| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does not target a creature's mind. It targets their soul. So technically it's "soul-affecting" (if such a category existed).
It's not a mind-affecting spell. Every single mind-affecting spell specifies so in the spell description. This is very black and white.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic Jar is necromancy not enchantment. Enchantment seems to be a prerequisite for it to be considered a mind affecting spell.
Most mind-affecting spells are enchantment, but not all of them. For example, I know that color spray is a mind-affecting illusion spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh...yeah, I don't see why not. Wow, gotta remember that one for later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now for the true bone of contenti: the tarrasque. So many immunities and things. Is it possible to Magic Jar it? Its will save isn't great and as far as I can tell it isn't immune to it, so am I able to swap my soul into the tarrasque?
Yes, AFAIK it is possible to magic jar the tarrasque. Note that you'll have to get through the SR 36 - not insurmountable.
The tarrasque is a huge weakling as written and there are multiple very easy ways to kill it.
Tell your DM that, instead of adding extra rules to spells that overcomplicates the system (IE making magic jar mind-affecting when it isn't), she should adjust where it creates the least disturbance.
In this case, making a tarrasque immune to magic jar (perhaps with a concession to you so that it isn't purely adversarial) is perfectly reasonable, although a tad boring. A better idea would be to just not use the tarrasque as it sucks... or just let you get away with it and run with it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah the tarrasque CR is very disproportionate. Either you don't know what's coming and you don't have the magic to fight it, making it slaughter everything without ever getting hurt, or you're informed about it and you just one shot it.
However, that seems like a hilarious adventure for a roleplaying scenario. A wizard took over the body of a tarrasque and his now trying to get freed (something happened to his body), but nobody will talk with him because he's a tarrasque!
It's not mind affecting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Just because something calls for a will save does not mean it is mind-affecting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Just because something calls for a will save does not mean it is mind-affecting.
Heat metal being a wonderful example.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is really simple. If a spell does not have the [mind-affecting] tag, it is not mind-affecting. And Magic Jar does not have it. So Magic Jar is not mind-affecting. Full stop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic Jar is necromancy not enchantment. Enchantment seems to be a prerequisite for it to be considered a mind affecting spell.
Usually, but not always.
Phantasmal Killer is an illusion spell which has the mind-affecting subschool.
It's not mind-affecting, I think it should be.. but it is not
This is really simple. If a spell does not have the [mind-affecting] tag, it is not mind-affecting. And Magic Jar does not have it. So Magic Jar is not mind-affecting. Full stop.
This is all that needs to be said on this topic.
It is literally clear cut ruleswise. Has tag = yes. Doesnt have tag = no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't right now, but wait for the errata.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They're not going to errata a spell that has existed this way since previous editions. And they didn't overlook the issue with the new Possession spell when they left the mind-affecting tag off.
These are legitimate ways to avoid mind-affecting immunity. The downside is your body is vulnerable (except with Greater Possession), they're from the necromancy school so your usual spell focus tricks don't work, and Protection From [whatever] spells still work.
But yes, I think Greater Possession with a Persistent metmagic rod is one of the best BBEG killers in the game. Take over his body, Plane Shift to negative/positive energy plane, wait for his body to die, plane shift home.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They're not going to errata a spell that has existed this way since previous editions. And they didn't overlook the issue with the new Possession spell when they left the mind-affecting tag off.
This was a very poor attempt at humor on my part. I've been around since 2nd Edn.
Just poking fun at the senseless/needless errata that tends to come out with the things that actually matter.
Of course an evil GM might note that magic jar doesn't change the host's body and the Tarrasque's body is really, really hungry for the nearest meat...overwhelmingly so, unless the wizard makes a really hard save. Instinct is biology, not soul.
you could just rule it doesn't have a soul.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see no reason why a tarrasque wouldn't have a soul. That would be a houserule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real question is "why is the tarrasque so gol-danged ornery?" Maybe it's because his body is designed to inflict massive and constant pain, misery, hunger and despair on his mind, driving him mad and making him do all those nasty destructive things.
The wizard magic jars in there. He is instantly driven mad, and resumes the tarrasque's destructive spree. <g>
The tarrasque's spirit, now in the wizard's body, heaves a sigh of relief and tears that nasty spell out of his new spellbook.
Karma is a b1tch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real question is "why is the tarrasque so gol-danged ornery?" Maybe it's because his body is designed to inflict massive and constant pain, misery, hunger and despair on his mind, driving him mad and making him do all those nasty destructive things.
The wizard magic jars in there. He is instantly driven mad, and resumes the tarrasque's destructive spree. <g>
The tarrasque's spirit, now in the wizard's body, heaves a sigh of relief and tears that nasty spell out of his new spellbook.Karma is a b1tch.
Point of order: the tarasques soul is in the jar, not the Wizards body. Swapping bodies would be significantly less useful of a spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Player: "I've got such a cool idea!"
Many others: "Yeah, let's just arbitrarily show how we'll ruin it, 'cause we hate it."
>:I
I mean, you know, I get that you don't want those kinds of things in your campaign, but when it's presented, it often feels kind of like a weird knee-jerk to anything that looks like it would be difficult to control as a GM.
I mean, Big T has an intelligence of 3. Not the brightest toolbox, but technically sentient. Really hungry, of course.
Neutral. (Chaotic Evil in the new version.)
The original legend has a girl of pure heart more or less go out, deal with it kindly, and win it over... only to have it murdered by an angry mob.
No real reason that a ring of sustenance wouldn't work on it to sate it's hunger - the only driving force I can determine.
Despite its sentience, there's nothing indicating Big T actually recognizes the creatures he's eating as fellow sentients. And why would it? Immune to mind-affecting, born starving in a pit of chaos and death, and loosed upon the world, there is exactly zero reason for it to do anything but eat tasty things - and, from its early experiences, it knows that there are lots of things that hurt it (sentient or not), so it would instinctively fight things that attack it.
Effectively, there's nothing to indicate that the Tarrasque is entirely unable to quell its appetite, or reason - just that it has no experiences in it's life indicating anything other than "hungry: eat; tired: sleep; hurt: kill it" (and any experiences that could help it learn otherwise are hopelessly mired in a darkened existence of "let's hurt the thing!" every time it wakes.
Springing those kinds of tricks on the player without warning makes it just seem... blech.
It's the same problem I have with the sheer delight at corrupting wishes and messing with players. Only rarely has a player of mine been given a set of wishes they haven't entirely feared, and it usually takes several in-game months or years, and at least two near-death experiences to actually get to "using" them without hesitation (there is a "sort of" exception, but those weren't wishes). And I've never once pulled a "gotcha!" on my players with wishes without extensively explaining the possible limitations in the first place (and even that, I try to make it rare), and discussing the ideas before-hand. I don't like doing that, and it's a fairly known quantity... but the culture is so pervasive, that the suspicion and distrust run pretty high.
There is nothing wrong with that gaming style... it just... is not my favorite, and it bothers me to see it casually bandied about as the "default" style, considering I struggle to get my players to enjoy neat things.
(Artifacts, ancient rituals, and conjuration negotiations are among those that are treated the same way.)
Anyway, it works on Big T, but be sure to discuss with your GM if it's something that would leave the game fun for the lot of you or not, first.
|
Wishes should be corrupted, if the thing granting the wish has a vested interest in messing with you (for example if it is being compelled.) If not then not.
I am not sure which version of the terasque story you are referencing, but a saint who was present at the resurrection of Jesus, who compelled the beast through holy water, prayer, and the name of god is a little more than "a girl with a kind heart won it over with kindness."
The D&D terrasque has wandered far from the original story, to the point where it is basically a mechanism of destruction created by the god of destruction. If it is not full of booby traps, it is not doing it's job. Not saying the players shouldn't be able to find out with a certain amount of research whether their plan should work or not. But a cock sure mage who says "I got this. Magic jar" should get a nasty surprise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Player 1: I have a great idea on how my PC can SOLO the big bad.
Player 2: what about the rest of us?
Player 1: you can applaud. If I win the rest of you win too by basking in my glory.It would be a pretty poor GM who didn't put a pebble in the path of that plan, at least so that the wizard (and somehow it is always a wizard) can't get close enough without the fighter's help or needs a maguffin that only the pure-hearted paladin can touch.....
Any wizard of this level can solo virtually any boss with a save or die spell.
Carl's right.
It'd be a pretty poor GM that railroaded players according to the GM's expectations without communicating clearly with the player(s) first. But, you know, people tend to think that their style of play is everyone's - that's normal and natural, after all - and that leads people to making presumptions and having frustrating gaming experiences and abandoning the game or hobby or just making the exact same daggum vanilla character because "it's the only one that doesn't get me killed" or other such nonsense. Some groups like that and that's cool. As a GM I find it vastly frustrating that no one takes free stuff because they're convinced it's Schmuckbait due to post-jerk-GM trauma.
For the record? I'd let it fly. Big T isn't really all that. It's mostly an amusing trick with a few solid uses.
And D&D Tarrasque and PF Tarrasque are also different beasts... as is PF Big T in the Bestiary and PF Big T in more recent printings.
Big T's original incarnation here.
<snip the part about attacking it to no avail> But Saint Martha found the beast and charmed it with hymns and prayers and led back the tamed Tarrasque to the city. The people, terrified by the monster, attacked it when it drew nigh. The monster offered no resistance and died there.
So... as I actually said,
The original legend has a girl of pure heart more or less go out, deal with it kindly, and win it over... only to have it murdered by an angry mob.
If you don't mind, please get the actual quote correct, in the future, if you're going to use my own words against me (typos and all, presupposing you recognize them as typos instead of actual arguments; otherwise a "ftty" would work well, or to clarify what you got from what I wrote). Thanks! It's appreciated.
The point was twofold: we're not dealing with the original (it got murdered by an angry mob which, unless they were really high level, or had decent spells, isn't possible), and that it's inspiration - despite being a rampaging destructive force - wasn't an infinitely cruel unending hate-killer. Hence, the intent was to get people to look at it from a more nuanced approach (how it's changed and stayed the same) instead of trying to pick apart an example of how it's changed (which was supposed to be self-evident from the example, given that it's currently-impossible death was noted in the description. But this is the Internet after all, and people like to pick things apart. Heaven knows I do!