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
Exactly. Considering that some of the recommended uses of this spell are poisoning and cursed items, making someone lose their spell casting and shape shifting for 24 hours doesn't seem so bad.
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.
I disable your face with my delayed alchemist acid bomb!
This made my day :D
Glad to be of service.
|
The only one with equipment restrictions that can be exploited is the Druid, everyone else's restrictions are solely on what they do, not what they wear.
Which is exactly why I think declaring the druid in violation of their oath is inaccurate. I believe that the restriction should only apply to what the druid does. If you put metal armor on a sleeping druid, does that count? It shouldn't. If the druid didn't willingly violate the oath, there should be no punishment. Not if game balance is to be maintained.
Because you're focusing on the giving, not on the intent of the druid limitation. That's your choice, but I feel the point is highly valid.
Ahh... I see the disconnect. You're discussing the INTENTION of the rule, whereas I'm discussing the rule itself.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rules loopholes being exploited for gain is NOT legit in any play, organized or not.
Except... it isn't a 'rules loophole'. It is >the rules<. As they were intended. Indeed, as they have ALWAYS been. AD&D v1, 2, 3, 3.5, and Pathfinder... all of them explicitly indicate that violations of Paladin/Druid/Cleric/et cetera codes result in loss of powers even if the violation was unintentional or magically compelled.
Alot of people apparently really dislike that... but their belief that it 'is not fair' does not suddenly make the books say something different. You can CHANGE the rules for your home game, but it certainly isn't 'cheating' for others to play by the rules as written and intended.
It IS possible that this particular use of 'Beguiling Gift' was overlooked and the spell should be tweaked to account for it. However, it seems unlikely that they overlooked 'Beguiling Gift' being used for, 'here drink this poison' and other 'self-destructive' acts. That's the obvious use of the spell. Yet, 'Dominate' allows you to compel someone to violate their code (they get an extra save at bonus), but NOT to force them to do something they know is self-destructive... making 'Beguiling Gift' potentially able to compel someone to do something that 'Dominate' cannot. Thus, it is also possible that the restrictions on 'Beguiling Gift' (short duration, long casting time, close range/AoO provoking, et cetera) were deemed sufficient to balance such a powerful (though constrained) effect. I'd probably adjust the spell to have the same caveats as Dominate, but that's house rules and again... using it as written certainly isn't 'cheating'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite in this entire ridiculous thread is the guy who claims that the druid who woke up in metal armor wasn't wearing it because he didn't put it on.
Heheheh
I'm thinking this isn't a huge issue. IF a party ran into tons of druids and IF they did this all the time and for some reason managed to overcome the Will save etc. so that druids left and right were losing their powers, I suspect the druid's council might get involved.
I don't think I'd like to have a couple dozen druids pissed at me.
"Yessir. Sorry, sir. Yes, we'll stop handing shields to druids. Will your tiger please let go of my testicles now, sir?"
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.
I'd be happy to concede that the fighter isn't going to get very far in taking off his armor... but as a GM, I'd use the "Rule of Cool" to have the fighter gleefully accept the leather armor, drop his pants, and begin trying to tug on leather pants as his turn.
It's just too awesome to not let happen.
The only one with equipment restrictions that can be exploited is the Druid, everyone else's restrictions are solely on what they do, not what they wear.Which is exactly why I think declaring the druid in violation of their oath is inaccurate. I believe that the restriction should only apply to what the druid does. If you put metal armor on a sleeping druid, does that count? It shouldn't. If the druid didn't willingly violate the oath, there should be no punishment. Not if game balance is to be maintained.
If you use a spell or torture to force a monk with vow of silence to scream/yell/talk/laugh, he'll still keep the bonuses because "he didn't mean to do this, the magic/sharp object made him do it".
If so, any type of oath or vow like this seems too cheap for the benefits, because you don't actively have to try say, not wear wrong shield by accident, or a paladin killing a good guy for one or other reason.
Could a paladin kill a good man by mistake without having to get atonment?
"Yessir. Sorry, sir. Yes, we'll stop handing shields to druids. Will your tiger please let go of my testicles now, sir?"
Quoted for Awesomeness.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
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.
Alright, then by what metric do you decide that someone is "exploiting a rules loophole"?
The main thing that bothers me in this thread is an attitude being displayed by certain GMs: in the OP, the GM in question didn't say "Sorry, it doesn't work that way because of X", which would have been the response I would expect if someone made an illegal suggestion. Instead, he said "I wouldn't let that work!" and (according to the OP) "verbally castigated" the player for suggesting it. This makes me think that the GM didn't object based on how the rules work, but rather based on what he wanted. There's a HUGE difference there. And not only did that GM choose to disallow something as an executive decision (rather than an interpretation of the rules), he reacted with an attitude that suggests he's also passed judgment on the player. Treating the player as some sort of enemy further suggests that the OP's GM was more interested in his own preferences than what the rules say.
There's a difference between "I interpret X to mean Y, so I would rule Z at my table" and the "I think X is exploitative and there's something wrong with you for suggesting it" attitude that appears in the OP's story and is echoed again and again in this thread.
I hope you'll be a little more discerning at your own table(s).
Except... it isn't a 'rules loophole'. It is >the rules<. As they were intended. Indeed, as they have ALWAYS been. AD&D v1, 2, 3, 3.5, and Pathfinder... all of them explicitly indicate that violations of Paladin/Druid/Cleric/et cetera codes result in loss of powers even if the violation was unintentional or magically compelled.
Alot of people apparently really dislike that... but their belief that it 'is not fair' does not suddenly make the books say something different. You can CHANGE the rules for your home game, but it certainly isn't 'cheating' for others to play by the rules as written and intended.
It IS possible that this particular use of 'Beguiling Gift' was overlooked and the spell should be tweaked to account for it. However, it seems unlikely that they overlooked 'Beguiling Gift' being used for, 'here drink this poison' and other 'self-destructive' acts. That's the obvious use of the spell. Yet, 'Dominate' allows you to compel someone to violate their code (they get an extra save at bonus), but NOT to force them to do something they know is self-destructive... making 'Beguiling Gift' potentially able to compel someone to do something that 'Dominate' cannot. Thus, it is also possible that the restrictions on 'Beguiling Gift' (short duration, long casting time, close range/AoO provoking, et cetera) were deemed sufficient to balance such a powerful (though constrained) effect. I'd probably adjust the spell to have the same caveats as Dominate, but that's house rules and again... using it as written certainly isn't 'cheating'.
Quoted for truth. It deserves to be shown twice.
|
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 no more a loophole for cheating then the fact that a natural 20 always hits, and possibly crits. I mean, sure, that fighters AC may be high enough that the peasant has no chance of ever hitting normally, but that nat 20 means that he does.
The spell is working as intended. The druid is working as intended. The combo can work, assuming that the druid fails a will save (high save with a class high stat) vs a 1st level spell?
Just wondering bout one thing.
When, if a druid only can loose his stuff by willfully donning said armor and shield, and not by mistake, bluff/diplomacy or magic.
When will he EVER don a metal armor or shield.
Never is when, which would make the whole feature as useful as a vorpal castle gate.
|
|
There's a difference between "I interpret X to mean Y, so I would rule Z at my table" and the "I think X is exploitative and there's something wrong with you for suggesting it" attitude that appears in the OP's story and is echoed again and again in this thread.
I think that's getting a bit out of hand. I never said there was anything wrong with anyone, and would like to see quotes to the contrary. Further I didn't coin the word 'cheating' in the conversation, but used it in rebuttal. Finally, OP labeled such tactic as a gimmick from square one.
I realize my opinion may have become the minority, but personal attacks based upon fabrications shouldn't be allowed.
|
|
If a druid only loses their class abilities if they willfully don metal armor, then couldn't the party dress the druid up in whatever nice suit of armor while the druid is sleeping (against the druid's will of course), and then the druid just leaves the suit of armor on to continue getting the benefits?
Clearly not because the druid would be electing to not remove the armor, which is the same as putting it on himself.
|
|
Just wondering bout one thing.
When, if a druid only can loose his stuff by willfully donning said armor and shield, and not by mistake, bluff/diplomacy or magic.
When will he EVER don a metal armor or shield.
Never is when, which would make the whole feature as useful as a vorpal castle gate.
Ask the Rancor about Vorpal gates and how useless they are... :P
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
There's a difference between "I interpret X to mean Y, so I would rule Z at my table" and the "I think X is exploitative and there's something wrong with you for suggesting it" attitude that appears in the OP's story and is echoed again and again in this thread.I think that's getting a bit out of hand. I never said there was anything wrong with anyone, and would like to see quotes to the contrary. Further I didn't coin the word 'cheating' in the conversation, but used it in rebuttal. Finally, OP labeled such tactic as a gimmick from square one.
I realize my opinion may have become the minority, but personal attacks based upon fabrications shouldn't be allowed.
Speaking of "fabrications":
1) I didn't say that you said there was anything wrong with anyone - I said there was an attitude present in the OP's story and elsewhere in this thread that has a "something's wrong with you" attitude. Verbally castigating someone implies that you think there's something wrong.2) I never said you coined the word "cheating".
3) I made no personal attacks - I named no names (unless referring to the GM from the OP counts, but I'll stand by my assessment of that one piece of behavior), and even excluded you by expressing my hope that you handle things differently than I described.
The only one with equipment restrictions that can be exploited is the Druid, everyone else's restrictions are solely on what they do, not what they wear.Which is exactly why I think declaring the druid in violation of their oath is inaccurate. I believe that the restriction should only apply to what the druid does. If you put metal armor on a sleeping druid, does that count? It shouldn't. If the druid didn't willingly violate the oath, there should be no punishment. Not if game balance is to be maintained.
But they would have willingly violated the oath. That's what the spell does. The subject voluntarily drinks/dons item.
|
|
AD&D v1, 2, 3, 3.5, and Pathfinder... all of them explicitly indicate that violations of Paladin/Druid/Cleric/et cetera codes result in loss of powers even if the violation was unintentional or magically compelled.
Unintentional, probably, but not while magically compelled. Not for anyone but the druid. Scroll up for the actual quotes by Charender and others.
You can CHANGE the rules for your home game, but it certainly isn't 'cheating' for others to play by the rules as written and intended.
Could you imagine a 1st level spell, printed in the Core, stating that it merely violates any druid's oath? Would you allow a player to create such a spell, under the current rules?
It IS possible that this particular use of 'Beguiling Gift' was overlooked and the spell should be tweaked to account for it.
Close, but I'd instead put forward that the druid rules need to be adapted if it is to be so simple to cause them to violate their oaths. That's a broken concept, assuming the druid is to receive the same treatment from the rule system as all the other classes. Now there are many here who don't think that enough druids exist for this to matter. I don't see that as relevant. This is one of the core classes and should be protected from such an exploit, unless same exists for each of the other classes - e.g. sleep.
If a druid only loses their class abilities if they willfully don metal armor, then couldn't the party dress the druid up in whatever nice suit of armor while the druid is sleeping (against the druid's will of course), and then the druid just leaves the suit of armor on to continue getting the benefits?Clearly not because the druid would be electing to not remove the armor, which is the same as putting it on himself.
Ridiculous. He isn't "willingly" wearing it. He is very much opposed to wearing it, he just doesn't have time to take it off.
Could you imagine a 1st level spell, printed in the Core, stating that it merely violates any druid's oath? Would you allow a player to create such a spell, under the current rules?
I can imagine and describe a spell that disabled a Bard's performance and another that disables Barbarian's Rage and Bard's Inspire Courage.
But they would have willingly violated the oath. That's what the spell does. The subject voluntarily drinks/dons item.The only one with equipment restrictions that can be exploited is the Druid, everyone else's restrictions are solely on what they do, not what they wear.Which is exactly why I think declaring the druid in violation of their oath is inaccurate. I believe that the restriction should only apply to what the druid does. If you put metal armor on a sleeping druid, does that count? It shouldn't. If the druid didn't willingly violate the oath, there should be no punishment. Not if game balance is to be maintained.
"If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds..."
Wham, bam, shazam. This clearly says you can wrong an oath under influence(other than booze). Case closed.
And no, you're not cheating Op, the idea was funny, and someone got panties in a twist over it.
|
|
I can imagine and describe a spell that disabled a Bard's performance and another that disables Barbarian's Rage and Bard's Inspire Courage.
Could you imagine a 1st level spell, printed in the Core, stating that it merely violates any druid's oath? Would you allow a player to create such a spell, under the current rules?
For how long?
|
|
(puzzled look) "PFS or not, it is the bard who's cheating here. "
The bard is my character.... OH! you mean my character is cheating! yep - that's why she owns marked cards. Though other than her brother she hasn't seen any druids and so hasn't tried the gimmick. By the way, among my gimmicks is buying my archers locking gauntlets so they don't drop their bows when (insert lots of causes), are my archers cheating to do this?
All apologies nosig if you took that personally. It was my understanding, and is to this moment, that you never actually did what you were proposing here. We were talking about a theoretical situation that had not yet occurred, as far as I'm aware.
For how long?I can imagine and describe a spell that disabled a Bard's performance and another that disables Barbarian's Rage and Bard's Inspire Courage.
Could you imagine a 1st level spell, printed in the Core, stating that it merely violates any druid's oath? Would you allow a player to create such a spell, under the current rules?
"If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds..."
|
|
AD&D v1, 2, 3, 3.5, and Pathfinder... all of them explicitly indicate that violations of Paladin/Druid/Cleric/et cetera codes result in loss of powers even if the violation was unintentional or magically compelled.Unintentional, probably, but not while magically compelled. Not for anyone but the druid. Scroll up for the actual quotes by Charender and others.
I've read the entire thread and recall no such quotations. Further, I've just re-read every post by Charender and they certainly don't contain any such quotations.
On the other hand;
Pathfinder Atonement spell: "If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you."
It doesn't matter if the character was magically compelled. The powers are still lost. This has been clearly stated in every version of the game.
|
|
"If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds..."Wham, bam, shazam. This clearly says you can wrong an oath under influence(other than booze). Case closed.
Now that's an interesting point...
...although that spell reads as only dealing with either alignment or spell casting issues. Someone above said that it might work as a counter to this tactic. This goes to illustrate how sometimes the rules have gaps in them, and adjudication is required to bridge them.
So that's a doubly-good post.
AD&D v1, 2, 3, 3.5, and Pathfinder... all of them explicitly indicate that violations of Paladin/Druid/Cleric/et cetera codes result in loss of powers even if the violation was unintentional or magically compelled.Unintentional, probably, but not while magically compelled. Not for anyone but the druid. Scroll up for the actual quotes by Charender and others.I've read the entire thread and recall no such quotations. Further, I've just re-read every post by Charender and they certainly don't contain any such quotations.
On the other hand;
Pathfinder Atonement spell: "If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you."
It doesn't matter if the character was magically compelled. The powers are still lost. This has been clearly stated in every version of the game.
For what it is worth, I was the one quoting the rules, both of atonement and the various classes losing their abilities.
The ONLY oath-violating thing that can be done under compulsion for one of these divine classes that does not auto-trigger a punitive partial stripping of class features is a paladin committing an evil act. A cleric who violates her ethics, a paladin who ceases to be lawful good or violates her code of conduct, or a druid who ceases to revere nature or teaches the druidic language immediately becomes an ex-(class) and requires an atonement to get back class abilities and the ability to gain more levels in that class. This is true even if the character is acting under compulsion.
A druid who wears metal armor or uses a metal shield loses all spellcasting and supernatural abilities for 24 hours, after which it comes back. Atonement will arguably shorten this to however long it takes the druid to get an atonement cast on her.
|
|
"If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds..."For how long?I can imagine and describe a spell that disabled a Bard's performance and another that disables Barbarian's Rage and Bard's Inspire Courage.
Could you imagine a 1st level spell, printed in the Core, stating that it merely violates any druid's oath? Would you allow a player to create such a spell, under the current rules?
Yes, Tyki11, I saw it the first time you posted it, and replied in kind. Thank you.
I was replying to Cartigan's implication that the spell was not imbalanced in comparison to those other spells he mentioned.
Acting under magical compulsion isn't voluntary. Otherwise why would it necessitate a saving throw?
But they would have willingly violated the oath. That's what the spell does. The subject voluntarily drinks/dons item.
Another problem that people seem to have trouble dealing with is that Beguiling Gift is not really compulsion. The spell is tricking the target into thinking that what you are giving them is beneficial to them. The druid is not standing there thinking, "I am being given a metal shield. I must not equip it but I can't stop myself." The druid is standing there thinking, "Oh what I nice wooden shield this person is giving me. I must try it out right now!" If the spell succeeds, the druid does not even know the shield is metal, but only knows it is whatever the caster says it is.
"If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds..."For how long?I can imagine and describe a spell that disabled a Bard's performance and another that disables Barbarian's Rage and Bard's Inspire Courage.
Could you imagine a 1st level spell, printed in the Core, stating that it merely violates any druid's oath? Would you allow a player to create such a spell, under the current rules?Yes, Tyki11, I saw it the first time you posted it, and replied in kind. Thank you.
I was replying to Cartigan's implication that the spell was not imbalanced in comparison to those other spells he mentioned.
My net acted up again, didn't see that the first post made it.
|
|
For what it is worth, I was the one quoting the rules, both of atonement and the various classes losing their abilities.The ONLY oath-violating thing that can be done under compulsion for one of these divine classes that does not auto-trigger a punitive partial stripping of class features is a paladin committing an evil act. A cleric who violates her ethics, a paladin who ceases to be lawful good or violates her code of conduct, or a druid who ceases to revere nature or teaches the druidic language immediately becomes an ex-(class) and requires an atonement to get back class abilities and the ability to gain more levels in that class. This is true even if the character is acting under compulsion.
A druid who wears metal armor or uses a metal shield loses all spellcasting and supernatural abilities for 24 hours, after which it comes back. Atonement will arguably shorten this to however long it takes the druid to get an atonement cast on her.
Okay, I'm compelled. You appear to be correct. I'm still of the opinion that it is imbalanced for a first level spell, and it should go on the list for things needing updated, in my opinion.
Another problem that people seem to have trouble dealing with is that Beguiling Gift is not really compulsion. The spell is tricking the target into thinking that what you are giving them is beneficial to them. The druid is not standing there thinking, "I am being given a metal shield. I must not equip it but I can't stop myself." The druid is standing there thinking, "Oh what I nice wooden shield this person is giving me. I must try it out right now!" If the spell succeeds, the druid does not even know the shield is metal, but only knows it is whatever the caster says it is.Acting under magical compulsion isn't voluntary. Otherwise why would it necessitate a saving throw?
But they would have willingly violated the oath. That's what the spell does. The subject voluntarily drinks/dons item.
Not quite. You aren't convincing them that the item is good. You are enticing them to use the item despite its negative repercussions. The wording of the spell doesn't dictate the exact nature of the target's reaction to the item. Because of this, and since it is a compulsion, I would treat it as any other compulsion effect. Which is to say, it strips class abilities just as much as if it were done willingly, because that is what the rules say.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4) The druid must be able to use your shield: If the druid is wild shaped into a form that can't hold or use the shield the spell fails.
Actually, no.
The spells causes the target to voluntarily try to wear, equip, etc, the item. So if that requires the druid to shift back to human form first, he will, and then if there is still enough time in the spell duration, he will take the item and attempt to use it appropriately.
Not quite. You aren't convincing them that the item is good. You are enticing them to use the item despite its negative repercussions. The wording of the spell doesn't dictate the exact nature of the target's reaction to the item. Because of this, and since it is a compulsion, I would treat it as any other compulsion effect. Which is to say, it strips class abilities just as much as if it were done willingly, because that is what the rules say.Another problem that people seem to have trouble dealing with is that Beguiling Gift is not really compulsion. The spell is tricking the target into thinking that what you are giving them is beneficial to them. The druid is not standing there thinking, "I am being given a metal shield. I must not equip it but I can't stop myself." The druid is standing there thinking, "Oh what I nice wooden shield this person is giving me. I must try it out right now!" If the spell succeeds, the druid does not even know the shield is metal, but only knows it is whatever the caster says it is.Acting under magical compulsion isn't voluntary. Otherwise why would it necessitate a saving throw?
But they would have willingly violated the oath. That's what the spell does. The subject voluntarily drinks/dons item.
Oh, I am not disputing that result. I have been saying that since the first page of posts. I am just saying that the target does not realize it is a BAD THING because they will voluntarily use it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
There's something I'd like to point out about this thread:
The line from the Atonement spell (about willing versus unwilling) had to be quoted multiple times (what, like 10-ish?) before it was even acknowledged by anyone from "the opposition". Props to mcbobbo for being that person, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I'm compelled. You appear to be correct. I'm still of the opinion that it is imbalanced for a first level spell, and it should go on the list for things needing updated, in my opinion.
For what it is worth, I was the one quoting the rules, both of atonement and the various classes losing their abilities.The ONLY oath-violating thing that can be done under compulsion for one of these divine classes that does not auto-trigger a punitive partial stripping of class features is a paladin committing an evil act. A cleric who violates her ethics, a paladin who ceases to be lawful good or violates her code of conduct, or a druid who ceases to revere nature or teaches the druidic language immediately becomes an ex-(class) and requires an atonement to get back class abilities and the ability to gain more levels in that class. This is true even if the character is acting under compulsion.
A druid who wears metal armor or uses a metal shield loses all spellcasting and supernatural abilities for 24 hours, after which it comes back. Atonement will arguably shorten this to however long it takes the druid to get an atonement cast on her.
Again, though, it is a spell specifically designed to get people to do things that will hurt themselves. Lets say that we are all first level. I'm a bard, you're a druid. We both put our highest stat (16) into our casting stat. So you have a +5 save. This is a DC 14 will save. You need a 9 or better to save, giving you a 60% to save outright.
Of course, that only happens if I get the spell off. It is a 5' range, so I can take an AoO or cast defensively. If I cast defensively, I need to make a DC 17 check with my massive +4. Not likely. If I take the AoO, my dex is 14 (my 2nd highest stat), while you, the druid in melee, put your second highest in Str. So you are hitting my 16 AC with your +2 to hit. Of course, you also have your leopard there getting a bit at +6. If any of those hit, it's a concentration check again to avoid losing the spell.
But lets say everything goes perfectly. You miss your attack (65%), your leopard misses too (45%), and you fail your will save (40%). All that had an 11.7% chance of happening. It's higher because of the chance that your AoOs hit and I made my conc. check, but not much higher (with average damage it is a DC 15 check), so let's say roughly 15% chance that this spell goes off. Thats an 85% chance I wasted my turn, one of my spells-per-day, and took damage for the right to do it all. And now I'm right next to your pet for a full attack action.
As levels go up (and your save with them), this tactic grows less and less effective. At 5th level when you will be wild-shaped for nearly any fight it disappears as a tactic completely.
How is that overpowered? A 15% chance to strip most of the most powerful things about your class... except for your pet (I don't have one of those), your 3/4 BAB (same as mine), and your weapon and armor proficiency (better than mine, plus you now have my shield and my hands are empty and we are in melee range...
4) The druid must be able to use your shield: If the druid is wild shaped into a form that can't hold or use the shield the spell fails.Actually, no.
The spells causes the target to voluntarily try to wear, equip, etc, the item. So if that requires the druid to shift back to human form first, he will, and then if there is still enough time in the spell duration, he will take the item and attempt to use it appropriately.
Again, not quite.
If the target is physically unable to accept the object, the spell fails.
A bear is physically unable to accept a shield (as is anything without opposable thumbs. The spell fails before the target has a chance to shift back.
Oh, I am not disputing that result. I have been saying that since the first page of posts. I am just saying that the target does not realize it is a BAD THING because they will voluntarily use it.Not quite. You aren't convincing them that the item is good. You are enticing them to use the item despite its negative repercussions. The wording of the spell doesn't dictate the exact nature of the target's reaction to the item. Because of this, and since it is a compulsion, I would treat it as any other compulsion effect. Which is to say, it strips class abilities just as much as if it were done willingly, because that is what the rules say.Another problem that people seem to have trouble dealing with is that Beguiling Gift is not really compulsion. The spell is tricking the target into thinking that what you are giving them is beneficial to them. The druid is not standing there thinking, "I am being given a metal shield. I must not equip it but I can't stop myself." The druid is standing there thinking, "Oh what I nice wooden shield this person is giving me. I must try it out right now!" If the spell succeeds, the druid does not even know the shield is metal, but only knows it is whatever the caster says it is.Acting under magical compulsion isn't voluntary. Otherwise why would it necessitate a saving throw?
But they would have willingly violated the oath. That's what the spell does. The subject voluntarily drinks/dons item.
That's not what the spell says. The spell says the target tries to wear it. It never gives a value judgement to the target. The target has no choice in whether he puts it on or not. He is compelled to put it on, regardless of his thoughts otherwise. If the purpose were to trick the target into thinking it were beneficial and have him voluntarily put it on, it would be an illusion spell. It's a compulsion spell. It compels.
|
|
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.
The spell last 1 round, he would only have dropped his wooden shield and removed his helm.
|
|
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?
A buckler or a small shield allow you to keep a weapon in the shield hand.
The buckler even allow you to use it.
Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so.
Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield's weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.
The spell last 1 round, he would only have dropped his wooden shield and removed his helm.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.
The spell duration is one round, this is true. During that particular round you give the item to the person. Then on their next turn, they try to put the item on or consume the item. They still try to put it on, no matter how long it takes.
The spell specifically says the victim must dawn the item properly. A shield does not need to be actively used to be effective, as it is counted with you flat footed AC. With this, if the druid is attacked while the shield is dawned, they will also be using the shield and the negative effects will ensue.