Seeming of Form, how do I?

[virgileso]

There's a spell in Arcana Evolved and Book of Eldritch Might III, called Seeming of Form (http://bookofshadows.a.wiki-site.com/index.php/Seeming_of_Form). It's a mind-affecting glamer that makes an object look and feel like something else of roughly the same size category. It even describes using a helmet as a lockpick as an example of it bestowing inherent qualities; which violate every understanding I have of glamers and mind-affecting spells.

Does anyone have an answer to this befuddling spell?

[TuggyNE]

It's third-party, right?

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/228/269/demotivational-posters-theres-your-problem.jpg (http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/228269-well-theres-your-problem)

[virgileso]

That isn't terribly helpful. Also, 'third party' is not a good indicator. Core has its share of atrocious problems...
You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed formOr monks not being proficient with unarmed attacks in core? Or the fact Ride-By Attack cannot be performed as written in 3.5?

[Grinner]

Does the spell describe the person as being able to use the helmet as a lockpick without penalty?


http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/228/269/demotivational-posters-theres-your-problem.jpg (http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/228269-well-theres-your-problem)

Say, how did that guy get over there without getting wet...?

[eggynack]

That isn't terribly helpful. Also, 'third party' is not a good indicator. Core has its share of atrocious problems...Or monks not being proficient with unarmed attacks in core? Or the fact Ride-By Attack cannot be performed as written in 3.5?

It's a pretty decent indicator I think. This is especially true because the spell apparently has a mana cost, and doesn't seem to work within the rules. Basically, if the spell were just third party, just didn't work, or just didn't seem to fit outside of variant rules, my advice would be something other than avoiding that spell. I could theoretically come up with some interpretation of the rules that allowed the spell to work, and it would be jury rigged and horrible, but there'd at least be something. With all the factors working against this one though, all I've got is running away. It seems highly difficult to salvage, and because it's in a third party book it's not worth salvaging. There's tons of spells that work, and there are tons of spells that are in the regular books, and there are tons of spells in both groups at once. You don't need this spell to work.

[Sith_Happens]

That isn't terribly helpful. Also, 'third party' is not a good indicator.

In this case it is a pretty good indicator. Specifically, it indicates that a third-party writer was trying to be "cool"/"unique"/whatever by taking something they dang well knew is a Transmutation spell and saying it's an Illusion.


Core has its share of atrocious problems...Or monks not being proficient with unarmed attacks in core? Or the fact Ride-By Attack cannot be performed as written in 3.5?

Not the same thing. While WotC have far more than their fair share of editing problems, they're at least good at not violating the basic assumptions of their own game. Like Transmutation being the school that lets you actually turn one thing into another and let it function as such, while Illusion just makes it look like you did (Shadow spells are somewhere in between, but Seeming of Form isn't one).

[Jeff the Green]

That isn't terribly helpful. Also, 'third party' is not a good indicator. Core has its share of atrocious problems...Or monks not being proficient with unarmed attacks in core? Or the fact Ride-By Attack cannot be performed as written in 3.5?

WotC never made a [mind affecting] glamer (glamers aren't mind affecting) that makes it so you can use a helmet as a lockpick. As stupid as some of their output is, they at least never made such a boneheaded mistake.

[TuggyNE]

That isn't terribly helpful. Also, 'third party' is not a good indicator. Core has its share of atrocious problems...Or monks not being proficient with unarmed attacks in core? Or the fact Ride-By Attack cannot be performed as written in 3.5?

As eggynack and Sith_Happens said, in this case it really is a good indicator, because it's pretty hard to point out something in WotC content that so flagrantly violates how things work (Atropal regeneration is the most egregious I can think of off-hand, and that's a) epic and b) a result of failed conversion.)

This spell is simply not designed to work in stock 3.x at all, and it's hard to be sure just how much you'd need to adjust to use it or make sense out of it. And since most of us don't have the book in question, there's not much chance we'll be able to explain its unique design to you.

All that to say, it's not really worth the trouble, I think.

[Sith_Happens]

Now that I think about it, there's also the fact that it's basically an objects-only Polymorph Any Object as a second level spell. So it beats almost anything WotC has done on the "imbalanced" front as well, which is impressive.

[virgileso]

The link is a slight variant version, because I'm not aware of any mana cost. It's in Arcana Evolved, the alternate PHB written by Monte Cook; so just as 'third party' as Pathfinder.

It would be considered quite rude if I interject any of the Pathfinder-related questions on this forum with "that's what you get for using 3PP". So, I'd appreciate something more helpful than insulting the source with interpreting the spell.

[Ceaon]

So, what exactly are you looking for? A rewrite? An interpretation? A way to use this for your character? A way to balance it?

[Bakeru]

Ok, having read through it:
First, it isn't mind-affecting. Your link shows it as such, but the books don't.
Yes, it allows a will saving throw to resist (both if it's used on an object you're carrying, and if you interact with an object so disguised), but that doesn't mean anything, because other illusion spells do the same without being mind-affecting.

Still, I'd argue that "mind-affecting" could make sense, if you see it as an "shadow light"-spell (as in "lesser shadow", not as in "bright shadow", that'd be weird): It makes people believe the chair you're wielding is an axe, and thus, their imagination makes them take damage as if from an axe, even though it's all in their head.
Of course, this would mean that it only works against beings that can be affected by such - you couldn't use a helmet as a lock pick, unless the lock was somehow sentient and vulnerable to mind-affecting spells. And undead, who ignore mind-affecting spells, wouldn't be bothered either.


At last, I'd say that while third-party stuff isn't automatically bad, this is lousy stuff which happens to be third-party. If you can, use "Deceptive Facade" from Complete Mage instead.

[TuggyNE]

The link is a slight variant version, because I'm not aware of any mana cost. It's in Arcana Evolved, the alternate PHB written by Monte Cook; so just as 'third party' as Pathfinder.

It would be considered quite rude if I interject any of the Pathfinder-related questions on this forum with "that's what you get for using 3PP". So, I'd appreciate something more helpful than insulting the source with interpreting the spell.

Pathfinder is a bit different, however, because at this point it's just a different game; Paizo material is first-party for Pathfinder. And there are in fact some cases where using PF material in 3.5, or vice versa, will get you stupid results that are directly caused by the system differences. Not common, but they exist.

What's more, if you ask a PF question in the 3.5 RAW question thread, you will quite rightly be ignored or told to switch threads. Of course, in this case, you're free to post questions about d20-based systems in this forum, but be aware that their quality and popularity varies widely, and answers that are basically "yeah that's weird but that system is weird/unknown/different, so I got nothin'" are probably gonna crop up. :smallwink:

(It might have helped if you'd mentioned "Arcana Evolved" in the title or first post, to let people know that there's no way they can answer the question without knowing this different context; as it was, it sounded like you were asking a question about a stock 3.5 spell for a stock 3.5 game, which this just isn't.)

[Slartibartfast]

I think there is a fundamental understanding of what a glamour *is*. A glamour (or glamor, or glamer; the spelling has changed over the years) is fundamentally a kind of illusion. It is NOT mind-affecting in any way; it is an illusion which enacts a change in the physical world. The key distinctions between a glamour and true transfiguration are twofold. One is that a glamour, as an illusion, can be seen through by effects like True Seeing, or other means (including a boring will-save). The other is that a glamour is inherently more temporary, and can run out or be dispelled. In D&D, transfigurations sometimes have durations too, which is an annoying confusion of magic, but oh well.

The simplest explanation is that a glamour is a mask which covers and attaches to an object or creature which gives the target the properties of something else.

To be perfectly honest, in all of D&D this is the spell which most looks like a traditional glamour of myth and lore. It makes an object seem and act like something it is not, while still being the object that it is. In that sense, it is the best glamour spell ever written.

Game balance has other theories. For the community that tries hard to pretend that D&D is a balanceable game, this spell provides a lot of flexibility otherwise provided by the very high-level Polymorph Any Object. Distinctly, this glamour doesn't provide permanence for even the smallest of changes, and in that sense will always require expenditure of spell slots to use. On the other hand, second level spell slots instead of 8th. PAO however can exact any change at all, even if that makes it very temporary, whereas Seeming of Form must remain within one size category of the original object and only works on nonliving objects (which arguably contains undead; discuss with your DM and/or previous rules debates).

I don't generally play anything resembling optimized D&D or hold hope that it is even possible to balance D&D at all, so I won't really voice an opinion on the game balance properties other than the "facts" presented above.

In summary, there is nothing flavor-wise wrong with the spell Seeming of Form; it is a proper glamour, and the mechanics depict that glamour very well.

[Inevitability]

I think there is a fundamental understanding of what a glamour *is*. A glamour (or glamor, or glamer; the spelling has changed over the years) is fundamentally a kind of illusion. It is NOT mind-affecting in any way; it is an illusion which enacts a change in the physical world. The key distinctions between a glamour and true transfiguration are twofold. One is that a glamour, as an illusion, can be seen through by effects like True Seeing, or other means (including a boring will-save). The other is that a glamour is inherently more temporary, and can run out or be dispelled. In D&D, transfigurations sometimes have durations too, which is an annoying confusion of magic, but oh well.

The simplest explanation is that a glamour is a mask which covers and attaches to an object or creature which gives the target the properties of something else.

To be perfectly honest, in all of D&D this is the spell which most looks like a traditional glamour of myth and lore. It makes an object seem and act like something it is not, while still being the object that it is. In that sense, it is the best glamour spell ever written.

Game balance has other theories. For the community that tries hard to pretend that D&D is a balanceable game, this spell provides a lot of flexibility otherwise provided by the very high-level Polymorph Any Object. Distinctly, this glamour doesn't provide permanence for even the smallest of changes, and in that sense will always require expenditure of spell slots to use. On the other hand, second level spell slots instead of 8th. PAO however can exact any change at all, even if that makes it very temporary, whereas Seeming of Form must remain within one size category of the original object and only works on nonliving objects (which arguably contains undead; discuss with your DM and/or previous rules debates).

I don't generally play anything resembling optimized D&D or hold hope that it is even possible to balance D&D at all, so I won't really voice an opinion on the game balance properties other than the "facts" presented above.

In summary, there is nothing flavor-wise wrong with the spell Seeming of Form; it is a proper glamour, and the mechanics depict that glamour very well.

Check the thread date please. :smallsigh: