In our latest session a question came up. The initial statement [PHB pg 256] says to;

"Describe an object that is familiar to you."

The spell description goes on to state that known to you (not familiar to you) is defined as seen within 30 feet.

The discrepancy comes up in the phrase;

"Alternatively, the spell can locate the nearest object of a particular kind, such as a certain kind of apparel, jewelry, furniture, tool, or weapon."

We are trying to decide if an item that we have never seen, but is described to us (it is a gem that does X and has been in X location for a couple of hundred years) is enough to qualify as a "particular kind" of if that is too vague?


You could search for the nearest "gem"

Without being familiar with the gem, you cannot search specifically for the individual gem. The best you could do is a "type" of gem. The spell provides comparable examples:

such as a certain kind of apparel, jewelry, furniture, tool, or weapon.

...the generic version of the object you mention is a "gem". You could look for a specific kind of gem (like ruby or sapphire), but that is the most specific you can get.

What exactly a "kind" of any generic object is will be up to the GM, but this GM would allow selection based on traditional classifications, color, standardized sizes, standardized values, etc, but only one categorization. Basically, my criteria would be "can you sort a pile of these objects into these kinds?"

|improve this answer|||||

You could construe a sufficiently detailed description as being familiar with

Lacking a specific definition in the rules, we default to the vernacular definition of familiar. In this case, the definition that specifically addresses the use of "familiar with" is:

: having personal or intimate knowledge —used with with

familiar with the facts of the case

The example of being "familiar with facts of the case" does not require someone to have personally experienced them, but to have adequate knowledge or been sufficiently briefed on the facts.

It would be reasonable to assume that a first hand account that includes intimate details would be sufficient to consider familiarity with an object.

Lacking specific details sufficient to be familiar may be enough to find the kind of object.

The spell affords the use of a kind of object. Describing the kind of object requires fewer details. E.g. describing a breed of dog requires less specificity than describing an individual dog of that breed.

|improve this answer|||||

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.