I am seeing two kinds of Judge responses to this – which seem to fall into the “Two Schools of RPG Gaming.”
School 1: RPG’s are games that pit the skill and wit of the player against the System and/or DM.
School 2: RPG’s are games in which the players (the DM being one) have adventures.I’m in School 2, which is why I show my gimmicks to Judges (a DM being the final authority in the Campaign, a Judge being the person running the nights game). I may never use them in the game – I “use” them each time I show them to someone. I’m playing the game with the Judge.
Some Judges (and lots of players) are in School 1. When I show them a cute trick they try to counter it – often saying it will not work for this or that reason (or “not in my game!”). They are playing against me.
I try to avoid the School 1 types – both Judges and players (Lots more players. IMO School 1 types don’t often make good Judges.)
This is not to say that a School 2 Judge will let something slide – good ones don’t. But if we are “talking shop” they will often say – “that might not work because of X” and might add “but if you did Y also…”
Wonderful explanation.
It has only a small problem.
I read your position as school 1 "I am out there to outfox the GM and beat the system".What irritate a lot op people in this thread is that doing this gimmick to a druid don't help in telling an adventure, it help is shutting it down.
"Oh guys the adventure should have been one of a epic battle against a guy capable to change form and use spells. It has become the tale of a encounter with a failed brigand in leather armour."
A love for gimmicks generally is the sign of a player or GM of the first school, not one of the second school.
And what's stopping the same thing happening to a bad ass antipaladin who just got his weapon disarmed or even worse, his weapon and armor sundered and destroyed. Just because an action is somewhat super-effective, it shouldn't make the gm have to overrule it, but instead offer friendly praise for thinking quick on your feet.
The same scenario could be applied to a fireball vs an ice subtype creature which takes +50% extra fire damage and so on.
|
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.
No, Enevhar. "If the target is physically unable to accept the object, the spell fails."
Unless the druid is wild shaped as a chimpanzee or a gorilla he is unable to accept the gift when it is offered and the spell fail.No hands -> the druid can't take the item -> spell fail
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.
What you are describing is a Suggestion spell.
The spell say "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."
You take the "entice" part and say: "It is not a compulsion".
almost every other guy ere see: "he drop whatever he has in hand (weapon, wand, ecc.) to take the item and immediately don or consume it and say "forced act".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am seeing two kinds of Judge responses to this – which seem to fall into the “Two Schools of RPG Gaming.”
School 1: RPG’s are games that pit the skill and wit of the player against the System and/or DM.
School 2: RPG’s are games in which the players (the DM being one) have adventures.I’m in School 2, which is why I show my gimmicks to Judges (a DM being the final authority in the Campaign, a Judge being the person running the nights game). I may never use them in the game – I “use” them each time I show them to someone. I’m playing the game with the Judge.
Some Judges (and lots of players) are in School 1. When I show them a cute trick they try to counter it – often saying it will not work for this or that reason (or “not in my game!”). They are playing against me.
I try to avoid the School 1 types – both Judges and players (Lots more players. IMO School 1 types don’t often make good Judges.)
This is not to say that a School 2 Judge will let something slide – good ones don’t. But if we are “talking shop” they will often say – “that might not work because of X” and might add “but if you did Y also…”
Wonderful explanation.
It has only a small problem.
I read your position as school 1 "I am out there to outfox the GM and beat the system".What irritate a lot op people in this thread is that doing this gimmick to a druid don't help in telling an adventure, it help is shutting it down.
"Oh guys the adventure should have been one of a epic battle against a guy capable to change form and use spells. It has become the tale of a encounter with a failed brigand in leather armour."
A love for gimmicks generally is the sign of a player or GM of the first school, not one of the second school.
Why!? Why does this have to be the end of an epic adventure? Quick, name an epic. What'd you come up with? Was it The Odyssey? I'm gonna bet it was. You know what made Odysseus so powerful? His trickery. No way could he have beaten the cyclops by brute force. So he tricked it. How did he avoid the sirens? Trickery. Knowledge of his enemy and exploitation of their weakness.
How did Perseus defeat the medusa? Trickery. He learned her strengths and weaknesses and exploited them. How did he later defeat Phineus? Trickery again.
Trickery, knowing your opponents weaknesses, and using them to your advantage aren't "cheating" nor are they "anti-heroic" or "anti-narrative." They can be all of those things. But they can also be heroic and lend themselves fantastically to epic narrative.
If it isn't YOUR style of play, that's fine. But don't disparage it as anti-storytelling play just because you don't want it at your table. It is possible to tell a cooperative story while also pushing the other players at the table to stretch beyond what they are comfortable or thought themselves capable of. (In fact, an argument could be made that that is actually a really good way of telling a story). An adversarial relationship does not mean that two people are adversaries. Just that they are pushing each other to do better.
|
|
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.
Why you guys use the AoO as a balance factor?
The spell is not meant to be used in combat. It is used before combat or instead of combat.It is like saying that Charm Person is weak as the target get a +5 is threatened or attacked by you or your party.
To return to the snow White example, the Witch wasn't trotting Snow White trying to push the apple in her mouth and the bard in the Op example isn't fighting the druid. Instead he is tricking him into losing his powers before a possible confrontation.
|
|
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 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.
Wrong. Read the spell.
"If the target fails its Will save, it immediately takes the offered object, dropping an already held object if necessary." that is the moment you cast the spell.
"On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question. .... 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." i.e. at the end of the 1 round duration the target has no compulsion in using the item.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Why you guys use the AoO as a balance factor?
The spell is not meant to be used in combat. It is used before combat or instead of combat.It is like saying that Charm Person is weak as the target get a +5 is threatened or attacked by you or your party.
To return to the snow White example, the Witch wasn't trotting Snow White trying to push the apple in her mouth and the bard in the Op example isn't fighting the druid. Instead he is tricking him into losing his powers before a possible confrontation.
Then the druid deserves everything that is coming to him, because this honey-tongued bard is playing his part as close to perfectly as he possibly could. I love the idea of a druid confronting the adventuring party, but the slick bard steps forward and launches into a speech. He placates the druid's fears with sweet words, inching ever closer.
As he approaches, launching into a perform (oratory) fascination performance, he even strips off his rapier and lies it on the ground. He takes his helm from his head and places it a few steps closer. He throws an arm around the druid's shoulder, and tells him that they are on the same side, actually. Why should they not fight together. He uses his ability to disguise casting in a performance to begin casting beguiling gift.
"My new friend," he says, "as a token of my good will, I beseech you accept this aegis. May it serve to protect you and your forest as truly as it has kept me alive to fight this grand crusade of ours." He slips his gleaming steel shield from his back and offers it to the druid, who fails his will save.
The druid reaches out with trembling hand, fighting against the compulsion, but losing, and closes his fingers around the cool rim of the shield. With a grimace he slips his arm through the straps and can only whisper, "flee my loyal friend. Warn the council." As the adventuring party sets upon him, the flight of an eagle which had been perched on a branch nearby passes unnoticed.
How is this not an awesome story moment and a crowning moment of awesome for the bard? (will save to resist linking TV Tropes successful!)
|
|
Why!? Why does this have to be the end of an epic adventure? Quick, name an epic. What'd you come up with? Was it The Odyssey? I'm gonna bet it was. You know what made Odysseus so powerful? His trickery. No way could he have beaten the cyclops by brute force. So he tricked it. How did he avoid the sirens? Trickery. Knowledge of his enemy and exploitation of their weakness.
How did Perseus defeat the medusa? Trickery. He learned her strengths and weaknesses and exploited them. How did he later defeat Phineus? Trickery again.
Trickery, knowing your opponents weaknesses, and using them to your advantage aren't "cheating" nor are they "anti-heroic" or "anti-narrative." They can be all of those things. But they can also be heroic and lend themselves fantastically to epic narrative.
If it isn't YOUR style of play, that's fine. But don't disparage it as anti-storytelling play just because you don't want it at your table. It is possible to tell a cooperative story while also pushing the other players at the table to stretch beyond what they are comfortable or thought themselves capable of. (In fact, an argument could be made that that is actually a really good way of telling a story). An adversarial relationship does not mean that two people are adversaries. Just that they are pushing each other to do better.
Because in your example the opposition was tailored to be overwhelming and beatable only through trickery.
In a D&D adventure the opposition is tailored and balanced to be beatable by the party.
Remove 50% of the strength of the opposition and a grand tale of conflict become the tale of a encounter with a stupid guy.
Nice for a joke once. Not epic at all.
And what's stopping the same thing happening to a bad ass antipaladin who just got his weapon disarmed or even worse, his weapon and armor sundered and destroyed. Just because an action is somewhat super-effective, it shouldn't make the gm have to overrule it, but instead offer friendly praise for thinking quick on your feet.
The same scenario could be applied to a fireball vs an ice subtype creature which takes +50% extra fire damage and so on.
Same argument as above.
Sundering the weapon of the anti paladin is part of the epic tale. Same thing for the creature with the ice subtype.
Those possibilities are included in the encounter balance.
A compulsion that force the antipaladin to give a penny to a child so that he will lose all his powers will break most encounters.
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.
You have provided neither evidence nor reason that this spell is imbalanced in the slightest.
Why!? Why does this have to be the end of an epic adventure? Quick, name an epic. What'd you come up with? Was it The Odyssey? I'm gonna bet it was. You know what made Odysseus so powerful? His trickery. No way could he have beaten the cyclops by brute force. So he tricked it. How did he avoid the sirens? Trickery. Knowledge of his enemy and exploitation of their weakness.
How did Perseus defeat the medusa? Trickery. He learned her strengths and weaknesses and exploited them. How did he later defeat Phineus? Trickery again.
Trickery, knowing your opponents weaknesses, and using them to your advantage aren't "cheating" nor are they "anti-heroic" or "anti-narrative." They can be all of those things. But they can also be heroic and lend themselves fantastically to epic narrative.
If it isn't YOUR style of play, that's fine. But don't disparage it as anti-storytelling play just because you don't want it at your table. It is possible to tell a cooperative story while also pushing the other players at the table to stretch beyond what they are comfortable or thought themselves capable of. (In fact, an argument could be made that that is actually a really good way of telling a story). An adversarial relationship does not mean that two people are adversaries. Just that they are pushing each other to do better.
Because in your example the opposition was tailored to be overwhelming and beatable only through trickery.
In a D&D adventure the opposition is tailored and balanced to be beatable by the party.
Remove 50% of the strength of the opposition and a grand tale of conflict become the tale of a encounter with a stupid guy.
Nice for a joke once. Not epic at all.
So do you also ban the witch's slumber hex, or the sleep spell, because those turn an epic encounter into an encounter with a narcoleptic. Confusion turns an epic encounter into an encounter with a disorganized, self-destructive mob. Cause fear turns it into one with a bunch of cowards. Charm person turns it into a pow-wow between friends. Blur makes it one against a sharpshooter who can't aim his bow. Phantasmal (X) turns it into one against a guy who hears voices. You see where I am going with this, right?
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
...
So, a PC/NPC carrying a sword is wielding it? I think not. 'Wearing' armor in game terms is the willful donning and use of said armor.
My statement is far from ridiculous in comparison to the subject at hand.
Now then, going by RAW and using the RAW terms 'wielding' a weapon, 'wearing' armor, and 'using' a shield as the descriptors for equipping these types of equipment to benefit from its functionality, when the Druid wakes up, he's not in violation of anything. He removes the armor and goes on with his day.
Also, why is it, with all the comments about 'It's not in the RAW', has the word 'oath' suddenly popped up? Where in the RAW does it say oath? It's not an oath, by RAW, that I can see, anyway.
|
|
Then the druid deserves everything that is coming to him, because this honey-tongued bard is playing his part as close to perfectly as he possibly could. I love the idea of a druid confronting the adventuring party, but the slick bard steps forward and launches into a speech. He placates the druid's fears with sweet words, inching ever closer.As he approaches, launching into a perform (oratory) fascination performance, he even strips off his rapier and lies it on the ground. He takes his helm from his head and places it a few steps closer. He throws an arm around the druid's shoulder, and tells him that they are on the same side, actually. Why should they not fight together. He uses his ability to disguise casting in a performance to begin casting beguiling gift.
"My new friend," he says, "as a token of my good will, I beseech you accept this aegis. May it serve to protect you and your forest as truly as it has kept me alive to fight this grand crusade of ours." He slips his gleaming steel shield from his back and offers it to the druid, who fails his will save.
The druid reaches out with trembling hand, fighting against the compulsion, but losing, and closes his fingers around the cool rim of the shield. With a grimace he slips his arm through the straps and can only whisper, "flee my loyal friend. Warn the council." As...
If he is capable of recounting the event that way it can be epic.
But mostly it will be.Druid "Trspassers, you are despoiling the forest!".
Bard player: "I go near the druid, cast Beguiling gift and hand him a metal shield"
Then the druid deserves everything that is coming to him, because this honey-tongued bard is playing his part as close to perfectly as he possibly could. I love the idea of a druid confronting the adventuring party, but the slick bard steps forward and launches into a speech. He placates the druid's fears with sweet words, inching ever closer.As he approaches, launching into a perform (oratory) fascination performance, he even strips off his rapier and lies it on the ground. He takes his helm from his head and places it a few steps closer. He throws an arm around the druid's shoulder, and tells him that they are on the same side, actually. Why should they not fight together. He uses his ability to disguise casting in a performance to begin casting beguiling gift.
"My new friend," he says, "as a token of my good will, I beseech you accept this aegis. May it serve to protect you and your forest as truly as it has kept me alive to fight this grand crusade of ours." He slips his gleaming steel shield from his back and offers it to the druid, who fails his will save.
The druid reaches out with trembling hand, fighting against the compulsion, but losing, and closes his fingers around the cool rim of the shield. With a grimace he slips his arm through the straps and can only whisper, "flee my loyal friend. Warn the council." As...
If he is capable of recounting the event that way it can be epic.
But mostly it will be.Druid "Trspassers, you are despoiling the forest!".
Bard player: "I go near the druid, cast Beguiling gift and hand him a metal shield"
So you prefer:
DM: The druid says, "Trespassers, you are despoiling the forest!"
Player 1: "Oh yeah, what are you going to do about it?"
Player 2: I charge the druid.
DM: OK, roll initiative.
*players roll and recount numbers.
DM: Player 2, you win, go first.
Player 2: I charge.
DM: Roll to hit.
Player 2: I hit! 15 damage!
DM: OK. Druid hits you back. 23 damage.
Player 2: Oh wow, he hits hard.
DM: Player 3, your turn...
Repeat until dead. Rinse.
One style isn't inherently more "epic" than the other. Anything can be reduced to dull dice rolls and bland narration.
If I pick you up and smash babies to DEATH with you, are you evil?
This is the same issue. I would have to say cute trick, on this one, and it would work as long as the enchantment remained in effect, banning the druid from his spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities, but the second the spell ended he could drop the shield and start using his magic again. It would not require him 24 hours of muttering about dirty bards to get his powers back. Treat it like spell failure. I don't believe the intent of the spell (The RAI if you will) is to negate the class features of any particular class for more than a few minutes.
This screws wizards, sorcerers, bards, monks, magi, witches, and rogues. Let it do so for the spells duration.
Magical compulsions are not choices, and since you are not choosing to do something, you are absolved of those sins. Intent is paramount. You may have guilt, and flaming, screaming hatred and a lust for vengeance afterward, and psychological issues requiring counseling or a heal spell, but none of that is your fault.
A paladin must be of lawful good
alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies
if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
The key word here is WILLINGLY.
This wouldn't fly at my table, but it would glide for a bit.
The level of the spell is not the issue. It is the action that counts. What if there was greater version of the spell that did the same thing, let's say 8th level. How do you explain the 8th level version working, and the lower level one not working?
Considering some of the arguments going on here, maybe the name of the spell needs to be changed to Compelling Gift or something, since Beguiling means to use trickery or charm and not to force, which is why the spell text says the target will voluntarily use or equip what is given to them rather than saying they are forced to use or equip the item.
If I pick you up and smash babies to DEATH with you, are you evil?This is the same issue. I would have to say cute trick, on this one, and it would work as long as the enchantment remained in effect, banning the druid from his spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities, but the second the spell ended he could drop the shield and start using his magic again. It would not require him 24 hours of muttering about dirty bards to get his powers back. Treat it like spell failure. I don't believe the intent of the spell (The RAI if you will) is to negate the class features of any particular class for more than a few minutes.
This screws wizards, sorcerers, bards, monks, magi, witches, and rogues. Let it do so for the spells duration.
Magical compulsions are not choices, and since you are not choosing to do something, you are absolved of those sins. Intent is paramount. You may have guilt, and flaming, screaming hatred and a lust for vengeance afterward, and psychological issues requiring counseling or a heal spell, but none of that is your fault.
A paladin must be of lawful good
alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies
if she ever willingly commits an evil act.The key word here is WILLINGLY.
This wouldn't fly at my table, but it would glide for a bit.
This seems more like trolling than anything else given how thoroughly this topic has been run into the ground. I don't want to run through the arguments against it again. Suffice to say it's wrong, and even the people who have disagreed with this use of the spell agree to that. Read the whole thread.
Considering some of the arguments going on here, maybe the name of the spell needs to be changed to Compelling Gift or something, since Beguiling means to use trickery or charm and not to force, which is why the spell text says the target will voluntarily use or equip what is given to them rather than saying they are forced to use or equip the item.
Again, you are reading the word willingly where it simply isn't there. Here is 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.
The school is Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind Affecting]
Nowhere does it say "willingly." You are compelling the affected creature to use an item against its will. You are not convincing it the item is good (that would be illusion magic or enchantment (charm)), but compelling them to use it. It is not willing. If it violates one of their unwilling class features, though (those that trigger even on an unwilling act), such as a druid using a metal shield, that trigger still happens.
To reiterate in its own paragraph since I feel like I've told you this repeatedly now.
Beguiling Gift does not cause the target to willingly accept the proffered item and use it because they think the item is beneficial. It compels them to use the item even if they know otherwise.
While I admit certain aspects of this topic have indeed been beaten to death, I think it's worth exploring just what wielding, wearing, and using means in game terms, by RAW, as explained IN THIS POST.
Yeah, I was misremembering the exact text. But the text of the spell does not use compel or force either. It uses entice and this is from dictionary.com:
entice: to lead on by exciting hope or desire
Between that and beguiling in the name of the spell, it sure sounds like you are tricking the target and not forcing the target, regardless of the school the spell belongs to. So whatever the official Paizo ruling may end up being, two cases of trickery versus one of compulsion tells me which way I would rule in my games, with the majority.
So, has this thread gone anywhere but in circles in the hundred posts since I last left it?
Not really. We got the most prominent naysayer to admit that we were right by RAW and RAI, he just still thinks that it is overpowered.
Now we seem to be discussing whether a compulsion spell works via unwilling compulsion or willing trickery... So I guess it has gone somewhere. I'm just not sure where it has gone is a good place.
Oh, right. We are also considering whether or not you are considered to be wearing something if you wake up and someone has put it on you while you were asleep...
While I admit certain aspects of this topic have indeed been beaten to death, I think it's worth exploring just what wielding, wearing, and using means in game terms, by RAW, as explained IN THIS POST.
Are we really discussing what "wear" means?
OK, here is the very first paragraph from the section on armor:
For most, armor is the simplest way to protect oneself in a world of rampant threats and dangers. Many characters can wear only the simplest of armors, and only some can use shields. To wear heavier armor effectively, a character can select the Armor Proficiency feats, but most classes are automatically proficient with the armors that work best for them.
So you need a feat in order to wear armor effectively. If you can't wear it effectively, you take a penalty to your attack rolls equal to the armor's armor check penalty. Same goes for "us[ing] shields."
So, you are wearing armor or using shields any time that you would be taking an armor penalty to your attack rolls without proficiency. If you wake up and someone has put some armor on you without your permission, and you aren't proficient in that armor, you will take a penalty to your attack rolls. Thus, you are wearing it.
And the oaths came from the thread getting side tracked to talk about clerics and paladins losing their power from unwilling acts which violated their oaths (paladins) or ethics (clerics).
EDIT: Edited to remove snipiness.
EDIT 2: Here is another quote:
Nonproficient with Armor Worn: A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he is not proficient takes the armor's (and/or shield's) armor check penalty on attack rolls as well as on all Dex- and Str-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for non-proficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for shields.
Same idea as the last quote. Also, that is your one response. Unless you come up with a better argument than "I wasn't wearing it because I didn't put it on" you are getting ignored as a troll.
So, has this thread gone anywhere but in circles in the hundred posts since I last left it?Not really. We got the most prominent naysayer to admit that we were right by RAW and RAI, he just still thinks that it is overpowered.
Now we seem to be discussing whether a compulsion spell works via unwilling compulsion or willing trickery... So I guess it has gone somewhere. I'm just not sure where it has gone is a good place.
Oh, right. We are also considering whether or not you are considered to be wearing something if you wake up and someone has put it on you while you were asleep...
Yeah you are wearing it, whether it is voluntary or not is another issue. That fact that you did not put it on willing does not change the definition of the word "worn".
This question came up during a game - I pointed out to my Judge that my Bard has the spell Beguiling Gift and that in the future when I was facing a Villainous Druid I entended to "Gift" him my Steel Shield, so that he would loose his spells and abilities for 24 hours. Rather than the comment "cute trick!" that I was expecting to get I was informed that "I wouldn't let that work!" and verbally castigated for suggesting it. At which one of the other players at the table stated that he wouldn't let it work at his table either...
So my question is... what's wrong with this? and why wouldn't it work?
I've read through a lot of this. And it's bloated out so instead of responding to what everyone else has said, I'll just tell you my opinion.
This is a perfectly valid use of the spell. In fact, it seems to be the entire point of the spell. It's no more dickish than giving someone a cursed item with it which is something the spell explicitly says you can do.
Druids have high will saves and it's a level 1 spell that's will negated. If the druid fails the save, that's his problem.
The Dm has the right to not allow it, but if the DM will not allow you to use this spell as intended, you should be able to replace it with another spell, plain and simple.
So, a PC/NPC carrying a sword is wielding it? I think not. 'Wearing' armor in game terms is the willful donning and use of said armor.My statement is far from ridiculous in comparison to the subject at hand.
Didn't we address this back on page 3? Don't try to change the argument to carrying versus wielding a sword, that's a logical fallacy.
Your argument is:
If you can equip a sword without wielding it, you can equip a shield without wielding it.
You can equip a sword without wielding it.
Therefore, you can equip a shield without wielding it.
This is an invalid form of argument, because you are asserting that the same conditions for part A are the same conditions for part B, which is not correct. You cannot "don" a shield without also "using" it. The sword can, it could be in a scabbard, it could be strapped to your back, etc. A shield, however, once strapped to your arm, is being used.
Or, another way of stating it:
You can equip some items without using them.
Shields are items.
Therefore, you can equip shields without using them.
This assumes that equipping all items is the same, when it clearly is not.
(And for the record, you have not yet provided me with any rules evidence that states you can actively choose not to use a shield in combat. Being flat-footed does not count, as it prohibits you from actively employing the shield for that round. However, a character who equips a shield through use of this spell is not flat-footed, and if for some reason they are when the spell is cast, they cease to be as soon as they have acted. This would be the round spent putting on the shield. I'm going to just go ahead and close that loophole for you right now.)
Now then, going by RAW and using the RAW terms 'wielding' a weapon, 'wearing' armor, and 'using' a shield as the descriptors for equipping these types of equipment to benefit from its functionality, when the Druid wakes up, he's not in violation of anything. He removes the armor and goes on with his day.
The druid gets the benefit of the armor whether he consciously decides to wear it or not. Armor bonus applies any time you're wearing the armor, whether you chose to or not. Also, last I checked, it's not any sort of action to "use armor". What verb you are using to describes the act of the armor physically being on your body is not relevant, nor does whether you are "willing" or not matter at all.
The same with a shield. Again, the choice of verb used for the carrying of the shield in routine, prepared fashion is completely meaningless. You have it on, you are "wearing it", you are "using it", you are "equipping it", you are "donning it", you can choose whatever verb you want to describe the action, the end result is the same.
You lose your powers
Willingness means nothing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a rabbi wakes up in the morning with a pork chop in this mouth, he's still tainted.
If a monk took a vow of chastity and woke up "hilt-deep in a 10cp professional", he still broke his vow.
Stop with the whole willingness and/or sleeping silliness. Fanatics and vow-makers and devout folk still count their unwilling transgressions as transgressions. Y'know why? Because if they didn't, they'd be a pack of weak-sauce excuse makers.
Excuses for heresy aren't cool among the devoted.
So, a PC/NPC carrying a sword is wielding it? I think not. 'Wearing' armor in game terms is the willful donning and use of said armor.My statement is far from ridiculous in comparison to the subject at hand.
Didn't we address this back on page 3? Don't try to change the argument to carrying versus wielding a sword, that's a logical fallacy.
Your argument is:
If you can equip a sword without wielding it, you can equip a shield without wielding it.
You can equip a sword without wielding it.
Therefore, you can equip a shield without wielding it.This is an invalid form of argument, because you are asserting that the same conditions for part A are the same conditions for part B, which is not correct. You cannot "don" a shield without also "using" it. The sword can, it could be in a scabbard, it could be strapped to your back, etc. A shield, however, once strapped to your arm, is being used.
Or, another way of stating it:
You can equip some items without using them.
Shields are items.
Therefore, you can equip shields without using them.This assumes that equipping all items is the same, when it clearly is not.
(And for the record, you have not yet provided me with any rules evidence that states you can actively choose not to use a shield in combat. Being flat-footed does not count, as it prohibits you from actively employing the shield for that round. However, a character who equips a shield through use of this spell is not flat-footed, and if for some reason they are when the spell is cast, they cease to be as soon as they have acted. This would be the round spent putting on the shield. I'm going to just go ahead and close that loophole for you right now.)
...
Now then, going by RAW and using the RAW terms 'wielding' a weapon, 'wearing' armor, and 'using' a shield as the descriptors for equipping these types of equipment to benefit from its functionality, when the Druid wakes up, he's not in violation of anything. He removes the armor and goes on
Actually, I'm more interested in learning the intent of the prohibition on Druids and metal armor from the designers much more than I am your take on it. So, unless you're part of the design team, save your effort and condescension for the next guy.
Jamming a helmet on the head of a Druid, thereby stripping him of his spells is patently absurd. As is suiting him up while he's helpless.
The whole Beguiling Gift and shield issue is not even relevant here, since if it is deemed viable, he IS wielding it, so I started a new topic on the subject.
Thanks.
|
Jamming a helmet on the head of a Druid, thereby stripping him of his spells is patently absurd. As is suiting him up while he's helpless.
Unless wearing metal severs the spiritual connection to the primal power the druid draws his abilities from. Which I'm told is what 2E said about druids in metal armor.
Absurd or not, it IS what the rules say. You're welcome to houserule otherwise, and I would certainly love to hear a Paizo rep chime in with their views of the druid's oath myself. But by the rules, this works.
Jamming a helmet on the head of a Druid, thereby stripping him of his spells is patently absurd. As is suiting him up while he's helpless.Unless wearing metal severs the spiritual connection to the primal power the druid draws his abilities from. Which I'm told is what 2E said about druids in metal armor.
Absurd or not, it IS what the rules say. You're welcome to houserule otherwise, and I would certainly love to hear a Paizo rep chime in with their views of the druid's oath myself. But by the rules, this works.
Thus my difficulty accepting this as anything other than something that needs errata.
Shall we start a new topic called "How many ways to get a steel helmet on a soon-to-be-spell-less Druid"?
May as well, eh? Druids are now useless. Thwarted by a simple, metal helm.
|
Wrong. Read the spell.
"If the target fails its Will save, it immediately takes the offered object, dropping an already held object if necessary." that is the moment you cast the spell.
"On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question. .... 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." i.e. at the end of the 1 round duration the target has no compulsion in using the item.
That seems to be the best in-game explanation, for why wooden helmets exist (since helmets, in and of themselves, have never given an AC bonus, and most miniatures go bare-headed).
It's so any druid faced with this spell only wastes 1 round action, and avoids the loss of his powers.
Bard: Here, take this.
Druid: Oh thank you, sonny. Let me take off my wooden helm...
Bard: <snigger>
Druid: Whoah! WTF? What's this you're giving me? What you trying to pull?
Bard: Uh-oh.
Druid: <Flamestrike>
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thinking again about all the thread with a coll mind, probably most of the dislike for the effect on the druid is that the "common" effects of the spell can be achieved trough guile or trickery.
I.e.:
- you can get a person to wear a necklace of strangulation without the need of a spell, it is a piece of jewellery after all;
- you can get a person to drink a spiked or poisoned beer, apparently it is beer;
and so on. With that use the spell make feasible on PC and easier against all characters what can be normally done to NPC with a bluff or diplomacy check.
But, in this scenario we have some giving an item that is evidently harming for the guy that receive it and the target can't do anything if he fail the ST.
Let's change the scenario:
- the bard offer a vial of smoking vitriolic acid. Even someone without any knowledge in alchemy would realize immediately that it is a harmful substance but he is compelled to drink it the same.;
- the bard offer a pot with molten lead. It is a liquid, the target is forced to drink it ....
That seem broken and overpowered. RAW it work, RAI the spell seem to be meant as an enhanced for of trickery, not as an instant death spell.
So at least for me, what seem overpowered is that offering something clearly harmful has the same difficulty as offering something cleverly disguised.
|
|
Wrong. Read the spell.
"If the target fails its Will save, it immediately takes the offered object, dropping an already held object if necessary." that is the moment you cast the spell.
"On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question. .... 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." i.e. at the end of the 1 round duration the target has no compulsion in using the item.That seems to be the best in-game explanation, for why wooden helmets exist (since helmets, in and of themselves, have never given an AC bonus, and most miniatures go bare-headed).
It's so any druid faced with this spell only wastes 1 round action, and avoids the loss of his powers.
Bard: Here, take this.
Druid: Oh thank you, sonny. Let me take off my wooden helm...
Bard: <snigger>
Druid: Whoah! WTF? What's this you're giving me? What you trying to pull?
Bard: Uh-oh.
Druid: <Flamestrike>
It could still work with a shield, it all depend on the kind of shield.
Donning or dropping a shield is a movement action. A character has one standard and one movement action.If the druid use a small shield and has a object in the other hand the trick don't work, if he use a large shield or his other hand is free from the start it work.
Scenario A: druid with a small shield and the other hand holding something
- the spell is cast and the bard offer the shield
- the druid use the only free hand he has, his shield hand (you can hold items while using a small shield)
- on his turn the druid put away the item in his right hand,(movement action)
- pass the metal shield in his free hand (free action)
- remove his wooden shield, possibly dropping it to the ground (movement action)
- end of the spell effect
Scenario B: the druid has a free hand or no shield
- the spell is cast and the bard offer the shield
- the druid accept the shield in his free hand
- on his turn the druid remove his wooden shield if present (movement action)
- the druid don the metal shield (movement action)
Scenario C: the druid has a large shield and something in his right hand.
- the spell is cast and the bard offer the shield
- the druid can't take something with his shield hand as he has a large shield, so he drop the item in the right hand.
- same as scenario B above.
Offering a helm work in a similar way.
If a rabbi wakes up in the morning with a pork chop in this mouth, he's still tainted.
If a monk took a vow of chastity and woke up "hilt-deep in a 10cp professional", he still broke his vow.
Stop with the whole willingness and/or sleeping silliness. Fanatics and vow-makers and devout folk still count their unwilling transgressions as transgressions. Y'know why? Because if they didn't, they'd be a pack of weak-sauce excuse makers.
Excuses for heresy aren't cool among the devoted.
If someone forced pork down the rabbi's throat, than he didn't eat pork. (Also, interesting sidebar: in the Jewish faith, if you're faced with the choice between dying, and eating something that's not kosher, you're actually required to break the dietary taboo. The preservation of life is paramount.)
If the monk wakes up 'hilt deep' and didn't want to be there, he was just raped. That is, by definition, not his fault.
If they deliberately used an intoxicating substance, and decided to break the taboo while under the influence, then it's probably their fault. If someone made them helpless and forced it on them, as you describe, though, they've committed no heresy. Heresy was committed upon them. They should feel disgusted by what happened, and will presumably want a purification ritual in any case, but they are not to blame.
That's not to say it can't disrupt powers, necessarily. The monk who swore off sex and drugs and pork doubtlessly loses focus having taken in those impurities, and needs an Atonement, or at least time to meditate peacefully before he can regain himself.
In the instance of the druid, the aversion to metal seems to reflect that metal is the ultimate symbol of civilization, and that making armor and shields requires gouging open the flesh of the earth, tearing out its bones, and warping them to fit Man's designs. To bear such an item is to disrupt one's ability to be in tune with the thrum of the Nature, a taint that may linger long after relinquishing it. (Does raise the question of why Druids are fine with using metal weapons, but I digress.) The same could be said for counter-alignment/counter-doctrine actions on the parts of clerics and paladin.
What the atonement spell does in this interpretation of the flavor is to remove a metaphysical stain on the person's aura. Where the act was unwilling, forced on them by magic or trickery, the taint has more difficulty taking metaphysical root, and so it is far easier to expunge, hence the ease of casting the spell in such cases, and the considerable difficulty of using it for knowing and willing acts.
On the whole, I'm fine with the mechanics as they stand. Might add the clause that the Druid could regain spellcasting early via an atonement spell, though.
|
|
BTW, one thing I haven't seen mentioned yet... this is easily thwarted by Spellcraft.
That is; Mr. Druid thinks to himself, 'Gee, this Bard is taking an awfully long time casting that spell. I wonder what it is.'
So he takes his attack of opportunity on the Bard (no action) and then rolls Spellcraft (no action) and discovers that it is 'Beguiling Gift'... and the Bard is holding a METAL shield!
'Oh no! I'm doomed! I cannot possibly escape this... my ridiculously high will save will be no use whatsoever. Whatever shall I do?'
At which point he then takes his normal attack (standard action) and then casually walks away (move action).
At which point the Bard completes his spell and finds that the Druid is now outside its 5' range and thus cannot be targeted.
|
|
BTW, one thing I haven't seen mentioned yet... this is easily thwarted by Spellcraft.
That is; Mr. Druid thinks to himself, 'Gee, this Bard is taking an awfully long time casting that spell. I wonder what it is.'
So he takes his attack of opportunity on the Bard (no action) and then rolls Spellcraft (no action) and discovers that it is 'Beguiling Gift'... and the Bard is holding a METAL shield!
'Oh no! I'm doomed! I cannot possibly escape this... my ridiculously high will save will be no use whatsoever. Whatever shall I do?'
At which point he then takes his normal attack (standard action) and then casually walks away (move action).
At which point the Bard completes his spell and finds that the Druid is now outside its 5' range and thus cannot be targeted.
Casting Time 1 standard action
The Duration of the spell is 1 round.
May as well, eh? Druids are now useless. Thwarted by a simple, metal helm.
This is somewhat off-topic, since it's from a different edition, but the druid had the same restrictions, so...
Psionicists couldn't use their abilities while wearing helms... and my GM at the time immediately pounced on this as a way to neuter Psionics. No one ever played one again, after encountering the "cursed skullcaps" that stripped ALL of a character's abilities away. It was effectively the same as handcuffing the character.
Fortunately, Psionics weren't core, and were kind of horrible anyway, so no one missed them. The Druid that this happens to at least still gets their pet and all of their EX abilities... and knows that it just takes a day to get better from being contaminated with civilization.
The spell last 1 round, he would only have dropped his wooden shield and removed his helm.
You know what? If I can use a 1st level spell, and get the Big Beefy Fighter to do that (or drop his greatsword for a quarterstaff)... I'm okay with that. The idea of the suit of armor was aiming more toward the meatshield than the Druid.
Yes, because it's sooooo easy to get that simple metal helm on to the druid.
Who can cast spells.
And has an animal companion.
And three to five OTHER companions.
+1 on that.
Beyond that...
As an example, there's a druid in a game I'm running right now. He literally has not ever been in a form that can wear a simple metal helm since something like 7th level.
Someone over in the other thread found a Sean Reynolds quote that addresses "worn" vs. "used" items
Yes. Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient. Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits.
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.
Likewise, while you can give a shield the defending property (after you've given it a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks, of course), you wouldn't get the AC bonus from the defending property unless you used the shield to make a shield bash that round--unless you're using the shield as a weapon (to make a shield bash), the defending weapon property has no effect.
SKR
The bolded line regarding the shield details what's required to "use" a shield.
Bard: *casting Beguiling Gift* Here, use this shield.
Druid: *failing Will Save* Ooh, Shiny!
Druid: *Puts on shield, strikes a pose.*
Druid: *At the beginning of the Bard's next turn* Oh crap.
Bard: *Runs*
Remember, the duration of the spell lasts until the beginning of the Bard's next turn.
Thus my difficulty accepting this as anything other than something that needs errata.Jamming a helmet on the head of a Druid, thereby stripping him of his spells is patently absurd. As is suiting him up while he's helpless.Unless wearing metal severs the spiritual connection to the primal power the druid draws his abilities from. Which I'm told is what 2E said about druids in metal armor.
Absurd or not, it IS what the rules say. You're welcome to houserule otherwise, and I would certainly love to hear a Paizo rep chime in with their views of the druid's oath myself. But by the rules, this works.
Unless you mean errata the Druid, you are wrong.
|
|
Thinking again about all the thread with a cool mind, probably most of the dislike for the effect on the druid is that the "common" effects of the spell can be achieved trough guile or trickery.
I.e.:
- you can get a person to wear a necklace of strangulation without the need of a spell, it is a piece of jewellery after all;
- you can get a person to drink a spiked or poisoned beer, apparently it is beer;
and so on. With that use the spell make feasible on PC and easier against all characters what can be normally done to NPC with a bluff or diplomacy check.But, in this scenario we have some giving an item that is evidently harming for the guy that receive it and the target can't do anything if he fail the ST.
Let's change the scenario:
- the bard offer a vial of smoking vitriolic acid. Even someone without any knowledge in alchemy would realize immediately that it is a harmful substance but he is compelled to drink it the same.;
- the bard offer a pot with molten lead. It is a liquid, the target is forced to drink it ....That seem broken and overpowered. RAW it work, RAI the spell seem to be meant as an enhanced for of trickery, not as an instant death spell.
So at least for me, what seem overpowered is that offering something clearly harmful has the same difficulty as offering something cleverly disguised.
Yes; that's the big problem.
We're not talking about 'Come here, dearie, have this nice juicy apple (with a sleeping hex in it).', or 'How'd you like a tall jug of cold beer (with poison in it)?'.
It's 'Here, grab this glowing uranium rod, and stick it up your fundament.', or 'Try our new mouthwash, Toxic Waste flavor!'.
There should be a re-roll, or a save bonus, or just flat-out fail, for items that are so blatantly deadly or debilitating.
Especially when the effect is compared to higher level spells.
You influence the actions of the target creature by suggesting a course of activity (limited to a sentence or two). The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable. Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell.
A very reasonable suggestion causes the save to be made with a penalty (such as -1 or -2).
Most times I've seen suggestion used, it's to trick someone into drinking a poison, accepting a cursed item, pulling a lever that drops rocks on the target's head, or some equally short-term task, that will take them out of action before their allies can slap some sense into them, or dispel the effect.
In the case of harmful actions, the caster has to take care to disguise them as neutral or beneficial, so as not to utterly negate the effect.Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out. Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is unlimited, as long as you and the subject are on the same plane. You need not see the subject to control it.
Yeah; if you force a dominated creature to do something against its nature, it gets that new saving throw. If it makes that saving throw, it throws off the ENTIRE dominate effect and gets to go back to doing what they want.
As for what constitutes "against its nature," that varies from creature to creature. For a PC, I would say that forcing a PC to attack another PC would normally be against a PC's nature and would allow a new saving throw (unless, of course, that PC has already displayed a propensity for attacking other PCs). For most monsters, it would depend. A lot of monsters are just violent anyway and attacking others of their kind is normal. It's left vague deliberately so each time it comes up, the GM gets to interpret it as needed for the specific target in question. (emphasis mine)
Why should a 1st-level spell be able to do what 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th-level spells cannot?
First rule of spell design; compare the spell to others from the same school.So, yes, at the very least I would certainly give the target a bonus to it's save, if the caster of Beguiling Gift doesn't even attempt to disguise the object as something that is not harmful, or complete anathema to the target's entire worldview.
I'm all for rewarding clever solutions, but the player has to at least make a token effort to meet his target's mindset halfway.
"Ooh! A razor-blade baguette? For me? Oh, you're too kind!"
<om-nom-nom>
Unless you mean errata the Druid, you are wrong.Thus my difficulty accepting this as anything other than something that needs errata.Jamming a helmet on the head of a Druid, thereby stripping him of his spells is patently absurd. As is suiting him up while he's helpless.Unless wearing metal severs the spiritual connection to the primal power the druid draws his abilities from. Which I'm told is what 2E said about druids in metal armor.
Absurd or not, it IS what the rules say. You're welcome to houserule otherwise, and I would certainly love to hear a Paizo rep chime in with their views of the druid's oath myself. But by the rules, this works.
That's exactly what I mean.
|
|
Thus my difficulty accepting this as anything other than something that needs errata.
Unless you mean errata the Druid, you are wrong.
I disagree that the spell doesn't need reworking (see above 'why should a 1st level spell do what a 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th level spell from the same school can't?'), but that doesn't also mean that the Druid's code isn't also ridiculous and unworkable.
One word would clear up much of the mess; all other divine classes state that it takes a willing breaking of the vows to sever the character from their powers.
Even without this spell, the fact that someone could simply slip a dagger into their pocket, so they lose their powers when they look for spare change, means there wouldn't be any druids in any game world.
And the blanket ban on metal weapons, while allowing weapons made of metal, just opens up gaps in logic that make my head spin.
Invited to the Mayor's banquet? Forget about knowing which fork to use. Don't dare use any of the cutlery, at all!
If folks get angry that you're spurning the host's hospitality by not using the butterknife, you can fight them off...with your scimitar!
Given feats such as Throw Anything, any object could conceivably be described as a weapon. That copper coin could be used as a shuriken, someone could walk into that doorknob and get a nasty bruise.
Druids should be repulsed by all metal, not just some.
Destroy them! Destroy all metal objects! Kill the miners! Free the precious ore! Smash the forges! Cut off the hands of the smiths! March on the Royal Mint! Burn down the banks! KIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHH!11!!!!!!!!!11!11!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Even without this spell, the fact that someone could simply slip a dagger into their pocket, so they lose their powers when they look for spare change, means there wouldn't be any druids in any game world.
And the blanket ban on metal weapons, while allowing weapons made of metal, just opens up gaps in logic that make my head spin.
Invited to the Mayor's banquet? Forget about knowing which fork to use. Don't dare use any of the cutlery, at all!
If folks get angry that you're spurning the host's hospitality by not using the butterknife, you can fight them off...with your scimitar!
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Druids are proficient with the following weapons: club, dagger, dart, quarterstaff, scimitar, scythe, sickle, shortspear, sling, and spear. They are also proficient with all natural attacks (claw, bite, and so forth) of any form they assume with wild shape (see below).Druids are proficient with light and medium armor but are prohibited from wearing metal armor; thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor. A druid may also wear wooden armor that has been altered by the ironwood spell so that it functions as though it were steel. Druids are proficient with shields (except tower shields) but must use only those crafted from wood.
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.
There's nothing in here about Druids being prohibited weapons. The Scimtar is a specifically metal weapon, and it's on their proficiency list.
There's nothing saying that a Druid can't take the Weapon Proficiency feat, to be able to use Greatswords, Muskets, Phase Plasma Rifles, or Soup Spoons. There's NO restrictions there.
The only restrictions are on Armor and Shields.
Thinking again about all the thread with a cool mind, probably most of the dislike for the effect on the druid is that the "common" effects of the spell can be achieved trough guile or trickery.
I.e.:
- you can get a person to wear a necklace of strangulation without the need of a spell, it is a piece of jewellery after all;
- you can get a person to drink a spiked or poisoned beer, apparently it is beer;
and so on. With that use the spell make feasible on PC and easier against all characters what can be normally done to NPC with a bluff or diplomacy check.But, in this scenario we have some giving an item that is evidently harming for the guy that receive it and the target can't do anything if he fail the ST.
Let's change the scenario:
- the bard offer a vial of smoking vitriolic acid. Even someone without any knowledge in alchemy would realize immediately that it is a harmful substance but he is compelled to drink it the same.;
- the bard offer a pot with molten lead. It is a liquid, the target is forced to drink it ....That seem broken and overpowered. RAW it work, RAI the spell seem to be meant as an enhanced for of trickery, not as an instant death spell.
So at least for me, what seem overpowered is that offering something clearly harmful has the same difficulty as offering something cleverly disguised.
Yes; that's the big problem.
We're not talking about 'Come here, dearie, have this nice juicy apple (with a sleeping hex in it).', or 'How'd you like a tall jug of cold beer (with poison in it)?'.
It's 'Here, grab this glowing uranium rod, and stick it up your fundament.', or 'Try our new mouthwash, Toxic Waste flavor!'.
There should be a re-roll, or a save bonus, or just flat-out fail, for items that are so blatantly deadly or debilitating.
Especially when the effect is compared to higher level spells.You influence the actions of the target creature by suggesting a course of...
Let's just make this simpler for everyone, shall we? I propose the following change to 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.
This spell can only be used to give the target something it wants, can use, or otherwise benefits it and causes no negative effects. Attempting to give the target an object that does not fit these criteria causes the spell to fail immediately.
There, that makes all the complainers happy, right?
Why should a 1st-level spell be able to do what 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th-level spells cannot?
You mean like Charm Person?
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.
I suggest that holding this here Steel Shield would significantly improve the Druid's armor and looks exceedingly stylish. The Druid, being my good friend and I his trusted ally, does exactly what I suggest willingly, thereby disabling himself for 24 hours.
I win.
Cartigan: Don't forget to tell him that you expect to come across magic immune monsters, and it would be far better to have a superior melee combatant then spellcaster for today.