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.
No, it compels consumption. Potions, food, water, acid, copious amounts of ms butterworth syrup. Whatever.
Equipping something does not amount to using it. You equip a necklace of fireballs? Are you using it? No. Having something equipped does not equate to use, regardless of any innate bonuses or penalties provided by wearing it.But since we are splitting hairs, I want to see the Druid consume the steel shield.
Since we are splitting hairs... YOU CAN'T DO THAT. The spell includes the rider "as appropriate for the item." Unless you are giving the shield to a rust monster, it will attempt to equip it.
Great, now the people with incorrect, nonsense arguments have left and the English-as-a-second-language people (not that I am knocking you for having English as a second language) are misunderstanding the spell. Perhaps it is less straight forward upon translation?
This is pointless.
You consume or don an item. Period. End of discussion. I quit.
To Ross Byers and other sysops: I am surprised that you continue to allow this thread to lengthen. All relevant rules discussion points have already been made. Several editors have made personal attacks; some of those posts have been removed by Ross Byers.
Closure of this thread and presentation to the FAQ committee is overdue.
Well said. There are far better issues to argue about.
Well said. There are far better issues to argue about.To Ross Byers and other sysops: I am surprised that you continue to allow this thread to lengthen. All relevant rules discussion points have already been made. Several editors have made personal attacks; some of those posts have been removed by Ross Byers.
Closure of this thread and presentation to the FAQ committee is overdue.
I agree I am just here cause i am at the last hour of work and a the phones are slow
so has any developers ruled if using the shield is equipping itThe 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.
The "Entice" part is yes the acid is good.
Druid1 : Cast spell
Fighter 1: Fails save
Druid 1: Here you look hurt take this Cure light!
Druid 1: Hands Fighter a bottle of acid.
Fighter 1: drops sword and accepts Gift.
Next action for Fighter: Drinks acid which he was enticed to belive was beneficial.
Not too hard to understand. People reading way way way too much into this. When you over think a something its bad. This spell is funny, and potentally one of the best spells i have seen since I saw a Bard spell back in 3.0 I belive. Was like 2nd level spell called Zev's Epic Song .. all i remeber is anyone in area that heard playing gave away to the bard all their money. The stipulation is after the song the people still felt good about decision and did not want money back. Bards need nice fun spells that are unique. iT makes them more playable.
Axl - actually I have learned several new things about the spell today. But I was fine with killing the thread yestorday when I said I was Sorry for even mentioning it. I think it was something like "Sorry I mentioned it. Didn't do it. Wont do it, ever. I'll get rid of the spell as soon as possible (when the character levels to 5th)."
Most DM's I know would go. "Well, crap you got me." It wouldn't happen all the time, but at least the first time you did it, it would work no questions asked.
Let me ask a set of leading questions:
Why does the fist sentence in the spell include the word "use"?
My spell-paraphrase offering: The victim suddenly is enchanted with an irresistible compulsion to equip, consume, or use the item, as if it were a valued and useful gift. For the round of the compulsion, the victim eagerly interacts with the item (wears if clothing/armor, readies and possibly wields if weapon, drinks if a potion, etc.) to the best of their knowledge or ability. They do so with singular purpose, dropping items already in hand if required, and doing whatever is necessary of them to accommodate their accepting and use of the gift.
Nosig, I am starting to feel your pain. I seem to have stirred up quite a hornet's nest with my description of what happens when you hand somebody a wand.
For what it is worth, I am with Cartigan that the spell does not COMPEL use of an item. It is poorly worded to that effect, but all that it compels is consumption or donning. After consuming or donning you are free to use the item if you would like. On your next turn, you may continue using it, continue not using it, begin to use it, according to your personal inclination, what you did the previous round, and your assumed freedom from any other compulsion spells which may or may not have been cast on you in the interim.
When I discussed splash weapons, I said the spell would force you to "don" it by taking it in hand as a weapon. You could then use it as a weapon or not, so long as you continued to don it. I left out the choice part of that statement when talking about wands, saying only that you could try and activate it or stab at people with the pointy end. I should have said that you could do any of those things, but were not compelled to. All you were compelled to do was hold the pointy stick in your hand.
As for the use/wield/equip/don fiasco that has come out of this.
You gain the AC benefit and any commensurate penalties from a shield when you use, equip, or don it. For shields, those are the same three things. You can't wield a shield (except as a weapon), so lets put that aside for now.
The same is true for armor. Donning armor IS using armor. Donning a shield IS using the shield. There is no use for it but to have it strapped to your body. That's why the druid loses their powers when they don it. Because they have also used it. Not because the spell made them do it, but because that is what happens when you don it.
For something like a wand, donning it and using it are different. All you are compelled to do is don it, which means hold it in your hand. You are not compelled to try and cast spells from it or stab people with it. If you would like to, however, you are free to do so.
The same goes for a weapon. You don it, wielding it in hand, but you don't have to attack with it unless you want to.
For something like the excellent example of the necklace of fireballs, you would don it, putting it around your neck and removing any other necklace you might have. You are not, however, compelled to fire any fireballs from it.
Any questions?
|
What he is not forced to do is accepting a sword and start hitting people around.
This actually will be my last post, I promise.
You are quite correct. He is not compelled to hit someone with it. Which is the "rules" definition of use. When I (and I assume most others) say he has to use it, we mean it in the colloquial sense. You know, the same thing don or equip means.
He is forced to weild the sword for one round, but not to hit with it. I may have said "he'll throw the acid" a few times, but I meant "he'd have the choice to throw it, so of course he would."
I should point out that except for a few specific cases (weapons and wands come to mind) "doning or consuming" is the same thing as "using" for a good 90% of the objects in the game.
You (and others, quite frankly) have gotten so caught up in wording, you haven't realised that there's no real disagreement.
When Bascaria say "it has to use UMD blindly on the wand" he is not saying "he wield it", he is saying "he has to activate the wand on some target without even knowing what it do".
So at least one guy is arguing that the target has to attack someone with the sword.
EDIT: He has now retracted that statement.
|
|
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...
Point 1 has the word "use" right in it. Point 3 says "it never said use". You just contradicted yourself.
In a formalized proof, you suddenly ceased to exist.
Ci sei o ci fai?
Each section of the text is commented independently and put in a single row for clarity.
Using the comment of the text on one row as the comment on the text on another row to validate your position show a high degree of intellectual dishonesty.
|
|
wow... I can't beleave I set this all off. and it's still going after I said I was "Sorry, I'll never do it again, didn't do it the first time!", but I still think the spell is kind of cute.
But I'll just switch to Charm Person and a good bluff... no wait, I tried that with a different character and got my character killed when the bad guy saw he was loosing and didn't want the good guys to "capture" his "good friend".
How about if I just gift the villian with my friend the Alchemists Mutagen? or cast Unadulterated Loathing and follow him around for the next day (staying within arms reach)? are these gimmicks also cheating?
(Crud - it still stings, being called a cheat for suggesting this.)
You're not cheating, you're using the spell as it's designed to work. It's no more cheating than using Cleave to get another attack on an adjacent foe.
Each section of the text is commented independently and put in a single row for clarity.
Using the comment of the text on one row as the comment on the text on another row to validate your position show a high degree of intellectual dishonesty.
Taking each sentence as independent of the other sentences in the very same paragraph shows intellectual error. I say your dissection and analysis is highly flawed and deceptive.
The first sentence (topic) of the paragraph is supported by the others. They are to be taken together as a single literary unit, and not isolated. You made that mistake, and then went on to mask the fact that the sentences "which don't mention anything about the word use" are there to support the sentence describing the spell which entices creatures into using something.
If you're going to nitpick the contents of written dialog, use the standards of the language.
|
|
Regardless of what's intended, that's what the spells says.That is not what the spell 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.Nowhere in this statement is the word don or any form of it.
The word using does appear.Yes that IS what the spell says. But that is NOT what the spell does. By "not what the spell does" I mean, you are excluding the text of the spell that says what it does.
On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question.
THAT IS WHAT THE SPELL DOES. That is the action the spell causes to take place. You are quoting an aftereffect and pretending it is relevant to the action the spell causes to take place. It isn't and you are wrong.
You're ignoring half of the spell. What you're saying it does is the first part of the spell. It uses the item in question after donning it.
The second part of the spell, where the druid uses the prohibited item, is where the druid loses it's abilities.
No, the part where he don (i.e. equip) the prohibited item is where he lose his abilities.
Use has other meaning and in this thread has been used repeatedly to mean he is forced to "swing the sword against a target" "UMD the wand" "throw the acid flask".So pointing out that the wording of the spell effect don't utilize the word "use" but the world "consumes or dons" is very relevant.
Nowhere in the description of the effect of the spell it say that the target is forced to utilize in a active way the item beside consuming it.
|
|
Each section of the text is commented independently and put in a single row for clarity.
Using the comment of the text on one row as the comment on the text on another row to validate your position show a high degree of intellectual dishonesty.Taking each sentence as independent of the other sentences in the very same paragraph shows intellectual error. I say your dissection and analysis is highly flawed and deceptive.
The first sentence (topic) of the paragraph is supported by the others. They are to be taken together as a single literary unit, and not isolated. You made that mistake, and then went on to mask the fact that the sentences "which don't mention anything about the word use" are there to support the sentence describing the spell which entices creatures into using something.
If you're going to nitpick the contents of written dialog, use the standards of the language.
So evidently you are incapable to read a spell in this game and most of the rules if for you fluff text, description of the effect, examples and fluff text of the aftermath are all the same thing.
It must be "interesting" to play with you.
So evidently you are incapable to read a spell in this game and most of the rules if for you fluff text, description of the effect, examples and fluff text of the aftermath are all the same thing.
It must be "interesting" to play with you.
*sigh*
Fine. Let me show you how it can be done. I will spoon-feed it and highlight it to help clarify.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.
Topic: You offer an object to an adjacent creature, and entice it into using or consuming the proffered item.
1: If the target fails its Will save, it immediately takes the offered object, dropping an already held object if necessary.
This is the first sentence which says what happens when the save is failed. It is sort of the "Step 1" on how to play out the activity described by the Topic (to have the target use the proffered item). This sentence is instructional.
2: On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question.
A continuation of #1. It functions as the second step in how to play out the activity described by the Topic (to have the target use the proffered item). This sentence is instructional.
3: For example, an apple would be eaten, a potion consumed, a ring put on a finger, and a sword wielded in a free hand.
This helps further clarify, with examples, how to play out the second step (#2) of activity described by the Topic (to have the target use the proffered item). This sentence is a clarification of the above instruction, with examples.
4: If the target is physically unable to accept the object, the spell fails.
This describes an exceptional case for how to adjudicate the spell described by the Topic (to have the target use the proffered item). This sentence in instructional for a certain subset of cases.
5: 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.
This clarifies the after-effects of the spell described by the Topic (to have the target use the proffered item). The last instructional sentence.
Bascaria - THANK YOU! clear, pure, understandable. Not exactly what my first reading of the spell is - but one I can use.
My only disagreement with you (VERY minor!) is in the following:
"On your next turn, you may continue using it, continue not using it, begin to use it, according to your personal inclination, what you did the previous round, and your assumed freedom from any other compulsion spells which may or may not have been cast on you in the interim"
how can I continue to do something I have not done? this leads me to beleave that I should have used it (or tried to) the round I had it in hand. But perhaps this phrase is just for the continued use of those items like the shield that are "used" by donning them.I would be interested in your take on the progression of how the spell works. If my bard hands a fighter a whip when does he drop his weapon to take it? (Sword&Board, TWF, THF?)
I'm still getting yelled at for saying a person has to try to activate a wand...?
Yeah, your quibble is absolutely correct. I was trying to be cheeky.
Essentially, all the spell forces you to do is strap the item to yourself, hold it in hand, or consume it as appropriate for the item. If you have actions left over and want to use it, you can.
On your following turn, you are completely free of the compulsion of the spell. You can do whatever you want. If you were already using the item, you can continue to use it or stop using it. If you were not using it, it you can begin to use it or continue to not use it.
Here is the progression of how the spell works. For this, lets assume the fighter acts on Initiative 10 and the bard on 5
10 - Fighter takes his turn. Let's say he full-attacks with his greatsword.
5 - Bard casts BG and hands the fighter the item. If the item can be held in 1 hand, the fighter takes it. He releases one hand from his sword to do so. If the item requires 2 hands to be held, the fighter drops his sword in order to take it. (NB:this dropping of the sword and taking the item are NON-ACTIONS. They are not free, immediate, swift, move, or standard. They are akin to attacks of opportunity; they exist outside the typical action economy. For the bard's part, his handing of the item over is done as part of the spell. It does not provoke attacks of opportunity beyond casting the spell and does not require more actions).
NEW ROUND
10 - Fighter dons or consumes the item. If it is a 1-handed weapon, he simply holds it in his hand. If it is a 2-handed weapon, he drops (free) or sheaths (move) his old sword and begins to wield the new one. Whatever actions he has left are his to do with what he pleases.
5 - At the start of the bard's turn, before anything else, the compulsion ends. The fighter cannot break the compulsion before this point, even if someone allows him to act out of turn (on initiative 7, for example, if one the cavaliers who can grant allies a charge action does so, the fighter must use whatever the bard handed him. He cannot draw his old sword as part of that charge if it would mean stopping wielding the new item). The bard then takes his turn as normal.
That is for a 2-handed weapon wielding fighter. He can release 1 hand from his weapon to grab something. He is not considered to be wielding his 2-hander if he does this.
For a sword-and-board fighter, it depends on the shield. A hand with a light shield can hold something else in it. Same with a buckler. Thus a light shield fighter could receive the item in his shield hand and retain his sword. A heavy shield fighter would have to drop his sword in order to receive the item. It takes a move action to unclasp a heavy shield, so he cannot do this out of turn. If a heavy-shield fighter is handed an item that takes 2 hands to hold, the spell fails as he cannot physically receive the item.
For a TWF, the fighter drops one of his two weapons in order to receive a 1-hand item, or both weapons in order to receive a 2-hand item. Which weapon he drops is his choice.
@Diego Rossi:
To elaborate, HERE is a spell which has multiple paragraphs, and they can also be broken down the same way: The first sentence defined the topic, the following sentences support and describe the topic further.
Paragraph 1: What immediately happens when you cast the spell.
Paragraph 2: What the caster can do when inside the jar.
Paragraph 3: How the caster determine who they attempt to possess, strength wise.
Paragraph 4: How to do the possession itself.
Paragraph 5: What happens when possession is successful.
Paragraph 6: An additional feature of the spell, once the caster possesses someone.
Paragraph 7: A possible dire consequence of the spell, and how it works.
Paragraph 8: Consequences of the spell, should it end abruptly.
In each paragraph (except #3, which is rather stand-alone), the following sentences support the first. Each paragraph is a unified literary unit.
If you're going to nitpick the contents of written dialog, use the standards of the language.
|
|
I'm still getting yelled at for saying a person has to try to activate a wand...?
The problem with your position is that you seem very uncertain on what you mean with use.
Sometime you say or imply that the target of the spell is forced to act with the item handled to him.
Then you retract that.
The you state again that he is forced to use the item.
You started with SKR say that wielding a sword mean attacking with it.
So this only triggers--the person holding the sword only becomes the wielder--when he attacks with it.
You attack whoever you like. Spell says nothing on that topic. Attack the dude who gave you the sword if you like.
then
OK, so you don't have to attack with the splash weapon. But you do have to wield it in a free hand. That means you can't use that hand for attacking with another weapon, wielding a shield, or casting a spell.
I've been convinced by Happler that the spell does not force you to attack with a weapon. It does force you to wield it however.
then again it force to do other thing beside donning and consuming the offered object:
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.
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.
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.
and more recent
For what it is worth, I am with Cartigan that the spell does not COMPEL use of an item. It is poorly worded to that effect, but all that it compels is consumption or donning. After consuming or donning you are free to use the item if you would like. On your next turn, you may continue using it, continue not using it, begin to use it, according to your personal inclination, what you did the previous round, and your assumed freedom from any other compulsion spells which may or may not have been cast on you in the interim.When I discussed splash weapons, I said the spell would force you to "don" it by taking it in hand as a weapon. You could then use it as a weapon or not, so long as you continued to don it. I left out the choice part of that statement when talking about wands, saying only that you could try and activate it or stab at people with the pointy end. I should have said that you could do any of those things, but were not compelled to. All you were compelled to do was hold the pointy stick in your hand.
As for the use/wield/equip/don fiasco that has come out of this.
So a continuous flip/flop of positions.
You are surprised if people take your last statement as your position?
When something is 'donned' it is put on by one's self. You cannot don something for someone else, merely help them don it.
:)
I'm still getting yelled at for saying a person has to try to activate a wand...?
The problem with your position is that you seem very uncertain on what you mean with use.
Sometime you say or imply that the target of the spell is forced to act with the item handled to him.
Then you retract that.
The you state again that he is forced to use the item.You started with SKR say that wielding a sword mean attacking with it.
So this only triggers--the person holding the sword only becomes the wielder--when he attacks with it.
You attack whoever you like. Spell says nothing on that topic. Attack the dude who gave you the sword if you like.then
OK, so you don't have to attack with the splash weapon. But you do have to wield it in a free hand. That means you can't use that hand for attacking with another weapon, wielding a shield, or casting a spell.
I've been convinced by Happler that the spell does not force you to attack with a weapon. It does force you to wield it however.then again it force to do other thing beside donning and consuming the offered object:
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.
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....
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
As I see it, my position and movements have been thus:
(1) Wield and use are the same. If you must wield a weapon you must attack with it. I misunderstood an SKR quote to arrive at this. I was corrected. I acknowledged the correct viewpoint and adjusted my position.
(2) Weild and use are not the same. You must wield the item if it is a weapon, or otherwise "don" it if it is not a consumable. However, you are under no compulsion to use it. If you attempt to get rid of it in some other way, however, you can't. If you "don" a wand, you won't then be able to put it down and redraw your sword until your next turn. If you "don" a splash weapon, the same thing. You must keep the item "donned" until the next turn.
If the item is consumable (e.g., a potion or bottle of vinegar), you consume it. This is different from being forced to use a donned item because it is specifically called out in the spell. A consumable item is consumed. A donnable item is donned but not necessarily used.
As I discussed above, when I was talking about wands (and poisons as well, it seems), I said that you "use" the wand or "apply" the poison. That was taken out of a larger context where I was discussing what you do with various items. At the head of that list was splash weapons. When discussing splash weapons I said you don and continue to don them. The only actions you can take are those that involve you donning the splash weapon. You can't don it and then put it down. I intended for that caveat to extend to all the other items. It seems it did not. I apologize for the confusion and am attempting now to clarify it.
If you are handed some injury poison with BG, then you don the poison. That is, you take it in hand. If you have a sword in your other hand, you can attempt to apply the poison to the sword. You can also attempt to attack with the sword. Or you can run away. Or you can do nothing at all.
EDIT: It isnt' a flip-flop. I am actually being convinced by other people's arguments in the discussion, and my position is evolving accordingly. Is that not the point of the discussion?
I am not upset when someone doesn't see that I have retracted a previous statement I now believe to be false. I was more upset that people continue to single me out as this specifically ignorant person continuing to argue an incorrect point 300 posts after I conceded it. I was upset because people weren't taking my last post as my position. They were taking the one I had hundreds of posts ago.
When something is 'donned' it is put on by one's self. You cannot don something for someone else, merely help them don it.
When something is 'donned' it is put on by one's self. You cannot don something for someone else, merely help them don it.Keep it in one thread, please.
Nosig, I am starting to feel your pain. I seem to have stirred up quite a hornet's nest with my description of what happens when you hand somebody a wand.
For what it is worth, I am with Cartigan that the spell does not COMPEL use of an item. It is poorly worded to that effect, but all that it compels is consumption or donning. After consuming or donning you are free to use the item if you would like. On your next turn, you may continue using it, continue not using it, begin to use it, according to your personal inclination, what you did the previous round, and your assumed freedom from any other compulsion spells which may or may not have been cast on you in the interim.
When I discussed splash weapons, I said the spell would force you to "don" it by taking it in hand as a weapon. You could then use it as a weapon or not, so long as you continued to don it. I left out the choice part of that statement when talking about wands, saying only that you could try and activate it or stab at people with the pointy end. I should have said that you could do any of those things, but were not compelled to. All you were compelled to do was hold the pointy stick in your hand.
As for the use/wield/equip/don fiasco that has come out of this.
You gain the AC benefit and any commensurate penalties from a shield when you use, equip, or don it. For shields, those are the same three things. You can't wield a shield (except as a weapon), so lets put that aside for now.
The same is true for armor. donning armor IS using armor. donning a shield IS using the shield. There is no use for it but to have it strapped to your body. That's why the druid loses their powers when they don it. Because they have also used it. Not because the spell made them do it, but because that is what happens when you don it.
For something like a wand, donning it and using it are different. All you are compelled to do is don it, which means hold it in your hand. You are not compelled to try and cast spells from it or stab people with...
Seems pretty relevant to me.
Seems pretty relevant to me.
Where has anyone said that you can don an item for someone else in this thread? We've said that you can use the spell to force someone else to don something. That's what the spell says. But I don't think anyone has....
You know what? I don't care. Whatever.
Seems pretty relevant to me.Where has anyone said that you can don an item for someone else in this thread? We've said that you can use the spell to force someone else to don something. That's what the spell says. But I don't think anyone has....
You know what? I don't care. Whatever.
Really? In all 15 pages you don't recall it being mentioned?
This whole thing has turned into who can twist, retwist, belittle, and denounce or discredit who best. [sarcasm]Fun stuff.[/sarcasm]
I don't really care, either. Whatever.
Seems pretty relevant to me.Where has anyone said that you can don an item for someone else in this thread? We've said that you can use the spell to force someone else to don something. That's what the spell says. But I don't think anyone has....
You know what? I don't care. Whatever.
Really? In all 15 pages you don't recall it being mentioned?
This whole thing has turned into who can twist, retwist, belittle, and denounce or discredit who best. [sarcasm]Fun stuff.[/sarcasm]
I don't really care, either. Whatever.
Actually, I don't recall it being mentioned. I recall it being mentioned that a person can put a helmet onto someone else, but not that they can don it on someone else. Don only is really important to this conversation in the context of the spell, and there it is explicitly something which you are doing to yourself.
That is a fair summation of what the discussion has turned into, though.
It's really quite painful to watch. I run a very sizable board, and we work together, make suggestions, build on them, and generally come to some form of consensus.
This approach is all new to me.
You know, instead of making such (ab)use of quoting and walls of text, you could agree to disagree.
Because you will not agree. Ever.
Wow it keeps growing.
Okay as to the use/don/consume/whiskey tango foxtrot ever
I give you a regular sword you arent forced to randomly attack with it however i would go with the thought that if you make any attacks they have to be with the sword.
And also on the equip/don thing if i hand a greatsword two the wizard he wields it and therefore can't use somatic components for a round.
How about this, we can all just agree to get ourselves locking gauntlets for our weapons and heavy shields, and just make sure the spell never gets used in play?
For full disclosure, I have purchased large amounts of stock in a locking gauntlet manufacturer that I feel will be very profitable next fiscal quarter.
How about this, we can all just agree to get ourselves locking gauntlets for our weapons and heavy shields, and just make sure the spell never gets used in play?
For full disclosure, I have purchased large amounts of stock in a locking gauntlet manufacturer that I feel will be very profitable next fiscal quarter.
Does your company make non metal locking gauntlets lest someone claim my gauntlets are also armor and there for my druid can't wear them without breaking his oath.
Does your company make non metal locking gauntlets lest someone claim my gauntlets are also armor and there for my druid can't wear them without breaking his oath.How about this, we can all just agree to get ourselves locking gauntlets for our weapons and heavy shields, and just make sure the spell never gets used in play?
For full disclosure, I have purchased large amounts of stock in a locking gauntlet manufacturer that I feel will be very profitable next fiscal quarter.
But of course, good sir. Locking gauntlets come in all varieties! Don't be fooled by the classic rendition of the gauntlet in metal, for the term "gauntlet" is used to describe all armored materials worn on the hands!
For a mere 8gp, You'll never be handed another steel shield again!
[But of course, good sir. Locking gauntlets come in all varieties! Don't be fooled by the classic rendition of the gauntlet in metal, for the term "gauntlet" is used to describe all armored materials worn on the hands!
For a mere 8gp, You'll never be handed another steel shield again!
Thank god those damn bards were out to get me now i have protection lest i fail with my wits.
Oh do you make them for animal companions since i hear certian magical red robed dungeon masters would take away my powers if my gorrilla were to be given a steel shield to wield.
I'm going to make one final, probably futile, attempt to try to point out what I did in my "last post, I promise" post. The thread seems to have further devolved to be about what "use" means vs "don or consume"
The thing is, for almost all items, they mean exactly the same thing!
When you benefit from a protective item (such as a shield or armor), you are "using" it. You also have it "equipped" and if you put it on yourself, you also "doned" it.
The same goes for all slotted magic items.
When you "drink" a beverage (including a potion or whatever) or "eat" a food, you are also "using" the item. You have also "consumed" it.
The only case when it becomes problematic is when you have a weapon, or an item that requires you to activate it such as a wand or scroll. In this case "use" can mean different things than "don or consume."
For a scroll or wand to "don" it means to hold it. In order to "use" it you would need to activate it. In this case, the spell makes you "don" it but does not compel you to "use" it. But it doesn't stop you from using it when you have it doned either.
For a weapon, it gets even more complicated. Some see "using" as actually making an attack. Some see it as being the same as "weilding" it (weilding is also "doning," BTW). I'm pretty sure the distinction has been made between "wielding" an item (by simply having it ready to use for attack), and "using" one (by attacking) but I can;t actually find this, so I'm not sure if that's the case.
For my part, I think it's pretty simple:
Look at the use magic device skill. This is the closest thing you're going to get in the RAW as to what using means.
Ask yourself this. If the item had some sort of restriction (like alignment or whatever) that I didn't meet, would I need to do a UMD check to do what I want to do with it? If so, then you are using it.
I realise that this can't and won't satisfy everyone, but there comes a point where the RAW stops and you just have to ask your DM how he/she thinks it works!
I still have another one! *jumps in glee*
Let's say I gift someone with a shiny suit of full plate.
According to the exact wording of the rules, the target will accept the armor (unless it cannot take it) and don it.
Hmm... removing armor takes some time, donning plate armor takes a couple rounds as well... which is a tad long for a 1 round duration spell.
As I interpret things, the target would start removing his armor for exactly one turn (to be able to don the shiny gift), then realize what he is doing... and be under zero compulsion whatsoever afterwards (spell ended)
However, I am sure that some of the people here will state 'NO! He will don this armor! This is written in the spell! This must mean he is able to change armors in one turn!'
Which, I must admit, would make this spell a must-have for situations when the party is atacked while resting.
*scnr*
I don't understand what the fuss is about. Using a bluff would still make it work, and since skills are generally less powerful than spells I think the spell should work.
I still have another one! *jumps in glee*
Let's say I gift someone with a shiny suit of full plate.
According to the exact wording of the rules, the target will accept the armor (unless it cannot take it) and don it.Hmm... removing armor takes some time, donning plate armor takes a couple rounds as well... which is a tad long for a 1 round duration spell.
As I interpret things, the target would start removing his armor for exactly one turn (to be able to don the shiny gift), then realize what he is doing... and be under zero compulsion whatsoever afterwards (spell ended)
However, I am sure that some of the people here will state 'NO! He will don this armor! This is written in the spell! This must mean he is able to change armors in one turn!'
Which, I must admit, would make this spell a must-have for situations when the party is atacked while resting.
*scnr*
We discussed this earlier... Fighter would say "Gee, thanks for the shiny armor!", and begin to take off the armor their wearing. They're not going to be able to take the armor off in it's entirety in one round, much less be able to put on the new armor. The spell states that after the duration of the spell expires, they are not required to continue using the item.
So your target can drop the plate mail and keep attacking, but they would be suffering from "pants on the ground".
Anyone have a name for brand of real bad Pathfinder beer? Something like "Swamp Frog Brew - brewed by Kobolds, for Mites".
;)
A few real-world ideas:
Bad FrogDead Guy Ale
McQuire's I'll Have What The Gentleman On The Floor Is Having Barley Wine
For what it's worth, Dead Guy is pretty good.
Great BigJohn! Dead Guy Ale... in fact Dead Guy Pale Ale it is!
You'll notice that, for extra RPG awesomeness, Dead Guy Ale is made by "Rogue" brewery.