10
\$\begingroup\$

The spell Locate Object says:

You sense the direction to the object's location, as long as that object is within 1,000 feet of you.

The spell Polymorph says:

The target's gear melds into the new form. The creature can't activate, use, wield, or otherwise benefit from any of its equipment.

If the object targeted by Locate Object has been "melded into the new form" of a polymorphed person will Locate Object succeed?

On one hand you could say the item, eg a spear, temporarily doesn't exist and so cannot be located.

On the other hand spells only do what they say they do and Polymorph does not say is hides items from being detected.

\$\endgroup\$
1

3 Answers 3

8
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, locate object will still work. The item doesn't cease to exist, but it "melds into the new form". So while they may not be able to find the exact location on that form, the spell would still lead them to the polymorphed creature.

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

Locate Object is ineffective if a thin sheet of lead blocks a direct path between the object and the caster.

The spell description says:

This spell can't locate an object if any thickness of lead, even a thin sheet, blocks a direct path between you and the object.

Since Polymorph transforms the creature into a beast with all the item melded into the new form, Locate Object is ineffective if the new form has a thin sheet of lead covering in some way a direct path between the caster and the object: to the best of my knowledge, there is no such beast.

Since the object is still on the body of the polymorphed creature, even if not in its original form, the spell works fine.

\$\endgroup\$
-3
\$\begingroup\$

You cannot locate it

I'll give a concrete example: Joe fighter has been polymorphed into a mouse by the evil necromancer and pocketed to be used in a ritual sacrifice. The necromancer then dimension doors to his lab. The rest of the party, frantic trying to locate and save Joe, has the party cleric cast locate object on Joe's trusty warhammer. Being located and possibly saved would greatly benefit Joe.

But the spell says, Joe as the target of polymorph

can't […] benefit from any of its equipment

If he cannot benefit, the only logical conclusion is that locate object cannot locate the warhammer in this case.

As you can not, and as it does not make sense that locate object would work differently depending on what your intent is, the most reasonable conclusion is that locate object will not work in general, because the object is not available.

Comparison with wild shape

This is similar to the druid's wild shape ability, which uses slightly different language and says

Equipment that merges with the form has no effect until you leave the form.

Locating the equipment surely qualifies as an effect the equipment has. It has no effect, so you cannot locate it.

Now, these are magical abilities so each can be different, but treating them differently would mean that you could locate equipment merged in polymorph, but not in wild shape.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Interesting take, but it begs the question: what if Joe’s enemy is trying to locate him, and being located is clearly not beneficial? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jun 7 at 20:59
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ In other words, it seems clear enough the benefitting from the equipment is about the function of the equipment, not the function of other stuff on the equipment. I don’t think having the spell work conditionally on who is using it makes sense here. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jun 7 at 21:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ThomasMarkov Its more straightforward with shapechange. From a strict logical perspective, I think not benefitting or even being being possibly disadventaged is not changing anything about being unable to benefit, I think. It does not say you cannot be harmed, but it does say you cannot benefit. The latter is holding, wether you can or cannot be harmed. In the worst case, if one thinks its not provable excluded, its then probably a DM call. But normally, for a claim something cannot be, a single counterexample disproves it. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jun 7 at 21:24

You must log in to answer this question.