You can interpret and fluff it and repeat it as often as you like Selgard - thats not what Mind Blank says. Why you bold the "about the target" part is beyond me. It doesn't say "devices and spells targetted at the target of Mind Blank", its "devices and spells that gather information about the target of Mind Blank"....
I'm not fluffing it, I'm reading the spell, what it says, and the examples it gives.
Your interpretation of Mind Blank would protect you from my asking an ally under the effect of a Telepathic Bond spell (which is a divination) from asking if he'd seen you, and/or from him answering me.
No. Just. No.
Mind Blank doesn't erase you from existence. It prevents me from using Divinations on you- not from casting spells at or on other people and asking them questions.
Mind Blank gives some broad statements and then breaks down into specifics. It states two specific ways that it protects the person effected:
1) If they are in the area of a Scrying or a similar spell then the spell works normally but the MB'd creature isn't shown. (see invis, arcane eye, and so on)
2) Scrying attempts that are targeted specifically at the subject do not work at all.
There is a third category of Divination spells however that isn't covered by Mind Blank- and those are spells that communicate *about* the MB'd individual without targeting him in any way. Contact Other Plane, Commune, potentially Telepathic Bond and any other such spell falls into this group.
How else could it possibly work? Do I ask Jim if he's seen Bob the MB and he tells me yes but I can't hear him say it? or does he not hear me ask the question? What if I say "do you see someone in a black tabard" and Bob the MB'd has a black tabard on: does he say yes and I can't hear it? Your interpretation just makes no sense.
The spell says exactly what it does and "erase you from existence" isn't on the list.
-S
Aight, fine there's an infinite number of planes. You got your 30 free wishes. Since this tactic is clearly unstoppable, I'll just note that this is chump change if you really want to powergame things.
I'm going to stop the threadjack on how Mindblank works and post a new thread for it entirely.
If any are interested on moving that convo there, feel free to. I won't continue to debate it here as it isn't what the Op asked about.
-S
and a DM's interpretation of how much efreets can do with wish can entirely be based on how old he decided their society is and how far they have come in understanding what wish can do. This is not something I would drop on them like a bomb, this is something that they would naturally know if they make their knowledge check.
There is nothing for a player to even get pissed about. This scenario runs along the same line as a low level character attacking an older dragon. When player's make suicidal decisions, they only have one person to blame.
Should efreets naturally be a bit tougher? Yes, they should be creatures whose power is on the level of their spell like ability to grant wishes. They should be CR 17 or so but they aren't and really this only causes one problem. That players see this weak creature and think it is easily exploited and then they get unrealistic dreams of easy access to free power. Yes, the creature from the stat block may only have 10 hd, low saves, and unimpressive defenses, but that is like saying a commoner with a nuke is an easy target.
If the player overlooks this and gets reamed, well he was not doing an impressive job roleplaying his 30 intelligence.
Wow...just wow. Ok, we obviously have someone who not only believes that a player should be punished for not playing a "being mortal intelligence" correctly. Good show.
Furthermore, we have someone who apparently think that killing an efreeti means that you get swarmed by a special efreeti CIA who run around granting themselves wishes (which they can't) to hunt down those who would imprison them and exploit their power (hey, it sounds like a GENIE, go figure).
Hmmm...
But anyway, all this is moot, because any sane efreeti (doubly so if they're evil/selfish) would happily trade 2 for 1 wishes as often as possible, simply because it is convenient for them to do so. There's no logical reason that a PC couldn't merely summon the efreeti, explain he wants an Aladdin's Deal, and befriend the efreeti on a mutually beneficial partnership.
Really, forcing a djinn to serve you is really only useful for those who want the djinn on call, or want 'em in a bottle or something; and even then it's questionable.
But Mind Blank does not stop me from casting a spell to ask someone a question about you. I'm casting a spell to contact them- you are not involved. The spell doesn't suddenly fail because I ask a question about you. I'm asking someone about their personal knowledge.
It works just fine - until you are using a divination spell which would give you information about someone who is mind blanked.
Mind Blank does not stop me from asking someone what they know about you. It stops me from targeting you with a spell. See Invisible, Detect magic or whatnot are emanations from me to you that Mind Blank would stop. Because the magical effect is touching you and your spell blocks it.
Mind blank does not stop you from walking up to people, and asking them if they saw Jim the mind blanked wizard. It does not stop you from even using sending, or message to ask them if they saw Jim the mind blanked wizard. What it does stop is you from getting any information from DIVINATION magic about Jim the mind blanked wizard.
Your spell does not block me communicating with another creature to ask it where you are, what you are doing, have done, or whatever.
if I cast Blood Biography on a creature you killed, I'll still get the full complement of information for that spell- up to the knowledge of the person. (i.e. if you killed it from behind it may not have seen you/knew it was you etc). Speak with Dead is the same way. They are the target, their information is what I am asking.
You are not the target and the magic isn't touching or effecting or seeking the information from you therefore your spell does not block it.
You would get the information from blood biography, I think. The questions you get are: "Who are you?" "What are you?" "How was your blood shed?" "When was your blood shed?". The spell states: "How was your blood shed? (Brief outline of the events that caused its wound, to the best of the victim?s knowledge)" He just can't give any info about the wizard. "I was called via planar binding, then died from disintegrate" would be fine, and satisfy the spell.
Once again: Mind Blank is not a "I do not exist in the universe anymore" spell. It is a "you can't cast a spell at me to find me" spell. I can't use see invisiblity or arcane eyes or clairaudience/voyance to find you. I can summon a creature and set it to tracking you down or I can talk with someone else and ask them- like commune or contact other plane.
It is a "divination magic can not help you to find me." If you have arcane magic (other than those specifically listed in the spell), or other methods (talking to people in person, via sending/message, etc) that works fine. But divination magic WILL NOT WORK.
If Jim the Farmer saw you walk by and you had Mind Blank on, I can ask him- directly or with divination magic- if he saw you and he can answer me. Mind Blank Effects You. Not the World.
-S
You can ask him, directly, or with any magic except divination or the listed spells in mind blank.
When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type, all of your gear melds into your body. Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor and shield bonuses, which cease to function).Now this one is pretty good. The problem now is that the soul gem does not provide a constant bonus(is not the same as a constant effect) so it does not continue to function, meaning it does not hold the Efreet anymore. I am assuming a volatile act against the Efreet starts combat. It is now the Efreet's turn and he plane shifts away, and becomes a tattle-tale.
Accept soul bind stipulates "Only by destroying the gem or dispelling the spell on the gem can one free the soul (which is then still dead)." Though it is not instantaneous, and is a Permanent spell. If the spell description didn't stipulate that only those 2 things could free the soul, I would say thats true. But really this is getting to a "interpertation vs RAI vs RAW" situation more and more.
Yeah, but the issue now is that we have a conflicting rules issue, and each is a specific rule. I think this is a corner case meaning the rules as written don't cover it. We are now in DM fiat territory.
I do think I have an answer, but I have to go now. I will explain in the morn'.
The gem is not providing a function. As long as the gem is not broken, trap the soul lasts. Melds does not equate to broken.
If you do choose to rule that the gem is broken, I see a few problems. First, the gem is a part of my body, but the efreet is trapped in the gem. How is he freed from the gem without ripping parts out of my body? (Polymorph doesn't support any gear escaping during the duration. The efreet is part of the gem, and the gem is part of me.)
Second, Core, 362, "If the trapped creature is a powerful creature from another plane, it can be required to perform a service immediately upon being freed."
Lots of options here. Some fun ones. "Plane shift to the elemental plane of air and kill as many djinni vizir's as you can over the next 16(CL) days."
Or, "When you next can, I wish for you to be effected by a a binding spell effect of minimus containment to be contained within the gem you were just released from."
The other option, is to just stuff the gem inside a handy haversack, bag of holding, or portable hole. Core, 501, "Extradimensional Spaces ... These spells and magic items create a tiny pocket space that does not exist in any dimension."
Even with commune working, no amount of "Where is Bob the Efreet?" can tell you where it is, as it doesn't exist anywhere. Also, once you have saved up too many efreeti's, you just get a bag of holding 1 for 2,500GP. Put the gems inside. Then stab it with a sword (or equivalent). Core, 500, "If a bag of holding is overloaded, or if sharp objects pierce it (from inside or outside), the bag immediately ruptures and is ruined, and all contents are lost forever."
Lost forever, trapped in a gem, sure sucks to be Bob the efreet.
This has been mentioned earlier but, I will say it again. All it takes is a minion of some sort for am efreet to get at their own wishes. A charmed person, a dominated person, a friend, etc. Bam instant efreet access to wish.
Also, when a creature has access to a "do anything" power, in what fashion do we determine that a DM is applying that power over zealously?
Wish is far from a "do anything" power. In fact, what it can do is clearly spelled out. (Yes, the option for DM fiat is spelled out there too.)
I don't see how "the efreeti race bind together as one to get revenge for Bob the efreet and use their collective wishing power to utterly destroy you instantly" is any different from "rocks fall, everyone dies."
Honestly, if they cared that much about missing efreeti, there wouldn't be any efreeti bottles in existence.
|
See this is my problem, the GM isn't being fair, or impartial because if the wish is coming from the players, it must conform to the standards listed, or it will be twisted against them.
If the wish comes from the efreet, against the players it has absolute power and doesn't get twisted? Thats BS if you ask me.
Either it gets twisted when it goes beyond the guidelines or it doesn't.
The thing is, even if the efreeti does cast a wish for his own benefit that goes beyond the listed "normal" parameters of a wish spell, AND IT GETS PERVERTED, that doesn't mean that the perversion has to be something that plays out in game, affects the outcome of the encounter, or affects the efreet in any way that the players or party will ever be aware of (unless they plan on keeping close tabs on it and everyone in its life for the rest of their respective lives). Maybe it causes the efreet's wife to miscarry twenty years in the future (assuming efreet propagate in that manner). Mortal wishes beyond the safe zone can just as easily be perverted in an outside-the-game manner (such as the famous example that is reproduced in The Final Wish article where a person wishes for vast wealth, only to inherit a fortune from a close relative who suddenly dropped dead).
The bottom line is that pushing the limit with wishes is verrrrrrrry dangerous, and unless you want your 400th Level Superninja Mack Daddy God-slayer Wizard to get royally screwed by the fickle hand of Fate (read: game-balancing GM), it's best to not push the envelope.
|
|
As far as the Mind Blank question, I think that technically, applying the strictest possible literal interpretation of the spell description, Darkheyr is right. However, I don't think s/he is even in the ballpark when it comes to RAI. Now, I hate arguing RAI. Generally, I find arguing RAI about as constructive as arguing author intent in the Bible or in the US Constitution (there's never going to be consensus unless the people who actually devised the spell weigh in on the topic ... and for a good number of the spells in the core rulebook, that ain't gonna happen unless you manage to cast a Speak With Dead spell at the grave of Gary Gygax.) However, I think a discussion from RAI is necessary in this case, and I strongly suspect that whoever designed the spell did not intend for it to mean that two people communicating telepathically about Bill the Mind Blanked would suddenly forget the guy existed just because one of them asked, "Say, how's Bill doing these days?" Yeah, if that's what the designers intended, then I'm the Queen of England.
But Mind Blank does not stop me from casting a spell to ask someone a question about you. I'm casting a spell to contact them- you are not involved. The spell doesn't suddenly fail because I ask a question about you. I'm asking someone about their personal knowledge.It works just fine - until you are using a divination spell which would give you information about someone who is mind blanked.
Mind Blank does not stop me from asking someone what they know about you. It stops me from targeting you with a spell. See Invisible, Detect magic or whatnot are emanations from me to you that Mind Blank would stop. Because the magical effect is touching you and your spell blocks it.Mind blank does not stop you from walking up to people, and asking them if they saw Jim the mind blanked wizard. It does not stop you from even using sending, or message to ask them if they saw Jim the mind blanked wizard. What it does stop is you from getting any information from DIVINATION magic about Jim the mind blanked wizard.
You would get the information from blood biography, I think. The questions you get are: "Who are you?" "What are you?" "How was your blood shed?" "When was your blood shed?". The spell states: "How was your blood shed? (Brief outline of the events that caused its wound, to the best of the victim?s knowledge)" He just can't give any info...Your spell does not block me communicating with another creature to ask it where you are, what you are doing, have done, or whatever.
if I cast Blood Biography on a creature you killed, I'll still get the full complement of information for that spell- up to the knowledge of the person. (i.e. if you killed it from behind it may not have seen you/knew it was you etc). Speak with Dead is the same way. They are the target, their information is what I am asking.
You are not the target and the magic isn't touching or effecting or seeking the information from you therefore your spell does not block it.
My point is that the gem has to function, and all magical possession stop functioning except for certain ones. The issue is whether or not the gem continues to function.
Now that I think about it outsiders and their souls are one unit. You can't draw the soul from the body so the spell fails by RAW anyway.
PRD:You draw the soul from a newly dead body and imprison it in a black sapphire gem.
Also, when a creature has access to a "do anything" power, in what fashion do we determine that a DM is applying that power over zealously?
Since it's not "do anything", I guess when you go outside the limits of wish. However, I will note that charming someone into making wishes on your behalf is a pretty nice idea; though it would require the efreeti charming someone, obviously, which would require either some magic items or at least a single class level in wizard or sorcerer; but that's not unreasonable.
However, that still doesn't negate the fact that the vast majority of efreet probably don't have levels in a charming class, and likely find the convenience of someone who willingly gives them wishes without the trouble of setting up the ball with magic items and the like.
Seriously; if you could grant 3 wishes to people, but not to yourself, and someone walked up and said, "Hey buddy, I hear you can grant wishes to people. How about granting me two wishes, and I'll make the third for you if the wishes are good. Sound fair?", would you really turn that down? Probably not.
"Cool, thanks for the wishes man. Hey, if you wanna do this again tomorrow, I can get your name and give you a ring (or circle! :P) later."
|
In terms of spell title, it seems to suggest that the spell blanks the person's mind not their existence. Therefore spells which identify the person's alignment or pin point their location would be stopped.
By the way, if the efreeti's know that you are wizard john and know what your underpants look like:
A) Your probably pretty hooped unless you spent the rest of your existence in hiding.
B) What the hell were you doing that the Efreetis know what your underpants look like???
I agree, if the efreeti's know your name, class, race and underpants, you are screwed.
See nondetection: I now agree mind blank only affects things directly you, and does not protect your underpants from scrying/other divinations. (Though, if they scryed them, they would just see an empty floating underpants, since you are hidden from view. I don't think this was the RAI of mind blank, but I do believe it to be the RAW).
You could also cast a nondetection. You could also cast misdirection on the gem trapping the efreeti to then target you. You having mind blank up, will block all spells targetting the efreeti also.
By RAW mind blank foil see invisible. If you see all the stuff spellcaster wear, carry and so on this is not possible.
Playing rule lawyer has a limit, guys.
How are you making an object into a part of your body? I need this one explained in detail. From my reading that is outside the use of the spell. You can turn into a troll, but it does make the gem/polymorphed object a part of you, nor can you make the gem into a third arm for your new troll form. Maybe the grafting feats from 3.5 might allow that, but I don't know of any grafting feats in pathfinder.
When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type, all of your gear melds into your body
The whole class of polymorph spells work that way.
In theory a wizard might have mind blank up, but I have never seen it in a setting as a normal thing or an actual game so until it becomes the norm I don't think it can be counted as the norm.
I will support that it is the norm. In my old 3.5 campaign the sorcerer had it up constantly from the first day it become available to him, even if in 3.5 it has some more drawback (it block all the the mind affecting spells and powers, so a lot of buffing powers like bard songs, heroism and so on).
In pathfinder it "only" gives a +8 ST bonus against them beside the protection against divination. I doubt a lot of players will throw away a similar bonus even if it cost them a 8th level spell.
NPC casters don't do it in written AP's, and most of the posters on here have never mentioned it as an all the time strategy. Actually you are the first one, and that even goes back to my days on the WoTC boards which started around 2003ish
NPC casters don't do it in written AP's, and most of the posters on here have never mentioned it as an all the time strategy. Actually you are the first one, and that even goes back to my days on the WoTC boards which started around 2003ishSo... how many 15th level wizards are there in AP's ? And how many of them must fear constant divination predations?
I'm betting that the Red Wizards of Thay, where intrigues are common, have mind blank up constantly the moment they have access to it. The chosens of Mystra will. The shades will. Because the spell is just that good. Every single wizard needing to hide from a rival or wanting to do things in secret will have that spell active if he can cast it. Because if he doesn't, he's only a few spells away from his plots being discovered.
The same also applies to campaign settings. It is never mentioned in them either. I am betting the wizards of Thay don't have it up. I am not saying they should not, but what we as players see as optimal, and basic common sense is not often used by the writers of the settings and NPC's. Even if you check AP's with high powered spell casters they don't use it either. If the writers pretty much spammed anti divination spells, which makes sense to me then the cries of "not fair" would be heard every where. Don't confuse what is done with what should be done.
In short I agree that certain spells should be gained Asap and used as much as possible, but I don't think they are, mostly because the writers are more concerned with telling a story than having to stop the PC's or other NPC's from bothering them.
I am running AoW, and I ran Kingmaker. I can count the percentage of mink blanked casters on one hand. I also have RotRL. Even if I missed one caster with it then the percentage is still less than 10% of those that could cast it if they needed to, but did not do so.
|
|
Seriously; if you could grant 3 wishes to people, but not to yourself, and someone walked up and said, "Hey buddy, I hear you can grant wishes to people. How about granting me two wishes, and I'll make the third for you if the wishes are good. Sound fair?", would you really turn that down? Probably not.
Or approached from the other direction, I wouldn't put it past an efreet to walk up to some common farmer on the street and say, "Hey man, you look like you could use a turn of luck. If you'll make a couple wishes for me, I'll give you one for free!" To the poor farmer scrabbling to make a few coppers a week, that would probably sound like he won the lottery.
|
|
I would also note you indicate "god slaying" which means you also think Wish is fulfilled by Gods in relation to my above post.
I wasn't actually thinking about it in that context. I was just poking fun at those who powergame to the point it becomes cartoonish (I'm not saying that everyone who was taking that side is a ridiculous powergamer, because I think some of them were just throwing up hypotheticals for the sake of argument). Since you asked, though, I think the rules are intentionally vague about where the power for wishes actually comes from. I suspect it comes from multiple sources, including deities and powerful extraplanar beings. Some surmise that there is essentially a web of arcane, divine and elemental power that spans the universe and permeates all things, and that it is this vast field of energy that spellcasters of all types are usually tapping into. Mortals, as a rule, don't have much in the way of intrinsic power, but those that are adept enough at tapping the web, as it were, could perhaps bring a wish to fulfillment without having to appeal to higher sentient agencies. Of course, that is all mostly flavor.
The same also applies to campaign settings. It is never mentioned in them either. I am betting the wizards of Thay don't have it up. I am not saying they should not, but what we as players see as optimal, and basic common sense is not often used by the writers of the settings and NPC's. Even if you check AP's with high powered spell casters they don't use it either. If the writers pretty much spammed anti divination spells, which makes sense to me then the cries of "not fair" would be heard every where. Don't confuse what is done with what should be done.In short I agree that certain spells should be gained Asap and used as much as possible, but I don't think they are, mostly because the writers are more concerned with telling a story than having to stop the PC's or other NPC's from bothering them.
I am running AoW, and I ran Kingmaker. I can count the percentage of mink blanked casters on one hand. I also have RotRL. Even if I missed one caster with it then the percentage is still less than 10% of those that could cast it if they needed to, but did not do so.
Ah, see what you mean now. I agree on that actually - but it bothers me. Just like I'm annoyed at all these funny infiltration plots that would NEVER WORK because its so mind-boggingly easy to find spies once you have access to certain types of magic.
Writers often miss game logical things. I'm still trying to figure out why that cyric cleric in Tearing of the Weave brews a potion of undetectable alignment each day and drinks it.
It is one of those things where suspension of belief comes into play due to the fun factor. If everyone has mind blank up then divining just got very difficult. I do think mind blank should not stop an entire school of magic. I think auto-stopping some spells, while requiring caster checks for others would be better.
Seriously; if you could grant 3 wishes to people, but not to yourself, and someone walked up and said, "Hey buddy, I hear you can grant wishes to people. How about granting me two wishes, and I'll make the third for you if the wishes are good. Sound fair?", would you really turn that down? Probably not.Or approached from the other direction, I wouldn't put it past an efreet to walk up to some common farmer on the street and say, "Hey man, you look like you could use a turn of luck. If you'll make a couple wishes for me, I'll give you one for free!"
Wasn't this..
...the entire premise of Wishmaster?
o-o
I make a deal with you.
You make two wishes.
I may or may not screw you over a little or a lot in the process, depending on pacing of the story.
I eagerly await your last wish which I twist utterly in such a way that BAD THINGS HAPPEN - in the movie, it'd be an invasion by the djinn.
I ultimately fail because, well, there are sequels to be made!
::
Djinn on the loose --- Campaign tiiiiiime!
|
|
Wasn't this..
...the entire premise of Wishmaster?
- snip -
I ultimately fail because, well, there are sequels to be made!
I loved the first movie! The sequels were kinda blah, though. Did you notice that the security guard who got turned into glass then shattered was Kane Hodder (better known as Jason Vorhees)? He's played other roles since then, of course, but I think that was the first time I had ever seen him outside of his Jason costume.
My point is that the gem has to function, and all magical possession stop functioning except for certain ones. The issue is whether or not the gem continues to function.
Now that I think about it outsiders and their souls are one unit. You can't draw the soul from the body so the spell fails by RAW anyway.
PRD:You draw the soul from a newly dead body and imprison it in a black sapphire gem.
The spell does not say the gem provides any function. From your other comments, I think you are still looking at soul bind, not Trap the Soul which is what is under discussion.
Core, 362, "Trap the soul forces a creature?s life force (and its material body) into a gem. The gem holds the trapped entity indefinitely or until the gem is broken and the life force is released, which allows the material body to reform. If the trapped creature is a powerful creature from another plane, it can be required to perform a service immediately upon being freed. Otherwise, the creature can go free once the gem imprisoning it is broken."
Life force and body, so outsiders are perfectly valid.
Does not kill them, and besides, soul bind is 9th level anyway. Beyond the reach of the 16th lvl wizard being discussed.
Some other key differences. Soul bind you can release the soul by destroying the gem, or dispelling it. Trap the Soul, you can only release the creature by breaking the gem. If the gem is not broken, trap the soul is still in effect.
It is one of those things where suspension of belief comes into play due to the fun factor. If everyone has mind blank up then divining just got very difficult. I do think mind blank should not stop an entire school of magic. I think auto-stopping some spells, while requiring caster checks for others would be better.
Divining on powerful things should be very hard to do. Why else wouldn't all liches/other evil bad things have been wiped out already? Why wouldn't the first group which hated liches just divine/commune/CoP to find where they are, and then kill all of them? No more liches! Then keep divining to make sure you take out any new ones before they have time to get established. Even easier.
If you want to let them out eventually, you could just create a dimensional lock, break the gem, then get your last service (a final wish), cast modify memory on them before they can get out of the lock, (one that includes why they are in the locked area) and quickened plane shift (from outside the locked area) out. They now have no knowledge of you (since the whole process was <5 minutes). (Let me guess, you'll say they will think of wishing away any possible memory modifications too. In which case, I'd say go back to just tossing gems into a bag of holding, then destroy the bag forever losing the gems.
My point is that the gem has to function, and all magical possession stop functioning except for certain ones. The issue is whether or not the gem continues to function.
Now that I think about it outsiders and their souls are one unit. You can't draw the soul from the body so the spell fails by RAW anyway.
PRD:You draw the soul from a newly dead body and imprison it in a black sapphire gem.
The spell does not say the gem provides any function. From your other comments, I think you are still looking at soul bind, not Trap the Soul which is what is under discussion.
Core, 362, "Trap the soul forces a creature?s life force (and its material body) into a gem. The gem holds the trapped entity indefinitely or until the gem is broken and the life force is released, which allows the material body to reform. If the trapped creature is a powerful creature from another plane, it can be required to perform a service immediately upon being freed. Otherwise, the creature can go free once the gem imprisoning it is broken."
Life force and body, so outsiders are perfectly valid.
Does not kill them, and besides, soul bind is 9th level anyway. Beyond the reach of the 16th lvl wizard being discussed.
Some other key differences. Soul bind you can release the soul by destroying the gem, or dispelling it. Trap the Soul, you can only release the creature by breaking the gem. If the gem is not broken, trap the soul is still in effect.
It is one of those things where suspension of belief comes into play due to the fun factor. If everyone has mind blank up then divining just got very difficult. I do think mind blank should not stop an entire school of magic. I think auto-stopping some spells, while requiring caster checks for others would be better.Divining on powerful things should be very hard to do. Why else wouldn't all liches/other evil bad things have been wiped out already? Why wouldn't the first group which hated liches just divine/commune/CoP to...
I was looking at the wrong spell. Oops.
The other post I made about casters not using optimal tactics is why. People also just don't go looking for liches until they start to cause trouble. It is probably a bad idea to do so, and the lich would probably win its fair share of battles before it finally lost.
There is also the issue of finding the phylactery which is not a thread I am going to participate in. :)
On a more practical level there are not lich hunting parties for the same reason that all high level casters don't use mind blank. The writers don't say they do.
PS: I do think divining should be hard depending on who you are trying to get info on, but with mind blank it is nigh impossible. I had to come up with the idea of divining on other people just to get info on the chain binder. If a BBEG use mind blank in an AP most players would never find him/her if they used other people as puppet leaders.
Trap the Soul + polymorph does not take the Effreet away from commune. The gem is a part of the caster's body, but the genie is not. The genie is in the gem, but he is not a part of the gem. He is still his own creature. If you shrink the genie down to dimintuive size, put him in a cage, and put that cage around the wizard's neck it is really no different than what the TtS+polymorph is doing. The genie being in the same square as the wizard/sorc solves nothing.
Trap the Soul + polymorph does not take the Effreet away from commune. The gem is a part of the caster's body, but the genie is not. The genie is in the gem, but he is not a part of the gem. He is still his own creature. If you shrink the genie down to dimintuive size, put him in a cage, and put that cage around the wizard's neck it is really no different than what the TtS+polymorph is doing. The genie being in the same square as the wizard/sorc solves nothing.
The genie is a part of the gem. "Trap the soul forces a creature's life force (and its material body) into a gem." The gem is a part of the caster. "all of your gear melds into your body".
Also, trap the soul states, "The gem holds the trapped entity indefinitely or until the gem is broken and the life force is released, which allows the material body to reform."
This means that Bob the efreet does not have a material body during the time his soul is trapped. This is very different from him being stuck in a cage and shrunk down. Commune gives yes/no/unclear/one word answers. "Where is Bob the efreet?" doesn't get you anything. "Is bob the efreet trapped?" would get you a yes. "Is Bob the efreet trapped in an efreeti bottle?" would be a no. I'm curious what line of commune questions you think would find Bob the efreet trapped in a gem polymorphed into Jim the elven (now dragon) wizard's left toenail.
Being in something and a part of it are two different things. In order for him to be a part of the gem he would have to merge with gem, changing his composition to whatever the gem is made of. You would have to convince most DM's that the RAI was "become a part of", instead of "trapped within".
Being in something and a part of it are two different things. In order for him to be a part of the gem he would have to merge with gem, changing his composition to whatever the gem is made of. You would have to convince most DM's that the RAI was "become a part of", instead of "trapped within".
Assuming it is ruled he is seperate, with no body, but his soul is completely contained by the gem. What questions would you ask via commune/CoP about the efreet that would tell you where he is? What if he is in extradimensional space? (having been thrown into a bag of holding for example)
Being in something and a part of it are two different things. In order for him to be a part of the gem he would have to merge with gem, changing his composition to whatever the gem is made of. You would have to convince most DM's that the RAI was "become a part of", instead of "trapped within".Assuming it is ruled he is seperate, with no body, but his soul is completely contained by the gem. What questions would you ask via commune/CoP about the efreet that would tell you where he is? What if he is in extradimensional space? (having been thrown into a bag of holding for example)
The body and soul are in the gem from what I understand.
Efreet can plane shift so he would not be stuck in an extradimensional space.Even if he is in the gem he is still in a plane somewhere. If I eliminate the known planes then the demiplanes are the only ones left. This leads to magnificent mansion most likely.
Like I said before it is not a matter of if but when. There are finite number of suspects.
Hiding is futile.
The body and soul are in the gem from what I understand.
Efreet can plane shift so he would not be stuck in an extradimensional space.
Even if he is in the gem he is still in a plane somewhere. If I eliminate the known planes then the demiplanes are the only ones left. This leads to magnificent mansion most likely.Like I said before it is not a matter of if but when. There are finite number of suspects.
Hiding is futile.
As I quoted, when the gem is broken, the body is reformed, therefore it is only the soul in the gem (Also implied by the spell name "trap the soul")
You are correct that it is a matter of when before you know where the efreet is (In a general non-specific way). I throw the gem (which he is trapped in) into a bag of holding. The efreet is in extradimensional space. How do you find that extra dimensional space? How do you get to it?
There are an infinite number of demiplanes which is where extradimensional spaces fall. It also states that these have limited access. (For example, I believe the extradimensional space that a bag of holding leads to, is only accessible from that specific bag of holding. You cannot gate, plane shift, or otherwise appear in someone else's bag of holding or portable hole without going through the opening in the bag. Please let me know if you do not believe this is how these items work.)
|
|
Efreet can plane shift so he would not be stuck in an extradimensional space.
Interesting. Without entertaining arguments from RAI, by RAW, an efreet could indeed use Plane Shift to escape the gem, since it is a spell-like ability, which thus requires no verbal, somatic or material components. And since it doesn't actually specify whether the creature is pinned unmoving within the confines of the gem, or whether it is actually imprisoned in extradimensional space but otherwise able to move around, breathe and speak, then it would even be possible for a regular spellcaster with access to the Plane Shift spell to escape the gem in a similar manner.
|
|
There are an infinite number of demiplanes which is where extradimensional spaces fall. It also states that these have limited access. (For example, I believe the extradimensional space that a bag of holding leads to, is only accessible from that specific bag of holding. You cannot gate, plane shift, or otherwise appear in someone else's bag of holding or portable hole without going through the opening in the bag. Please let me know if you do not believe this is how these items work.)
I know this question wasn't for me, but personally, though I believe this is probably how they are intended to work, the way that it is written up, they could Plane Shift out of it. Trap the Soul only indicates that they are trapped indefinitely, which could be as long as eternity or as short as one round, and does not explicitly provide that it cannot be escaped from within. It provides a scenario wherein the trapped prisoner is definitely released, but does preclude other ways of escaping the gem. And Plane Shift makes no limitation on which planes can be shifted to or out of. The Plane Shift ability for efreet does place limitations on which planes they can shift to, but none on which planes they can shift from. Again, given my famous dislike for arguments from RAI, that is simply an interpretation from RAW.
Interesting. Without entertaining arguments from RAI, by RAW, an efreet could indeed use Plane Shift to escape the gem, since it is a spell-like ability, which thus requires no verbal, somatic or material components. And since it doesn't actually specify whether the creature is pinned unmoving within the confines of the gem, or whether it is actually imprisoned in extradimensional space but otherwise able to move around, breathe and speak, then it would even be possible for a regular spellcaster with access to the Plane Shift spell to escape the gem in a similar manner.
First, it states they are trapped in the gem unless the gem is broken. You want RAW, unless the gem is broken, they are in it, period.
I know this question wasn't for me, but personally, though I believe this is probably how they are intended to work, the way that it is written up, they could Plane Shift out of it. Trap the Soul only indicates that they are trapped indefinitely, which could be as long as eternity or as short as one round, and does not explicitly provide that it cannot be escaped from within. It provides a scenario wherein the trapped prisoner is definitely released, but does preclude other ways of escaping the gem. And Plane Shift makes no limitation on which planes can be shifted to or out of. The Plane Shift ability for efreet does place limitations on which planes they can shift to, but none on which planes they can shift from. Again, given my famous dislike for arguments from RAI, that is simply an interpretation from RAW.
Apparently you need a definition of indefinitely
not definite; without fixed or specified limit; unlimited: an indefinite number.It means forever, unless the gem is broken, as the spell states.
It does not allow for any method of escape from the gem other than the gem being broken. RAW is that the gem must be broken for the trapped creature to be reformed. It does not state "the creature is trapped until the gem is broken, or they plane shift, or do the disco, or make fun of you" it state "until the gem is broken".
Remember how the rules work. If it isn't specifically allowed, it is denied.
|
|
First, it states they are trapped in the gem unless the gem is broken. You want RAW, unless the gem is broken, they are in it, period.
Subjectively, I agree with you. However, that is not what it says. It does not say "unless the gem is broken." It says "indefinitely or until the gem is broken."
Apparently you need a definition of indefinitely
not definite; without fixed or specified limit; unlimited: an indefinite number.
It means forever, unless the gem is broken, as the spell states.
No, it doesn't mean forever. If you were to look up "indefinite" in a hundred different dictionaries from a hundred different publishers, I would feel safe in betting that you won't find "permanent" or "forever" listed as a synonym in any of them. Synonyms you will find include indeterminate, innumerable, indistinct, intangible, uncertain and undefined, among others. "Indefinately" basically means open-ended, a length of time that could be anwhere from a split second to an eternity.
It does not allow for any method of escape from the gem other than the gem being broken. RAW is that the gem must be broken for the trapped creature to be reformed.
Technically, RAW only gives the example of the gem being broken for the creature to definitely be free. It does no more and no less than that. You're making inferences, based on a preconception (which I share, for the record) that is not explicitly or even implicitly supported by the text.
Remember how the rules work. If it isn't specifically allowed, it is denied.
What rule-maker said that?
|
|
Remember how the rules work. If it isn't specifically allowed, it is denied.What rule-maker said that?
This is how just about anything works, it is the standard in about everything I can think of.
Is a rule, law, pathfinder spell indicates in order to defeat/stop/get by with X or Y then you must use something that is a derivative of X or Y. If you do not then every rule/law/etc would need to specify everything it didn't allow instead of only specifying what is does allow.
I don't see how this is so hard to understand.
Generally, when a spell is written to allow only very specific means to get out of it, they explain in the spell in no uncertain terms that it only allows those methods. That is not the case with Trap the Soul. It leaves a lot of room for interpretation. One very easy word choice could have changed it from vaguely suggestive to absolutely closed to interpretation, and that would have been to use the word "permanent" instead of "indefinate." I'm not disagreeing with you in terms of RAI, I'm just showing the open-endedness of RAW in this case. Even the "standard" you cite is interpretive and subjective, it is also not stated anywhere in the rules, not even in the introduction to magic section where it describes how to read the spell entries. It's opinion, and it's popular opinion, and it's an opinion that I share, but it isn't RAW. That's my point. And to suggest that simply because it is the most common consensus (especially when that consensus isn't derived from anything any FAQ, errata or other rulings or statements the devs have made), that it therefore invalidates other interpretations, would be a logical fallacy.
See, this is why I don't argue RAI, because it rarely gets anyone anywhere. Unless the actual designer of the spell weighs in, then any argument from RAI is opinion, pure and simple. No matter what the general consensus on standard procedure, no amoung of arguing from RAI is ever going to change the wording a spell to make it say anything other than what it says, and it's not going to change the conventions of the English language to make a word mean what it doesn't mean. Does this mean that I have no interpretations outside the explicit wording of a spell? Obviously not, but I only find arguing those opinions constructive at the game table in order to assure that there is consensus between me and my players. Consensus on a wider forum simply isn't all that important, not to mention that the larger the forum, the less likely that consensus ever will be reached, short of explicit developer input.
No, it doesn't mean forever. If you were to look up "indefinite" in a hundred different dictionaries from a hundred different publishers, I would feel safe in betting that you won't find "permanent" or "forever" listed as a synonym in any of them. Synonyms you will find include indeterminate, innumerable, indistinct, intangible, uncertain and undefined, among others. "Indefinately" basically means open-ended, a length of time that could be anwhere from a split second to an eternity.
I'll go with 2 more. Merriam webster Linked here and Oxford english from my kindle. Those are pretty much top of the top dictionaries for you.
M-W lists synonyms as: Synonyms: bottomless, boundless, endless, fathomless, horizonless, illimitable, immeasurable, immensurable, infinite, limitless, measureless, unbounded, unfathomable, unlimited
Emphasis is mine.
Oxford english: "adv. for an unlimited or unspecified period of time: talks cannot go on indefinitely.
as submodifier: to an unlimited or unspecified degree or extent: an indefinitely large number of channels.
The spell duration is permanent. The text reads: "The gem holds the trapped entity indefinitely or until the gem is broken and the life force is released, which allows the material body to reform."
This means the spell lasts permanently (its duration). The text of the spell then modifies this to clarify that if the gem is broken, then they are also released. Also note, a dispel/greater dispell magic cast on the gem could possibly end the effect, as permanent spells are susceptible to being dispelled.
Technically, RAW only gives the example of the gem being broken for the creature to definitely be free. It does no more and no less than that. You're making inferences, based on a preconception (which I share, for the record) that is not explicitly or even implicitly supported by the text.
The example is if the gem is broken the creature goes free. Dispel magic also ends spell effects (which would free the creature) and can effect permanent spells (which it is) and would also work. When we are discussing RAW, there is only what is written. Other than that, nothing will free the creature. The rules do not provide for any other way to leave the gem, thus, there is no other way to leave the gem.
Remember how the rules work. If it isn't specifically allowed, it is denied.What rule-maker said that?
How do the rules function to you then? In the context of discussion what the written rules permit, there is only what they allow. Otherwise we can get into absurd conjectures such as "the rules don't say if I show up to the game with body odor that I don't get a bonus of +1,000,000 HP, so I get it."
If the spell explained everything you guys expected for it to work as RAI then it would be 10 pages long.
Even with the law there is something called intent of the law. The intent of this spell is not for someone to be able to use a spell like ability to leave the gem, thats silly IMO.
I was saying plane shift gets it to leave the bag of holding, not the gem.
My arguement with the gem is that by my reading your body and soul are trapped within the gem, which is not the same as becoming one unit with the gem. You don't get changed to sapphire or whatever it is the gem has to be made of.
I was saying plane shift gets it to leave the bag of holding, not the gem.
My arguement with the gem is that by my reading your body and soul are trapped within the gem, which is not the same as becoming one unit with the gem. You don't get changed to sapphire or whatever it is the gem has to be made of.
Following that reasoning, one of two things happens:
1) You allow the efreet to plane shift, which only affects creatures. He goes back to the fire plane, and the gem stays in the bag of holding. This breaks the specific text of trap the soul that the gem must be broken for the spell to go free.
2) You read trap the soul and find, "The gem holds the trapped entity indefinitely or until the gem is broken and the life force is released". It doesn't say "or until they plane shift out". Therefore, they cannot plane shift while in the gem.
|
|
I'll go with 2 more. Merriam webster Linked here and Oxford english from my kindle. Those are pretty much top of the top dictionaries for you.
M-W lists synonyms as: Synonyms: bottomless, boundless, endless, fathomless, horizonless, illimitable, immeasurable, immensurable, infinite, limitless, measureless, unbounded, unfathomable, unlimited
Emphasis is mine.Oxford english: "adv. for an unlimited or unspecified period of time: talks cannot go on indefinitely.
as submodifier: to an unlimited or unspecified degree or extent: an indefinitely large number of channels.
There again, there is nothing there that implies permanency, either automatic or probable. They mean "open-ended," an infinite range of possible durations, including the possibility that it is permanent, as well as the possibility that it is fleeting.
The spell duration is permanent.
Again, you're inferring what the text neither states nor necessarily supports.
The text reads: "The gem holds the trapped entity indefinitely or until the gem is broken and the life force is released, which allows the material body to reform."
Yes, that is what it says.
This means the spell lasts permanently (its duration).
No, that isn't what it means. You're inferring that your interpretation, being the most popular and the most commonly practices, is therefore the only correct one. That is erroneous logic.
The text of the spell then modifies this to clarify that if the gem is broken, then they are also released. Also note, a dispel/greater dispell magic cast on the gem could possibly end the effect, as permanent spells are susceptible to being dispelled.
There's another faulty inference. It doesn't become susceptible to dispels because permanent spells are susceptible to being dispelled. It becomes susceptible to dispels because spells with any duration (including permanent) except instantaneous are susceptible to being dispelled.
The example is if the gem is broken the creature goes free. Dispel magic also ends spell effects (which would free the creature) and can effect permanent spells (which it is) and would also work. When we are discussing RAW, there is only what is written. Other than that, nothing will free the creature. The rules do not provide for any other way to leave the gem, thus, there is no other way to leave the gem.
The mistake you're making here is that you're claiming to argue RAW, when you're actually arguing RAI, when you say, "Other than that, nothing will free the creature," because the spell doesn't say that. The writers try to keep the spells as simple as possible. They don't go into every possible permutation or interpretation of the spell, because they can't conceive of every possible permutation, for one thing, and it would mean a book the size of the Library of Congress if they did. There are some spells that explicitly allow only very specific methods of getting around them, and in those spell descriptions, they not only provide the means, but they also specify that it is the only way out. Trap the Soul does not do that. It provides the only way that is automatic, but does not suggest that there are not other ways that are less automatic.
How do the rules function to you then? In the context of discussion what the written rules permit, there is only what they allow. Otherwise we can get into absurd conjectures such as "the rules don't say if I show up to the game with body odor that I don't get a bonus of +1,000,000 HP, so I get it."
Any given spell is more likely to limit what it will not allow (does not allow spell resistance, cannot be dispelled, counters but does not dispel [insert spell] and so on) than what it will allow. This allows for DM interpretation, something that has been the cornerstone of D&D-based games from the word go, straight from the lips of Gary Gygax. If you're playing a game that doesn't allow for the possibility of valid interpretation beyond what is explicitly written (including not allowing for possible outs because the writers didn't think of them ahead of time), then you're not playing a role-playing game, you're playing a board game.
I was saying plane shift gets it to leave the bag of holding, not the gem.
My arguement with the gem is that by my reading your body and soul are trapped within the gem, which is not the same as becoming one unit with the gem. You don't get changed to sapphire or whatever it is the gem has to be made of.
Following that reasoning, one of two things happens:
1) You allow the efreet to plane shift, which only affects creatures. He goes back to the fire plane, and the gem stays in the bag of holding. This breaks the specific text of trap the soul that the gem must be broken for the spell to go free.
2) You read trap the soul and find, "The gem holds the trapped entity indefinitely or until the gem is broken and the life force is released". It doesn't say "or until they plane shift out". Therefore, they cannot plane shift while in the gem.
1. I will try this again. The genie being trapped in the gem, and being thrown into the bag of holding were two separate ideas from the way I understood it. I did not know the gem was inside of a bad of holding, but even that does not solve the issue of asking is the genie inside of a bag of holding.
2.Refer to 1.
|
|
For the record, I'm not saying that Tarantula (and those who agree with him) holds an invalid interpretation of Trap the Soul. His interpretation (which is also my interpretation in-game) is supported by what is probably the most common consensus on RAI. Conversely, he implies that the counter-interpretation that I've offered is not valid by RAW, but offers only his vision of RAI to back that up. So unless he can find something in RAW to back it up (or can get the actual designer of the spell to state that "indefinite" is meant to be synonymous with "permanent," then both interpretations remain equally valid, and therefore subject only to the DM's interpretation at the table. Now, I'll concede if someone can point out the exact text in the book(s) that explains that when a spell description includes a workaround, but doesn't state that it's the only workaround, that it must be interpreted as being the only workaround. In the absence of that, it seems that the counter-argument is simply that majority rules automatically invalidates less standard interpretations of RAW.
There again, there is nothing there that implies permanency, either automatic or probable. They mean "open-ended," an infinite range of possible durations, including the possibility that it is permanent, as well as the possibility that it is fleeting.
The spell duration is permanent.Again, you're inferring what the text neither states nor necessarily supports.
Actually, it is exactly what the text says.
Core, 362, "Trap the SoulSchool conjuration (summoning); Level sorcerer/wizard 8
Casting Time 1 standard action or see text
Components V, S, M (gem worth 1,000 gp per HD of the
trapped creature)
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one creature
Duration permanent; see text"
Emphasis mine.
The text reads: "The gem holds the trapped entity indefinitely or until the gem is broken and the life force is released, which allows the material body to reform."Yes, that is what it says.
This means the spell lasts permanently (its duration).No, that isn't what it means. You're inferring that your interpretation, being the most popular and the most commonly practices, is therefore the only correct one. That is erroneous logic.
See above, the spell duration is listed as permanent, it is not an interpretation.
The text of the spell then modifies this to clarify that if the gem is broken, then they are also released. Also note, a dispel/greater dispell magic cast on the gem could possibly end the effect, as permanent spells are susceptible to being dispelled.There's another faulty inference. It doesn't become susceptible to dispels because permanent spells are susceptible to being dispelled. It becomes susceptible to dispels because spells with any duration (including permanent) except instantaneous are susceptible to being dispelled.
Quoting the rules again, Core, 216, "Permanent: The energy remains as long as the effect does. This means the spell is vulnerable to dispel magic." All permanent spells are vulnerable to dispel magic, unless the spell specifically says otherwise.
Not all spells with a duration other than instantaneous are susceptible to being dispelled. Antimagic field is a good example. Binding is another.
The example is if the gem is broken the creature goes free. Dispel magic also ends spell effects (which would free the creature) and can effect permanent spells (which it is) and would also work. When we are discussing RAW, there is only what is written. Other than that, nothing will free the creature. The rules do not provide for any other way to leave the gem, thus, there is no other way to leave the gem.The mistake you're making here is that you're claiming to argue RAW, when you're actually arguing RAI, when you say, "Other than that, nothing will free the creature," because the spell doesn't say that. The writers try to keep the spells as simple as possible. They don't go into every possible permutation or interpretation of the spell, because they can't conceive of every possible permutation, for one thing, and it would mean a book the size of the Library of Congress if they did. There are some spells that explicitly allow only very specific methods of getting around them, and in those spell descriptions, they not only provide the means, but they also specify that it is the only way out. Trap the Soul does not do that. It provides the only way that is automatic, but does not suggest that there are not other ways that are less automatic.
I quote the rulebook to provide support for what I say. You have not. You are the one who is arguing RAI as you read it, instead of the RAW as I have shown it to be.
How do the rules function to you then? In the context of discussion what the written rules permit, there is only what they allow. Otherwise we can get into absurd conjectures such as "the rules don't say if I show up to the game with body odor that I don't get a bonus of +1,000,000 HP, so I get it."Any given spell is more likely to limit what it will not allow (does not allow spell resistance, cannot be dispelled, counters but does not dispel [insert spell] and so on) than what it will allow. This allows for DM interpretation, something that has been the cornerstone of D&D-based games from the word go, straight from the lips of Gary Gygax. If you're playing a game that doesn't allow for the possibility of valid interpretation beyond what is explicitly written (including not allowing for possible outs because the writers didn't think of them ahead of time), then you're not playing a role-playing game, you're playing a board game.
We are discussing what the meaning of the rules as written is, which you or I can then modify as we see to be appropriate in our games. It also might allow for future errata/clarification/better word choice to be used in the future.
1. I will try this again. The genie being trapped in the gem, and being thrown into the bag of holding were two separate ideas from the way I understood it. I did not know the gem was inside of a bad of holding, but even that does not solve the issue of asking is the genie inside of a bag of holding.
2.Refer to 1.
Sorry you misunderstood. My proposed example was to trap the soul the efreet, then throw the gem he is trapped in into a bag of holding.
You are right, you can get the fact that the genie is in a bag of holding, I completely agree with that. How that helps you, I don't know.
For the record, I'm not saying that Tarantula (and those who agree with him) holds an invalid interpretation of Trap the Soul. His interpretation (which is also my interpretation in-game) is supported by what is probably the most common consensus on RAI. Conversely, he implies that the counter-interpretation that I've offered is not valid by RAW, but offers only his vision of RAI to back that up. So unless he can find something in RAW to back it up (or can get the actual designer of the spell to state that "indefinite" is meant to be synonymous with "permanent," then both interpretations remain equally valid, and therefore subject only to the DM's interpretation at the table. Now, I'll concede if someone can point out the exact text in the book(s) that explains that when a spell description includes a workaround, but doesn't state that it's the only workaround, that it must be interpreted as being the only workaround. In the absence of that, it seems that the counter-argument is simply that majority rules automatically invalidates less standard interpretations of RAW.
Nightwish, you have not quoted the rules, I have. You state the rules do not list the duration of Trap the Soul to be permanent, they do. I have shown this above, and it is blatantly obvious in the spell's header section. I have offered multiple quotes of the rules to backup my position, to which your counter argument was that "indefinite" does not necessarily mean infinite. You chose to isolate a single word out of the entirety of the spell description and ignored the Duration specifically listed above.
Your interpretation of trap the soul seems to be that because the spell doesn't specifically state that breaking the gem and dispel magic are the only methods to release the creature, there are others that you can make up. If I say I do the hokey-pokey and it frees all creatures in trap the soul gem's across the entire multiverse, do you say that works?
We are discussion the Rules As Written. As Written, the rules allow for breaking the gem, or a dispel magic to end the effect. The rules do not state anything else can end the effect. The only way for something other than breaking the gem or dispel magic to end the effect, is for that something to state it can. Examples: Mage's disjunction: "That is, spells and spell-like effects are unraveled and destroyed completely (ending the effect as a dispel magic spell does), and each permanent magic item must make a successful Will save or be turned into a normal item for the duration of this spell." This allows mage's disjunction to also end a trap the soul.
Unless an effect states it can end spells (per dispel magic) or it can break the gem, it won't be able to end the trap the soul.
I think the last issue we had to resolve was whether trap the soul changed the trapped creature into whatever the crystal was made of since that is the only way to be a part of the crystal or whether, according to my interpretation, he is merely trapped inside the crystal. That is actually more important than whether the crystal is thrown in a bag of holding or not.