| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The servant cannot attack in any way; it is never allowed an attack roll. It cannot be killed, but it dissipates if it takes 6 points of damage from area attacks. (It gets no saves against attacks.) If you attempt to send it beyond the spell's range (measured from your current position), the servant ceases to exist.
So since its a "shapeless force" does that mean it can go under the gap in a door and open the door from the inside? Or should we assume all fantasy doors have weatherstripping?
I wouldn't call slipping under a door a "simple task" myself, but since the Servant is shapeless it should be capable of the job - GM permitting.
** spoiler omitted **
can [an unseen servant] go under the gap in a door and open the door from the inside?
Yes, it can. Opening doors is exactly the kind of thing that an unseen servant does for you. It may not work if the door is stuck or locked.
I'm thinking that you can do this for any "interior" door...ones that are on the outside don't have gaps.
they are force constructs
Sorry, but: no they're not. They're a spell effect, and have none of the construct features.
Were I the GM in this case, I'd rule that an Unseen Servant acts as if it's a medium creature, and then apply the squeezing rules. Which means it probably cannot move underneath any doors. But there are no rules supporting this position that I'm aware of.
|
Well, it's shapeless, so to me that sounds like they can definitely go through any crack, even if it's pretty narrow, as long as it doesn't have to push anything out of the way that's heavier than it can deal with (pushable weight should be somewhere between 20lbs lift and 100lbs drag).
Complicated tasks aren't possible, but this sounds pretty simple. The spell even specifically mentions opening normal doors.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shapeless doesn't necessarily mean "have no conherent mass". Shapeless could as easily mean "doesn't have distinct features".
While the interpretation is GM territory, mine would be that it is a roughly humanoid shape without any features such as face, hair, nails, ear, etc., but having a form nonetheless.
I agree with HaraldKlak's interpretation, this interpretation is only reinforced by a sense of balance. The unseen servant is not a spell designed to open locked door obstacles and using it like that would tread upon the toes of other character roles, even if there is no rogue in the party I 'd advise to take into account what a spell of that level should be capable of doing.
Also remember that if the door is not barred, but is actually locked, then I think the Servant would need a key to open the door. I don't think I as a GM would consider a fantasy/medieval/golarion door as having a simply lock mechanism allowing for easy acces from one side. Either it's a bar, or it's a genuine lock, where you need a key.
But I agree with others here - the power level of the spell should not allow it to be used in such a way.
|
|
I don't think you can really interpret "shapeless" as "roughly humanoid shape". The thing is immune to non-area damage because it's got no shape to attack; area attacks rip the energy apart.
I think an US could open a barred door, provided he can lift the bar (30lbs - that's heavy for a normal door, light for a gate).
Locks with a key - well, if you have the key, and the key fits under the door, that can work too, since unlocking a door with a key is definitely easier than a DC 10 skill check, which is the US' upper bound. If you don't have the key, then the US isn't good enough unless the lock is DC 10 or less to pick (extremely unlikely).
I also don't think it's in any way unbalanced; you're spending actual resources (it's not a cantrip), and moving around stuff is precisely what the servant is for. It's a power expenditure comparable to casting another Color Spray, Mage Armor or Magic Missile; it's not free. Let's also keep in mind that a door that an US can handle, could also be handled by kicking it in.
So the US lets you do it a bit more quietly, and if the door is trapped, it takes the hit. Spend a spell to bypass a trap; that's not OP, that's just a party deciding to spend a resource on a trap instead of a monster; fair deal. Wizards are supposed to be doing more than blasting and summoning monsters; this is precisely what they're for.
I'm wondering... There doesn't seem to be anything in the descriptive text that says you can't summon the Unseen Servant behind the door in the first place? I don't see any language that says you have to see where you are summoning it to. As long as you are within 25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels of the other side of the door, you should be able to summon the US behind it. Then lifting a bar, or clicking a lever or latch to unlock a door, is well within the bounds of an Unseen Servant's jurisdiction.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong on that.
Edit: In fact under magic it says
Aiming a Spell You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it. Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile, after it appears it can move regardless of the spell's range.
If I define "behind that door" as the point of origin of the Unseen Servant, I'm pretty sure that's where it will show up...
I would argue that they have to have a line of effect. Not necessarily a straight line, but the caster needs to at least be able to see the doorknob in question without arcane eye or what not.
I would argue that they have to have a line of effect. Not necessarily a straight line, but the caster needs to at least be able to see the doorknob in question without arcane eye or what not.
Which is certainly a good argument that can be made. However, there is precedence of other spells that allow effects to occur without you seeing them. Dimension door is one. That spell allows you to "teleport" from your current location to any desired location, either by visualizing or simply stating direction. In addition the Summon Monster spells say it appears "where you designate." If I "designate" behind that locked door, that's where it's going to appear. In fact I've allowed that very thing in campaigns. Adventurers happen upon an open door on the other side of which are baddies. Baddies see them and slam the door shut and lock it. Caster summons a monster behind the locked door and chaos ensues.
I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying there is a solid case for someone saying they can summon a monster or servant behind a door.
Edit: Further corroboration of my argument might be had by looking at the Conjuration school description, which says
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.
The creature or object must appear within the spell's range, but it does not have to remain within the range.
At no point there does it say the caster has to see where it is being summoned. Just that it can't appear inside another creature, or floating in space. If I summon it behind a door, and try to summon it in the space of another living creature the spell fizzles. That's one of the risks of summoning something behind a door.
I would argue that they have to have a line of effect. Not necessarily a straight line, but the caster needs to at least be able to see the doorknob in question without arcane eye or what not.Which is certainly a good argument that can be made. However, there is precedence of other spells that allow effects to occur without you seeing them. Dimension door is one. That spell allows you to "teleport" from your current location to any desired location, either by visualizing or simply stating direction. In addition the Summon Monster spells say it appears "where you designate." If I "designate" behind that locked door, that's where it's going to appear. In fact I've allowed that very thing in campaigns. Adventurers happen upon an open door on the other side of which are baddies. Baddies see them and slam the door shut and lock it. Caster summons a monster behind the locked door and chaos ensues.
I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying there is a solid case for someone saying they can summon a monster or servant behind a door.
It was just my opinion, not RAW. Though Unseen servant is a 1st level long duration utility spell. There are other spells that do what you're asking. Pilfering hand (2nd level) comes to mind, but i'm not looking at the spell to know it's exact wording. Though it says something to the effect of "remotely manipulatin an object." I would just be wary of devaluing higher level spells. That's all.
Pilfering Hand specifically says you can use it to make a Disable Device check. I'm guessing, though, that that isn't necessarily what would work in the OP's post.
Pilfering Hand specifically says you can use it to make a Disable Device check. I'm guessing, though, that that isn't necessarily what would work in the OP's post.
It was just an example. I'm sure there are others and probaby better ones.
I would argue that they have to have a line of effect. Not necessarily a straight line, but the caster needs to at least be able to see the doorknob in question without arcane eye or what not.
I would place line of effect to where the unseen servant appears. You don't have to target the lock for the spell to work. That said, I would likely require a perception check by the caster, who is trying to look under the door, the place unseen servant where it needs to be.
Keep in mind, by RAW, line of effect needs to be unobstructed. A closed window blocks line of effect in most cases (lightning bolt being a good example of an exception).
Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.
You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.
A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creature, or object to which it has line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst's center point, a cone-shaped burst's starting point, a cylinder's circle, or an emanation's point of origin).
An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell's line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell's line of effect.
I would argue that they have to have a line of effect. Not necessarily a straight line, but the caster needs to at least be able to see the doorknob in question without arcane eye or what not.I would place line of effect to where the unseen servant appears. You don't have to target the lock for the spell to work. That said, I would likely require a perception check by the caster, who is trying to look under the door, the place unseen servant where it needs to be.
That would be fair, though if you can't see the doorknob on the other side how do you know it's there?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only spells that I allow to work without line of effect, are spells that have it as a specifically intended function; Dimension Door and Clairvoyance make little sense without it. If a spell gives no obvious reason to think you can (should!) be cast it without LoE, then it can't be cast without LoE.
I wouldn't let someone cast Summon Monster into a room they can't look into. Now if they were peeping through the keyhole, that's perfectly legal and nasty :D
That would be fair, though if you can't see the doorknob on the other side how do you know it's there?
You can assume there is one and order the servant to turn the knob. If there isn't one, or if the door is barred or locked, the order won't do you any good. You may still need other spells to be able to direct the servant once it is behind a closed door.
Line of Effect
A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.
You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.
That language is pretty definitive. If I don't have a clear LoE I can't create an effect in a given square. However, there's something there that sticks in my craw a bit. It says a solid barrier blocks the effect, but that sight doesn't necessarily block the effect. If a caster has LoE through an obscuring mist, or thick fog, they can still create an effect, because those aren't solid barriers. So it's not the "not being able to see it" that is blocking the effect. It's the "solidness" of the barrier that blocks it.
In which case, though it is a weak argument in the face of the above language, I still think you could make a case for summoning something behind a door.
The only spells that I allow to work without line of effect, are spells that have it as a specifically intended function; Dimension Door and Clairvoyance make little sense without it. If a spell gives no obvious reason to think you can (should!) be cast it without LoE, then it can't be cast without LoE.
I wouldn't let someone cast Summon Monster into a room they can't look into. Now if they were peeping through the keyhole, that's perfectly legal and nasty :D
My arcane trickster carries an adamantine tipped hand drill for just this reason. ;-)
This question can not be answered by the rule, IMO, and therefore up to the DM.
|
|
Being mindless doesn't restrict it from mending clothes, which strikes me as more complicated than unlocking and opening a door with a key.
I think it mentions unstuck doors because opening a stuck door might be hard for a thing with Str 2 (which it's mentioned as having); it's not the complexity but the required strength that's the problem.