|
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.
I argue this fact. I am unable to find where it says that it takes a "willing breaking" of the vows:
Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).
Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate.
So, the only one that forces the "willful" is the paladin committing and evil action. If some cleric's deity had a Strong taboo against holding dead bodies, you could use this spell to hand them a dead rat and force them to lose their powers.
Or you could hand a paladin a poison for his friend (tell him that it is a healing potion), and once he gives it to his friend, he would have broken the code of conduct (used poison) and thus need an atonement.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
For Beguiling Gift to work the gift offered has to be appealing at some level by it's natue. So yes using Beguiling Gift to offer a poisoned apple is viable because most people like apples. It would not have worked that well if the Evil Queen had offered Beauty a severed head instead. Similarly to a Druid a metal shield is not something innate appealing but appalling. At the very least to pull it off the shield would have to be disguiesed as a wooden or hide shield.
And this is based on...?
|
|
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 ride of.
Emphasis mine.
This clearly indicates that the druid uses the prohibited shield.
The druid loses his abilities because of this.
wow... I can't beleave I set this all off. and it's still going after I said I was "Sorry, I'll never do it again, didn't do it the first time!", but I still think the spell is kind of cute.
...
Crud - it still stings, being called a cheat for suggesting this.
On the contrary, you were quite brilliant to "set this all off". It's a great question, and a fun use of a spell. You should be proud that you found this gem for a many reasons:
That said, I applaud you.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The obvious inspirations for the spell. and that it's called Beguiling Gift, and not Shove Any Gift into Unseeing Hands?For Beguiling Gift to work the gift offered has to be appealing at some level by it's natue. So yes using Beguiling Gift to offer a poisoned apple is viable because most people like apples. It would not have worked that well if the Evil Queen had offered Beauty a severed head instead. Similarly to a Druid a metal shield is not something innate appealing but appalling. At the very least to pull it off the shield would have to be disguiesed as a wooden or hide shield.And this is based on...?
An interesting claim, to know the designers' inspiration. You must know them pretty well.
The evil queen wasn't (that we can tell) using an enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting] spell, and Snow White didn't get a will save.
...
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.
...
You seem to have missed the part where it says you use the item "as appropriate for the item in question." a vial of acid, or a pot of molten lead aren't drinks. They're splash weapons. He's just throw them at you.
You seem to have missed the part where it says you use the item "as appropriate for the item in question." a vial of acid, or a pot of molten lead aren't drinks. They're splash weapons. He's just throw them at you....
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.
...
That is NOT what it says.
On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question
You consume it or wear it. Which would you like to do with the acid or molten lead?
The obvious inspirations for the spell. and that it's called Beguiling Gift, and not Shove Any Gift into Unseeing Hands?For Beguiling Gift to work the gift offered has to be appealing at some level by it's natue. So yes using Beguiling Gift to offer a poisoned apple is viable because most people like apples. It would not have worked that well if the Evil Queen had offered Beauty a severed head instead. Similarly to a Druid a metal shield is not something innate appealing but appalling. At the very least to pull it off the shield would have to be disguiesed as a wooden or hide shield.And this is based on...?
An interesting claim, to know the designers' inspiration. You must know them pretty well.
The evil queen wasn't (that we can tell) using an enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting] spell, and Snow White didn't get a will save.
What does a Will save look like? Are you expecting WOW-like particle effects in Disney movies now, to highlight the use of magic? Or, perhaps are you thinking it's IRL illegal or evil to create spells inspired by events in movies or stories, and all spells have to be a copy & paste of such things?
This is the dumbest argument ever.
You seem to have missed the part where it says you use the item "as appropriate for the item in question." a vial of acid, or a pot of molten lead aren't drinks. They're splash weapons. He's just throw them at you.
I cast beguilding gift, and hand someone a mug of green liquid and say "How about a refreshing beverage?"
Guess what they do...
They drink the acid.
Now, if it were a vial of acid, which was labeled "acid", or looked like a laboratory vial of some sort, nobody would drink it via this spell, because they'd use it appropriately... probably by putting it away for safe keeping, or scrubbing the calcium deposits off their favorite rock.
You consume it or wear it. Which would you like to do with the acid or molten lead?
Let's look at the whole spell text instead of picking and choosing the parts we like, why don't we.
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 target is compelled to use the item as appropriate. If you really were compelled to "wear or consume" the item as you suggest, you wouldn't wield the sword, you would try to eat it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
What does a Will save look like? Are you expecting WOW-like particle effects in Disney movies now, to highlight the use of magic? Or, perhaps are you thinking it's IRL illegal or evil to create spells inspired by events in movies or stories, and all spells have to be a copy & paste of such things?
This is the dumbest argument ever.
Overreaction much? First, if you've ever watched a Disney movie that involved magic, there ARE lots of sparkly lights.
But more to the point, I was merely noting that he was comparing a mind-affecting compulsion to a mere trick, and claiming to know the designers' thoughts in the process.
I take offense to you making up a stance for me ("Or, perhaps are you thinking it's IRL illegal or evil to create spells inspired by events in movies or stories, and all spells have to be a copy & paste of such things?") and judging my argument based on your words rather than mine.
I cast beguilding gift, and hand someone a mug of green liquid and say "How about a refreshing beverage?"
Guess what they do...
They drink the acid.Now, if it were a vial of acid, which was labeled "acid", or looked like a laboratory vial of some sort, nobody would drink it via this spell, because they'd use it appropriately... probably by putting it away for safe keeping, or scrubbing the calcium deposits off their favorite rock.
It doesn't matter what the character thinks it is, it matters what the item actually is. It's magic so it works on the game's mechanics. You try to wield a sword, even if it's disguised as a baguette, you try to use a splash weapon even if it's disguised as a drink, you try to wear mittens even if they are magically disguised as living kittens, you try to use the holy avenger even if you're evil and it's disguised as a pile of gold somehow.
Any other interpretation gives the spell power it's not supposed to have.
You consume it or wear it. Which would you like to do with the acid or molten lead?Let's look at the whole spell text instead of picking and choosing the parts we like, why don't we.
The target is compelled to use the item as appropriate. If you really were compelled to "wear or consume" the item as you suggest, you wouldn't wield the sword, you would try to eat it.
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.
I'm not sure what english class you failed. Well you or whoever wrote this, but as written, the "as appropriate for the item in question" ONLY applies to consuming or donning an object. Your attempt to apply that to an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SENTENCE, which is itself flavor text, is laughable.
Moreover, use is too generic a term to use here anyway. But, they should use "equip" instead of "don" because "don" means nothing in the game.
Being deceived is not an alignment violation. Failing to act to punish the person responsible may very well be.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.
Huh? I am saying to add this line to eliminate the argument that the druid would see this as a harmful act which would entitle them to another save. I fail to see how alignment violations factor into this?
What does a Will save look like? Are you expecting WOW-like particle effects in Disney movies now, to highlight the use of magic? Or, perhaps are you thinking it's IRL illegal or evil to create spells inspired by events in movies or stories, and all spells have to be a copy & paste of such things?
This is the dumbest argument ever.
Overreaction much? First, if you've ever watched a Disney movie that involved magic, there ARE lots of sparkly lights.
But more to the point, I was merely noting that he was comparing a mind-affecting compulsion to a mere trick, and claiming to know the designers' thoughts in the process.
I take offense to you making up a stance for me ("Or, perhaps are you thinking it's IRL illegal or evil to create spells inspired by events in movies or stories, and all spells have to be a copy & paste of such things?") and judging my argument based on your words rather than mine.
Bait taken.
Now that I have your attention, the point I'd like to make is: in Snow White, we can't claim to know all that went on in the poisoned apple scene. The queen was already enchanted (magical disguise, at the very least), and the audience need not be chained to only what is visibly apparent. We, the audience, are free to interpret the scene as we wish. Claiming that no enchantments were cast, or that no battle of wills occurred, is absurd, because you're taking a spell (game mechanics and all) possibly inspired from a scene, and applying it exactly to a movie.
The Will save is a game mechanic so that magic isn't OP in the game. In most movies and stories, there IS no saving throw; the magic simply works, no resistance allowed. But that's because it's not a game, so fairness doesn't matter.
Splitting hairs as to what happens in a movie scene, and using it to make claims which nobody has the authority to prove anything is, by definition, a dumb argument.
Did the makers of this spell get their inspiration from Snow White? The text suggests it, but doesn't really prove either way. We'll just have to ask the authors. But until then, and despite the truth of the connection, the Poison Apple scene is a splendid example of how the spell would go, and disputing that serves only as a means to remove common ground to argue upon - pulling the rug out of both side of the argument, and alienating those in the the debate. Making nebulous claims which nobody can prove either way and attempting to sabotage the very debate itself? Tsk tsk.
Any other interpretation gives the spell power it's not supposed to have.
Did you write the spell?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't matter what the character thinks it is, it matters what the item actually is. It's magic so it works on the game's mechanics. You try to wield a sword, even if it's disguised as a baguette, you try to use a splash weapon even if it's disguised as a drink, you try to wear mittens even if they are magically disguised as living kittens, you try to use the holy avenger even if you're evil and it's disguised as a pile of gold somehow.
Any other interpretation gives the spell power it's not supposed to have.
See, now this spell is even more awesome.
WombatKiddTheGM: "You happen upon an artifact"
PCs: "How do we use this?"
WombatKiddTheGM: "I guess you'll never know... but I have a nice side advent-"
Bard: "I cast beguiling gift and hand the artifact to the Cleric"
Cleric: "I forego the save, and use the artifact appropriately."
WombatKiddTheGM: "I hate it when you do that..."
gives the spell power it's not supposed to have.
I'm sorry, did you say something?
You consume it or wear it. Which would you like to do with the acid or molten lead?Let's look at the whole spell text instead of picking and choosing the parts we like, why don't we.
The target is compelled to use the item as appropriate. If you really were compelled to "wear or consume" the item as you suggest, you wouldn't wield the sword, you would try to eat it.
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.I'm not sure what english class you failed. Well you or whoever wrote this, but as written, the "as appropriate for the item in question" ONLY applies to consuming or donning an object. Your attempt to apply that to an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SENTENCE, which is itself flavor text, is laughable.
Moreover, use is too generic a term to use here anyway. But, they should use "equip" instead of "don" because "don" means nothing in the game.
Insult my intelligence some more. That really strengthens your argument. [/sarcasm]
Normally I'd point out that while don means nothing in game mechanics, use does. Or that if you took higher level than high school English, you would know that the meaning of one sentence is affected by the other sentences in the paragraph with it. But since you feel the need to resort to attacking me instead of actually putting forth a defending argument, I think I'm done trying to debate with you.
See, now this spell is even more awesome.
WombatKiddTheGM: "You happen upon an artifact"
PCs: "How do we use this?"
WombatKiddTheGM: "I guess you'll never know... but I have a nice side advent-"
Bard: "I cast beguiling gift and hand the artifact to the Cleric"
Cleric: "I forego the save, and use the artifact appropriately."
WombatKiddTheGM: "I hate it when you do that..."gives the spell power it's not supposed to have.I'm sorry, did you say something?
You would use it as appropriate for an artifact. IE: holding it and making the save to try to figure out its use.
I think the important rule to remember in this situation is "anything you can do I can do better". The GM could have said "OK, the Druid is bonkered until he can drop the shield, considering that he did not willfully use a metal item." Perhaps give the dru a Reflex save to not instinctively use the shield to block an attack(which would bonker him permanently), then continue on with the big baddie combat. Then, in the future, he should pull a reversi and burden aforementioned bard with a cursed tower shield :D. Welcome to GM'ing.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Splitting hairs as to what happens in a movie scene, and using it to make claims which nobody has the authority to prove anything is, by definition, a dumb argument.
Something went wrong somewhere between us, because this is what I was trying to say before you started replying to me.
You would use it as appropriate for an artifact. IE: holding it and making the save to try to figure out its use.See, now this spell is even more awesome.
WombatKiddTheGM: "You happen upon an artifact"
PCs: "How do we use this?"
WombatKiddTheGM: "I guess you'll never know... but I have a nice side advent-"
Bard: "I cast beguiling gift and hand the artifact to the Cleric"
Cleric: "I forego the save, and use the artifact appropriately."
WombatKiddTheGM: "I hate it when you do that..."gives the spell power it's not supposed to have.I'm sorry, did you say something?
Touche. I guess it only works as a way to bypass every Illusion spell in existence that can be cast on an object. Yet again, a low level spell nerfs and entire school of magic.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It doesn't matter what the character thinks it is, it matters what the item actually is. It's magic so it works on the game's mechanics. You try to wield a sword, even if it's disguised as a baguette, you try to use a splash weapon even if it's disguised as a drink, you try to wear mittens even if they are magically disguised as living kittens, you try to use the holy avenger even if you're evil and it's disguised as a pile of gold somehow.
Any other interpretation gives the spell power it's not supposed to have.
So you agree that the druid puts the shield on, uses it, and loses his powers. Cool.
Though this is a cool spell now.
*party is playing Expedition to the barrier peaks, finds a blaster rifle.*
"What is it?"
"Well you can experiement with it, I've got this chart..."
"Nah, I'll cast beguiling gift and give it to the cleric."
"I willingly fail my save, and use it."
"You don't even know what it is, or how to use it! I've this chart-"
"Nah, the spell says you use it, no matter what it is."
You consume it or wear it. Which would you like to do with the acid or molten lead?Let's look at the whole spell text instead of picking and choosing the parts we like, why don't we.
The target is compelled to use the item as appropriate. If you really were compelled to "wear or consume" the item as you suggest, you wouldn't wield the sword, you would try to eat it.
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.I'm not sure what english class you failed. Well you or whoever wrote this, but as written, the "as appropriate for the item in question" ONLY applies to consuming or donning an object. Your attempt to apply that to an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SENTENCE, which is itself flavor text, is laughable.
Moreover, use is too generic a term to use here anyway. But, they should use "equip" instead of "don" because "don" means nothing in the game.
Insult my intelligence some more. That really strengthens your argument. [/sarcasm]
Normally I'd point out that while don means nothing in game mechanics, use does.
I would then be forced to point out that "use" is not part of the rules in the spell description.
Or that if you took higher level than high school English, you would know that the meaning of one sentence is affected by the other sentences in the paragraph with it. But since you feel the need to resort...
You explain to me how the phrase modifies the object of an entirely difference sentence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Splitting hairs as to what happens in a movie scene, and using it to make claims which nobody has the authority to prove anything is, by definition, a dumb argument.Something went wrong somewhere between us, because this is what I was trying to say before you started replying to me.
That's cool.
I read you asking about Will saves and whether the queen used magic or not and went "W T Frigg? Duuumb"... I envisioned arguments between kids about what imaginary friends looked like, and similar nonsense.I may have misread your intent in the arg.
Dummest thread ever............ Realy? Realy?!?
You touch some thing and you instantly lose class ablitys.... Dumm...
This hugely dumm point of view. Anyone that take this point of view is nerf herder.
It is not touch. It is use that causes the issue, and that is from the druid class, not the spell. Spell like charm person and suggestion were around before this spell so I don't see the issue. Both spells make you do things you would not otherwise do. Willingness is not factor.
Touche. I guess it only works as a way to bypass every Illusion spell in existence that can be cast on an object. Yet again, a low level spell nerfs and entire school of magic.
Not really. If you or someone in your party cast the illusion, then why are you relying on this spell to give it to the person anyway? You could easily give it to them with this spell without the illusion.
If [you] are aware it's an illusion but someone in your party isn't, then you are just giving them an extra save against it. This is a purpose that would be better served with the bard's distraction ability.
That is, unless you're going to rove through the game world using beguiling gift on every single item you come upon, in which case you're really wasting your level 1 spells on it, and there's other dangers in doing that anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In actuality, this is a useless spell. The Charm line of spells already covers anything that Beguiling Gift could do.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Splitting hairs as to what happens in a movie scene, and using it to make claims which nobody has the authority to prove anything is, by definition, a dumb argument.Something went wrong somewhere between us, because this is what I was trying to say before you started replying to me.That's cool.
I read you asking about Will saves and whether the queen used magic or not and went "W T Frigg? Duuumb"... I envisioned arguments between kids about what imaginary friends looked like, and similar nonsense.
I may have misread your intent in the arg.
Yeah, the post of mine that you first replied to was me responding to someone making a comparison between beguiling gift and Snow White, and then trying to use that as grounds to draw definitive conclusions about the intent of the spell (outside the scope of anything written in actual rules text). Which I *think* you and I are in agreement is kind of ridiculous.
So you agree that the druid puts the shield on, uses it, and loses his powers. Cool.
Though this is a cool spell now.
*party is playing Expedition to the barrier peaks, finds a blaster rifle.*
"What is it?"
"Well you can experiement with it, I've got this chart..."
"Nah, I'll cast beguiling gift and give it to the cleric."
"I willingly fail my save, and use it."
"You don't even know what it is, or how to use it! I've this chart-"
"Nah, the spell says you use it, no matter what it is."
Yes, you get to use it... for one round. You still have no idea how it works. So if you really want to use this ability over and over again to use it every other round in combat, I'd say go with it.
EDIT: upon discussing this with Malignor further, I believe it would only work if the bard casting the spell is aware of its use.
You consume it or wear it. Which would you like to do with the acid or molten lead?Let's look at the whole spell text instead of picking and choosing the parts we like, why don't we.
The target is compelled to use the item as appropriate. If you really were compelled to "wear or consume" the item as you suggest, you wouldn't wield the sword, you would try to eat it.
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.I'm not sure what english class you failed. Well you or whoever wrote this, but as written, the "as appropriate for the item in question" ONLY applies to consuming or donning an object. Your attempt to apply that to an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SENTENCE, which is itself flavor text, is laughable.
Moreover, use is too generic a term to use here anyway. But, they should use "equip" instead of "don" because "don" means nothing in the game.
Insult my intelligence some more. That really strengthens your argument. [/sarcasm]
Normally I'd point out that while don means nothing in game mechanics, use does.
I would then be forced to point out that "use" is not part of the rules in the spell description.
Or that if you took higher level than high school English, you...
Can we dial back the vitriol on this one a little bit?
Cartigan, I'm with you that as appropriate for the item only applies to don or consume, not to use. However, I also think we should read "don" as widely as we possibly can in this situation, because of the examples given, specifically "a sword wielded in a free hand." This is a generic example which can be read broadly as "a [weapon] wielded in a free hand." If you are handed a weapon, you wield it in a free hand (or 2, if it is a two-hander). So if you hand the person a vial of acid and say "drink this drink" with the casting of the spell, then you have actually done two things.
(1) You have cast beguiling gift to get them to accept and use the item.
(2) You have made a bluff check to convince them that the acid is a drink.
Nowhere in the spell does it say that you get to dictate the terms of their use. Only that they use it as appropriate. So if you want them to drink the acid or molten lead, you must convince them it is a drink. Otherwise, they don (read: "equip") the item and "wield" it. They do this by throwing it in your face.
Which actually opens up the interesting interpretation that if a druid has Throw Anything or an equipment feat which lets him chuck shields, then he could just throw the shield back at you rather than equip it since that has become an "appropriate" action for him.
Also, to the people who keep bringing up willingness, this has been addressed over and over again. Reread the thread.
That is, unless you're going to rove through the game world using beguiling gift on every single item you come upon, in which case you're really wasting your level 1 spells on it, and there's other dangers in doing that anyway.
I love how you're dodging the point of the argument without actually addressing it, as a way to hold onto your claim that the victim of this spell somehow gains supernatural knowledge of what the item is and how it should be used... all while claiming that if it doesn't give supernatural knowledge about the item, it's giving the spell more power.
If you can't see it, then to quote you
I think I'm done trying to debate with you.
Though it's fun arguing with the willfully ignorant, it gets annoying after awhile.
Huh? I am saying to add this line to eliminate the argument that the druid would see this as a harmful act which would entitle them to another save. I fail to see how alignment violations factor into this?
The whole point of the spell is that the bard/witch in question is getting someone to perform a harmful act (drink poison, use a cursed item, get a Druid to wear a metal shield, etc).
|
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.
GAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
My apologies; I haven't played a Druid in a long while, since I got so pee'd off by GMs forcing the role of 'enemy of all civilisation' on them all.
"You cannot enter the town. You must free all domestic animals. You must uphold The Balance, by killing a good human to atone for each evil goblin you killed."
That sort of nonsense. And they'd list the druidic weapon proficiencies as exclusive, all else being prohibited on pain of being excommunicated.
That is, unless you're going to rove through the game world using beguiling gift on every single item you come upon, in which case you're really wasting your level 1 spells on it, and there's other dangers in doing that anyway.I love how you're dodging the point of the argument without actually addressing it, as a way to hold onto your claim that the victim of this spell somehow gains supernatural knowledge of what the item is and how it should be used... all while claiming that if it doesn't give supernatural knowledge about the item, it's giving the spell more power.
If you can't see it, then to quote you
I think I'm done trying to debate with you.Though it's fun arguing with the willfully ignorant, it gets annoying after awhile.
I'm not beingwillfully ignorant, or side-stepping the argument.
I've responded to every argument you've made as appropriate. Now if you actually came out and said that the victim of the spell shouldn't be granted supernatural knowledge of its use, I would have responded to it, but you didn't. You just went after specific points of how this would interact with things, So I addressed those points. If you want someone to respond to an argument, make the argument, don't expect them to read your mind.
Actually looking back on this, I suppose the better interpretation would be that the victim acts as if he had the same knowledge about the item the caster does. So if the caster is aware it's a splash weapon he uses it as one. That nicely limits the spell power and doesn't let it step on the toes of other spells.
The first rule of sell interpretation: if you're reading a level 1 spell and it seems to allow you to one shot someone on a failed save, or gives it the ability to negate an entire school of magic, you're reading it wrong.
edit for clarity: The victim should be forced to use the item as appropriate for an item of it's type, but should have knowledge about it's type as the caster does. This doesn't allow someone to choose not to use the item because they gain knowledge about it from the caster.
Actually looking back on this, I suppose the better interpretation would be that the victim acts as if he had the same knowledge about the item the caster does. So if the caster is aware it's a splash weapon he uses it as one. That nicely limits the spell power and doesn't let it step on the toes of other spells.
Read the spell again. (LINK). Look at the example of a cursed item.
If the victim knew what the caster knew of the cursed item, they would "use" as appropriate for a known cursed item. In other words, they'd store it somewhere, or destroy it.
Your interpretation contradicts the text of the spell definition.
all other divine classes state that it takes a willing breaking of the vows to sever the character from their powers.
If you'll kindly take a minute to read the Atonement spell, you'll see that this is definitively not the case.
Actually looking back on this, I suppose the better interpretation would be that the victim acts as if he had the same knowledge about the item the caster does. So if the caster is aware it's a splash weapon he uses it as one. That nicely limits the spell power and doesn't let it step on the toes of other spells.Read the spell again. (LINK). Look at the example of a cursed item.
If the victim knew what the caster knew of the cursed item, they would "use" as appropriate for a known cursed item. In other words, they'd store it somewhere, or destroy it.
Your interpretation contradicts the text of the spell definition.
I've since edited the post you're quoting.
edit for clarity: The victim should be forced to use the item as appropriate for an item of it's type, but should have knowledge about it's type as the caster does. This doesn't allow someone to choose not to use the item because they gain knowledge about it from the caster.
Snorter: Wow - you're tired of School 1 Judges and the way they deal with Druid PCs? "My apologies; I haven't played a Druid in a long while, since I got so pee'd off by GMs forcing the role of 'enemy of all civilisation' on them all."
Wombat: Sleep - wait that's a "one shot" that takes out several "victim". Ok, Color Spray - wait, not "it seems to allow you to one shot someone on a failed save," so I must be reading that one wrong too.
It lets you put them to sleep, not one shot them. That's a very different situation than if they were, say, disintegrated, upon a failed save.
both spells also have very severe limitations as to what they affect.
edit for clarity: The victim should be forced to use the item as appropriate for an item of it's type, but should have knowledge about it's type as the caster does. This doesn't allow someone to choose not to use the item because they gain knowledge about it from the caster.
That's still far too complicated, and adds too much "hidden text" to the spell to be anything but a houserule.
Take a step back and make an unbiased judgment on that interpretation, and hopefully you'll see what I mean.
If the spell simply stands alone, and remains silent regarding deception (putting it in the same arena as any social interaction), it's not such a big deal.
If the caster filled a bottle of sprite with poison/acid and Beguiling-Gifted it to someone, they'd drink it if they failed the save. Just the same as if they gave it to someone who's naive or cautious enough to fall for it.