|
Right up there next to Gallant Inspiration, Beguiling Gift and Unnatural Lust are quickly becoming two of my new favorite spells. And I'm looking for new and interesting ways to make use of them. I've hit a couple of snags, however, that draw out some questions about how to use these spells.
Before I get to the questions, I'd like to point out that I'm planning on taking two levels in Ninja with this character to get Poison use, Sneak Attack, Ki Pool, and a Ninja Trick. I'm also using the Negotiator Bard Archetype, which gives me a small pool of rogue talents to work with as well.
Thus far, this character has done quite a good job with her 20 Charisma and Spell Focus (Enchantment). But I'm looking to make Beguiling Gift and Unnatural Lust her go-to spells against humanoids.
Anyway, on to the questions:
1. Will mixing an Injury-triggered poison with a damaging potion, such as Inflict Light Wounds combine the effects? Or is this even allowed?
2. Can I pass off a Ring of Retribution with Beguiling Gift and trick them into detonating it? Or do they just put the ring on?
3. Can potions be purchased at a higher caster level than minimum? Like getting a free Potion of Shocking Grasp Lv.3 at the cost of 1 PP?
4. Is the "Kissing and Caressing" effect of Unnatural Lust considered an attempt at Grappling? One GM Made it a grapple check, but I'm not sure it goes that way. Could this be GM discretionary?
I think these are the only questions I have for now, I might think of more. Also, the reason I posted this here and not in "Advice" is because a few of my concerns revolve around the rules and restrictions presented by PFS Organized Play. (Such as Poison use rules and purchasing higher CL potions)
|
|
Yeah, I looked over the limited poison list, and I have seen some poisons on Chronicle sheets. I actually am able to purchase a dose of Drow Poison with this character!
But the utilization of injury poisons isn't a bad idea, seeing as her main weapon is a Scorpion Whip. So I can Poison from 15 Feet away! ^_^
|
Here's a money saving use of Beguiling Gift that most people don't think of: Hand the enemy a potion vial full of plain water when they're next to your melee allies. Drinking a potion provokes attacks of opportunities, so even though your "potion" doesn't hurt them, it still makes them waste a turn and take some hits.
|
|
Since you have such a high charisma, you should be good at intimidation. Demoralizing an enemy through intimidation is something anyone can do as a standard action, which gives a -2 on saving throws, among other things. Do that one round, then cast the spell the following round when the enemy's saves are down.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny story for Unnatural Lust
My witch cast Unnatural Lust on a Mook - sending him after the PC Druids Big Cat companion... He scrambles over and hugs said kitty, and I then slumber hex him...
This means that later, when he wakes up, he remembers unnaturally lustful thoughts (and actions), just before he blacked out. Only to come to some time later, (and because we searched him while he as asleep) with his clothing in dis-array, with a happy lion sitting next to him purring.
Yah... what happens in Almas, stays in Almas...
|
|
I carry unnatural lust as a standard spell on my witch and use it frequently. It is great for forcing flying opponents down to melee, making ranged opponents move in close, and making anyone provoke opportunity attacks and flank themselves. Also funny to cast when there's a body of water between you and them.
The problem with beguiling gift is that everything costs money in pfs, so unless you luck out in finding something useful to give away in the scenario, it's expensive for anything good. I stopped carrying it because I would never use it.
|
|
I carry unnatural lust as a standard spell on my witch and use it frequently. It is great for forcing flying opponents down to melee, making ranged opponents move in close, and making anyone provoke opportunity attacks and flank themselves. Also funny to cast when there's a body of water between you and them.
The problem with beguiling gift is that everything costs money in pfs, so unless you luck out in finding something useful to give away in the scenario, it's expensive for anything good. I stopped carrying it because I would never use it.
beguiling gift has range problems... 5' range, so you have to move next to someone - cast it (did they get an AOO?) then they get a save and you hand them something to use...
A few suggestions for items to hand them...
Bottle of Skunky Beer (takes two hands to open, so they drop things to open it... and loose at least one rounds of actions)
Manacles (Except some judges rule that they just hang the handcuffs on their belt, or worse yet try to put them on you... YMMV)
Lacy undergarments (picked up from the ParaCountess perhaps?) This one is lots of fun, esp. with unnatural lust.
|
|
I just discovered another handy item right in the Advanced Class Guide...
...Vomit Capsules. They are only 12 gold a pop, too. 600 gp for 50 of those, track them like a wand on the inventory sheet. And proceed to make targets spend a full round barfing. Yup...that is tactical comedy gold right there. And no GM can argue the rules on that one.
By the way, that Giving the steel shield to the druid idea...thats pretty bonkers. But as I saw in the thread, there appears to be a rift dividing those who find it as a legitimate tactic and the people who would want to beat you over the head with the Core Rulebook for even trying it.
So, to save myself and local GMs the headache, I'll probably forego trying that one unless its a last resort.
|
|
I just discovered another handy item right in the Advanced Class Guide...
...Vomit Capsules. They are only 12 gold a pop, too. 600 gp for 50 of those, track them like a wand on the inventory sheet. And proceed to make targets spend a full round barfing. Yup...that is tactical comedy gold right there. And no GM can argue the rules on that one.
By the way, that Giving the steel shield to the druid idea...thats pretty bonkers. But as I saw in the thread, there appears to be a rift dividing those who find it as a legitimate tactic and the people who would want to beat you over the head with the Core Rulebook for even trying it.
So, to save myself and local GMs the headache, I'll probably forego trying that one unless its a last resort.
yeah, that's why I was advising you "... talking the spell over with your judge before the Judge and finding how he is going to run it... " because of the reactions not just to the steel shield thing, but when it was suggested to use poison (one judge stated he would have the target use the poison on you... "that's the way you use poison"), or manacles ("...hang them on his belt..."), etc.
This is why I have just removed the spell from all my PCs who could cast it (even retraining it off my Bard who took it at 1st level). Too much YMMV with the spell...
This is adversarial DMing. They are looking for creative ways to punish creativity. Squashing creative ideas at the table makes removed any kind of fuin at my table, and if I know a DMs does this kind of things I would not want to waste 4 hours of my time having them upset me.
|
|
This is adversarial DMing. They are looking for creative ways to punish creativity. Squashing creative ideas at the table makes removed any kind of fuin at my table, and if I know a DMs does this kind of things I would not want to waste 4 hours of my time having them upset me.I just discovered another handy item right in the Advanced Class Guide...
...Vomit Capsules. They are only 12 gold a pop, too. 600 gp for 50 of those, track them like a wand on the inventory sheet. And proceed to make targets spend a full round barfing. Yup...that is tactical comedy gold right there. And no GM can argue the rules on that one.
By the way, that Giving the steel shield to the druid idea...thats pretty bonkers. But as I saw in the thread, there appears to be a rift dividing those who find it as a legitimate tactic and the people who would want to beat you over the head with the Core Rulebook for even trying it.
So, to save myself and local GMs the headache, I'll probably forego trying that one unless its a last resort.
yeah, that's why I was advising you "... talking the spell over with your judge before the Judge and finding how he is going to run it... " because of the reactions not just to the steel shield thing, but when it was suggested to use poison (one judge stated he would have the target use the poison on you... "that's the way you use poison"), or manacles ("...hang them on his belt..."), etc.
This is why I have just removed the spell from all my PCs who could cast it (even retraining it off my Bard who took it at 1st level). Too much YMMV with the spell...
I disagree.
If you use Beguiling Gift to hand someone a bottle of liquid that's obviously intended for drinking, then they'll drink it. But clearly marked poison isn't normally used by drinking it yourself. And who puts manacles on themselves? The point is to put them on someone else.
There are plenty of good uses for this spell based on items whose usage is overwhelmingly obvious. Handing any sort of potion (inflict spells, plain water just to make them provoke, etc) is an obvious one. Or if you're willing to spend 2500, the Apple of Eternal Sleep from Ultimate Equipment is awesome. I intend to get that one eventually on my Prankster Bard with Beguiling Gift.
For less obvious things, expect some table variation. Sometimes, players come up with ideas that they wish would work, but really shouldn't.
|
|
Is there a way to get a necklace of strangulation...?
There is one in a PFS scenario.
When I GMed it, we had a player at the table who didn't pay much attention to the non-combat, non-looting portions of the adventure. So while the rest of the party knew that one of the cursed items they were supposed to recover was a necklace of strangulation, she completely missed that detail. After they killed some enemies and found the necklace, she was all ears when I said that the necklace they found had a magic aura, so she went to put it on. Luckily for her, the rest of the party stopped her.
|
This is adversarial DMing. They are looking for creative ways to punish creativity. Squashing creative ideas at the table makes removed any kind of fuin at my table, and if I know a DMs does this kind of things I would not want to waste 4 hours of my time having them upset me.I just discovered another handy item right in the Advanced Class Guide...
...Vomit Capsules. They are only 12 gold a pop, too. 600 gp for 50 of those, track them like a wand on the inventory sheet. And proceed to make targets spend a full round barfing. Yup...that is tactical comedy gold right there. And no GM can argue the rules on that one.
By the way, that Giving the steel shield to the druid idea...thats pretty bonkers. But as I saw in the thread, there appears to be a rift dividing those who find it as a legitimate tactic and the people who would want to beat you over the head with the Core Rulebook for even trying it.
So, to save myself and local GMs the headache, I'll probably forego trying that one unless its a last resort.
yeah, that's why I was advising you "... talking the spell over with your judge before the Judge and finding how he is going to run it... " because of the reactions not just to the steel shield thing, but when it was suggested to use poison (one judge stated he would have the target use the poison on you... "that's the way you use poison"), or manacles ("...hang them on his belt..."), etc.
This is why I have just removed the spell from all my PCs who could cast it (even retraining it off my Bard who took it at 1st level). Too much YMMV with the spell...
I disagree.
If you use Beguiling Gift to hand someone a bottle of liquid that's obviously intended for drinking, then they'll drink it. But clearly marked poison isn't normally used by drinking it yourself. And who puts manacles on themselves? The point is to put them on someone else.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. But regardless of how an item is normally used, beguiling gift will have them use the item on themself.
You offer an object to an adjacent creature, and entice it into using or consuming the proffered item. If the target fails its Will save, it immediately takes the offered object, dropping an already held object if necessary. On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question.
So he either drinks, eats, use the item to the best of his ability, or puts it on (don is done to oneself, you don't don something on someone else).
|
|
You offer an object to an adjacent creature, and entice it into using or consuming the proffered item.
This implies to me that the intention of the spell is to manipulate a creature into using a specific object even if it would be detrimental to them.
it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question.
The purpose of this text is basically to specify that the target uses the object according to its intended usage. For instance, the target would eat an Apple of Eternal Sleep, not attempt to wield it. It cuts out the ambiguity of how the target would try to use the item to get around its effect.
|
|
Right, it uses the item on itself in an appropriate fashion. I.e. it is appropriate to drink a bottle of liquid rather than balance it on one's head. Or it is appropriate to put on manacles rather than trying to balance on top of them while spinning about. It seems to me more like you're trying to ignore the intent of the spell and make it useless.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're ignoring the "as appropriate for the item in question". Putting manacles on yourself isn't appropriate. Drinking a known poison isn't appropriate. The whole point is that the item has to be something that's appropriate for a person to use on him/herself.
But what if they are fur lined manacles?
|
But what if they are fur lined manacles?
Then you probably want to take those over here ;) You won't be needing that beguiling gift, I bet.
|
|
This is adversarial DMing. They are looking for creative ways to punish creativity. Squashing creative ideas at the table makes removed any kind of fuin at my table, and if I know a DMs does this kind of things I would not want to waste 4 hours of my time having them upset me.I just discovered another handy item right in the Advanced Class Guide...
...Vomit Capsules. They are only 12 gold a pop, too. 600 gp for 50 of those, track them like a wand on the inventory sheet. And proceed to make targets spend a full round barfing. Yup...that is tactical comedy gold right there. And no GM can argue the rules on that one.
By the way, that Giving the steel shield to the druid idea...thats pretty bonkers. But as I saw in the thread, there appears to be a rift dividing those who find it as a legitimate tactic and the people who would want to beat you over the head with the Core Rulebook for even trying it.
So, to save myself and local GMs the headache, I'll probably forego trying that one unless its a last resort.
yeah, that's why I was advising you "... talking the spell over with your judge before the Judge and finding how he is going to run it... " because of the reactions not just to the steel shield thing, but when it was suggested to use poison (one judge stated he would have the target use the poison on you... "that's the way you use poison"), or manacles ("...hang them on his belt..."), etc.
This is why I have just removed the spell from all my PCs who could cast it (even retraining it off my Bard who took it at 1st level). Too much YMMV with the spell...
I disagree.
If you use Beguiling Gift to hand someone a bottle of liquid that's obviously intended for drinking, then they'll drink it. But clearly marked poison isn't normally used by drinking it yourself. And who puts manacles on themselves? The point is to put them on someone else.
There are plenty of good uses for this spell based on items whose...
Ok, let say a DM understand something differently. They know what th eplayer is intending to use the item for. Then they surpise the player by making that ruling.
Now I disagree with many ruling Mr. Mortika makes, but what makes me think he is not being a jerk(and is quite an awesoem guy) is he stops you and lets you know how he would rule before it happens. He does not snicker and say your turn is wasted.
I have seen too many DMs use their rulings to ambush players and I sorry I read that into nosigs post.
|
|
But what if they are fur lined manacles?Then you probably want to take those over here ;) You won't be needing that beguiling gift, I bet.
O.O!
============
On the topic:
I was mentioning my Dirty-Tricking Bard quite a while back. Quite a few times, a GM limited my abilities to use Dirty Tricks or limited the status effects I could inflict. However, it explicitly states in APG that the GM is allowed to regulate use and effectiveness of Dirty Tricks. And it was something I was prepared for the moment I begin planning the character's advancement. As a result, I was never unprepared for a GM to say, "I can't allow that, go with something else."
I'm not a stranger to GMs telling me "no". But when a strategy that --using Rules-as-Written -- is perfectly sound and all within the logic behind the rules, it does seem a little...dare I say...dictatorial...to just flat-out say "no" to it. A GM should be able to take whatever the players can throw at them, just as the players should do their best to handle what the GM dishes out.
Case-in-point: The very last game I played with my Dirty-Tricking Bard, "Vengeance at Sundered Crag"
In short, I pulled a difficult enemy's shirt over his head, pantsed him, and kneed him in the crotch. And was repeatedly beating him with my +1 Merciful Sap. (Full attack Actions with the Quick Dirty Trick Feat). By the time the rest of the party was done dispatching the rest of the baddies, the guy was Blinded and Sickened for 4 more turns, and Entangled for another 3.
Nowhere in this did the GM lose his cool, or tell me it wasn't legit. To him, it was an absolute scream. He was horrendously hampered, but he kept pushing and playing, and he did manage to get a couple of hits in despite the sorry state the enemy was in.
GMs should praise the creativity and just accept the fact that they can't be prepared for EVERYTHING, just like the PCs.
|
|
Ok, let say a DM understand something differently. They know what th eplayer is intending to use the item for. Then they surpise the player by making that ruling.
Now I disagree with many ruling Mr. Mortika makes, but what makes me think he is not being a jerk(and is quite an awesoem guy) is he stops you and lets you know how he would rule before it happens. He does not snicker and say your turn is wasted.
I have seen too many DMs use their rulings to ambush players and I sorry I read that into nosigs post.
And there I completely agree with you. If I'm a GM, and a player tries to do something that I don't think should work, I'll give them my ruling before the action takes place, and give them the chance to do something else instead.
|
|
Ok, let say a DM understand something differently. They know what th eplayer is intending to use the item for. Then they surpise the player by making that ruling.
Now I disagree with many ruling Mr. Mortika makes, but what makes me think he is not being a jerk(and is quite an awesoem guy) is he stops you and lets you know how he would rule before it happens. He does not snicker and say your turn is wasted.
I have seen too many DMs use their rulings to ambush players and I sorry I read that into nosigs post.
And there I completely agree with you. If I'm a GM, and a player tries to do something that I don't think should work, I'll give them my ruling before the action takes place, and give them the chance to do something else instead.
I get behind this, too. The GM should at least allow the player an alternative action for the turn rather than just going, "Oops, it doesn't go that way. Also, you just wasted your turn. Next up."
|
You're ignoring the "as appropriate for the item in question". Putting manacles on yourself isn't appropriate. Drinking a known poison isn't appropriate. The whole point is that the item has to be something that's appropriate for a person to use on him/herself.
You're ignoring the "On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object,..." which is the main part of the sentence. It has the subject, and the verb, and all the other wiggly bits I can't remember from sentence diagramming. If you're handed manacles, your choices are to eat them or wear them. If you rule the enemy won't put them on himself, I hope he's a rust monster.
|
My opinion (not necessarily popular) regarding Beguiling Gift and the giving of a metal shield to a druid is that it doesn't force them to lose their spells/powers. I use the paladin's code as a basis for it such that only if you "willfully" preform an "illegal" action will you be punished. So if a paladin is dominated and forced to kill an innocent, they do not lose their powers. The same can be applied to a druid who is compelled to violate their tenets. Sure the rules do not specifically state as much, but it is a reasonable interpretation of similar/like class rules. IMO, it is ridiculous that a 1st level spell can be used to completely eliminate the effectiveness of an entire character class. YMMV
Of course, the player is free to choose to atone, and in fact my paladin has done so more than once because I felt it was appropriate for him to do so.
|
|
You're ignoring the "as appropriate for the item in question". Putting manacles on yourself isn't appropriate. Drinking a known poison isn't appropriate. The whole point is that the item has to be something that's appropriate for a person to use on him/herself.You're ignoring the "On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object,..." which is the main part of the sentence. It has the subject, and the verb, and all the other wiggly bits I can't remember from sentence diagramming. If you're handed manacles, your choices are to eat them or wear them. If you rule the enemy won't put them on himself, I hope he's a rust monster.
I agree with Fromper and the others who have pointed out the "as appropriate for the item in question" as having more meaning and important application as 'Rules As Written' than some here ascribe to it.
The examples given in the spell are ALL items that a person would normally put on him/her-self or would wield. Not even one of them is so obvious a "don't use on yourself" trap as a pair of manacles or an obviously-labelled vial of poison is. The point of "Beguiling Gift" seems to me to be quite clear: it's to get the target to accept and use an apparently nice gift from a person whom the recipient should regard as patently untrustworthy and/or take and put on an otherwise reasonable gift in inappropriate circumstances (such as in the middle of combat).
And as for the manacles-- given the number of people I know who wear a pair of manacles dangling from their belts as decoration and/or fashion statement-- I might just considering manacles a reasonable gift for quite a few characters (NPCs and PCs), but not as something they would automatically be trying to put on their own wrists.
For a further "Devil's Advocate" point: it's not as easy to put manacles on yourself as some of you seem to think it is (although it does depend somewhat on the manacles in question)-- Let's see we did take the spell as requiring that the recipient immediately try to shackle itself... 1 round/6 seconds... he/she might get ONE of the manacles on ONE wrist, and then in the next round the spell's over and the recipient is like "what am I doing? what mad sorcery is this?" and is now going to try to beat your head in with an improvised weapon that you've given him/her (one manacle attached, one manacle swinging free might serve passably as a sap, short flail/club, or flailing gauntlet...).
On the other hand-- as a GM, I'd warn the player in advance what the probable outcome of their spell is going to be, and give them the chance to take a different action.
Vials of Alchemist Fire (described as helpful potions) work just fine, and are my current go-to item for B. Gift.
And works by RAW, it's a compulsion effect. A mook's logistical skills never need come into play. Here, drink this! (Will Save, did you pass? No? You're magically compelled to drink it. Magic happens.)
|
|
Even with what I said above...
I would see it as easy to get someone to drink poison or drink an alchemist's mutagen with 'Beguiling Gift': you simply present it as a delicious drink, healing potion, etc... so long as you're not presenting it as "hi there, this is poison, drink it anyway!" (or some similar obvious no-one would use this on themselves scenario) 'Beguiling Gift' should work. The problem with the manacles is that, well, they're OBVIOUSLY manacles. Find a way to disguise them as a nice pair of bracelets and somehow hide the connecting chain & locking features until after they're on the target, and you'd have a winner.
I agree that having the target drink something (provided there isn't a poison label or similar label on it) should be easy with this spell.
I don't agree that it would work with manacles. We aren't talking about handcuffs that can be put on is seconds, but medieval style manacles.
They don't come with locks unless you spend extra to get the locks, so it is bolts and such that secure the manacles to the wrists and connecting chain. This isn't something that you can do to yourself, otherwise you could take them off as easily.
Even if the argument that the target would put on the manacles is accepted, it would take them longer than 6 seconds to put on and do up a single manacle. This applies even if locks were purchased to and added to the manacles - it would be more padlock style and not built into the manacles.
|
|
Tried out the Vomit Capsules and they appear to be a winner. Pass them off as a "Magical Power Pill". Or since the character passing them out is a voluptuous Muse-Touched Aasimar, she passes it to men as "Male Enhancement pills".
Potion of Frostbite appears to be effective also. Pass them out to a Barbarian to fatigue him.
I think with enough digging, people can find plenty of great uses for Beguiling Gift that don't cause a player/GM conflict. The less rules referencing you can do during a game, the better. And as it has been suggested numerous times in this thread, I will start asking GMs who are new to me how they would conduct use of Beguiling Gift.
|
|
That's not how Frostbite works...the Barbarian would fatigue the next person he touches, not himself.Potion of Frostbite appears to be effective also. Pass them out to a Barbarian to fatigue him.
I hate to disagree, but as a potion, the imbiber is automatically the target of the spell and he would take the damage and be fatigued.
Yeah, the Frostbite spell isn't "target: you". (And if it was it couldn't be made into a potion)
You cast it on others and they take the damage/effects. Someone drinking a potion of Frostbite would be the target and take the damage/effects.
Technically, the imbiber of a potion is both the caster AND the target, but mechanically for Frostbite it just means they take the damage - the spell doesn't give the caster an ongoing ability .
-j
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the Frostbite spell isn't "target: you". (And if it was it couldn't be made into a potion)
You cast it on others and they take the damage/effects. Someone drinking a potion of Frostbite would be the target and take the damage/effects.
Technically, the imbiber of a potion is both the caster AND the target, but mechanically for Frostbite it just means they take the damage - the spell doesn't give the caster an ongoing ability .
-j
Hmmm. I see what you're saying. But here's the thing...casting Frostbite *does* give the caster an ongoing ability because of this sentence -- "You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level." My Winter Witch uses is a lot and it is generally a spell which lasts the length of the combat.
So given that, how would you rule the effect of imbibing a CL 3 Frostbite potion (which I know doesn't exist in PFS)?
[pause while I go look up the rules and FAQ's on touch spells]
I'm pretty sure that I would rule that an imbiber of a potion of a touch attack spell -- because they count as the caster -- would have the charge ready to use on someone else. I would rule this way because touching oneself does not normally discharge the spell unless the caster wishes to. I'm influenced by this FAQ which both implies a fairly high level of control over accidental discharge and a presumption that one can avoid discharging on oneself.
I can certainly see someone ruling differently.