If you cast bandit's doom on an object, and that object is in your backpack, does it trigger if someone steals your backpack? Or only when they touch the cursed object within, such as when pulling it out of the backpack? Is it possible they won't be effected at all if they dump out all the backpack's contents (and don't thereafter pick up the cursed object)?
Could I cast the spell on the contents of my waterskin, then safely drink some of it, then pour a glass for someone else, thereby luring them into a false sense of safety?
Have I just stumbled onto the ricin of Pathfinder?
What happens if I pour the water out into five goblets? Does only the first person to drink or pick up their goblet get hit with the damage? Is it random? What if I cast it on a banana, then peel the skin off and through it in the street? Which is cursed? The meat, or the skin?
Some of these questions are a bit inane to expect the system to have a precisely defined answer for, the GM rules them however they see fit.
The intention of the spell is clearly to ward something against intentional theft, so trying to damage others by giving out gifts will likely only earn you eye-rolls.
I dunno, I'm into it. The more awkward thing is that initiative is usually triggered when you declare your intention to harm a creature, and encounter mode is tricky in that case.
You could cast it on the water skin itself. But then the question becomes whether holding something to take a swig is "taking it into their possession." And while that is technically true, it doesn't seem to be the intent so it should probably be shot down.
What I've pondered before is a way to trick an enemy into trying to steal an item in combat, like dropping your weapon or something. But I've never quite come up with a reliable way to do that. Would be nice if you could-- it's a nice chunk of damage for something which doesn't inherently require actions from you.
Can you cast this spell on an object in your house, then go on vacation knowing that the spell will work should somebody attempt to remove the cursed item?
If so, I fail to see how it would not work with an item (such as a goblet) that was set on a table in feign offering.
I agree that a direct handoff likely would not work.
I think I would allow the spell to be cast on water or sand, but would be quick to stop obvious abuses, such as splitting the water up to turn a 1 target spell into a ten target spell, or attempting to cast the spell "on the ocean." A potential victom would need to be attempting to take all of the target water or sand, such as when drinking from the whole waterskin, or picking up the whole pouch of sand.
Similarly, something like a chair would cease being a valid target of the spell (ending the spell) once it's broken up into its constituent parts. It's essentially destroyed, is no longer a chair, and is now considered different objects which would need a new casting (on one of the parts).
At least that's how I'd run it.
The magic has to be detecting some level of mind and intent and have a tighter definition of "posession" than just touch, otherwise setting it on the table and releasing it would damage the table. And if it's detecting intent, then your drinking partner who takes an offered cup with no intent to keep it, is like the table.
But I think this is now definitely into "up to the group" territory, and I think GMs ruling different ways on it is fine. An eyeroll with a no is consistent with the RAW - it uses a more stringent definition of take possession. But an okay yes works within the RAW too - it uses a looser definition of take possession. Players should simply keep in mind that they get to lay in the bed they make. An easily trapped mug for the protagonist to use means an easily trapped doorhandle for the antagonists to use.
Respectfully, I disagree.
First, it does mental damage, to which tables are immune.
Second, the object needs to be taken into the possession of another creature. I suspect you're overthrowing it. The spell does not need to read minds or intent.
Merely touching the object is not enough. Using familiar game terms, all that is required is that (1) a creature (2) holds or wields the cursed item, and (3) removes it from its current location. If all those three conditions are met, the spell triggers. If the cursed item was "taken" by a mundane tornado, it would not trigger (though it would if the item survived to be picked up later). If the item was grabbed, but not moved, then it has not been brought into one's possession; that's just another form of touching, which isn't enough to trigger the spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you cast this spell on an object in your house, then go on vacation knowing that the spell will work should somebody attempt to remove the cursed item?
If so, I fail to see how it would not work with an item (such as a goblet) that was set on a table in feign offering.
I agree that a direct handoff likely would not work.
The magic has to be detecting some level of mind and intent and have a tighter definition of "take posession" than just touch, otherwise setting it on the table and releasing it would damage the table. And if it's detecting intent, then your drinking partner who takes an offered cup with no intent to keep it, is like the table.
Don't think that tracks. The spell is triggered by creatures, not objects, and deals mental damage so it wouldn't hurt a table even if it was triggered. (Objects counting as creatures for the purposes of spells and strikes is firmly GM territory, but I don't think any same GM would let a table count for this spell.)
The bigger problem with intent is the spell has that "You can choose up to 10 creatures when you cast this spell; if you do, those creatures can take the target item without triggering the ward" bit. If the spell could reliably detect intent to that degree, you wouldn't need to worry about your friends borrowing it.
I agree physical contact alone wouldn't trigger the effect but there's a good case anything which mechanically qualifies as "held" would. I'm also not sure about a single item in a back pack if someone steals the backpack. Probably safer to cast it on the back pack itself.
Can you cast this spell on an object in your house, then go on vacation knowing that the spell will work should somebody attempt to remove the cursed item?
If so, I fail to see how it would not work with an item (such as a goblet) that was set on a table in feign offering.
I agree that a direct handoff likely would not work.
It's not feign offering if you offer.
Regardless of what "you" want to accomplish, the one taking possession needs to be the one thinking of stealing it.
If he thinks that you offered it to him, the curse won't take.
Like Geas, the intent of the target is very important.
The spell doesn't indicate any intent on the potential victim's part. Only that they must take the cursed object into their posession. There must be action on their part. If I'm the one spending the actions (to force the item into their hands, for example) then the spell would NOT trigger.
It does say the spell is intended to deter thieves, but that speaks to the intended purpose of the spell, not to the intent of how it actually operates.
A sickle is a tool, but can still be used for other purposes, such as a weapon. It being intended to be used as a tool and not a weapon doesn't change the fact that it is sharp, or that it could be dangerous when used for violent purpose.
That first line is the same. It describes the spell's primary intended purpose, not what it actually does. It's the rest of the body text that describes how the spell operates.
My take on this, is that there are plenty of magic spells that do need some form of mind/intent reading to function.
IMO, the the concept of "take the [item] into its possession" does necessitate some amount of mind reading. As was pointed out by the fly/animal disturbance example, this spell would *not* trigger if someone moved the wizard's warded coffee mug to move it away from the edge where it could fall.
With the context of it being theft-prevention, with that wording, I do think the magic screens for thieving intent. The narrowest I'd call/rephrase that would be
"intent to claim sole/first ownership of the item."
_______________________
Especially with the spell also checking against white-listed people, I really don't think there is a spring-trap type mechanism behind this.
________________________
IMO the "inside the backpack" is the trickiest edge case.
If the thief steals a backpack w/ the cursed item inside:
Honestly, I think I'd rule that as a loophole that avoids triggering the spell. But, as soon as a thief removes the item from backpack, the spell would activate.
The magic definitely would needs some "are they thinking about me?" kind of feature, and the item being inside a box / ect would be a way to avoid the curse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think possession in this case implies “taking ownership of” in some capacity. I would not personally take that to mean “picking up for temporary use.” Otherwise the trigger could/ would just be touching the target. I don’t think it really matters if it was given or not though.
Edit: It never a says touch the target, just take it into possession, so I do think taking a back pack with the intention of taking possession of everything inside the back pack would trigger the spell. But not picking up the back pack to see if you could find out who to return it to.
I do think possession in this case implies “taking ownership of” in some capacity. I would not personally take that to mean “picking up for temporary use.” Otherwise the trigger could/ would just be touching the target. I don’t think it really matters if it was given or not though.
Edit: It never a says touch the target, just take it into possession, so I do think taking a back pack with the intention of taking possession of everything inside the back pack would trigger the spell. But not picking up the back pack to see if you could find out who to return it to.
Too much of a slippery slope for my taste. At least my interpretation is clearly defined.
"I'm not taking posession of it. It's still Greg's. I'm merely borrowing it, and will return it (after I have no more use of it in one hundred million years)."
That kind of arbitrary "when does it take effect exactly?" just doesn't cut it for me. Furthermore, it makes the spell TBtBT.
You can scry for someone by holding one of their possessions - obviously, this means someone can retain possession of things even if they are not physically near them, and when the object isn't directly under their control, and even if the object is under the control of someone not them. Otherwise, Scrying by object would be a fairly useless spell. So I think you are trying to create a definition of 'take possession' or 'possess' not supported by the books. If I can go into Bob's house, and pick up one of Bob's books, and scry for Bob using it, then I can pick up Bob's voluntarily offered mug and drink from it, without taking any sort of magically recognized metaphysical or formal possession of it.
If you picked up Bob's book and cast Scrying on it, and your GM said "Sorry RD, your spell fails. The moment you grabbed it, you could only scry for you, not Bob, because you became the possessor," the GM would clearly be violating RAI, right? You agree with that? So merely picking something up /= attempting to take it into possession.
[some original stuff deleted for lack of relevancy, and brevity]
What you're describing is ownership, not posession.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
“To take ownership of” is the most common definition of “to possess.” I don’t really think a spell designed to punish people who steal from you is in the too bad to be true category for needing the target to be more than picked up or used. Again, “held” or “touched” would have been much clearer and more direct language to use when writing the spell if that was the intention.
The arrowhead example of those strikes me as the only one that's actually a problem. If rogues want to plant coins on people, fine, a 9th level rogue catching that person unawares can probably kill them more reliably with sneak attack.
I also think this is a lot of spell it the goal was just to punish people who purposely steal the object. There's gotta be cheaper, more efficient methods to prevent theft, like extra dimensional spaces, alarms, and what have you.
Scrying is a decent counterpoint though. One difference: scrying is using it as a noun (the creature's possession) where as bandit's doom is more of a verb (take the object into their possession).
Let's go with the idea that intention of permanent possession is necessary to trigger the spell. You can still do fun things like deliver someone a letter or package addressed to them. We don't have a lot of open ended spells like this left in PF2, and this one does something fun and unique. I think it is more fun to figure out ways to use the spell creatively than just use the most restrictive possible reading of the spell. (Especially when said reading isn't really rooted in what the spell says, but guessing the intent.) It is a fine line, though. I'm sure we could look at RD threads and find examples where I went the other way.
The arrowhead example of those strikes me as the only one that's actually a problem. If rogues want to plant coins on people, fine, a 9th level rogue catching that person unawares can probably kill them more reliably with sneak attack.
I also think this is a lot of spell it the goal was just to punish people who purposely steal the object. There's gotta be cheaper, more efficient methods to prevent theft, like extra dimensional spaces, alarms, and what have you.
Scrying is a decent counterpoint though. One difference: scrying is using it as a noun (the creature's possession) where as bandit's doom is more of a verb (take the object into their possession).
Let's go with the idea that intention of permanent possession is necessary to trigger the spell. You can still do fun things like deliver someone a letter or package addressed to them. We don't have a lot of open ended spells like this left in PF2, and this one does something fun and unique. I think it is more fun to figure out ways to use the spell creatively than just use the most restrictive possible reading of the spell. (Especially when said reading isn't really rooted in what the spell says, but guessing the intent.) It is a fine line, though. I'm sure we could look at RD threads and find examples where I went the other way.
But we are not guessing the intent. Nor are we saying something that isn't already spelled out in the spell itself. It's the very first line of the spell:
You ward the target item against those who would steal it.The spell is deliberately created to stop theft. Not as an assasination tool.
It is a ward. Against theft.
Arguing that it is not, and that's just something that happens coincidentaly, or only some times, seems kinda insane to me.
Fair, I wasn't thinking about that first line when I wrote that. Buuuuuut... I still think quashing a new use for a spell on general principle is unhealthy. If this somehow unbalanced combat, I'd care more. But the magical equivalent of mailing someone anthrax seems like it should exist to me, and this spell seems like a perfectly solid way to do it.
I might buy into that interpretation if it allowed you to ward multiple items (equal to your spellcasting modifier, or equal to the highest rank of spells you can cast, or really anything else).
But only one item? On the off-chance that it is the very one that will get stolen from you? And that the thief will be low enough level and have few enough hit points for it to be meaningful?
Yeah...a spell that is both narrow in function and unlikely to fulfill its intended purpose under the most ideal of circumstances is practically the definition of too bad to be true.
That's part of why I believe in the more versatile interpretation, none of which is blocked by that first sentence.
Just to be clear, when I say "offering the cup" I mean setting it down on the table and letting them take it into their posession, not handing it to them directly. I suspect some of you mean the latter. Don't want anyone getting that mixed up.
Was having an interesting conversation about the One Ring on another forum, and my buddy SharpandPointies gave an interesting take on handling the ring vs taking taking possession of it. Feels relevant to our discussion here so I'm quoting him.
"It's one thing to handle the Ring for a few seconds, and another to cart it around. Recall that Gandalf HAS handled the Ring - he took it from Frodo and tossed it in the fire. Didn't turn him all 'my precious' at that point. He wasn't afraid of 'holding' it.
He was afraid of TAKING it.
When both Galadriel and Gandalf refuse the Ring, the situation is different; Frodo wouldn't be handing it off to them for a moment or two. He was considering handing it right off to them for keepsies. "Gandalf, this is beyond me, you take the Ring." "Galadriel, you are an ancient, wise being of power - I'll give you the Ring if you ask for it."
Then it would be in their possession. It would be theirs. And they would...do what? They can't just sit on it, it needs to be destroyed - that's the point of the quest. But if they hold it, carry it for a long time, it's going to work on them. And the more powerful they are, the more the Ring can do for them."
Bandit's doom reads like an NPC first spell to me. Like a player might take it and use it, mostly for flavor, but the point of it is really is to have a curse that will be pretty hard to remove for lower level parties if they should happen to steal something, or if an NPC knows they have an object that a lot of people are looking to take.
Even so, doomed (even on a success) is a powerful debuff to stack on decent damage so I get the desire to figure out how to exploit it. The doomed condition isn't coming off short of a remove curse, so a thief is vulnerable afterwards to nasty fortitude save targeting spells for a long time. I just think the intention is very clear that "attempts to take the target into its possession" is language that is doing a lot more than just saying "touch," or "use," or "hold."
You know, after playing more d6 driven systems like Dungeon World and Band of Blades, I got to say I'm falling less and less in love with attempts to maintain a facade of symmetry between PC and NPC options. PF2 thankfully moved away from that with things like creature building and dying rules, and is maybe moving even further with GM core being a separate book. But there's a pretty glaring example where the options are symmetrical: spells. I kinda wish certain spells were moved to GM core instead of higher level items. Those items are an important part of the game's math which players should familiarize themselves with.
But meanwhile, we have spells like this. Or we have lots of uncommon spells-- if they aren't available to players by default, why put them in player core? Rituals feel particularly egregious because everything about them is GM fiat driven. Not just availability, but their DCs are heavily encouraged to be adjusted by circumstances given how high they are and how costly. Then you have spells and traits which only really matters when used on PCs, like the death trait, doomed codition, or long term curses.
I'm really starting to appreciate less cluttered games. I love Pathfinder and its tactical depth, but I am finding more and more things the game could do without. Some of these other games have just abandoned any semblance of symmetry-- GMs don't even roll dice. And I think that's interesting when players have the ability to hero points their own dice rolls in PF2, but not enemy rolls. You can use a hero points to avoid a critical failure on a 70 damage spell, but not to avoid eating a 70 damage critical strike. And I kinda wonder why.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even so, doomed (even on a success) is a powerful debuff to stack on decent damage so I get the desire to figure out how to exploit it. The doomed condition isn't coming off short of a remove curse, so a thief is vulnerable afterwards to nasty fortitude save targeting spells for a long time. I just think the intention is very clear that "attempts to take the target into its possession" is language that is doing a lot more than just saying "touch," or "use," or "hold."You are mixing up doomed and drained.
______
Also, the spell doesn't curse a thief, it's a curse on an item, only it becomes cursed. And the duration is for the curse on the item. Effects on the thief are damage and completely ordinary doomed. Which decreases as normal.
And even if it was a curse on a victim, nothing says doomed doesn't decrease, so it does.
You are right that I confused doomed and drained. Any spell that deals with doomed is an NPC spell for sure.
The way I read it and would play it, the curse trait on a spell applies to the effects of the spell. Otherwise the trait is meaningless on the spell.
Even so, doomed (even on a success) is a powerful debuff to stack on decent damage so I get the desire to figure out how to exploit it. The doomed condition isn't coming off short of a remove curse, so a thief is vulnerable afterwards to nasty fortitude save targeting spells for a long time. I just think the intention is very clear that "attempts to take the target into its possession" is language that is doing a lot more than just saying "touch," or "use," or "hold."You are mixing up doomed and drained.
______
Also, the spell doesn't curse a thief, it's a curse on an item, only it becomes cursed. And the duration is for the curse on the item. Effects on the thief are damage and completely ordinary doomed. Which decreases as normal.
And even if it was a curse on a victim, nothing says doomed doesn't decrease, so it does.You are right that I confused doomed and drained. Any spell that deals with doomed is an NPC spell for sure.
The way I read it and would play it, the curse trait on a spell applies to the effects of the spell. Otherwise the trait is meaningless on the spell.
Which begs the question to me: why did they make this into a spell and not a hazard?
Like, you can't blame RD for trying to leverage it as a player when it is published as a player facing option. And there are already GM only mechanics for these things.
It would be a lot cooler if this spell made the item a cursed item that could not be sold or discarded until the curse was removed. Then it would have a very logical place in the book of any wizard wanting to protect one object, because if someone took it, then they would be an easy target for scrying.
|
Merely touching the object is not enough. Using familiar game terms, all that is required is that (1) a creature (2) holds or wields the cursed item, and (3) removes it from its...
For what it’s worth, I’d rule the spell’s conditions are met by (1) and (2), and that (3) is irrelevant. Basically, has the creature made the object attended?
I think it is more fun to figure out ways to use the spell creatively than just use the most restrictive possible reading of the spell.
I jump on that comment. I'm sorry, but this is in no way related. I find that leaving "unadvertendly" your purse on the table while going for beers is more creative than coming back with a beer for everyone.
Lack of restrictions doesn't bring creativity, both things are loosely connected. And I find that the argument of "creativity" is very often used as a cover up for exploits (I don't say it's the case here).
Intent actually brings creativity. When all you have to do is for someone to get an item, it's rather easy and you should be able to find an easily reusable way of getting there, so not really creative. When you need someone to steal something, it's much harder to do as you now need to find a solution that is specific to the situation. And that's when creativity kicks in.
Yeah, but if I have to jump through umpteen hurdles in order to express my creativity, then suddenly I'm being accused of hogging the limelight just for making the effort. Not a fan of what, to me, looks like a lose lose proposition.
Some things a better simple, others more complex, and finding the balance point between the two for your table can be pretty tricky sometimes.
if I have to jump through umpteen hurdles in order to express my creativity
You do prefer straightforward creativity?
if I have to jump through umpteen hurdles in order to express my creativityYou do prefer straightforward creativity?
Two or three hurdles are plenty for my taste.
Setting aside the question of creativity, many of the options we are discussing aren't actually very effective even if they do work. Tricking someone to drink from your cursed goblet gets into weird territory with how initiative works, and you can achieve a similar effect with poison. For the spell to shine, you need to fulfill one of two conditions:
1. Remote delivery. Mailing someone the cursed object is the easiest method, as long as you name the postman as a safe carrier. Opening a letter or package addressed to you definitely feels like taking something into your possession.
2. Tricking someone into stealing the object in combat as an action economy hack. If disarm was reliable, that might work, but very few enemies can effectively disarm and fewer still will grab the discarded weapon.
Scenario 2 feels dependent on the enemy being motivated to steal the object... A McGuffin the bad guys want back could work. There's pure greed, but I think at this level of play a coin purse won't cut it. There's also the problem that Lie is an action, which makes tricking people without using actions is tenuous .