody will be able to find them, and even if they could, it's blocked from interplanar travel. As far as I can tell, nothing short of Wish can free them.

To make it a bit more secure, you could True Polymorph them into an object. That way, you can't use Gate to open a portal there. They'd need Wish to grant them immunity to Private Sanctum to actually enter the portal, but they still won't know where to open it. Though if they know the nature and contents, they could use Demiplane.

Another possibility is to use a Glyph of Warding to cast Demiplane so that you can't use Demiplane to open a portal there. Then use Gate to leave on the 364th day with a Glyph of Warding ready to cast the last Private Sanctum.

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Good one. I also noticed that this version of imprisonment makes you immune against every instance of the spell for 24 hours. So a paranoid BBEG might just have underlings (like some divination wizards) to buff the hell out of them in the morning, then use something like another servant or a glyph of warding to trigger a casting of the spell to make themselves immune for the day. Incredibly unnecessary, but very funny.

But yes I think "high likelihood" really makes what was a situational spell into a very boring spell to use for players. You’re better off just killing the target now, as killing them permanently is more reliable.

[–] Archpawn@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The earlier version made you permanently immune if they cast it again. Presumably it meant that if they cast it on you again it won't work, but that's not what they said. If you want immunity, you have your underlings cast it until you succeed, then have them cast it one more time (not necessarily on you).

Which also reminds me of a loophole in Ceremony (Wedding). A creature can only benefit from the rite again if widowed. But once you're widowed, there's no limit on how much you can benefit from it. It also never actually says you're marrying the person (presumably, that part would be up to the law), and a widow could just keep casting it. You could also interpret "widowed" to mean a thing that happened to you instead of a state you're in, so you can even Revivify them and keep using it.

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Okay I didn’t even consider those two. I don’t get how casting it one more time after you fail would help though, it why failing would help in general.

[–] Archpawn@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be bound by the spell; if it succeeds, it is immune to this spell if you cast it again.

So if they succeed, and you cast the spell again, they're immune to this spell.

[–] BloodBrandy@ttrpg.network 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

So this could theoretically be a Tome Warlock's path to immortality?

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 1 points 2 days ago

Only if they somehow got access to the spell.