|
There is a lot of RAI(rules as intended) that says that the druids/clerics/paladins must intentionally and willfully violate their ethos before something bad happens. Paladins specifically state that they must willfully violate their vows to become an ex-paladin. Clerics must grossly violate their beliefs to become ex-clerics. Inquisitors must "fall into corruption" or change alignment to lose their powers, which is an intentional act. Druid class is missing that verbage, and that feels to me like an unintended omission.
Yes, this. I would not strip anyone (PC or NPC) of their powers through involuntary action:
A) It is imbalanced. Beguiling gift isn't meant to offer the caster that much power, even situationally. This is akin to summoning a magic missile directly into the dragon's brain. It makes sense, logically, but offers more than a spell of that level should.
B) As above, druids/clerics/paladins are gifted powers through their divine sponsors. The notion that such powers might be revoked by anything other than intentional action is probably poor roleplaying. I just personally cannot imagine 'mother nature' revoking a druid's ability for failing a saving throw.
I believe the issue is that half of you are talking about strict, strict RAW in regards to Pathfinder Society play, and the other half of you are talking about being reasonable in a home game.
In PFS, the GM has no power to overturn RAW. It doesn't matter if it becomes stupid or ridiculous, if it's what it says on the tin.
RAW, it does not say anything about willfully or anything for a druid. So if a druid does X, then Y happens. Dominated or otherwise, the druid is still physically doing X.
Of course, I would never do that in a home game, but the original question was about PFS.
That is why i asked for a FAQ. The RAW is pretty clear. You can try to argue grammar or semantics, but that really only applies to paladins or clerics. Druids have no language protecting them from unwilling violations, paladins and clerics(I consider grossly to imply a willing violation) do have that protection. Hence, my question is that is this an accidental omission or not? Only the developers can answer that. All we can do is speculate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been following the thread, and wanted to throw in my two cents.
- RAW, this works. Flat out. It works. The only person who's put up a reasonable argument as to it not working, per RAW, is LasarX.
The steel shield is not appropriate for the Druid. And beguiling gift doesn't change that awareness. He might accept the gift, but aside from thanking you and putting it down, he won't do anything with it.
I could see that argument from a quick-thinking player, as to why it shouldn't happen to their druid. Following that logic, however, would prevent someone from handing the enemy fighter a rubber chicken, or trout, or what have you, to wield instead of their +4 Hammer of Bard-Crushing.
... or, if you want to be sticklers, a cursed dagger, or a bottle of poison... I'm good with that.
As far as RAI goes, I don't see how this is worse than giving someone a cursed item, which is definitely allowed per the spell.
Is it powerful? In the right hands, Yes.
Does it exploit a weakness in the Druid? Absolutely.
How is this any different than casting Heat Metal on a fighter wearing full-plate?
A creature takes fire damage if its equipment is heated. It takes full damage if its armor, shield, or weapon is affected.
Heat metal exploits a weakness in a fighter (that they rely on heavy, metallic armor).
How is this any different than casting Feeblemind on an arcane caster?
Target creature's Intelligence and Charisma scores each drop to 1. The affected creature is unable to use Intelligence- or Charisma-based skills, cast spells, understand language, or communicate coherently. Still, it knows who its friends are and can follow them and even protect them. The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind. A creature that can cast arcane spells, such as a sorcerer or a wizard, takes a –4 penalty on its saving throw.
Granted, Feeblemind is a fifth level spell, and is WAY more powerful:
Permanent attribute reduction, turning them into vegetables, until they get a Heal spell... Cannot use ANY INT/CHA skills, unable to communicate... and the spell specifically makes it harder for arcane casters to save against.The druid, by comparison, loses some of their abilities for 24 hours, but is still able to function as part of the encounter (unlike our poor wizard/sorcerer/bard who got feebleminded).
Is it a little powerful for a 1st level spell? Sure it is. But, like most "powerful" 1st level spells, it takes a little creativity and finesse in order to make it work for you.
The bigger question is, is this a one-time moment of awesomeness, or is this going to happen to EVERY druid that the party encounters? If it happens every time they encounter a druid, then the GM needs to take steps, in game, to counter that ability (a druid develops an immediate-action "metal to wood" spell, or something along those lines).
Just like I don't expect my wizard to get feebleminded every fight, I also don't expect that this would happen to my druid every fight. Would it bother me if this were to happen to my druid? It'd annoy me, but not nearly so much as my wizard getting feebleminded.
All classes have drawbacks, limitations, weaknesses that can be exploited. And I'm fine with that. As previously stated by Foghammer, I would (as GM) ask to know about the bard's history with druids, to explain how they would know that bit of Druidic Lore, perhaps allowing a Knowledge: Nature or Religion check, or (as Player) be prepared to answer that question immediately and thoroughly.
I think this is extremely clever, and would allow it. However, I would first ask the player how his character knows that handing the druid a metal shield is going to be crippling to him.
I don't think everyone just happens to know everything about other player classes just because. Druid rites are secret, just like their language.
If the player could not provide a reason to do so IN CHARACTER, I would disallow it. His character should never have come to the conclusion that handing a threat something that will provide them more defense will make them weaker. That's my only caveat.
It would be much more amusing/abusive to cast the spell, and hand a character a suit of Full Plate. With how long that takes to put on, the character would be completely out of the fight for 4 minutes, to don it hastily.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a lot of RAI(rules as intended) that says that the druids/clerics/paladins must intentionally and willfully violate their ethos before something bad happens. Paladins specifically state that they must willfully violate their vows to become an ex-paladin. Clerics must grossly violate their beliefs to become ex-clerics. Inquisitors must "fall into corruption" or change alignment to lose their powers, which is an intentional act. Druid class is missing that verbage, and that feels to me like an unintended omission.Yes, this. I would not strip anyone (PC or NPC) of their powers through involuntary action:
A) It is imbalanced. Beguiling gift isn't meant to offer the caster that much power, even situationally. This is akin to summoning a magic missile directly into the dragon's brain. It makes sense, logically, but offers more than a spell of that level should.
B) As above, druids/clerics/paladins are gifted powers through their divine sponsors. The notion that such powers might be revoked by anything other than intentional action is probably poor roleplaying. I just personally cannot imagine 'mother nature' revoking a druid's ability for failing a saving throw.
This thread is starting to remind me an awful lot of the Full-Plate Fluffy thread that was running not that long ago: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/dnd/canFluffyWearFull Plate.
A) It is imbalanced. Beguiling gift isn't meant to offer the caster that much power, even situationally. This is akin to summoning a magic missile directly into the dragon's brain. It makes sense, logically, but offers more than a spell of that level should.
Isn't the point of Beguiling Gift to allow the witch from Snow White and the Seven Dwarves to hand Snow White a poisoned apple and get Snow White to eat the apple? Given that the archetypical use of the spell is to beguile the target into eating a poisoned apple that at the very least will put them into a magical slumber, and at the worst get them to down a frothing mug of Draino I'd say the whole issue with the Druid and metal armor/shields is a lower powered use of the spell anyways.
Is the spell balanced for a level 1 spell? I don't know, but the archetypical usage is much more devastating and permanent than the usage that is being argued about in this thread
Making "Beguiling Gift + X is more powerful arguements" is conflating the power of two different things.
The problem in the Snow White example is that a level 1 spell does not give you access to a poisoned apple that causes eternal slumber. To have an apple like that requires a level 18 witch with the eternal slumber hex. If you are facing a level 18 witch, beguiling gift is the least of your worries.
The same is true of cursed items. A party of level 1 players are not going to have a trove of cursed items at their disposal. Using BG to get someone to use a cursed item is really about the cursed item, and it would get very expensive to use that trick multiple times. How many necklaces of strangulation does your level 10 party carry around? Using BG in this way requires planning.
Cursed items and poisoned apples really have no bearing on the power of beguiling gift, because the power of the items in question is way beyond the power of beguiling gift. It is like hitting a high level monster with a empowered maximized disintegrate, then finishing it off with a magic missle. Claiming that the magic missle killed the monster at that point is very disingenous.
Well after reading this I now know of a spell that I will keep handy if I ever come across a time when a druid encounter may occur.
Also after reading the spell i am also considering a Bard/Alchemist idea. since Alchemist can make poisons easy and to top it off there is Always the Mutagen and its rule "A non-alchemist who drinks a mutagen must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 the alchemist’s level + the alchemist’s Intelligence modifier) or become nauseated for 1 hour—" This would be really evil way to take care of foes.
--here drink this.
wow - I went away for a day and this thread went crazy.
Sorry about all the fireworks I caused. At this point I'm sorry I started it. I'll remove the spell from my Bard as soon as I can and not use it till then. (and think hard about posting gimmick spell uses here again.) Maybe I'll bounce it off a DM in a home game...
Don't feel sorry - this is what a Rules Thread is for, in order to (a) make sure what we think is right, actually is, and (b) to keep an eye out for rules exploits that might need to be tightened up down the road.
Sounds like at least one, maybe both criteria fit, depending on who you ask.
It was at GenCon, and at the time I was not even running my bard (thou I had run her in two earlier slots). It would take some work to even determine who the DM was (the other guy was just one of the other players, one of the silent ones who really didn't talk during the game until I started "talking shop" to the Judge).
Most of my games are likely to be at CONs, so that is why I needed to gage the reaction after I got burned just talking about it. I just needed to see if there were a bunch of Judges who were going to be upset at me for trying it. Now I can see the spell is a "hot button" and avoid it in the future.
The spell is fine. The hot button is using compulsion spells to strip away someone class abilities. That hits on the "not fair" button for a lot of players. You would get a similar reaction if you used dominate person to force a druid to teach you druidic(and by RAW caused the druid to become an ex-druid), or if you used bluff to trick a paladin into wearing a helm of opposite alignment. These are things that, while legal by the RAW, are generally considered poor form.
|
|
How is this any different than casting Heat Metal on a fighter wearing full-plate?
A creature takes fire damage if its equipment is heated. It takes full damage if its armor, shield, or weapon is affected.Heat metal exploits a weakness in a fighter (that they rely on heavy, metallic armor).
Heat metal does not strip away all of a fighter's bonus feats for 24 hours.
How is this any different than casting Feeblemind on an arcane caster?
Target creature's Intelligence and Charisma scores each drop to 1. The affected creature is unable to use Intelligence- or Charisma-based skills, cast spells, understand language, or communicate coherently. Still, it knows who its friends are and can follow them and even protect them. The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind. A creature that can cast arcane spells, such as a sorcerer or a wizard, takes a –4 penalty on its saving throw.
This is different because Feeblemind impacts every kind of character class in the same way - reducing stats to 1. It doesn't simply remove a class feature.
And, as you said, a first level spell and a fifth level one exist on different planes of power. There's genuinely no comparing them.
The bigger question is, is this a one-time moment of awesomeness, or is this going to happen to EVERY druid that the party encounters? If it happens every time they encounter a druid, then the GM needs to take steps, in game, to counter that ability
Like putting less Druids in their game. Or stop rolling 1s - Beguiling Gift is a Will save. What Druid is going to fail that that you would even need to use it on?
There is more than enough argument here to justify FAQ.
False. Unless a lot was said in the pages I skipped, but I doubt it. The spell is actually clear and concise, unlike any number of other things Paizo has written. If it needs a FAQ, it's the last thing that does. Unless Druids have natural metal repulsion - I don't mean "don't like metal," I mean is an anti-magnet - there is nothing to clear up here. Giving a Druid a steel shield is like giving him a poison. Is anyone going to debate you can't give a Druid a poison?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was at GenCon, and at the time I was not even running my bard (thou I had run her in two earlier slots). It would take some work to even determine who the DM was (the other guy was just one of the other players, one of the silent ones who really didn't talk during the game until I started "talking shop" to the Judge).
Most of my games are likely to be at CONs, so that is why I needed to gage the reaction after I got burned just talking about it. I just needed to see if there were a bunch of Judges who were going to be upset at me for trying it. Now I can see the spell is a "hot button" and avoid it in the future.
There's an unfortunate truism that I've begun to notice in organized play:
You see, there's a segment of the GM population that has been roleplaying for decades, and they can be a bit entrenched in their ways. And those ways - especially for people who have stuck with the game for that long - tend to be very tradition-oriented, sticking with classic tropes/archetypes. In their home games, they tend to play with their friends (obviously), who by definition will probably have similar views and play in similar ways. Thus, their preferences become (in their minds) the "norm", and the "norm" becomes "the spirit of the game" or "the obvious intent of the rules".
None of this is inherently bad, and in fact many excellent GMs come from such circumstances. Unfortunately, sometimes such a GM will shift into organized play and fail to make an internal adjustment to the facts that: (1)their traditions hold no weight, (2)there will be players who are worlds apart from their own playstyle/preferences, (3)they don't have quite the same type/level of authority that they do in their own home, and (4)their actions have more serious/permanent repercussions in organized play than they do in a home game. When this mismatch occurs, friction often results.
Fortunately, this situation is the exception rather than the rule, and most GMs are pretty reasonable. However, your original story sounds (from my third-person vantage point, at least) like a case of a GM who has mostly played in one way with like-minded people, and was affronted when someone presented an atypical idea that deviated from the traditions that he had (unconsciously) set up in his mind as some sort of "canon".
When this sort of thing happens, try not to take it personally, and try your best to shrug it off and move on. It doesn't mean that you did anything wrong. :)
This is different because Feeblemind impacts every kind of character class in the same way - reducing stats to 1. It doesn't simply remove a class feature.
You are confusing the symptom and the disease.
The spell is not the disease. It does NOTHING to a Druid that it could not do to the Fighter or the Wizard or anyone else. The problem is "wearing metal armor disables the Druid's abilities" which is a side-effect of being a Druid, not the spell Beguiling Gift.
The spell Beguiling Gift is OBVIOUSLY and CLEARLY designed to screw over an opponent by giving them something bad for them and making them use it. But everyone's panties are in a bunch because if you do it to the Druid, they can't be Druids for 24 hours. So what? How about I poison your Druid with the spell and you die? Would that make you feel better?
Poisons are given mainly through deception. Now as to the example above, if the player in question had made the effort to disguise the shield's metallic nature (not that trivial a task) than I'd give him the shot. Of course the spell still allows for the relevant save.There is more than enough argument here to justify FAQ.False. Unless a lot was said in the pages I skipped, but I doubt it. The spell is actually clear and concise, unlike any number of other things Paizo has written. If it needs a FAQ, it's the last thing that does. Unless Druids have natural metal repulsion - I don't mean "don't like metal," I mean is an anti-magnet - there is nothing to clear up here. Giving a Druid a steel shield is like giving him a poison. Is anyone going to debate you can't give a Druid a poison?
If a Druid failed the Will save on Beguiling Gift, I don't care if the Bard is handing him a chain shirt that says "Druid power stripping" on it. He still puts it on and loses his power.
My position on cheap tricks is this. Something creative you might get away with once, possibly twice, but lean on a cheap trick as a crutch, and eventually you'll be figured out and countered.
Here's a better idea - run your game better. And stop rolling 1s.
There is more than enough argument here to justify FAQ.False. Unless a lot was said in the pages I skipped, but I doubt it. The spell is actually clear and concise, unlike any number of other things Paizo has written. If it needs a FAQ, it's the last thing that does. Unless Druids have natural metal repulsion - I don't mean "don't like metal," I mean is an anti-magnet - there is nothing to clear up here. Giving a Druid a steel shield is like giving him a poison. Is anyone going to debate you can't give a Druid a poison?
Similarly...I've considered using Beguiling Gift with Scarab of Death in a small wooden box. Move action to open the box, standard to don the necklace, so they'd wear it for a round before they'd have the opportunity to remove it.
Hello DC 25 Reflex save!
If somebody really wants to take Heighten Spell to use BG effectively, that's one less feat elsewhere, IMO, for something that can easily be negated later with any number of different things. The Will save isn't that high.
I think the unfair part is that most higher level spells that remove class abilities to this extent
Casting this spell in no way, shape, form, or method removes class abilities from any class that exists or will exists in the game of Pathfinder
You want a spell that remove a class ability? Calm Emotions. Barbarians can no longer use their primary class ability. And apparently, Bards neither. Calm Emotions removes class abilities from two classes specifically.
Heat metal does not strip away all of a fighter's bonus feats for 24 hours.
No, it does not, but I sure would cast Heat Metal on the Fighter, instead of the Druid. Similarly, I'm not going to use Beguiling Gift to give a Fighter a shield (unless they're a Two-Handed fighter, perhaps). Different targets for different spells. Just like you don't cast fireball on a Rogue, with the expectation that the target will take at least half-damage.
This is different because Feeblemind impacts every kind of character class in the same way - reducing stats to 1. It doesn't simply remove a class feature.
Feeblemind specifically DOES strip away the ability of ALL casters to cast their spells.
The affected creature is unable to use Intelligence- or Charisma-based skills, cast spells, understand language, or communicate coherently.
Even if, somehow, a wizard had a +18 INT item, they would STILL be unable to cast their spells, because Feeblemind specifically strips that class ability away - and does so until the character gets a Heal, Miracle, Wish, or similar spell cast upon them
Heck, Feeblemind would neuter ANY caster, not just arcane ones. The theoretical Druid would be stripped of any spellcasting ability with Feeblemind.
I agree wholeheartedly that Feeblemind is a much more powerful spell than Beguiling gift, because it does all those things, reduces INT and CHA to 1, and having it be harder for them to resist the spell than a normal spell of that level.
To put that last part into perspective, it's as easy for a Wizard, Magus, Witch, Bard, or Sorcerer to resist Feeblemind (a 5th level spell), as it is for them to resist Mass Hold Person, Meteor Swarm, Weird, Prismatic Sphere, or Wish (9th level spells), due to a specific -4 penalty to the save for an arcane caster.
That's neither here nor there, however. The point of my comparison was that Feeblemind is a spell out there, specifically designed to strip not only the abilities of ALL spellcasting classes, whereas Beguiling Gift only does this for a single class, and only when the spell is used in a specific, creative way. Using spells in creative ways is what good players do.
Furthermore, we're talking about a PC doing it to an NPC druid. Odds on, this NPC that the PCs were fighting against wasn't going to survive the combat to begin with.
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.
Did the GM really go into this fight, expecting the druid to still be alive 24 hours from now?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Once again, people are forgetting one very important thing:
What you think should be has absolutely zero bearing on what is.
Maybe you think fireball is overpowered and should be d4's instead of d6's or should have a smaller radius or whatever. Fine. But it still says d6 in the book, so using any other dice would be illegal in PFS.
Maybe you think certain uses of beguiling gift are too powerful (or that druids should have different stipulations for the loss of their abilities). Fine. But the book still says that the spell does X and the druid does Y, and to do otherwise in PFS is cheating. (And yes, it is possible for a GM to cheat in PFS.)
My position on cheap tricks is this. Something creative you might get away with once, possibly twice, but lean on a cheap trick as a crutch, and eventually you'll be figured out and countered.
Absolutely. Using a dirty trick once or twice is awesome. Use it repeatedly, and people are going to start hearing about (and finding ways to counter) it.
There is more than enough argument here to justify FAQ.False. Unless a lot was said in the pages I skipped, but I doubt it. The spell is actually clear and concise, unlike any number of other things Paizo has written. If it needs a FAQ, it's the last thing that does. Unless Druids have natural metal repulsion - I don't mean "don't like metal," I mean is an anti-magnet - there is nothing to clear up here. Giving a Druid a steel shield is like giving him a poison. Is anyone going to debate you can't give a Druid a poison?Similarly...I've considered using Beguiling Gift with Scarab of Death in a small wooden box. Move action to open the box, standard to don the necklace, so they'd wear it for a round before they'd have the opportunity to remove it.
Hello DC 25 Reflex save!
If somebody really wants to take Heighten Spell to use BG effectively, that's one less feat elsewhere, IMO, for something that can easily be negated later with any number of different things. The Will save isn't that high.
How does this have anything to do with the power of a level 1 spell? Scarab of Death is caster level 19 for god's sake. That is like making a gun that shoots tactical nukes, and using it as proof on the power of firearms.
|
|
This is different because Feeblemind impacts every kind of character class in the same way - reducing stats to 1. It doesn't simply remove a class feature.You are confusing the symptom and the disease.
The spell is not the disease. It does NOTHING to a Druid that it could not do to the Fighter or the Wizard or anyone else. The problem is "wearing metal armor disables the Druid's abilities" which is a side-effect of being a Druid, not the spell Beguiling Gift.
The spell Beguiling Gift is OBVIOUSLY and CLEARLY designed to screw over an opponent by giving them something bad for them and making them use it. But everyone's panties are in a bunch because if you do it to the Druid, they can't be Druids for 24 hours. So what? How about I poison your Druid with the spell and you die? Would that make you feel better?
And you're arguing my reply to my original point that you never read.
I said I wouldn't enforce the druid's power negation, and I listed the reasons why I would make that call. Please feel free to go and find it if you'd like.
|
|
Heck, Feeblemind would neuter ANY caster, not just arcane ones. The theoretical Druid would be stripped of any spellcasting ability with Feeblemind.
Now you're starting to get the point. This would strip away most skill use, many feats, and a whole host of other things as well. Any ability that you would deny an animal with an Int of 1 goes away. Spell casting being called out here is redundant.
|
|
Furthermore, we're talking about a PC doing it to an NPC druid.
That's mostly irrelevant. If your game's rules work that way for NPC's then they work that way for PC's as well.
Did the GM really go into this fight, expecting the druid to still be alive 24 hours from now?
And I do get that point, but this mechanism would become fair play against any divine class with such a restriction, if allowed. And since there's genuinely no counter to it, other than immunity to the spell, you're not seeing to the health of future games unless you prohibit it.
|
|
Maybe you think certain uses of beguiling gift are too powerful (or that druids should have different stipulations for the loss of their abilities). Fine. But the book still says that the spell does X and the druid does Y, and to do otherwise in PFS is cheating. (And yes, it is possible for a GM to cheat in PFS.)
PFS or not, it is the bard who's cheating here. Rules loopholes being exploited for gain is NOT legit in any play, organized or not.
This is different because Feeblemind impacts every kind of character class in the same way - reducing stats to 1. It doesn't simply remove a class feature.You are confusing the symptom and the disease.
The spell is not the disease. It does NOTHING to a Druid that it could not do to the Fighter or the Wizard or anyone else. The problem is "wearing metal armor disables the Druid's abilities" which is a side-effect of being a Druid, not the spell Beguiling Gift.
The spell Beguiling Gift is OBVIOUSLY and CLEARLY designed to screw over an opponent by giving them something bad for them and making them use it. But everyone's panties are in a bunch because if you do it to the Druid, they can't be Druids for 24 hours. So what? How about I poison your Druid with the spell and you die? Would that make you feel better?
And you're arguing my reply to my original point that you never read.
I said I wouldn't enforce the druid's power negation, and I listed the reasons why I would make that call. Please feel free to go and find it if you'd like.
Which is really unrelated to your claim that Beguiling Gift removes a class feature. It doesn't. The Druid's class feature removes it's class feature. Now, if you want a spell that specifically removes class features, you want Calm Emotions.
|
|
Note that the full plate plan doesn't work. Beguiling Gift's duration is 1 round. The target accepts the gift on your turn, then spends their next turn trying to use/equip the git. If they can't complete that action in 1 round, the spell terminates and they are no longer under any compulsion to attempt to make use of the gift.
I would rule as follows.
-If the druid fails their save, they accept the gift.
- If they have no shield equipped, they spend their next round equipping the metal shield you have given them and thus violate their druid oath.
- If they already have a shield equipped, they spend their next round removing their existing shield in preparation for donning the metal shield. The spell duration then ends, and the druid now has one unequipped metal shield and one unequipped (presumably) wooden shield. No oaths have been violated, though you have made the druid lose 1 turn and 2 AC, with another turn lost if he wants to requip his wooden shield.
Even then, feeblemind is immediately fixable (Heal will do just fine), whereas there is no mechanism for the druid to regain use of their class abilities.
Sure there is. Take it off, and wait 24 hours. That's oftentimes easier than finding someone to cast HEAL on you in the middle of combat.
By some arguments I have seen on this thread so far, people would be alright with a first level spell that denies use of sneak attack and rogue talents (ref. negates), denies access to rage (fort negates), or one that denies spellcasting and channel energy (will negates).
You know what? Show me a creative way to do that with existing spells, and it'll fly at my table, under the "Rule of Cool". Use it too many times, though, and people will start to hear about it, and find ways around it.
One of the issues with this spell that I see is that at low levels (where this is still an available spell), you are far less likely to make your save. Feeblemind (at level 5) comes with the territory of mid-level tactics, but a level 1-5 druid may only have a +8 to +10 versus a DC 15 - 18 spell. Hardly an "Only a Nat 1 fails" scenario, and then your druid player gets to spend the next 24 hours of game time as an aristocrat with a pet.
As opposed to falling prey to a Sleep spell, Charm Person, or Cause Fear? In all fairness, they'd still have a better Fort save, still have their magical gear they can use, and still have access to their (Ex) abilities.
Assuming this were to hit a level 20 Druid somehow, what does a Druid lose?
- Spellcasting
- Nature Bond: Domain
- Wild Shape
- A Thousand Faces
Now, what does that level 20 Druid keep?
- Weapon and Armor Proficiency
- Languages
- Nature Bond: Animal Companion
- Nature Sense
- Wild Empathy
- Nature Sense
- Wild Empathy
- Woodland Stride
- Trackless Step
- Resist Natures Lure
- Venom Immunity
- Timeless Body
Our Level 20 Druid loses 3-4 (powerful) abilities, while retaining 11-12 other abilities.
I think the unfair part is that most higher level spells that remove class abilities to this extent have some sort of way to mitigate those effects, if not mid-combat then at least within a few rounds of the end of combat. Heck, even death is only a status effect after a while.
This is the nature of the Druid's power, and their weakness. Like I said, if it happened to my druid, I'd be annoyed, but I'd adapt and overcome. If it happened to an NPC druid that I was expecting to use as a reoccuring foil... well, it's the player's job to keep me on my toes.
Since people are nitpicking on the wording which says either "Uses" or "carries" and consider a shield not 'Used' until attack (which seems silly, since you get the benefits and penalties the moment you wear it.)
And shield rules say that you cannot USE a weapon in the shield hand, does it mean you can 'wear' but not actively 'use' a weapon?
As I read it, "use a shield" is just a different wording to "wear an armor" and "wield a weapon", but rulewise, meaning the same thing.
In this case, it's an epic idea, kudo's to the Op and shame on his gm getting panties in a twist. As for low level spell possibly being too effective vs up to three classes, Intensified Shocking Grasp still wtfpwns that area vs anyone and everyone.
Maybe you think certain uses of beguiling gift are too powerful (or that druids should have different stipulations for the loss of their abilities). Fine. But the book still says that the spell does X and the druid does Y, and to do otherwise in PFS is cheating. (And yes, it is possible for a GM to cheat in PFS.)PFS or not, it is the bard who's cheating here. Rules loopholes being exploited for gain is NOT legit in any play, organized or not.
Cheating?! Giving someone something that is bad for them is clearly the entire point of Beguiling Gift!
The Text Of The Spell Even Mentions Cursed Items As An Option, Which I Would Think Is Even More Dastardly Than A Shield. Tell Your GM That You Plan On Getting The Necklace Of Strangulation Instead :p
If your game's rules work that way for NPC's then they work that way for PC's as well.
Absolutely, and my players know that, if they were to use something like this against me, that I'll be willing do do similar. But it's not against the rules.
...this mechanism would become fair play against any divine class with such a restriction, if allowed. And since there's genuinely no counter to it, other than immunity to the spell, you're not seeing to the health of future games unless you prohibit it.
Counters to it include:
- Spell Resistance- Making your Will Save
- Creative role-playing ("I can't wear this, but thank you very much for the gift").
We've also been assuming this happens in a vacuum. If the Druid's party wizard/sorcerer/whatever saw this exchange happening, they could cast "shrink item" on the shield, making it unwearable.
Again, I fail to see where this is any worse than giving them poison or a cursed item.
Note that the full plate plan doesn't work. Beguiling Gift's duration is 1 round. The target accepts the gift on your turn, then spends their next turn trying to use/equip the git. If they can't complete that action in 1 round, the spell terminates and they are no longer under any compulsion to attempt to make use of the gift.
Fair enough. Then give the fighter Leather armor, and they begin the process of taking off their Full Plate... You can literally catch them with their pants down!
Fair enough. Then give the fighter Leather armor, and they begin the process of taking off their Full Plate... You can literally catch them with their pants down!
This made my day :D
Again, I fail to see where this is any worse than giving them poison or a cursed item.
Because the Druid, singularly, couldn't Wild Shape or cast spells if I gave him a metal shield!!
Madness!Instead, I disable your Inspire Courage with Calm Emotions or Silence. Or disable your Barbarian Rage by using Calm Emotions.
|
|
Fair enough. Then give the fighter Leather armor, and they begin the process of taking off their Full Plate... You can literally catch them with their pants down!Note that the full plate plan doesn't work. Beguiling Gift's duration is 1 round. The target accepts the gift on your turn, then spends their next turn trying to use/equip the git. If they can't complete that action in 1 round, the spell terminates and they are no longer under any compulsion to attempt to make use of the gift.
Very true! I'm not sure how far you can get in removing full plate in one round...if 1 round is at least half the removing time of the armour, I'd treat their armour as 'donned hastily' for the rest of the combat. If it's less, I'd rule one round of undoing buckles and whatever didn't effect an appreciable change in its protectiveness. You have made them waste their round either way, of course.