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.

Only if they somehow got access to the spell.

Ah I see. But farfetched, but I get it.

Hm. Then I don’t see the connection to this meme. Maybe I’m just stupid though.

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

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.

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.

Oh so nice to hear you decided to take this step. I wish you lots of success and fun doing this as your work. Maybe try to avoid getting a burnout over it (that’s what I found to happen frequently when people start freelancing their hobby).

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

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.

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.

Ah. Yes. Good point. Guess they’ll have to work overtime.

Okay. I’ll admit: I don’t get it.

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.

I’d say RAI the answer is obvious. But by RAW it’s unspecified, so both could be true.

Howso?

It’s a bit weird, but DMG page 24 (though I’m talking 2014 here) specifies that generally an unwilling soul can’t be forced back into the body. So unless a spell specifies otherwise, this would not work.

Because of how this spell is worded, assuming the Lich got killed at least once while being a Lich means he’ll be unable to be targeted by this either way because he was undead when he died.

I’d say it’s quite clear by RAW that once your third death save-fail happens your very much dead-dead. The DM is allowed to change any RAW of course (as this is RAW too), but without those changes it’s very much not arbitrary.

That’s on the same level as disintegrate making you able to play a sentient pile of dust.

I think nonliving creatures may be more specific versions of objects then, since I couldn’t find any reference of creatures not being considered objects (because who would even say that, it should be obvious if you use your brain), but it also means that if a spell or ability only allows you to target or create objects and has no specification in regards to creatures, undead and constructs are valid targets by RAW.