My question is whether or not a rogue could use steal spell
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1808
To steal an allied character's spell slot.
Let's imagine an Eldritch archer Eldritch scoundrel rogue that chills with a wizard and Oracle in the back.
Could he use one action to steal a spell from an adjacent ally of up to level 8 (at random) and then cast it for two actions or do something else for two actions and then Eldritch shot it the next round (if he got lucky and nabbed polar ray or something).
Language says foe, but that feels a bit too subjective.
This particular case does not seem to fall within the definition of targets.
For would refer to an unwilling target.
What if the target is willing ? Does that mean I can't target it?
If that is the case, does it mean if the rogue goes to steal from the wizard and the wizard says : "yess pleassse touch me, take EVERYTHING FROM ME! " Does it mean it's suddenly immune because it's willing ?
I mean the wizard certainly made things awkward at least...
Did you read the link?
I did, humblegamer summed up why it doesn't apply quite well.
|
I didn't get the impression from the original post that the question concerned "willingness". AlastarOG stated that the word "foe" was too vague, so I linked to what determines friend from foe:
Some effects target or require an ally, or otherwise refer to an ally. This must be someone on your side, often another PC, but it might be a bystander you are trying to protect. You are not your own ally. If it isn’t clear, the GM decides who counts as an ally or an enemy.
As the GM, I find it obvious that you should be able to steal from allies as well as ennemies.
This rule on targets means that as the GM, I get to determine that all PC's count as ennemies to other PC's ? Seems a bit roundabout and unclear.
I was thinking there might be a rule on this other than "Gm decides"
Technically yes, you could steal a spell from your party members. But you would have to have someone cast Paranoia on you first.
'Foe' is a standard English term for someone that you are actively attacking. So not ally, and not innocent bystander.
Technically yes, you could steal a spell from your party members. But you would have to have someone cast Paranoia on you first.
'Foe' is a standard English term for someone that you are actively attacking. So not ally, and not innocent bystander.
That's a smart way to go around it !
What's even more confusing is that the steal action says creature not for.
Only steal spell does... It's not a common term... Feels like the errata should just replace foe with creature.
As the GM, I find it obvious that you should be able to steal from allies as well as ennemies.Then you have your answer.
Most of the time when I post on these forums it's to discuss the rule or see what others have done, not have an answer.
I'm happy that targets for spell has been reviewed though! Just sad that for is so niche a term that it hasn't been included in there.
"Foe" is definitely not niche. It is used very often.
Then shouldn't it be defined under target like ally is?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Foe" is definitely not niche. It is used very often.Then shouldn't it be defined under target like ally is?
No.
Because then the Core Rulebook would double as a 10,000 page dictionary.
"Friend" is a synonym of "Ally". "Foe" is a synonym of "Enemy".
This doesn't need to be explained anywhere. It doesn't even need GM adjudication, usually. It's a fairly common understanding.
You said earlier that it was "obvious" to you that you can steal from your ally. I would personally disagree, and say that it's obvious you cannot. That would require a whole other ability to do, IMO.
So if I were you I might consider the possibility that you're looking at this whole discussion from an uncommon viewpoint.
"Foe" is definitely not niche. It is used very often.Then shouldn't it be defined under target like ally is?No.
Because then the Core Rulebook would double as a 10,000 page dictionary.
"Friend" is a synonym of "Ally". "Foe" is a synonym of "Enemy".
This doesn't need to be explained anywhere. It doesn't even need GM adjudication, usually. It's a fairly common understanding.
You said earlier that it was "obvious" to you that you can steal from your ally. I would personally disagree, and say that it's obvious you cannot. That would require a whole other ability to do, IMO.
So if I were you I might consider the possibility that you're looking at this whole discussion from an uncommon viewpoint.
It is possible that the intent behind the rule is that, to prevent exactly the kind of scenario I mentioned.
However if a player told me "I'm stealing my Ally's spell with spell steal" I would be hard pressed to justify saying no to that.
If a player can steal from an ally, can strike an ally, can do everything to an ally, why not an action that can be done on a foe.
Hence the need to come here and see what various people think. Because to me it's obvious, but I'd like to know what the case agaisnt it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is possible that the intent behind the rule is that, to prevent exactly the kind of scenario I mentioned.
However if a player told me "I'm stealing my Ally's spell with spell steal" I would be hard pressed to justify saying no to that.
If a player can steal from an ally, can strike an ally, can do everything to an ally, why not an action that can be done on a foe.
Hence the need to come here and see what various people think. Because to me it's obvious, but I'd like to know what the case agaisnt it is.
The devs have done everything in their power this edition to stop bastard players from taking involuntary PvP actions. This is another example of that. The wording on spells has been fairly cleanly split between friendly- and enemy-affecting actions, and quite a lot of offensive actions now exclude friendly targets.
If you really want to allow that at your table, more power to you. If the wizard or battle oracle objects, that's on you as well to adjudicate the results.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Legendary Thief takes at least 1 minute. So it would take at least 1 minute to steal someone's spell, possibly even longer. You also need to stay Hidden the whole time.
This would only be useful if you were attempting to steal a spellcaster's spell outside an encounter, and wanted to use the spell to initiate the encounter. Otherwise I think it's not worth spending at least 10 rounds stealing an allies spell while you stay hidden the whole time, while your allies are busy fighting for their lives.
Legendary Thief takes at least 1 minute. So it would take at least 1 minute to steal someone's spell, possibly even longer. You also need to stay Hidden the whole time.
This would only be useful if you were attempting to steal a spellcaster's spell outside an encounter, and wanted to use the spell to initiate the encounter. Otherwise I think it's not worth spending at least 10 rounds stealing an allies spell while you stay hidden the whole time, while your allies are busy fighting for their lives.
I also had issues with this, I imagined that for something that's not bulky, like a spell, this would default to the steal action.
If it's 1 minute, that feat is useless.
And I don't mean "niche" I mean useless, since as per definition of for earlier, it has to be someone you're actively engaged in violent activity with, therefore combat, therefore this is a 30 action action.
Or useless.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know why you would think stealing someone's prepared spell would be equivalent to stealing a potion out of their pocket. It's literally a font of magical power that can be shaped into awesome and frightening effects being taken from them, it only makes sense it would take a little longer than 2 seconds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... That is true. Though a foe doesn't have to be someone that you are attacking quickly. An enemy that you plot and scheme against and battle against using a downtime scale of play would also be a foe.