Need ruling on prestidigitation

[Aizaia]

I'm very new to gming and I ran my first game a couple of days ago. I have a player who is playing a sorcerer and he tries to use his spells very creatively. The pcs got into their very first encounter and he wanted to use the spell to change the material of a wagon into jelly. Told him the spell only does what it describes it can change. He claimed he had sources that said he could do something like that and it was the only reason he took the spell in the first place. Pressed for time and I didn't feel like arguing to tell him no it doesn't change material. I just told him he could. I don't want to tell him, what I say goes without being able to give a reason why they can't.

[Claxon]

No, tell him to show you the source.

Hint: There is no reliable source that will tell you he can because the rules text of the spell is the most authoritative source.

Quote:

Prestidigitations are minor tricks that novice spellcasters use for practice. Once cast, a prestidigitation spell enables you to perform simple magical effects for 1 hour. The effects are minor and have severe limitations. A prestidigitation can slowly lift 1 pound of material. It can color, clean, or soil items in a 1-foot cube each round. It can chill, warm, or flavor 1 pound of nonliving material. It cannot deal damage or affect the concentration of spellcasters. Prestidigitation can create small objects, but they look crude and artificial. The materials created by a prestidigitation spell are extremely fragile, and they cannot be used as tools, weapons, or spell components. Finally, prestidigitation lacks the power to duplicate any other spell effects. Any actual change to an object (beyond just moving, cleaning, or soiling it) persists only 1 hour.

Spells only do what they say they can.

Turning something to jelly isn't on that list.

[CampinCarl9127]

You were absolutely right in what you did. Also, there should not be a 0th level spell that can essentially destroy an entire wagon in one round. That's at least 3rd level territory, probably higher.

[PrinceRaven]

You can over many rounds slowly change the outer surface of the wagon to look and feel like jelly.

[QuidEst]

PrinceRaven wrote:

You can over many rounds slowly change the outer surface of the wagon to look and feel like jelly.

Where are you getting feel from? Even look probably wouldn't work, since you can only color something- it wouldn't be translucent like jelly.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Aizaia wrote:

I'm very new to gming and I ran my first game a couple of days ago. I have a player who is playing a sorcerer and he tries to use his spells very creatively. The pcs got into their very first encounter and he wanted to use the spell to change the material of a wagon into jelly. Told him the spell only does what it describes it can change. He claimed he had sources that said he could do something like that and it was the only reason he took the spell in the first place. Pressed for time and I didn't feel like arguing to tell him no it doesn't change material. I just told him he could. I don't want to tell him, what I say goes without being able to give a reason why they can't.

When a player tells you he has sources, tell him to produce them. Also remind him that even if he does have such sources, that YOU run the game, not the books.

[Aizaia]

He wanted to make a wagon fall over on the creatures that was behind it. That's where it started.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Aizaia wrote:

He wanted to make a wagon fall over on the creatures that was behind it. That's where it started.

When you're talking about an effect that's more powerful than a first level spell, there's no such a thing as a core mechanic that pumps up cantrips that much.

Again, if a player wants to claim a source, have him produce it.

[wraithstrike]

Basically if he is trying to duplicate or trump a higher level spell this spell will not work. It basically does exactly what it says it does unless the GM is feeling generous.

[_Ozy_]

Prestidigitation is, literally, a flavor spell. It's meant to spice up your food, clean up your clothes, and other effects that generally don't have much of a mechanical impact on the game.

Quote:

The effects are minor and have severe limitations.

Is the player who tried this also new, or is he trying to put one over on you? ;)

[Thornborn]

"I'm afraid you were mistaken. It doesn't do that. You can swap it next time you rest. What do you do this round? The rest of the table's waiting."

[Jeff Merola]

I'm fairly certain I've seen an effect similar to this in an old third party 3.5 book about cantrips. Balance was...odd, to say the least, and that was with cantrips not being at-will.

[Hugo Rune]

The player was wrong. Changing a wagon like that would be a reasonably powerful transmutation, far beyond the effect of a minor trick.

Prestidigitation can be useful for minor things and I have allowed it's effect to grant a +2 circumstance bonus on occasion. E.g. making a meal taste better before serving it. Cleaning up a noble's clothes after he fell in the mud. Making a copper piece sparkle when getting children's attention.

[graystone]

Aizaia wrote:

I'm very new to gming and I ran my first game a couple of days ago. I have a player who is playing a sorcerer and he tries to use his spells very creatively. The pcs got into their very first encounter and he wanted to use the spell to change the material of a wagon into jelly. Told him the spell only does what it describes it can change. He claimed he had sources that said he could do something like that and it was the only reason he took the spell in the first place. Pressed for time and I didn't feel like arguing to tell him no it doesn't change material. I just told him he could. I don't want to tell him, what I say goes without being able to give a reason why they can't.

They most likely are using a 3.5 source for the spell. In the Tome and Blood book, an official option allows you to:

"Change: You transform one object of Fine size or smaller into another object of roughly the same size. The object can weigh no more than 8 ounces."

As this is a 3.5 application of the spell, it's totally up to you to allow it.

Aizaia wrote:

He wanted to make a wagon fall over on the creatures that was behind it.

Unlikely even using the Tome and Blood option. AT best, you might be able to use it to use disable device to mess up a vital part. Slow it down maybe, but get it to fall over? No chance.

[lemeres]

graystone wrote:

Aizaia wrote:

He wanted to make a wagon fall over on the creatures that was behind it.

Unlikely even using the Tome and Blood option. AT best, you might be able to use it to use disable device to mess up a vital part. Slow it down maybe, but get it to fall over? No chance.

Hell, I feel like I'd put that on like a.... DC 40 or 50 strength check or above if the barbarian just decided to flip the thing.

Your first level cantrip shouldn't surpass a DC 40 stat check. Particularly the flavor spell design to be the grab bag of every neat little party trick that you would never burn a spell for specifically.

When it makes tools, they are deliberately made useless. Even making a car jack wouldn't work. This spell is more defined by being near useless compared to other options.

[alexd1976]

lemeres wrote:

graystone wrote:

Aizaia wrote:

He wanted to make a wagon fall over on the creatures that was behind it.

Unlikely even using the Tome and Blood option. AT best, you might be able to use it to use disable device to mess up a vital part. Slow it down maybe, but get it to fall over? No chance.

Hell, I feel like I'd put that on like a.... DC 40 or 50 strength check or above if the barbarian just decided to flip the thing.

Your first level cantrip shouldn't surpass a DC 40 stat check. Particularly the flavor spell design to be the grab bag of every neat little party trick that you would never burn a spell for specifically.

When it makes tools, they are deliberately made useless. Even making a car jack wouldn't work. This spell is more defined by being near useless compared to other options.

Those DCs seem a bit high...

[Blymurkla]

Say this a very strange and advanced wagon with a parking break (it's one of those hissing, metal wagons that the dwarf Harry produces by the River of the Strait). Say the parking break takes less than one pound of force to lessen. Then I would allow prestidigitation to work for lifting the break. If the wagon then stood on sloped ground, it would roll away.

Sure, you can get a bit creative with spell uses. But it's up to GM discretion and within reasonable boundaries. Using a level 0 spell that you normally use to avoid giving young Uncle Scrooge a coin to turn several hundred pounds of wood into jelly is not reasonable.

[lemeres]

alexd1976 wrote:

Those DCs seem a bit high...

I might be exaggerating a bit.

I might give a 5 point reduction for each person helping (with the check determined by the person with the best odds)

[Snowlilly]

alexd1976 wrote:

lemeres wrote:

graystone wrote:

Aizaia wrote:

He wanted to make a wagon fall over on the creatures that was behind it.

Unlikely even using the Tome and Blood option. AT best, you might be able to use it to use disable device to mess up a vital part. Slow it down maybe, but get it to fall over? No chance.

Hell, I feel like I'd put that on like a.... DC 40 or 50 strength check or above if the barbarian just decided to flip the thing.

Your first level cantrip shouldn't surpass a DC 40 stat check. Particularly the flavor spell design to be the grab bag of every neat little party trick that you would never burn a spell for specifically.

When it makes tools, they are deliberately made useless. Even making a car jack wouldn't work. This spell is more defined by being near useless compared to other options.

Those DCs seem a bit high...

With a strength of 50(+25), a PC could pick and throw a small bus.

[Firebug]

"Finally prestidigitation lacks the power to duplicate any other spell effects."
Transmuting one type of material into another material is not on the list of spell effects. In fact I would call the effect he is going for as polymorph any object. An 8th level spell.

[ryric]

Prestidigitation can be very powerful in a narrative sense, in that it adds a lot of convenience to everyday life, and can be used to create effects to impress and amaze normal people. It's not really going to do much in combat, and it's not supposed to.

Maybe, just maybe, if the PC made a Disable Device or appropriate Craft check, and touched the part in question, I'd allow prestidigitation to substitute for having normal tools to disable some part of a wagon. Like if they wanted to impart a minor structural flaw so that the wheel would break if they hit a bad pothole or something. I might be open to such a use.

But really it's meant to be the cantrip that is a catch-all for all the minor effects not covered by the other 0 level spells. If an effect seems as powerful as the weakest 1st level spells, it's beyond the reach of prestidigitation.

[Firebug]

"The materials created by a prestidigitation spell are extremely fragile, and they cannot be used as tools, weapons, or spell components."

As flavor for disable device, maybe. But it's going to still take the 1d4 rounds a normal disable device will take and certainly not at range. Not a single standard action from 10' away. Prestidigitation is only a 10' range and doesn't increase per level. If I allowed the check, it would be at least at a -2 (if not -5) for "improvised tools" and not using a thieves kit. More along the lines of gumming up the gears with "fragile stuff".

[Aziraya Zhwan]

Just some tips when it comes to GMing:

1. You're the GM. You literally have the final say in anything and everything. Now, I'm certainly not saying you should become power-hungry, but as the GM you do have the right to veto anything. There are many people who outright ban classes/races from their games for various reasons, and they're within their rights to do so. There are many people who completely change certain rules for various reasons, and they're within their rights to do so. The point I guess I'm trying to make is that you can put your foot down. In fact I would argue it is part of your job description as GM to tell your players that they are doing something unreasonable, so don't feel bad about doing so if you feel like you're truly in the right. A good point I've heard from various spots on the boards is "I like to tell my players 'Yes, you can do/attempt that, but____'". In this case though, you were fully within your rights as a GM to say "No, sorry, that's too good for Prestidigation".

2. As some others have already mentioned here, the burden of proof is on the players in situations like this. The player may say "I have sources claiming this" but until they produce them they have zero evidence. It would be like this situation in a court room:

-"We found the murder weapon covered in the victim's blood with the defendant's fingerprints all over it!"
-"Alright, bring forth this evidence with the lab results."
-"Er... it's not with us right now. It's... er... somewhere else I think."
-"Then you have no evidence. Stop wasting our time".

However, like in point 1, you don't want to become a tyrant. Let your player have a chance to make their fair case. However, this may sometimes cause a lot of wasted time with the player searching online for that one source while everyone twiddles their fingers if it's being resolved at that very moment. An extremely fair way I've seen these situations adjudicated is "If it's in the Core Rulebook or you have it handy at this moment (no, the internet does not count), we can look at it right now. If not, I'm saying for now that it doesn't work. If you provide the source sometime after this session but before the next one then I'm more than happy to discuss it further and allow it in further situations". And then if they do provide compelling evidence (in this case, I can guarantee you that they won't) but you still feel it really interferes with things, you still have the final say in whether it works or not.

3. Be watchful of that player in the future. They sound like they may be one of those things called a "munchkin". Players like that will be ever mindful of power-gaming exploits and loopholes that they can take advantage of and will argue tooth and nail to get their way. Now I'm not saying this player is actually like that. They may have been legitimately confused by something they read online or misconstrued some text somewhere. However, be wary of that player in the future as this seems like an extremely deliberate misinterpretation of the rules written for the spell.

An Aside about Prestidigation:

Prestidigation is by far my favorite spell in Pathfinder. Every one of my characters can use it by level 5 whether it's from class features or something like the Apprentice's Cheating Gloves. The amount of creative stuff you can do with it is immense. In fact, the sheer amount of minor stuff you can do with it is the whole purpose of the spell. One of my characters is a wine connoisseur. When he's talking to (*cough* flirting *cough*) with women he'll ask them to describe in as much detail as possible their favorite wine. He'll then use Prestidigation to change the flavor of whatever swill is sitting in front of them to their desired flavor and impress them. Works wonders for making friends when you only have an 8 in Charisma. However, I would just like to point out the word "minor" that I used above. Praise and encourage creativity, and some things you'll want to (and should!) allow to happen even though it's technically against the rules because it's just so damn creative and/or funny. However, be mindful as well of what your players in general try to do.

[Aizaia]

graystone wrote:

Aizaia wrote:

I'm very new to gming and I ran my first game a couple of days ago. I have a player who is playing a sorcerer and he tries to use his spells very creatively. The pcs got into their very first encounter and he wanted to use the spell to change the material of a wagon into jelly. Told him the spell only does what it describes it can change. He claimed he had sources that said he could do something like that and it was the only reason he took the spell in the first place. Pressed for time and I didn't feel like arguing to tell him no it doesn't change material. I just told him he could. I don't want to tell him, what I say goes without being able to give a reason why they can't.

They most likely are using a 3.5 source for the spell. In the Tome and Blood book, an official option allows you to:

"Change: You transform one object of Fine size or smaller into another object of roughly the same size. The object can weigh no more than 8 ounces."

As this is a 3.5 application of the spell, it's totally up to you to allow it.

That's exactly where he got it from. He got it from a 3.5/d20 thread on this site. I'm considering allowing it but what he originally wanted to do was change the screws and nuts of two wheels into weaker so the wagon would fall over. It was to change them into something within the same kingdom which I thought would duplicate the Polymorph Any Object spell. Then the idea to change them into jelly came into play.

graystone wrote:

Aizaia wrote:

He wanted to make a wagon fall over on the creatures that was behind it.

Unlikely even using the Tome and Blood option. AT best, you might be able to use it to use disable device to mess up a vital part. Slow it down maybe, but get it to fall over? No chance.

Does he need disable device skill to actually disable it or should it just be be based off dex added to the spell as if using disable device?

[ryric]

Well, if the player doesn't have Disable Device he's not really knowledgeable in ways to cleverly sabotage things. You could also allow a (likely untrained) Craft(wainwright) check at a higher DC to represent knowledge of wagons and how they go together.

Spoiler:

I'm just happy I got to use the word "wainwright."

[OldSkoolRPG]

ryric wrote:

Well, if the player doesn't have Disable Device he's not really knowledgeable in ways to cleverly sabotage things. You could also allow a (likely untrained) Craft(wainwright) check at a higher DC to represent knowledge of wagons and how they go together.

** spoiler omitted **

Actually it would be Profession(wainwright)

and I am correcting you solely because I wanted to use the word "wainwright" too!

[graystone]

Aizaia wrote:

Does he need disable device skill to actually disable it or should it just be be based off dex added to the spell as if using disable device?

Well the skill says "In addition, this skill lets you sabotage simple mechanical devices, such as catapults, wagon wheels, and doors." So sabotaging wagon wheels clearly falls under the disable device skill. As others have said a craft/profession could fill in too, but I'd suggest a higher DC. "Sabotage a wagon wheel" is listed as a Tricky DC of 15. The cantrip could negate the usual action of 1d4 rounds, but a roll would still need to be made.

Myself, I'm make them roll disable device skill [straight dex if no skill]. For craft/profession skills, I'd bump the DC up 2-5 points depending how appropriate the skill is. For instance wainwright would be a +2 while carpenter/woodworker +5. Doing it this way should make it clear that randomly messing with "screws and nuts" gets random results but knowing what you're doing can get things done. It also gives the people with the skill a reason to have it. A cantrip shouldn't remove the need for a skill.

[Aziraya Zhwan]

So now with new information, I have some questions and warnings regarding the use of 3.5 material.

The main question is "Did you tell them 3.5 material was ok in advance?" If so, the player was well within his right to be a bit upset that you were telling him that he couldn't do something that you (basically) told him in advance would be ok, and you should probably stick to your word and allow the 3.5 version. If not though, I would explain to him that the game you're playing is Pathfinder, not DnD 3.5, and every source that pertains to 3.5 has zero relevancy to the rules and workings of your campaign. If you want to allow some 3.5 stuff that's perfectly fine and there are a lot of really good options in there that didn't get ported over to Pathfinder. However, make it very clear to him that if he wants to use something from 3.5 then he needs to discuss it with you beforehand. Especially as a new GM you don't want your players to just be grabbing at whatever source tickles their fancy that you then have no way to keep track of.

Yes, they're very compatible, but there will certainly be some things that simply don't mesh well between the two systems and it may become very tedious keeping track if a player is using a 3.5 version of something or the Pathfinder version of something.

[Firebug]

Disable device is trained only.
As per thieves tools you can't even attempt to disable without at least improvising the tools and taking a -2.
Prestidigitation cannot create tools.
Disabling a wagon wheel takes 1d4 full rounds, not a single standard action.

Clearly beyond the scope of a 0th level spell.

[graystone]

Firebug wrote:

Disable device is trained only.

As per thieves tools you can't even attempt to disable without at least improvising the tools and taking a -2.
Prestidigitation cannot create tools.
Disabling a wagon wheel takes 1d4 full rounds, not a single standard action.

Clearly beyond the scope of a 0th level spell.

Spells can often allow you to do things that you normally can't. A 1st level spell, disguise self, removes the need for a kit, gives a +10 bonus on the check and changes a action from 1d3 × 10 min to a standard action.

A cantrip removing the need for tools and dropping an action of 1d4 full rounds seems well within the scope of a cantrip as disguise self clearly outclasses that in every way.

The only issue is trained only, and for sabotage I don't think it'd be needed. there is a LOT of difference between untrained lock picking and removing pegs and nails... While you are technically correct, I'd sure allow an untrained sabotage attempt.

Aziraya Zhwan: it's not so much a 3.5 issue than an open ended spell issue. "perform simple magical effects" can cover a LOT of ground and the spell allows for creation and changing items. And with the wording unchanged from 3.5 times, reading rules and advise from 3.5 doesn't seem out of place. So not really a 3.5 vs pathfinder thing, but a DM adjudication thing.

[Firebug]

I'd say knock, a level 2 spell, would be a better comparison than disguise self. It at least uses the same skill. Especially considering that disguise self only lasts 10 minutes per level and doesn't make a permanent change. But even then, prestidigitation can do a lot of other things that a specialized spell cannot.

So I'd put disabling a device + misc magical effects, but at a reduced range than knock at about the same level, 2. Without a bonus and not using caster level for the check, maybe bump it down to 1.5.

You are right that pulling out a few nails or pegs is different than picking a lock... The DC for locks starts at 20 and goes to 40, where disabling a simple device is a 15. So yeah, already accounted for in the rules.

[Tacticslion]

Aziraya Zhwan wrote:

The main question is "Did you tell them 3.5 material was ok in advance?" If so, the player was well within his right to be a bit upset that you were telling him that he couldn't do something that you (basically) told him in advance would be ok, and you should probably stick to your word and allow the 3.5 version.

Over-all solid advice, but,

graystone wrote:

They most likely are using a 3.5 source for the spell. In the Tome and Blood book,

... is actually slightly incorrect. Tome and Blood is actually a 3rd Edition, not 3.5 - a fine and often-missed (and often needless) distinction. It is still compatible, but is even further removed from the current system and has things that even 3.5 redacted out of existence (either directly or indirectly by ceasing to reprint and making scarce) for various reasons.

For example, in 3rd you had polymorph self and polymorph other spells, whereas in 3.5 you have the more familiar polymorph spell that we know in PF; Scry was a skill that was necessary for some of the spells; eyebite was excessively different; and instead of the various symbol spells we have now, they just had the one spell, symbol (at least, as far as I recall... it's been a while now).

Point is, there is validity in considering them different in what is and is not allowed.

Further, if there are things you are simply not comfortable with, or can't really work in your games, explain it to him. Work things out, as you can, but there is a time and place to simply go, "I was wrong; I'm sorry." and work things out as best you can from there.

But, yeah, Aziraya has some good advice. :)

[graystone]

Firebug: Knock is actually a HORRIBLE comparison as it doesn't even use a skill and affects things not related to the skill. Disguise self has actual parallels. Knock works at med range, does two rolls and replaces multiple things like escape artist, open lock, strength checks, suspending magic, ect. That's FAR out of the scope of the other spell and worthy of a two level bump.

As to the difference in DC, it's logical that someone can't pick a lock without training but not that someone can't remove "a few nails or pegs" without it and not really "already accounted for in the rules". Someone pulling out a "a few nails or pegs" COULD manage to Sabotage something while the same can't be said of messing with locks and traps.

[Firebug]

So I just remove a few nails or pegs of the lock then. IE I do damage to the mechanism.

What you are arguing is that the DC to disable a simple device should be a DC 10, not 15. So someone untrained can still succeed.

As far as knock being a horrible example... It says you make a caster level check +10 vs the DC of the lock. So it looks like we are using the skill, at least the DC's. And is consistent with spells like black tentacles, spiritual weapon and the like that are replacing the normal check with a check based on caster level. Sure knock can do other things besides locks... But they are all on the theme of opening something that doesn't want to. Prestidigitation has a lot of other effects it can create as well, that are very broad and not just variations on a single theme.

The disguise skill specifically has rules text stating that magic can reduce the time to create the disguise. Even if we went with disguise self as a good example, we are talking a trained only skill being a lower level spell slot and the lower level spell can also replace a cook, a candle stick maker, the maid, taking showers, hazardous materials handler...

[graystone]

Firebug: First note that I'm talking about Sabotage. it's a simple matter to hammer something into a lock. I don't have to use a lockpick to wedge a nail in one or much skill for that matter.

Second, DC isn't related to trained only. A DC 1 can't be done by an unskilled person. therefor I'm unsure what the point is about DC 10, not 15. the actual DC has never been a question.

knock: Caster level isn't a skill, as that's requires, oh I don't know, a skill check maybe? Then what about multiple checks that apply to multiple skills and medium range? Yeah, it's a pretty awful comparison.

disguise skill rules text: The inclusion of such language in the text doesn't mean that other magic can't do similar things with other skills.

Sabotage: "You can rig simple devices (such as saddles and wagon wheels) to function normally and break after some period of time (usually 1d4 rounds or minutes of use)." The 'normal' Sabotage check is to have a delayed malfunction. I'd argue straight forward disabling wouldn't require training.

[Firebug]

graystone wrote:

I don't have to use a lockpick to wedge a nail in one or much skill for that matter.

So... an improvised tool then. Weird, I could swear I mentioned improvised tools.

graystone wrote:

Second, DC isn't related to trained only. A DC 1 can't be done by an unskilled person. therefor I'm unsure what the point is about DC 10, not 15. the actual DC has never been a question.

Aha, the DC 10 untrained section is only in knowledge checks, I generalized that to all skill checks apparently.

So if knock using caster level vs DC of disable device has nothing to do with skills(you know, where it referenced the DC?), then spiritual weapon does not make attack rolls it's just comparing your caster level vs their AC.

graystone wrote:

Someone pulling out a "a few nails or pegs" COULD manage to Sabotage something while the same can't be said of messing with locks and traps.

So you are saying that Prestidigitation can replace a strength check? But prestidigitation can only move up to a 1 lb object slowly... Doing a little research it looks like galvanized steel nails take about 60 lbs of force to remove from a piece of wood. At that point you are slowly lifting a gnome, not a 1 lb object.

Sure, magic can reduce the time it takes to do skills. Now where in prestidigitation does it say that it's faster then normal? For that matter where does it say you can even use disable device? Disable device requires tools. Or something to use as an improvised tool. Prestidigitation specifically says it cannot create tools. Of any kind. In fact, you could say that casting prestidigitation only enables you to do the tricks for that hour, it doesn't actually do the trick immediately. Based on the wording of prestidigitation.

So you missed a few words in your sabotage description.

PRD wrote:

You also can rig simple devices such as saddles or wagon wheels to work normally for a while and then fail or fall off some time later (usually after 1d4 rounds or minutes of use).

Why does it say also? Because right before that it also talks about disabling devices, with no mention of delay!

PRD wrote:

The DC depends on how tricky the device is. If the check succeeds, you disable the device. If it fails by 4 or less, you have failed but can try again. If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong. If the device is a trap, you trigger it. If you're attempting some sort of sabotage, you think the device is disabled, but it still works normally.

So essentially, if you succeed the device is disabled. Oh and you can delay the malfunction if you want.

[Diego Rossi]

Aizaia wrote:

graystone wrote:

Aizaia wrote:

I'm very new to gming and I ran my first game a couple of days ago. I have a player who is playing a sorcerer and he tries to use his spells very creatively. The pcs got into their very first encounter and he wanted to use the spell to change the material of a wagon into jelly. Told him the spell only does what it describes it can change. He claimed he had sources that said he could do something like that and it was the only reason he took the spell in the first place. Pressed for time and I didn't feel like arguing to tell him no it doesn't change material. I just told him he could. I don't want to tell him, what I say goes without being able to give a reason why they can't.

They most likely are using a 3.5 source for the spell. In the Tome and Blood book, an official option allows you to:

"Change: You transform one object of Fine size or smaller into another object of roughly the same size. The object can weigh no more than 8 ounces."

As this is a 3.5 application of the spell, it's totally up to you to allow it.

That's exactly where he got it from. He got it from a 3.5/d20 thread on this site. I'm considering allowing it but what he originally wanted to do was change the screws and nuts of two wheels into weaker so the wagon would fall over. It was to change them into something within the same kingdom which I thought would duplicate the Polymorph Any Object spell. Then the idea to change them into jelly came into play.

I could allow that, but 1 screw or nut at a time, so it would be fairly useless in combat.

[Diego Rossi]

Aziraya Zhwan wrote:

So now with new information, I have some questions and warnings regarding the use of 3.5 material.

The main question is "Did you tell them 3.5 material was ok in advance?" If so, the player was well within his right to be a bit upset that you were telling him that he couldn't do something that you (basically) told him in advance would be ok, and you should probably stick to your word and allow the 3.5 version. If not though, I would explain to him that the game you're playing is Pathfinder, not DnD 3.5, and every source that pertains to 3.5 has zero relevancy to the rules and workings of your campaign. If you want to allow some 3.5 stuff that's perfectly fine and there are a lot of really good options in there that didn't get ported over to Pathfinder. However, make it very clear to him that if he wants to use something from 3.5 then he needs to discuss it with you beforehand. Especially as a new GM you don't want your players to just be grabbing at whatever source tickles their fancy that you then have no way to keep track of.

Yes, they're very compatible, but there will certainly be some things that simply don't mesh well between the two systems and it may become very tedious keeping track if a player is using a 3.5 version of something or the Pathfinder version of something.

The best option is "3.5 materials can be accepted, but it must be decided on a case by case basis".

3.5 had a lot of splat books and third party materials. A blanket statement is is almost guaranteed to cause problems.

And the Pathfinder version should take precedence it there is a Pathfinder version of the ability.

[wraithstrike]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Aziraya Zhwan wrote:

So now with new information, I have some questions and warnings regarding the use of 3.5 material.

The main question is "Did you tell them 3.5 material was ok in advance?" If so, the player was well within his right to be a bit upset that you were telling him that he couldn't do something that you (basically) told him in advance would be ok, and you should probably stick to your word and allow the 3.5 version. If not though, I would explain to him that the game you're playing is Pathfinder, not DnD 3.5, and every source that pertains to 3.5 has zero relevancy to the rules and workings of your campaign. If you want to allow some 3.5 stuff that's perfectly fine and there are a lot of really good options in there that didn't get ported over to Pathfinder. However, make it very clear to him that if he wants to use something from 3.5 then he needs to discuss it with you beforehand. Especially as a new GM you don't want your players to just be grabbing at whatever source tickles their fancy that you then have no way to keep track of.

Yes, they're very compatible, but there will certainly be some things that simply don't mesh well between the two systems and it may become very tedious keeping track if a player is using a 3.5 version of something or the Pathfinder version of something.

The best option is "3.5 materials can be accepted, but it must be decided on a case by case basis".

3.5 had a lot of splat books and third party materials. A blanket statement is is almost guaranteed to cause problems.

And the Pathfinder version should take precedence it there is a Pathfinder version of the ability.

This(what DR said) is key.

Just because something is compatible that dose not make it a good idea to allow it. Some 3.5 things shouldn't have even been allowed in 3.5.