Hand a druid a steel shield...


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 764 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
The Exchange

14 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

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?

Silver Crusade

nosig wrote:

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?

Not only does it work, that is quite clever and I like the usage of it. All the druid has to do is cary the prohibited shield, which beguiling gift makes him do. And its no more powerful that other first level spells. Good job on your part, the GM just got stuck thinking about how cool that druid could be.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Da Rules on Druids wrote:
A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries 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.
Da Rules on 'Beguiling Gift' wrote:
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 think it's clever. It would work at my table.


If memory serves than the druid has to do more than simply touch the sheild. He has to use it as a shield. Meaning someone has to attack him, just once and they don't actually have to hit.

That being said the the Beguiling Gift description does state that the character uses the item in the appropriate way.

Sounds a lot like we're in "DM's Call" area.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Nosig, you just got houserule'd. Perhaps you should take it as a complement, in that you came up with a tactic so powerful that your GM saw fit to overturn explicit rules text on the fly.

The Exchange

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Reminds me of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, specifically the fight against Brandon Routh's vegan character.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Sounds a lot like we're in "DM's Call" area.

What exactly is the GM call? Whether or not "dons the object" really means "dons the object"? It even gives the example of putting on a ring or wielding a sword, and explicitly states that they'll even drop other items they're carrying if need be.

No, we're not in "DM's call" area at all.

The Exchange

Thanks Jiggy (and everyone else)! I haven't actually ever used this gimmic (and I figure I never will get a chance), but I was shairing it with the DM during a lull moment and was surprised at the "feeling" of the response the two judges at the table. They were very strong in their objections - and relations tword me were somewhat for a while afterword. It did require my Bard to sell off her Masterwork wooden shield and replace it with a steel one (Oohf the extra pounds! and this girl is watching her weight!) ;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

nosig wrote:
Thanks Jiggy (and everyone else)! I haven't actually ever used this gimmic (and I figure I never will get a chance), but I was shairing it with the DM during a lull moment and was surprised at the "feeling" of the response the two judges at the table. They were very strong in their objections - and relations tword me were somewhat for a while afterword. It did require my Bard to sell off her Masterwork wooden shield and replace it with a steel one (Oohf the extra pounds! and this girl is watching her weight!) ;)

Wait, what do you mean about their relations toward you? You almost make it sound like they berated you for trying to cheat or something.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Sounds a lot like we're in "DM's Call" area.

What exactly is the GM call? Whether or not "dons the object" really means "dons the object"? It even gives the example of putting on a ring or wielding a sword, and explicitly states that they'll even drop other items they're carrying if need be.

No, we're not in "DM's call" area at all.

Yes, you are in the GM's call area. You aren't the GM for this player. If the GM makes a decision the player disagrees with, that player has a choice. He can accept it or he can choose to play under a different GM. I'm not going to listen to anyone telling me how I should run my table from a messageboard. However, if I am making decisions that my players are unhappy with then I am not going to have players for very long. Players should be rewarded for creativity, yes. But when all is said and done, GMs deserve some respect for the effort they put forth. If a GM feels like players are exploiting rules and ruining their game then I respect their right to say "I am not going to allow that". Otherwise GMs aren't going to GM anymore, plain and simple. There are consequences, but it's the GM's call.


The text in the Druid section says he must use the prohibited shield, not just hold it, in order to lose spells and powers. The spell says the person given the item will don the object as appropriate for the item, so the druid will equip it but not use it. So yes, there is a bit of a grey area there for the GM to rule on, and my ruling would be the same as what Tiny Coffee Golem said: someone would have to attack while the druid was holding the shield, forcing the druid to use the shield. Then his spells and powers would go pfffft. But it is still a good tactic if the druid fails the saving throw. Perhaps the best way to avoid a confrontation with a future GM is to make a copy of the page from the book that contains this spell, so you do not have to go looking it up, and a copy of the druid text and explain what you are trying to make the druid do. You should also coordinate this plan with another party member, who can then attack as soon as the druid takes the shield from you.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doug Miles wrote:
Yes, you are in the GM's call area. You aren't the GM for this player. If the GM makes a decision the player disagrees with, that player has a choice. He can accept it or he can choose to play under a different GM. No one is going to tell me how to run my table from a messageboard. However, if I am making decisions that my players are unhappy with then I am not going to have players for very long. Players should be rewarded for creativity, yes. But when all is said and done, GMs deserve some respect for the effort they put forth. If a GM feels like players are exploiting rules and ruining their game then I respect their right to say "I am not going to allow that". Otherwise GMs aren't going to GM anymore, plain and simple. There are consequences, but it's the GM's call.

Well now hold on a second, I think you're reading things into my post that aren't there. For instance, you point out that GMs deserve respect, as though I had somehow contested that fact? What did I say that implied GMs aren't respect-worthy?

Now, the tone of your reply seems disproportionate to the intended content of my post, which makes me suspect a miscommunication. Perhaps regarding the term "GM call"? For clarity's sake, I was using "GM call" to refer to the adjudication of situations in which the rules are unclear. Is that also how you meant it?

My understanding of PFS (since this thread is in the PFS section, PFS rules seem relevant) is that the game rules must be followed as much as possible (i.e., no houseruling), with the GM having the responsibility of adjudicating the gray areas; this latter part is what I'm referring to with "GM's call".

Basically:
• In a home game, the GM can basically do whatever the frick he wants - though hopefully he'll inform players of houserules ahead of time. ;)
• If a situation arises in a PFS game in which the rules are unclear, the GM has the right (and truly, a responsibility) to "make the call".
• If a situation arises in a PFS game in which the rules are explicit (as in the case of beguiling gift), the GM has a responsibility to follow those rules to the best of his ability.

Does this match your position?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
The text in the Druid section says he must use the prohibited shield, not just hold it, in order to lose spells and powers. The spell says the person given the item will don the object as appropriate for the item, so the druid will equip it but not use it. So yes, there is a bit of a grey area there for the GM to rule on, and my ruling would be the same as what Tiny Coffee Golem said: someone would have to attack while the druid was holding the shield, forcing the druid to use the shield. Then his spells and powers would go pfffft. But it is still a good tactic if the druid fails the saving throw. Perhaps the best way to avoid a confrontation with a future GM is to make a copy of the page from the book that contains this spell, so you do not have to go looking it up, and a copy of the druid text and explain what you are trying to make the druid do. You should also coordinate this plan with another party member, who can then attack as soon as the druid takes the shield from you.

Is the bolded part even possible? I thought having it "equipped" - therefore affecting your AC - equated to "using" it. Is that not the case?

The Exchange

my line should have read "They were very strong in their objections - and relations tword me were somewhat frosty for a while afterword." - but I dropped a word there. Sorry!

The Exchange

Chris stated in the third post above the following:
"Da Rules on Druids wrote:
A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries 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."

I don't have the book in front of me. Is this correct - does it say "...carries a prohibited shield..."? Wow... got to remember to be careful with any druids I run and not help other characters pick up their shields!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

nosig wrote:

my line should have read "They were very strong in their objections - and relations tword me were somewhat frosty for a while afterword." - but I dropped a word there. Sorry!

Well that was hardly appropriate. Even if wielding a shield doesn't count as using it until an attack comes by (did they give that as a reason?), there's still no reason to be treating their players like they'd committed some sort of offense by even suggesting such an idea. I hope you know most GMs wouldn't be so petty.


Jiggy wrote:
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
The text in the Druid section says he must use the prohibited shield, not just hold it, in order to lose spells and powers. The spell says the person given the item will don the object as appropriate for the item, so the druid will equip it but not use it. So yes, there is a bit of a grey area there for the GM to rule on, and my ruling would be the same as what Tiny Coffee Golem said: someone would have to attack while the druid was holding the shield, forcing the druid to use the shield. Then his spells and powers would go pfffft. But it is still a good tactic if the druid fails the saving throw. Perhaps the best way to avoid a confrontation with a future GM is to make a copy of the page from the book that contains this spell, so you do not have to go looking it up, and a copy of the druid text and explain what you are trying to make the druid do. You should also coordinate this plan with another party member, who can then attack as soon as the druid takes the shield from you.
Is the bolded part even possible? I thought having it "equipped" - therefore affecting your AC - equated to "using" it. Is that not the case?

The problem with the spell is active versus passive. Having something equipped, or simply holding it, is passive, while using something is active. Let's say it is a metal buckler. To equip it, you strap it to your forearm, but then you just let your arm hang at your side. It may be equipped, but it is not being used, not until you have to try and block an attack with it. For this spell, it would probably be much more effective if you were to use a metal helmet rather than a shield, since the act of equipping a helmet is the same as using it.


nosig wrote:

Chris stated in the third post above the following:

"Da Rules on Druids wrote:
A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries 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."

I don't have the book in front of me. Is this correct - does it say "...carries a prohibited shield..."? Wow... got to remember to be careful with any druids I run and not help other characters pick up their shields!

No, the book says "uses" not "carries", so you are fine.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

nosig wrote:

Chris stated in the third post above the following:

"Da Rules on Druids wrote:
A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries 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."

I don't have the book in front of me. Is this correct - does it say "...carries a prohibited shield..."? Wow... got to remember to be careful with any druids I run and not help other characters pick up their shields!

It actually says "use", not "carry". Apparently there's some contestation as to whether or not "equipped and granting its AC bonus" constitutes "using", or if "using" requires an attack to be made against you.

Which, barring any text to clearly state otherwise, does move this issue into GM call territory. But they sure could've been nicer about it, and from your description it sounds less like they were making a call due to genuine ambiguity and more just being offended at the suggestion of an idea they hadn't thought of themselves.

The Exchange

that's part of why I posted the question. I needed to see if most Judges would respond the same. Their response was "how would you feel if someone did it to you!" (perhaps not the exact wording - but close), and I blinked and replied "how is this different from handcuffing him?" (which is what I usually do). It made me re-think using the gimmic, as it would leave my character standing next to an upset Druid that still had all his powers.

The Exchange

wow... I just had a real cheesy Mod Writer thought. Picture this:
Players visit the home of a friendly Giant to gain information. The Giant invites them to dinner and everyone has a "cute" roll play session with everyone sitting up to the TALL table and using oversize items. The druid in the party fails to notice that the metal plates are actually old bronze shields... GHACK! EVIL WRITERS!

Grand Lodge

Personally, I wouldnt allow it at my table either. The text of the spell doesnt say the target has to actively use the item in question (unless its food, apparently, cause it says it will be consumed). So while the Druid may accept the shield and take it from you, he is smart enough (despite failing a will save) to know he isnt supposed to be using it. I would have the druid not use that arm for protection, keeping his AC the same. Even if someone attacked him, he doesnt take the AC bonus, and drops the thing as soon as he is able, on the next round.

A nice trick indeed, and some may let it pass, but I dont think I would.

Edit: Actually, Im going to amend that and say it would be a case-by-case basis for me. If the bad guy still stood a chance, no. If its the classic PFS "We cant kill the baddie cause hes tough, he deals %^$# for damage" situation, then yes.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Is the bolded part even possible? I thought having it "equipped" - therefore affecting your AC - equated to "using" it. Is that not the case?
The problem with the spell is active versus passive. Having something equipped, or simply holding it, is passive, while using something is active. Let's say it is a metal buckler. To equip it, you strap it to your forearm, but then you just let your arm hang at your side. It may be equipped, but it is not being used, not until you have to try and block an attack with it. For this spell, it would probably be much more effective if you were to use a metal helmet rather than a shield, since the act of equipping a helmet is the same as using it.

Well, in that case:

PRD wrote:
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 Dexterity- and Strength-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for nonproficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for shields.

I guess that means my heavy shield doesn't apply a -2 to my rogues attacks until someone swings back at me, so in the surprise round (and the first round, if I win initiative) I can go ahead and attack with no penalty, and then once someone attacks me I enjoy my +2 AC, then ditch the shield on my turn (a move action that doesn't provoke, so it won't even disrupt my fighting).

So... are you sure you have to be attacked to be "using" your shield? ;)


Actually, in flipping to the website.

Druid

A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries 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. (In this case I read carries as puts the shield on or wears the shield.)

This can be interpreted one of two ways, carries a prohibited shield as in holds, or carries a shield as in equipped.

If you wear prohibited armor it is most definitely equipped on you, had you done this with scale mail or a chain shirt, the rules would seem a bit more clear, because the victim of the spell has to equip the item.

If I were to rule it I would say that possession of the item isn't enough to nuke a druid, otherwise the druid wouldn't be able to acquire gold, as it is metal. But if the druid picks up and puts on a shield, knowing the rules or not, he will lose the spells.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Mogart wrote:

Actually, in flipping to the website. (I don't know how to use a popup link so this is my first attempt)

[Link/]http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid[/Link]

A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries 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. (In this case I read carries as puts the shield on or wears the shield.)

This can be interpreted one of two ways, carries a prohibited shield as in holds, or carries a shield as in equipped.

If you wear prohibited armor it is most definitely equipped on you, had you done this with scale mail or a chain shirt, the rules would seem a bit more clear, because the victim of the spell has to equip the item.

If I were to rule it I would say that possession of the item isn't enough to nuke a druid, otherwise the druid wouldn't be able to acquire gold, as it is metal. But if the druid picks up and puts on a shield, knowing the rules or not, he will lose the spells.

The PRD says "use", not "carry". I would presume that the PRD would trump the SRD, yes?

The Exchange

Jiggy, first and foremost I apologize if I caused offense with the context of my reply. I should have been non-specific about who was being addressed in my previous post. The message I meant to deliver is that respect between players and GMs is a two-way street. Players who exploit the rules might cause their GM to cease enjoying the game and walk away. GMs who stymie creativity drive players away from their tables.

The answer to your question is that no, the GM has the responsibility to make the game fun, not to blindly follow rules (no matter how explicit) if they undermine the enjoyment of the game. But that enjoyment is a two-way street and it can feel like a tightrope walk between GM megalomania and "Players Gone Wild!" It's a game, and I will dismiss a rule in the blink of an eye if something is getting in the way of the collective fun. If the GMs in nosig's question felt that way, I would support them.


I'm am with Jiggy on this one. Anyone who has read the rules and is trying to claim a difference between "equiping a shield" and "using a shield" is splitting some pretty fine hairs.

If you want to argue in favor of the druid, you would be better off forming your argument along the lines of "willfully". There is definately a lot in the rules that establish that the RAI for divine classes losing their powers is that they must willfully commit a violation. For example, a paladin who murders babies while under the effects of a dominate spell does not lose their powers. A druid who unwilling or unknowingly uses a prohibited item is probably shouldn't lose their powers. That would be my ruling based on RAI. By RAW, they lose their powers.


Jiggy wrote:

The PRD says "use", not "carry". I would presume that the PRD would trump the SRD, yes?

I am referring to this

Druid Class Page

Where the last line right before the spells is:
"A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries 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."

Is this not what should be used? Is there another website that I need to know about?


Go to Class Features for the Druid

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.


So its "Uses" not carries.
To link its "[ u r l = http]...[/ u r l] without the spaces

Dark Archive

Charender wrote:

I'm am with Jiggy on this one. Anyone who has read the rules and is trying to claim a difference between "equiping a shield" and "using a shield" is splitting some pretty fine hairs.

I'm with that. If it's just being carried (slung over one's back, used as a platter to serve fruit, whatever), no big, but the spell makes you equip it, and that's what the druid's oath doesn't like.

Why even bother having a druid's oath if it magically 'doesn't count' whenever it could be inconvenient for the druid?

Beguiling Gift is already a crap spell. The dude casting it has to take an AoO anyway, since it has a 5 ft. range and takes effect immediately. I'd allow this as a once-in-a-million chance that the Beguiling Gift spell actually does something useful.

Between provoking an AoO and targetting the Druids best save (and any druid worth using it on is probably in a shape that doesn't have hands, anyway), it's gonna fail anyway...


Jiggy wrote:


The PRD says "use", not "carry". I would presume that the PRD would trump the SRD, yes?

Druid Class Web Page

Am I using the wrong website? Got a better link for me?

As to the OP, I would say that if he equips the shield like the spell says he does, he is boned, but that is my opinion. The spell is in there to get others to use items that are harmful to them. It is being used as intended, there are simply harsher consequences for some characters than others.


Yeah, I'm with Jiggy/OP on this one. The rules are clear in that this combination will work- it's sneaky and exploitative, but clearly within RAW. Objections to this seem to be based on a gut reaction of "but this shouldn't work!"

Let's all keep in mind, though, that the classes most likely to be boned by a compulsion effect also have the highest will saves in the game (paladin, cleric, druid).


Sean FitzSimon wrote:

Let's all keep in mind, though, that the classes most likely to be boned by a compulsion effect also have the highest will saves in the game (paladin, cleric, druid).

Don't forget a monk, weapon and armor proficiency has nothing to do with the attempt to use it.

Hell, carry a bunch of exotic weapons to gift to the big bad guy that you are fighting. We can then play the game, "Do you have this particular proficiency?"

The Exchange

Mogart - having handcuffed spell casters with it, I can say the spell... sometimes works. that one guy with the shocking grasp spell was real pissed though (he made the save and I got a real "charge" thru the manicals I was trying to hand him) and I'm still worried about teleport spells (and others with no S component).


nosig wrote:
Mogart - having handcuffed spell casters with it, I can say the spell... sometimes works. that one guy with the shocking grasp spell was real pissed though (he made the save and I got a real "charge" thru the manicals I was trying to hand him) and I'm still worried about teleport spells (and others with no S component).

That is brilliant, I never even thought about gifting people manacles, we can add to that cursed items, and locking slave collars.


Mogart - Druid PRD > d20pfsrd (But d20 can be easier to search and copy from)

The Exchange

I am currently investigating why the text on d20pfsrd.com differs from the PRD. I can tell you that the wording "A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield" has been present since the very first revision of the page, back in August 09.

I'm now investigating various errata or FAQ updates to see if/where it was changed.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Mogart wrote:
Jiggy wrote:


The PRD says "use", not "carry". I would presume that the PRD would trump the SRD, yes?

Druid Class Web Page

Am I using the wrong website? Got a better link for me?

As to the OP, I would say that if he equips the shield like the spell says he does, he is boned, but that is my opinion. The spell is in there to get others to use items that are harmful to them. It is being used as intended, there are simply harsher consequences for some characters than others.

Try here. This is the PRD, maintained/updated by Paizo. The SRD that you're looking at is a handy resource, but (as I understand it; I could be wrong) is a third-party convenience and can't necessarily be taken as "law".

@Doug - I had a wonderfully verbose response all typed up, but as is typical of these boards, it vanished in a glitch when I clicked submit. I forgot I had told myself that I would always ctrl+c my posts before submitting, and this is the price I pay. And now I'm about to leave work, so here's the super-short version:

Be very careful with this "the GM can change the rules in the name of fun" thing. It's very easy for any human being (especially some really long-time D&D vets) to look at all their fond memories and pleasant past experiences as a sort of unconscious "canon" of fun, and react bitterly against perfectly legitimate deviations from those tropes and traditions. For instance, just today I saw a thread where someone was just realizing that sneak attack wasn't restricted to "finessable" weapons - no doubt the result of one or more people taking the iconic dagger-wielding rogue as the norm, and either silently changing or unconsciously assuming that norm to be the rules. Now, it's not a big deal in a home game because if an on-the-fly overturning of a rule causes a problem (a wasting of gold, items, feats, etc) you can just as easily create a solution (i.e., a refund). But you can't do that in PFS. Let me reiterate: you can't make fixes in organized play. That's why it's so important to stick to the rules as much as possible. If a player doesn't read, that's his problem. If he knows something's fuzzy and subject to GM ruling, he has to weigh the risks. But if he reads up, sees nothing to send up a red flag that it could be an issue, and brings something to the table that the GM then invalidates by overturning a rule? The player has no fault, yet is being punished via lost resources (and the OrgPlay guide even explicitly says to encourage creativity and go out of your way to NOT punish off-beat solutions to challenges), and you can't go back and make it up to him later. Is that fair to the player? Perhaps there might be a situation where a player's plan - despite being legal - upsets most of the table terribly. Sure, step in. But when the GM and his buddy just think it's silly? That is NOT sufficient grounds for changing the rules at the expense of the player.


16 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean FitzSimon wrote:

Yeah, I'm with Jiggy/OP on this one. The rules are clear in that this combination will work- it's sneaky and exploitative, but clearly within RAW. Objections to this seem to be based on a gut reaction of "but this shouldn't work!"

Let's all keep in mind, though, that the classes most likely to be boned by a compulsion effect also have the highest will saves in the game (paladin, cleric, druid).

By RAW, it will work. Also, by the RAW, if I cast dominate person on a druid, and force them to teach me the druid language, they become ex-druids.

Spoiler:

Ex-Druids
A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description).

But...

There is a lot of RAI(rules as intended) that says that the druids/clerics/paladins must intentionally and willfully violate their ethos before something bad happens. Paladins specifically state that they must willfully violate their vows to become an ex-paladin. Clerics must grossly violate their beliefs to become ex-clerics. Inquisitors must "fall into corruption" or change alignment to lose their powers, which is an intentional act. Druid class is missing that verbage, and that feels to me like an unintended omission.

I would definately like to see a FAQ on whether dominating a druid and making them violate their ethos is supposed to make them lose their abilities. RAW say yes, but RAI it just feels wrong. Most of the negative reactions are probably because RAI, it probably shouldn't work.

The Exchange

I have a simple question but maybe I am over thinking it; to gift the object is it not something you yourself have to carry or use. If said Druid is using the "gift" in question, how is it he could cast the spell to gift it? Unless he is right next to a willing fighter, who then lets the opposing Druid accept his shield and then follows up with a strike immediately after the shield is gifted, so that it was utilized?


It's a first level spell; the Will save is low.
If the Druid fails, it loses power over nature for 24 hours.

This is not game breaking.

You can easily use a 1st level spell to KILL an enemy, so why not use a 1st level spell to cripple them?
You can use this very spell and gift someone a book with Explosive Runes, or Snake Sigil, or even a Symbol of Death. Just because you're H4Xing an enemy's weakness, it's OMG-bad?!? Pffft.

I don't see the problem here.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Charender wrote:
Sean FitzSimon wrote:

Yeah, I'm with Jiggy/OP on this one. The rules are clear in that this combination will work- it's sneaky and exploitative, but clearly within RAW. Objections to this seem to be based on a gut reaction of "but this shouldn't work!"

Let's all keep in mind, though, that the classes most likely to be boned by a compulsion effect also have the highest will saves in the game (paladin, cleric, druid).

By RAW, it will work. Also, by the RAW, if I cast dominate person on a druid, and force them to teach me the druid language, they become ex-druids.

** spoiler omitted **

But...

There is a lot of RAI(rules as intended) that says that the druids/clerics/paladins must intentionally and willfully violate their ethos before something bad happens. Paladins specifically state that they must willfully violate their vows to become an ex-paladin. Clerics must grossly violate their beliefs to become ex-clerics. Druid class is missing that verbage, and that feels to me like an unintended omission.

I would definately like to see a FAQ on whether dominating a druid and making them violate their ethos is supposed to make them lose their abilities.

You make a good case. Clicked the FAQ for ya.


nosig wrote:

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 don't see anything wrong with this. You could just as easily have handed the druid a cursed item or a poisoned item (hopefully they aren't high enough level to be immune to poisons) that could have done much worse or even killed them.


If you can get the druid to actively use the shield ( Not just hold or touch it) then it works.

The Exchange

Mystery solved. This one is on us unfortunately. Beta rules say "carries" vs. 1st through latest printing of core rules saying "uses." In the earliest days of this site we updated some of the beta pages to the final rules. Looks like this one leaked through only to be detected 2 years later lol It has now been fixed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PRD wrote:

Beguiling Gift

School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 1, witch 1

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, S, F (the object to be offered)

Range 5 ft.

Target one creature

Duration 1 round

Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes

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.

Sorry guys, the Druid may say "use", but so does Beguiling Gift.

There is no gray area here. For the duration of the spell, the Druid is using the shield.

At the same time... Good luck with that Will save. :-p


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I think this is extremely clever, and would allow it. However, I would first ask the player how his character knows that handing the druid a metal shield is going to be crippling to him.

I don't think everyone just happens to know everything about other player classes just because. Druid rites are secret, just like their language.

If the player could not provide a reason to do so IN CHARACTER, I would disallow it. His character should never have come to the conclusion that handing a threat something that will provide them more defense will make them weaker. That's my only caveat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charender wrote:
Sean FitzSimon wrote:

Yeah, I'm with Jiggy/OP on this one. The rules are clear in that this combination will work- it's sneaky and exploitative, but clearly within RAW. Objections to this seem to be based on a gut reaction of "but this shouldn't work!"

Let's all keep in mind, though, that the classes most likely to be boned by a compulsion effect also have the highest will saves in the game (paladin, cleric, druid).

By RAW, it will work. Also, by the RAW, if I cast dominate person on a druid, and force them to teach me the druid language, they become ex-druids.

** spoiler omitted **

But...

There is a lot of RAI(rules as intended) that says that the druids/clerics/paladins must intentionally and willfully violate their ethos before something bad happens. Paladins specifically state that they must willfully violate their vows to become an ex-paladin. Clerics must grossly violate their beliefs to become ex-clerics. Inquisitors must "fall into corruption" or change alignment to lose their powers, which is an intentional act. Druid class is missing that verbage, and that feels to me like an unintended omission.

I would definately like to see a FAQ on whether dominating a druid and making them violate their ethos is supposed to make them lose their abilities. RAW say yes, but RAI it just feels wrong. Most of the negative reactions are probably because RAI, it probably shouldn't work.

Here is the Paladin's text:

Ex-Paladins wrote:
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 atonement), as appropriate.

The willful only applies to the evil act. A dominated paladin who is forced to violate her code still becomes an ex-paladin.

Here's Cleric:

Ex-Clerics wrote:
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).

It does have the grossly wording, but nothing about willingness. A dominated cleric of Sarenrae who enslaves all the men-folk of a town while murdering the women and children still becomes an ex-cleric.

All 3 classes can get back their features through atonement, but all three lose their features if they violate their core code because of a compulsion effect.

As has been pointed out, though, all 3 have really good will saves too, so they are the least susceptible to compulsions.


Foghammer wrote:

I think this is extremely clever, and would allow it. However, I would first ask the player how his character knows that handing the druid a metal shield is going to be crippling to him.

I don't think everyone just happens to know everything about other player classes just because. Druid rites are secret, just like their language.

If the player could not provide a reason to do so IN CHARACTER, I would disallow it. His character should never have come to the conclusion that handing a threat something that will provide them more defense will make them weaker. That's my only caveat.

If the workings of the class are secret then such things should be stated up front, and in that case the player should be allowed to make a knowledge check assuming he has ranks in the correct area.

1 to 50 of 764 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Hand a druid a steel shield... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.