|
Side note, though not entirely related:
But I guess this all is mote. After all - you didn't build this guy... Though come to think of it, I need an Arcane Caster in Core, so maybe I'll build one (Fire Blooded Sorcerer...).
Actually, the Druid I built has indirect access to the Prestidigitation spell. No, the druid can't cast it, but Summon Nature's ally 1 can summon a Mite, which can cast Prestidigitation at-will. You would need a shared language (undercommon) if you wanted the Mite to do anything other than just attack.
Seems kinda petty (and pathetic) for a druid to summon a creature just to cast a 0-level sorcerer spell, but the option is there.
I actually bought a bunch of Mite minitures (not for Prestidigitation, mind you) so I can be a summoner druid in core. It's one of the few summoning options that wizards don't get, so I gotta spam it...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever semantic merits there may be in the argument that prestidigitation may not (or CAN not, depending on your view) light torches, I can't help but see insisting on such a position during actual game play as pointlessly being a jerk about the rules.
What is a GM actually accomplishing by telling a player her wizard can't cantrip her torch alight and has to dig out flint and steel like everyone else? That is a useful/productive use of the finite amount of time allotted for a scenario?
I don't buy "rules are the rules and you enforce the little ones and the big ones..." What is directly, objectively the case here is it's ambiguous and therefore up to GM discretion. You as the GM can choose to allow fun or say why fun isn't allowed. THAT is what this issue boils down to.
|
Whatever semantic merits there may be in the argument that prestidigitation may not (or CAN not, depending on your view) light torches, I can't help but see insisting on such a position during actual game play as pointlessly being a jerk about the rules.
What is a GM actually accomplishing by telling a player her wizard can't cantrip her torch alight and has to dig out flint and steel like everyone else? That is a useful/productive use of the finite amount of time allotted for a scenario?
I don't buy "rules are the rules and you enforce the little ones and the big ones..." What is directly, objectively the case here is it's ambiguous and therefore up to GM discretion. You as the GM can choose to allow fun or say why fun isn't allowed. THAT is what this issue boils down to.
From the spell prestidigitation, the last line reads....Finally, prestidigitation lacks the power to duplicate any other spell effects. Any actual change to an object (beyond just moving, cleaning, or soiling it) persists only 1 hour.
From the spell spark... You can make an unattended Fine flammable object catch on fire. This works as if you were using flint and steel except that you can use spark in any sort of weather and it takes much less time to actually ignite an object.
So, if I can duplicate the effect of spark with prestidigitation can I also deliver messages with it to? Like the spell message? Chill things to cause damage with it? Or... So many other cantrips.
|
|
You and I clearly disagree about whether causing a torch to light is the same thing as causing any flammable object at all to ignite, especially objects that haven't been deliberately primed to easily ignite.
To summarize my point: why pick the "you can't do that" route when the rules aren't giving you that as the only interpretation.
|
|
You and I clearly disagree about whether causing a torch to light is the same thing as causing any flammable object at all to ignite, especially objects that haven't been deliberately primed to easily ignite.
To summarize my point: why pick the "you can't do that" route when the rules aren't giving you that as the only interpretation.
I find the funniest part of this the fact that I was the guy (20 posts above this or so) that was saying that someone could light a torch with a Ray of Frost/Fire (Elemental blooded Sorcerer using Acid Splash/Ray of Frost) - so clearly I am picking the "you can't do that" view in this entire thing.
Here's the text from the spell
Prestidigitations are minor tricks that novice spellcasters use for practice. Once cast, a prestidigitation spell enables you to perform simple magical effects for 1 hour. The effects are minor and have severe limitations. A prestidigitation can slowly lift 1 pound of material. It can color, clean, or soil items in a 1-foot cube each round. It can chill, warm, or flavor 1 pound of nonliving material.
It cannot deal damage or affect the concentration of spellcasters.
Prestidigitation can create small objects, but they look crude and artificial. The materials created by a prestidigitation spell are extremely fragile, and they cannot be used as tools, weapons, or spell components. Finally, prestidigitation lacks the power to duplicate any other spell effects. Any actual change to an object (beyond just moving, cleaning, or soiling it) persists only 1 hour.
So I guess - seeing the fact that it can warm 1 pound of non-living material that someone could rule that it can set a torch on fire. Sure, a judge could rule that. I guess. They are after all the judge, and what they says works, works. I'm ok with that. BUT, I would not expect this to work at most tables. YMMV. Ask your judge before you try it.
All my spell-casters prep prestidigitation (well 90% anyway) when they can. I REALLY like the spell. It's one of my "Standard" spells, along with guidance, message, create water, detect magice and perhaps the first of those even. Do I think it can light a fire? No. Maybe on a tinder twig... Maybe not. Warm things? Sure. Make things warm to the touch. Set them on fire? No, I think that is granting the spell more than it can do. If someone feels it can do this, I then ask if I can open doors with it? You know, lift the latch? Flip a switch? Can I use it to pick locks (with Disable Device) from a distance?
It's a great spell. I like it. As a judge, I would not NORMALLY allow a spell caster light a fire with it. As a player I would not ask a judge to allow me to set something on fire with it. If I were at a table and a player asked the judge if he could light a torch on fire with the spell - that is between the judge and the player. If one of them asked my opinion (like say, posting a thread on it) I would give my opinion (as a judge and as a player)... No, I do not think the spell prestidigitation can be used to light a torch.
So... "why pick the 'you can't do that' route when the rules aren't giving you that as the only interpretation"? - well, because I think the rules are doing just that. Giving me that as the only interpretation. Warming a torch is not setting fire to it. .... IMHO. But clearly your opinion is different from mine. So,... YMMV.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Situationally, I would consider it - so long as we are talking it being a fluff bit of role play in a tavern and your friendly wiz was passing his hand over candles to light them or igniting a torch beside him to better read out some boxed text.
Outside the comfortable confines of the Naughty Mermaid tavern it probably wouldn't fly.
|
|
A GM could rule that prestidigitation can produce the results of a lesser version of spark the same way it can produce the results of a lesser version of mage hand. Operating only on flammable objects held versus operating at a distance, for example. While I would personally allow it due to the past history of what prestidigitation could do prior to Pathfinder, I could certainly see where a GM could rule otherwise. With that in mind, the tindertwig idea is probably a much easier and more reliable way to go.