Ice Assassin rulings

[Werekat]

So, I've been rereading Ice Assassin in connection with another thread. And I was wondering how people read the Assassin - as a creature with an active (if twisted) will, or as something that just stands there dumbly until you order it to do something. The spell says "you have absolute command [over it]" and a telepathic link with it. But it also says it has the intelligence of the creature duplicated and an overwhelming desire to destroy it.

However, if it's played with any degree of activeness, the first thing it does when it's created is an initiative roll, and the second thing it does is a Mind Blank (if you've been duplicating yourself or a Solar), negating the control. If it loses, of course, the mage who created it tells it not to take any action other than explicitly allowed by himself. If it wins? The mage is in trouble.

And a few other fun rulings - does the Ice Assassin copy of the caster need his spellbook to prepare spells? Does an Ice Assassin come into being with the spells the spellcaster has prepared already "prepared," as well?

Also, from a purely RAW perspective, the Ice Assassin is a creature with the "cold" subtype. There's nothing about it being a construct in the rules. Wouldn't it suffocate inside a bag of holding? :P

In short - how do you folks rule this bag of worms when playing?

[Malachei]

Excellent questions. And: The Ice Assassin's purpose of existence is to destroy its counterpart. What happens when it succeeds? The rules give no answer, but you might want to assume it has fulfilled its purpose and ceases to exist.

It is an incredibly poorly worded spell. IMO, that is why it gets so much love by people who love their rules poorly worded. And, IMO that is why they defend it so hard.

[Fearan]

as a creature with an active (if twisted) will,
This

However, if it's played with any degree of activeness, the first thing it does when it's created is an initiative roll, and the second thing it does is a Mind Blank (if you've been duplicating yourself or a Solar), negating the control.
In general, no. First, Ice Assassin is a spell meant to use, and if the first thing your spell does is trying to kill you - hit your DM with PHB. As for copying yourself - don't, just don't. I've warned you.
Next. Mind blank dosen't counter your control over Ice Assassin. Ice assassin is neither mind-affecting spell, nor divination, nor wish/limited wish used in such ways.
Next. Look at material components. 20k gold diamond i can understand. Ice statue is easy. But the part of the original - please do some questing for it. Or Planar Binding in case of a Solar.
The bag of holding stuff - if the original can die due to lack of air - the copy will die. If the origina can't - said solar, e.g. - the Ice Assassin will not die either

[Werekat]

Malachei, yes, I've been assuming that it ceases to exist. And yes, the ambiguity is maddening. I'm thinking it might have been intended as a pure flavor NPC spell, with a handwave of "the NPC managed all the precautions."

Fearan,


"Ice Assassin is a spell meant to use, and if the first thing your spell does is trying to kill you - hit your DM with PHB. As for copying yourself - don't, just don't. I've warned you."

There's quite a few spells which essentially read, "the DM has right to screw you over if you use this spell," including Wish's more arcane functions, forgive the terrible pun.

If you duplicate a Solar, it relieves itself of your mind control and leaves to kill the Solar in question. In that case, you just have a few angry Solars down your neck later.


Next. Look at material components. 20k gold diamond i can understand. Ice statue is easy. But the part of the original - please do some questing for it. Or Planar Binding in case of a Solar.

Questing? What questing? I Wish for the hair off a Solar. Unless the DM says, "No, just NO, Wish does NOT transport people and things across planes."


The bag of holding stuff - if the original can die due to lack of air - the copy will die. If the origina can't - said solar, e.g. - the Ice Assassin will not die either

Well, sounds reasonable. And it explodes inside your Bag of Holding, taking it with itself? I can just imagine the facepalm. :D

Edited for forgotten things: the Mind Blank issue runs into the ambiguity of the caster's control over the Assassin. Does it want to follow your orders? Do you somehow telepathically give those orders? Is it compelled to follow your verbal commands? Most importantly, does this "control" fall under the "mind-affecting spells and effects" Mind Blank protects from?

[Fearan]

Questing? What questing? I Wish for the hair off a Solar. Unless the DM says, "No, just NO, Wish does NOT transport people and things across planes."
You [conjuration] [creation] a hair off a Solar. Since it is not taken from any particular solar it can't be used for Ice Assassin

[Werekat]

No-no-no. I Wish for the hair off that particular Solar to be transported to me. Or, as Candycorn eloquently put it in another thread:



For example, using a Candle of Invocation to summon a solar, with the order to shave its head. You collect the hair, and use it to create a simulacrum of the Solar.

[Wookie-ranger]

I have the same problems with this spell.
it is a very broken spell.

Q:What will happen after it killed the original?
A:the spell is instantaneous; by RAW this would mean that the Ice Assassin will still be there once the original is dead.

The part i find the most is that, when you read the description a certain way, you only have full control over it out to 1 mile range.

If this is true, what happens then? does it simply stop following your orders? would it simply follow the last order it reserved? would it revert to its original programing (killing its original)?

more interestingly what happens if the caster is the original? would that mean that if it ever moves more then one mile away from you if will try to kill you by proxy? or will try to cast very long range spells at your?


Also, i don't think it can free itself from your control. its part of the spell, there fore part of the Ice Assassin, not a separate effect.

Edit: sorry about the multiple posts... internet issues or something.

[Wookie-ranger]

Delete this post.

[Wookie-ranger]

delete this post.

[ILM]

Personally, the only ruling I have regarding this spell is No.

Basically, if Tippy likes it, I'm banning it. :smalltongue:

[Emperor Tippy]

So, I've been rereading Ice Assassin in connection with another thread. And I was wondering how people read the Assassin - as a creature with an active (if twisted) will, or as something that just stands there dumbly until you order it to do something. The spell says "you have absolute command [over it]" and a telepathic link with it. But it also says it has the intelligence of the creature duplicated and an overwhelming desire to destroy it.

However, if it's played with any degree of activeness, the first thing it does when it's created is an initiative roll, and the second thing it does is a Mind Blank (if you've been duplicating yourself or a Solar), negating the control. If it loses, of course, the mage who created it tells it not to take any action other than explicitly allowed by himself. If it wins? The mage is in trouble.
Mind Blank does nothing to stop the creators orders. Those orders aren't [mind affecting] or [divination]. It's just like a Golem, absolute command.


And a few other fun rulings - does the Ice Assassin copy of the caster need his spellbook to prepare spells? Does an Ice Assassin come into being with the spells the spellcaster has prepared already "prepared," as well?
Yes to both questions.


Also, from a purely RAW perspective, the Ice Assassin is a creature with the "cold" subtype. There's nothing about it being a construct in the rules. Wouldn't it suffocate inside a bag of holding? :P
If what it is copied from would, yes.


In short - how do you folks rule this bag of worms when playing?
How the rules say, when I don't house rule the entire spell.



Excellent questions. And: The Ice Assassin's purpose of existence is to destroy its counterpart. What happens when it succeeds? The rules give no answer, but you might want to assume it has fulfilled its purpose and ceases to exist.
That would be pure houserules.


It is an incredibly poorly worded spell. IMO, that is why it gets so much love by people who love their rules poorly worded. And, IMO that is why they defend it so hard.
It's worded just fine. As are most of the other incredibly powerful spells in the game, you just don't seem to get that the rules can be worded just fine and perfectly clearly and yet still horribly powerful.

IA doesn't have any ambiguity beyond whether or not it obeys your orders if more than a mile away.


Malachei, yes, I've been assuming that it ceases to exist.
That has no rules support.

And yes, the ambiguity is maddening. I'm thinking it might have been intended as a pure flavor NPC spell, with a handwave of "the NPC managed all the precautions."
There is almost no ambiguity in IA.


There's quite a few spells which essentially read, "the DM has right to screw you over if you use this spell," including Wish's more arcane functions, forgive the terrible pun.

If you duplicate a Solar, it relieves itself of your mind control and leaves to kill the Solar in question. In that case, you just have a few angry Solars down your neck later.
Pure houserules again. By RAW nothing breaks the creators absolute command over the IA.


Questing? What questing? I Wish for the hair off a Solar. Unless the DM says, "No, just NO, Wish does NOT transport people and things across planes."
You are better off using Gate and gating in what you want for a blood sample.


Well, sounds reasonable. And it explodes inside your Bag of Holding, taking it with itself? I can just imagine the facepalm. :D
There is nothing "reasonable" about it, it's just the rules.


Edited for forgotten things: the Mind Blank issue runs into the ambiguity of the caster's control over the Assassin. Does it want to follow your orders? Do you somehow telepathically give those orders? Is it compelled to follow your verbal commands? Most importantly, does this "control" fall under the "mind-affecting spells and effects" Mind Blank protects from?
No, Mind Blank does nothing. The absolute command is not a mind-affecting spell or effect.

----
If you don't like the power of a spell or ability, then houserule it to change what you don't like. Don't try to find a fig leaf of RAW (that doesn't exist) to hide behind. IA is as powerful as it is used with very few RAW restrictions on it. If you don't like it then house rule it.

[Malachei]

And, IMO that is why they defend it so hard.


It's worded just fine.

Did I say I expected this? :smallbiggrin:



IA is as powerful as it is used with very few RAW restrictions on it.

Like, as with Shivering Touch?

Never mind. I think this thread is not about what you can do with this spell RAW, but about ruling. So yes, we are talking about how it can be ruled. I guess the perspective is RAI / balance / avoiding to break the game. Of course, only the OP knows.

[Werekat]

Mind Blank does nothing to stop the creators orders. Those orders aren't [mind affecting] or [divination]. It's just like a Golem, absolute command.

Tippy, the problem I have with this spell is that it doesn't specify control. How is it like a golem, if the thing explicitly has an intelligence, a personality, and a will? When you rule it, does it do things proactively? Does it use any spells you didn't immediately order it to use to further its goals? If not - why not? Do you have control over what it thinks or only what it does? What is absolute control, what is its nature system-wise? Is it a mind-affecting effect on a created creature? If yes, Mind Blank works. If not - PvE works, which explicitly removes any kind of mental control. If it isn't mental control, what is it?

All of these things are left up to the DM.


If what it is copied from would, yes.

How, if the thing is an ice statue, and the visible similarity is an Illusion? This, to me, is an example of poor wording. The rules say nothing about anatomy changes to the ice statue. Only that fire has a special effect on it. Yet, the rules say "complete copy with all statistics". It's an inference - if a logically possible one - to say that it will suffocate. Just as much of a houserule as "it has all of the hitpoints and whatnot of the original, but Construct traits for most purposes other than hitdice, saves, and so on."

Edit: my bad, misread. Living, breathing copy.


That has no rules support.

Agreed. The rules support it as "it's been created, it exists." I should've clarified that I meant "this is the way I would houserule it, if any of my players ever used this spell."

To answer why I'll have to refer you to our previous thread with "social" consequences. Essentially, once the purpose of the Assassin is completed, you've saddled the DM with an NPC that has no reason to have any kind of good will towards you. And then the DM has a choice: either start a vendetta, invent a reason any kind of creature would like to live in a bag of holding for most of its existence and knowing it can be controlled at any moment, or, as I would, houserule it to self-destruct, which is seriously easier. At least if you're thinking about the social consequences of the player's actions.


Pure houserules again. By RAW nothing breaks the creators absolute command over the IA.

Might I politely inquire as to a direct quote? Does a Wish break this control?


If you don't like the power of a spell or ability, then houserule it to change what you don't like. Don't try to find a fig leaf of RAW (that doesn't exist) to hide behind. IA is as powerful as it is used with very few RAW restrictions on it. If you don't like it then house rule it.

This is a purely theoretical exercise for me.

Edited for forgetting things: ironically, I think the rules on whether the caster has control over the Assassin when it's a mile away are crystal clear. The caster doesn't. It pursues its quarry to the best of its ability. Yes, if the copy is made from the caster and it's ever a mile away, the copy does everything within its power not to allow the caster to get near it again and tries to kill the caster through long-ranged means.

[Emperor Tippy]

Did I say I expected this? :smallbiggrin:

Like, as with Shivering Touch?
Shivering Touch is the same, what is does and how it works are very clear by the rules as they are written. That does not change the fact that it is incredibly powerful.


Never mind. I think this thread is not about what you can do with this spell RAW, but about ruling. So yes, we are talking about how it can be ruled. I guess the perspective is RAI / balance / avoiding to break the game. Of course, only the OP knows.
No, it can't be ruled any other way than the RAW. There is no ambiguity requiring or allowing a DM decision. That does not change the fact that, absent very few circumstances, a DM should houserule the entire spell to either remove it entirely or to change it to fit with what they want it to do in their game.


Tippy, the problem I have with this spell is that it doesn't specify control. How is it like a golem, if the thing explicitly has an intelligence, a personality, and a will?
Golems with Intelligence (except if given to them with Awaken Construct) do obey their creators absolutely. It's specifically called out in Rudimentary Intelligence's wording.

IA says "The ice assassin is under your
absolute command." That is a clear cut RAW ruling, nothing can break your command.


When you rule it, does it do things proactively? Does it use any spells you didn't immediately order it to use to further its goals? If not - why not? Do you have control over what it thinks or only what it does? What is absolute control, what is its nature system-wise?
It's an intelligent creature with a purpose. Absent you commanding it to do something it attempts to peruse it's objective in a way commiserate with it's intelligent score and abilities.


Is it a mind-affecting effect on a created creature? If yes, Mind Blank works. If not - PvE works, which explicitly removes any kind of mental control. If it isn't mental control, what is it?
It's nothing. It's simply part of the spell. It's an iron hard, bone deep, written into the very reality of it's existence, fact that IA's obey their creators absolutely. There is no grounds to rule that Mind Blank would block it.


All of these things are left up to the DM.
No, they aren't. The spell says what the answer to all of these things is. You are trying to read beyond the spell to come up with what it says, that is not how RAW works. Nothing in the spell says that the command is [mind affecting], therefore it does not have that descriptor. Nothing in the spell says that the creature becomes an automaton, therefore it does not.


Agreed. The rules support it as "it's been created, it exists." I should've clarified that I meant "this is the way I would houserule it, if any of my players ever used this spell."
Rewrite the spell entirely if you want to houserule it, it's a much better idea.


To answer why I'll have to refer you to our previous thread with "social" consequences. Essentially, once the purpose of the Assassin is completed, you've saddled the DM with an NPC that has no reason to have any kind of good will towards you. And then the DM has a choice: either start a vendetta, invent a reason any kind of creature would like to live in a bag of holding for most of its existence and knowing it can be controlled at any moment, or, as I would, houserule it to self-destruct, which is seriously easier. At least if you're thinking about the social consequences of the player's actions.
The player has already commanded it to 1) Never act against the characters interests to the best of it's ability and knowledge, 2) To always obey any order given by the creator to the best of it's abilities and knowledge, 3) To be perfectly happy serving it's creator in whatever way the creator desires.

Just because it has completed it's purpose doesn't mean that it ceases to obey it's creators commands.


Might I politely inquire as to a direct quote quote? Does a Wish break this control?
Right there in Ice Assassin "The ice assassin is under your absolute command.". That is an absolute, specific, statement with nothing else overruling it. If someone else Dominated your IA then they could order it to do whatever until the orders conflicted with your own, at which point it would obey your orders. No, Wish couldn't break the control without DM allowance (just like it can't do anything but it's listed effects without DM allowance).

[Werekat]

Golems with Intelligence (except if given to them with Awaken Construct) do obey their creators absolutely. It's specifically called out in Rudimentary Intelligence's wording.

Rudimentary Intelligence as in Dragon #327?


It's nothing. It's simply part of the spell. It's an iron hard, bone deep, written into the very reality of it's existence, fact that IA's obey their creators absolutely. There is no grounds to rule that Mind Blank would block it.

I keep getting the feeling that you're referring to additional rules on golems or something that I'm simply not familiar with. May I have a reference, please?


It's an intelligent creature with a purpose. Absent you commanding it to do something it attempts to peruse it's objective in a way commiserate with it's intelligent score and abilities.

Absolutely agreed here. But note, then, it does fail my previous challenge - the DM has to adjudicate the totality of the spell's effects.


Rewrite the spell entirely if you want to houserule it, it's a much better idea.

Thank you for your input on this particular matter, but, as I said, this is a purely theoretical exercise. I also believe that you and I have fairly different understandings of what constitutes a "better idea," so I would like you to know that any future remarks of the sort are fairly meaningless, as I am not very likely to take them to heart.



The player has already commanded it to 1) Never act against the characters interests to the best of it's ability and knowledge, 2) To always obey any order given by the creator to the best of it's abilities and knowledge, 3) To be perfectly happy serving it's creator in whatever way the creator desires.

I believe that this is where your own assumptions come into play as to what the player will - or as you put it "has already done" - necessarily do. I would kindly ask you in the future to spell out these things that you assume "any reasonable person would do," because they are an integral part of your strategy.

Once again, I'd like to see the rules that say that you have control over your creation's thoughts and emotions, and not just actions. Is it actually defined anywhere?


If someone else Dominated your IA then they could order it to do whatever until the orders conflicted with your own, at which point it would obey your orders.

Out of purely theoretical interest: what if Epic magic had been used instead of Wish? Do you think it could break the control? Could a creature with Divine Rank break the control (though, admittedly, this is a can of worms I don't know well, don't hesitate to correct me here)?

[Answerer]

{{scrubbed}}
He's even explicitly stated that it should be houseruled in the overwhelming majority of games. For my own self, I'd never want to play in a game where it saw RAW use.

But that does not change what the rules say. It's poorly designed because it's hideously powerful, far more so than it should be, but it is that powerful by the rules. This was bad design but 3.5 has a lot of those.

{{scrubbed}}They're thought experiments. They have nothing to do with how anyone plays the game. They're just amusing little side-games that are tangential to actual play. Some people enjoy them more than the actual game -- but that does not mean that they want to use them in an actual game.

Yes, some people play with higher optimization levels than you do. Some people, presumably, play with lower levels. There is nothing badwrongfun about this. You don't have to play with them, you don't have to enjoy the same things they do, but you have no cause to attack them in any thread even remotely related to the topic -- which, in several threads, you have.

And none of that has anything to do with theoretical optimization anyway. Even Tippy's here saying Ice Assassin should be houseruled -- because as written, it's stupidly powerful. But for the purpose of thought experiments, it's interesting because it can do so much, and TO is largely about abusing stupidly-designed things like this for the sake of extra-large numbers or what have you. He's not defending the design decisions behind the spell, he's not defending the spell at all: he's just stating what it does, in fact, do, according to the rules written in the book, and he's pointing out all this ludicrous things you can do with it because of its poor design. At no point did he suggest that you actually do this in a game. In fact, he suggested the opposite of that.
{{scrubbed}}

[Aharon]

If we discuss the spell, let's look at interesting interactions:
What happens if you create Ice Assassins of undead creatures? The spell specifically creates a living creature...

By the way, Ice Assassin is based on Simulacrum, and Simulacrum creates duplicates of the same type as the original according to Skip (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050809a).

[Answerer]

If the spell says "Living creature" as its target, then you cannot cast it on the undead to begin with. If it's not in the target line, then you can, but I don't have the text in front of me to see where it does refer to living creatures.

Skip is frequently objectively wrong, and I don't trust his judgment in the slightest, but in this case, I find no fault with his ruling. It doesn't explicitly state that the type is retained, but since the copy is supposed to be identical except as noted, it should default to maintaining type.

EDIT: Oh, I see: the target line doesn't specify living, but the effect says it creates a living copy? That is odd. I have no idea what one would do with that.

[Werekat]

Aharon - ooh, good, that's some of the discussion I was looking for!

I think I'd rule that it can't duplicate undead or constructs. A fun houserule version for undead might be that it creates a mindless living body (for mindless undead), like a very expensive clone. Incorporeal undead explicitly don't work - you'd need a part of the creature.

Constructs... I'd say the spell just fails.

On absolute control, some additional thoughts. Control over the creature's emotions strikes me to be the same kind of interpretation as "I Iron Heart Surge the Sun!" If we follow this line of reasoning, we could just as easily create the following absurdity:

I have absolute control -> I have absolute control over what my Ice Assassin is made of -> I can make it go supernova, because I can control its atoms and create a nuclear reaction/I can control the elements it's made up of and can turn it into 100d6 force damage/whatever other technobabble the interpreter can come up with. It's absolute control.

What I'm getting at is that the control line has to be drawn somewhere, and the spell greatly depends on where.

Edited for greater clarity of wording.

[Lord_Gareth]

I keep getting the feeling that you're referring to additional rules on golems or something that I'm simply not familiar with. May I have a reference, please?

For a better reference, look at Force Golems from Monster Manual V - golems created to obey a creator but otherwise possessed of free will, sapience, and desire. Force Golems are still required to obey their creators and no force can break that obedience short of the creator's death, but they are otherwise free to pursue their commands to the best of their intelligence scores, abilities, and capability of persuading others to aid them, possibly even including delaying obedience to ask clarifying questions or suggest other courses of action (though of course they inevitably must obey).

[Z3ro]

I have absolute control -> I have absolute control over what my Ice Assassin is made of -> I can make it go supernova, because I can control its atoms and create a nuclear reaction/I can control the elements it's made up of and can turn it into 100d6 force damage/whatever other technobabble the interpreter can come up with. It's absolute control.

What I'm getting at is that the control line has to be drawn somewhere, and the spell greatly depends on where.

The real problem is that no where does D&D define the term "absolute control". Sure, we can read it to mean what it commonly means, but many things do not mean what they might commonly mean. Also, anytime there's an "absolute" somewhere, it runs the risk of conflicting with another absolute (something that blocks "any" control, for example).

[Emperor Tippy]

Rudimentary Intelligence as in Dragon #327?
Yes.


I keep getting the feeling that you're referring to additional rules on golems or something that I'm simply not familiar with. May I have a reference, please?
I'm not. I said that they were a similar case.


Absolutely agreed here. But note, then, it does fail my previous challenge - the DM has to adjudicate the totality of the spell's effects.
No, the DM has to adjudicate the actions of an NPC that happens to be under the absolute command of a player's character. That isn't adjudicating what the spell in question does.


I believe that this is where your own assumptions come into play as to what the player will - or as you put it "has already done" - necessarily do. I would kindly ask you in the future to spell out these things that you assume "any reasonable person would do," because they are an integral part of your strategy.
The spell is cast, assuming you aren't using UMD, by someone who makes Einstein look stupid. They have already thought about the situation and given orders, orders far more complete than any that I could give. Just like when you use Wish, the character using that Wish is far better at wording it to do exactly what you want done than you are.


Once again, I'd like to see the rules that say that you have control over your creation's thoughts and emotions, and not just actions. Is it actually defined anywhere?
You have absolute command of the IA.

The definition of absolute is:
1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.
2. not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol.
3. complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.
4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.
5. unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, especially when arbitrary or despotic: an absolute monarch.


Out of purely theoretical interest: what if Epic magic had been used instead of Wish? Do you think it could break the control? Could a creature with Divine Rank break the control (though, admittedly, this is a can of worms I don't know well, don't hesitate to correct me here)?
Nothing can break your control. If anything could then it wouldn't be absolute.

You would, under the rules, need the thing that you are attempting to use to gain control to say specifically "This can override the absolute command that the caster of Ice Assassin can exercise on their Ice Assassin.". Specific trumps general, and the specifics of Ice Assassin are that it will obey it's creators commands absolutely.

If you wanted to go full TO then you could command your IA to have 20 Divine Ranks and it would because you commanded it, but that's absurd.

[Lord_Gareth]

I have absolute control -> I have absolute control over what my Ice Assassin is made of -> I can make it go supernova, because I can control its atoms and create a nuclear reaction/I can control the elements it's made up of and can turn it into 100d6 force damage/whatever other technobabble the interpreter can come up with. It's absolute control.

The reason this fails to work is because the term 'absolute control' is a mental reference, not a physical one. If the being is capable of going supernova on its own you can certainly order it to do so, but other than that your control is over its actions, not its atomic structure. You can order the being and it must obey your orders to the best of its abilities, even if it would otherwise be compelled not to. As its creation and existence are entirely contingent upon a spell you cast, this makes a certain amount of sense.

[Z3ro]

The reason this fails to work is because the term 'absolute control' is a mental reference, not a physical one. If the being is capable of going supernova on its own you can certainly order it to do so, but other than that your control is over its actions, not its atomic structure. You can order the being and it must obey your orders to the best of its abilities, even if it would otherwise be compelled not to. As its creation and existence are entirely contingent upon a spell you cast, this makes a certain amount of sense.

This is the problem with trying to have a RAW discussion; you say the term "absolute control" is a mental reference. However, nowhere is that distinction made. Oh, sure, you could make a case for it, but nowhere in the description does it say you control is mental only (that is an entirely reasonable interpritation, but not RAW).

[Werekat]

Lord Gareth: nice, thank you! I like that particular ruling. Pasting here for general reference: "force golems usually carry out their commands unfailingly. However, if a master proves overly domineering, a force golem might make life more difficult for that creature or even rebel against it."

This is very much along the lines I envision such control being.

Z3ro: thank you. You have formulated my points better than I have, I think. And precisely why I ask for interpretations, possibilities - rewrites too, sure, if Tippy is interested in providing them.

Tippy: before we continue the discussion, please look at the points Z3ro has made. And then at the absurd, but theoretically possible line of reasoning that I've provided. What do you think of the possibility of absolute control over the golem's physical makeup? Why is it any different than control over its mental makeup?

Though, if I understand this correctly,


If you wanted to go full TO then you could command your IA to have 20 Divine Ranks and it would because you commanded it, but that's absurd.

our argument comes down to us drawing the line of absurdity in different places. I happen to believe that mental characteristics have the same degree of mutability as physical ones - that is, relatively to this exercise, that the caster wouldn't be able to rewrite either the physical traits or the mental traits of the IA.


The spell is cast, assuming you aren't using UMD, by someone who makes Einstein look stupid. They have already thought about the situation and given orders, orders far more complete than any that I could give. Just like when you use Wish, the character using that Wish is far better at wording it to do exactly what you want done than you are.

Here we come down to different ways of playing the game.

When we play, for instance, we specify before games whether the players can roll dice for formulating something their life depends on (assuming their character is smarter) or whether the player has to do it him or herself. Both styles of play are possible; neither is necessary. You handwave your wizard's "taken care of the safety precautions." For me, this often removes some of the fun.

If I'm playing someone hyperintelligent, I root my justification in there being many different kinds of intelligence. There are many kinds of intelligence, and the fact that someone is good at crunching numbers, for instance, does not make them necessarily able to understand social interaction, driven largely by instinct, just as well. I've seen wondrously smart people, who are able to grasp abstract concepts far beyond my mind, being completely taken in by primitive manipulations.

In short - being a genius doesn't free you from any mistakes from the List of Cognitive Biases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases).

Edited for stupid grammar mistakes.

[Malachei]

Malachei, you have to understand that when people state that a given thing is RAW, that is not a value judgment. Tippy has not said he likes, hates, or is indifferent to the spell: he has only explained what the rules written actually say.

Well, we almost agree, except arguing RAW in a thread that calls for rulings (not rules as written) can be seen as defending the spell.

The OP clearly addressed:

In short - how do you folks rule this bag of worms when playing?

A lengthy repetition of what this spell does by RAW was not called for, nor does it address the OP.

It is ignoring what people ask for that I dislike. Tippy's input, for instance, is very valuable to an optimizer's question (and often very clever and interesting and fun to read -- and also here, his input is interesting). But repeating RAW over and over with little regards to what the OP actually asked for lets threads drift off-topic.


It's poorly designed because it's hideously powerful, far more so than it should be, but it is that powerful by the rules. This was bad design but 3.5 has a lot of those.

Here, we do agree.


You also seem to fail to grasp the concept of theoretical optimization. They're thought experiments.

I respect all play styles, I've expressed this in the past. BUT I've read people argue that a smart wizard should use these tactics, and not playing this way is not playing the character intelligently. I very much grasp the concept of TO, and I even appreciate it and find it fun, as long as we keep it theoretical. Then there's PO, which can be even more fun, but even PO is sometimes not called for. Considering the wording of the OP, and that it is about limiting a spell's power, I'd say this thread is more non-O, than O.


Your continued badgering and attacking of people who enjoy things differently than you do is exceedingly tiring, and I'm explicitly requesting that you stop. An enormous number of your posts consist of an astonishing amount of strawmen and putting words in others mouths, and it's really frankly offensive.

Actually, I find this offensive. I express my opinion, as others do. You may dislike my contribution, as I may dislike yours. However, I will not ask you to refrain from posting. We're here to exchange points of view, and, even though we may disagree, hopefully we learn and have fun.

[Emperor Tippy]

Lord Gareth: nice, thank you! I like that particular ruling. Pasting here for general reference: "force golems usually carry out their commands unfailingly. However, if a master proves overly domineering, a force golem might make life more difficult for that creature or even rebel against it."

This is very much along the lines I envision such control being.
And that is specific to the force golem.


Z3ro: thank you. You have formulated my points better than I have, I think. And precisely why I ask for interpretations, possibilities - rewrites too, sure, if Tippy is interested in providing them.
I use several different rewrites depending upon the specific game and power level I want for that specific game. Sometimes I allow it exactly as written, sometimes I allow it exactly as written by with a limitation on how many IA's you can create, sometimes I turn the material component into a focus, sometimes I ban the spell outright.


Tippy: before we continue the discussion, please look at the points Z3ro has made. And then at the absurd, but theoretically possible line of reasoning that I've provided. What do you think of the possibility of absolute control over the golem's physical makeup? Why is it any different than control over its mental makeup?


Though, if I understand this correctly,

our argument comes down to us drawing the line of absurdity in different places. I happen to believe that mental characteristics have the same degree of mutability as physical ones - that is, relatively to this exercise, that the caster wouldn't be able to rewrite neither the physical traits nor the mental traits of the IA.
It comes down to the rules as intended. IA was intended to produce a perfect duplicate of a creature that would obey it's creator without fail. It was not intended to alter reality to let that IA do whatever it's creator ordered it to do. The IA can give the order but that doesn't mean that it will be successfully carried out.


Here we come down to different ways of playing the game.

When we play, for instance, we specify before games whether the players can roll dice for formulating something their life depends on (assuming their character is smarter) or whether the player has to do it him or herself. Both styles of play are possible; neither is necessary. You handwave your wizard's "taken care of the safety precautions." For me, this often removes some of the fun.

If I'm playing someone hyperintelligent, I root my justification in there being many different kinds of intelligence. There are many kinds of intelligence, and the fact that someone is good at crunching numbers, for instance, does not make them necessarily able to understand social interaction, driven largely by instinct, just as well. I've seen wondrously smart people, who are able to grasp abstract concepts far beyond my mind, being completely taken in by primitive manipulations.

In short - being a genius doesn't free you from any mistakes from the List of Cognitive Biases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases).
I have lists of commands that I use, that doesn't change the fact that the character is so very much smarter, wiser, and with a more applicable skill set than I have that just because I badly worded something means that the character did as well. I can say "My character gives the IA orders to ensure that it will never act against me or misbehave" and that is all I have to do, the wizard knows how to specifically word those commands to achieve the effect I want. Assuming that he has sufficient Intelligence and Wisdom.

[Werekat]

OP's clarification: this thread is neither OP or non-OP. It's about how people read the rules, where they draw lines, and how they fill in the blanks in a concept that's flavorful and fun, yet full of ambiguity.

Tippy's arguments on why a rule is clear-cut in particular cases are fascinating. So are possible interactions between the spell and things it doesn't specify (undead targets? Sweet! I didn't even think of that.)

I don't really care about the spell's relative power level - more about the effect being well-defined.

[Emperor Tippy]

The effect of the spell is well defined.

It gives you a perfect copy of the creature in question that has an overriding desire to see the original dead and obeys it's creators commands absolutely.

That is both RAW and RAI exactly what it does.

There isn't even anything unclear or ambiguous in the spell.

As for copying non living creatures, it does so just fine but the creature becomes living. Yes, you can have a living creature with all the abilities of the Undead type by RAW.

[Answerer]

It is ignoring what people ask for that I dislike. Tippy's input, for instance, is very valuable to an optimizer's question (and often very clever and interesting and fun to read -- and also here, his input is interesting). But repeating RAW over and over with little regards to what the OP actually asked for lets threads drift off-topic.
Knowing where the spell starts with is a useful thing to have. Furthermore, as far as drifting off topic, most of your posts have been spent expressing your disdain for anyone who even so much as cares what the rules as written actually say on the matter.


I respect all play styles
I disagree. I find your posts frequently immensely disrespectful. Asserting your respect while displaying none merits you nothing in my eyes.


Actually, I find this offensive. I express my opinion, as others do. You may dislike my contribution, as I may dislike yours. However, I will not ask you to refrain from posting. We're here to exchange points of view, and, even though we may disagree, hopefully we learn and have fun.
I didn't say to stop posting. I said to stop attacking, badgering, and insulting people who play differently than you do.

[Werekat]

And that is specific to the force golem.

Indeed, it is. But this is the closest analogy that has been found so far. Do you have a closer one?


It comes down to the rules as intended. IA was intended to produce a perfect duplicate of a creature that would obey it's creator without fail. It was not intended to alter reality to let that IA do whatever it's creator ordered it to do. The IA can give the order but that doesn't mean that it will be successfully carried out.

Where I live, we have a saying that essentially translates as "off with the telepathy helms," meaning "so-called 'intended' meanings can be treacherous."

To provide an example, I'm not at all sure that was the intended purpose. When I initially encountered the spell, I read it as a huge marker "it's a trap!", because any one of the DMs I play with would give me utter and absolute hell - the one-mile radius of control alone would have been more than enough for them to do that. As well as the fact that the creature has a personality twisted by hate. And, initially, I thought that was its intended function - DM use (for pretty "double trying to kill you" storylines) and trap for Faustian bargains, just as Demons and Devils are, as well as undefined Wishes.

You also mean "the IA can be given the order," right?


I have lists of commands that I use, that doesn't change the fact that the character is so very much smarter, wiser, and with a more applicable skill set than I have that just because I badly worded something means that the character did as well. I can say "My character gives the IA orders to ensure that it will never act against me or misbehave" and that is all I have to do, the wizard knows how to specifically word those commands to achieve the effect I want. Assuming that he has sufficient Intelligence and Wisdom.

Ways of playing the game. I propose we stop this particular argument: it's becoming circular, as quickly does anything with "this is the way it should be" when it comes to games.

[Malachei]

Knowing where the spell starts with is a useful thing to have. Furthermore, as far as drifting off topic, most of your posts have been spent expressing your disdain for anyone who even so much as cares what the rules as written actually say on the matter.


I disagree. I find your posts frequently immensely disrespectful. Asserting your respect while displaying none merits you nothing in my eyes.


I didn't say to stop posting. I said to stop attacking, badgering, and insulting people who play differently than you do.

Actually, Answerer, it is you who is attacking me. Also, you are bringing baggage here. I don't know from where and why, but your personal, aggressive post IMO has nothing left in this thread. If you wish, you can PM me why you are feeling this way and what you are referring to, but I will not accept you flaming me.

Please stop personally attacking me now.

[Red_Dog]

Hmm perhaps this question is unrelated to the original question, however, since the IA is being discussed again, I might as well just asked.

I have tried asking this prior, and have yet to receive an actual answer.

-> To me, the most issues that caused by Ice Assassin are not issues when once actually gets an access to the spell via normal progression. It is a 9th level spell, and by the time people have 9th level spells, there is a line of things that are so powerful, you need to push thru a motion that Manual of Planes wrote about possible abyss layers with time flowing backwards and than sent Inevitables to that layer and back in time to kill the player. Nothing short of this helps at THAT level on "not arena" setting. But I expect this, and this is a not the issue.

The Issue is, that everyone seem to talk about how a wizard can get a scroll of this much earlier. I flat out don't get how one would.

>Buying a scroll is impossible because a DM can tell you that such scroll either doesn't exit in the multiverse or only in possession of creatures that won't sell it. And will be full with in his/her DM rights to do so.
>Wishing for a scroll thru a candle of Invocation, or gated solar thru a candle, does not work since by RAW the IA scroll costs way more than 25k. Which means DM is entitled to screw over a person who tries to do this every single time no matter how carefully he/she words his wish.
>Trying to transport an existing IA scroll using teleportation clause also fizzles as a DM can to tell you that all of such scrolls are in dead magic zones, since DM regulates where all things are in the multiverse, he/she can place potential scrolls of IA anywhere he/she wants, that is if they exist at all.

None of these are DM fiats as, the DM sets up the multiverse, not the players.

So, without insults, jokes, or anything else, could someone please tell me how would one acquire IA prior to lvl17? Because to me, getting an IA scroll prior to lvl17 is the main issue that causes heated debates.

P.S. I realize that is is somewhat de-railing, but I figured I asked when everyone who talks about IA are in the thread. Sorry to semi hi-jack it.

[Venger]

As for copying non living creatures, it does so just fine but the creature becomes living. Yes, you can have a living creature with all the abilities of the Undead type by RAW.

that's interesting. If you were to make an IA of an undead, how would one determine its con score?

[Werekat]

Red Dog: no worries, you're not derailing.

And on that note, signing out for a bit - be back later at night, possibly.

[Aharon]

As for copying non living creatures, it does so just fine but the creature becomes living. Yes, you can have a living creature with all the abilities of the Undead type by RAW.

Wouldn't it lose the undead type, and by extension, the abilities gained from it?

(based on

Undead Type
Undead are once-living creatures animated by spiritual or supernatural forces.

=> Nothing that isn't once-living qualifies for the undead type.)

[Douglas]

>Wishing for a scroll thru a candle of Invocation, or gated solar thru a candle, does not work since by RAW the IA scroll costs way more than 25k. Which means DM is entitled to screw over a person who tries to do this every single time no matter how carefully he/she words his wish.
Actually, the 25k limit is quite specifically for non-magical items only. Wishing for magic items has no limit, just an additional XP cost that scales with the item Wished for. Unfortunately for game balance, that XP cost is technically a component of the spell, and spell-like abilities ignore all components - including XP ones. It's broken as hell and likely to get an instant DM ban, but it is RAW.

[Red_Dog]

Actually, the 25k limit is quite specifically for non-magical items only. Wishing for magic items has no limit, just an additional XP cost that scales with the item Wished for. Unfortunately for game balance, that XP cost is technically a component of the spell, and spell-like abilities ignore all components - including XP ones. It's broken as hell and likely to get an instant DM ban, but it is RAW.

Why write 25k limit on item, and than not limit magic items? If one for some reason needs 3 billions of chairs[non magical], Couldn't you just wish for the same amount of Magical chairs without a problem? This seems completely... I really am not sure on how to actually call this without massive inferno erupting towards WotC.

*Sigh*. If that is the way a wish should work, why have staff of power example at all? Just because its an artifact?O_o

P.S. *sigh* If Douglass is correct than anyone would be able to do it without DM's ability to say no. Well I guess, its back to backward time flows of the Abyss. The time traveling robots will help us! *Yes, they have a friend who is a talking pie*.

[Aharon]

Why write 25k limit on item, and than not limit magic items? If one for some reason needs 3 billions of chairs[non magical], Couldn't you just wish for the same amount of Magical chairs without a problem? This seems completely... I really am not sure on how to actually call this without massive inferno erupting towards WotC.

*Sigh*. If that is the way a wish should work, why have staff of power example at all? Just because its an artifact?O_o

P.S. *sigh* If Douglass is correct than anyone would be able to do it without DM's ability to say no. Well I guess, its back to backwards to of Abyss. The time traveling robots will help us! *Yes, they have a friend who is a talking pie*.

Douglas is correct. The reason behind this is that the designers intended to make wish more versatile: In 3.0, there was a 15.000 gp limit that applied for both magic and non-magic items. Apparently, some designers thought this wasn't powerful enough and allowed the spell to be used to create unlimited magic items. They thought this was balanced by the XP-cost. They also changed the more commonly used summon monster-line so that summoned creatures don't use SLAs with XP cost. It seems like they forgot about also revising the whole conjuration (calling) line of spells.

[hamishspence]

Archmages who take the SLA high arcana ability, do have to pay any XP costs.

Maybe that should have been the rule for all SLAs- PC and NPC alike.

[Douglas]

Why write 25k limit on item, and than not limit magic items? If one for some reason needs 3 billions of chairs[non magical], Couldn't you just wish for the same amount of Magical chairs without a problem? This seems completely... I really am not sure on how to actually call this without massive inferno erupting towards WotC.
Technically Wish can only create a single item no matter how cheap what you're making might be. So, let's change that example to needing something worth a billion gp to barter with.

Yes, you could "just" Wish for a magic item worth that much and have it work even though Wishing for that much gold would fail. Casting that Wish would cost you many millions of XP, however, which means almost anyone even able to cast it in the first place would already be so high level that such a magic item is pocket change.

The real problem here is the possibility of removing/ignoring the XP cost, not the lack of a limit on creating magic items.


*Sigh*. If that is the way a wish should work, why have staff of power example at all? Just because its an artifact?O_o
Yes.

[Psyren]

Here's my ruling: "no."

This thing has NPC-spell written all over it. Letting the players use it just leads to shenanigans.

[Red_Dog]

=>douglas & Aharon

Thx gentlemen ^^, I am definitely house ruling that back to what I originally though in my game than, but of course, I now do understand completely the official explanation. ^^

I always did knew that WotC didn't make a game with "checks & balances" in mind. It seems that they wanted that illusion [reading thru manual of planes, Fiendish Dexes I&II and to some degree few other books does show an attempt at "cosmic & local balance" in some part, but in same book you have a "Brass City" that should flat-out break the multiverse economy.], but when the push comes to shove... It seems that all the cool toys were made only to be used by players and never be in circulation as imagining a multiverse with wish being so easily accessible thru SLAs is.... *Sigh*, very few games think of checks and balances at all I guess?

Well, than is back to the original statement=>

"Rewind enough sessions back to the moment a PC first conceives the thought, than time-traveling Quarut takes care of the rest." ^^. Also, since the whole party is thrown back in time because of one player, I will give that player a "time out" for the party to catch up and a new timeline contain new character after the breach to form. ^^ I am honestly thinking making this into a rule for all my games now heh. And of course, I need to find out a creature that would resemble a talking pie the most. Any thoughts on what creature could fit the description? ^^

[Brickroad]

All constructive arguments start with basic assumptions all parties can agree upon. This is where most religious arguments fail.

One assumption I find amusingly loaded (but valid, too!) is that the spells presented in the rulebooks directly correlate with the game-world's universal laws. It is treated as if the laws of magic were derived from the book rather than the opposite. Which becomes a very strange interpretation when considering PCs are able to write spells as are powerful NPCs. What if I copy a spell incorrectly? Does that make my new, incorrect spell RAW universal law, too?

The spells were presumably written by people or we wouldn't know their names in the game. Considering this game is also an elaborate fiction it is not outside of the realm of possibility that the spell entries contain errors and ambiguities, intentional or not, as part of a meta-fiction.

If a character approached mine and offered a scroll of Ice Assassin, detailing what it would do exactly as written, it would sound like a swindle. You do not know exactly what Ice Assassin does until you observe it being cast at which point the DM knows precisely what it does.

For all you know, it spawns an Umbral Blot in place of your spell book.

[deepbreath]

So I disagree with the assertion that a DM is beholden to RAW interpretations at all.

EDIT: Oh, and this is in response specifically to the interpretation of "Absolute" control and other 'objective' interpretations of the spell's text. Since I wasn't being clear or concise.

[mabriss lethe]

Brickroad: Check forum rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1)about Thread Necromancy. Specifically:


Thread Necromancy
Bringing a thread back from "the dead." If a thread hasn't been posted in within the last 45 days, don't reply to it. Start a new topic, if you want to discuss the subject (you are welcome to link to the old thread). If you think it would be better to resurrect an old thread, PM a moderator for that subforum and wait for approval. The original poster of a creation in Homebrew (and only that poster) may revive a creation beyond the 45 day threshold without prior Moderator approval.