14
\$\begingroup\$

Recently, the question arose as to what happens when you leave objects you own in Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion. The spell description does not specify if you always conjure the same Mansion, or if it is a different one. So what happens if I leave something like my magic short sword in it? Or even a mundane item, like my mundane pottery?

The spell says that creatures are expelled when the spell ends, and it says what happens to things from the mansion that you want to take outside, but there is nothing about items taken into the mansion. Is there any information in the rules, somewhere?

\$\endgroup\$
8
\$\begingroup\$

Short answer, they would be expelled too, unless you give the order to preserve it to one of the servant but the item will be lost forever.

Long answer:

Is the same mansion? No.

PHB 261:

You conjure an extradimensional dwelling in range that lasts for the duration.

As you can read it does not say you conjure a new or an existing mansion. Later on in the same description, it state that you can create but it does tell you anything about reusing the existing one. It also does not stop you to recreate an old one, but is not going to be the same one. Furthermore, at any point on the description says something about the servants remembering you, reinforcing the idea that is a totally new one.

You can create any floor plan you like

What happen to the item left?

Following the same logic, the spell description also state what the servant can do, under their limits. And since you can give things to humans, it is safe to assume that you can give to them items. You can order to keep the item, but as stated earlier the item will be lost.

Each servant can perform any task a normal human servant could perform, but they can’t attack or take any action that would directly harm another creature.

Now, what would happen to items that you leave in the mansion? The "mansion" does not hold ownership on any item that you have or leave behind. The same way you do not own any items in the mansion (you cannot take them out). So, unless you "give" to the mansion the ownership of an item, it would behave as if the Object is a Creature and drop it.

The servants can go anywhere in the mansion but can’t leave it. Furnishings and other objects created by this spell dissipate into smoke if removed from the mansion.

When the spell ends, any creatures inside the extradimensional space are expelled into the open spaces nearest to the entrance.

We can expand the ownership logic further. The nourishment of the food given by the spell does not disappear at the end of the spell or when you leave the mansion, but the furniture do. This mean that in order to take things out of the mansion they have to be given. This logic can be applied to your own stuffs. The "mansion" does not have any ownership of your stuff, hence, they are expelled from the mansion when the spell end (given that you did not give them to a servant).

It contains sufficient food to server a nine-course banquet for up to 100 people

Now, you might want to say: a creature is not an object. And it is true, but it is more of a mechanical way to delimit and categorize elements in the game. That would be a total debate but as far as your question goes is not that relevant. Furthermore, your DM is the one that has the last word, if you are the DM pick what would be more sensible for you.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 11
    \$\begingroup\$ This raises the separate question of how one shops at Mordenkainen's Grandiose Garage Sale. \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Jul 5 '16 at 0:34
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This answer would be improved if you quoted the bit of the rules that says creatures inside the mansion are expelled where the spell ends. (Also your second-to-last paragraph is a little unclear.) \$\endgroup\$ – GMJoe Jul 5 '16 at 1:01
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I can not for the life of me come to the conclusion, that items would be expelled. How do you come to that conclusion that they "count as creatures" for that matter? \$\endgroup\$ – Patta Jul 5 '16 at 16:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Patta you might find my logic a little odd, especially since what I did is just extrapolate a behavior given to a phenomena (you as a creature) and applied to your objects. I justified that behavior taking in consideration a known behavior of the mansion related with "stuffs owned". They disappear if taken out, but the food nourishment (and possible the food) don't. If something is not original/owned from/by the mansion it is just dropped. \$\endgroup\$ – Chepelink Jul 5 '16 at 17:07
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @KorvinStarmast And let's not get started on redeeming a frequent buyer's card at Mordenkainen's Laudable Lemonade Stand... \$\endgroup\$ – Lexible Jul 5 '16 at 17:16
1
\$\begingroup\$

Rules as Written doesn't clearly answer the question. I believe Rules as Intedend would not allow any object to remain in the house and would drop them when the spell ends. For, it can safely be assumed that:

When the spell ends, any creatures inside the extradimensional space are expelled into the open spaces nearest to the entrance.

would include their gear and clothes. I doubt the designers inteded the mansion to eat all the parties gear and clothes and leave them nude and unarmed.

If their gear and clothes are expelled, why would a sword they left in another room be any different? Moreover, the extradimensional space is described fairly similar to rope trick, which does exspell everything left inside.

There is no mention of "giving" to the Mansion or any ownership. If it is created by the spell, it can't leave the Mansion. But objects you leave in it were not created by the spell.

As a DM, I might rule differently depending on what it is the players try to leave behind.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ "If their gear and clothes are expelled, why would a sword they left in another room be any different?" There are a bunch of spells that treat carried objects differently to unattended objects. \$\endgroup\$ – Miniman Oct 22 '16 at 5:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ There are, but this spell doesn't say anything about carried objects or other objects not created by the mansion. I think the logical extension is that players and their gear are all expelled when the spell ends. I mean, are you really going to take a fighter's/barbarian's/ranger's +2 bow from them because they forgot it in the kitchen? \$\endgroup\$ – J. A. Streich Oct 22 '16 at 6:23
-3
\$\begingroup\$

I see a lot of people giving a lot of speculative ideas, but still ignoring the simplicity of what is stated. The spell says creatures are expelled, and that can be interpreted to mean all items on their person. However, to think that this is a completely new mansion each time cast is preposterous, and not within the rules as presented. A DM may rule that to be the case, but it is just as easy to think that the plan may change, but the amount of space reserved for the casting mage to actually be the exact same. Practically speaking, it is meant to be a home that the mage can revisit. It makes sense that you might like to keep certain things you bring in there, like a pile of gold, or old magic items. In my ideal version I have made a vault. You can't bring the servants or the objects native to this space out, but there is nothing in the description that prohibits making rooms for each party member that persist each time the spell is cast. Or you could install an alchemy lab, stocking it with real world agents and vials, so that they could then be taken out of this space. You can have shelves stocked with real books, old spellbooks, etc. Or a trophy room to safely store items gleaned from adventuring. This approach would mean that these spaces are created first by the wizard, linked somewhere on the Astral plane, but that even after his death, these spaces may persist, be discovered and looted somehow, by DM approval of course.

To compare it to weaker spells, like Rope Trick, is not valid, because they are lower level, and therefore less capable. Rope trick creates a nondescript space to simply rest in. The Mansion creates a furnished environment, fully customizeable, even with semi-sentient servants. Something to think about.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I do think houseruling it to allow long-term storage would be quite reasonable, but I'm not entirely sure that's definitively supported by the rules as they are. In particular, the floor plan being entirely fluid between castings makes this rather problematic. \$\endgroup\$ – user17995 Dec 3 '16 at 1:10

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.