Remember that the unseen servant only moves 10 feet per round (IIRC), and is destroyed by any AoEs. It's cheesy, but not difficult to counter.
|
I think a common mistake a lot of people aee making here is to remember that Pathfinder is a "permissive" rather that "restrictive" ruleset. What this means is that the rules tell you what you CAN do rather than what you CANT do. If the rules or your GM have not told you that you can do something you simply cannot do it, end of story. Since GM call is not part of this thread, if the rules dont say you can do something then you simply cannot do it by RAW. But as always, ask your GM.
15' actually. And as for the free action per round, i'd personally like some empirical evidence, is it possible to rotate all the barrels on a real pepperbox and fire them accurately in 6 seconds? Any firearm enthusiasts actually have one and want to weigh in? Link video please I want to watch ;)
I'm sure it's as possible as animating magical force to follow your commands. :P
|
An unseen servant is an invisible, mindless, shapeless force that performs simple tasks at your command. It can run and fetch things, open unstuck doors, and hold chairs, as well as clean and mend. The servant can perform only one activity at a time, but it repeats the same activity over and over again if told to do so as long as you remain within range. It can open only normal doors, drawers, lids, and the like. It has an effective Strength score of 2 (so it can lift 20 pounds or drag 100 pounds). It can trigger traps and such, but it can exert only 20 pounds of force, which is not enough to activate certain pressure plates and other devices. It can't perform any task that requires a skill check with a DC higher than 10 or that requires a check using a skill that can't be used untrained. This servant cannot fly, climb, or even swim (though it can walk on water). Its base speed is 15 feet.
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.
I think these bolded sections of the spell suggest it can't do fine-tuned actions and certainly not on complex devices. Reloading a gun would qualify, unless you have a generous GM.
I think an alternate way of saying what That Crazy Alchemist was saying is thus...Unseen Servant only operates in the present tense. It can't respond to external stimulus like "every time I fire" because it isn't able to do things at any point but now...as opposed to when.
Just need to point out that by RAW Prehensile Tail nor Prehensile Hair would allow you to do this either. Hair says it cannot manipulate weapons and Tail says it is only capable of carrying or retrieving stowed items.
Just need to put that out there since this thread is entirely based on RAW.
Thats right, i found it when looking for way to reload and thought "ammunition =/= weapons", forgot we still talking about the barrel. Same with grasping/prehencile tail for retrieving gun that you drop.
It would vary Gm to Gm. Free actions, RAW, are Gm discretion by their very nature. So RAW, it both can and can't be done. Paizo Will never, and can never specifically define free actions that much. From my personal perspective, 12 free actions is way too many for a 6 second segment that also includes your normal allotment of actions.
Not for the shapeless force with limitless number of pseudopods that can wrap itself around barrel and gradually turn itself XD
I think these bolded sections of the spell suggest it can't do fine-tuned actions and certainly not on complex devices. Reloading a gun would qualify, unless you have a generous GM.
I think so too, that is why i want it to just turn the barrel of already loaded gun.
|
a bit out of the scope of this discussion, but "mindless" is a technical term in PF, which implies several defensive abilities.
e.g. from Vermin : Mindless: No Intelligence score, and immunity to all mind-affecting effects
No INT <> Int 0 !
you cannot say from mindless that a spider is unable to react to it's perceived environment. it feels when a fly has been caught in its web, and will go to eat it. so it's capable or reaction/interaction.
they hide in the dark waiting to catch a prey... it's not advance tactics, but it's far from not able to react.
so an unseen servant might not be able to tell if your pepperbox is empty, but it can perceive that you hand him the gun and can obey 'reload' (or rotate x degree)
|
|
Vrischika, You bring up an excellent point. Insects certainly are able to react to changes in their environment.
Mindless: No Intelligence score, and immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms). A vermin-like creature with an Intelligence score is usually either an animal or a magical beast, depending on its other abilities.
|
|
Which is why I keep bringing up that an unseen servant isn't a creature. It is a force and nothing more. Mindless is a keyword that may only be applied to creatures. Saying a lamp is mindless doesn't suddenly give it the ability to turn itself on when you command it to. Cast Animate Object on it though and suddenly it's a creature with a full set of stats and the ability to react. A mindless unanimated lamp is just a thing just like an unseen servant is just a force as the spell says. Stop trying to add things that the spell does not say. It does what it says and nothing more.
|
|
You're right, it does what it says which is provide a force that can perform any number of tasks requiring no more than DC10 skill check or the application of 20lbs of pressure. The list of tasks presented is done so as an example, not as a limitation.
As for adding, to it, I'm not adding anything, merely agreeing that the monster keyword "Mindless" is the only place mindlessness is defined in the rules. And correlating the abilities of mindless creatures as a counter claim to your stance that the force can't be reactive because it is mindless. It is a very strong argument given that the limitation "Mindless" is not otherwise defined in the spell, or in the rules at large.
|
|
Sure, but not one of that list of things that it can perform involves reactive decision making, therefore you can't have it do that. Just like you couldn't tell it to go into the enemy base then draw you a map of the guard patrols, the spell just doesn't let you do that becasue nothing on that list of examples covers that or anything like it. There is nothing in the spell to even suggest it can perform reactive decision making. Mindless is defined, yes, but only as a trait referring to creatures. Flesh to Stone uses the word "mindless" also but that doesn't give it creature stats and the ability to do more than the spell says. If not referring to creature traits then it doesn't mean the same thing. True, they should have used a better word than mindless to avoid this kind of munchkin hanky panky but what else could they have said with the same words to get the same point across? "Since the spell does not give the force a statblock, creature type, initiative, hitpoints, or ANYTHING other than a single word which is only defined in the context of a creature and nothing else. Without any of those things it is not a creature and you can't make assumptions, that it is that is not how RAW works.
|
|
Jesus dude give this up.
Maybe i'm miss reading your tone, but irrational hostility does little to improve your case.
Honestly, I don't play a slinger and have no intention of doing anything with this.
What I'm saying is that the RAW is not anywhere near as clear cut as you say it is.
The point of my above post is that complex multi-step processes do require reactive decision making, you have to be cognizant of when one step is completed so you can begin another and or what all the steps involved are.
No GM in the history of history has ever said, "No, you can't do that," when a player gives his unseen servant the command "clean up this room." However, there is significantly more thought required to obey that command than to obey the command, "Stand here, and when the gun fires rotate the barrel's so that the next barrel is in firing position." Or even, "Stand here, and whenever the door is opened, close it."
Actions of this type must be adjudicated by a GM because the RAW is ambiguous.
Further My point all along has been that dismissing creative uses of spells that are easily within the realm of what can be accomplished by the spell in any other instance because of balance is the wrong approach.
It is the GM's responsibility to be the final arbiter of balance. The right solution to player creativity is GM creativity. If your NPC's are as smart and cunning and crafty as your PC's, then your game is improved, and if your clever PC's get to have fun in the process its improved even more. But just telling a player no because this activity type you would never have considered problematic until this specific use has thrown off an encounter and you're not clever enough to adjust on the fly is wrong. It will only detract from your players enjoyment of the game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a new GM to pathfinder, I have many concerns with this approach:
(Although I may come across with a restrictive mindset, its in the interest of understanding the rules)
1) How can the unseen servant manipulate something it doesn't have possession of?
Spinning a barrel is certainly within its level of knowhow, but how is it supposed to spin each barrel in each of your hands as you are in combat. Combat entails movement within your 5' space and you aren't staying perfectly still. Even if you fire all 12 shots at the same target, the opponent is moving within their 5' area so your barrels are moving.
Ex: Can an unseen servant clean a blade in use by its master in melee after every time it is bloodied?
Ex: Can an unseen servant coat a blade in use by its master with poison after every strike?
I don't see how the rule set allows manipulation of devices under other peoples control in combat, otherwise I'll ask my servant spin the barrel of the opponents firearm the other direction (if at close range) so they keep firing with a used barrel after the first shot.
2) You are also asking the unseen servant to load the weapon. As it has no proficiency with firearms it will increase the misfire chance by 4. Since it doesn't benefit from your feats it would take a while for it to reload 6 (or 12 barrels)
"an early firearm has multiple barrels, each barrel must be loaded separately. It is a standard action to load each barrel of a one-handed early firearm."
The concept originally brought up was to have it exchanged via a weapon cord or something, but that was soon corrected. The discussion transitioned fairly quickly to the theoretical suppositions of what an Unseen Servant can do in general.
I think, by most accounts, the OP's original question of whether they can use an arcane servant to do this particular task is answered with a 'no'. A point was brought up earlier about whether an unseen servant could possibly take free actions on the caster's turn, as well.
They are not being asked to load. Merely spin the barrel. The weapon's barrel is assumed loaded.
As for the poison questions... no idea.
|
|
As a new GM to pathfinder, I have many concerns with this approach:
(Although I may come across with a restrictive mindset, its in the interest of understanding the rules)
1) How can the unseen servant manipulate something it doesn't have possession of?
Spinning a barrel is certainly within its level of knowhow, but how is it supposed to spin each barrel in each of your hands as you are in combat. Combat entails movement within your 5' space and you aren't staying perfectly still. Even if you fire all 12 shots at the same target, the opponent is moving within their 5' area so your barrels are moving.
Ex: Can an unseen servant clean a blade in use by its master in melee after every time it is bloodied?
Ex: Can an unseen servant coat a blade in use by its master with poison after every strike?
I don't see how the rule set allows manipulation of devices under of peoples control in combat, otherwise I'll ask my servant spin the barrel of the opponents firearm the other direction (if at close range) so they keep firing with a used barrel after the first shot.
2) You are also asking the unseen servant to load the weapon. As it has no proficiency with firearms it will increase the misfire chance by 4. Since it doesn't benefit from your feats it would take a while for it to reload 6 (or 12 barrels)
"an early firearm has multiple barrels, each barrel must be loaded separately. It is a standard action to load each barrel of a one-handed early firearm."
Well now, personally, i have no problem with any of those applications of the spell except spinning the barrel of your opponent which i would consider an attack and there fore specifically disallowed by RAW in the last paragraph of the spell.
Also, I personally have not addressed reloading, only barrel rotation, but with gloves of storing you can hand off one gun to the servant, reload the other, then store it, retrieve the first gun from the servant and reload the first gun, then retrieve the second gun from the glove. of course this would require a full round to change the servant's instructions and then change them back costing you 2 move actions.
|
|
Apologies if I came across as hostile. Frustrated at constantly needing to repeat myself would be more accurate. I feel no hostility toward you but I would dearly like for you to stop using arguements that were already covered earlier in this thread, saves a lot of time.
The OP was specifically looking for whether or not Unseen Servant's ability to perform that function is covered by RAW. And by RAW, because it does not say you can, that means you cannot. Simply put, that is how RAW works. Now as I've mentioned before, a GM is certainly allowed to add that functionality to the spell because GM's can do that. But OP said he wasn't looking for GM calls he was looking for RAW. Hell as a GM I might even allow it myself, but OP doesnt care about my opinion he cares only for RAW and unless someone can point to where it says in the spell that Unseen Servant can react to triggers that you set for it in your command then anyone using this spell for this purpose will need to ask his GM first if he's able to do it.
Make sense now?
|
|
I fundamentally disagree with your entire premise.
By raw the servant can do anything (except attack) that is DC 10 and less, or under 21 lbs of pressure.
I contend that rotating the barrels of a pepper box falls well within those restrictions which are the only restrictions. Everything else listed in the spell description are examples that help define possibilities that are within those guidelines, not the sum total of all possibilities.
|
|
Thanks for the clarification BW. I have a grasp on the reload situation now.
I guess the real question is:
Can a untrained PC, such as a mage who is out of spells (no offensive cantrips) help out another PC, (say, a gunslinger) by using free actions to assist during the gunslingers turn?
The answer is clearly no, as no one can act during your sequence of actions (barring immediate actions). The same would apply to your familiar, animal companion, or unseen servant.
Aye. There was also some argument about whether the servant is actually anything akin to a creature/construct/otherwise animated entity, or whether it was merely just a spell effect.
Another thread goes into detail about "what it is"
As for Master of Shadows, and That Crazy Alchemist, both have made valid points. It's Claxon & Alchemist's arguments, IMO, that I think gains the upper hand for PFS play, since anything 'uncertain' in that setting is generally settled with a 'No.' One stance is reading the spell and taking only the examples given as what the Unseen Servant can do, another further argues that it's a matter of balance for what a level 1 spell can do. Granting the ability for a set of pepperboxes to be advanced revolvers doesn't seem to fit that.
Looking into mindless things, like golems/constructs, yielded nothing in my research, and I've gotten a tad bored of it. But I suspect there's an answer out there somewhere I've missed.
|
|
Do you know what RAW means? It means that you take the rules in their exact, most literal translation percisely as they are written. There is no assumptions, inferences, no guesswork, ambiguity, or GM calls. Exactly as they are written. Since that spell does not say you can perform that function, by RAW, by the Rules As they are Written, you cannot do it. I understand that there is some implication that the Servant can perform other tasks, I am well aware of that. But since the task you are asking it to perform is not a 1 to 1 quantitative and qualitative equality to the other listed tasks then the question falls directly into the hands of the GM and therefore out of the hands of RAW.
Edit: An example would we the Wish spell. By RAW you are only capable of using Wish for the bullet-pointed tasks it lists. When talking pure RAW, that's it. Much like Unseen Servant there is an intentionally ambiguous proviso that puts other uses of the spell into the hands of the GM. You couldn't cast wish and have it level a mountain without first consulting your GM, not because it's too powerful, complicated or doesn't make sense but simply because the rules don't support it. That's what RAW is. If ever you have to consult your GM to to the ambiguity of the rules, the question is no longer a RAW question.
|
|
Do you know what RAW means? It means that you take the rules in their exact, most literal translation percisely as they are written. There is no assumptions, inferences, no guesswork, ambiguity, or GM calls. Exactly as they are written.
If only we lived in such a perfect world as you describe. However, we know for a fact that rules as written are frequently Ambiguous and often even directly contradictory of themselves. its why for the game at large the Rules as Written specifically have a provision stating that the GM is the final arbiter in his own game, and its why in PFS we have such a thing as table variation.
|
|
If only we lived in such a perfect world as you describe. However, we know for a fact that rules as written are frequently Ambiguous and often even directly contradictory of themselves. its why for the game at large the Rules as Written specifically have a provision stating that the GM is the final arbiter in his own game, and its why in PFS we have such a thing as table variation.
Precisely my point. See now I'm confused. Either you just completely ignored the rest of my post or we are actually preaching to each other the very same thing without realizing it.
Let me try to clear this up: I know you said you wouldn't try this trick at a table but say you did. Would you 1) Just do it without asking the GM because you believe that RAW says you can. If the GM doesn't like it he'll just let you know. Or 2) Ask him first before trying it because you are not sure if you are allowed to without getting permission first.
If you said
1) Then you might not have a firm grasp of RAW and I encourage you to look it up if my definition was not satisfactory.
Or
2) Then you have a firm grasp of RAW and you and I are on exactly the same page but are poorly communicating it to one another as this is what I would do too. Also you and I should go get drinks together and talk about our feelings.
|
|
Also you and I should go get drinks together and talk about our feelings.
This.
I truly believe we're on the same page. Or I maybe reading across pages. I believe that the way the spell is written it should be allowed, but its murky enough that I would ask the GM if I were the player because there is a significant power boost if the GM hasn't had time to think up a reasonable counter (He needs more time than I do because he has to think on the fly for many characters while i only have to think as one).
As a GM at my own table, I would allow it, but I would only let a player get at most a round of effectiveness out of it before finding some in game method of neutralizing its usefulness. However, I have been playing casters and thinking up spell combos for almost 20 years now, and when I GM, I pull no punches.
But seriously, let me pour my own drinks... After all, who in their right mind allows a self professed crazy alchemist to mix their drink for them. :P
|
|
Yeah like I said before I'd probably allow it too assuming it wasn't horribly abused. It's a creative tactic and I like it when players think on their feet but there's no way I'd let it go for long without throwing a wrench into it...possibly literally...
But seriously, let me pour my own drinks... After all, who in their right mind allows a self professed crazy alchemist to mix their drink for them. :P
Well played ;)