It seems like in the case of the charm issue, it is really upsetting people that the spell is more than "magic diplomacy". It appears that people do not like the idea that a 1st level mind-affecting spell might cause someone to do something..
Not "something", but "anything(without limits).
There is no way you can convince the Solar to slay an entire town of good people. For the sake of argument the solar(insert lesser but still virtuous creature if needed ) knows that no good can come from this.
That is why I am against the definition of anything that you are using.
Whew, Wraith where you been? Take over for a minute I need a smoke break.
The problem is, you're completely disregarding the second aspect of the spell. Applying a bonus to the Charisma Check becomes GM fiat/houserule territory, and can't truthfully be brought up in the discussion of the spell.No this isn't GM fiat. This is adjudication, which is your job as a GM.
Fiat is not giving the Azata the bonus so he fails a simple check he shouldnt even be subjected to in the first place, to go along with the story.
If it is not RAW then it is GM Fiat, unless it is proven to be RAI. I am not saying a GM can't or should not do it, but the book has a specific rule for this, and changing it is rule/0 aka GM Fiat.
On the other hand Tels, they will stil never do anything that is "obviously harmful". To me that's the most important piece of wording keeping the spell from being too powerful.
Obviously harmful to who? :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since when is assigning modifiers to checks GM fiat? Seriously?
It always is when the the rules define them flatly.
Skill checks are given more leeway, but the charm spell list a specific formula for the spell. Any time you alter a rule it is GM Fiat. That is basically what GM Fiat is.
I don't understand why people keep trying to argue that we're making Charm out to be like Dominate, when it's not.
I've said before, and I'll say again, Charm is all about someone to do something. That is the key right there.
Someone comes up to me and casts Charm Person then says, "Cheat on your girlfriend." For those that don't know, I absolutely despise those that cheat or have affairs. I literally will not associate with a person anymore if I find out they have done so. It fills me with a burning rage and makes me wish to smash their skull in wit a rock. Suffice to say, I am vehemently opposed to cheating on my girlfriend.
However, the spell Charm Person allows the caster to make an opposed Charisma Check. If the Caster wins the opposed Charisma Check, then I have been CONVINCED to cheat on my girlfriend. That means I agree to cheat, that I approve of it, that I will go ahead and cheat on my girlfriend, even though I am vehemently opposed to cheating on my girlfriend. I will seek out the chance to cheat on my girlfriend, at least for the duration of the spell.
The Caster CONVINCES you to do the order given. You AGREE with the Caster to do the order given. You APPROVE of the Caster's order given and seek to follow through with it.
It's not Dominating, it's Magically Persuading.
That's how the spell works. If you aren't using the spell that way, then you are using the spell incorrectly. The word 'anything' is not a factor in the mechanics of Charm Person. The word 'Convince' is the key factor in the mechanics of Charm Person. Regardless of what the Order given is, if I can't Convince the person (via an opposed Charisma Check), then the Order will not be followed, regardless of the Order.
Mechanically what is the difference?
If I have magic that can convince you to do anything(no limits) or magic that forces you it is the same thing.It is not much different than being order not to stab someone with my sword, so I stab them with...
Dominate allows me to outright control someones actions. I give an order, they follow. If it's something that is against it's nature, they get to make another save at +2.
I also get to give commands telepathically over any distance as long as we are on the same plane of existence. If I Dominated someone on Earth, and then, somehow, Teleported to a planet in the Andromeda Galaxy, I could still give the person orders. I could also receive direct sensory input by concentrating on the person I Dominated.
Charm Person allows for (essentially) a save on every order I give. I can't order someone I Charmed to fight that Hill Giant by itself, as it's obviously harmful. But I can order the Dominated person to fight the Hill Giant.
With Feats, and Bloodlines, and Class abilities, it's a lot easier to crank up DC of spells, than it is to give a straight bonus to Charisma Checks. Circlet of Persuasion or a Headband of Alluring Charisma would work, but a Feat that increases the DC of a spell would not.
Not only that, Charm Person only lasts Hours, while Dominate lasts Days.
But when it comes down to it, there isn't a lot of difference between someone who has been Charm/convinced to kill someone, and one that has been dominated to kill someone. Both are attempting to kill someone, both are under the effects of Magci to do something they normally wouldn't. Both leave the person feeling guilty afterwards. Yet they are achieved by different means.
Isn't the Generic +2/-2 RAW?
Giving both a +2 to the Azata(for being massivly opposed) and a -2 to the caster(for needing a really convincing arguement) definatly helps the azata in a contest where bonuses will I think at best only be a +13(I'm assuming that a 36 is about max on cha but I could be wrong)
Since when is assigning modifiers to checks GM fiat? Seriously?It always is when the the rules define them flatly.
Skill checks are given more leeway, but the charm spell list a specific formula for the spell. Any time you alter a rule it is GM Fiat. That is basically what GM Fiat is.
Glad you agree :P
I have to say, "just magical diplomacy" is a fairly apt description of how charm has always worked in my games, and I'm not seeing anything compelling to change my interpretation of it. The wording is just too similar. Even diplomacy let's you make a request, and a target coerced by the intimidate skill "takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance.".
Charm feels like a magical version of these skills, while compulsion effects like dominate go significantly beyond them.
Would you allow diplomacy to talk the king into killing the entire royal family, and turn his nation over to another person?
I have to say, I like the idea Ashiel presented. It's cool and edgy.
I played in a module once where an evil cleric who used to be so good a Solar allied with her, and when she turned evil becasue of an unjustice layed on her by the church, the solar was corrupted as well, becasue it had given it's word to protect her.
It's a cool idea, but mechanicly this would never happen.I can think of one way Ashiel's scenario could hold water. The order from the evil caster would be "obviously harmful" and would not work at all, EXCEPT if the Ghaele had suffered all those ability score penalties and was consequently too irrational (Int), foolish (Wis), and lacking a strong sense of self (Cha) to recognize the obvious harm of obeying the command.
But apparently this doesn't work because according to some, penalized ability scores are not really lower.
According to the book they are not lower.
Isn't the Generic +2/-2 RAW?
Giving both a +2 to the Azata(for being massivly opposed) and a -2 to the caster(for needing a really convincing arguement) definatly helps the azata in a contest where bonuses will I think at best only be a +13(I'm assuming that a 36 is about max on cha but I could be wrong)
Perhaps I'm having a brain fart, but where are you pulling massively opposed and convincing argument from?
I have to say, "just magical diplomacy" is a fairly apt description of how charm has always worked in my games, and I'm not seeing anything compelling to change my interpretation of it. The wording is just too similar. Even diplomacy let's you make a request, and a target coerced by the intimidate skill "takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance.".
Charm feels like a magical version of these skills, while compulsion effects like dominate go significantly beyond them.Would you allow diplomacy to talk the king into killing the entire royal family, and turn his nation over to another person?
Piggybacking off of this link do you(anyone) think diplomacy or charm should do this(what is in the link)?
Piggybacking off of this link do you(anyone) think diplomacy or charm should do this(what is in the link)?I have to say, "just magical diplomacy" is a fairly apt description of how charm has always worked in my games, and I'm not seeing anything compelling to change my interpretation of it. The wording is just too similar. Even diplomacy let's you make a request, and a target coerced by the intimidate skill "takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance.".
Charm feels like a magical version of these skills, while compulsion effects like dominate go significantly beyond them.Would you allow diplomacy to talk the king into killing the entire royal family, and turn his nation over to another person?
I think Charm Person would. You know. For 1 hour per Caster level. Onece that 1 hour per level is up, the BBEG is back to taking over the world.
Damn, claiming restoration would restore the abilities penalized by the geas seems like a pretty newb mistake for a "supastah!".
Excuse me, that is GREATER RESTORATION, which is a 7th level spell, which is higher level then Geas. Actually, it's effect would be higher level then Limited Wish, which would be duplicating a 6th level version of what it can do.
And are you now trying to buy Ashiel's de facto claim that Geas is 'not a magical effect giving ability score penalties?' Greater Restoration's ability is broad and powerful because there are so many damn ways to apply negatives to ability scores.
Greater Restoration is a more powerful spell then Geas, and will remove it the instant the Geas applies an ability score penalty.
Here's the language Ashiel was trying to quote for your effect:
A remove curse spell ends a geas/quest spell only if its caster level is at least two higher than your caster level. Break enchantment does not end a geas/quest, but limited wish, miracle, and wish do.
NOTE: Nowhere in the above does it say other spells can't remove a Geas. And note that Greater Restoration will remove curses that cause ability score penalties. The above list is not 'limited to', despite his attempt to claim otherwise. Geas is NOT that almighty.
NOTE 2: If the character obeys the Geas and Does NOT get an ability score penalty, Greater Restoration will NOT remove the Geas. I'll make that claim. Regardless, the ghaele can memorize Greater Restoration before he takes any ability score penalties, and cast it as soon as it inflicts one. Bye-bye Geas.
Greater Restoration's language is very broad and VERY powerful. Restoration may not remove a Geas, but Greater Restoration certainly does so.
I quoted the directly relevant language in Greater Restoration. I BOLDED it. And Ashiel dismissed it since it didn't agree with his worldview. Grimmy, remember to take Ashiel's claims with a grain of salt, especially when the rules saying he's wrong are staring him in the face.
============
I like how Ashiel's obedience argument comes down to the fact that what is 'reasonable' for the summoning wizard must be 'reasonable' for the celestial.
If you can somehow justify a celestial thinking it perfectly reasonable to obey an evil spellcaster and commit evil deeds, then there is no discussion to be had. The language is in there by the developers specifically to prevent the out and out abuse of using outsiders, especially Angels, as your footstools. But, it doesn't agree with your liberal worldview, I can see.
=============
Ashiel's argument on called vs summoning is a smokescreen for Prot/Evil. Note that Prot/Evil has no ability to hold back a Called Creature, So logically using it as the base spell in a summoning circle is USELESS. Right?
No, used in a summoning circle, it's effects now extend to Called outsiders, it's STILL a Prot/Evil. And if you attack the Called creature, it's broken...just like every other casting of the spell. Where specifically in the summoning rules does it waive the other limits of Prot/Evil? As far as I can tell, a Summoning Circle only extends the effect to Called outsiders, it doesn't change anything else about the spell!
If you find some language that says Protection from Evil stops working like it normally does in other respects, direct me to them. Because I don't read it anywhere in the summoning rules. I only read that it has EXTRA effects against the Called. And duration = circle intactness. Nothing more...and certainly nothing less.
So, no attacking the guy in the summoning circle without breaking the magic. Which, if you look at any and all kind of historical fiction, is spot on.
Heck, there's even an example in the Cheliash Wizard school story. The protagonist has to go INTO THE CIRCLE with the devil to use his trap the soul effect on it, or he breaks the circle with magic, and it can flee!
============
Ashiel, you don't think that compelling someone to smash themselves into a barrier is an offensive use of a spell? You have strange logic. And remember, it's NOT A FORCE FIELD. It's a Prot/Evil...it PREVENTS CONTACT. The outsider can't even touch the barrier. But if someone else compels it to do so, there's no problem. A Geas is effectively forcing the celestial to throw itself up against a barrier.
===
There's still no official support for evil casters summoning good outsiders, either, so quit saying it's official. It's DM interpretation, and not a particularly good one, Ashiel. It's the 'rules liberality' that Ciretose is always commenting about.
===========
You are correct in that Geas does not allow a save. Guess what? The rules don't say if a no-save spell even needs a save to be suppressed. It could be suppressed without him requiring a roll!
Which is a moot point. You then try to argue that Geas is not an Enchantment (Compulsion) spell (which it says right there in the spell description, and someone even quoted it), and so Prot/Evil wouldn't suppress it at all. As if magic causing you pain and agony if you don't take an action is not actively at work. Right. Sorry, that argument doesn't fly, either. A Holy Aura should suppress it nicely.
===================
Keep trying Ashiel, but your arguments aren't holding water. You're making huge stretches of logic and lots of DM interpretation, that simply won't work in the core game.
==Aelryinth
I think Charm Person would. You know. For 1 hour per Caster level. Onece that 1 hour per level is up, the BBEG is back to taking over the world.Piggybacking off of this link do you(anyone) think diplomacy or charm should do this(what is in the link)?I have to say, "just magical diplomacy" is a fairly apt description of how charm has always worked in my games, and I'm not seeing anything compelling to change my interpretation of it. The wording is just too similar. Even diplomacy let's you make a request, and a target coerced by the intimidate skill "takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance.".
Charm feels like a magical version of these skills, while compulsion effects like dominate go significantly beyond them.Would you allow diplomacy to talk the king into killing the entire royal family, and turn his nation over to another person?
By that time his plan could be disolved. I am sure using a first level spell to end campaigns or anything else I could do if I can someone do "anything" was the intent.
PS:Before the semantics monster strikes, I don't mean end a campaign as one might use magic missile to deal the last 2 or 3 hit points.
On the other hand Tels, they will stil never do anything that is "obviously harmful". To me that's the most important piece of wording keeping the spell from being too powerful.Obviously harmful to who? :)
Ahhh I leave for five minutes and look what you did.
Greater Restoration also has a minute casting time, material component, and isn't prepared by the standard Ghaele. "Greater" Restoration is hardly pertinent to this argument.
Heck, there's even an example in the Cheliash Wizard school story. The protagonist has to go INTO THE CIRCLE with the devil to use his trap the soul effect on it, or he breaks the circle with magic, and it can flee!
You mean
Supastah, you missed this:
Ah, I spoke too soon. He's right, it's right there in the spell description. Restoration does dispel magical effects penalizing ability scores, particularly greater restoration.
Greater Restoration also has a minute casting time, material component, and isn't prepared by the standard Ghaele. "Greater" Restoration is hardly pertinent to this argument.
The standard Ghaele does have Holy Aura as an "always on" ability though.
Third, the abjuration protects the recipient from possession and mental influence, just as protection from evil does.
Protection from Evil
Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects,...
Geas, Lesser
School enchantment (compulsion) [language-dependent, mind-affecting]; Level bard 3, sorcerer/wizard 4
But this looks pretty solid:
Ah, I spoke too soon. He's right, it's right there in the spell description. Restoration does dispel magical effects penalizing ability scores, particularly greater restoration.Not for Bestow Curse or Geas. They have caveats that they cannot be dispelled.
The curse bestowed by this spell cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed with a break enchantment, limited wish, miracle, remove curse, or wish spell.A lesser geas (and all ability score penalties) can be ended by break enchantment, limited wish, remove curse, miracle, or wish. Dispel magic does not affect a lesser geas.This spell functions similarly to lesser geas, except that it affects a creature of any HD and allows no saving throw...
A remove curse spell ends a geas/quest spell only if its caster level is at least two higher than your caster level. Break enchantment does not end a geas/quest, but limited wish, miracle, and wish do.
Restoration specifically mentions that it "dispels" effects.
Greater restoration also dispels all magical effects penalizing the creature's abilities, cures all temporary ability damage, and restores all points permanently drained from all ability scores.
Since when is assigning modifiers to checks GM fiat? Seriously?It always is when the the rules define them flatly.
Skill checks are given more leeway, but the charm spell list a specific formula for the spell. Any time you alter a rule it is GM Fiat. That is basically what GM Fiat is.
It's simply an opposed charisma check. Where does it say you cannot or shouldn't apply modifiers to an opposed ability check like any other check?
Greater Restoration also has a minute casting time, material component, and isn't prepared by the standard Ghaele. "Greater" Restoration is hardly pertinent to this argument.The standard Ghaele does have Holy Aura as an "always on" ability though.
Third, the abjuration protects the recipient from possession and mental influence, just as protection from evil does.Protection from Evil
Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects,...Geas, Lesser
School enchantment (compulsion) [language-dependent, mind-affecting]; Level bard 3, sorcerer/wizard 4
This seems more relevant. I think Ashiel already admitted to overlooking it.
Greater Restoration also has a minute casting time, material component, and isn't prepared by the standard Ghaele. "Greater" Restoration is hardly pertinent to this argument.
(SIGHS HEAVILY) Which is why I specifically noted that the NEXT DAY, the ghaele prepares it. You know, before the ability score penalties actually kick it.
And I'm sorry, 'dispelling' used in the geas argument is pointing to Dispel Magic and Greater Dispel Magic. It has no direct reference to what Greater Restoration's capability of dispelling ALL magical effects says.
So what you have is a spell that says it can't be dispelled, and another spell that says it can dispel ALL magical effects...including things like curses, which ALSO cannot be dispelled. Note...you also CANNOT DISPEL ability score drain...but Greater Restoration does the job. In short, Greater Restoration is doing much more then dispelling.
In which case, you compare the two spells.
Oh, my, level 6 spell against level 7. Guess the absolute language of the level 7 would be stronger.
And even if you were to be a real, real hardass and say a lower level spell trumps a higher level one, despite that being mentioned right in the magic section as not true...Restoration will STILL REMOVE THE PENALTY. Just 'Restoration'.
So the Ghaele will never have an ability score penalty from this spell, which can't afflict him anyways because it's suppressed as soon as it is cast on him!
===Aelryinth
Heck, there's even an example in the Cheliash Wizard school story. The protagonist has to go INTO THE CIRCLE with the devil to use his trap the soul effect on it, or he breaks the circle with magic, and it can flee!You mean
** spoiler omitted **
The web fiction one, yeah, pretty sure that's it. Note he's careful not to disturb the physical circle...or breach the magical barrier.
==Aelryinth
It's simply an opposed charisma check. Where does it say you cannot or shouldn't apply modifiers to an opposed ability check like any other check?Since when is assigning modifiers to checks GM fiat? Seriously?It always is when the the rules define them flatly.
Skill checks are given more leeway, but the charm spell list a specific formula for the spell. Any time you alter a rule it is GM Fiat. That is basically what GM Fiat is.
You can, but any deviation from the book is a houserule.
The book does not say win an opposed check plus or minus any GM based modifiers. It just specifies an opposed check. RAW no additional penalties or bonuses should be applied.
This seems more relevant. I think Ashiel already admitted to overlooking it.Greater Restoration also has a minute casting time, material component, and isn't prepared by the standard Ghaele. "Greater" Restoration is hardly pertinent to this argument.The standard Ghaele does have Holy Aura as an "always on" ability though.
Third, the abjuration protects the recipient from possession and mental influence, just as protection from evil does.Protection from Evil
Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects,...Geas, Lesser
School enchantment (compulsion) [language-dependent, mind-affecting]; Level bard 3, sorcerer/wizard 4
Actually, Ashiel claimed that since it doesn't have any active compulsion effects, it didn't fall under the Prot/Evil mandate.
Which at least two other posters then promptly shot down. Trying to claim that a spell that has the language MUST OBEY and PENALIZED IF UNABLE TO isn't an active compulsion is just more rules laxness.
==Aelryinth
And even if you were to be a real, real hardass and say a lower level spell trumps a higher level one, despite that being mentioned right in the magic section as not true...
Greater Invisibility, a 4th level spell, is trumped by:
Glitterdust: a second level spell
See Invisibility: a second level spell
Invisibility Purge: a third level spell
I won't be joining the Binding debate as I admit I'm not familiar with binding at all. But I thought I should point out that some lower-level spells do indeed trump higher level spells.
If you say so. I'd personally rule that a spell being immune to dispelling makes it (gasp) immune to dispelling, and that a monster that "Casts spells as an X level Class" still needs material components for a spell with material components, since it's not an SLA.
This appears to be a place where our interpretation of the same text varies, and in the interest of not starting another hundred pages of pointless arguing I'll retract my point
As for the dispel issue, it called out "dispel magic" a particular spell. Dispel magic is not the only means of dispelling something. If all means of dispel were meant to fail vs geas then it would have been written like bestow curse which just says "dispelling" does not work.
Also, Greater Restoration requires 5,000 gp of Diamond Dust which the Ghaele does not have on her. So she can prepare that spell all she wants, but she can't cast it without the 5,000 gp of Diamond Dust.
This seems more relevant. I think Ashiel already admitted to overlooking it.Greater Restoration also has a minute casting time, material component, and isn't prepared by the standard Ghaele. "Greater" Restoration is hardly pertinent to this argument.The standard Ghaele does have Holy Aura as an "always on" ability though.
Third, the abjuration protects the recipient from possession and mental influence, just as protection from evil does.Protection from Evil
Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects,...Geas, Lesser
School enchantment (compulsion) [language-dependent, mind-affecting]; Level bard 3, sorcerer/wizard 4
Actually, Ashiel claimed that since it doesn't have any active compulsion effects, it didn't fall under the Prot/Evil mandate.
Which at least two other posters then promptly shot down. Trying to claim that a spell that has the language MUST OBEY and PENALIZED IF UNABLE TO isn't an active compulsion is just more rules laxness.
==Aelryinth
I don't think PoE calls out active vs inactive "compulsion". It just says compulsion. :)
Now if he(I am so used to saying she) has a quote to support that I would like to see it.
Aelryinth,
For the record I don't want to see mechanics that make it a trivial thing to use celestials as footstools. I'm happy the devs seem to feel the same way.
But you are coming off to me as very haughty and smug. We are all having a fairly civil discussion about all the angles in this scenario, and it's a good exercise. I've gotten some clarity on a few issues, and noted some new questions that I have to research further. The only person I see flying in here shaking his head as though in disbelief that all this isn't clear to all of us already is you. So, regretably it is your posts I'll be taking with a grain of salt, and its because of your tone.
Also, Greater Restoration requires 5,000 gp of Diamond Dust which the Ghaele does not have on her. So she can prepare that spell all she wants, but she can't cast it without the 5,000 gp of Diamond Dust.
Restoration which the Ghaele does have prepared calls for "diamond dust worth 100 gp or 1,000 gp, see text)".
4th—death ward, dismissal (2) (DC 18), divine power, restoration
The Ghaele does not have that listed either. :)
I am assuming it comes out of the Ghaele's treasure like her sword does. She would have just enough for the 1000 GP after having the sword.
I say that the behavior of the wizard is obviously threateing, the charm will not work on the ghaele.
That is also one of those things up to GM interpretation. One could just as easily say that the mere presence of an evil wizard Charming my fighter, is threatening. Therefore, a Charm Person could never work in such a situation.
I say that the behavior of the wizard is obviously threateing, the charm will not work on the ghaele.
That is really a side issue. The main issue is how powerful is charm. I agree that if the caster is threatening the Ghaele it gets the +5 bonus.
I say that the behavior of the wizard is obviously threateing, the charm will not work on the ghaele.That is also one of those things up to GM interpretation. One could just as easily say that the mere presence of an evil wizard Charming my fighter, is threatening. Therefore, a Charm Person could never work in such a situation.The Ghaele is a captive of the wizard, he is draining his vital force with evil spells, he say obey me and in return and in return I won't kill you!
how that can be interpreted deferent from a threat?
If all is DM fiat stop saying that the story of ashiel is enforced by pure RAW.
I meant after the casting of Charm, the words the Wizard said before Charm aren't threatening the Ghaele afterward. That's what I meant.
Threatening a creature that has been charmed (if you are an ally of the caster), breaks the Charm. Actions taken before the casting of the Charm, don't break the Charm after it's been cast.
I say that the behavior of the wizard is obviously threateing, the charm will not work on the ghaele.That is really a side issue. The main issue is how powerful is charm. I agree that if the caster is threatening the Ghaele it gets the +5 bonus.the descrition of the spell is clear
" Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell"
I was not using "if" to say it might not be true. I was saying that if(in the event)..... :)
I say that the behavior of the wizard is obviously threateing, the charm will not work on the ghaele.That is really a side issue. The main issue is how powerful is charm. I agree that if the caster is threatening the Ghaele it gets the +5 bonus.the descrition of the spell is clear
" Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell"
If we were fighting in combat, and a Wizard were to come up and hit me with Charm Person, I would get +5 to the save. If you continue to threaten me after I have been Charmed, you break the spell and I am free of the Charm Person.
Being threatening prior to the spell being cast does not break the spell after it has been cast.
@nicos The same way as a captured hobgoblin lieutenent can have just watched 4 people slaughter 15 of his comrades and tie him up then proceed to say some magic words and tell him its okay I'm your friend tell me what your boss is up to and he will.
(all of the above is in refernce to the 1st encounter in Red Hand of Doom which as Ashiel mentioned earlier is the books exact method of getting such info)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
--post--
I hate to ask this, but could you try formatting your posts differently from here on out Aelryinth? It's really messing with my eyes trying to follow it. Everything just seems so scattered, and there are paragraph spaces between most every sentence. It makes it rather difficult to follow, let alone respond.
1.) Geas specifically says it cannot be dispelled, but may be removed by the the listed spells. Those spells including things such as limited wish, remove curse (IF the caster level is 2 higher), and so forth. Last I checked, with specific exceptions (such as Light and Darkness spells), the level of the spell does not matter. I cannot cast remove curse to remove blindness/deafness just because it's a higher level. I have to have the right tool for the job. Geas specifically notes that it cannot be dispelled. Greater restoration cannot end it.
2.) Now as others have pointed out, most astutely, is that the holy aura that the ghaele has is the biggest inhibiting factor to the big bad simply controlling or compelling her. I'm even apt to agree that it blocks the geas (but not the bestow curse) since geas is a mind-affecting enchantment (compulsion). That would make it harder to have such a crushing victory. He will otherwise have to rely solely on bestow curse which can provide a -7 to her Charisma check (-4 to all checks, and a -6 to Charisma). Alternatively, realizing the nature of her protections, will acquire a means to bypass them.
For example, he can create a simulacrum of a good or neutral aligned creature capable of casting geas from a scroll. Doing so will bypass her invulnerability to it, because Pathfinder nerfed protection from evil and similar aligned spells, so that if the caster is unaligned or not the correct alignment, then the protection spell provides no defense at all.
Ashiel's argument on called vs summoning is a smokescreen for Prot/Evil. Note that Prot/Evil has no ability to hold back a Called Creature, So logically using it as the base spell in a summoning circle is USELESS. Right?
No, used in a summoning circle, it's effects now extend to Called outsiders, it's STILL a Prot/Evil. And if you attack the Called creature, it's broken...just like every other casting of the spell. Where specifically in the summoning rules does it waive the other limits of Prot/Evil? As far as I can tell, a Summoning Circle only extends the effect to Called outsiders, it doesn't change anything else about the spell!
No, because there is a very specific usage for magic circle spells. They are not just copies of protection from evil. Here is the actual text.
This spell has an alternative version that you may choose when casting it. A magic circle against evil can be focused inward rather than outward. When focused inward, the spell binds a nongood called creature (such as those called by the lesser planar binding, planar binding, and greater planar binding spells) for a maximum of 24 hours per caster level, provided that you cast the spell that calls the creature within 1 round of casting the magic circle. The creature cannot cross the circle's boundaries. If a creature too large to fit into the spell's area is the subject of the spell, the spell acts as a normal protection from evil spell for that creature only.
A magic circle leaves much to be desired as a trap. If the circle of powdered silver laid down in the process of spellcasting is broken, the effect immediately ends. The trapped creature can do nothing that disturbs the circle, directly or indirectly, but other creatures can. If the called creature has spell resistance, it can test the trap once a day. If you fail to overcome its spell resistance, the creature breaks free, destroying the circle. A creature capable of any form of dimensional travel (astral projection, blink, dimension door, etherealness, gate, plane shift, shadow walk, teleport, and similar abilities) can simply leave the circle through such means. You can prevent the creature's extradimensional escape by casting a dimensional anchor spell on it, but you must cast the spell before the creature acts. If you are successful, the anchor effect lasts as long as the magic circle does. The creature cannot reach across the magic circle, but its ranged attacks (ranged weapons, spells, magical abilities, and the like) can. The creature can attack any target it can reach with its ranged attacks except for the circle itself.
You can add a special diagram (a two-dimensional bounded figure with no gaps along its circumference, augmented with various magical sigils) to make the magic circle more secure. Drawing the diagram by hand takes 10 minutes and requires a DC 20 Spellcraft check. You do not know the result of this check. If the check fails, the diagram is ineffective. You can take 10 when drawing the diagram if you are under no particular time pressure to complete the task. This task also takes 10 full minutes. If time is no factor at all, and you devote 3 hours and 20 minutes to the task, you can take 20.
A successful diagram allows you to cast a dimensional anchor spell on the magic circle during the round before casting any summoning spell. The anchor holds any called creatures in the magic circle for 24 hours per caster level. A creature cannot use its spell resistance against a magic circle prepared with a diagram, and none of its abilities or attacks can cross the diagram. If the creature tries a Charisma check to break free of the trap (see the lesser planar binding spell), the DC increases by 5. The creature is immediately released if anything disturbs the diagram—even a straw laid across it. The creature itself cannot disturb the diagram either directly or indirectly, as noted above.
So as you can see, it's not simply protection from evil #2.
You are correct in that Geas does not allow a save. Guess what? The rules don't say if a no-save spell even needs a save to be suppressed. It could be suppressed without him requiring a roll!
Wow, and people accuse me of trying to twist stuff. >.<
Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects, such as charm person, command, and dominate person. This saving throw is made with a +2 morale bonus, using the same DC as the original effect. If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this spell.
I think that's enough on that, so no need to argue further.
There's still no official support for evil casters summoning good outsiders, either, so quit saying it's official. It's DM interpretation, and not a particularly good one, Ashiel. It's the 'rules liberality' that Ciretose is always commenting about.
I'm not sure what you mean here. There is no restriction stopping an evil character from casting [Good] spells, unless it is an Evil cleric casting [Good] spells as a cleric (no Evil clerics casting holy smite for example). Other casters do not suffer such restrictions, nor is there anything preventing a caster from binding a creature opposed to its alignment.
You are simply making this up, and asserting it as fact. I've asked you to provide something that supports this assertion about three times now. I can quote to you the sections that declare that clerics cannot cast spells opposed to their alignment or their deity's alignment. Can you quote somewhere saying that wizards, sorcerers, bards, or any other caster has that problem? I don't think you can; and since this is the third time I've asked, I don't think you will.
Keep trying Ashiel, but your arguments aren't holding water. You're making huge stretches of logic and lots of DM interpretation, that simply won't work in the core game.
Of course I shall keep trying. I'm always trying to help. That's why I try to answer questions honestly, discuss RAW and offer advice on how to handle that RAW in a way that won't break your game, or provide house rules or alternative options for them.
Perhaps I can learn from you how to patch my leaky arguments that rely entirely on the rules as they are written, without changing or re-writing anything, without creating logical fallacies, without inconsistencies, and without twisting of the rules; and perhaps I can patch those holes with assertions of rules that I've made up to prevent casters from casting spells they are legally allowed to cast, twisting and distorting words, ignoring spell descriptions in their entirety, and declaring myself correct as opposed to simply showing evidence even when it was asked, or trying to dispel things that specifically say they cannot be dispelled.
Maybe I'll learn a trick.
I mean, the wizard cast charm person at some point but he did not behave nice with the ghaele, the threat did not stop.@nicos The same way as a captured hobgoblin lieutenent can have just watched 4 people slaughter 15 of his comrades and tie him up then proceed to say some magic words and tell him its okay I'm your friend tell me what your boss is up to and he will.
(all of the above is in refernce to the 1st encounter in Red Hand of Doom which as Ashiel mentioned earlier is the books exact method of getting such info)
If you have hostilities present, the Ghaele gets a +5 bonus on their saving throw to resist the initial charm spell. The fact the ghaele was being threatened prior to being charmed does not automatically break the spell. Instead, if the caster attacked the ghaele after being charmed, then the spell would automatically break and need to be re-applied.
If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
Alryinth,
Suffice to say that I did make a mistake. The ghaele is under a constant effect that mirrors protection from evil which specifically makes it immune to the charm effect, so the bad guy will need to do it the old fashioned way
I was thinking of this.
But if Ashiel does still think Geas would get through Protection from Evil, isn't that consistent with the precedent you set in your interpretation of Greater Restoration dispelling ability penalties from Geas, despite text in the spell description to the effect that this ability damage cannot be dispelled? i.e. why does higher spell level trump specific rules in one case but not the other?
I personally don't see it going that way in either case, for my games, for the time being, Protection from Evil will block Geas, and ability damage from Geas will only be recovered by the means called out in its description. These specific rules trump the general rules in the Magic chapter about spell level, which you referred to.
Up, look whos back.
Wussup Ash