Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Miser's Envy -- trouble?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 2:30:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

This 2nd level Bard spell from Draconomicon... Any trouble with it?

You cast the spell on a living target (who gets a Will save) and an
object (which apparently doesn't get a save, even if it is held). If
the target fails, it covets the item and will go so far as to attack any
allies who carry it. Then it attacks anyone who comes within 30 feet or
appears to be trying to take the object.

The obvious tactic is to cast it on an enemy fighter or rogue, and have
them covet something belonging to one of his/her allies that he/she
can't actually use, but it useful to the one holding it (staff of power,
bag of material compenents, holy symbol, etc).

Something strikes me as fishy about the spell, particularly the absence
of a save for a held object. Any comments?

- Ron ^*^

More about : miser envy trouble

Anonymous
September 4, 2005 2:30:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
> Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 22:30:42 -0400, Werebat <ronpoirier@cox.net>
> > carved upon a tablet of ether:
> >
> >
> >>Something strikes me as fishy about the spell, particularly the absence
> >>of a save for a held object. Any comments?
> >
> >
> > I don't see why the object should get a save - it's not really being
> > affected by the spell, and is probably only a target for ease of
> > description (makes the spell easy to dispel, though - hitting either
> > victim or object will do).

It really sounds like the object shouldn't be a target of the spell at
all.

>
> > As for the spell's power - as a 2nd level Bard or Sor/Wiz3 spell it's
> > not that powerful - compare with Hold Person, or Tasha's Hideous
> > Laughter.
>
> Hold Person removes ONE person from the combat, and they get another
> save every tound to dispel. THL *is* a powerful spell, but again all it
> does is affect ONE person -- though they are completely out of the fight
> for the duration of the spell.

Hold person also makes the victim helpless IIRC which means coup de
gras are available. Hideous Laughter doesn't do that.

>
> This spell will routinely be used on fighters/rogues to get them
> assaulting allied wizards/clerics.
>
> The other thing I don't like about it is the vague wording. A literal
> interpretation of the spell would have those affected immediately
> attacking their allies who just simply *give* them the coveted items.
> They attack anyone who comes within 30 feet after they have the item --
> does this mean they won't willingly get within 30 feet of another
> person?

Sounds like it. I'd say once the other person leaves the 30' elbow
room they won't follow though.

> Does it mean they have to attack the first person who gets
> within 30 feet of them?

Sounds like it to me. They are getting near the PRECIOUS! Mustn't get
near the PRECIOUS. My PRECIOUS. Yes, Smeagol will protect the PRECIOUS
from the nasty Hobit-tes.

> It sounds like a headache/annoying spell that
> will lead to a lot of arguments.

Sounds fun to me :) 

- Justisaur
September 4, 2005 8:19:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Alien mind control rays made Werebat <ronpoirier@cox.net> write:
> This 2nd level Bard spell from Draconomicon... Any trouble with it?

compare to charm person, 1st level. nah, not bad.

--
\^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/&gt;
\ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// \ X-Windows: Complex non-solutions to simple non-problems.
// \_\ -- Dude from DPAK
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 8:19:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

drow wrote:
> Alien mind control rays made Werebat <ronpoirier@cox.net> write:
>
>>This 2nd level Bard spell from Draconomicon... Any trouble with it?
>
>
> compare to charm person, 1st level. nah, not bad.

Charm Person doesn't get enemies assaulting each other.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 9:21:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 04 Sep 2005 04:19:04 GMT, drow <drow@bin.sh> wrote:

>Alien mind control rays made Werebat <ronpoirier@cox.net> write:
>> This 2nd level Bard spell from Draconomicon... Any trouble with it?
>
>compare to charm person, 1st level. nah, not bad.

Charm person doesn't make your opponents fight each other, though.
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 5:32:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <v%sSe.7285$Cc5.1156@lakeread06>, ronpoirier@cox.net says...

> This 2nd level Bard spell from Draconomicon... Any trouble with it?
>
> You cast the spell on a living target (who gets a Will save) and an
> object (which apparently doesn't get a save, even if it is held). If
> the target fails, it covets the item and will go so far as to attack any
> allies who carry it. Then it attacks anyone who comes within 30 feet or
> appears to be trying to take the object.
>
> The obvious tactic is to cast it on an enemy fighter or rogue, and have
> them covet something belonging to one of his/her allies that he/she
> can't actually use, but it useful to the one holding it (staff of power,
> bag of material compenents, holy symbol, etc).
>
> Something strikes me as fishy about the spell, particularly the absence
> of a save for a held object. Any comments?

Doesn't sound any better than suggestion: "you need that staff from that
wizard, you need it at any cost". And suggestion is also Brd 2, and
there's also a single Will save.

In fact, as neat as miser's envy sounds flavour-wise, it's a much weaker
spell than suggestion, since it's so much less versatile (and that's a
big thing, for a caster with limited spells known).


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 6:55:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:

> I don't think I'd ban Miser's Envy, it's just that I can see it
> leading to arguments because I'll have to adjudicate all the time.

Most of the Charm-type spells have that, though. Look at Suggestion: "The
suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound
reasonable." Does Jasin Zujovic's Suggestion example sound reasonable as a
course of action? Possibly, but you can bet the players involved are going
to strongly argue "NO!"

--
Mark.
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 6:55:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:
> Werebat wrote:
>
>
>>I don't think I'd ban Miser's Envy, it's just that I can see it
>>leading to arguments because I'll have to adjudicate all the time.
>
>
> Most of the Charm-type spells have that, though. Look at Suggestion: "The
> suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound
> reasonable." Does Jasin Zujovic's Suggestion example sound reasonable as a
> course of action? Possibly, but you can bet the players involved are going
> to strongly argue "NO!"

Point taken.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 8:30:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 22:30:42 -0400, Werebat <ronpoirier@cox.net>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Something strikes me as fishy about the spell, particularly the absence
> of a save for a held object. Any comments?

I don't see why the object should get a save - it's not really being
affected by the spell, and is probably only a target for ease of
description (makes the spell easy to dispel, though - hitting either
victim or object will do).

As for the spell's power - as a 2nd level Bard or Sor/Wiz3 spell it's
not that powerful - compare with Hold Person, or Tasha's Hideous
Laughter.

--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 8:30:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:

> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 22:30:42 -0400, Werebat <ronpoirier@cox.net>
> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>
>>Something strikes me as fishy about the spell, particularly the absence
>>of a save for a held object. Any comments?
>
>
> I don't see why the object should get a save - it's not really being
> affected by the spell, and is probably only a target for ease of
> description (makes the spell easy to dispel, though - hitting either
> victim or object will do).

Hmm...


> As for the spell's power - as a 2nd level Bard or Sor/Wiz3 spell it's
> not that powerful - compare with Hold Person, or Tasha's Hideous
> Laughter.

Hold Person removes ONE person from the combat, and they get another
save every tound to dispel. THL *is* a powerful spell, but again all it
does is affect ONE person -- though they are completely out of the fight
for the duration of the spell.

This spell will routinely be used on fighters/rogues to get them
assaulting allied wizards/clerics.

The other thing I don't like about it is the vague wording. A literal
interpretation of the spell would have those affected immediately
attacking their allies who just simply *give* them the coveted items.
They attack anyone who comes within 30 feet after they have the item --
does this mean they won't willingly get within 30 feet of another
person? Does it mean they have to attack the first person who gets
within 30 feet of them? It sounds like a headache/annoying spell that
will lead to a lot of arguments.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 9:14:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <z8CSe.7655$Cc5.4882@lakeread06>, ronpoirier@cox.net says...

> >>This 2nd level Bard spell from Draconomicon... Any trouble with it?
> >>
> >>You cast the spell on a living target (who gets a Will save) and an
> >>object (which apparently doesn't get a save, even if it is held). If
> >>the target fails, it covets the item and will go so far as to attack any
> >>allies who carry it. Then it attacks anyone who comes within 30 feet or
> >>appears to be trying to take the object.
> >>
> >>The obvious tactic is to cast it on an enemy fighter or rogue, and have
> >>them covet something belonging to one of his/her allies that he/she
> >>can't actually use, but it useful to the one holding it (staff of power,
> >>bag of material compenents, holy symbol, etc).
> >>
> >>Something strikes me as fishy about the spell, particularly the absence
> >>of a save for a held object. Any comments?
> >
> > Doesn't sound any better than suggestion: "you need that staff from that
> > wizard, you need it at any cost". And suggestion is also Brd 2, and
> > there's also a single Will save.
>
> Indeed you are right. Why the heck isn't my player just taking the
> Suggestion spell?
>
> Indeed, why isn't he just taking Mirror Image like anyone else would?

He hasn't been taking enough damage, obviously.

> Suggestion *would* end once the target had the item in hand, though.
> Then he's just give it back.

True, that. But in practice, you would suggest to the fighter that he
kill the wizard dead. Or better: that his whole party is mind-controlled
and out to get him and need to be subdued. Or something like that.

However, it just occured to me that there might be a drawback to
suggestion that miser's envy avoids: suggestion is [Language-Dependant].
I'd expect that miser's envy isn't...?

But suggestion's still the better spell, I think.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 9:14:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:

> In article <z8CSe.7655$Cc5.4882@lakeread06>, ronpoirier@cox.net says...
>
>
>>>>This 2nd level Bard spell from Draconomicon... Any trouble with it?
>>>>
>>>>You cast the spell on a living target (who gets a Will save) and an
>>>>object (which apparently doesn't get a save, even if it is held). If
>>>>the target fails, it covets the item and will go so far as to attack any
>>>>allies who carry it. Then it attacks anyone who comes within 30 feet or
>>>>appears to be trying to take the object.
>>>>
>>>>The obvious tactic is to cast it on an enemy fighter or rogue, and have
>>>>them covet something belonging to one of his/her allies that he/she
>>>>can't actually use, but it useful to the one holding it (staff of power,
>>>>bag of material compenents, holy symbol, etc).
>>>>
>>>>Something strikes me as fishy about the spell, particularly the absence
>>>>of a save for a held object. Any comments?
>>>
>>>Doesn't sound any better than suggestion: "you need that staff from that
>>>wizard, you need it at any cost". And suggestion is also Brd 2, and
>>>there's also a single Will save.
>>
>>Indeed you are right. Why the heck isn't my player just taking the
>>Suggestion spell?
>>
>>Indeed, why isn't he just taking Mirror Image like anyone else would?
>
>
> He hasn't been taking enough damage, obviously.

He tends to hang out in the back of the party, but that's what bards
should do IMO.

A couple sessions ago a psurlon used Telekinesis to hurl him through a
portal to the Far Realm, though. Not sure if Mirror Image would have
helped with that (as it is he got lucky with his saves and survived to
get back out again with sanity intact).


>>Suggestion *would* end once the target had the item in hand, though.
>>Then he's just give it back.
>
>
> True, that. But in practice, you would suggest to the fighter that he
> kill the wizard dead. Or better: that his whole party is mind-controlled
> and out to get him and need to be subdued. Or something like that.
>
> However, it just occured to me that there might be a drawback to
> suggestion that miser's envy avoids: suggestion is [Language-Dependant].
> I'd expect that miser's envy isn't...?

No, it isn't.


> But suggestion's still the better spell, I think.

Given a choice between the two, I'd probably take Suggestion. I'd take
Mirror Image before either.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 9:21:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <mnDSe.7671$Cc5.3732@lakeread06>, ronpoirier@cox.net says...

> >>I don't think I'd ban Miser's Envy, it's just that I can see it
> >>leading to arguments because I'll have to adjudicate all the time.
> >
> > Most of the Charm-type spells have that, though. Look at Suggestion: "The
> > suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound
> > reasonable." Does Jasin Zujovic's Suggestion example sound reasonable as a
> > course of action? Possibly, but you can bet the players involved are going
> > to strongly argue "NO!"
>
> Point taken.

IMO, the clauses about "reasonable", "against your nature" &c. should
only come into play in the most extreme circumstances.

After all, the example of a "reasonable" suggestion is "that's not acid,
it's water, have a nice refreshing swim".

Same thing goes for dominate. Allowing too much argument about what
"against your nature" could lead to dominate having two saves,
absolutely every time: in the extreme, you could argue that anyting
anyone commands you to do is against your nature, since otherwise you'd
be doing it on your own.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 1:19:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
> Justisaur wrote:
>
> > Werebat wrote:
> >

> > By the wording I'd say attack. That is a nasty idea.
>
> But that's foolish. Bob would get the armor *faster* if he *helped*
> Clem remove it. If he attacks, he has to first defeat him, then remove
> it all by himself.

True. That's a tough one. I could see helping take it off argued as
part of trying to get it as well.

>
> It's also overpowered. Dominate is a spell 2-3 levels higher, that
> would allow TWO saves before Bob would be attacking Clem.
>
> >>If he attacks him after one round,
> >>this spell has produced an effect better than Dominate (the save DC is
> >>lower, but you only get one to avoid assaulting your comrade).
> >
> >
> > Not really. You only get one target for your 'dominate' effect.
>
> I said Dominate, not Mass Dominate.

No, you don't understand. You only get the character to attack one
target, and only if they don't give whatever the item is. Dominate
lets you pull the strings, attacking however and whoever you want with
your puppet.

Unless the other people are stupid enough to try to approach him -
which isn't all that unlikely actually.

> > The
> > vicim of the miser would have to be wearing armor heavy enough to
> > matter (or something else that would matter).
>
> I'll give you that, but armor isn't exactly a rare thing in D&D games.
>
>
> > If the item target isn't
> > armor, once he's got it they just have to get more than 25' from him.
>
> True -- could be a holy symbol (shutting down the cleric for the
> duration as well), a component pouch, etc.
>
> >>From a PC perspective it's not that great a spell for them. You have
> > to run into a party consisting of two to maybe four aproximatly equal
> > hard to kill poor will save armor wearing targets to get the most out
> > of it.
> >
> > Against the PCs it's a horrendous spell for a lv 2, able to turn the
> > party tank against the party healer.
>
> True. Much more effective against NPC parties than, say, slime molds.

Not at all useful against any single creature encounters.

> >
> > Well if it's interpeted a little more loosly, which I think would be a
> > good idea, the victim can choose where he's going, and how he's
> > attacking, and who he is attacking first within that 30'. There's
> > nothing in the description preventing subduel damage. If there's no
> > one within 30' of him, he could move to where the spellcaster is that
> > cast the spell on him, he can attack the spellcaster or his minions.
>
> But why would he move within 30' of ANYONE if he is afraid of losing the
> item? They might pick his pocket! He should hide out in the corner
> stroking the "precious"!
>
> This is the kind of argument that WILL crop up with the use of this spell.
>

Yeah, I can see that might be a headache. But then most mind affecting
charm like spells have terrable adjudication issues.

- Justisaur
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 7:12:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Werebat" <ronpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
news:v%sSe.7285$Cc5.1156@lakeread06...
> This 2nd level Bard spell from Draconomicon... Any trouble with it?
>
> You cast the spell on a living target (who gets a Will save) and an object
> (which apparently doesn't get a save, even if it is held). If the target
> fails, it covets the item and will go so far as to attack any allies who
> carry it. Then it attacks anyone who comes within 30 feet or appears to
> be trying to take the object.
>
> The obvious tactic is to cast it on an enemy fighter or rogue, and have
> them covet something belonging to one of his/her allies that he/she can't
> actually use, but it useful to the one holding it (staff of power, bag of
> material compenents, holy symbol, etc).
>
> Something strikes me as fishy about the spell, particularly the absence of
> a save for a held object. Any comments?


Almost as good as dominate, but much lower level. Bad.

Require that said object already be in the possession of the subject and I
think it would be a lot of fun.
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 10:54:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Shawn Wilson wrote:

> "Werebat" <ronpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:v%sSe.7285$Cc5.1156@lakeread06...
>
>>This 2nd level Bard spell from Draconomicon... Any trouble with it?
>>
>>You cast the spell on a living target (who gets a Will save) and an object
>>(which apparently doesn't get a save, even if it is held). If the target
>>fails, it covets the item and will go so far as to attack any allies who
>>carry it. Then it attacks anyone who comes within 30 feet or appears to
>>be trying to take the object.
>>
>>The obvious tactic is to cast it on an enemy fighter or rogue, and have
>>them covet something belonging to one of his/her allies that he/she can't
>>actually use, but it useful to the one holding it (staff of power, bag of
>>material compenents, holy symbol, etc).
>>
>>Something strikes me as fishy about the spell, particularly the absence of
>>a save for a held object. Any comments?
>
>
>
> Almost as good as dominate, but much lower level. Bad.
>
> Require that said object already be in the possession of the subject and I
> think it would be a lot of fun.

Hmmm.

You may have something there.

- Ron ^*^
!