No boys, the spell don't compel anyone to use an item.
Yes, it does.
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.Emphasis mine.The whole text of the spell:
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.Step by step:
- You offer an object to an adjacent creature, and entice it into using or consuming the proffered item. generic description of the effect- 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. game mechanics, the actions the target should do if he fail the ST
- For example, an apple would be eaten, a potion consumed, a ring put on a finger, and a sword wielded in a free hand. example of the actions, all about equipping (great suggestion for the right term Cartigan) or consuming the item, nothing about using it
- If the target is physically unable to accept the object, the spell fails. game mechanic.
- The subject is under no obligation to continue consuming or using the item once the spell's duration has...
I think the grey area of the spell is the Entice part. The entice part can allow you to hand a flask of acid and "entice" the person to consume it has a potion. (Bard says :Hey you look hurt take my Cure light) Because hand a person a cure light or potion means nothing because unless they can identify it as such they wouldnt consume it till they looked. So the Entice part will trick the person into doing something, like drinking acid. They accept the gift beliving it to be beneficial and therefore use it accordingly.
|
yep"Have the witch/bard stand behind the fighter in melee casting this spell and handing them another greatsword every round after they full attack.
They get their full attack and then this is cast on them, they drop their sword and do ANOTHER attack because of this spell?"Well, actually it would go something like this.
Init: 10 Fighter takes full attack
Init: 10- (bard was on delay)bard casts BG and offers great sword. Fighter misses his will save.
NEXT TURN
Init:10 Fighter drops his great sword (free action) and excepts new greatsword from bard (move action) (didn't your mom teach you to say thank you?) takes action to take one attack (no full round as he did a move to get an item.) School 1 Judge says "you picked up a sword when you got it from the Bard so I get an AOO"
Init: 10- Bard scratches head and says "you sure you want me to do this again?"That's the way the spell works... right?
Nope, remember he accepted the sword on the Witch/Bards turn and equips it on his next turn.
If the (incorrect) assumption being argued here where wielding it requires an attack it would go like this:
Init: 10 Fighter takes full attack
Init: 10- (bard was on delay)bard casts BG and offers great sword. Fighter misses his will save. Fighter drops his great sword (free action) and accepts new greatsword from bard (free or immediate action)
NEXT TURN
Init: 10 - Fighter wields his weapon and makes an attack (per the incorrect scenario being described here making wielding=attacking)
Continuing on from there (since wielding is not a standard action) he then does his full attack again.
Net gain = +1 attack
As for the AoO, dropping or drawing a weapon doesn't provoke an AoO, only re-sheathing one does.
I'll say it again THIS DOESN'T WORK this is the incorrect usage of this spell.
|
|
"On Round 2 (init: 10), Fighter would then have to either drop or sheath his first greatsword,"
Ouch! this hurts - I was trying to get him to drop that sword. hmmm. got to think on this.Mathwei: I like your mod of my example - but let me see if I can make it correct.
Init: 10 Fighter takes full attack
Init: 10- (bard was on delay) bard casts BG and offers great sword. Fighter misses his will save. Fighter drops his great sword (free action) and accepts new greatsword from bard (free or immediate action, {not sure of this, as most Judges I've delt with call this a move action - like picking up an item (from the table/floor/shelf)})
NEXT TURN
Init: 10 - Fighter wields his weapon and he then does his full attack action (he can wave the sword about or whatever, "air sword" - he would use it).
Net gain = switched swords.As for the AoO, dropping or drawing a weapon doesn't provoke an AoO (picking up a weapon does - he did not have it before, wasn't wearing it - he has to get it from elsewhere), only re-sheathing one does.
First it's not a move action since it's not the fighters turn and he's not allowed to make move actions unless it's actually his turn. (remember all of this is happening on the Bards turn). The only actions the fighter can legally perform now are free and immediate actions.
Picking up a weapon would provoke yes but the fighter isn't picking anything up, it's being handed to him by someone else they are taking the action so they are provoking any AoO not the fighter.
My god. This thread is still going? Aren't you all repeating yourselves by now?
|
Yes, they will. And it is entirely unrelated to anything the spell does.Cartigan, if you use this spell to give a metal shield to a druid, will they or won't they lose spellcasting abilities on their next turn after they fail the save and accept the item?
Yes or No?
Sorry, the thread's too long to read. I'm just trying to figure out which way you're arguing.
OK, just making sure. I don't care why you say yes, as long as you say yes. The answer's clearly yes.
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.The bolded part indicates that the target may choose to further use, or not, the item in question after the spell expires.
No one cares what happens after the spell expires. We are discussing what the spell does.
|
|
so, trying again...
Init: 10 Fighter takes full attack
Init: 10- (bard was on delay) bard casts BG and offers great sword. Fighter misses his will save. Fighter drops his great sword (free action) and accepts new greatsword from bard (free or immediate action)
does the fighter drop his original two handed weapon?
NEXT TURN
Init: 10 Fighter wields his weapon and he then does his full attack action (he can wave the sword about or whatever, "air sword" - he would use it - though how is his choice).
Init 10- Bard does something ... cast Vanish on self maybe. Spell ends at the end of this init and the fighter no longer effected by it.
3rd TURN
Init: 10 Fighter is holding new sword, and has full range of actions of what to do, "under no obligation to continue consuming or using the item"Is this correct now?
Well remember my example was on how the previous example was incorrect on how the wielding=attacking idea was. If you are referring to that it would go like this:
Init: 10 Fighter takes full attack
Init: 10- (bard was on delay) bard casts BG and offers great sword. Fighter misses his will save. Fighter drops his great sword (free action) and accepts new greatsword from bard (free or immediate action)
does the fighter drop his original two handed weapon? Nope, he drops it on his turn (unless the item is too big to be held in one hand then he would drop it now)
NEXT TURN
Init: 10 Fighter wields his weapon making a free attack since they said wielding=attacking and he then does his full attack action (he can wave the sword about or whatever, "air sword" - he would use it - though how is his choice).
Init 10- Spell ends at the beginning of this init and the fighter no longer effected by it.
Bard re-casts BG and hands the Fighter another Greatsword, repeat above steps.
This is why I stated that wielding cannot equal attacking in this spell. It makes it broken as the above example shows.
This topic reminds me of that age-old saying:
"Hand a druid a steel shield, and you've disabled him for a day. Run a druid through with a steel shield, and you've disabled him for the rest of his life.
Wait are you people still Discussing this? edit
Actually I am not concerned with the WRONG way the spell works (or doesn't) just with the way it works when cast.
Is this the correct way?
Init: 10 Fighter takes full attack
Init: 10- (bard was on delay) bard casts BG and offers great sword. Fighter misses his will save. Fighter drops his great sword (does he? some people were saying he holds it in one hand (free action) and accepts new greatsword from bard (some say with he other hand)(free or immediate action)my major concern at this point is "does the fighter drop his original two handed weapon?" was your reply Nope, he drops it on his turn (unless the item is too big to be held in one hand then he would drop it now) do you mean Yes, he drops it?
NEXT TURN
Init: 10 Fighter does what? does he have two swords in hand or did he drop one? (if only one can he wave the sword about or whatever, "air sword" - as I beleave he would use it - though how is his choice - so that he can be "under no obligation to continue consuming or using the item").
Init 10- Spell ends at the beginning of this init and the fighter no longer effected by it. actually IMHO the spell continues thru the end of the init, otherwise you would not be able to use spells of one round duration. you cast it, it takes effect at the end of your init, and runs to the end of your next. True Strike for example. Cast in this round - effects in next round - end at end of next round
It is normally considered possible to hold a two-handed weapon in one hand, but it's not possible to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand.
The primary example used is a fighter/mage with a greatsword, removing one hand from the weapon in order to cast a spell.
On "Next Turn, Init: 10", Fighter would have two greatswords in hand, one in each. The fighter is then compelled, as part of the spell, to wield the new greatsword. In order to do so, Fighter would be able to either drop the original greatsword, as a free action, or sheathe the original greatsword as a move action (which provokes AoO).
OK. It uses a move action to equip the shield. The shield is equipped. There is no way to use it unless you intend to bash with it.Sure, if given a weapon, the target can attack you with it because the spell doesn't make the opponent amenable to you. But it must continue to hold the weapon/shield/whatever until the end of the spell. This does not mean it will attack you with a splash weapon. You do not wield splash weapons.
Using the item given is unrelated to the spell outside equipping or consuming it.
Awesome, let's run with this train of thought. I have a Sorcerer who equips a Tower shield in combat, nobody knows why. I get the benefit of that tower shield only if I get attacked, but until I get attacked I don't suffer from any arcane spell failure. I probably don't even need to be proficient with the shield, because all that does is increase arcane spell failure and negative checks for skills, but since I am not "USING" the shield until I am attacked none of this applies. It is time for me to build my full plate, tower shield wearing, sorcerer.
Awesome, let's run with this train of thought. I have a Sorcerer who equips a Tower shield in combat, nobody knows why. I get the benefit of that tower shield only if I get attacked, but until I get attacked I don't suffer from any arcane spell failure. I probably don't even need to be proficient with the shield, because all that does is increase arcane spell failure and negative checks for skills, but since I am not "USING" the shield until I am attacked none of this applies. It is time for me to build my full plate, tower shield wearing, sorcerer.
OK. It uses a move action to equip the shield. The shield is equipped. There is no way to use it unless you intend to bash with it.Sure, if given a weapon, the target can attack you with it because the spell doesn't make the opponent amenable to you. But it must continue to hold the weapon/shield/whatever until the end of the spell. This does not mean it will attack you with a splash weapon. You do not wield splash weapons.
Using the item given is unrelated to the spell outside equipping or consuming it.
Hehehehe, good one.
|
|
so, to be sure that he drops the GSword, the bard has to give him something that would require the entire turn to use - ensureing that he doesn't have time to sheathe the original weapon? (back to puzzleing it out)
Handing him a weapon is usually a bad idea since all of them can be held in one hand so it won't make him drop his sword. If your goal is to make him drop his weapon at the time you hand it to him it needs to be too big or complicated to hold in one hand, like Large sized 2hd weapons (can be held in 2hds but not wielded)
My personal preference for this spell is a broken greatsword hilt or a simple shirt. Both remove him from combat for 2 rounds and both make him provoke AoO's when he tries to don/wield them.
so has any developers ruled if using the shield is equipping it
so, to be sure that he drops the GSword, the bard has to give him something that would require the entire turn to use - ensureing that he doesn't have time to sheathe the original weapon? (back to puzzleing it out)
You'd need to hand the Fighter something that requires two hands to hold, not just to use, like a barrel or a large crate.
The problem with that strategy is that, if they're not able to accept the item (for example, if the item was too heavy), the spell would fail.
It is a neat trick. I would allow players to try it...but it is not the be all and end all of defeating a druid. The spells does allow a will save after all...which druids will have a high save in that atleast. So it is not really all that overpowering...
What I find sorta depressing is that the two GMs at the table seemed to get very hostile towards the OP when he asked if this trick would work. I mean if a player asks me about something I think is broken and disallow it I just tell them calmly and don't hold against the player.
so has any developers ruled if using the shield is equipping it
Hah no kidding.
Dear developer,
If I equip a shield, am I using it. I can't seem to figure this out.
Developer response: ................This is a joke right? I hope........Isn't it..........
so has any developers ruled if using the shield is equipping it
The shield question has pretty much been conceded as valid - The person receiving the shield puts it on. This affects some people (Druids) more significantly than others... and there's still people out there who disagree with those side-effects.
The question evolved into (a)is acid considered a beverage, and (b) using this to disarm a THF.
so has any developers ruled if using the shield is equipping itHah no kidding.
Dear developer,
If I equip a shield, am I using it. I can't seem to figure this out.
Developer response: ................This is a joke right? I hope........Isn't it..........
that seems to be the gist of the argument if i use BG on a druid he merely holds the shield and by holding it it is not equipped and i am not using it till i block a strike with it. i think it is crap i think the op was a genius and it is a done and done type of situation.
but i am not going to get drawn in ot this ridiculously long forum that i dont really care about at all
and domination can cause you to lose your abilities
Awesome, let's run with this train of thought. I have a Sorcerer who equips a Tower shield in combat, nobody knows why. I get the benefit of that tower shield only if I get attacked, but until I get attacked I don't suffer from any arcane spell failure. I probably don't even need to be proficient with the shield, because all that does is increase arcane spell failure and negative checks for skills, but since I am not "USING" the shield until I am attacked none of this applies. It is time for me to build my full plate, tower shield wearing, sorcerer.
OK. It uses a move action to equip the shield. The shield is equipped. There is no way to use it unless you intend to bash with it.Sure, if given a weapon, the target can attack you with it because the spell doesn't make the opponent amenable to you. But it must continue to hold the weapon/shield/whatever until the end of the spell. This does not mean it will attack you with a splash weapon. You do not wield splash weapons.
Using the item given is unrelated to the spell outside equipping or consuming it.
I'm not sure what part of "EQUIPPING ARMOR CAUSES YOU TO HAVE THE PENALTIES" is so hard for you people to understand. Are you going to argue that you have to be attacked for armor penalties to kick in? You do NOT use armor. You WEAR armor. Upon doing so, all the numbers associated with armor magically appear on your character sheet.
so has any developers ruled if using the shield is equipping it
THE SPELL SAYS YOU DON SOMETHING. NOWHERE IN THE ACTUALLY SPELL DESCRIPTION THAT TELLS YOU WHAT TO DO ARE YOU DIRECTED TO USE ANYTHING.
For the love of god. Read the spell.
This spell needs to be errata'd so that the only thing it says is "If the target fails their Will save, they immediately accept the item and on their next turn consume or equip the item, as appropriate for an item of its type, for the duration of the spell."
That ought to stop the repeated and intentional misreading.
A tower shield is large enough to stand upright on its own, that way I am simply grabbing the shield when I am not casting a spell. Penalties avoided, and everyone is happy.
Cast spell on my turn for the round, then grab shield for the rest of the round. I can even use a move action to do it. Wee semantics are fun.
(I am arguing this way because we are arguing semantics and not intent.)
It is a neat trick. I would allow players to try it...but it is not the be all and end all of defeating a druid. The spells does allow a will save after all...which druids will have a high save in that atleast. So it is not really all that overpowering...
What I find sorta depressing is that the two GMs at the table seemed to get very hostile towards the OP when he asked if this trick would work. I mean if a player asks me about something I think is broken and disallow it I just tell them calmly and don't hold against the player.
Those DMs suck. Plain and simple. It's a VERY valid tactic, as it would be to make a steel shield look like a wooden one with magic, or use said feat to give a pally a helm of oposite alignment, it's a very good tactic and outside of the box thinking. I would even give the guy a bonus XP for that.
Those DMs suck. Plain and simple. It's a VERY valid tactic, as it would be to make a steel shield look like a wooden one with magic, or use said feat to give a pally a helm of oposite alignment, it's a very good tactic and outside of the box thinking. I would even give the guy a bonus XP for that.It is a neat trick. I would allow players to try it...but it is not the be all and end all of defeating a druid. The spells does allow a will save after all...which druids will have a high save in that atleast. So it is not really all that overpowering...
What I find sorta depressing is that the two GMs at the table seemed to get very hostile towards the OP when he asked if this trick would work. I mean if a player asks me about something I think is broken and disallow it I just tell them calmly and don't hold against the player.
Yo Tambien! ( me also) I agree
A tower shield is large enough to stand upright on its own,
Height has nothing to do with the ability to be freestanding.
that way I am simply grabbing the shield when I am not casting a spell.
And are not equipping it.
The warrior Drops the sword he was holding... the spell description says he drops everything he was carrying. This includes a 1 hand sword board fighter letting go of the shield as well to take the new 1 hand sword. think of it as a gift where you accept it with both hands open type of action. This could be dangerous in case of an alchemist because him dropping a bomb or a splash weapon could cause it to go off when he drops it.
I sense hostility.
But no worries, my argument about not using my shield during the casting of a spell, has just as much validity as yours does concerning the donning and using of newly acquired gifts.
See we both win, and everyone is happy.
wow! I'm getting a highened ego off this. Yestorday my bard earned the title of "Cheating, Druid hating bigot" ... now I may have to take that off her table tent.
thanks guys (sniff)!
wear that badge proudly my friend every hippy druid deserves your scorn!
I sense hostility.
But no worries, my argument about not using my shield during the casting of a spell, has just as much validity as yours does concerning the donning and using of newly acquired gifts.
You seem to have an incomplete grasp of the word "don" and the Pathfinder armor rules.
You seem to have an incomplete grasp of the word "don" and the Pathfinder armor rules.I sense hostility.
But no worries, my argument about not using my shield during the casting of a spell, has just as much validity as yours does concerning the donning and using of newly acquired gifts.
My grasp of pathfinder rules is actually pretty good. For instance:
A druid who wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter.
The implication of "wears prohibited armor" and "uses a prohibited shield" indicates to me that the very act of wearing armor or equipping a shield is enough to make the Druid lose the druid abilities.
I am going strictly by the intent of wearing armor or equipping the shield, if I have equipped the shield I get a boost of AC regardless of whether it is actively being "used". As "Wearing" armor is enough to lose the abilities, then it can be surmised that "equipping" a shield and gaining extra AC will also lose your abilities, despite not being attacked.
That is the point of the argument and why I have gone to ridiculous extents, to show the error of thinking that a person can don a shield and gain its AC, but not be "USING" it.
The bottom line is that if you Equip something, you are using it, if you don something you are using it because you are benefiting from it. If you however pick up a loot sword and put it away that is different. The spell's intent is that you use whatever you are given. So you pick up the shield, you use it, and you lose your druid abilities for a single day.
That is the point of the argument and why I have gone to ridiculous extents, to show the error of thinking that a person can don a shield and gain its AC, but not be "USING" it.The bottom line is that if you Equip something, you are using it, if you don something you are using it because you are benefiting from it. If you however pick up a loot sword and put it away that is different. The spell's intent is that you use whatever you are given. So you pick up the shield, you use it, and you lose your druid abilities for a single day.
Equipping something is NOT using. However it IS equipping it. Armor is not used in any sense other than being worn while equipping. There is no way to "use" armor in the game. Having armor equipped conveys armor penalties. Holding a shield is not equipping a shield. Equipping a shield is not using a shield.
The spell's intent is to don - read equip - or consume an item you are given. You do NOT use it. To use it would imply that you are doing something you can't do with armor and that the spell forces you to cast a spell from a wand, attack with a weapon, bash with a shield, activate a magic item, or anything else. The spell does not compel item use. Read what the spell does and not the outlying words that have no effect on what it does.
That is the point of the argument and why I have gone to ridiculous extents, to show the error of thinking that a person can don a shield and gain its AC, but not be "USING" it.The bottom line is that if you Equip something, you are using it, if you don something you are using it because you are benefiting from it. If you however pick up a loot sword and put it away that is different. The spell's intent is that you use whatever you are given. So you pick up the shield, you use it, and you lose your druid abilities for a single day.
Equipping something is NOT using. However it IS equipping it. Armor is not used in any sense other than being worn while equipping. There is no way to "use" armor in the game. Having armor equipped conveys armor penalties. Holding a shield is not equipping a shield. Equipping a shield is not using a shield.
The spell's intent is to don - read equip - or consume an item you are given. You do NOT use it. To use it would imply that you are doing something you can't do with armor and that the spell forces you to cast a spell from a wand, attack with a weapon, bash with a shield, activate a magic item, or anything else. The spell does not compel item use. Read what the spell does and not the outlying words that have no effect on what it does.
I have to say you are 100% wrong on that last statement
Equipping something is NOT using. However it IS equipping it. Armor is not used in any sense other than being worn while equipping. There is no way to "use" armor in the game. Having armor equipped conveys armor penalties. Holding a shield is not equipping a shield. Equipping a shield is not using a shield.The spell's intent is to don - read equip - or consume an item you are given. You do NOT use it. To use it would imply that you are doing something you can't do with armor and that the spell forces you to cast a spell from a wand, attack with a weapon, bash with a shield, activate a magic item, or anything else. The spell does not compel item use. Read what the spell does and not the outlying words that have no effect on what it does.
Actually the fact that the spell compels the consumption of potions and the donning of items tells me that it is designed to make you use things.
But since we are splitting hairs, I want to see the Druid consume the steel shield. What if I give a good cleric an infant with BG, he has 2 choices, don or consume. If I were evil, I know which I would push for, there are some things that you can't unremember.
Nosig, I say on to you. Ba-zing. You have earned it. Ba-Zing.