|
....(trimmed for space)....I've seen the same reactions to using beguiling gift to hand a druid a steel shield, ....(snip).... With the exception of the beguiling gift issue (never resolved, to my knowledge), ....(snip)....
well, the resolution was for me never to cast the spell, and my Bard to swap out the spell when she leveled. The final count by me was 30% of the responding Judges would not allow it to work at thier table, with a large portion of those expressing the sentiment that I was a "Cheating druid hating bigot" (for a while I considered putting that on my characters table tent - but then I came to my senses.), and should recieve special attention to see what else I was trying to pull. Or just extra attention from the monsters.
But things are more mellow on the boards now. maybe I should revive the thread and we can see if people can discuss it in a thoughtful manner now... nah, not worth it.
I personally would love to see some clarification on that one myself and would be happy to comment in that thread again. (I've invested in some asbestos lined pampers so I'm ready for it)
Post the question again, I'll join you for the Flambe'
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Regarding handing a druid a steel shield:
James Jacobs just answered the question for me today:
Beguiling gift is a compulsion. As such, it does not have the capacity to "overwrite" a person's beliefs. Just as using charm person or dominate person to make them do something against their will (such as making a druid equip a steel shield, or in a more extreme situation making a paladin kill an innocent child) doesn't adversely affect their alignment or class abilities, neither should beguiling gift.
The victim of such a sneaky and underhanded attempt would still likely feel violated and creeped out and scandalized by the whole thing. Once they regain control of their actions, they should immediately (or as quickly as possible) get rid of the offending item. If they choose of their own free will to keep using the item, ONLY THEN would there be actual ramifications on the character's class abilities.
So... flame-inclined thread averted, right?
Regarding handing a druid a steel shield:
James Jacobs just answered the question for me today:
So... flame-inclined thread averted, right?Beguiling gift is a compulsion. As such, it does not have the capacity to "overwrite" a person's beliefs. Just as using charm person or dominate person to make them do something against their will (such as making a druid equip a steel shield, or in a more extreme situation making a paladin kill an innocent child) doesn't adversely affect their alignment or class abilities, neither should beguiling gift.
The victim of such a sneaky and underhanded attempt would still likely feel violated and creeped out and scandalized by the whole thing. Once they regain control of their actions, they should immediately (or as quickly as possible) get rid of the offending item. If they choose of their own free will to keep using the item, ONLY THEN would there be actual ramifications on the character's class abilities.
Yeah, that takes care of that problem. But what happens if you cast an illusion on a steel shield so that it looks like a wooden shield and then get a druid to equip it or used an illusion to make a child look like a goblin and got a paladin to kill it? Those are not compulsions, so what would happen to the druid's or paladin's abilities? Is James saying that it would only have a negative effect if the druid or paladin or whoever knowingly violated their code/beliefs, no matter the source of the potential violation?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, the paladin's code does specify "willingly commits an evil act". But let's not start down that road.
In a home game, you can work out those illusion situations with your GM.
In PFS, I can't imagine those situations happening, so it's a moot point.
Beguiling gift was more relevant because it's not a stretch to think someone might cast that spell. It's less of a corner case, you know?
|
Regarding handing a druid a steel shield:
James Jacobs just answered the question for me today:
So... flame-inclined thread averted, right?Beguiling gift is a compulsion. As such, it does not have the capacity to "overwrite" a person's beliefs. Just as using charm person or dominate person to make them do something against their will (such as making a druid equip a steel shield, or in a more extreme situation making a paladin kill an innocent child) doesn't adversely affect their alignment or class abilities, neither should beguiling gift.
The victim of such a sneaky and underhanded attempt would still likely feel violated and creeped out and scandalized by the whole thing. Once they regain control of their actions, they should immediately (or as quickly as possible) get rid of the offending item. If they choose of their own free will to keep using the item, ONLY THEN would there be actual ramifications on the character's class abilities.
Thanks Jiggy, saved me alot of post reading and thinking on it.
Well, the paladin's code does specify "willingly commits an evil act". But let's not start down that road.
Yeah, since there is a major difference between willingly and knowingly. One you do under your own free will and the other could be forced on you under duress.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Beguiling gift is an effective way to get your target to drink a poison. Just sayin'...and I HATE that spell for PFS, but it's legal, so I digress. :-)
How is that different than hitting them with a poisoned weapon? Still takes a d20 roll to "deliver", and the poisoned weapon even adds some damage.
Come to think of it, are there even any PFS-legal poisons that are ingested rather than injury-based? Or are we talking about something more like a potion of inflict light wounds?
|
How is that different than hitting them with a poisoned weapon?
I think *your* non-combat face/buff/debuff bard (is it a bard spell?) would much prefer the spell option to the weapon option ;-)
actually I have been repeatedly told by different PFSOP judges that if my PC "Beguiling Gifts" a target creature a vial of poison they will apply it to a weapon they will then use on my PC
Who says they know it's a poison? If you have a decent bluff, couldn't you convince them it's a cure? I supposed there is still some table variation to that, but I am much more inclined to allow that than forcing a metal shield on a druid who immediately looses all spells. IMO, the spell is too low a level to have that kind of impact. YMMV.
In any case, I apologize for assisting in the derailing of this thread.
With beguiling gift, or any other trickery, the target will drink the potion/poison, but their body will realize something is wrong even if their brain does not, and they will get their normal saving throws against the poison.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Who says they know it's a poison? If you have a decent bluff, couldn't you convince them it's a cure?
1. There's nothing saying you have to say anything about the identity of the item, bluff or not.
2. Spell description says they drink it.
I supposed there is still some table variation to that, but I am much more inclined to allow that than forcing a metal shield on a druid who immediately looses all spells. IMO, the spell is too low a level to have that kind of impact. YMMV.
Did you miss the James Jacobs quote I went and got? Doesn't cost the druid his spells unless he keeps it on after "snaps out of it". So you just cost him a pair of move actions (one to don it, one to remove it later) and make him REALLY MAD. ;)
What you could do, though, is spend Prestige on potions of inflict serious wounds and "gift them" to BBEGs. Hella 'spensive, though.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At which point I get their PFS number and report them to their VL/VC/Mike Brock. GMs should be rewarding creativity, not punishing it - and especially not punishing it by twisting rules and looking for loopholes.
|
|
Did you miss the James Jacobs quote I went and got?
Yes, I was just commenting on the general belief that the shield gift should kill their spells and that I have always been against that particular use of the spell even before JJ's comments.
do we really want to do down the road again?
Not really, hence my apology. IMO, if the gifted item requires the recipient to USE the item, they would need to know how. Drinking a vial of fluid is pretty easy to to. Activating a wand perhaps not unless they (1) have skill with wands, and (2) know the activation word/phrase (which the gifter could supply).
they will get their normal saving throw
Oh, I agree. The spell does not change or override any other mechanic of the game.
In the end, there is a lot of GM variation with many of the charm/compulsion spells so you should be cautious using them unless you are familiar with the way they adjudicate them.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At which point I get their PFS number and report them to their VL/VC/Mike Brock. GMs should be rewarding creativity, not punishing it - and especially not punishing it by twisting rules and looking for loopholes.
Clear +1.
(Aside, I disagree with JJ's ruling. Given the difficulty to pull this off, that poor druid needs to be screwed)
I also think that creativity (not cheating) needs to be rewarded at the table, then discussed with the VL/VC/et al later.
Example: Ok, so I had a druid with an ape toting an Earth BReaker around. I allowed it, since the player showed me the rule logic in its creation, but it looked dodgy. Should apes be wielding weapons? I want to know before she comes back with apes with muskets.
Tangent spoiler
Flash Forward to me being offline for about 3 weeks. Log back in and my character's banned. New ST decided he didn't like a Dhampyr, that it wasn't fair that I was grandfathered in on the "No supernaturals and hedge magic" rule, and that I wasn't participating enough in the KotE storylines, despite playing in other storylines and the concept being avoiding KotE stuff.
The reason I mention this is it (to me) relates back to the OP's 'monkey banning'. It seems to me that the best concept is to 'grandfather' such characters in. Espeically with the level cap and the evolving nature of the adventure writing. Eventually all the 'apes with hammers' (and other broken combos) will level out or otherwise retire.
Also, don't we already have some things grandfathered? (heirloom weapon comes to mind)
|
|
In the end, there is a lot of GM variation with many of the charm/compulsion spells so you should be cautious using them unless you are familiar with the way they adjudicate them.
I agree with this, I avoid using Charm Person like the plaque in Combat as a player and GM.
I see it all the time in the Tactics, but when I read the spell I am hard pressed to see how it can be a useful Combat Spell.
|
It seems to me that the best concept is to 'grandfather' such characters in.
In the Axe Ape case I don't think it would have worked though because it would have meant GMs would have to potentially run two different interpretations of the rules at the same table. This INT 3 ape can speak and wield an axe and this INT 3 ape can't. This INT 3 ape needs handle animal, this one can act independently... etc. How would a GM know which is which? That would also add a lot of confusion to the game for players who are learning the system.
In some other cases it would probably work where an option is simply no longer available. For example if they banned deinonychus animal companions, they could allow existing ones to continue but people could no longer take it as an option. Then everyone who would follow the same exact rules.
Your Existence Offends Me
This is the one that really bothers me. At least one PFS player at a local convention, after the convention was over, came on the boards, here, and complained about the existence of the ape animal companion.
If there had been an issue with the rules, or with the ape domination combat or various scenarios, I could understand the concern. The problem is, the complaint centered around the existence of the animal companion.
I was there at that convention, in most of the sessions with my friend and his characters animal companion. Not only did the animal companion not dominate any scenarios, but my friend quite often held back and didn't send his animal companion into situations because the group already had eidolons and animal companions from other characters rushing into combat.
In fact, said character died and had to be raised in one scenario that weekend. The ape didn't make him invulnerable or make the scenario too easy.
This was something that began to sour me on some PFS players. I can understand someone saying that a given option makes combat too easy or invalidates other players, but to just say that a concept is offensive just seems to be very bitter.
And this is the really the matter with probably a majority of issues put up to the boards, whether in PFS, or general discussion.
People are complainers. We, as a species, look for the negative in things. We are always waiting to gripe about what build offends us, or what religion we hate, or how somebody in the other political party is doing some thing we "knew!" they were going to do. We expect negativity, and - amazingly! - we find it everywhere we go looking for it. We accept that whatever it is, is intentionally meant to bother us, or even to ruin everything, everywhere, for all time. Don't vote for the other guy because he wants to destroy all civilization and life as we know it!
We all need to learn to let people have their fun, and to act like human beings at the game table.
The problem I see is, that's never going to happen with 100% of players out there, and probably not even with a large majority. So as much as I sympathize with this entire explanation, and the situation another poster found himself in, I think the only real solution is to get to where we can be happy with ourselves, and more dismissive of our critics.
This!We all need to learn to let people have their fun, and to act like human beings at the game table.
...
Nah... not given the way human beings act. Vulcans, maybe, but humans?
KnightErrantJR and Brother Elias, I hope you come back some day. PFS is evolving, members change, and members turnover, but hopefully the love of gaming never dies.
Both of you originally brought the joy of Pathfinder and PFS to me, which I have spread to others.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It seems to me that the best concept is to 'grandfather' such characters in.In the Axe Ape case I don't think it would have worked though because it would have meant GMs would have to potentially run two different interpretations of the rules at the same table. This INT 3 ape can speak and wield an axe and this INT 3 ape can't. This INT 3 ape needs handle animal, this one can act independently... etc. How would a GM know which is which? That would also add a lot of confusion to the game for players who are learning the system.
In some other cases it would probably work where an option is simply no longer available. For example if they banned deinonychus animal companions, they could allow existing ones to continue but people could no longer take it as an option. Then everyone who would follow the same exact rules.
But don't we already have this? Characters that have gone through the old module rules, grandfathered 'heirloom weapons' etc.
Look I've been vocal about disliking two tiers of players (convention boons, beginner's box boons, etc) because it doesn't seem fair to people who couldn't get to a beginner's box event, run a con event etc. I complimented Paizo when they released the 'convention exclusive' adventure the other week, and have a Grandmaster Torch mini from when it was offered as a 'post paizo-con' exclusive. Delays I don't mind, denial is something else entirely. But in that sense we're already running multiple iterations of the rules. "Why does he get to play a Tengu?" "Because he went to exclusive X and got a boon." "Why does his heirloom weapon work differently?" "Because he's older." "Why did X get to chug potions like candy in Crypt of the Everflame and I have to pay for mind now?" etc etc.
If the sheets are properly dated, then it can be shown that 'hammer monkey' or 'heirloom boy' were created prior to a rules change (or 'clarification' in the case of hammer monkey). Might be a bit more difficult to remember Monkey A can wield a hammer, and monkey B can only throw poo, but those are still going to be the exceptions, not the rule.
|
|
Except for retraining right now is not a huge deal.
If you, as most Druid's who choose Animal Campanion for their Nature's Bond should, take several ranks in handle animal, your animal gets the bonus tricks for free, and you can train up to your ranks in handle animal per session. We just had a ranger able to fully train their animal companion in one session (and would have had one trick to spare if their animal could have learned that trick). He did it taking 10 no less.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except for retraining right now is not a huge deal.
If you, as most Druid's who choose Animal Campanion for their Nature's Bond should, take several ranks in handle animal, your animal gets the bonus tricks for free, and you can train up to your ranks in handle animal per session. We just had a ranger able to fully train their animal companion in one session (and would have had one trick to spare if their animal could have learned that trick). He did it taking 10 no less.
Most != all though Andrew. If we're talking about an 'old' Druid who skimped on those ranks (or a cleric with the animal domain) they might not have enough for 'instant retraining'.
Again, I understand corner cases make bad law, just playing Celestial's Advocate here for the 'veteran' player. I'm also not talking about "Dudley Druid, brand new first level Druid, and his companion monkey-with-hammer." I'm talking about Charlie Cleric, who's 7th level, several sheets under his belt and Ape-with-Hammers as his sidekick. Dudley isn't going to care about the change in reality, he wasn't there for it. Charlie however will.
