|
No, it doesn't. It depends on what is in the flask. That is ALL that matters for the sake of the spell. You act appropriate for the item in question, not as appropriate for your perception of the item in question.
I would rule that you can try and deceive the target as to the nature of the item and have them behave differently, but by RAW, this is not the case.
And how you know what is in the flask?
It is a liquid.You have 6 seconds from the time it is handed you to the moment you should consume or don (no use) it.
If you can take the time to make a Knowledge or Craft check to determine what it is the spell auto-fail
If you get mystic knowledge of what the liquid is the spell auto-fail
Your options, as the spell is written, are binary.
Don the item
Consume the item
Tertim non datur.
Your interpretation of "use as appropriate" mean that a druid, recognizing a metal shield as a prohibited item would use it as appropriate for him, putting it away in his backpack as a nice gift.
The spell, as written, don't care for what is the item. You don it as long as you have the appropriate appendages or you consume it if it is consumable.
A liquid is something consumable.
No, it doesn't. It depends on what is in the flask. That is ALL that matters for the sake of the spell. You act appropriate for the item in question, not as appropriate for your perception of the item in question.
I would rule that you can try and deceive the target as to the nature of the item and have them behave differently, but by RAW, this is not the case.
And how you know what is in the flask?
It is a liquid.
You have 6 seconds from the time it is handed you to the moment you should consume or don (no use) it.If you can take the time to make a Knowledge or Craft check to determine what it is the spell auto-fail
If you get mystic knowledge of what the liquid is the spell auto-fail
Your options, as the spell is written, are binary.
Don the item
Consume the itemTertim non datur.
Your interpretation of "use as appropriate" mean that a druid, recognizing a metal shield as a prohibited item would use it as appropriate for him, putting it away in his backpack as a nice gift.
The spell, as written, don't care for what is the item. You don it as long as you have the appropriate appendages or you consume it if it is consumable.
A liquid is something consumable.
Except this attitude gets right back into the idiocy of using this spell to make someone drink molten lead. Unless you actually think that's a valid use of the spell. In which case, I don't think we have anything to talk about.
No, it doesn't. It depends on what is in the flask. That is ALL that matters for the sake of the spell. You act appropriate for the item in question, not as appropriate for your perception of the item in question.
I would rule that you can try and deceive the target as to the nature of the item and have them behave differently, but by RAW, this is not the case.
And how you know what is in the flask?
It is a liquid.
You have 6 seconds from the time it is handed you to the moment you should consume or don (no use) it.If you can take the time to make a Knowledge or Craft check to determine what it is the spell auto-fail
If you get mystic knowledge of what the liquid is the spell auto-fail
Your options, as the spell is written, are binary.
Don the item
Consume the itemTertim non datur.
Your interpretation of "use as appropriate" mean that a druid, recognizing a metal shield as a prohibited item would use it as appropriate for him, putting it away in his backpack as a nice gift.
The spell, as written, don't care for what is the item. You don it as long as you have the appropriate appendages or you consume it if it is consumable.
A liquid is something consumable.
YOU don't know what is in the flask, but the SPELL does, and the spell is dictating your actions. You do not willingly use the item as appropriate for you. The spell forces you to use the item as appropriate for the spell. If you are handed a splash weapon, the spell forces you to use it as appropriate for the item, which in this case means "donning" it in your hand, and then chucking it at somebody, just as it would make you "don" a sword in your hand and then swing it at somebody.
The spell makes you act as appropriate for the item. If the item is acid, then drinking it is not appropriate, so you do not drink it.
The spell does not care who or what you are. Only what the item is. The appropriate "donning" of a shield is strapping it to your arm. Whether you are a druid or a shield master doesn't matter. The spell makes you strap it to your arm.
Again. It does not matter that you don't know what is in the flask because you are not in control of your actions. The spell is in control of your actions, and it knows what is in the flask because it is magic.
EDIT: Also, that's not what tertium non datur means. (and there is an I in tertium which you are missing. Tertium non datur is the idea that for any proposition, there are only two options. Either the proposition is true or the proposition is not true.
What you are arguing is that for this situation, there are only two options. Either you consume the item, or you don the item.
I agree. I also think that "wield as a weapon" is a valid form of donning since it is explicitly given as an example in the next sentence of the spell as a valid form of donning.
|
|
I feel like I am making the same argument over and over again...
As long as your argument is based on something different from the wording of the spell it will fail again and again.
On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question.
There is no "use" option.
You can houserule it, but it is not there in the official version of the spell.
Except this attitude gets right back into the idiocy of using this spell to make someone drink molten lead. Unless you actually think that's a valid use of the spell. In which case, I don't think we have anything to talk about.
It can be idiocy, but the spell don't leave other options when it is something even vaguely consumable (not molten lead, that was a exaggeration to get a point across, but acid yes).
Personally I think the spell should be modified and that some kind of reasonable "disguise" for the item should be required for it to work, but as written, there is no recourse.
I feel like I am making the same argument over and over again...As long as your argument is based on something different from the wording of the spell it will fail again and again.
On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question.There is no "use" option.
You can houserule it, but it is not there in the official version of the spell.
Well then I guess it can't make someone weild a sword since you can only don or consume it...
I guess I have to eat this sword I was just handed with the spell.
|
Mechanically, a splash weapon is a weapon. So using it appropriately, would be as a [i]splash weapon[/]. So unless someone tries to convince you it's not a splash weapon, that's how you would use it. I would give this knowledge freely. It might not be realistic, but it's in line with how the spell works with other weapons. You wouldn't eat a sword, you wouldn't jab yourself with an arrow, don't pirate movies.... I mean drink splash weapons.This screams to me of meta-knowledge, aka pinching a steamer on RP.It's a pretty skewed view that making a spell make sense mechaniaclly is the same as denying roleplaying.
I should point out that, as I said, I'd allow a social skill roll to make the person think it's a drink and act accordingly, but if you don't bother doing that or fail the roll, the dude is gonna realise it;s a splash weapon.
They already failed the will save vs the spell. The charm spell does not offer a diplomacy check or a bluff check to see if the person is really a friend (or even acting friendly) if you fail your saving throw. They are your friend.
The only deception needed is there to be no outward signs that the flask is anything other then what they say. Letting the character know what is in the bottle just belittles the characters who put points into KN skills. There is nothing in the spell that states you know what the item is. Lacking the Kn skill, I may allow a raw int check, or even just ask the player what they would do (either drink or chuck).
I feel like I am making the same argument over and over again...As long as your argument is based on something different from the wording of the spell it will fail again and again.
On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question.There is no "use" option.
You can houserule it, but it is not there in the official version of the spell.
Me, directly above your post:
"wield as a weapon" is a valid form of donning since it is explicitly given as an example in the next sentence of the spell as a valid form of donning.
I still think it gets down to what the NPC thinks it is (yes, this is a Judge's call). If it looks like a flask of green liquid and he's used to healing potions coming as oils in green flashs he's going to rub it on his wounds. If it looks like a Staff he is going to drop his weapon (and maybe shielf) and hit someone with the Staff of Healing you just gave him, cause he doesn't know it's a Staff of Healing.
The spell doesn't say it grants the ability (even for a round) to identify what something is. The target uses it... he might even try to identify what it is first (DMs call) if he doesn't know a use for it.
"Ogg never seen fancy sticks on chain before... is wheat trashing tool yes? Ogg look around for grain field and head that way... must use trasher to harvest wheat." One round later Ogg will drop the nun-chuks and draw his second great club and come back to "discuss" weapon usage.
Well then I guess the DM who has this cast on his druid can just have the druid use it as a frisbee then with the excuse "druid never used shield before, he thought it was a frisbee." This stops the druid from losing his spells.
It also makes the spell completely useless.
|
|
YOU don't know what is in the flask, but the SPELL does, and the spell is dictating your actions. You do not willingly use the item as appropriate for you. The spell forces you to use the item as appropriate for the spell. If you are handed a splash weapon, the spell forces you to use it as appropriate for the item, which in this case means "donning" it in your hand, and then chucking it at somebody, just as it would make you "don" a sword in your hand and then swing it at somebody.
The spell makes you act as appropriate for the item. If the item is acid, then drinking it is not appropriate, so you do not drink it.
Now you are adding another superpower to the spell.
There is no "use" clause.You aren't forced to attack anyone, not throw a splash weapon to anyone or anything.
Let's stick top the spell wording.
Well then I guess it can't make someone weild a sword since you can only don or consume it...
I guess I have to eat this sword I was just handed with the spell.
You can don a sword. You put it in a scabbard at your belt. If you don't have a empty scabbard you put in your belt. A bit dangerous to go around with a naked blade in your belt, but feasible.
Mechanically, a splash weapon is a weapon. So using it appropriately, would be as a [i]splash weapon[/]. So unless someone tries to convince you it's not a splash weapon, that's how you would use it. I would give this knowledge freely. It might not be realistic, but it's in line with how the spell works with other weapons. You wouldn't eat a sword, you wouldn't jab yourself with an arrow, don't pirate movies.... I mean drink splash weapons.This screams to me of meta-knowledge, aka pinching a steamer on RP.It's a pretty skewed view that making a spell make sense mechaniaclly is the same as denying roleplaying.
I should point out that, as I said, I'd allow a social skill roll to make the person think it's a drink and act accordingly, but if you don't bother doing that or fail the roll, the dude is gonna realise it;s a splash weapon.
They already failed the will save vs the spell. The charm spell does not offer a diplomacy check or a bluff check to see if the person is really a friend (or even acting friendly) if you fail your saving throw. They are your friend.
The only deception needed is there to be no outward signs that the flask is anything other then what they say. Letting the character know what is in the bottle just belittles the characters who put points into KN skills. There is nothing in the spell that states you know what the item is. Lacking the Kn skill, I may allow a raw int check, or even just ask the player what they would do (either drink or chuck).
The spell doesn't care what the caster says the object is. The spell doesn't care what the target thinks the object is. The spell ONLY cares what the object actually is. If it is a splash weapon, it is thrown as a splash weapon. ONLY option. It doesn't matter what it is labeled as or what it looks like. That is the ONLY way to read the spell as written.
We are proposing a house-rule which lets the caster try and trick the target (and spell!) into thinking the object is something else and behaving accordingly. As written though, it doesn't matter. The object is used according to what it is, not what anybody thinks, knows, or says it is.
YOU don't know what is in the flask, but the SPELL does, and the spell is dictating your actions. You do not willingly use the item as appropriate for you. The spell forces you to use the item as appropriate for the spell. If you are handed a splash weapon, the spell forces you to use it as appropriate for the item, which in this case means "donning" it in your hand, and then chucking it at somebody, just as it would make you "don" a sword in your hand and then swing it at somebody.
The spell makes you act as appropriate for the item. If the item is acid, then drinking it is not appropriate, so you do not drink it.
Now you are adding another superpower to the spell.
There is no "use" clause.
You aren't forced to attack anyone, not throw a splash weapon to anyone or anything.Let's stick top the spell wording.
If it is a sword then:
For example, an apple would be eaten, a potion consumed, a ring put on a finger, and a sword wielded in a free hand.
So a sword is wielded in a free hand. SKR has already said that "wielding" a sword means attacking with it, not just holding it. Going in search of the thread now.
Mechanically, a splash weapon is a weapon. So using it appropriately, would be as a [i]splash weapon[/]. So unless someone tries to convince you it's not a splash weapon, that's how you would use it. I would give this knowledge freely. It might not be realistic, but it's in line with how the spell works with other weapons. You wouldn't eat a sword, you wouldn't jab yourself with an arrow, don't pirate movies.... I mean drink splash weapons.This screams to me of meta-knowledge, aka pinching a steamer on RP.It's a pretty skewed view that making a spell make sense mechaniaclly is the same as denying roleplaying.
I should point out that, as I said, I'd allow a social skill roll to make the person think it's a drink and act accordingly, but if you don't bother doing that or fail the roll, the dude is gonna realise it;s a splash weapon.
They already failed the will save vs the spell. The charm spell does not offer a diplomacy check or a bluff check to see if the person is really a friend (or even acting friendly) if you fail your saving throw. They are your friend.
The only deception needed is there to be no outward signs that the flask is anything other then what they say. Letting the character know what is in the bottle just belittles the characters who put points into KN skills. There is nothing in the spell that states you know what the item is. Lacking the Kn skill, I may allow a raw int check, or even just ask the player what they would do (either drink or chuck).
The spell makes you use the item as appropriate. when I fail the save, that's what I'll do.
The spell specifically says you wield a sword if it's handed to you. if you're handed a weapon, you use it as a weapons. So by RAW if you're handed a splash weapon you use it as one.There is no question in RAW of "if you know it's a weapon."
My way lets you have a check to make them drink it, when by RAW they would just chuck it.
All in all, I'm being much more fair using this method than the written rules are.
SKR from the FAQ on Defending weapons:
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.
Likewise, while you can give a shield the defending property (after you've given it a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks, of course), you wouldn't get the AC bonus from the defending property unless you used the shield to make a shield bash that round--unless you're using the shield as a weapon (to make a shield bash), the defending weapon property has no effect.
So you need to attack in order to gain the benefit.
A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others.
So this only triggers--the person holding the sword only becomes the wielder--when he attacks with it. Wielding and attacking are the same. Beguiling gift forces you to attack with a sword. It forces you to attack with a splash weapon.
You can don a sword. You put it in a scabbard at your belt. If you don't have a empty scabbard you put in your belt. A bit dangerous to go around with a naked blade in your belt, but feasible.
Umm... no, the spell specifically says you can make someone wield a sword with it. I was using sarcasm to get that point across. If handed a splash weapon, you would "weild" it as one.
I don't know why people are fighting about how the spell should work RAW.
Whether it works or not RAW is seemingly irrelevant now, because there is so much disagreement about it that it seems it would need some sort of errata or clarification regardless.
I think the point that people are dancing around is that the idea of fighting a druid by forcing him to wear things, while funny, just seems really dumb.
Like, suspension of disbelief breaking dumb.
At least to me and, I assume, half of the people posting in this thread.
It's not even about how effective it is, or whether it is the intended usage of Beguiling Gift, or how exactly the mechanics of druids and metal things work. It's simply that the idea of forcing or tricking a druid to wear metal to neuter him seems ridiculous, regardless of what the rules say.
|
But the druid still used it....just wrongly. It also mentions cursed items being difficult to get rid of....this is a spell designed to make people do stuff they wouldn't usually do. Like putting on a Scarab of Death or a poisonous cloak....or using a metal shield. It bugs me that DMs only ever see a ban-hammer as a solution. Sometimes the solution is "The foul druid dons your gift and suddenly seems like...less." Combat ensues which is over quickly. Years later---"Hey man, remember that time you made the Evil Druid Kalepsid use that metal shield and he lost his power? That was epic!!!"
Yeah, we should all stick with mindlessly beating hit points out of creatures with no creative solutions because that is the fun way to game.
wait, using a poison apple appropriately would be to give it to someone I want to kill (or harm at least) so ... if the spell knows what the item is and makes me use it appropriately then I give it back to the Bard.... wow...
No you use the 'apple' as appropriate. IE: you eat it. It just happens to be poisoned. It's the same as handing them a poisoned drink, which I covered a long time ago.
|
|
So a sword is wielded in a free hand. SKR has already said that "wielding" a sword means attacking with it, not just holding it. Going in search of the thread now.
LOL.
Then how I chose who should I attack?If someone gift me a sword during a peace talk and use this spell I will attack someone at random and potentially start a war?
Nice superpower.
So the spell now say:
"If you are given a sword you should take it and attack someone"
SKR reply was for the activation of the defending power. If wielding always mean attacking with the item in question Paizo will have to take all its manuals apart and rewrite them.
I don't know why people are fighting about how the spell should work RAW.
Whether it works or not RAW is seemingly irrelevant now, because there is so much disagreement about it that it seems it would need some sort of errata or clarification regardless.
I think the point that people are dancing around is that the idea of fighting a druid by forcing him to wear things, while funny, just seems really dumb.
Like, suspension of disbelief breaking dumb.
At least to me and, I assume, half of the people posting in this thread.
It's not even about how effective it is, or whether it is the intended usage of Beguiling Gift, or how exactly the mechanics of druids and metal things work. It's simply that the idea of forcing or tricking a druid to wear metal to neuter him seems ridiculous, regardless of what the rules say.
I think everyone has actually agreed that it is a totally valid use of the spell, and if you think that it could only be played out comically or stupidly, then I direct you to my comment addressing exactly this concern.
Anything in the game is only as silly or as epic as the players make it.
|
|
SKR from the FAQ on Defending weapons:
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.
Likewise, while you can give a shield the defending property (after you've given it a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks, of course), you wouldn't get the AC bonus from the defending property unless you used the shield to make a shield bash that round--unless you're using the shield as a weapon (to make a shield bash), the defending weapon property has no effect.So you need to attack in order to gain the benefit.
A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others.So this only triggers--the person holding the sword only becomes the wielder--when he attacks with it. Wielding and attacking are the same. Beguiling gift forces you to attack with a sword. It forces you to attack with a splash weapon.
Holding a sword is not using it. But it is weilding it is just holding it.
From the PRD on using magic items:
Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.
To backup SKR, you only gain the magic traits of a magic weapon when you activate it. Since a magic weapon is "use activated" you must swing it to get it to activate it's defending power.
By what you said, a wizard with a bonded weapon, could only cast spells without the concentration check if he were actively attacking someone with his bonded weapon. Since the entry for that states:
If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded.
the spell shouldn't grant the target more knowledge than it already has. If I BG a Feebleminded target and give it a sword it is not going to use it to hit someone... heck, the poor guy is likely not even going to be able to hold it!
How does low INT stop someone from wielding a sword?
Weapon use is just as much WIS based as int.
But it's a poison apple. So using it appropriately, I give it to my enemy. If I know it's poison.
If you want to be deliberately obtuse, or make the spell useless, then yes, I suppose that's what you do.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
LINK2
LINK3 (my fave)
What are potions like in your game?
How do you differentiate a potion from an acid? Especially considering some of the fun and creative ideas in Link3!
Without opening the can of worms I did before, I see no difference between handing someone a vial of acid with the spell and trying to make them drink it, and handing someone a sword and trying to make them eat it.
I say acid is a splash weapon and that by default, when you hand it to them they use it as a splash weapon. If you want to make them drink it, it should involve some sort of check, just like trying to make them eat the sword would.
So now we're back to the spell magically telling the difference between Vinegar and H2SO4.
I figured that's why you'd want to know what was in the flask.
So a sword is wielded in a free hand. SKR has already said that "wielding" a sword means attacking with it, not just holding it. Going in search of the thread now.
LOL.
Then how I chose who should I attack?
If someone gift me a sword during a peace talk and use this spell I will attack someone at random and potentially start a war?Nice superpower.
So the spell now say:
"If you are given sword you should take it and attack someone"SKR reply was for the activation of the defending power. If wielding always mean attacking with the item in question Paizo will have to take all its manuals apart and rewrite them.
It's a compulsion spell. It is designed to make you make poor decisions.
You attack whoever you like. Spell says nothing on that topic. Attack the dude who gave you the sword if you like.
In a world of magic, first I would guess that diplomats capable of starting wars will be warded against first level enchantment spells, and second that it would be incredibly obvious what happened with even the most cursory glance-over via divination. Not going to start a war over that.
And even if it did, wars have been started over stupider things.
It's not a super power. It's magic. Well, OK, so it is kind of a super power, but only insofar as EVERY bit of magic is a superpower.
If two diplomats are in careful negotiations and one offers the other a clay chalice of peace filled with sacred water as a gesture of goodwill, and then some dude in the audience casts command on the diplomat, commanding him to DROP the chalice, is that going to start a war?
Same level spell. Same school. Same duration. Same save. Has a longer range, though. Is command a super power?
LINK2
LINK3 (my fave)
What are potions like in your game?
How do you differentiate a potion from an acid? Especially considering some of the fun and creative ideas in Link3!
Without opening the can of worms I did before, I see no difference between handing someone a vial of acid with the spell and trying to make them drink it, and handing someone a sword and trying to make them eat it.
I say acid is a splash weapon and that by default, when you hand it to them they use it as a splash weapon. If you want to make them drink it, it should involve some sort of check, just like trying to make them eat the sword would.
So now we're back to the spell magically telling the difference between Vinegar and H2SO4.
I figured that's why you'd want to know what was in the flask.
By RAW, the spell does. That's not how I'd play it though. Hence all my posts about checks.
|
Do you really need magic for that?
Can't you just get the Druid drunk, dress him in a pair of iron boxers while he's sleeping, shower mutilated squirrel carcasses around, put a razor in his hand and sit back with a glass of Scotch as you await his awakening and inevitable instant suicide due to gross violation of vegan code, err, I mean, druidic tenets?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The spell doesn't care what the caster says the object is. The spell doesn't care what the target thinks the object is. The spell ONLY cares what the object actually is. If it is a splash weapon, it is thrown as a splash weapon. ONLY option. It doesn't matter what it is labeled as or what it looks like. That is the ONLY way to read the spell as written.
We are proposing a house-rule which lets the caster try and[/i]...
"Bill, any idea how to use the plasma cannon we took off the Predator?"
"No Ted, let me cast beguiling gift on you and you can use it."So now the spell knows what the item is and tells the victim how to use it.
|
|
It's a compulsion spell. It is designed to make you make poor decisions.
You attack whoever you like. Spell says nothing on that topic. Attack the dude who gave you the sword if you like.
In a world of magic, first I would guess that diplomats capable of starting wars will be warded against first level enchantment spells, and second that it would be incredibly obvious what happened with even the most cursory glance-over via divination. Not going to start a war over that.
And even if it did, wars have been started over stupider things.
It's not a super power. It's magic. Well, OK, so it is kind of a super power, but only insofar as EVERY bit of magic is a superpower.
If two diplomats are in careful negotiations and one offers the other a clay chalice of peace filled with sacred water as a gesture of goodwill, and then some dude in the audience casts command on the diplomat, commanding him to DROP the chalice, is that going to start a war?
Same level spell. Same school. Same duration. Same save. Has a longer range, though. Is command a super power?
So all wizards with bonded weapons in your game wade into combat swinging while they cast their spells? It says that they have to wield the weapon to not have to make the concentration checks on all their spell casting.
Good points about wielding, shortened for the sake of the poor quote tags
Fair point.
OK, so you don't have to attack with the splash weapon. But you do have to wield it in a free hand. That means you can't use that hand for attacking with another weapon, wielding a shield, or casting a spell.
If you would like, you could throw the splash weapon at somebody.
The spell doesn't care what the caster says the object is. The spell doesn't care what the target thinks the object is. The spell ONLY cares what the object actually is. If it is a splash weapon, it is thrown as a splash weapon. ONLY option. It doesn't matter what it is labeled as or what it looks like. That is the ONLY way to read the spell as written.
We are proposing a house-rule which lets the caster try and[/i]...
"Bill, any idea how to use the plasma cannon we took off the Predator?"
"No Ted, let me cast beguiling gift on you and you can use it."So now the spell knows what the item is and tells the victim how to use it.
A predator's gun is point and shoot. I think you need a better analogy.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
By RAW, the spell does. That's not how I'd play it though. Hence all my posts about checks.So now we're back to the spell magically telling the difference between Vinegar and H2SO4.
I figured that's why you'd want to know what was in the flask.
So now not only does the spell magically tell the victim what it is and apparently how to use it, it tells the guy allergic to peanuts that there are peanuts in it. It tells the druid that it's actually a steel shield.
Wow, that's a pretty awesome first level spell.
And where does it say that it does all these things 'RAW'. I've checked my copy of the spell, that description is lacking.
The spell doesn't care what the caster says the object is. The spell doesn't care what the target thinks the object is. The spell ONLY cares what the object actually is. If it is a splash weapon, it is thrown as a splash weapon. ONLY option. It doesn't matter what it is labeled as or what it looks like. That is the ONLY way to read the spell as written.
We are proposing a house-rule which lets the caster try and[/i]...
"Bill, any idea how to use the plasma cannon we took off the Predator?"
"No Ted, let me cast beguiling gift on you and you can use it."So now the spell knows what the item is and tells the victim how to use it.
I've been convinced by Happler that the spell does not force you to attack with a weapon. It does force you to wield it however.
So, if they did this, the guy would sit there holding the plasma cannon (spell says it is a 2-H weapon, so he grabs it with both hands), but he still has no idea how to use it.
Similarly, if you beguiling gifted a wand of [spell X] to a fighter, he would have to hold it for his turn, and he could flail around with it and try and use it as an improvised weapon, but it would grant him no special ability to cast from it.
So the splash weapon would have to be held in hand. If you wanted, you could attack with it (since anyone can chuck a vial).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I've been convinced by Happler that the spell does not force you to attack with a weapon. It does force you to wield it however.So, if they did this, the guy would sit there holding the plasma cannon (spell says it is a 2-H weapon, so he grabs it with both hands), but he still has no idea how to use it.
Similarly, if you beguiling gifted a wand of [spell X] to a fighter, he would have to hold it for his turn, and he could flail around with it and try and use it as an improvised weapon, but it would grant him no special ability to cast from it.
So the splash weapon would have to be held in hand. If you wanted, you could attack with it (since anyone can chuck a vial).
I'm still trying to figure out where it says the spell knows what the item is. And how it knows the difference between vinegar and H2SO4.
|
|
Good points about wielding, shortened for the sake of the poor quote tagsFair point.
OK, so you don't have to attack with the splash weapon. But you do have to wield it in a free hand. That means you can't use that hand for attacking with another weapon, wielding a shield, or casting a spell.
If you would like, you could throw the splash weapon at somebody.
Taking the capacity to recognize the item as a splash weapon and not as something to drink for granted (I don't agree with that), you don it. i.e. you put it with all the other splash weapons you bring with you, probably in a belt at your waist or in a bandolier on your chest.
I don't know why people are fighting about how the spell should work RAW.
Whether it works or not RAW is seemingly irrelevant now, because there is so much disagreement about it that it seems it would need some sort of errata or clarification regardless.
I think the point that people are dancing around is that the idea of fighting a druid by forcing him to wear things, while funny, just seems really dumb.
Like, suspension of disbelief breaking dumb.
At least to me and, I assume, half of the people posting in this thread.
It's not even about how effective it is, or whether it is the intended usage of Beguiling Gift, or how exactly the mechanics of druids and metal things work. It's simply that the idea of forcing or tricking a druid to wear metal to neuter him seems ridiculous, regardless of what the rules say.
I think everyone has actually agreed that it is a totally valid use of the spell, and if you think that it could only be played out comically or stupidly, then I direct you to my comment addressing exactly this concern.
Anything in the game is only as silly or as epic as the players make it.
That is a really cool story that would fit very well in a piece of literature, maybe even a PbP, but I feel like many games of tabletop are not described so eloquently. I imagine at a table it would be more like:
"Lem, it's your initiative.
Okay, I am casting beguiling gift, will save 19. I'm offering him my steel shield.
The druid fails his save, he dons the shield.
(A round or two of combat later)
He falls. That steel shield really did him in. You all get ___ XP..."
To me the post you linked is simply masking the bad, bad flavor of dumb with the undeniable coolness of the spell beguiling gift. I can see such a situation being great with a poisoned drink or food, or some sort of cursed item. It doesn't save the "forcing a druid to wear metal can be a combat tactic" thing for me.
If everyone agrees that such a usage is actually really cool, then I honestly am very confused.
I'm still trying to figure out where it says the spell knows what the item is. And how it knows the difference between vinegar and H2SO4.
I've been convinced by Happler that the spell does not force you to attack with a weapon. It does force you to wield it however.So, if they did this, the guy would sit there holding the plasma cannon (spell says it is a 2-H weapon, so he grabs it with both hands), but he still has no idea how to use it.
Similarly, if you beguiling gifted a wand of [spell X] to a fighter, he would have to hold it for his turn, and he could flail around with it and try and use it as an improvised weapon, but it would grant him no special ability to cast from it.
So the splash weapon would have to be held in hand. If you wanted, you could attack with it (since anyone can chuck a vial).
Here:
On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question.
It, in that sentence, is the target of the spell. Since it is a compulsion spell, the target is not in control of its actions here, the spell is. So this is basically saying:
"On the target's next turn, the spell forces her to consume or don the object, as appropriate for the item in question." Since the spell is in control, it determines what is appropriate. In order to do that, it must know what the item is. The target is not in control, so what it knows or doesn't know doesn't matter.
Taking the capacity to recognize the item as a splash weapon and not as something to drink for granted (I don't agree with that), you don it. i.e. you put it with all the other splash weapons you bring with you, probably in a belt at your waist or in a bandolier on your chest.Good points about wielding, shortened for the sake of the poor quote tagsFair point.
OK, so you don't have to attack with the splash weapon. But you do have to wield it in a free hand. That means you can't use that hand for attacking with another weapon, wielding a shield, or casting a spell.
If you would like, you could throw the splash weapon at somebody.
Weapons are wielded, they are not stowed. That much is pretty clear from the spell. If you beguiling gift someone a sword, they wield the sword. They don't put it in their belt. So how is a splash weapon any different? It's a weapon. You wield it. At the end of the round, you can do whatever else you want, but so long as the spell is going on, it will not let you do anything with that hand but hold the flask or throw it at someone.
And I don't think I'll convince you that the spell knows the difference between a splash weapon and a drink, so I'm not trying (plus I just typed out the argument above). But if we accept that it does, then the weapon has to be wielded.
I just don't think the spell can give the target any kind of insight into what it is the caster gave him. If it's a Staff, he hits someone - unless he knows it's a Staff of Healing, then he heals someone, unless he's a monk who knows it's a Staff of Healing then he might UMD to heal something or more likely hit someone. If it's something the target has never seen before, or doen't know what it is, he may try to figure it out - with potentially funny results (my example of Ogg and the Nun-chuks). Don't give the spell powers it doesn't say it has, or you are inviteing inventive players (read me) to come up with interesting gimmicks in it's use.
If it's a staff he hits someone. It doesn't matter what kind it is. Unless he knows for certain that it has other abilities he can use. (this would include that club there)
If it's a drink he drinks it
If it's an artifact he tries to decipher it.
If it's a weapon, he wields it. How does this not include splash weapons?
It's not hard, it's not giving the spell powers it doesn't have. I still don't understand why someone would think "if you are handed a weapon you weild it as a weapon" would have an exception for some types of weapons.
So now not only does the spell magically tell the victim what it is and apparently how to use it, it tells the guy allergic to peanuts that there are peanuts in it. It tells the druid that it's actually a steel shield.
Wow, that's a pretty awesome first level spell.And where does it say that it does all these things 'RAW'. I've checked my copy of the spell, that description is lacking.
Umm.. complete no. The guy who's allergic to peanuts would eat them, because they are food. The same way he would if you handed him a poisoned apple. The druid would use the steel shield because it's a shield. The guy handed a splash weapon would wield it as a splash weapon. I don't know why this is such a difficult concept.
I don't know why people are fighting about how the spell should work RAW.
Whether it works or not RAW is seemingly irrelevant now, because there is so much disagreement about it that it seems it would need some sort of errata or clarification regardless.
I think the point that people are dancing around is that the idea of fighting a druid by forcing him to wear things, while funny, just seems really dumb.
Like, suspension of disbelief breaking dumb.
At least to me and, I assume, half of the people posting in this thread.
It's not even about how effective it is, or whether it is the intended usage of Beguiling Gift, or how exactly the mechanics of druids and metal things work. It's simply that the idea of forcing or tricking a druid to wear metal to neuter him seems ridiculous, regardless of what the rules say.
I think everyone has actually agreed that it is a totally valid use of the spell, and if you think that it could only be played out comically or stupidly, then I direct you to my comment addressing exactly this concern.
Anything in the game is only as silly or as epic as the players make it.
That is a really cool story that would fit very well in a piece of literature, maybe even a PbP, but I feel like many games of tabletop are not described so eloquently. I imagine at a table it would be more like:
"Lem, it's your initiative.
Okay, I am casting beguiling gift, will save 19. I'm offering him my steel shield.
The druid fails his save, he dons the shield.
(A round or two of combat later)
He falls. That steel shield really did him in. You all get ___ XP..."
To me the post you linked is simply masking the bad, bad flavor of dumb with the undeniable coolness of the spell beguiling gift. I can see such a situation being great with a poisoned drink or food, or some sort of...
But my point is that anything can be epic or dumb. It all depends on your narration. If the only thing you are coming up against is a druid with no companions (which this whole discussion is assuming, since the companions could stop the druid before he puts the shield on), then how is this any different from the bard casting hold person in round 1 followed by a coup de grace from the rogue?
It is a save-or-suck spell if used in a particularly clever way, and it is a spell which demands cleverness in order to be effective.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question.It, in that sentence, is the target of the spell. Since it is a compulsion spell, the target is not in control of its actions here, the spell is. So this is basically saying:
"On the target's next turn, the spell forces her to consume or don the object, as appropriate for the item in question." Since the spell is in control, it determines what is appropriate. In order to do that, it must know what the item is. The target is not in control, so what it knows or doesn't know doesn't matter.
So you won't bite the poison apple, because the poison makes it a weapon. You won't don the cursed necklace since the appropriate use of the item is to get someone else to wear it.
Congratulations, despite there being no divination aspect, you've made the spell useful only as a trap detector.
"Hey Bill, is that item cursed?"
"I don't know Ted, cast beguiling gift on me! If I try to give it to you, then yes!"