| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now maybe if I passed a Paladin a Stick and told him (Bluff Check) that it was a wand of healing with the trigger word "BlasphemyGLdiety"... wait, we get back to the School 1 guys saying it's not his fault so it doesn't count. Hay, why did Samson loose his strength again? He got drunk and fell asleep and the pretty lady cut his hair right? he must have been willing to get the haircut then....
YHWH doesn't traffic in excuses.
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.
Sleep renders creatures helpless (asleep) on a failed save. Encounter over.
Disintegrate renders creatures helpless (pile of dust) on a failed save. Encounter over.Both have the same effect on an encounter - Save or Die/Suck.
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.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. Poison and acid aren't the same thing. Poison is a drink. I say go for it, they drink it. Acid is a splash weapon, I say they throw it. Unless the developers chime in with their intent, we are now firmly in the realm of a DM's judgement call.
BG only has a 5' range, gives a Will save and this application of it only works if the Bard has a Steel shield and hands it to a Druid. How is this a "very different situation"?
"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."
Disintegrate is a high level spell (and limited in other ways). I was using 1st level spell examples of "one-shots". Kind of like Grease on the edge of a cliff (or the top a ladder).
I think you missed the part on another page where I said that giving a druid a shield is a perfectly valid use of the spell. I've been arguing against using it to make someone drink acid or molten lead, and my argument hasn't been you can't hand it to them, it's been that acid and molten lead are splash weapons, not drinks, so he would throw them.
Poison doesn't kill in pathfinder unless it's very rare or expensive. It does ability damage (which with a high level con poison can kill you) but it allows a seperate save, so I'm fine with that.
EDIT:
Grease makes you fall in your sqare, you can't grease someone off a cliff. The top of a ladder is perfectly valid though, but keep in mind that A) this is very situational and not a common use of the spell and B) the fall damage won't necessarily kill them anyway depending on the distance.
It is time for the sysops (Ross Byers et al.) to close this thread and direct it the gaze of the official FAQ reviewers.
The only thing in the spell that needs a FAQ is whether or not "dons" means "equips." That is the only unclear thing about the spell. The spell does one thing clearly and it is written concisely. It doesn't do anything at least two other spells of the same or near level aren't already able to do, in general, and even if the spell was "Make the Druid lose their Druid abilities" (which it isn't), it wouldn't be doing anything that a 2nd level spell doesn't do against Barbarians and Bards.
I think you missed the part on another page where I said that giving a druid a shield is a perfectly valid use of the spell. I've been arguing against using it to make someone drink acid or molten lead, and my argument hasn't been you can't hand it to them, it's been that acid and molten lead are splash weapons, not drinks, so he would throw them.
I agree regarding molten lead, because just the radiating heat and the smell and the look... it all screams "not a drink".
Acid, however, can be mistaken for a beverage, because it looks like one, and is of a reasonable/safe temperature to drink. Hence, my example of the Sprite bottle with acid, or the mug of acid, as being applicable to use BG to harm a victim. The BG victim immediately consumes it if it's being offered as a beverage, unless it has an obvious smell, or label, or anything else which advertises its caustic nature.
how about if my bard hands him something in a potion bottle (small smoked glass flask) and say "Here Drink this and lets get out of here!" (roll bluff? Diplomacy? Disguise?). For the record, my Bards shield is painted to look like a page of music... so it sort of looks like a parchment page.)
If I was DMing, it would depend what you put in the bottle.
I think you missed the part on another page where I said that giving a druid a shield is a perfectly valid use of the spell. I've been arguing against using it to make someone drink acid or molten lead, and my argument hasn't been you can't hand it to them, it's been that acid and molten lead are splash weapons, not drinks, so he would throw them.I agree regarding molten lead, because just the radiating heat and the smell and the look... it all screams "not a drink".
Acid, however, can be mistaken for a beverage, because it looks like one, and is of a reasonable/safe temperature to drink. Hence, my example of the Sprite bottle with acid, or the mug of acid, as being applicable to use BG to harm a victim. The BG victim immediately consumes it if it's being offered as a beverage, unless it has an obvious smell, or label, or anything else which advertises its caustic nature.
That's fair enough. Note though, that most acids do have a "tell" as it were. But in the case of one that doesn't it's not much different then handing them a potion of "inflict light wounds."
Acid EffectsCorrosive acids deals 1d6 points of damage per round of exposure except in the case of total immersion (such as in a vat of acid), which deals 10d6 points of damage per round. An attack with acid, such as from a hurled vial or a monster's spittle, counts as a round of exposure.
The fumes from most acids are inhaled poisons. Those who are adjacent to a large body of acid must make a DC 13 Fortitude save or take 1 point of Constitution damage each round. This poison does not have a frequency, a creature is safe as soon as it moves away from the acid.
Creatures immune to acid's caustic properties might still drown in it if they are totally immersed (see Drowning).
This is what happens when corrosive acid touches a character. 1d6 points of damage.
As a GM ruling, I'd say that the BG Victim takes what is presented as a drink/potion, tries to drink it, and has a reflexive reaction to the acid burning it's mouth, spitting it out onto the ground.
1d6 acid damage to the face sounds about right. Enough to kill or maim a commoner, if they were unlucky. About as nasty as getting smashed in the face with a club.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If I was DMing, it would depend what you put in the bottle.how about if my bard hands him something in a potion bottle (small smoked glass flask) and say "Here Drink this and lets get out of here!" (roll bluff? Diplomacy? Disguise?). For the record, my Bards shield is painted to look like a page of music... so it sort of looks like a parchment page.)
Cool, so it's a poison detector too.
One person casts, one person gets the spell, and a third person readies an action to stop him from drinking. If he goes to put it on his blade, well it must be poison!
If I was DMing, it would depend what you put in the bottle.how about if my bard hands him something in a potion bottle (small smoked glass flask) and say "Here Drink this and lets get out of here!" (roll bluff? Diplomacy? Disguise?). For the record, my Bards shield is painted to look like a page of music... so it sort of looks like a parchment page.)
Cool, so it's a poison detector too.
One person casts, one person gets the spell, and a third person readies an action to stop him from drinking. If he goes to put it on his blade, well it must be poison!
Ummm... no. I'm not even sure how you are getting this interpretation of from anything I've said.
Ummm... no. I'm not even sure how you are getting this interpretation of from anything I've said.If I was DMing, it would depend what you put in the bottle.how about if my bard hands him something in a potion bottle (small smoked glass flask) and say "Here Drink this and lets get out of here!" (roll bluff? Diplomacy? Disguise?). For the record, my Bards shield is painted to look like a page of music... so it sort of looks like a parchment page.)
Cool, so it's a poison detector too.
One person casts, one person gets the spell, and a third person readies an action to stop him from drinking. If he goes to put it on his blade, well it must be poison!
The "appropriate" use for a number of poisons is to apply it to the weapon.
|
nosig,
I just wanted to say that my DM hat applauds the 'druid shutdown' idea. I think it's clever and people are overreacting to your cleverness. I'd likely get a pained look on my face, and then applaud you. (and pray that my dice roll well)
Oh, me too.
Despite my stance in this thread, I have no beef with you.
This is one of those ideas, that we could all have a good laugh about during the game, but then afterwards, it'd be a time out, and "But, seriously, now...".
having been given some really "odd" looking stuff to drink in game (or my characters anyway), I'm not sure if the fizzy-smoking-tingles my nose acid would be a problem. But if the DM said roll a bluff and I replied "30" ... would it work?
In real life I saw a Lab Assistant lean over a beaker under a fume hood to see had was boiling in it... and singe off his eyebrows. In a collage chem class and he got a acid burn across his face. A little longer and he would have messed up his eyes. But in PFS that's just... ah 1 point splash? or maybe 1d6 acid damage? or maybe it's just a near miss.
All I said was that I can't tell you how I would resolve the situation as a DM unless I knew what exactly it was you were trying to do.
Here is what my ruling would be:
In this case, failing the will save makes him take the item and use it "as appropriate." The appropriate use would be as a splash weapon, however since you're also trying to convince him that the acid is a drink, you would roll a bluff check opposed by his sense motive. If you win, he drinks it. If he wins, he uses it as a splash weapon. Of course, if he's already mistrustful of you, I'm giving him a circumstance bonus to his sense motive check.
Of course, this assumes an acid that isn't "obviously" harmful. If it smells and is billowing smokey fumes, I'm not letting the bluff check happen.
But as I said, that's my ruling as a DM. And as I've said before, this is firmly in the realm of a DM's judgement call.
The "appropriate" use for a number of poisons is to apply it to the weapon.
Except I've already said poison is a drink and you would try to drink it. so that interpretation comes out of nowhere.
For all the wearers vs don-ers vs users out there. If we are going to push the WTF button, we might as well press it a lot.
Here is how we can play a mage. My Sorcerer in full plate mail wears armor, but doesn't suffer from the arcane penalty because I am not using the armor as long as I am not being attacked.
My mage is also using a shield, but he simply wears the shield as long as he isn't getting attacked, so I don't have to take the arcane penalty.
Vocabulary is fun!!.
My archer uses a tower shield, but he doesn't use it when he fires his bow, so I can make use of the shield during the 6 seconds of someone elses turn.
This thread is turning into the Bear Trap thread.
Here is a real life example. If you are drunk sitting behind the wheel of a parked car, and listening to the radio (Not driving). You still get thrown into jail for drunk driving. Regardless of whether or not you were actually driving, aka using the car.
|
|
I agree regarding molten lead, because just the radiating heat and the smell and the look... it all screams "not a drink".
Acid, however, can be mistaken for a beverage, because it looks like one, and is of a reasonable/safe temperature to drink. Hence, my example of the Sprite bottle with acid, or the mug of acid, as being applicable to use BG to harm a victim. The BG victim immediately consumes it if it's being offered as a beverage, unless it has an obvious smell, or label, or anything else which advertises its caustic nature.
I'm fine with handing someone poison or acid, or an inflict potion, if they put in a harmlessly-labelled bottle.
It's when they don't bother to take it out of the original bottle, with skull-and-crossbones carved into it, a label saying 'POISON!', and stoppered with human skin, scribed with an unholy symbol; that's when I think the recipient should get a hint this is maybe not a good idea to drink, be aware the caster just tried to do him harm, and immediately auto-pass a rerolled save.
Clever play - rewarded.
Moronic play - not so much.
As to acid, I remember the Public Information films, warning us to lock our kitchen cupboards, and not to distill household chemicals into pop bottles, so kids wouldn't drink them. So though they may have a distinctive smell, to an adult, it wasn't enough to stop infants necking them in sufficient numbers to justify a safety campaign.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ummm... no. I'm not even sure how you are getting this interpretation of from anything I've said.
You said it depended on what was in the bottle.
He goes to put it on his blade, it must be poison!
He puts it in a lantern, it must be oil!
etc.
You're allowing this first level spell to 'know' what is in the vial and make the victim react accordingly.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Clever play - rewarded.
Moronic play - not so much.As to acid, I remember the Public Information films, warning us to lock our kitchen cupboards, and not to distill household chemicals into pop bottles, so kids wouldn't drink them. So though they may have a distinctive smell, to an adult, it wasn't enough to stop infants necking them in sufficient numbers to justify a safety campaign.
Tangent alert!
|
|
This thread is turning into the Bear Trap thread.
If you gave the druid a bear trap, would he lose his powers?
Would the 'appropriate' use of the item be to go look for bears?
Or to slam it over the head of the caster, who obviously hunts poor, innocent bears?
Here is a real life example. If you are drunk sitting behind the wheel of a parked car, and listening to the radio (Not driving). You still get thrown into jail for drunk driving. Regardless of whether or not you were actually driving, aka using the car.
Well, that happened in an episode of 'Everybody Loves Raymond', but is that actually the law? Even if you've got the handbrake on?
Ummm... no. I'm not even sure how you are getting this interpretation of from anything I've said.You said it depended on what was in the bottle.
He goes to put it on his blade, it must be poison!
He puts it in a lantern, it must be oil!
etc.
You're allowing this first level spell to 'know' what is in the vial and make the victim react accordingly.
No.. I said it would depend what's in the bottle. You know, as in "I can't tell you how I would handle this situation unless you tell me what's in the bottle."
And I conceded that the spell doesn't work like that ages ago. Read up the thread a little, please.
I agree regarding molten lead, because just the radiating heat and the smell and the look... it all screams "not a drink".
Acid, however, can be mistaken for a beverage, because it looks like one, and is of a reasonable/safe temperature to drink. Hence, my example of the Sprite bottle with acid, or the mug of acid, as being applicable to use BG to harm a victim. The BG victim immediately consumes it if it's being offered as a beverage, unless it has an obvious smell, or label, or anything else which advertises its caustic nature.
I'm fine with handing someone poison or acid, or an inflict potion, if they put in a harmlessly-labelled bottle.
It's when they don't bother to take it out of the original bottle, with skull-and-crossbones carved into it, a label saying 'POISON!', and stoppered with human skin, scribed with an unholy symbol; that's when I think the recipient should get a hint this is maybe not a good idea to drink, be aware the caster just tried to do him harm, and immediately auto-pass a rerolled save.
Clever play - rewarded.
Moronic play - not so much.As to acid, I remember the Public Information films, warning us to lock our kitchen cupboards, and not to distill household chemicals into pop bottles, so kids wouldn't drink them. So though they may have a distinctive smell, to an adult, it wasn't enough to stop infants necking them in sufficient numbers to justify a safety campaign.
Why are you giving characters an auto-passed rerolled save (which is to say, just total immunity to the spell... didn't make the save? That's OK. Roll it again. Oh wait, don't even bother. You made it!) when the caster of beguiling gift tries to get them to do something self destructive. That is the entire purpose of the spell. The spell exists to get people to use items that will hurt them when they normally would not use an item that would hurt them. Them knowing it will hurt them own't change their action at all. It is a COMPULSION effect. The only thing that will change their action is if using the item in such a way as to be harmful is not the appropriate use for that item (e.g., "Here's a sword. I bet you can't swallow it!")
Well, that happened in an episode of 'Everybody Loves Raymond', but is that actually the law? Even if you've got the handbrake on?
Depends where you live, as with any law. But where I live, yes, this is the law. If you are drunk and you are in your car's driver's seat, you are drinking and driving.
This thread is turning into the Bear Trap thread.If you gave the druid a bear trap, would he lose his powers?
Would the 'appropriate' use of the item be to go look for bears?
Or to slam it over the head of the caster, who obviously hunts poor, innocent bears?Here is a real life example. If you are drunk sitting behind the wheel of a parked car, and listening to the radio (Not driving). You still get thrown into jail for drunk driving. Regardless of whether or not you were actually driving, aka using the car.Well, that happened in an episode of 'Everybody Loves Raymond', but is that actually the law? Even if you've got the handbrake on?
Yes. That's the law. I actually sat on a jury hearing a drunk driving case where a guy was drunk in a parked car. Engine off, but keys in the ignition (which they would have to be if our hypothetical person is listening to the radio). Jury handed down a conviction, because we were instructed by the judge that that was the law. Behind the wheel + drunk + keys in ignition = drunk driving.
EDIT: Of course, as Wombat said, depends on where you are. This was in California.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ummm... no. I'm not even sure how you are getting this interpretation of from anything I've said.You said it depended on what was in the bottle.
He goes to put it on his blade, it must be poison!
He puts it in a lantern, it must be oil!
etc.
You're allowing this first level spell to 'know' what is in the vial and make the victim react accordingly.
No.. I said it would depend what's in the bottle. You know, as in "I can't tell you how I would handle this situation unless you tell me what's in the bottle."
And I conceded that the spell doesn't work like that ages ago. Read up the thread a little, please.
If the spell doesn't work like that, why does it depend on what's in the bottle?
|
|
Why are you giving characters an auto-passed rerolled save (which is to say, just total immunity to the spell... didn't make the save? That's OK. Roll it again. Oh wait, don't even bother. You made it!) when the caster of beguiling gift tries to get them to do something self destructive. That is the entire purpose of the spell. The spell exists to get people to use items that will hurt them when they normally would not use an item that would hurt them. Them knowing it will hurt them own't change their action at all. It is a COMPULSION effect....
So is Dominate Person, a level 5 spell, which specifically calls out such a usage as giving the target an auto-pass re-roll.
1st-level spells should not trump 5th-level spells of the same school.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
So is Dominate Person, a level 5 spell, which specifically calls out such a usage as giving the target an auto-pass re-roll.
1st-level spells should not trump 5th-level spells of the same school.
Command can cause a character to kneel for the headman's axe for one round w/o a new save because the axe is coming for his head.
Except I've already said poison is a drink and you would try to drink it. so that interpretation comes out of nowhere.
The "appropriate" use for a number of poisons is to apply it to the weapon.
Drinking is not an "appropriate" use for inhalation, injury, or contact poisons. Applying to a weapon is the "appropriate" use for a contact and especially injury poisons.
EDIT: Technically, drinking it yourself is not the appropriate use for ANY poison.
If the spell doesn't work like that, why does it depend on what's in the bottle?
Because he nosig asked me how I would handle a specific situation as a DM, and I can't answer that question without knowing all the information. Once he told me what was in it, I answered him.
Here is what my ruling would be:
In this case, failing the will save makes him take the item and use it "as appropriate." The appropriate use would be as a splash weapon, however since you're also trying to convince him that the acid is a drink, you would roll a bluff check opposed by his sense motive. If you win, he drinks it. If he wins, he uses it as a splash weapon. Of course, if he's already mistrustful of you, I'm giving him a circumstance bonus to his sense motive check.Of course, this assumes an acid that isn't "obviously" harmful. If it smells and is billowing smokey fumes, I'm not letting the bluff check happen.
*genuine applause*
Excellent! We do agree.|
|
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.
Not quite. The text of suggestion states the target will automatically refuse to carry out self-destructive acts, unless they are disguised as harmless.
1st-level spells should not trump 3rd-level spells of the same school.
Why are you giving characters an auto-passed rerolled save (which is to say, just total immunity to the spell... didn't make the save? That's OK. Roll it again. Oh wait, don't even bother. You made it!) when the caster of beguiling gift tries to get them to do something self destructive. That is the entire purpose of the spell. The spell exists to get people to use items that will hurt them when they normally would not use an item that would hurt them. Them knowing it will hurt them own't change their action at all. It is a COMPULSION effect....So is Dominate Person, a level 5 spell, which specifically calls out such a usage as giving the target an auto-pass re-roll.
1st-level spells should not trump 5th-level spells of the same school.
But they do different things. Dominate person gives you MUCH larger control over a person, but you can't force them to kill themselves. Beguiling gift is severely limited in what it can do. It has a 5' range, 1 round duration, and all it can do is get a person to use an item for 6 seconds.
Fireball deals d6 damage per CL. It is a 3rd level evocation spell.
A 7th level evocation spell, scouring winds, deals only 3d6 damage, regardless of level. By 13th level when you can cast it, it is outpaced by fireball by 7d6. It does many other things, though.
Is beguiling gift in limited situations more powerful than dominate person? Yup. It certainly is. However, dominate person, overall, is a much more devastating effect.
I would also point out that Command, another 1st level mind affecting compulsion spell has no line about it can't be used self-destructively.
If you are standing on one side of a river of acid from another person. You can ready an action to cast command if they enter the river. They run at you, deciding it is worth the d6 acid damage they'll take to close to melee. When they hit the river, your readied action goes off and you tell them "FALL!" They fail their save and fall prone into the river, taking 10d6 acid damage as they are submerged.
They stay there for 1 round, taking another 10d6 acid damage next round. You couldn't do this with dominate person. Does that mean that command is overpowered or should receive a second auto-save if you are commanding them to do something destructive?
Beguiling gift doesn't give a second auto-success roll if you ask them to do something destructive because the spell simply doesn't do that. Different spells do different things.