Would you allow Entice Gift to do this?

[StreamOfTheSky]

Ok, so last night's game, one of the party members is improved grabbed by the purple worm we were fighting. We knew that being swallowed was imminent (one PC got a 41 knowledge check result, and the DM just said, "you can read the stat block" ), but had no real way to prevent it. Even grease's +10 wouldn't be much help to overcome that thing's grapple mod. We had benign transposition, but no one wanted to swap places obviously.

I came up with a random idea: The bard knew Entice Gift, why not use that to make it relese our friend? We had already recognized from other spells (and said knowledge check) that it didn't have a very good will save... In the end, the DM didn't want to make a ruling on it, and just noted that by then it was so wounded we were "pretty sure" we could just finish it off that round anyway.

But I'm still curious. What would you guys rule? I can see two major obstacles for it not being allowed:
1) Definition of "held." The purple worm has no hands, so I would consider something in its mouth to be effectively held, maybe that's incorrect. Would it matter if the creature did have hand-like appendages? Would you rule in the former case, things in its mouth are held, but not in the latter case?
2) The spell text mentions the "object" being held several times. But there is no (object) anywhere in the above spell stats (like under Saving Throw), and no where does it explicitly state that the thing handed over must be an object. So I figured it was just a casual way of talking about what happens, rather than a hard rule.

The spell is from Spell Compendium, if you weren't sure. It is an Enchantment (Mind Affecting) spell.

 

[roguerouge]

Yes. Cats give gifts of food (living or dead) all the time. Heck, birds regurgitate food for their young. So, even if the Worm swallowed the PC, I'd let this work.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It is an interesting judgment call, butI would allow it to work. If a person were to put their dagger in their mouth, say, while climbing, it should still work; and I don't think the "object" vs. person distinction applies to this.

Of course, the worm ought to make its save anyway.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Of course, the worm ought to make its save anyway.

It's a 16 HD CR 12 monster with only +4 will. We again knew that from knowledge and tossing other will saves at it already. It likely would have failed the save.

In fact...my first thought was to use horrible taste, but another player said, "It'll never work. That has a fort save."

 

[frankthedm]

1. An object held in the mouth sounds reasonable.

2. You are not in possession of someone you are grappling. Though it may not feel that way when the big hungry monster is raping you with a grapple bonus 20 points over your own.

2a. I'd find it difficult to believe the person who wrote the spell was not aware of of the way 3E handles the creature / object distinction.

In a game playing fast and loose with the rules, it sounds fun to allow, but based on what i've read here, I'd say it doesn't work.

In fact...my first thought was to use horrible taste, but another player said, "It'll never work. That has a fort save."

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ters-fort-saves-most-monsters-too-high-3.html

 

[MichaelK]

My on the spot decision is to say yes, but I'd want to consider it after the session and figure out whether it would be allowed again in the future.

For that I'd need to read the spell and think about things a little bit more.

 

[Dyson Logos]

I would allow it, but point out to the players that I would only allow it with VERY large critters, because technically the spell works for objects not creatures held.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I'd allow it, no question. The spell is poorly written (as many in the Spell Compendium are) and seems to assume that "what it is holding" will be an object (or "item," at one point in the text), but it never actually limits the spell to objects.

Also, I understand frankthedm's point about "possession" versus grappling, but I don't think that compels the "strict rules interpretation" result he believes it does, since the spell itself never says anything about possessing, but only holding.