Possessing your friends for fun and profit.

[Dandu]

Ah, so you're talking about the FAQ for 3rd edition. I will keep the information in mind, though I will also note that that was two iterations ago.

 

[Loonook]

Ah, so you're talking about the FAQ for 3rd edition. I will keep the information in mind, though I will also note that that was two iterations ago.

Of course the spell has not changed meaningfully between the three, and the ruling has not been challenged or spoken to. [MENTION=2174]Erik Mona[/MENTION] could comment on it... However, it has been the interpretation of pretty much everyone for 10 years in all three 'editions' we're talking about...

I think mostly you want it to work, and there's evidence that it doesn't work the way you want that is accepted by pretty much any DM. If you can talk your DM into it that's great... But it is accepted as, if not canon, the correct interpretation across editions.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Dandu]

I think mostly you want it to work, and there's evidence that it doesn't work the way you want that is accepted by pretty much any DM.

There's evidence that it doesn't work that is accepted by Skip Williams, you mean? Yeah.

The FAQ has never been revered by me or my circle, so you will kindly understand my scepticism towards it. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is essentially officially endorsed opinions; interpretations of the rules.

And the intepretation that it stays with your "soul" introduces things that just aren't in existence, either implicitly or explicitly, in the Player's Handbook, which is why I take issue with it.

 

[Loonook]

There's evidence that it doesn't work that is accepted by Skip Williams, you mean? Yeah.

The FAQ has never been revered by me or my circle, so you will kindly understand my scepticism towards it.

And the ruling that it stays with your "soul" introduces things that just aren't in existence, either implicitly or explicitly, in the Player's Handbook.

Really?

This spell makes an inert duplicate of a creature. If the original individual has been slain, its soul immediately transfers to the clone, creating a replacement (provided that the soul is free and willing to return). The original’s physical remains, should they still exist, become inert and cannot thereafter be restored to life. If the original creature has reached the end of its natural life span (that is, it has died of natural causes), any cloning attempt fails.

Or Magic Jar...

By casting magic jar, you place your soul in a gem or large crystal (known as the magic jar), leaving your body lifeless. Then you can attempt to take control of a nearby body, forcing its soul into the magic jar. You may move back to the jar (thereby returning the trapped soul to its body) and attempt to possess another body. The spell ends when you send your soul back to your own body, leaving the receptacle empty.

I mean, the soul is known as existent, per the rules... It is mentioned throughout the game. It is the animating force that transfer between, and the 'you' part of your meat suit per Clone. Again, the rules question? Answered... You just don't like the answer.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[frankthedm]

The FAQ has never been revered by me or my circle, so you will kindly understand my scepticism towards it. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is essentially officially endorsed opinions; interpretations of the rules.

And the intepretation that it stays with your "soul" introduces things that just aren't in existence, either implicitly or explicitly, in the Player's Handbook, which is why I take issue with it.

IMHO, that was a fine example of the FAQ pulling something out of its ass, that is, claiming something with little to no basis in the RAW.

I mean, the soul is known as existent, per the rules... It is mentioned throughout the game. It is the animating force that transfer between, and the 'you' part of your meat suit per Clone. Again, the rules question? Answered... You just don't like the answer.

The "answer", claiming 'personal spells went with the soul, rather than the body of the caster', was made up by the FAQ in a feeble attempt to stop something that should work, just because it would potentially be imbalanced. The FAQ is supposed to answer questions about the rules, using the rules, not just make new rules.

 

[Dandu]

Really?



Or Magic Jar...



I mean, the soul is known as existent, per the rules... It is mentioned throughout the game. It is the animating force that transfer between, and the 'you' part of your meat suit per Clone. Again, the rules question? Answered... You just don't like the answer.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

My most sincere apologies for not clarifying what I meant. Souls exist in D&D. Claiming a Personal magical spell attaches itself to your soul and transfers with your soul from body to body, however, is what I have an issue with since this is mentioned nowhere in the rules that I know of. (Correct me if I am wrong, of course.)

That is what I meant when I said:

And the intepretation that it stays with your "soul" introduces things that just aren't in existence, either implicitly or explicitly, in the Player's Handbook, which is why I take issue with it.

The part about it staying with your soul is the thing that is not existing in the PHB. I will endeavor to be less unclear in my future posts to save you time and effort.

 

[Drowbane]

So what happens if a Caster buffs himself (using personal and non-personal buffs) and then casts Magic Jar and takes over someone else's body?

1) all the spells transfer along with the Caster's soul and thus are still in use with the new body
2) all the spells stay put in the inert body.
3) Something else? Such as the Personal spells go with the caster and the non-personal stay with the inert body?
4) ??

If 1, then this Magic Jar "trick" doesn't actually work. Once you leave the host body, the illegal Personal spells leave it as well. If 2... well that would suck.

I've never been a Sage Advice advocate, but I think ol Skip was right here.

 

[paradox42]

I'm inclined to go with frankthedm myself on this one- looks PDOOMA (Pulled Directly Out Of My ...) to me.

Of Drowbane's list, I'd go with 2. Seems most logical to me. The idea that spells with "Personal" range stay with and link to the caster's soul just doesn't square with what some of them actually do- for example, Blink. How does having your soul "unstuck" between the Material and Ethereal Planes allow your body to do the vanishing trick? The spell clearly affects the body, so the magical field created by it that allows the blinking should stay with the body. The fact that the Magic Jar leaves you without its use just means, sucks to be you if you're silly enough to use them together. Or maybe, cool trick to pull for your Fighter buddy, as the OP said.

More important than this, though, is Rule Zero. If the GM wants the Magic Jar trick to work, then it does. If he doesn't, it doesn't. QED. No FAQ can overcome Rule Zero, no matter who wrote it. Even our FAQ evangelist Loonook has to agree with that one.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Dandu, I'd just like to commend you for trying to find a way, and blowing one of your own precious resources (a high level spell) to achieve it, of buffing the noncasters with the personal spells.

If the combo is broken, it is only so because the personal only spells themselves are broken and for far too long the position that "making it personal means we can make it more powerful" has been taken as a given in 3E design, to the detriment of noncasters everywhere. Instead of just using them on yourself to obsolete the party like the designers intend for you to, you're actually trying to be a good team player and share the love with them that the conceited d20 designers never wanted them to have.

Bravo, good sir! Bravo!

 

[Loonook]

More important than this, though, is Rule Zero. If the GM wants the Magic Jar trick to work, then it does. If he doesn't, it doesn't. QED. No FAQ can overcome Rule Zero, no matter who wrote it. Even our FAQ evangelist Loonook has to agree with that one.

As I stated above, if you have a DM stupid enough to allow for something that has been off the books for almost a decade because of the issues with the spell be my guest .

Slainte,

-Loonook.