| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen a few comments that Glyph of Warding is a problem spell. With several thinking it is broken. May be so. But I though I would open up the discussion as to how does it actually work.
Cast 10 minutes (material, somatic, verbal)
Range touch; Targets 1 container or a 10-foot-by-10-foot area
Duration unlimited
Pretty straight forward, it last forever. Being on a area is not a problem, but a containter can be something light and movable like a small vial, or a snuff box.
You craft a trap by binding a hostile spell into a symbol. While Casting this Spell, you also Cast a Spell of a lower spell level to store in the glyph. The stored spell must take 3 actions or fewer to cast, have a hostile effect, and target one creature or have an area.
Mostly Ok up to here. A hostile spell can be a bit loose as a Heal spell is hostile to Undead. So GMs may rule that in or out. It must be lower level, so the best is your highest spell level -1.
You can set a password, a trigger, or both for the glyph. Any creature that moves, opens, or touches the target container or enters the target area that doesn't speak the password or that matches the trigger activates the glyph, releasing the harmful spell within.
This is problematic.
1) My initial reading was you can do anything - even create a grenade glyph and throw it, just have it trigger on hitting the ground. Or trigger it only when the vial breaks. Is this legit?
2) Question do the commas mean anything? Is it trying to imply that there are just 3 types of possible trigger move/open/everything else?!? Meaning that if you move or open the container it will always trigger? I've double checked my grammar rules and I don't think that it does but some of you might be more expert in this.
3) The creature has to move, open or trigger it. That is you can't do it to them, the person who activates the trigger must be the primary target of the spell, or the center of the area.
Once a spell is stored in the glyph, the glyph gains all the traits of that spell. If the stored spell targets one or more creatures, it targets the creature that set off the glyph. If it has an area, that area is centered on the creature that set off the glyph. Glyph of warding's duration ends when the glyph is triggered. The glyph counts as a magical trap, using your spell DC for both the Perception check to notice it and the Thievery check to disable it; both checks require the creature attempting them to be trained in order to succeed.
No worries it lasts for ever. A complication is areas can be cones and have a direction. I'd argue that unless the glyph is fixed in place the GM can choose or roll randomly for the direction of the cone. He doesn't have to be nice and let the player control it.
You can Dismiss glyph of warding. The maximum number of glyphs of warding you can have active at a time is equal to your spellcasting ability modifier.
Which means most casters will be able to have 4-7 of these, as they go up level.
It has its limitations but bascially the same as a few scrolls that you can refresh with a couple of days down time.
It becomes a problem if
1) your players can get immunity to a spell they put in - this is very hard an Undead Sorcerer, and Fiery Body are the ones that spring to mind for me, not easy. Even those cases are not party immunity.
2) you let it on a weapon - shouldn't be allowed it is not a container. Now I'm thinking about a Gourd Leshy...
3) you can activate it with a single action. Maybe that is possible with the Quick Draw feat.
Doubling rings don't replicate this spell by the way.
What do poeple think? Where am I wrong what have I missed?
A lot of rigor could be applied to where the Glyph gets triggered only by those touching/opening/entering intentionally and who don't meet the criteria or say the password.
That's pretty much how it worked in previous editions too.
Things like "when glyph falls" or "container breaks" wouldn't function under this rule.
Yet there are still loopholes because you can put harmful spells in the Glyph that don't harm you.
(As an aside, I'd let Heal work in the Glyph, and give absolutely no healing, only harming of undead. And vice-versa for divine necromancers.)
The most obvious loophole spells are those where y'all aren't legitimate targets (generally rare unless you're non-humanoid), but also the Fort saves vs. the Greater Juggernaut (or Reflex/Will for those that can evade those.) Sure, that's risky, but warriors often call down AoEs on their positions. Put in spells w/ the Incapacitation trait for an even easier save (since the spells at max -1, assuming PCs are the same level.)
Now imagine an egg carton, except the eggs are all small containers w/ Glyphs. The PC pulls out the carton, lays their hand on all the "eggs" at once and you get 4+ spells all launching concurrently. Ouch!
Now imagine the bad guys with disposable minions doing the same...
Heck, if the party takes too long in the dungeon these Glyphs might not even count as hazards if the evil caster made them in direct response the same day.
I don't think that sort of usage of Glyphs would be healthy for PF2.
Now imagine an egg carton, except the eggs are all small containers w/ Glyphs. The PC pulls out the carton, lays their hand on all the "eggs" at once and you get 4+ spells all launching concurrently. Ouch!
But this is not a problem that is exclusive to Glyphs. It has always been a limitation with things like a vial of greek fire, acid, holy water. In 'reality' there is no reason you can't throw a small crate of vials of greek fire all at once and get them to go off in a combined way. Or even get yourself a barrel full. But no, it is always a set small amount. The GM just crushes any interpretation that it does more damage. If you are lucky it will affect a bigger area. It only ever happens when the GM needs to do it for story reasons, or if the GM decides to make it backfire on the players.
This sort of action economy loophole I think has to be arbitrarily closed by the GM. The GM insists that the players must pick up the item, then activate the item taking two actions per item.....This is very much at the heart of the atomic nature of most RPG rules systems. One action, one item, its an assumption of the rules system that the GM should enforce.
Mechanically speaking I'd probably make the ability to do this type of activity a specific feat. Then always deny it to the players.
Quick Draw doesn't apply because it is not a weapon it is a container, and you need to enforce it.
Now imagine the bad guys with disposable minions doing the same...
Heck, if the party takes too long in the dungeon these Glyphs might not even count as hazards if the evil caster made them in direct response the same day.I don't think that sort of usage of Glyphs would be healthy for PF2.
Yes probably a bad thing. If the players do, then so should the GM occasionally. But the limitation is not the number of minions, but the number of casters. The GM never has any problem getting the player to run into his glyphs anyway. There is no reason they can't be stacked ridiculously close together.
Yes we know that a real enemy wizard would not simply leave one 6d6 fireball glyph in the location he wanted to secure. But he would put all of them there with overlapping fields of fire to make sure they all went off at once and totally kill the intruders
Glyphs are a typical resource problem for a GM and he should just control it as normal. Inisiting on two actions per activation should do the trick.
I think we're in agreement, Gortle, yet I have to point out that a GM closing a loophole isn't (or shouldn't be) arbitrary.
The decision should be reasoned based on PF2's system balance & player enjoyment, not random nor whimsical at all.
Some classic dungeons very much had Glyphs back to back, sometimes on stairways which could collapse so you tumble through them all!
(See also: Fire Trap)
So putting a cap to how many can exist was a good thing, as was making them free IMO.
Note that since Glyphs damage treasure, too many + one rat could lead to bankruptcy!
I don't think a two-action activation makes any sense though.
Do containers with Glyphs now open slower? Or only in the presence of enemies?
I'd rather avoid the whole "portable warfare" aspect and leave them to defense, like of one's valuables or home base.
I don't think a two-action activation makes any sense though.
Do containers with Glyphs now open slower? Or only in the presence of enemies?
I'd rather avoid the whole "portable warfare" aspect and leave them to defense, like of one's valuables or home base.
For two action I mean: insist on one action to pick up the container and one action to activate it.
I'm not getting the gist of wanting 2 actions to open things...
It's 1 action to open a door, open a chest, or do any other Interact sort of thing. Why is this being monkeyed with? Am I missing something?
Regarding the reading of this spell that allows it to be used as a grenade - well, that reading creates a whole slew of problems, but a reading of the rule that assume you're warding a door or treasure chest or hallway or whatever, then just leaving it there as a trap - I fail to see what problems that causes. So, my preferred way to interpret the spell is the less problematic way.
Interpreting it in the less problematic way also alleviates any issues of having to try to create some balance around how many actions it takes to trigger the ward - you just follow the standard rules for an Interact action or a Stride/Step action that causes the triggering character to interact with/enter the object/area.
Viewed that way, it's nice, neat and tidy.
I'm not getting the gist of wanting 2 actions to open things...
It's 1 action to open a door, open a chest, or do any other Interact sort of thing.
One glpyh is not really a problem, it a cute trick.
Multiple glyphs used offensively in the one round are.
To be used offensively typically requires multiple containers. I'm just expecting that there will always be an action to retrieve the container.
If you have multiple glyphs triggered by the one action you have a balance problem.
If you allow people to get around these limits, and they are artificial limits, then we can't let players have glyphs at all. Because they would be broken.
So choose your position. Allow them with limits or get rid of them
Personally I want them in the game.
Just like the alchemist class, its full of artificial limits.
My reading of this is that there are two versions of Glyphs that trigger differently. If cast on a container it requires a creature to intentionally move, open, or touch the container to trigger (I'd rule this to be similar to the "forced movement doesn't trigger reactions" rule - you can't make somebody trigger the glyph unwillingly). If cast on an area, then it's not mobile but fixed to that area.
It's very loose with the whole password and/or trigger condition. I've seen people argue that it'd be impractical to have to keep using the password if you were carrying it around, but you don't even need to set a password, you could just use a trigger like "somebody not in the party touches this" or "somebody touches this and whistles" to prevent it from going off on accident.
So "glyph grenades" are out as the trigger has to also involve an intentional touch, movement, or opening by a creature, not just tossing out something like it had a proximity sensor. However, there's still a ton of ways to get crazy mileage out of this - have some big pillowcases that you put glyphs on and drop them in squares around you - enemy steps onto it and they trigger it. Toss a bottle into the area near the enemies and then have a summoned minion go pick it up.
Have the Fire Leopard animal companion from Plaguestone carry a Fireball container around that triggers when they're touching it and make a certain sound. Immunity to fire makes this a really good trap to set off away from the party and near the enemies. You could also use an Unseen Servant in the same way, although if you use one to set off a damaging AoE it's not likely the servant would survive. Web might be a candidate for a spell to use in this way.
Anyways, what gets me about this spell is that as it exists right now is that at 5th level you can basically have four of them with you at all times and they don't take up any resources. At 5th level this is basically gives you four additional 2nd level spells, and at 7th it's four 3rd level spells. If you can find situations where this is used to your advantage then it's basically free extra spells, and if not there's practically no cost to have prepared them. I can't think of any reason why any caster wouldn't always have the max number of these prepped as possible even if it's fairly situational how useful they'd be (although the "Fireball Leopard" would be a very consistent usage as a combat trick).
It just seems so good that it feels less like it's just a spell and more like a full-on class ability, and that's even if you're using it in ways that seem intended and not trying to attach a Fireball vial to an arrow or somesuch.
Imagine a Rogue Gourd Leshy with the evasion reflex save save for crit save. Place a Fireball glyph on him (he is a container with his racial ability). Maby give him a fire resist ring but then get into combat and have it trigger when he is hit my a melee attack lol. Hope all his friends are out of range.
Also how about a gold coin or a valuable gem with a glyph. React with fear when an enemy approaches and toss it at their feet. Enemy picks up said valuable and poof.
|
I've been trying to think of some fun things to do with Glyphs since this thread popped up. I like the idea of Spell Pockets, that you ward and only open when you want to trigger the effect.
Best use I've come up with so far is to Banish yourself while on a different plane as a super-quick Plane Shift.
Everything else takes a lot of effort to justify / eek advantage out of.
Forgetting for a second about the grenade idea - assuming you have a glyph in a container and the container is placed somewhere, would it still be possible to have it trigger based off a creature of a given time entering a stated proximity? So, less like a grenade, and more like a landmine.
Next, since you can have it cover an area, is there any rule stating that a glyph can't overlap partially or fully with another glyph in terms of the area it's inscribed in?
Would it be possible to inscribe a glyph on your own armor with a trigger for when a creature attacks you, and the target set as that creature?
Lastly, if a glyph is set off by a creature touching it directly, whether it be a container or an area (for the container, the creature touches or otherwise manipulates it, and for the area, the creature steps inside the glyph), if a melee attack spell is used, would it need a spell attack roll since the creature is the one who initiated contact, even if unknowingly?
Forgetting for a second about the grenade idea - assuming you have a glyph in a container and the container is placed somewhere, would it still be possible to have it trigger based off a creature of a given time entering a stated proximity? So, less like a grenade, and more like a landmine.
Next, since you can have it cover an area, is there any rule stating that a glyph can't overlap partially or fully with another glyph in terms of the area it's inscribed in?
Would it be possible to inscribe a glyph on your own armor with a trigger for when a creature attacks you, and the target set as that creature?
Lastly, if a glyph is set off by a creature touching it directly, whether it be a container or an area (for the container, the creature touches or otherwise manipulates it, and for the area, the creature steps inside the glyph), if a melee attack spell is used, would it need a spell attack roll since the creature is the one who initiated contact, even if unknowingly?
I'll try to do these in order:
1 - No, you can't make a landmine. You can target either an object or an area. If you target an object, then it only goes off when someone touches it, moves it or opens it without doing whatever needs to be done for it not to go off (aka, speaking the password, fulfilling the trigger, or both).
2 - Glyphs fo Warding can absolutely overlap each other, so long as you don't have more glyphs active than your Spellcasting modifier.
3 - No, your armor isn't a container.
4 - The spell goes off as normal, it just targets whichever creature triggers the glyph. So yes, you'd need to roll a Spell Attack roll if the spell requires it.
------
On the topic itself:
While I think that the intent is for the spell to only activate when a creature willingly manipulates whatever object, the wording is not that precise. Touching is touching, whether voluntarily or not, so the hand grenade idea works fine, on paper. Just as the glyph would work if you dominate someone into touching your booby trap.
I'd recommend to just use what PF1 did, where only opening the object set it off.
Similarly, it'd probably be a good idea to use the PF1 stipulation that multiple glyphs cannot be cast on the same area, lest your players create a stack of them to instantly obliterate the poor fool that dared enter the 10-foot square of ultimate doom (or got shoved into it, or such). Unless you're fine with that, of course.
Anyways, what gets me about this spell is that as it exists right now is that at 5th level you can basically have four of them with you at all times and they don't take up any resources. At 5th level this is basically gives you four additional 2nd level spells, and at 7th it's four 3rd level spells. If you can find situations where this is used to your advantage then it's basically free extra spells, and if not there's practically no cost to have prepared them. I can't think of any reason why any caster wouldn't always have the max number of these prepped as possible even if it's fairly situational how useful they'd be (although the "Fireball Leopard" would be a very consistent usage as a combat trick).
It just seems so good that it feels less like it's just a spell and more like a full-on class ability, and that's even if you're using it in ways that seem intended and not trying to attach a Fireball vial to an arrow or somesuch.
That does seem to be a problem. That is way too much power to be given freely to a character because of one spell choice.
As a fix for that that only requires rules interpretation, I would suggest that the target area applies to both target types. So if the spell is cast on a container, the container still has to stay within the 10 x 10 area or the spell is dispersed harmlessly.
That will prevent characters from carrying around spells in random corked bottles while adventuring. But still allows the spell to be used for its intended purpose.
Forgetting for a second about the grenade idea - assuming you have a glyph in a container and the container is placed somewhere, would it still be possible to have it trigger based off a creature of a given time entering a stated proximity? So, less like a grenade, and more like a landmine.
Next, since you can have it cover an area, is there any rule stating that a glyph can't overlap partially or fully with another glyph in terms of the area it's inscribed in?
Would it be possible to inscribe a glyph on your own armor with a trigger for when a creature attacks you, and the target set as that creature?
Lastly, if a glyph is set off by a creature touching it directly, whether it be a container or an area (for the container, the creature touches or otherwise manipulates it, and for the area, the creature steps inside the glyph), if a melee attack spell is used, would it need a spell attack roll since the creature is the one who initiated contact, even if unknowingly?
I'll try to do these in order:
1 - No, you can't make a landmine. You can target either an object or an area. If you target an object, then it only goes off when someone touches it, moves it or opens it without doing whatever needs to be done for it not to go off (aka, speaking the password, fulfilling the trigger, or both).
2 - Glyphs fo Warding can absolutely overlap each other, so long as you don't have more glyphs active than your Spellcasting modifier.
3 - No, your armor isn't a container.
4 - The spell goes off as normal, it just targets whichever creature triggers the glyph. So yes, you'd need to roll a Spell Attack roll if the spell requires it.
------
On the topic itself:
While I think that the intent is for the spell to only activate when a creature willingly manipulates whatever object, the wording is not that precise. Touching is touching, whether voluntarily or not, so the hand grenade idea works fine, on paper. Just as the glyph would work if you dominate someone into...
For 1 - Seeing the wording, I can definitely believe that interpretation. My thought had been that if a creature set off some kind of effect from a 1st glyph, it could set the second off, but if direct interaction is involved, then it makes sense.
For 2 - Good to know. Thanks!For 3 - Why not? As the specifications for the container are essentially non-existant, I'm curious. I personally disagree with the grenade or weapon use interpretation due to the fact that a spell storage glyph exists for weapons, meaning that as someone doing the interaction with the weapon, you can't force it to go off when it touches another creature both because it's not the intended use of the spell, and another in-game mechanic already covers it.
But since armor isn't going to be used in that way, I could still see it as being booby trapped. Still, I was also considering that if not armor itself, perhaps a shield.
For 4 - I thought as much, but I wondered at the interpretation, since to set off the glyph the creature would already need to be in physical contact. I am not precisely sure how such things are treated in this system. By that I mean, does a failed melee attack miss, or potentially simply connect and not get through? And depending on that, how does it work in terms of a spell? My thought on Shocking Grasp, for example, would be that a failed attack has to miss, since even slight physical contact would be enough for that spell to work, especially against metal armor wearers.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of this conversation seems to assume that Glyph of Warding can be heightened. Where does everyone get that from?
I will agree up front that one might argue it is implied in the spell description, but the lack of notation on its entry in the spell lists (no superscript "H") and the lack of the "heightened" section of the spell description leaves me unsure.
You all seem to be pretty certain though. Why? Did I miss something?
Every spell can be heightened to any spell level higher than its minimum, it's simply that in MOST cases it doesn't have much of a mechanical effect beyond setting a more difficult Counteract DC.
I'll try to do these in order:
1 - No, you can't make a landmine. You can target either an object or an area. If you target an object, then it only goes off when someone touches it, moves it or opens it without doing whatever needs to be done for it not to go off (aka, speaking the password, fulfilling the trigger, or both).
I don't see the wording in the rules anywhere as tightly as you do.
I do believe you can set it on an object with a password. More the object somewhere else not triggering it because of the password. This is a landmine.It fails the common sense test not to be able to move a glyph. Otherwise why would a wizard ever put this on his spell book? The most classic use for this spell. Suddenly he can't move the spell book to his work bench? Not reasonable.
IMHO landmine is possible and supported by the rules.
2 - Glyphs fo Warding can absolutely overlap each other, so long as you don't have more glyphs active than your Spellcasting modifier.
3 - No, your armor isn't a container.
4 - The spell goes off as normal, it just targets whichever creature triggers the glyph. So yes, you'd need to roll a Spell Attack roll if the spell requires it.
Agree with these. Though I normally house rule against players stacking glyphs.
But not the rest of your commentary. Accidently stepping on a glyph should trigger it. The intent of the victim, voluntary or not, doesn't come into it.
For 1 - Seeing the wording, I can definitely believe that interpretation. My thought had been that if a creature set off some kind of effect from a 1st glyph, it could set the second off, but if direct interaction is involved, then it makes sense.
For 2 - Good to know. Thanks!
For 3 - Why not? As the specifications for the container are essentially non-existant, I'm curious. I personally disagree with the grenade or weapon use interpretation due to the fact that a spell storage glyph exists for weapons, meaning that as someone doing the interaction with the weapon, you can't force it to go off when it touches another creature both because it's not the intended use of the spell, and another in-game mechanic already covers it.
But since armor isn't going to be used in that way, I could still see it as being booby trapped. Still, I was also considering that if not armor itself, perhaps a shield.
For 4 - I thought as much, but I wondered at the interpretation, since to set off the glyph the creature would already need to be in physical contact. I am not precisely sure how such things are treated in this system. By that I mean, does a failed melee attack miss, or potentially simply connect and not get through? And depending on that, how does it work in terms of a spell? My thought on Shocking Grasp, for example, would be that a failed attack has to miss, since even slight physical contact would be enough for that spell to work, especially against metal armor wearers.
1) You could theoretically set two (or more) glyphs off, if you do something like: put a glyph of warding on a chest, and the spell is gust of wind, and when they try to open it the spell pushes them into the area of another glyph.
3) The reason I don't consider Armor (or shields) to be a container is simple: if armor is a container, then the spell knock, the chime of opening, and the Force Open action all work on it. Could you, theoretically, make armor, or a shield, or even weapons that are containers? Yes, absolutely, but I think that goes beyond the intent. You're free to do as you wish though.
4) In PF a "miss" can be either of those, or however you wish to flavor it. Maybe the shocking grasp didn't go off correctly, maybe it just gave the guy an annoying (but not damaging) jolt, maybe he flinched and the whole zap went past him. The important thing is that it doesn't affect the character.
I'll try to do these in order:
1 - No, you can't make a landmine. You can target either an object or an area. If you target an object, then it only goes off when someone touches it, moves it or opens it without doing whatever needs to be done for it not to go off (aka, speaking the password, fulfilling the trigger, or both).
I don't see the wording in the rules anywhere as tightly as you do.
I do believe you can set it on an object with a password. More the object somewhere else not triggering it because of the password. This is a landmine.It fails the common sense test not to be able to move a glyph. Otherwise why would a wizard ever put this on his spell book? The most classic use for this spell. Suddenly he can't move the spell book to his work bench? Not reasonable.
IMHO landmine is possible and supported by the rules.
2 - Glyphs fo Warding can absolutely overlap each other, so long as you don't have more glyphs active than your Spellcasting modifier.
3 - No, your armor isn't a container.
4 - The spell goes off as normal, it just targets whichever creature triggers the glyph. So yes, you'd need to roll a Spell Attack roll if the spell requires it.
Agree with these. Though I normally house rule against players stacking glyphs.
But not the rest of your commentary. Accidently stepping on a glyph should trigger it. The intent of the victim, voluntary or not, doesn't come into it.
My first response was to Niloc's commentary of making a proximity mine with the glyph. As in, you put it on a chest, and whoever approaches the chest triggers it. My answer was no, just approaching the chest won't trigger it. You need to move/open/touch it to trigger.
If you want a glyph to trigger when someone moves somewhere, that's an area glyph. But you can put the chest inside an area glyph. Or bury the chest so the top is exposed, and if someone steps on it, it goes off, sure. But there has to be actual contact for your "landmine" to work, proximity isn't enough.
As for your putting it on your spellbook,that'd depend on whether you consider a spellbook a "container". Butassuming you do, I'd never use a password. I'd use the trigger "Anyone but me touches my spellbook". Then you don't need to speak, and it won't go off when you manipulate the thing (but careful with handing it off to friends!)
And I think you misinterpreted the rest (or I wasn't clear). I am absolutely in the camp that says intent doesn't matter. The glyph will go off whether you manipulate the object/enter the area willingly or unwillingly.
As for your putting it on your spellbook,that'd depend on whether you consider a spellbook a "container". But assuming you do, I'd never use a password. I'd use the trigger "Anyone but me touches my spellbook". Then you don't need to speak, and it won't go off when you manipulate the thing (but careful with handing it off to friends!)
As soon as you allow triggers like "Anyone but me touches" then you have allowed grenades, unless you are distiguishing based on intent or relative motion.
You put a leather cover on a book and give it a buckle. The leather binder is a container now. Spell book inside. No problems. Glyph can be effectively applied. If the GM is really tight on it I suppose you could make it a pouch.
Armour I suppose is semantics, maybe a bridge too far. I expect most GMs wouldn't allow that.
Just for the record there is a Leshy subtype Gourd Leshy that is a container - that's right a PC can be a container. Glyph goes off when you touch him ....
Hmm.
As for your putting it on your spellbook,that'd depend on whether you consider a spellbook a "container". But assuming you do, I'd never use a password. I'd use the trigger "Anyone but me touches my spellbook". Then you don't need to speak, and it won't go off when you manipulate the thing (but careful with handing it off to friends!)As soons as you allow triggers like "Anyone but me touches" then you have allowed grenades, unless you are distiguishing based on intent or relative motion.
You put a leather cover on a book and give it a buckle. The leather binder is a container now. Spell book inside. No problems. Glyph can be effectively applied. If the GM is really tight on it I suppose you could make it a pouch.
Armour I suppose is semantics, maybe a bridge too far. I expect most GMs wouldn't allow that.
Just for the record there is a Leshy subtype Gourd Leshy that is a container - that's right a PC can be a container. Glyph goes off when you touch him ....
Hmm.
Yeah, I know. I've said from the first that RAW the spell allows "grenades" and such. It doesn't say "if a creature willingly moves, opens or touches." Put a glyph on a metal drinking flask, throw it at an enemy, hit, it goes off. Put an AoE spell on it, and the flask will even be fine and reuseable afterwards!
And the trigger can be whatever you want. Nothing prevents a trigger like the one I stipulated. Or something like "A hostile creature touches it". Or a hundred other such triggers.
That's not even the biggest problems the spell has. How, exactly, do you "center" a cone on a triggering creature? A line? How long is the glyph deactivated if I speak the password?
If I were to ever run PF2, I'd just use the PF1 glyph of warding and not bother with this version.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can set a password, a trigger, or both for the glyph.
Any creature that moves, opens, or touches the target container or enters the target area that doesn't speak the password or that matches the trigger activates the glyph, releasing the harmful spell within.
Two elements, the first has you choosing to set a password and/or trigger, the second specifies what happens when certain conditions are met (including not speaking the password or triggers the trigger).
Thing is, as a GM I would rule that literally every time you move the container, or touch it (including taking it out), I would have you speak the password. Ideally for each of them.
I would also limit triggers to be sensible, in the same way near any GM limits ready action triggers to also be sensible. No "hostile creatures" unless you want the box to only trigger on foes that actively attack it out of hostility ;).
I would also rule that moves, opens, or touches are meant to be read as active verbs rather than passive verbs. I wouldn't bring willingness into the equation as I am happy for things to unwillingly be forced to do something.
i.e. if you throw it and say the password (because you had to to move it I would consider it to be a continuation of your movement as it bumps off the creature you threw it at. If they then choose to kick it or move into whatever you threw that is their fault.
"The maximum number of glyphs of warding you can have active at a time is equal to your spellcasting ability modifier."
"Glyph of warding's duration ends when the glyph is triggered."
Both of these elements limit its usage enough imo.
----
So yeah, even without my reading of "move, open, touch" being active verbs I don't see much of a problem outside of the white room.
And if a player tried to get around the rules too much with triggers I would ask them not to, if they still tried I would kick them from the table.