At what point are you not considered "you?"


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 53 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

64 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This has been asked in various forms over the years without answer, so this thread is primarily for FAQing.

At what point are you not considered "you?"

Say I cast magic jar or shadow projection and leave my body. For the purposes of targeting with spells and other effects, what is considered to be "me?"

Is my unconscious body "me" and thus all my personal-range, "You-target" spells remain with it? Or is my disembodied spirit considered "me" and all my ongoing spells follow? Are both aspects of "me" are still "me" and I get to choose which spells remain and which follow?

Are any spells dispelled or otherwise altered in the transition?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Nice question, and not one I've actually thought about, before now, but here's how I'd rough up some rules (definitely not RAW, but seem in the spirit of things):

If an effect allows a Fort save, it follows the body.
If an effect allows a Will save, it follows the mind.
If an effect requires thought (example: umm, Commune?), decisions (example: Charm Person) or interpretation (example: Detect Magic), it follows the mind.
Otherwise it follows the body.


"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.” WC


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If its already cast, it stays where it is. If you cast it, it stays where you are. That's how I'd rule it,anyway.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While it's an interesting question, I think it's one that needs a little bit less PDT intervention and a little more GM adjudication.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm still hoping to get an answer for this question, as it continues to come up in our games and elsewhere. I recently heard of someone being upset that they couldn't get a permanencied darkvision on their fighter, so they had the party wizard magic jar into his body, cast permanency and darkvision, then vacate the body thereby allowing the fighter to have what he wanted. Would that even work?


Going by this part of magic jar:

If you are successful, your life force occupies the host body, and the host's life force is imprisoned in the magic jar. You keep your Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, level, class, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, alignment, and mental abilities. The body retains its Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, hit points, natural abilities, and automatic abilities. A body with extra limbs does not allow you to make more attacks (or more advantageous two-weapon attacks) than normal. You can't choose to activate the body's extraordinary or supernatural abilities. The creature's spells and spell-like abilities do not stay with the body.

Looking at this, you can cast permanancy on your new body, but only a couple of the effects would stay with it when the magic jar expires: arcane sight, darkvision, and see invisibility, as they are tied directly to altering a creatures eyes (i.e. they directly say the affect sight and vision) and can be classified as natural abilities. The other spells are more mental abilities, and would stay with the caster. (Basically Im ok with it being allowed as I think its a clever use of game mechanics rather than being broken.)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That sounds almost arbitrary, as a GM (or player, or whoever is deciding) can describe many more ambiguous effects however they wanted.

In any case, I think it would be much simpler just to get a ruling that says "they do stick with the host body" or "they don't stick to the host body" or, my favorite, "the caster decides." No room for confusion or interpretive variations there.


It is somewhat arbitrary, as it all depends on if the spells results would be considered natural, automatic, or mental abilities. I agree that a FAQ would be helpful in this case, but until that is issued I lean towards assigning the spells based on their effects and descriptions into those categories. On the other hand, it can be stated that all of these effects become spell-like abilities, as they can be dispelled, so they follow the caster. RAW is unclear, RAI is probably no to all, but if I was GMing I would say yes, because I think the distinction for these spells is unnecessary and it wouldnt break the game to allow them to be made permanent.


You are wherever "you" are. You are not your body. If you are possessing another body, for the duration of your possession that is you. Your body is just that. Your body. Not you. Seems pretty straightforward really. I think Revy from Black Lagoon can explain it better, so I'll cede the floor.

Revy: Hm...so that's how you see it, huh? All right... Hell, I can't think of any better place for a little story that you ought to hear. I'll share a little secret with you, Rock. Question time. What are these two objects?
Rock: ...A medal...and a skull...
Revy: Wrong. They're both things, Rock. When you get down to it, that's all they are. Just things. So how do you measure a thing's worth? Nostalgia and memories don't mean [Blank]. Value is determined by a universally accepted unit. Money. Any other measures of value ain't nothing more than sentimental [Blank].

So to wit, if you aren't in your body its nothing but a thing, an object. Try not to get sentimental K?


Anzyr, I believe the question is as much about what personal spells do when cast from within a different body as it is about what happens to those effects once one leave... It gets even stranger with permanent class abilities. What happens when a summoner changes his aspect while in another body... does it grow tentacles?


Joe loves Rules wrote:
Anzyr, I believe the question is as much about what personal spells do when cast from within a different body as it is about what happens to those effects once one leave... It gets even stranger with permanent class abilities. What happens when a summoner changes his aspect while in another body... does it grow tentacles?

Ah, I got nothing for that issue. The "You" thing is pretty straight forward I believe, but I admit the "what effects stay/leave/etc." is a pretty murky area, that I unfortunately can't really find any RAW to build on. FAQ'd, but I get the feeling they are just going to leave this individual GMs.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Anzyr wrote:
Joe loves Rules wrote:
Anzyr, I believe the question is as much about what personal spells do when cast from within a different body as it is about what happens to those effects once one leave... It gets even stranger with permanent class abilities. What happens when a summoner changes his aspect while in another body... does it grow tentacles?
Ah, I got nothing for that issue. The "You" thing is pretty straight forward I believe, but I admit the "what effects stay/leave/etc." is a pretty murky area, that I unfortunately can't really find any RAW to build on. FAQ'd, but I get the feeling they are just going to leave this individual GMs.

I was thinking of a scenario more like this:

(Cross-posted from another thread)

When I have several ongoing spell effects cast on my person, and then I cast magic jar, do the ongoing spells follow me into the new body? Or do they stay with my original body?

I am planning on using disguise self to adopt the guise of a drunken noble, who will infiltrate an upcoming ball. During the party, I will "pass out" from too much drink and then begin possessing guests one by one and using them as make shift assassins against the king, who will be visiting for his birthday.

If the ongoing spell (disguise self) does not stay with my original body, the plan won't work out too well.

On the other hand, I use a lot of long term spells (mage armor, protection from arrows, false life, and others) and it would be most beneficial for me to have them follow me into the new body so as to make it a more effective and longer-lived tool.

Or is it a matter of caster's choice, and I can have my cake and eat it too?

(We've asked this question a lot.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My non-RAW squishy mushy "feeling" is that most spells would stay with the body. Even things like Owl's Wisdom, which affect the mind are affecting the mind of that body, which happens to be you at the time of casting. Mostly this feeling comes from the lack of text to indicate spells would follow "you". There are some weird corner cases where even this interpretation would get murky. But in the above scenario, I personally would rule that all of those spells stay with the body they are cast in. Thus you get your disguise on the body you came in with, but you'd have to cast those other buffs later if you wanted them and even then they would not follow you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe the closest thing you're ever going to get to an official answer here is "This is precisely why GMs exist."

Personally I'd default to "self" defaulting to your currently occupied body for anything not enhancing mental stats or otherwise directly mentioning the mind.

Also if the question of using magic jar as a way to cheese permanent buffs onto a fighter they normally wold have no access to, I'd get out my munchkin whacking stick, although it's an expensive enough setup that I'd probably let it fly on temporary buffs.


I don't see the need for a FAQ for the permanency "loophole" discussed above. RAW - it doesn't work. The target for Permanency is not "You," the target is "See Text." If your goal is to make the spells in the first table (Core p. 318) permanent on someone else via magic jar, the spell language is very clear - doesn't work. I quote "You cannot cast these spells on other creatures." Magic jar does not remake the target into yourself, it allows you to possess the other creature. The target never ceases to be Ragdar the Fighter nor does it ever become Voltaz the Wizard, therefore Voltaz cannot make those first spells permanent on Ragdar since Ragdar by definition is not Voltaz. Part of Voltaz is in Ragdar but Voltaz has not become Ragdar.

And if you insist that Ragdar has become Voltaz, even then it does not work - the permanent spells go with Voltaz. When Voltaz rejoins his own body, he will find the spells permanent there since by rule the only entity to which Voltaz can apply those spells permanently is Voltaz.


Again this is very murky, but non-RAW feelings I'm going to have to say that I'm pretty sure that combination would totally work. Since there's no rule that says the spell you made permanent would leave that body. Even if it isn't "you" anymore.


I personally would just tell the fighter to invest in some UMD and scrolls if he wants permanent wizard spells active on him.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

This has been asked in various forms over the years without answer, so this thread is primarily for FAQing.

At what point are you not considered "you?"

Say I cast magic jar or shadow projection and leave my body. For the purposes of targeting with spells and other effects, what is considered to be "me?"

Is my unconscious body "me" and thus all my personal-range, "You-target" spells remain with it? Or is my disembodied spirit considered "me" and all my ongoing spells follow? Are both aspects of "me" are still "me" and I get to choose which spells remain and which follow?

Are any spells dispelled or otherwise altered in the transition?

This is one of those that has to be handled case by case.

I'd say that effects that affect the mind/soul travel with it. Spell effects that target the body like Bull Strength, remain with it.

In some cases, like Astral Projection, killing your body kills your astral self at the same time.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Permanent spells cast on your body lock on the combination of your life force and your body. Physically oriented ones like dark vision are suspended when you use effects like magic jar. They are ended if either the life force or the body dies.

And before you bring up that question, no there is no rules text on it. There also is no rules text that a 5th level spell is intended to circumvent the restrictions intended for permanency.

Your fighter friend wants permanent dark vision? craft him a magic item.

Shadow Lodge

I've had this come up.

In my case it was a BBEG summoner with Magic Jar - the question being whether the Eidolon was required to stay within range of the body or the consciousness. At the time I went with the consciousness, since it was more inconvenient for the BBEG and since the bond with the eidolon felt like a mental thing (eidolong armour blocking it aside). But I'm curious to know whether others would have ruled similarly.


Googleshng wrote:
"This is precisely why GMs exist."

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Weirdo wrote:

I've had this come up.

In my case it was a BBEG summoner with Magic Jar - the question being whether the Eidolon was required to stay within range of the body or the consciousness. At the time I went with the consciousness, since it was more inconvenient for the BBEG and since the bond with the eidolon felt like a mental thing (eidolong armour blocking it aside). But I'm curious to know whether others would have ruled similarly.

I would say that the Eidolon range limits apply to either the body or the life force... whichever limit is met first.

The Exchange

Wow, that's a tricky one. I've brushed against the subject myself and never quite been able to come up with a really satisfactory answer. But my current line of reasoning is based on how astral projection works.

Observation: When you are astrally travelling, you can still cast spells on yourself and other astral travelers - there's no indication in the rules that the spells shoot off down your silver cord and ground themselves in your original body.

Hypothesis: Therefore, spells stick to the "life force" (an undefined term used in several spells, particularly magic jar) rather than the physical body.

There's probably almost as much evidence that the body is the target - for instance, a spell targeting "One creature or object" certainly isn't targeting the object's 'life force'. Although I've stated my opinion in a way that sounds pretty confident, I must admit that I join my fellow posters in saying "Well, uh, um."


In general any spell that has a real, physical effect such as mage armour, disguise self, or false life (temporary HP are 'real') stays with the casters body. Mental or psychic effects, such as mind blank, or various detect spells follow the psyche.

re: darkvision - I'd call shenanigans, the rules explicitly state that darkvision can only be made permanent on the caster. I really don't care how you try and justify it, how solid your pseudo-logic is, or even if it flies in the face of my other rulings, it simply isn't going to work in my games.

Shadow Lodge

Honestly, I don't see why a non-personal spell like Darkvision can only be made permanent on the caster.

LazarX wrote:
I would say that the Eidolon range limits apply to either the body or the life force... whichever limit is met first.

Such that they have to stay within range of both? That's rather strict.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm not too concerned about the "shenanigans" or the imbalance of a fighter getting permanent darkvision, or any other valid spell from permanency, since he would already be able to do it himself with use magic device and a few scrolls.

Dark Archive

Definitely a tricky situation to adjudicate and official help could certainly prove useful. I think personally when GMing I'd go with physical effect spells (Mage Armour, Dark Vision, etc) staying on the body since that was the physical target they were cast on, mental effect spells (forms of telepathy, Owls Wisdom, etc) going with the mind since that is what they were targeted at when cast (though I can certainly see grounds to argue brain vs. mind in many cases).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Weirdo wrote:

Honestly, I don't see why a non-personal spell like Darkvision can only be made permanent on the caster.

LazarX wrote:
I would say that the Eidolon range limits apply to either the body or the life force... whichever limit is met first.
Such that they have to stay within range of both? That's rather strict.

When it comes to magic and magicians, strict is the only way to keep spell casters in line. Basic rule when it comes to limitations is to use the worse of whatever applies.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
I'm not too concerned about the "shenanigans" or the imbalance of a fighter getting permanent darkvision, or any other valid spell from permanency, since he would already be able to do it himself with use magic device and a few scrolls.

I've noticed that you're frequently "not too concerned" about shenanigans when it expands the power of spell casters, whom I've noticed are far from needing a boost.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fighters are spellcasters?

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought this thread was going to be about replacing every limb and organ and piece of your body one at a time.

The Exchange

If it were, I'd recommend 3.5's Monster Manual II, for the half-golem template and 'grafts'. And, of course, the Head of Vecna.

Sovereign Court

I wouldn't impose an "eidolon limitation" on a magic-jar using wizard. Simply because wizards have nothing to do with eidolons. That's not "enforcing all the limitations strictly", that's arbitrarily inventing limitations.

The OP's question is intriguing though. I think I would say that spells stick to the body in which they were cast, but end if the target is no longer a legal target.

So if I cast Darkvision, then Magic Jar, the Darkvision sticks to my body. If I cast Darkvision again, it applies to my new host body. If I move to another body again, the second Darkvision fails, because the old host body is no longer "You".

Shadow Lodge

LazarX wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
LazarX wrote:
I would say that the Eidolon range limits apply to either the body or the life force... whichever limit is met first.
Such that they have to stay within range of both? That's rather strict.
When it comes to magic and magicians, strict is the only way to keep spell casters in line. Basic rule when it comes to limitations is to use the worse of whatever applies.
Ascalaphus wrote:
I wouldn't impose an "eidolon limitation" on a magic-jar using wizard. Simply because wizards have nothing to do with eidolons. That's not "enforcing all the limitations strictly", that's arbitrarily inventing limitations.

It's not about applying an eidolon limitation to a wizard, the question is whether when a summoner uses Magic Jar, their eidolon needs to stay within the range limit of (1) the summoner's body (2) the summoner's consciousness or (3) both.

With things like metamagic, I would agree that it's important to apply limitations strictly. But requiring the eidolon to stay within range of both body and consciousness is not just strictly applying the limitation but doubling the impact of the limitation. Having the eidolon have to stay within range of the consciousness doesn't remove or lessen the limitation. It simply allows a summoner to, while using magic jar, also use their normal class features with the normal limitations of those features (one distance tether) - which is exactly what wizards and sorcerers get to do with the spell.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Weirdo wrote:
I would agree that it's important to apply limitations strictly. But requiring the eidolon to stay within range of both body and consciousness is not just strictly applying the limitation but doubling the impact of the limitation. Having the eidolon have to stay within range of the consciousness doesn't remove or lessen the limitation. It simply allows a summoner to, while using magic jar, also use their normal class features with the normal limitations of those features (one distance tether) - which is exactly what wizards and sorcerers get to do with the spell.

Yes, and I don't have a problem with enforcing this limitation on the summoner. Who can after all simply opt to dismiss his eidolon, or cast the Unfetter spell on it to remove the limitaitons altogether. And I think there are feats as well as can help this.

Sovereign Court

Weirdo wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
LazarX wrote:
I would say that the Eidolon range limits apply to either the body or the life force... whichever limit is met first.
Such that they have to stay within range of both? That's rather strict.
When it comes to magic and magicians, strict is the only way to keep spell casters in line. Basic rule when it comes to limitations is to use the worse of whatever applies.
Ascalaphus wrote:
I wouldn't impose an "eidolon limitation" on a magic-jar using wizard. Simply because wizards have nothing to do with eidolons. That's not "enforcing all the limitations strictly", that's arbitrarily inventing limitations.

It's not about applying an eidolon limitation to a wizard, the question is whether when a summoner uses Magic Jar, their eidolon needs to stay within the range limit of (1) the summoner's body (2) the summoner's consciousness or (3) both.

With things like metamagic, I would agree that it's important to apply limitations strictly. But requiring the eidolon to stay within range of both body and consciousness is not just strictly applying the limitation but doubling the impact of the limitation. Having the eidolon have to stay within range of the consciousness doesn't remove or lessen the limitation. It simply allows a summoner to, while using magic jar, also use their normal class features with the normal limitations of those features (one distance tether) - which is exactly what wizards and sorcerers get to do with the spell.

Ah, I misunderstood.

In that case, applying my earlier principle: effects remain attached to the body used when they were cast. So the eidolon remains attached to the body you're in when you summon it.
* If that's a borrowed host body and you leave that host body, it's no longer "you", therefore no longer a legal point from which to summon the eidolon, and it disappears.
* If you summoned it from your true body, that counts as "you" even when your soul isn't home, so it stays there even if you then go a-jarring. And it has to stay near your true body unless you Unfetter it. Since you can't use your home body's senses while you're away, your communication with your eidolon is also inhibited.

I admit that I'm just making all of this up, but I think it's a straightforward principle that can be applied to all situations, and doesn't require a lot of arbitrary calls about whether a particular power is more "soul" than "body".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I'm not too concerned about the "shenanigans" or the imbalance of a fighter getting permanent darkvision, or any other valid spell from permanency, since he would already be able to do it himself with use magic device and a few scrolls.
I've noticed that you're frequently "not too concerned" about shenanigans when it expands the power of spell casters, whom I've noticed are far from needing a boost.

You have it backwards. This is a buff to martial classes who can now get permanency without buying UMD. They don't even need a wizard in the party. They could hire a high level NPC wizard to enchant them with these powers.

If you want to boost casters, rule that permanency can only be used on the caster . Because this way its a caster only buff instead of a group buff.

Sovereign Court

@johnlocke: you seem to mean well... but you're advocating that martials get permanency'd buffs by submitting to possession through necromantic magic... :P


Ascalaphus wrote:
@johnlocke: you seem to mean well... but you're advocating that martials get permanency'd buffs by submitting to possession through necromantic magic... :P

IMO, Pathfinder does a poor job of making spells good vs evil. They are just tools.

Now, I don't think permanency+Magic Jar is a good way to buff martials, but it would be a buff.

Shadow Lodge

The preferred buff would be to throw out the Magic Jar nonsense and just let any non-personal range spells that can be made Permanent, be made Permanent on people other than the caster. Or even just remove the "caster only" category entirely. It's not like it would be overpowering to give the fighter Comprehend Languages.

@Ascalaphus: I think I like your principle. It's very objective, and while it would be sometimes inconvenient for the caster it also encourages them to think strategically about how they buff themselves while using Magic Jar.


Did somebody already bring up Blood Money abuse?

Sovereign Court

master_marshmallow wrote:
Did somebody already bring up Blood Money abuse?

That's a good point. Although draining a stolen host body for Blood Money IS a thematically legitimate action - that's what bad guys do - it'd be grossly OP in a player's hands.

However, I think the solution to that is to just ban Blood Money. The consistent feature of so many abuses is that spell; it's just rotten by nature.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Why does everyone keep using blood money as an excuse to change everything else?


I hope no-one minds me replying to this old thread, but a player in a game I'm running will be using Magic Jar in the future and I'm researching into this now.
I've actually answered this question for -my- game, obviously that doesn't mean that it suits everyones game but I felt like sharing my thoughts, for those that might be interested.

Firstly, why does the 'personal' category of spells exist in the first place (in flavour terms). I assume it's that the spells power is maintained by the caster in some way, a pretty standard concept in fantasy games that involve magic. So casting it on yourself works because it then feeds off of your magical talent in some way, whereas casting it on the fighter will fail because it will instantly run out of energy and collapse.

Secondly, what do we target when we target a spell at someone? Their body or their mind, not their soul (except with specific spells that state otherwise).

So if you have comprehend languages and mage armour up when you cast spell jar, the mage armour keeps running on your original body and the comprehend languages fails as there is no magic to sustain it. Likewise, if you cast them in another non-caster body and then return back to the gem. This means that you can't use magic jar to give people spells they couldn't normally get and there is a consistent in-story reason as to why that is.

As for permanent spells. I'd argue that permanency keeps the spell running but it only works while the same kind of caster (arcane/divine) is using the body. So jump into the body of your fighter and make comprehend languages permanent and it seems to work, jump out and let the fighter return and the spell fails, kick him out of his body again and the spell comes back to life.
The only way around this being that a wizard could cast a personal arcane spell on a sorcerer's that lacked that spell, make it permanent and then have it work for the sorcerer... but then he could do that by buying a spell-page with the spell on it.

This means that all spells, unless specifically aimed at the soul, stay with the body - even mental ones. It simplifies things a great deal, reduces abuse and it's still fair, no-one could argue that it isn't a powerful or useful spell even when ruled as strictly as this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
At what point are you not considered "you?"

5 or 6 drinks usually.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Anyone have any more input? Or just want to hit FAQ?


FAQed.
I also have a magic-jar based character, and the ambiguities related to this question are troublesome.


A related question would be how the soulswitch spell operates. It references magic jar - basically you and your familiar simultaneously get a magic jar on each other.

When your familiar is in your body, is it still your familiar for the purposes of spell and abilities that target your familiar?

FAQed.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Now questions have arisen in regards to the spell, akashic form. It sure would be nice if we could get some answers. Body swapping and possession spells and abilities are only becoming more and more common these days.

Help a fella' out and hit that FAQ button! :D

1 to 50 of 53 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / At what point are you not considered "you?" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.