| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Here's the situation. In a recent session, a bounty hunter caught up to our party at a dockside inn because we had prices on our heads. He was hoping to capture us all alive, but we managed to hold him off. Instead, he managed to knock our monk unconscious, picked him up off the ground, used disguise self to make himself look like a dock laborer with a load of lumber over his shoulder and blended into the crowd at the docks.
Disguise self reads: "You make yourself - including clothing, armor, weapons, and equipment - look different."
Now, does our unconscious monk slung over the guy's shoulder count as equipment? That's the only way I could see that use of the spell being legitimate.
I would rule no in my own game.
I think there's a case for it, though. An unconscious character is treated as an "unattended object" by the rules, IIRC.
Still, if the character is alive, that basically means you are including them in the spell's effect, which isn't legit.
An interesting case. Let's see what the others have to say about it.
|
Are you asking because you want to argue this next session? My advice would be to roll with it. He obviously wanted to use it to provide some tension and move the story in a certain way. Fighting about this probably isn't going to help your game in the long run.
As far as your question- the spell can be used as part of a disguise check. In that case the bounty hunter could easily use it to help him blend in as a dock worker carrying goods. It should not magically make the monk appear to be lumber as far as RAW are concerned. Silent image would have covered that.
If your dm wanted to bend the rules here a little, it's his world, but he set a precedent. In his world disguise self is going to allow you to pull that off so take note. Turn about is fair play.
*Crafty uses of silent images, disguise self/alter self and some mundane disguise would work. I.e : a big sack to hide the body, maybe a fishnet with some fishes and a cart.*
Otherwise, i wont allow it. Yet, i think that as far as RAW is concerned the spell wont cover the body, On the other hand, what about invisibility?
Edit: Coherence xD
Are you asking because you want to argue this next session? My advice would be to roll with it. He obviously wanted to use it to provide some tension and move the story in a certain way. Fighting about this probably isn't going to help your game in the long run.
As far as your question- the spell can be used as part of a disguise check. In that case the bounty hunter could easily use it to help him blend in as a dock worker carrying goods. It should not magically make the monk appear to be lumber as far as RAW are concerned. Silent image would have covered that.
If your dm wanted to bend the rules here a little, it's his world, but he set a precedent. In his world disguise self is going to allow you to pull that off so take note. Turn about is fair play.
The turn about is why I'm asking. I'm sure it's a plot device, it's not like our DM to just kidnap people without a purpose. I'm just asking about people's interpretations of the wording of the spell, since all it says it makes you and your equipment "look different". So if an unconscious person can be considered equipment, it should work fine.
Crafty uses of silent images, disguise self/alter self and some mundane disguise would work. I.e : a big sack to hide the body, maybe a fishnet with some fishes and a cart.
Otherwise, i wont allow it. Yet, i think that RAW, it should be allowed, as EvilLincoln said, unconscious characters are treated as "unattended objects", so the spell would cover them up. On the other hand, what about invisibility?
In my eyes, if disguise self allows the unconscious character to count as equipment, invisibility should too... They're both glamers, just 1st level spell vs 2nd level
|
|
Yeah- I don't think unconscious character should be considered equipment. That probably leads to a cascade of unanticipated weird rules applications from spells and such. Also I just saw that creating a disguise takes 1d3x10 minutes of work, so there was no time for that application of the spell.
Reefwood makes a good point though. It's a technicality, but throwing a sack over him (or possibly even a net to stretch it even farther) might have worked.
Hmm, it does seem like you're not considered an object until you're dead. I'm sure the whole situation can be hand-waved to say that the monk was shoved in a bag and then carried off with disguise self used only to make the bounty hunter appear dressed as a dock worker rather than an armored combatant.
I'll have to keep that in mind!
To extend this line of thinking then... What if the bounty hunter had used invisibility? From what I understand he would become invisible, but the monk would not have (unless he cast invisibility on both of them individually). What if he shoved the monk in a bag and then cast invisibility on himself? The bag containing the monk would become invisible, effectively rendering the monk invisible also, correct? What if he cast invisibility on himself (with the bag) first and then shoved the monk into the bag? What about a net that the monk was shoved into? Would an invisible net make the contents invisible?
I know the examples are getting more abstract, but it's sparked my curiosity to see how much people have been able to stretch the boundaries of these spells!
Are you asking because you want to argue this next session? My advice would be to roll with it. He obviously wanted to use it to provide some tension and move the story in a certain way. Fighting about this probably isn't going to help your game in the long run.
As far as your question- the spell can be used as part of a disguise check. In that case the bounty hunter could easily use it to help him blend in as a dock worker carrying goods. It should not magically make the monk appear to be lumber as far as RAW are concerned. Silent image would have covered that.
If your dm wanted to bend the rules here a little, it's his world, but he set a precedent. In his world disguise self is going to allow you to pull that off so take note. Turn about is fair play.
+1
Yeah- I don't think unconscious character should be considered equipment. That probably leads to a cascade of unanticipated weird rules applications from spells and such. Also I just saw that creating a disguise takes 1d3x10 minutes of work, so there was no time for that application of the spell.
Reefwood makes a good point though. It's a technicality, but throwing a sack over him (or possibly even a net to stretch it even farther) might have worked.
It's 1d3 x 10 using the Disguise skill to make a nonmagical disguise. Disguise Self only takes a standard action.
If he'd picked something other than "load of lumber," I'd given it some room, but as it is, it sounds wrong.
Creatures are not objects and the game rules treat them differently. Until you become a corpse you are a living creature so by the rule he was incorrect. If invisibility worked that way I could grab my buddy and cast invisibility and save myself a spell as long as I don't let him go.
|
Creatures are not objects and the game rules treat them differently. Until you become a corpse you are a living creature so by the rule he was incorrect. If invisibility worked that way I could grab my buddy and cast invisibility and save myself a spell as long as I don't let him go.
If your buddy were unconscious I would probably let you get away with it (edit: not really a 'per the rules' thing, just a 'it sounds reasonable' thing)
As for the original post I suspect you should let it fly as Ithuriel suggested. Particularly since the alternative is "The Bounty Hunter uses a full round action to CdG your monk friend"
If the bounty hunter was wearing a cloak, all he would have to do is flip it over the body to disguise it in the manner described.
Seeing as this happened at the docks, I am gunna roll with Dirty Rat saw it exaclty as it happened ;) The bounty hunter threw his cloak up over him and vanished into the crowd...
just like Dirty Rat saw it happen :)
I hope the DM did this to create a good gaming situation and not just to 'win' in a fight...
GNOME
As for the original post I suspect you should let it fly as Ithuriel suggested. Particularly since the alternative is "The Bounty Hunter uses a full round action to CdG your monk friend"
I actually am a player in this game as well with Vip00. I was waiting for a CouDeGras. I took some of my friends blood from the scene and the inquisitor's sword and went to the cops.
It will be interesting to see what happens next session... I have a plan teehee.
He was being chased... and those things take time.
This is what happens when a GM tries to be more clever than he needs to be, and causes himself loads of grief.
He could have just stuck him in a sack and everyone think it's a load of potatoes. Or dump him in a crate, and nail the lid on.
Meh, DMs like to have fun with the NPC abilities too. Imo, good players will understand when small handwaving details (whether the DM says "he wraps him in his cloak as he picks him up" vs "he picks him up and slings him over his shoulder") allow a combat to resolve without deaths and advance the story line at the same time.
Here's the situation. In a recent session, a bounty hunter caught up to our party at a dockside inn because we had prices on our heads. He was hoping to capture us all alive, but we managed to hold him off. Instead, he managed to knock our monk unconscious, picked him up off the ground, used disguise self to make himself look like a dock laborer with a load of lumber over his shoulder and blended into the crowd at the docks.
Disguise self reads: "You make yourself - including clothing, armor, weapons, and equipment - look different."
Now, does our unconscious monk slung over the guy's shoulder count as equipment? That's the only way I could see that use of the spell being legitimate.
Disguise Self spell = No, the monk is not equipment in this case. Even if put in a sack, the sack would still be visible as a sack.
Now if he used the Viel spell, i might let him get away with it.
I will go with the rest of the people. People are not equipment. Otherwise, what is stopping the party Barbarian from taking the party gnome, shoving him in a backpack and claiming him as property for the invisibility spell, makes for a great pocket cleric...
Actually I think as a DM I would allow that if that's what the party had to do to make it work. The gnome can't cast or take any other physical action in there... Good luck to them if they get caught in combat~
Would a life sized wooden puppet be considered property? If yes, then an unconscious enemy should be treated the same way.
I would have let the monk be covered by the spell, until he woke up. Then the lumber would have turned into a struggling dwarf. All sorts of possibilities there.
|
Actually I think as a DM I would allow that if that's what the party had to do to make it work. The gnome can't cast or take any other physical action in there... Good luck to them if they get caught in combat~I will go with the rest of the people. People are not equipment. Otherwise, what is stopping the party Barbarian from taking the party gnome, shoving him in a backpack and claiming him as property for the invisibility spell, makes for a great pocket cleric...
So, the gnome just channels positive energy.. Or casts as if he was in grapple.
The biggest reason to not allow it is to cut down on some of the headaches that trying to bend the rules to that can cause.
And using it for the monk in this case, do not be surprised if the players goes to use it later, since the DM set a precedent for its use in that way.
Actually I think as a DM I would allow that if that's what the party had to do to make it work. The gnome can't cast or take any other physical action in there... Good luck to them if they get caught in combat~I will go with the rest of the people. People are not equipment. Otherwise, what is stopping the party Barbarian from taking the party gnome, shoving him in a backpack and claiming him as property for the invisibility spell, makes for a great pocket cleric...
So, the gnome just channels positive energy.. Or casts as if he was in grapple.
The biggest reason to not allow it is to cut down on some of the headaches that trying to bend the rules to that can cause.
And using it for the monk in this case, do not be surprised if the players goes to use it later, since the DM set a precedent for its use in that way.
Agreed, the gnome in the above example would be awake and conscious. If the gnome were instead 3pts below 0, unconscious, and stuffed into his friends back pack so they could escape from a hostile city under the spell, I'd be ok with that.
You went to the authorities, good, because the spell has been stretched too far. (Disguised as a different size catagory=2 people in one spell)
The spell is a disguise, and the lumber will have weird texture.
Everyone who saw the bounty hunter would get the perception check.
Unless the bounty Hunter has woodworking, any carpenters or ship builders will get a bonus to detect the phony wood.
A gnome cleric can heal the wearer as long as the backpack is not an extradimensional space.
|
Now, does our unconscious monk slung over the guy's shoulder count as equipment? That's the only way I could see that use of the spell being legitimate.
I wouldn't allow it. You'd be introducing a loophole that would allow any 'self' spell to affect someone else. Sure, you'd have to be unconscious to get away with it but I'm sure, once the option is created, it will get used.
Similar litmus test: If you're going to treat an unconscious character as an object, are they also immune to, say, Magic Missile? Likely not... so you'd have your answer.
However... maybe a bounty hunter might develop (or pay to have developed) a slight variation of the Disguise Self spell. Its not unreasonable. I'd allow the GM the benefit of the doubt.. or even suggest it for yourself (GM's love stuff like, "Mr. GM, sir, I'm pretty sure the regular Disguise Self spell wouldn't work that way but, rather than handwave or houserule it I'd like to suggest that our bounty hunter adversary probably got his hands on a variant of the spell that does." rather than an argument).
I will go with the rest of the people. People are not equipment. Otherwise, what is stopping the party Barbarian from taking the party gnome, shoving him in a backpack and claiming him as property for the invisibility spell, makes for a great pocket cleric...
On a side note to that, what if the bag is a bag of holding? Does it work then? The gnome is not actually IN the bag, he's in an extradimensional space, to which the bag is just a portal...
I guess in the end, I don't see a problem as long as the character is unconscious... If someone in my party wants to drag an unconscious character to safety, should I have him make grapple checks against the unconscious characters CMD-5 (for 0 dex)? That's how it would have to happen if they were treated exclusively as a chracter. Personally I'd rather that the unconscious character be treated as an object when it's convenient, since it's both easier and makes more real-life sense...
Now, does our unconscious monk slung over the guy's shoulder count as equipment? That's the only way I could see that use of the spell being legitimate.I wouldn't allow it. You'd be introducing a loophole that would allow any 'self' spell to affect someone else. Sure, you'd have to be unconscious to get away with it but I'm sure, once the option is created, it will get used.
Similar litmus test: If you're going to treat an unconscious character as an object, are they also immune to, say, Magic Missile? Likely not... so you'd have your answer.
+1
Although I believe that foreward is better than reseting (for story purposes, it's easier to flub something for the players in the future than go back in time and ask players to forget information that they have gained), I agree that:
1) carried living beings being considered equipment would eventually be abused by your players :-). For example, could I have used Hand of the Apprentice on his unconscious body and fling it across the room and back? Can multiple characters travel in one single, polymorphed body? etc.
2)You can houserule that abnormal magic affects can be used forcefully against players/creatures. For instance, a player could teleport or dimension door as long as that foe gets a Will save (normally only willing creatures). That would be pretty neat actually. This would allow a dimension door to work on unwilling creatures.
I clicked the FAQ button on the first post. Might as well try to get an official response, right?
None is needed. The rules of the game treat people and objects differently. You are not an object until you are a corpse.
I clicked the FAQ button on the first post. Might as well try to get an official response, right?None is needed. The rules of the game treat people and objects differently. You are not an object until you are a corpse.Yep. Agreed.
Agreed also. That doesn't answer the question of whether living people can be obscured by invisible objects or not. If not, do they show through? Does the invisibility fail?
As for some concerns voiced above about houserules allowing people to treat unconscious characters as objects (within reason) as I proposed: no you couldn't use hand of the apprentice because that ability specifies a weapon. No you couldn't use polymorph type spells due to the within reason clause up there. Though that brings up the old bag of holding problem. Does it work with a person in a bag of holding? My DMs have typically allowed it.
Agreed also. That doesn't answer the question of whether living people can be obscured by invisible objects or not. If not, do they show through? Does the invisibility fail?I clicked the FAQ button on the first post. Might as well try to get an official response, right?None is needed. The rules of the game treat people and objects differently. You are not an object until you are a corpse.Yep. Agreed.
If you pick up an object before you turn invisible then it is invisible also, but if you drop it then it becomes visible, and picking it back up does not make it invisible again.
PRD:The creature or object touched becomes invisible. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too. If you cast the spell on someone else, neither you nor your allies can see the subject, unless you can normally see invisible things or you employ magic to do so.
|
|
Agreed also. That doesn't answer the question of whether living people can be obscured by invisible objects or not. If not, do they show through? Does the invisibility fail?I clicked the FAQ button on the first post. Might as well try to get an official response, right?None is needed. The rules of the game treat people and objects differently. You are not an object until you are a corpse.Yep. Agreed.
If you pick up an object before you turn invisible then it is invisible also, but if you drop it then it becomes visible, and picking it back up does not make it invisible again.
PRD:The creature or object touched becomes invisible. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too. If you cast the spell on someone else, neither you nor your allies can see the subject, unless you can normally see invisible things or you employ magic to do so.
I think the question is this:
If you have cast invisibility on a coffin, and then climb into it, are you visible through the coffin, or does the coffin hide you?
If you have cast invisibility on a coffin, and then climb into it, are you visible through the coffin, or does the coffin hide you?
It's not explicitly listed, but based on the fact that creatures can render objects hidden when placed in the clothing of the creature, the coffin hides you. Invisibility doesn't make something transparent. . . although I can think of a few instances of science fiction where invisibility does make you transparent. It's better to think of invisibility in Pathfinder/D&D universe as a coating. Once the coating (glamer) is on, the image of something is simply removed. It's not that you can see through something, but that the something fails to register visually.
The monk is still alive so no, not equipment. If the monk was dead then it would just be a lump of flesh and bone and considered an item.
If the monk was placed in a box and carried on the shoulder then I'd say that yes, the box could be changed to look like a stack of lumber.
Since he was running away and didn't have enough time to find or put the monk in a box then he'd be seen carrying the body. I may allow him to attempt to change the look of what the monk was wearing, depending on the spell used. A dock worker carrying his drunk friend might be more acceptable than one carrying a monk.
The bounty hunter used the spell to hide from the adventurers.
I think Disguises would be a third level spell.
A cleric must present their holy symbol to channel energy.
Basically, the only direction to do that would be up, out of the top of the backpack. If the backpack is invisible, it would look like a disembodied hand holding a holy symbol aloft.
As for some concerns voiced above about houserules allowing people to treat unconscious characters as objects (within reason) as I proposed: no you couldn't use hand of the apprentice because that ability specifies a weapon. No you couldn't use polymorph type spells due to the within reason clause up there. Though that brings up the old bag of holding problem. Does it work with a person in a bag of holding? My DMs have typically allowed it.
However, everything solid is a weapon (or at least an improvised weapon). So subtracting points from an attack roll for improvisation and increased size category, HotA could RAW throw a body across a room and have it come back. The problem with treating living beings as equipment is similar with invisibility.
Ask yourself the question: Why is it ok for the unconscious person to be treated as equipment for invisibility, but not for other effects?
PS: I kinda like the idea that the bag would be invisible but the person wouldn't.... that would mean that an invisible dragon could swallow someone whole and you could see them going into through the dragons intestines.
However, everything solid is a weapon (or at least an improvised weapon). So subtracting points from an attack roll for improvisation and increased size category, HotA could RAW throw a body across a room and have it come back. The problem with treating living beings as equipment is similar with invisibility.
Ask yourself the question: Why is it ok for the unconscious person to be treated as equipment for invisibility, but not for other effects?
PS: I kinda like the idea that the bag would be invisible but the person wouldn't.... that would mean that an invisible dragon could swallow someone whole and you could see them going into through the dragons intestines.
Actually for that exact reason I would rule that HotA can only attack with ACTUAL weapons, not improvised. It's a limitation in the ability. Otherwise you could use it to throw ANYTHING anywhere and that's really not the intent of the ability as I read it. You can use HotA to throw a manufactured weapon for use as an attack only. That's the extent of that ability.
As far as treating things differently for different effects, that's where the "within reason" clause comes in. I think you would agree that treating an unconscious person as an object for the purpose of improvised weapons, while an entertaining idea, is not reasonable. Treating them as an object for the purpose of dragging them out of the room without having to grapple them is in fact reasonable and helps streamline play.
I think I'm a fan of Meabolex's interpretation of invisibility above the best. Invisibility is an illusion spell, not a transmutation spell. It doesn't change the subject of the spell to appear transparent, it creates an illusory coating on it that prevents it from registering visually. With that in mind, objects that have invisibility cast on them or are possessions of a creature with invisibility on them will obscure other objects or creatures. In fact, the spell specifically states it for objects... "Items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature." I guess I don't see why it wouldn't work with people, even conscious ones. The invisible coffin above is a perfect example!
Wait, are you saying I can't Hand of the Apprentice improvised weapons?
How in the hell am I supposed to cut someones arm off and throw it at them as they are running away!? :-)
As far as invisibility goes, this is a fairly grey area. I agree that the bag would be enough to hide someone while invisible.
All of this would be easily avoided if one sentence was added to the end of the rules: Unconscious characters are considered willing creatures.
Basically, what we already know (they can't fight back or differentiate between friend and foe casting spells on them except by fortitude).