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.
You want me to go back to that hyperlinked post and respond to every single instance of you word twisting and outright making crap up? Fine I will.
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)
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.
So I said it can tell the difference between a vial of vinegar and a vial of acid.
It could also tell the difference between alchemist's fire and vinegar. It's not detecting the intensity of the acid, it's making you use the items as per their type [IE: splash weapon vs food] It has no utility outside of that, so when you pretend it does here, that's word twisting.Or the one where you agree the spell tells someone how to use the item
A predator's gun is point and shoot. I think you need a better analogy.
That wasn't even an argument! It was a joke! Even if you want to make it into one, the argument wouldn;t be "the spell lets you know how to use a predator's gun," it's "anyone can use a predator's gun!'
This is outright making things up.
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?
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.
This wasn;t even a RAW argument! This was talking about a houserule we had discussed that would allow you to make someone drink the acid even though byRAW they must weild it
So this is outright making things up. Any more posts you would like to hyperlink to while saying incredibly deceptive crap?
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.
So using BG to hand someone holly berries from the Fire Seeds spell would cause them to eat them? At that point you could shout out the command word (or have your druid friend do it) and cause each berry instantly bursts into flame, causing 1d8 points of fire damage + 1 point per caster level to every creature in a 5-foot-radius burst and igniting any combustible materials within 5 feet.
Ouch!
I would agree with this usage. +1 to you
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.
So using BG to hand someone holly berries from the Fire Seeds spell would cause them to eat them? At that point you could shout out the command word (or have your druid friend do it) and cause each berry instantly bursts into flame, causing 1d8 points of fire damage + 1 point per caster level to every creature in a 5-foot-radius burst and igniting any combustible materials within 5 feet.
Ouch!
YES! Fantastic! I love this.
I am not sure why you have an issue with this (do you have an issue with this? I can't tell. It seems like it, since you are suggesting it in a pejorative context.
I don't really think this is an optimized use of actions in a combat situation. By the time the druid can cast fire berries he can do better things than spend 2 standard actions and a swift to deal 8d8+lots of bonus to a 5' radius.
But in an out-of-combat context, this is exactly the sort of awesome trickery which this spell is designed for and which should be celebrated.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Okay, that was an admittedly bad example, but the difference between my proposed spell and Suggestion is that the sole effect of the spell would be the head patting, stomach rubbing action. Such a spell would be ridiculous in pretty much all situations. Something that is only ridiculous in some situations is fine. I think that forcing a druid to wear a shield in order to render him powerless, however, is ridiculous in all situations.
Again, I don't care about the power of the spell effect. Beguiling Gift is a really cool spell. It's the specific act of forcing someone to do something as trite as putting on a normal, unassuming steel shield in order to strip them of their powers that I find suspension breaking, in all situations (even your well written one).
To clarify, I m fine with something that is ridiculous in context. If a bar fight happens to be particularly funny, so be it. But something that is ridiculous even out of context is not okay.
IE, if I were explaining the rules of pathfinder to a friend, I would need to explain to them that even if a druid is forced to wear metal, they lose their powers. If your friend or enemy straps a steel shield to your arm, expect to be powerless for 24 hours.
The only response I can imagine from someone uninitiated in the idea that the game's rules are mutable is "Wow, that's dumb."
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Figured I’d post the ‘long form’ of how I read/adjudicate the spell.
I’ll use an orc for an example.
You offer an object to an adjacent creature, and entice it into using or consuming the proffered item.
It doesn’t matter what the item is, it just has to be one. No offering them a pair of juggling balls (though that would be an interesting variant)
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.
This is the key. If I hand our orc a mug, he drinks what’s in it (no matter what it is). If I hand him food, he takes a bite (even if he’s allergic). If I hand him a scored glass flask, he throws it (whether it contains alchemists fire, or water) if I hand him a weapon he’s familiar with, he arms himself. (for example, he’ll hold a katana in both hands, even if he’s not proficient.)
If I hand our orc something he’s not familiar with, he’ll use it in a way that makes sense to him. A war fan would get an orc fanning himself to cool off for example. OR he might take a musket and smack you upside the head with it, if he didn’t know what a gun was. (He thinks it’s a metal and wood club or staff) The spell doesn’t know or care what the item actually is. It compels the target to use/don the item to the best of his ability.Yes, technically the target could end up twisting the spell (give the druid a shield, he ‘readies it by strapping it across his back’) but that’s DM dickery, that’s possible with any enchantment spell.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Yup again wombat resorts to making thing up.
I never said 'flask of acid' I said vinegar and H2SO4. He's the one arguing that the spell can tell levels of toxicity in acid.
*yawn*
I understand, when you change positions often enough, it's hard to see where you started.
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.
Okay, that was an admittedly bad example, but the difference between my proposed spell and Suggestion is that the sole effect of the spell would be the head patting, stomach rubbing action. Such a spell would be ridiculous in pretty much all situations. Something that is only ridiculous in some situations is fine. I think that forcing a druid to wear a shield in order to render him powerless, however, is ridiculous in all situations.
Again, I don't care about the power of the spell effect. Beguiling Gift is a really cool spell. It's the specific act of forcing someone to do something as trite as putting on a normal, unassuming steel shield in order to strip them of their powers that I find suspension breaking, in all situations (even your well written one).
To clarify, I m fine with something that is ridiculous in context. If a bar fight happens to be particularly funny, so be it. But something that is ridiculous even out of context is not okay.
IE, if I were explaining the rules of pathfinder to a friend, I would need to explain to them that even if a druid is forced to...
The game exists in a world of moral absolutes where gods can walk the earth and directly grant the power to reshape the world to their most devout followers. In a world of moral absolutes, moral oaths are pretty serious business. Also, a great deal of the game is dumb from a modern mindset.
This use of beguiling gift is no different to me than the story of Samson and Delilah, or Odysseus and the Cyclops, or (insert trickster god here) and (insert other god here). I guess this just doesn't strike me as ridiculous. It strikes me as brilliantly clever and the sort of thing which I'd love to see more of at the table as it encourages the players to use wit over violence in a game which is almost purely focused on violence over wit.
It is exceptionally mean spirited (on the part of the caster towards the druid, not on the part of the player), but might actually be a more humane way of subduing a druid for capture than knocking him unconscious through repeated stabbings.
Figured I’d post the ‘long form’ of how I read/adjudicate the spell.
I’ll use an orc for an example.
You offer an object to an adjacent creature, and entice it into using or consuming the proffered item.It doesn’t matter what the item is, it just has to be one. No offering them a pair of juggling balls (though that would be an interesting variant)
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.This is the key. If I hand our orc a mug, he drinks what’s in it (no matter what it is). If I hand him food, he takes a bite (even if he’s allergic). If I hand him a scored glass flask, he throws it (whether it contains alchemists fire, or water) if I hand him a weapon he’s familiar with, he arms himself. (for example, he’ll hold a katana in both hands, even if he’s not proficient.)
If I hand our orc something he’s not familiar with, he’ll use it in a way that makes sense to him. A war fan would get an orc fanning himself to cool off for example. OR he might take a musket and smack you upside the head with it, if he didn’t know what a gun was. (He thinks it’s a metal and wood club or staff) The spell doesn’t know or care what the item actually is. It compels the target to use/don the item to the best of his ability.
Yes, technically the target could end up twisting the spell (give the druid a shield, he ‘readies it by strapping it across his back’) but that’s DM dickery, that’s possible with any enchantment spell.
And I read it as he uses it 'as appropriate for the item in question." I other words, the way an item of that type is typically meant to be used. Any other interpretation allows:
Player: "I give Korplach this potion of inflict light woulds!"DM:"He isn't familiar with the item. So after looking at it for a second he says 'thanks, I was feeling hot' and pours it on his head to cool off. Because he didn't drink it it has no effect"
Player: "And the point of this spell is?"
In other words, it makes the spell useless.
Yup again wombat resorts to making thing up.
I never said 'flask of acid' I said vinegar and H2SO4. He's the one arguing that the spell can tell levels of toxicity in acid.
*yawn*
I understand, when you change positions often enough, it's hard to see where you started.
stop pulling me back in.
Both of you are being intentionally inflammatory.
Matthew, you are distinguishing between vinegar and H2SO4, but the game doesn't make that distinction. When we talk about "acid flask" we don't know what acid is in there and it doesn't matter. All that matters is that it is a corrosive acid which deals d6 acid damage on a successful ranged touch attack.
If you put a corrosive acid in a flask and chuck it, then that is what happens, regardless of what the acid is. Those are the abstractions of the game. That is what we mean by "splash weapon." If it deals damage when it breaks, then it is a splash weapon.
If you put a non-corrosive acid in a flask which doesn't deal damage when it hits, that isn't a splash weapon.
One of you is speaking in abstractions and the other in real-world mechanics. The spell can't tell the specific toxicity level of an acid because the game doesn't care about the specific toxicity level of the acid. The spell can't identify between two specific acids because the game can't identify between two specific acids.
All the spell does is differentiate between corrosive acid which deals d6 acid damage as a splash weapon on a successful ranged touch attack, and non-corrosive acid which deals no damage on a successful ranged touch attack. Those are the only two categories of acid available.
Yup again wombat resorts to making thing up.
I never said 'flask of acid' I said vinegar and H2SO4. He's the one arguing that the spell can tell levels of toxicity in acid.
*yawn*
I understand, when you change positions often enough, it's hard to see where you started.
And I never said you did say vial of acid. There you go twisting my words again.
Huge surprise [/sarcasm]
Ummm....because splash weapons can look like drinks?
But they aren't drinks.
*Note to self* 5% Acetic acid is not an appropriate topping for French Fries. It is a splash weapon.
Well, it would sting, if you got in someone's eye.
No one said a vial of vinegar is a splash weapon. There's a mechanical difference between vinegar and corrosive acid. One is a food, the other is a splash weapon.
|
Both of you are being intentionally inflammatory.
Matthew, you are distinguishing between vinegar and H2SO4, but the game doesn't make that distinction.
When I go to the Burger King in Korvosa, I'd better tell them to hold the vinegar.
Don't want to take d6 damage from my Whopper.
Hmmm...can I use the gherkins, as acid-shuriken?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Yes, technically the target could end up twisting the spell (give the druid a shield, he ‘readies it by strapping it across his back’) but that’s DM dickery, that’s possible with any enchantment spell.
And I read it as he uses it 'as appropriate for the item in question." I other words, the way an item of that type is typically meant to be used. Any other interpretation allows:
Player: "I give Korplach this potion of inflict light woulds!"
DM:"He isn't familiar with the item. So after looking at it for a second he says 'thanks, I was feeling hot' and...
Well thank you for showing exactly what kind of DM you are.
I think Wombat's proved the point for me. I'm done.
Yes, technically the target could end up twisting the spell (give the druid a shield, he ‘readies it by strapping it across his back’) but that’s DM dickery, that’s possible with any enchantment spell.
And I read it as he uses it 'as appropriate for the item in question." I other words, the way an item of that type is typically meant to be used. Any other interpretation allows:
Player: "I give Korplach this potion of inflict light woulds!"
DM:"He isn't familiar with the item. So after looking at it for a second he says 'thanks, I was feeling hot' and...Well thank you for showing exactly what kind of DM you are.
I think Wombat's proved the point for me. I'm done.
I did't say I would do it. But I've played under a lot of DMs who would, and opening that door is a bad idea.
Both of you are being intentionally inflammatory.
Matthew, you are distinguishing between vinegar and H2SO4, but the game doesn't make that distinction.
When I go to the Burger King in Korvosa, I'd better tell them to hold the vinegar.
Don't want to take d6 damage from my Whopper.
Hmmm...can I use the gherkins, as acid-shuriken?
Did you miss the part about acids that are foods being mechanically different from corrosive acid, or are you being deliberately obtuse? Or making a joke?
There's no inflection on the iternet arg!
|
|
No one said a vial of vinegar is a splash weapon. There's a mechanical difference between vinegar and corrosive acid. One is a food, the other is a splash weapon.
If the breakable throwing flask were filled with vinegar, and the jar with the pickles on the label were filled with corrosive acid, how would you rule the target would use either one?
No one said a vial of vinegar is a splash weapon. There's a mechanical difference between vinegar and corrosive acid. One is a food, the other is a splash weapon.If the breakable throwing flask were filled with vinegar, and the jar with the pickles on the label were filled with corrosive acid, how would you rule the target would use either one?
I went over this ages ago. Go read the thread.
No one said a vial of vinegar is a splash weapon. There's a mechanical difference between vinegar and corrosive acid. One is a food, the other is a splash weapon.If the breakable throwing flask were filled with vinegar, and the jar with the pickles on the label were filled with corrosive acid, how would you rule the target would use either one?
The flask with vinegar isn't a splash weapon.
The jar with corrosive acid is.
Did you miss the part about acids that are foods being mechanically different from corrosive acid, or are you being deliberately obtuse?He said the game made no distinction between the two.
Better safe than sorry.
What he actually said is that the game doesn't make fine distinction based on acidity. In game terms, something is either not acidic enough to be dangerous or it is.
Did you miss the part about acids that are foods being mechanically different from corrosive acid, or are you being deliberately obtuse?He said the game made no distinction between the two.
Better safe than sorry.
No, I said the game made no distinction between one corrosive acid, lets say hydroflouric and another, lets say sulfuric.
It does make a distinction between those and vinegar. It makes a singular distinction: corrosive vs. not-corrosive. There isn't any range in between. That's what I said.
(going back to a previous point in the thread, this would be a tertius non datur argument).
The game exists in a world of moral absolutes where gods can walk the earth and directly grant the power to reshape the world to their most devout followers. In a world of moral absolutes, moral oaths are pretty serious business. Also, a great deal of the game is dumb from a modern mindset.
This use of beguiling gift is no different to me than the story of Samson and Delilah, or Odysseus and the Cyclops, or (insert trickster god here) and (insert other god here). I guess this just doesn't strike me as ridiculous. It strikes me as brilliantly clever and the sort of thing which I'd love to see more of at the table as it encourages the players to use wit over violence in a game which is almost purely focused on violence over wit.
It is exceptionally mean spirited (on the part of the caster towards the druid, not on the part of the player), but might actually be a more humane way of subduing a druid for capture than knocking him unconscious through repeated stabbings.
The examples of trickery you cited I think are very fitting for some sort of heroic tale. I don't find them ridiculous in the least bit.
My problem is that the steel shield becomes sort of like the druid's kryptonite, except, instead of being some pseudo-scientific reaction between a rare and exotic element with alien biology, it is a simple steel shield that causes some sort of vague moral dilemna within the Druid that runs so deep that they are unable to commune with nature for an entire day.
I understand you like stories where wit prevails, but I think this is nothing of the sort. It is a game mechanic taken in a nonsensical direction. If the hero is the player and the game is the obstacle, then, yes it is a great use of wit. But within the world, between the characters, it seems more like a strange glitch in the universe. That's why it is so suspension breaking for me.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It does make a distinction between those and vinegar. It makes a singular distinction: corrosive vs. not-corrosive. There isn't any range in between. That's what I said.
(going back to a previous point in the thread, this would be a tertius non datur argument).
But vinegar is corrosive. :-)
More seriously, do you understand from my write up how I view the spell working?
The game exists in a world of moral absolutes where gods can walk the earth and directly grant the power to reshape the world to their most devout followers. In a world of moral absolutes, moral oaths are pretty serious business. Also, a great deal of the game is dumb from a modern mindset.
This use of beguiling gift is no different to me than the story of Samson and Delilah, or Odysseus and the Cyclops, or (insert trickster god here) and (insert other god here). I guess this just doesn't strike me as ridiculous. It strikes me as brilliantly clever and the sort of thing which I'd love to see more of at the table as it encourages the players to use wit over violence in a game which is almost purely focused on violence over wit.
It is exceptionally mean spirited (on the part of the caster towards the druid, not on the part of the player), but might actually be a more humane way of subduing a druid for capture than knocking him unconscious through repeated stabbings.
The examples of trickery you cited I think are very fitting for some sort of great trickery. I don't find them ridiculous in the least bit.
My problem is that the steel shield becomes sort of like the druid's kryptonite, except, instead of being some pseudo-scientific reaction between a rare and exotic element with alien biology, it is a simple steel shield that causes some sort of vague moral dilemna within the Druid that runs so deep that they are unable to commune with nature for an entire day.
I understand you like stories where wit prevails, but I think this is nothing of the sort. It is a game mechanic taken in a nonsensical direction. If the hero is the player and the game is the obstacle, then, yes it is a great use of wit. But within the world, between the characters, it seems more like a strange glitch in the universe. That's why it is so suspension breaking for me.
Yes the steel shield becomes the druid's kryptonite. If:
1)The bard is unarmed (he would need one hand to hold the shield and one to cast)2)The bard casts defensively and makes his concentration check OR avoids the attack of opportunity OR takes damage from an AOO and succeeds on the concentration check OR it's not a combat situation.
3)The druid (who has high will saves) fails a save vs a 1st level spell.
How will the druid ever avoid this? ;)
It does make a distinction between those and vinegar. It makes a singular distinction: corrosive vs. not-corrosive. There isn't any range in between. That's what I said.
(going back to a previous point in the thread, this would be a tertius non datur argument).
But vinegar is corrosive. :-)
More seriously, do you understand from my write up how I view the spell working?
Yes, I just disagree. And that's fine.
|
|
If the breakable throwing flask were filled with vinegar, and the jar with the pickles on the label were filled with corrosive acid, how would you rule the target would use either one?
I went over this ages ago. Go read the thread.
I have been reading the thread.
My position is that the target would attempt to use an item, according to what he believes it is.
He would throw the flask of vinegar, even though it did no damage.
He would chug the jar of acid, damaging himself.
You position appears to be that he gains magical divination, that detects poison, acid, magic, and feeds him that information.
It tells him if the fluid in a sealed jar is meant to be drunk, applied, or thrown.
So he would crack open the throwing flask, and drink the vinegar.
And he would throw the pickle jar.
Is that your position or not?
Because when we take you at your word, you get all defensive and accuse us of putting words in your mouth, so it's not surprising we're confused.
The game exists in a world of moral absolutes where gods can walk the earth and directly grant the power to reshape the world to their most devout followers. In a world of moral absolutes, moral oaths are pretty serious business. Also, a great deal of the game is dumb from a modern mindset.
This use of beguiling gift is no different to me than the story of Samson and Delilah, or Odysseus and the Cyclops, or (insert trickster god here) and (insert other god here). I guess this just doesn't strike me as ridiculous. It strikes me as brilliantly clever and the sort of thing which I'd love to see more of at the table as it encourages the players to use wit over violence in a game which is almost purely focused on violence over wit.
It is exceptionally mean spirited (on the part of the caster towards the druid, not on the part of the player), but might actually be a more humane way of subduing a druid for capture than knocking him unconscious through repeated stabbings.
The examples of trickery you cited I think are very fitting for some sort of great trickery. I don't find them ridiculous in the least bit.
My problem is that the steel shield becomes sort of like the druid's kryptonite, except, instead of being some pseudo-scientific reaction between a rare and exotic element with alien biology, it is a simple steel shield that causes some sort of vague moral dilemna within the Druid that runs so deep that they are unable to commune with nature for an entire day.
I understand you like stories where wit prevails, but I think this is nothing of the sort. It is a game mechanic taken in a nonsensical direction. If the hero is the player and the game is the obstacle, then, yes it is a great use of wit. But within the world, between the characters, it seems more like a strange glitch in the universe. That's why it is so suspension breaking for me.
This glitch is actually a terrible idea on the part of the bard. As I discussed above, it has less than a 15% chance of working assuming the bard's primary stat is the same as the druid's primary. It will likely lead to the bard getting clobbered on the head and bitten by the druid's pet and then finding himself unarmed and shieldless in front of a very angry druid and his pet.
The more common trickery to take advantage of this would be if someone were able to incapacitate a druid or sneak up on one unnoticed and dress him in metal armor. That strikes me as a great sort of comic-epic trickery (in the way that Loki is comic-epic).
*sigh*
I don't care about how viable the tactic is. The fact that it can work at all is what makes it suspension breaking.
Edit @Bascaria: It would depend on the event, but I could see something like that working if, say, the druid is woken up to battle, and is forced to make a decision whether or not to spend his time removing the armor or to fight in it instead. Honestly though the situation you're presenting is really strange by itself, since a time when putting armor on the druid in his sleep makes a lot of since seems like it would be pretty rare.
If the breakable throwing flask were filled with vinegar, and the jar with the pickles on the label were filled with corrosive acid, how would you rule the target would use either one?I went over this ages ago. Go read the thread.I have been reading the thread.
My position is that the target would attempt to use an item, according to what he believes it is.
He would throw the flask of vinegar, even though it did no damage.
He would chug the jar of acid, damaging himself.You position appears to be that he gains magical divination, that detects poison, acid, magic, and feeds him that information.
It tells him if the fluid in a sealed jar is meant to be drunk, applied, or thrown.
So he would crack open the throwing flask, and drink the vinegar.
And he would throw the pickle jar.Is that your position or not?
Because when we take you at your word, you get all defensive and accuse us of putting words in your mouth, so it's not surprising we're confused.
I am sure while I am typing this that wombat will respond too, but anyways, here goes.
The spell confers no knowledge on the target. It does not tell the target "this is acid, throw it" or "this is vinegar, drink it."
Instead, it forces his body to move in a way appropriate to the item. If it is vinegar, he will be forced to drink it, but he will not know why.
If it is acid, he will be forced to clutch it and the only command he can send his arm which it will obey is "throw." If he tries to drop it, his body simply will not.
If it is a wand and he has the capacity to use it, then he will try and do so, using the activate blindly rules is he is using UMD. If he does not have the capacity to use it, then he will just hold it and possibly try and stab someone with the pointy end.
At no point does the spell tell him what the item is or why he is doing any of these things. He just does them. So the spell does not confer its knowledge on the target. It compels the target to act on knowledge it does not and continues to not have.
If the breakable throwing flask were filled with vinegar, and the jar with the pickles on the label were filled with corrosive acid, how would you rule the target would use either one?I went over this ages ago. Go read the thread.I have been reading the thread.
My position is that the target would attempt to use an item, according to what he believes it is.
He would throw the flask of vinegar, even though it did no damage.
He would chug the jar of acid, damaging himself.You position appears to be that he gains magical divination, that detects poison, acid, magic, and feeds him that information.
It tells him if the fluid in a sealed jar is meant to be drunk, applied, or thrown.
So he would crack open the throwing flask, and drink the vinegar.
And he would throw the pickle jar.Is that your position or not?
Because when we take you at your word, you get all defensive and accuse us of putting words in your mouth, so it's not surprising we're confused.
My position is that he would crack open the throwing flask, and drink the vinegar. And he would throw the pickle jar, but not for the reason you seem to think.
He's not actually gaining this knowledge, the spell is compelling him to act as if he had that knowledge.
There is a difference.
I got defensive because someone actually did put words in my mouth, not because someone "took me at my word."
*sigh*
I don't care about how viable the tactic is. The fact that it can work at all is what makes it suspension breaking.
And I just don't see it as suspension breaking. It is a drawback of the druid class. You have to work really hard to avoid metal armor. That's part of what you signed up for.
EDIT: and as I said before. If you don't like it, then house rule it away.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I understand you like stories where wit prevails, but I think this is nothing of the sort. It is a game mechanic taken in a nonsensical direction. If the hero is the player and the game is the obstacle, then, yes it is a great use of wit. But within the world, between the characters, it seems more like a strange glitch in the universe. That's why it is so suspension breaking for me.
Cas,
I beleive there's a Celtic ledgend where one of the heroes (Cu something or other) gets caught between two geas when he's offered stew by a crone (never refuse hospitality vs never eat dog meat IIRC). He was screwed through trickery.
That the druid is tricked through trickery and compulsion doesn't seem as much a strange glitch in the universe.
Think of it this way
The spell wears off. The druid's look of happiness turns to horror as he realize what is hanging from his arm. He's forsaken the gifts of nature for a cold never living tool of man. horrified he rips the shield from his arm, but still can't get the image out of his mind, his arm still feels the weight. He's broken his oaths, he's unclean The comfort he feels, the connection with the world is shattered by this thing he wore. He must take time to reconnect with nature, if he can survive the large fighter type coming at him...
|
|
And I just don't see it as suspension breaking. It is a drawback of the druid class. You have to work really hard to avoid metal armor. That's part of what you signed up for.
EDIT: and as I said before. If you don't like it, then house rule it away.
It's suspension breaking, because if the oath actually worked that way? There would not BE a druid class. They would all be dead, or abandoned the faith, for another faith that did not screw them over for things they unwittingly had done to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's suspension breaking, because if the oath actually worked that way? There would not BE a druid class. They would all be dead, or abandoned the faith, for another faith that did not screw them over for things they unwittingly had done to them.And I just don't see it as suspension breaking. It is a drawback of the druid class. You have to work really hard to avoid metal armor. That's part of what you signed up for.
EDIT: and as I said before. If you don't like it, then house rule it away.
But clerics are the same way. So are paladins. They aren't "choosing" the druid class because it confers the best benefits. They are called to defend nature, and part of that is resisting the abhorrent emblems of man's hubristic, cold destruction of nature that is represented by refined metal armor.
I am a vegetarian. I don't eat meat not because it gives me something, but because that is what I believe in. I once discovered that I had accidentally eaten something with meat. It was tofu cooked in chicken broth. This was a violation of my personal oath, and I felt ill for weeks as a result.
We hold ourselves responsible for what we do, whether knowingly or not.
It's suspension breaking, because if the oath actually worked that way? There would not BE a druid class. They would all be dead, or abandoned the faith, for another faith that did not screw them over for things they unwittingly had done to them.And I just don't see it as suspension breaking. It is a drawback of the druid class. You have to work really hard to avoid metal armor. That's part of what you signed up for.
EDIT: and as I said before. If you don't like it, then house rule it away.
But clerics are the same way. So are paladins. They aren't "choosing" the druid class because it confers the best benefits. They are called to defend nature, and part of that is resisting the abhorrent emblems of man's hubristic, cold destruction of nature that is represented by refined metal armor.
I am a vegetarian. I don't eat meat not because it gives me something, but because that is what I believe in. I once discovered that I had accidentally eaten something with meat. It was tofu cooked in chicken broth. This was a violation of my personal oath, and I felt ill for weeks as a result.
We hold ourselves responsible for what we do, whether knowingly or not.
+1
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cas,
I beleive there's a Celtic ledgend where one of the heroes (Cu something or other) gets caught between two geas when he's offered stew by a crone (never refuse hospitality vs never eat dog meat IIRC). He was screwed through trickery.
That the druid is tricked through trickery and compulsion doesn't seem as much a strange glitch in the universe.
Think of it this way
** spoiler omitted **
Okay, at a certain point, I have to say that just because something is in a legend doesn't mean it can justify something. Not all legend applies..
I mean in Little Red Riding Hood, a wolf dresses up as Red's grandmother. Not sure what kind of disguise check that would require, but I believe it is probably outside the limits of the game. Doesn't mean a wolf should get a +20 to its disguise check for dressing up as someone's grandmother. And even as I write this, I can foresee someone coming in and saying "what if it was an awakened wolf with 20 levels of Rogue (Spy) and all of the disguise rogue talents?"
But I digress, the way you described the steel shield as essentially a traumatic experience for the druid is actually exactly why I find it silly. Because you described wearing a shield as a traumatic experience.
I'll say that again:
You described wearing a shield as a traumatic experience.
I don't care what sort of moral system a druid is supposed to have, I just can't take that seriously.
Cas,
I beleive there's a Celtic ledgend where one of the heroes (Cu something or other) gets caught between two geas when he's offered stew by a crone (never refuse hospitality vs never eat dog meat IIRC). He was screwed through trickery.
That the druid is tricked through trickery and compulsion doesn't seem as much a strange glitch in the universe.
Think of it this way
** spoiler omitted **Okay, at a certain point, I have to say that just because something is in a legend doesn't mean it can justify something. Not all legend applies..
I mean in Little Red Riding Hood, a wolf dresses up as Red's grandmother. Not sure what kind of disguise check that would require, but I believe it is probably outside the limits of the game. Doesn't mean a wolf should get a +20 to its disguise check for dressing up as someone's grandmother. And even as I write this, I can foresee someone coming in and saying "what if it was an awakened wolf with 20 levels of Rogue (Spy) and all of the disguise rogue talents?"
But I digress, the way you described the steel shield as essentially a traumatic experience for the druid is actually exactly why I find it silly. Because you described wearing a shield as a traumatic experience.
I'll say that again:
You described wearing a shield as a traumatic experience.
I don't care what sort of moral system a druid is supposed to have, I just can't take that seriously.
But the aversion to metal is the very core of the druid's ethos. In order to get metal the earth must be ripped open and burned. The pristine beauty of nature destroyed in an armaggedon of flames and violence.
Everyone has different moral codes. My vegetarianism might seem absurd to you. Or perhaps a Hindu's belief in the sacredness of an animal. Or perhaps a Christian's belief that a man being nailed to a wooden cross sanctified all of humanity.
An assassin would have no issue plunging a blade into a child's throat. A paladin might. A soldier might be alright with the action if the throat belongs to the child of a deposed ruler who might one day bring the country to civil war.
Everyone has things which they will or will not do. Your issue isn't with the spell or this use of it, but with the very essence of the druid class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Holy crap.
If you guys put the effort into your games that you've put into this thread, you'd probably have the best campaign ever. Really.
/me shakes his head at the insanity.
But the aversion to metal is the very core of the druid's ethos. In order to get metal the earth must be ripped open and burned. The pristine beauty of nature destroyed in an armaggedon of flames and violence.
Is it really? They can use metal tools. They can live in a house composed of metal. They can sleep on a bed with a metal frame. There would be no ill-effect.
They simply cannot use metal to enhance their combat skills.
And in regards to comparing it to vegetarianism, or a religion, you seem to be ignoring that the Druid doesn't always need atonement. And so instead of any violation of their "code" (in regards to weapon and armor specifically) being on some major extreme, all violations have a similar (relatively minor) punishment. If a druid uses a shield to intentionally block a hit, they lose their powers for 24 hours after they drop. This is the same punishment as a druid who is tricked into using their shield.
So even a druid who willfully breaks their code is just as connected to nature as one who is forced, assuming they drop the shield at the same time.
Does that even seem sort of consistent to you who are describing the shield as a grievous and traumatic affront against nature to the druid?
EDIT: Fixed incorrect statement about atonement.
|
But the aversion to metal is the very core of the druid's ethos. In order to get metal the earth must be ripped open and burned. The pristine beauty of nature destroyed in an armaggedon of flames and violence.
Which is why a Druid wouldn't choose to use metal shields. But describing being forced to hold a shield for six seconds because of a spell as a "traumatic experience" is still silly.
---
On the subject of flasks of vinegar and cups of acid and how the victim knows what to do with an object:
If I pull an Acid Flask (10 GP, 1 lb) and use beguiling gift to hand it to an enemy, I would expect him to throw it at me. Because, unless otherwise stated, I assume that an acid flask (10 GP, 1 lb) looks like every other acid flask and not like anything else, and the character being handed the flask knows what it is.
Likewise, if I hand a victim a vial of poison I don't expect him to drink it, because it is clearly marked as poison unless stated otherwise. But if I pour that poison into a mug of beer and hand that to him under the spell, he'll drink it. Because that's what you do with a mug of beer.
Now, what if you just hand them a vial with an unidentified liquid in it? Do they drink it? Throw it? Pour it over their weapon? None of the above. What would you do if someone handed you a vial of unidentified liquid? You'd hold it up, look at it, and ask "What is this?" In other words, they would attempt to identify it.
I would totally let a player using this spell make a Bluff check to convince the victim that they were being handed something specific. If a player has a spare, unmarked glass vial and pours some acid into it and later hands it over via BG while saying "This is a potion of haste," I'd have him make a Bluff check to not give away the gag, and then the poor sap would drink it. Which I think would do a lot more than 1d6 damage, since its basically ten times worse (at least!) than a shot of drano, which will totally kill you.
Figured I’d post the ‘long form’ of how I read/adjudicate the spell.
I’ll use an orc for an example.
...
If I hand our orc something he’s not familiar with, he’ll use it in a way that makes sense to him. A war fan would get an orc fanning himself to cool off for example. OR he might take a musket and smack you upside the head with it, if he didn’t know what a gun was. (He thinks it’s a metal and wood club or staff) The spell doesn’t know or care what the item actually is. It compels the target to use/don the item to the best of his ability.
Yes, technically the target could end up twisting the spell (give the druid a shield, he ‘readies it by strapping it across his back’) but that’s DM dickery, that’s possible with any enchantment spell.
You see that "Superstar" thing nest to your name? In my eyes, you just proved that it belongs there.
+1
I tried to stay out of this thread, but I read people saying "it's just first level spell!" "you can just save it - should be really easy!"
Not so, why?
Heighten Spell.
Well I started reading this thread thinking it might be something to comment on
5 HOURS LATER........
I have this to say
1) As far as to what happens with an unknown item that for the time being is DM grey area.
2) Yep your druid is boned for 24 hours oh wait no he still has plenty of stuff to go on till then if he lives. (and if the druid is alone he was either meant to go down like a champ or has enough extra levels that he holds his own.)
3) If Role played this spell can be an amazing fun moment. If roll played its just another spell with just another save.
This is the key. If I hand our orc a mug, he drinks what’s in it (no matter what it is). If I hand him food, he takes a bite (even if he’s allergic). If I hand him a scored glass flask, he throws it (whether it contains alchemists fire, or water) if I hand him a weapon he’s familiar with, he arms himself. (for example, he’ll hold a katana in both hands, even if he’s not proficient.)
If I hand our orc something he’s not familiar with, he’ll use it in a way that makes sense to him. A war fan would get an orc fanning himself to cool off for example. OR he might take a musket and smack you upside the head with it, if he didn’t know what a gun was. (He thinks it’s a metal and wood club or staff) The spell doesn’t know or care what the item actually is. It compels the target to use/don the item to the best of his ability.
+38.911
Hey, we are talking a mind-affecting compulsion spell here.
Which, in my opinion, makes it pretty much clear that the target creature will do with the item in question whatever appears to be the appropriate use for the kind of item she perceives to have received.. Which need not be the default thing for the item, rules-wise.
Our example druid knows what shields are (hey, he's even proficient in their use). So, he'll pretty much see it as a shield, and will equip it as such.
Likewise, using this spell while handing someone a mug with something in it, probably accompanied by a hearty 'drink up, Pal!' will usually result in... the contents of the mug being drunk... whether it contains beer, poisoned beer, beered poison, acidic beer, poisoned acidic beer, acidic poison whithout any beer, or even the GROG from Monkey Island. Why? Because the target will associate 'looks like a drink - drink it!'
If, however, the target has zero idea how the fsck something is supposed to work, the spell won't change that. Hand a musket to a caveman, he'll likely equip it as a club. Hand him a gyroscopic orrery that has to be aligned with the sun to help in divining the future, he'll likely take it... then spend the turn trying to figure out what to actually do with the gadget.
|
|
If it is a wand and he has the capacity to use it, then he will try and do so, using the activate blindly rules is he is using UMD. If he does not have the capacity to use it, then he will just hold it and possibly try and stab someone with the pointy end.
I am still amazed how a spell that compel someone to don or consume something has become a spell that compel someone tu use it.
"Oh loyal guard at the king procession, take this flask of acid." BG.
Loyal guard throw the flask of acid at a random target during the king procession, great scandal, the guard is hanged, the chief of the guard dismissed in shame.
No boys, the spell don't compel anyone to use an item.
It compel them to consume it or don (and that include wielding the item in a non offensive way if that is how it is normally donned[to avoid all the shenanigans with the ruling about wielding, maybe handled would be a better word?]) but nothing more.
I am still amazed how a spell that compel someone to don or consume something has become a spell that compel someone tu use it.
If it is a wand and he has the capacity to use it, then he will try and do so, using the activate blindly rules is he is using UMD. If he does not have the capacity to use it, then he will just hold it and possibly try and stab someone with the pointy end.
It derives from - type 1 DMs we are calling them? - being unable to accept that the spell does what the spell says. And specifically. So instead of just doing what the spell says, they are trying to make the flavor text/summary the entire spell, instead of reading the spell description or the EXAMPLES PROVIDED IN THE SPELL TEXT.
Here is what needs to be done: "don" needs to be replaced with "equip" and the first sentence that is the spell summary needs to be removed in its entirety. Then no one can continue to pretend they aren't houseruling it.
You know I got so wrapped up in defending why I think the spell works like I think it does, that I never bothered to ask the simple question that negates the whole reason for the argument.
"Why are you using this spell to hand someone a non cursed weapon, anyway?"
No matter how you may want to disguise this, it's still a weapon. Handing someone an acid flask with this spell and expecting them not to use it as a splash weapon on you is just as stupid as handing someone a non-cursed sword and not expecting them to slash at you with it. So this would only come up if you're acting idiotically anyway.
But just for the fun of it I will make one last post to compile and clarify my earlier ones into one cohesive ruling. Agree or disagree with it as you wish, I'm done arguing about it after this.
1) The spell makes you use the item as appropriate for its type. (Or "don or consume " since Diego Rossi has been so caught up in semantics. It effectively means the same thing for almost every item.)
2)You are compelled to do this as if you had knowledge of its basic type.
3)Stuff about item types:
Weapons are weapons. It doesn't matter what clever disguise the caster is using on them. A sword gets wielded as a sword, an acid flask get wielded as an acid flask.
You would attempt to wear armor.
You would attempt to equip a shield.
You would attempt to equip a slotted item (see magic item slots) as per an item for its slot.
You would attempt to eat food.
You would attempt to drink a drink.
etc.
4) Unlike Bascaria, I do consider handing someone poison to be a legitimate use for the spell, as per these limits.
Ingested- It's still a drink (or a food as the case may be). It's just a highly toxic drink that you would be stupid to drink. So you drink it.
Injury- Why are you handing him injury poison? You know you have to apply that to a weapon right? Now he's just going to try to apply that to his weapon. Why are you so stupid?
Contact- is a topical cream, it's just a toxic one. As such he would apply it to himself. (By the way, this is "doning it" Diego Rossi, I'm still thinking of you.)
Inhaled- You just handed the guy a poison he can unleash any time. He has the choice to wield it, not using it, since it is a weapon that fills a 10 foot volume, throw it at someone, or open it right there with himself at the center. Either way, I don't want to be you after you give this to him.
5) Does this possibly create a situation where someone could have a flask and use this spell to determine if there's a drink or a spalsh weapon in it? Yes. Does that bother me? No, and here's why.
Knowing you have a splash weapon but not knowing anything else about it it worthless. It's analogous to knowing you have a melee weapon but not knowing if it's a light mace or elven curve blade. Likewise, knowing it's a drink is useless, since a drink can be anything from water, to a potion of cure critical wounds to Black Adder Venom.
Moreover, there are actual skills and spells that will not only tell you the item type but its properties too!
But the real reason it doesn't bother me that it might allow this, is that because knowing an item's type and nothing else about it is useless, the only reason any player would use the spell like this is if he was being an idiot.
I'm sorry, but I don't change my rulings to not allow the stupidest player from trying an idiotic thing that has no benefit to him.
I hope this last bit here doesn't end up overshadowing this post, because it's mostly a joke and as an afterthought, but Matthew Morris, you need to stop using "using a predator's blaster" as an example of something the spell shouldn't be able to make you do. In game mechanic terms, a predator's blaster is a ranged weapon. Any one can use it, and only take a -4 on attack if they aren't proficient! ;)