|
This garish red lip-protection cream was gifted to me by my father. To properly wear it one must apply a 1" band of it around the lips while saying "Isn't baby a pretty girl now?". I now gift this object unto you....
Might need a bluff check on that one....
Nah, no bluff check....it's a compulsion...you do it despite not wanting to.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
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.
But Peanuts aren't food to him, they're poison. Just like vinegar is an acid, as is H2SO4. One can drink acid safely, it's called vinegar. There's nothing in the spell that says anyone can identify what it is.
Oh wait, are you saying now that it does compel you to eat something toxic to you? Like say... acid?
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!"
No, you eat the apple because the presence of poison doesn't change the fact that it is an apple. So you eat it. The curse doesn't change the fact that the necklace is a necklace, so you put it on.
A splash weapon is a splash weapon, so you wield it as a weapon. A poisoned drink is a drink, so you drink it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Except no one's saying it works like that. If you want to put words in our mouths, you succeeded.
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!"
Actually, that's exactly what he said. The spell 'knows' what the actual item is. If it's a poisoned apple, poison is not to be taken internally. A necklace of Strangulation is not to be worn.
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.
But Peanuts aren't food to him, they're poison. Just like vinegar is an acid, as is H2SO4. One can drink acid safely, it's called vinegar. There's nothing in the spell that says anyone can identify what it is.
Oh wait, are you saying now that it does compel you to eat something toxic to you? Like say... acid?
If the acid is a splash weapon, then no, you are not compelled to eat it. If the peanuts are also a splash weapon, then no, you are not compelled to eat them.
Of course, peanuts aren't splash weapons, so you eat them.
You are not reading our arguments, you are arguing against something you perceived us to say 200 posts ago which we have been refuting ever since...
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.
But Peanuts aren't food to him, they're poison. Just like vinegar is an acid, as is H2SO4. One can drink acid safely, it's called vinegar. There's nothing in the spell that says anyone can identify what it is.
Oh wait, are you saying now that it does compel you to eat something toxic to you? Like say... acid?
If the item is food it does. Acid is a splash weapon not food. Why is that such a difficult concept to understand?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
No, you eat the apple because the presence of poison doesn't change the fact that it is an apple. So you eat it. The curse doesn't change the fact that the necklace is a necklace, so you put it on.
A splash weapon is a splash weapon, so you wield it as a weapon. A poisoned drink is a drink, so you drink it.
But if it's a vial of poison, then you don't drink it? Because the spell knows?
If the spell 'knows' that it's poison. Then the spell should 'know' that payday is poison to peanut allergy guy.
All this for a first level spell.
Except no one's saying it works like that. If you want to put words in our mouths, you succeeded.
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!"Actually, that's exactly what he said. The spell 'knows' what the actual item is. If it's a poisoned apple, poison is not to be taken internally. A necklace of Strangulation is not to be worn.
No.... I said the spell knows that a vial of acid is a splash weapon and a vial of whiskey is a drink. You throw one, you drink the other. The spell doesn't care if there is poison in the whiskey or a bit of whiskey in the acid. You still drink the whiskey and throw the acid.
Unless, as you pointed out, the "acid vial" is actually just a bottle of vinaigrette, in which case you will drink it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If the item is food it does. Acid is a splash weapon not food. Why is that such a difficult concept to understand?
Oh wait, are you saying now that it does compel you to eat something toxic to you? Like say... acid?
Nope, acid is something that goes nice on my spinach. That's my point. You're giving the spell powers it clearly doesn't have.
No, you eat the apple because the presence of poison doesn't change the fact that it is an apple. So you eat it. The curse doesn't change the fact that the necklace is a necklace, so you put it on.
A splash weapon is a splash weapon, so you wield it as a weapon. A poisoned drink is a drink, so you drink it.
But if it's a vial of poison, then you don't drink it? Because the spell knows?
If the spell 'knows' that it's poison. Then the spell should 'know' that payday is poison to peanut allergy guy.
All this for a first level spell.
If the poison is an ingestion poison, then you drink it. If the poison is an injury poison, then you apply it to your weapons. If it is an inhaled poison then you try and figure out some way to aerosolize it. If it is a contact poison then you throw it at someone as a splash weapon.
The spell isn't a divination spell. It does not confer any of this knowledge on the target. It just compels them to do stuff and they don't know why their limbs are doing it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
No.... I said the spell knows that a vial of acid is a splash weapon and a vial of whiskey is a drink. You throw one, you drink the other. The spell doesn't care if there is poison in the whiskey or a bit of whiskey in the acid. You still drink the whiskey and throw the acid.
Unless, as you pointed out, the "acid vial" is actually just a bottle of vinaigrette, in which case you will drink it.
So the spell can tell you how much acid is in something. that it's toxic. If the guy is immune to acid, and uses it as mouthwash, will he drink it?
Do you realize how absurd you're getting. I mean an enchantment spell that recognizes what something is? Well unless it isn't.
We're back to
"What the heck is that?"
"I don't know cast beguiling gift on me and see what happens! The spell will tell us."
Nope, acid is something that goes nice on my spinach. That's my point. You're giving the spell powers it clearly doesn't have.
Yes, some acids are foods.
but we're not talking about items that are foods. We're talking about corrosive acid, which is a weapon not a food.
They aren't the same. Your failure to realise that doesn't change it.
|
|
The spell doesn't know, the target knows what a item is....You hand me a cloak after casting this and I don it. You hand me a drink (poisoned or not) and I drink it. You hand me a shield and I wield it. You hand me a necklace and I put it on. The spell compels you to eat, wear, wield or use and item given to you.
If the item is food it does. Acid is a splash weapon not food. Why is that such a difficult concept to understand?
Oh wait, are you saying now that it does compel you to eat something toxic to you? Like say... acid?
Nope, acid is something that goes nice on my spinach. That's my point. You're giving the spell powers it clearly doesn't have.
Let's pin down what we mean when we say "acid."
If you cast BG and hand them a "acid flask," the specific item which is a thrown splash weapon which deals d6 acid damage on a hit, then that is a splash weapon and they wield it as such.
If you cast BG and them a "bottle of raspberry vinaigrette" then they drink it. If the bottle of raspberry vinaigrette happens to have been laced with arsenic, then that is just too bad for them.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If the poison is an ingestion poison, then you drink it. If the poison is an injury poison, then you apply it to your weapons. If it is an inhaled poison then you try and figure out some way to aerosolize it. If it is a contact poison then you throw it at someone as a splash weapon.The spell isn't a divination spell. It does not confer any of this knowledge on the target. It just compels them to do stuff and they don't know why their limbs are doing it.
So if you hand the guy a sword, he stabs himself with it.
Poison isn't meant to be taken by the wielder, so logically your version makes him hack himself with the sword.
This is getting fun.
Edit: Your own post shows you're flailing. You drink ingested poison, but use contact poison as a spash weapon? Why not spread it on like suntan lotion?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The spell doesn't know, the target knows what a item is....You hand me a cloak after casting this and I don it. You hand me a drink (poisoned or not) and I drink it. You hand me a shield and I wield it. You hand me a necklace and I put it on. The spell compels you to eat, wear, wield or use and item given to you.
Thank you! :-)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Nope, acid is something that goes nice on my spinach. That's my point. You're giving the spell powers it clearly doesn't have.
Yes, some acids are foods.
but we're not talking about items that are foods. We're talking about corrosive acid, which is a weapon not a food.
They aren't the same. Your failure to realise that doesn't change it.
I beleive your failure to realize a spell can't 'know' what an item is is what is causing the problem.
|
|
"You offer an object to an adjacent creature, and entice it into using or consuming the proffered item. If the target fails its Will save, it immediately takes the offered object, dropping an already held object if necessary. On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question. For example, an apple would be eaten, a potion consumed, a ring put on a finger, and a sword wielded in a free hand. If the target is physically unable to accept the object, the spell fails. The subject is under no obligation to continue consuming or using the item once the spell's duration has expired, although it may find a cursed item difficult to be rid of."
So if you hand the guy a sword, he stabs himself with it.
No, he wields it.
I beleive your failure to realize a spell can't 'know' what an item is is what is causing the problem.
No. Much like the argument you made up there, the real problem comes from you taking arguments we're not really making, then trying to show that the arguments we are making look bad by showing how absurd the effects the argumets you're saying we're making but aren't are.
|
|
"You offer an object to an adjacent creature, and entice it into using or consuming the proffered item. If the target fails its Will save, it immediately takes the offered object, dropping an already held object if necessary. On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question. For example, an apple would be eaten, a potion consumed, a ring put on a finger, and a sword wielded in a free hand. If the target is physically unable to accept the object, the spell fails. The subject is under no obligation to continue consuming or using the item once the spell's duration has expired, although it may find a cursed item difficult to be rid of."
So you entice the creature into using or consuming or whatever, the object. Where does any of this "the spell knows what the object is" crap come from?
I beleive your failure to realize a spell can't 'know' what an item is is what is causing the problem.Nope, acid is something that goes nice on my spinach. That's my point. You're giving the spell powers it clearly doesn't have.Yes, some acids are foods.
but we're not talking about items that are foods. We're talking about corrosive acid, which is a weapon not a food.
They aren't the same. Your failure to realise that doesn't change it.
Why not? Why can't an item know what an item is? Where could you have possibly gotten this idea? OF COURSE a spell can know what an item is. A spell very well HAS to be able to tell the difference between items.
The line from the spell is: "On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question." Lets say that you hand someone a stoppered clay bottle filled with liquid and give no indication of what is in it. The spell text says that you still don or consume the item as appropriate. Even if you don't know what it is, you still don or consume it as appropriate.
If it happens to be filled with wine, you drink it. If it happens to be filled with caustic acid, you wield it as a splash weapon. You don't know why you are doing any of these things, because the compulsion spell is just moving your body, not whispering truths to you. But you still do them nonetheless.
wait I know how to solve this! I hand you a flask of acid in a sprite bottle, before you drink it I cast BG and hand you a scroll of BG! lets see what I do when you cast the BG and hand me the acid... no wait that wont work dart.
I repeat because I think people missed this:
"(not something you see every day - a cheese weasle player asking you to control him "please sir, don't give me this ability, I fear what I might do with it!")
Don't give this spell the power to "ID" magic items. It would be a bad thing to hand to me. I fear what I might do.
Nobody wants to give it the ability to id magic items. It just makes you act as if you had knowledge of the items type (IE: weapon, armor, food, drink, toy)
Please don't give this spell the power to "ID" magic items. It would be a bad thing to hand to me. I fear what I might do.
Nobody wants to.
So, "here is your Cloak of Poison, it's fuzzy and warm. Try it on!" and the creature does so. Compelled.
So, "here is a big metal shield, it'll ward you from blows. Try it out!" and the druid does so. Compelled.
Yep, that's how the spell works.
|
|
Why not? Why can't an item know what an item is? Where could you have possibly gotten this idea? OF COURSE a spell can know what an item is. A spell very well HAS to be able to tell the difference between items.The line from the spell is: "On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question." Lets say that you hand someone a stoppered clay bottle filled with liquid and give no indication of what is in it. The spell text says that you still don or consume the item as appropriate. Even if you don't know what it is, you still don or consume it as appropriate.
If it happens to be filled with wine, you drink it. If it happens to be filled with caustic acid, you wield it as a splash weapon. You don't know why you are doing any of these things, because the compulsion spell is just moving your body, not whispering truths to you. But you still do them nonetheless.
This spell doesn't do that. The giver entices the recipient into using it. how they do that is up to them, but the creature would try to do so. If it physically can't then the spell fails.
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.
Ehhhh I'm not buying it. You see I agree with the last part (though I don't believe it is exclusively save or suck), but you are directing the argument toward the power of the spell, which I don't care about.
If you make the argument that anything can be epic or dumb, then you allow entry of multiple abilities to the game regardless of their inanity. It essentially means that as long as something is mechanically balanced, its ridiculousness is unimportant to the integrity of the game. This sort of reasoning would allow the developers to create a spell that forces an opponent to attempt to rub their own head while patting their stomach simultaneously, as long as the spell were of the appropriate level with a reasonable duration according to its mechanical effect.
I don't agree. Forcing a shield onto the druids arm should not cause him peril. In my opinion, the idea is inherently silly, regardless of situation, comedic effect intended or not. Comedy is a side effect of the ridiculous, not a requirement. A less comedic situation in which this effect is evident does not redeem it.
Why not? Why can't an item know what an item is? Where could you have possibly gotten this idea? OF COURSE a spell can know what an item is. A spell very well HAS to be able to tell the difference between items.The line from the spell is: "On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question." Lets say that you hand someone a stoppered clay bottle filled with liquid and give no indication of what is in it. The spell text says that you still don or consume the item as appropriate. Even if you don't know what it is, you still don or consume it as appropriate.
If it happens to be filled with wine, you drink it. If it happens to be filled with caustic acid, you wield it as a splash weapon. You don't know why you are doing any of these things, because the compulsion spell is just moving your body, not whispering truths to you. But you still do them nonetheless.
This spell doesn't do that. The giver entices the recipient into using it. how they do that is up to them, but the creature would try to do so. If it physically can't then the spell fails.
"...as appropriate for the item in question. For example, an apple would be eaten, a potion consumed, a ring put on a finger, and a sword wielded in a free hand. "
You have to use the item as appropriate for an item of its type. A weapon is wielded, a ring word, a drink drunk, a food eaten. You don't have any choice over how you use it, other than doing something that is item appropriate.
A splash weapon is a weapon, as such, it is wielded.
Why not? Why can't an item know what an item is? Where could you have possibly gotten this idea? OF COURSE a spell can know what an item is. A spell very well HAS to be able to tell the difference between items.The line from the spell is: "On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question." Lets say that you hand someone a stoppered clay bottle filled with liquid and give no indication of what is in it. The spell text says that you still don or consume the item as appropriate. Even if you don't know what it is, you still don or consume it as appropriate.
If it happens to be filled with wine, you drink it. If it happens to be filled with caustic acid, you wield it as a splash weapon. You don't know why you are doing any of these things, because the compulsion spell is just moving your body, not whispering truths to you. But you still do them nonetheless.
This spell doesn't do that. The giver entices the recipient into using it. how they do that is up to them, but the creature would try to do so. If it physically can't then the spell fails.
No, it doesn't let the target choose how they use the item. They HAVE to use the item as appropriate for an item of its type. If they could chose how they would use the item, then the druid would use the shield as an improvised weapon and chuck it into the face of the bard.
The target cannot choose how to use the item. The SPELL chooses how they would use the item. A compulsion spell can be read with the phrase "the spell forces the target to..." before any statement of what the target does. So "On it's next turn, the spell forces the target to consume or don the object as appropriate for the item in question." The spell is choosing, not the target.
(and before you take issue with my statement that compulsion spells can be read that way, reread the description of the spell suggestion and tell me that it actually forces the target to do anything at all without this reading. Protip: it doesn't.)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
No. Much like the argument you made up there, the real problem comes from you taking arguments we're not really making, then trying to show that the arguments we are making look bad by showing how absurd the effects the argumets you're saying we're making but aren't are.
Would that be the argument where you're saying the spell can tell the intensity of acid
(note, I've listed two kinds of acid, one toxic one not, you're the one declaring one is a splash weapon. If he won't drink the H2SO4 because it's not a drink, he won't drink poison)Or the one where you agree the spell tells someone how to use the item
Or the one where not only does the spell magically tell the person what it is, but allows a check to use it the wrong way?
That's just in the past hour.
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.
When a RL person ("trickster") hands another RL person ("mark") a vial of unknown liquid and says "drink up", does the mark start categorizing the liquid among a list which includes "splash weapons"?
If so, I'd love to see your behavior at a house party...
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.
Ehhhh I'm not buying it. You see I agree with the last part (though I don't believe it is exclusively save or suck), but you are directing the argument toward the power of the spell, which I don't care about.
If you make the argument that anything can be epic or dumb, then you allow entry of multiple abilities to the game regardless of their inanity. It essentially means that as long as something is mechanically balanced, it's ridiculousness is unimportant to the integrity of the game. This sort of reasoning would allow the developers to create a spell that forces an opponent to attempt to rub their own head while patting their stomach simultaneously, as long as the spell were of the appropriate level with a reasonable duration according to its mechanical effect.
I don't agree. Forcing a shield onto the druids arm should not cause him peril. In my opinion, the idea is inherently silly, regardless of situation, comedic effect intended or not. Comedy is a side effect of the ridiculous, not a requirement. A less comedic situation in which this effect is evident does not redeem it.
There is a spell which will cause you to pat your head and rub your belly. It is called suggestion. It is a second level compulsion spell.
And the game is rife with things which cause the divine "oath-based" casters to lose their powers against their will. It is what the atonement spell is for. It isn't silly unless you want it to be. Dominating the paladin and forcing him to murder orphans might be silly. Or it might be the climax of a terrible tragedy. It all depends on how you play it.
A sword fight be silly to. Or it can be epic. Or it can be kinda dull and overly long, but not particularly interesting either way. A duel of magic can last hours or seconds.
You don't like the spell? OK. That's fine. Ban it at your table. But this is the intent of the spell, and it is amazing for trickster type characters and subversive NPCs who would rather humiliate or weaken the party than kill them.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Nobody wants to give it the ability to id magic items. It just makes you act as if you had knowledge of the items type (IE: weapon, armor, food, drink, toy)wait I know how to solve this! I hand you a flask of acid in a sprite bottle, before you drink it I cast BG and hand you a scroll of BG! lets see what I do when you cast the BG and hand me the acid... no wait that wont work dart.
I repeat because I think people missed this:
"(not something you see every day - a cheese weasle player asking you to control him "please sir, don't give me this ability, I fear what I might do with it!")
Don't give this spell the power to "ID" magic items. It would be a bad thing to hand to me. I fear what I might do.
Except Bascaria. He wants the spell to know what the item is. Why not magic?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not? Why can't an item know what an item is? Where could you have possibly gotten this idea? OF COURSE a spell can know what an item is. A spell very well HAS to be able to tell the difference between items.The line from the spell is: "On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question." Lets say that you hand someone a stoppered clay bottle filled with liquid and give no indication of what is in it. The spell text says that you still don or consume the item as appropriate. Even if you don't know what it is, you still don or consume it as appropriate.
If it happens to be filled with wine, you drink it. If it happens to be filled with caustic acid, you wield it as a splash weapon. You don't know why you are doing any of these things, because the compulsion spell is just moving your body, not whispering truths to you. But you still do them nonetheless.
This spell doesn't do that. The giver entices the recipient into using it. how they do that is up to them, but the creature would try to do so. If it physically can't then the spell fails.
"...as appropriate for the item in question. For example, an apple would be eaten, a potion consumed, a ring put on a finger, and a sword wielded in a free hand. "
You have to use the item as appropriate for an item of its type. A weapon is wielded, a ring word, a drink drunk, a food eaten. You don't have any choice over how you use it, other than doing something that is item appropriate.
A splash weapon is a weapon, as such, it is wielded.
I agree but the spell has no power to tell you that it is a splash weapon. the Caster entices the user to use the item and if the item is something that the user may not be familiar with it's usage then the caster should be using gestures or words to convey the correct usage. For example- a Caveman has never seen a tanglefoot bag. It doesn't speak the casters language or have any idea what the bag is for. The spell doesn't make it know how to do it. The caster either gestures or something to convey meaning. If for some reason the caster can't then I would have to default to Physically can't perform the action and have the spell fail at that point.
No. Much like the argument you made up there, the real problem comes from you taking arguments we're not really making, then trying to show that the arguments we are making look bad by showing how absurd the effects the argumets you're saying we're making but aren't are.Would that be the argument where you're saying the spell can tell the intensity of acid
(note, I've listed two kinds of acid, one toxic one not, you're the one declaring one is a splash weapon. If he won't drink the H2SO4 because it's not a drink, he won't drink poison)Or the one where you agree the spell tells someone how to use the item
Or the one where not only does the spell magically tell the person what it is, but allows a check to use it the wrong way?
That's just in the past hour.
That's nice word twisting there. It makes you act as if you had knowledge of the items type. So it can tell the difference between a drink and a splash weapon.
Seriously, if you're going to twist my words to say whatever you want anyway, why don't i just make posts that are just word salad and let you go from there.
Here's one for you.
A guy cheeses at the fluf. When gargle come to Carealot, a blog will open to splorax!
No. Much like the argument you made up there, the real problem comes from you taking arguments we're not really making, then trying to show that the arguments we are making look bad by showing how absurd the effects the argumets you're saying we're making but aren't are.Would that be the argument where you're saying the spell can tell the intensity of acid
(note, I've listed two kinds of acid, one toxic one not, you're the one declaring one is a splash weapon. If he won't drink the H2SO4 because it's not a drink, he won't drink poison)Or the one where you agree the spell tells someone how to use the item
Or the one where not only does the spell magically tell the person what it is, but allows a check to use it the wrong way?
That's just in the past hour.
I misspoke when I said that it would cause you to drink a vial of ingestion poison. That was a mistake. I retract it. I am typing a lot of these responses very quickly. If you hand him a poisoned drink, he will drink it. Its a drink.
If you hand him a wand he can't use, he will try and use it to the best of his ability. Maybe that means stabbing at someone with the pointy end. If he has ranks in UMD he'll try and cast with it. I don't think we ever said it gives you the ability to use an item you can't use.
The check to use the item the wrong way was a HOUSE RULE not RAW which he have said repeatedly and since the start, that we think would lead to an interesting use of the spell OUTSIDE OF IT'S RAW PURVIEW. We are not saying by RAW that you could bluff someone into drinking acid with this.
Nobody wants to give it the ability to id magic items. It just makes you act as if you had knowledge of the items type (IE: weapon, armor, food, drink, toy)wait I know how to solve this! I hand you a flask of acid in a sprite bottle, before you drink it I cast BG and hand you a scroll of BG! lets see what I do when you cast the BG and hand me the acid... no wait that wont work dart.
I repeat because I think people missed this:
"(not something you see every day - a cheese weasle player asking you to control him "please sir, don't give me this ability, I fear what I might do with it!")
Don't give this spell the power to "ID" magic items. It would be a bad thing to hand to me. I fear what I might do.Except Bascaria. He wants the spell to know what the item is. Why not magic?
No... I want the spell to know what the item's TYPE is. Is it a splash weapon? You use it as a splash weapon. Is it a drink? You drink it.
I'm still impressed a little first level spell can tell what an item is, make someone wield a sword, and stab himself with it.
No one said it could. This is another example of you trying to show the absurdity of our arguments using arguments we aren't even effing making
So we're back to the spell telling you not to drink poison since it shows you to not take it topically.
as is this
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I misspoke when I said that it would cause you to drink a vial of ingestion poison. That was a mistake. I retract it. I am typing a lot of these responses very quickly. If you hand him a poisoned drink, he will drink it. Its a drink.
When does it stop being 'a poisoned drink' and become 'poison'? When you have 51% poison? 75% poison? If it's all poison and a drop of water, is that still a 'poison drink'?
Oh wait, you still won't drink it, since the spell tells you how to use it, and you give a poison drink to someone you don't like!
When does it stop being 'a poisoned drink' and become 'poison'? When you have 51% poison? 75% poison? If it's all poison and a drop of water, is that still a 'poison drink'?
Oh wait, you still won't drink it, since the spell tells you how to use it, and you give a poison drink to someone you don't like!
And this
So we're back to the spell telling you not to drink poison since it shows you to not take it topically.
Wow that's a handy spell!
Really? A first level spell being able to tell you that a vial of poison is poison is handy? It isn't detect poison. It can't tell you if poison is present. If you BG a drink to someone and the drink has poison in it, it will still make them drink it.
All it will do is not force you to drink a vial which is ONLY poison. It also won't force you to drink a vial which is acid, or dirt, or diseased pus.
Effectively, it is detect not primarily food if used in this manner...
So handy.
Side note: a berry which is a poisonous berry will still be eaten with this spell as the berry's type is berry, which is food. If that berry's poison were purified and distilled out and put in a vial, you wouldn't drink it. But that just tells you that this distilled, processed gunk I got from a berry isn't food. It might be ink.
I misspoke when I said that it would cause you to drink a vial of ingestion poison. That was a mistake. I retract it. I am typing a lot of these responses very quickly. If you hand him a poisoned drink, he will drink it. Its a drink.
When does it stop being 'a poisoned drink' and become 'poison'? When you have 51% poison? 75% poison? If it's all poison and a drop of water, is that still a 'poison drink'?
Oh wait, you still won't drink it, since the spell tells you how to use it, and you give a poison drink to someone you don't like!
Would you accept an "I'll know it when I see it" at this point? Probably not. I know what the spell does. I am also pretty sure you know what the spell does. We are going in circles. I'm removing myself from the argument.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'm still impressed a little first level spell can tell what an item is, make someone wield a sword, and stab himself with it.No one said it could. This is another example of you trying to show the absurdity of our arguments using arguments we aren't even effing making
See those little off colour links? Those are called hyperlinks. Those are used to link back to your own words.
Bascaria has changed his view on making someone drink a vial of poison. That invalidates the 'stab yourself' statement. But if you want to take the original viewpoint that handing someone a vial of poison will make them drink it (when poison is not ment to be taken by the wielder) then it stands to reason he'll use the sword to hurt himself, since it's a weapon, just like poison.
Do try to keep up Wombat. I understand it can be confusing with your own arguments changing all the time.
To paraphrase Fakey, I hand you something drinkable, you try to drink it. That's all the spell does. It doesn't analyze it, determine the best way to use it, then show you how to use it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
And thisWhen does it stop being 'a poisoned drink' and become 'poison'? When you have 51% poison? 75% poison? If it's all poison and a drop of water, is that still a 'poison drink'?
Oh wait, you still won't drink it, since the spell tells you how to use it, and you give a poison drink to someone you don't like!
And what? I'm extrapolating? Sorry if you can't answer the question w/o shattering your little theories.