Question: There doesn't seem to be a weight limit on [teleport](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/teleport) anymore but, for the purposes of looting a dungeon, what is an object?

I can see how you can fill a chest and then teleport the chest and its contents. It is container and so all its contents are also teleported.

How about a 10' long table stacked with gear? Is the table also a container in the same way or would teleporting a table not teleport the tablecloth?

Answer: 
### By RAW, an object is a single designated thing that isn't alive. In my opinion RAI extends to obvious containers.

The teleport spell states (emphasis mine):

> 
> This spell instantly transports you and up to eight willing creatures of your choice that you can see within range, or a single object that you can see within range, to a destination you select. If you target **an object**, it must be able to fit entirely inside a 10-foot cube, and it can’t be held or carried by an unwilling creature.
> 
> 
> 

This wording indicates it only applies to a single object since it does not say all objects. It also makes no exceptions for containers and their contents.

For example, if you could transport anything in a container all you would have to do is build a makeshift 10 X 10 X 10 wooden cage and call it a large box. Then you could teleport 1000 cubic feet of whatever you want because you targeted the container.

Personally, I would allow transporting obvious containers like chests, bags of holding, boxes, jars, etc because that seems in keeping with the intent of the game mechanics. It also avoids the unnecessary confusion and ceaseless arguing over just how many separate objects make up a single carriage.

I would say that common sense needs to prevail. If the contents of a table would fit in a standard chest, there's no real reason to prevent players from designating the table or shelf as a container for the purpose of transport. Especially if you're willing to let them just throw it in a Santa Claus bag and transport that anyways.

Now, if the players were trying to be deliberately game breaking with it, you can always have fun. Let's say they stack the treasure eight feet tall on a small bench and transport it. When they arrive, the mound of treasures topples, and riches are scattered everywhere. Small street urchins, poor folk, homeless beggars and Paul's girlfriend are all seen sprinting in to scoop up as much as possible. The player's are able to recover X % of the treasure before the rest disappears, and the guards come by and fine/imprison them for starting a riot.

That's just my opinion though. I don't mind people bending the rules a bit to do some ridiculous stuff, but I bend back a bit to show them I'll be just as ridiculous in response.
Everything that is not separable is part of the object
------------------------------------------------------

You can teleport any single object that fits into a 10-foot cube and is not held or carried, there is no weight limit. So what is an object? The [definition of object](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/95532/what-is-considered-an-object) (DMG, p. 246) is:

> 
> For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects.
> 
> 
> 

What you consider part of an object is not more explictly defined, and it will be up to the DM to adjudicate, but the examples in the DMG provide support that loose parts that cannot be easily separated from the object are part of the object.

First, the part about not being composed only applies to large objects, such as a ship or house, that you would want to divide into components for purposes of attacking and damaging. This is therefore not a hinderance for having small, composed objects.

Second, example objects listed in a table on p. 247 DMG about object sizes include a *lock* and, explicitly, a *chest*. That means, these must be *bona fide* objects, and attributes they have cannot be attributes that exclude something from being an object.

**Both of these items have, moving, separate components**. The lock will include tumblers and other, internal moving parts of the locking mechanism. The chest will have a lid with hinges, handles, and may even have it's own lock in turn. All these are lose, in a similar way coins in a locked chest or tied up sack are loose: they can move, and there can be air, oil or other substances in between them and other parts of the object. In all these examples, the components however are interlocking and not easily separated from the main bulk of the object. This gives us a baseline for judging what should be transported.

#### Table

It seems pretty clear that a table with stuff lying on it is not an integral thing in the same way, and only the table would be teleported. All the other items are loose and unconnected to it. If you however fastened all the items to the table with 50 feet of rope wrapped around (or built a parcel as suggested in Korvin's excellent answer), it would qualify as a single object.

#### Chest

A chest by itself is clearly an object, it is even in the given examples. The items within a locked chest can not be separated from the chest and would count as part of the object. However, if you hacked the chest open, or unlocked and opened it, then they could easily fall out, and would not be part of it any more nor be teleported along with it.

One side consequence is that if you target a locked chest with [disintegrate](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/disintegrate), all the (non-magical) items in the chest would likewise disintegrate. This has the added benefit that *disintegrate* cannot be used as a pseudo-masterkey for potentially trapped treasure chests. Unless you prefer your treasure in the form of a pile of grey dust.