Possessing your friends for fun and profit.

[GreyLord]

You know, if the DM allows this, which I can see being done, why not just use the spellcasters ingenuity to create a new spell?

Used to happen all the time. Spellcasters would research and create their own spells. A 5th level spell that allowed you to cast personal spells on others could be done.

How else do you think things like Tenser's Transformation or Mordekainen's Faithful hound came about into the original game. Wizards are wizards and they use their smarts to create!

 

[frankthedm]

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.

Personal Abjuration spells for a wizard are taking into account the class has the lowest HD and supposed to have the least armor option. For the cleric, their personal spells did seem to be personal because their gods were only giving their Clerics the Hook-Up.

For my own games, I removed magic jar from character spell lists and replaced it with other possession type spells that don't make the most effective action to be 'inflict a self CDG to your new body' and then willingly fail the fort save.

 

[paradox42]

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 .

Stupidity has nothing to do with it. Skip Williams is not a god, so his rulings are at best suggestions. People are allowed to disagree with him. This was never actually in the books proper; it was always in the FAQs and Sage Advice. This was why you yourself had to point to FAQs rather than the wording inside the actual Core Rulebooks themselves to support your position. For people who ignore the FAQ, or disagree with its rulings, things work differently.

If you yourself want to be Lawful Neutral and insist that the FAQs should be treated exactly the same as the actual rulebooks, go right ahead; but that only affects your own game and has nothing to do with anyone else's. Tournament rules and Society play are likewise irrelevant to individual GMs, so don't bother appealing to those to support your argument either.

Besides, Skip Williams is almost certainly stupid compared to me, going by IQ distributions in the population, so if anybody is stupid it's people who follow him instead of me.

 

[Loonook]

Besides, Skip Williams is almost certainly stupid compared to me, going by IQ distributions in the population, so if anybody is stupid it's people who follow him instead of me.

Veiled appeal to superiority through alleged IQ/attack on the interpretation that has stood for 10 years due to other interpretations a.) not interpreting 'personal' and b.) in game abuse of powers meant to provide an advantage to classes that have extremely low HP/AC/etc. that the power provides/abjures... Alright.

I think I will go with one of the designers of the base game the spell comes from and their interpretation of the effect until proven incorrect by either a.) a response to the issue from Paizo PF staff with citation, or b.) a retraction of the FAQ data... Neither of which I see coming anytime soon.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[BriarMonkey]

For my part, invoking Rule 0, I would allow it, as follows: If the mage had personal spells running and then Magic Jarred, those personal spells would stay with the body; if the mage casts new personal spells while in a new body, those personal spells would stay with the new body.

However, I think I'd actually take a different tactic altogether with regards to the use of personal spells on non-personal persons. I'd create a meta-magic feat to allow for it (as I don't think there is one right now). After all, there's a feat to grant range to touch spells; grant additional range; increase durations; increase DCs; and a host of other elements. Very roughly, the feat would allow something along the lines of being able to cast personal only spells on others via touch (thus they must be in close range); and bump the spell slot needed by 3 (or maybe even 4).

Granted, someone may still go the Magic Jar route and avoid the feat, but with a Rod, going the feat route becomes something that could be a legitimate option (especially against significant foe) even in combat - and then you don't have to worry about whether a spell is flesh or soul anchored.

Just my two shekels.

 

[Wik]

Geez. It scares me that no one is backing Loonook up on this one. I got your back, man!

Not only is this pure craziness, but it'd be a terrible thing to happen at the table - essentially, you not only have a caster player trying to out awesome the fighter, but by doing so, he's taking over the fighter's turn! "Hey, I can make you awesome, but you have to let me take over your character".

Might as well just endorse a solo-play style. If a player in my group tried this sort of thing, I'd politely ask him to drop it... and throw my cup of tea in his face the moment he was distracted.

Any the idea that because the rules don't expressely forbid it, makes it okay, is kind of silly. Ignoring the FAQ and errata on the subject and then pointing towards the rulebooks and saying "see? it's possible!" is pretty much the reason I stopped playing GW games, when people would drive chariots backwards to avoid negative effects because in the rules "it's allowed".