Magic Jar - Lich Lite?

[Segev]

Magic Jar is a 5th level Necromancy spell that lasts for an hour per level. A continuous-activated item of it is "only" 90,000 gp, market price. A lich's phylactery costs 120,000 gp and 4000+ exp to create; they are never for sale due to their highly personal nature.

Assuming you are custom-crafting your Magic Jar item, you can apply the 30% discount for being "usable only by you" when you forge it as always containing your soul, and thus never being usable by anybody else. (If you're making it yourself, you could alternatively require it to be usable only by a character who can cast the spell for the same discount if the DM calls shenanigans for the "me only" clause.) This brings it down to 60,000 gp market, and 30,000 gp + 2400 XP to craft.

Pricey, but probably worth it, assuming this works.

Couldn't you then just create undead minions or find beefy but dumb monsters and always adventure in other things' bodies? Make sure you keep your bauble on your person at all times so the thing's death is only a 1-round inconvenience for you.

Most risky version has you let your own body rot away/kill it yourself; if the jar is destroyed, you die with the termination of the spell, then. Less risky but more difficult is to keep your body around so you can pop back into it if something happens to the jar. Otherwise, you're fine as long as nothing hurts your magic bauble.

If you are a necromancer with minions, this is an excellent way, I think, to play a Lich Lite. Pick a favorite minion body to inhabit. Preferably one with loads of hp but still unintelligent. You can order them to fail their will saves anyway, of course, but it's easier if there isn't a will to begin with. Magic Jar is not mind-affecting and targets "one creature," even calling out undead as animated by negative energy so you can pick an undead body to inhabit. So you're golden there. A construct-master can also use this to inhabit his construct(s), instead.



...and here's a strange idea that just occurred to me. If you're not using a permanent item for this, but just casting the spell, a Chain Magic Jar would be really weird. Magic Jar targets one creature, and while the additional creatures would get bonuses on their saves, but that's not a big deal.

Against foes, could this let one mage possess an entire party? As a minion mancer, could a dozen or so skeletons and zombies ALL be the mage?

[Psyren]

I'm not too sure what would happen when you Chain a Magic Jar. It seems as though you would stuff a whole bunch of minion souls into the gem. Or perhaps you would swap souls in sequence until you arrive at the last one.

Chaining aside, one big issue of this tactic is that you have to keep all your minions within Medium Range of the gem and your body. If the spell ends while you're out of range you'll die, and you need line of effect between each stage, so you can't hide your body or leave it behind somewhere.

[Cheiromancer]

I doubt that one person could possess a multitude effectively. It would be like trying to play several video games simultaneously.

I wonder if a mage using magic jar could cast nybor's psychic imprint (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mb/20041215a) on his original body, and then incorporate that gem in the continuous magic jar item. It would provide a hard-wired basis for the animating force that would emanate from it, and would likely prevent any other spellcaster from using the item.

The use of feeblemind to prepare prospective hosts would also be prudent, I think.

[Fax Celestis]

...and here's a strange idea that just occurred to me. If you're not using a permanent item for this, but just casting the spell, a Chain Magic Jar would be really weird. Magic Jar targets one creature, and while the additional creatures would get bonuses on their saves, but that's not a big deal.

Against foes, could this let one mage possess an entire party? As a minion mancer, could a dozen or so skeletons and zombies ALL be the mage?

And now we know how Voldemort made horcruxes.

[Radar]

...and here's a strange idea that just occurred to me. If you're not using a permanent item for this, but just casting the spell, a Chain Magic Jar would be really weird. Magic Jar targets one creature, and while the additional creatures would get bonuses on their saves, but that's not a big deal.

Against foes, could this let one mage possess an entire party? As a minion mancer, could a dozen or so skeletons and zombies ALL be the mage?
The target of the spell is you or anyone else, who wants to use the jar. Only after the spell is in effect you gain the ability to possess other bodies. A Chain Magic Jar would most likely make for a crowded jar, since all the primary targets would and up in it. They could then try to possess anyone nearby - one body for each target of the spell.

Would be weird, but it would make for an interesting fight: a wizard casts Magic Jar on a bunch of his minions, who then try to hijack PCs turn after turn.

@Psyren
Magic Jar specificaly does not need line of effect - that's one of the most interesting features of this spell.

edit: minor language error correction.

[Psyren]

I wonder if a mage using magic jar could cast nybor's psychic imprint (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mb/20041215a) on his original body, and then incorporate that gem in the continuous magic jar item. It would provide a hard-wired basis for the animating force that would emanate from it, and would likely prevent any other spellcaster from using the item.

NPI is a cool spell but it doesn't preserve your class features or spellcasting, so using it on yourself wouldn't be a very good idea. Even if someone was around to craft your gem into an item before you dissipated, you would still lose your spellcasting as a result. You would need someone to craft a magic jar ability into your item which would likely be much more limited e.g. in uses/day, and when you do successfully possess a body you would only have whatever other abilities they crafted into your item to draw upon.

[Segev]

...huh. There are a few problems with casting it on "yourself," I think, mostly stemming from whether or not doing so would - by driving you comatose - interrupt the casting of the spell. It is also noteworthy that the item doesn't have your class features/abilities/skills/feats, except for your mental ability scores.

Oddly, if you're worried about how you would take it if you were shoved into an item and used as a servant, you could cast Charm on yourself to ensure that your item-based duplicate is loyal to you.

By the rules, the intelligent item would be a separate intelligence from your own, but if you keep its loyalty, applying a self-motivation to it would be useful. And you could theoretically Magic Jar it when you don't have a preferred body. Due to the fuzziness of the rules wrt how spells apply when used in magic items, you could probably design it such that you ARE the animating intelligence of it, merging with the psychic impression.

The tricky part, then, would be how your body is treated. If you're magic jaring another creature when you imprint yourself into the crystal, does that imprint your empty shell nothingness, or "you" despite you not being in there?



As for controlling multiple bodies at once... there's not really a clear intention there. I doubt it was meant that anybody should be able to do this. You are still just one creature; I guess you'd wind up sensing out of all the bodies just fine, but you'd probably still have only one "set" of actions between all of them.

...interestingly, even without Chain Spell, I think a swarm counts as one creature. Since this isn't Mind Affecting, it can target the whole thing. That could be fun.

[Segev]

The target of the spell is you or anyone else, who wants to use the jar. Only after the spell is in effect you gain the ability to possess other bodies. A Chain Magic Jar would most likely make for a crowded jar, since all the primary targets would and up in it. They could then try to possess anyone nearby - one body for each target of the spell.

Would be weird, but it would make for an interesting fight: a wizard casts Magic Jar on a bunch of his minions, who then try to hijack PCs turn after turn.

Actually...the SRD says that the target is "One Creature." Which, by reading the text, is clearly the creature being possessed. That you can switch targets during the same casting of the spell is an oddity, but the RAW do say that the target is a creature, not "you." (In fact, targeting yourself with it after entering the jar explicitly ends the spell. For this magic item, if I wanted to keep my own body, I'd design it such that this is no longer the case, but in truth, it's easier and better not to try, as doing so enters into nebulous territory that using a "loaner" body avoids neatly.)

[Psyren]

...huh. There are a few problems with casting it on "yourself," I think, mostly stemming from whether or not doing so would - by driving you comatose - interrupt the casting of the spell.

By RAW, you don't have to target a spell until you finish casting it, so that part wouldn't be a problem. You spend an hour chanting etc., then at the very end tap yourself on the noggin.

It's what comes after you're in the gem that would be tricky.



Oddly, if you're worried about how you would take it if you were shoved into an item and used as a servant, you could cast Charm on yourself to ensure that your item-based duplicate is loyal to you.

No need for that - the spell explicitly does not affect any loyalties (or hatreds) the creature had in its original form. You would thus likely stay loyal to yourself.



...interestingly, even without Chain Spell, I think a swarm counts as one creature. Since this isn't Mind Affecting, it can target the whole thing. That could be fun.

I'm almost sure a swarm is immune to effects that only target one creature; I'm AFB however and can't research it properly.

[Segev]

Chaining aside, one big issue of this tactic is that you have to keep all your minions within Medium Range of the gem and your body. If the spell ends while you're out of range you'll die, and you need line of effect between each stage, so you can't hide your body or leave it behind somewhere.

Oh, good catch, here: per the RAW, I think if any of your hosts were out of range, you'd die, strangely enough. Though again, it's vague. It depends whether one host out of many being out of range counts as "you are out of range," or if having even one within range counts as "you are in range."

One certainty is that you couldn't leave just one; if you return to the jar, ALL hosts are released, and you'll chain into multiple again when you target one once more.

[Segev]

By RAW, you don't have to target a spell until you finish casting it, so that part wouldn't be a problem. You spend an hour chanting etc., then at the very end tap yourself on the noggin.

It's what comes after you're in the gem that would be tricky.True. Though storing yourself, when you recover naturally from the Drain, means that you'd wind up with (provided you had somebody to make your gem into a magic item while you were out, or a means of recovering faster than normal) both the real original you with all your class features and abilities, and the Impressed item with your personality-copy in it.

I'm almost sure a swarm is immune to effects that only target one creature; I'm AFB however and can't research it properly.
Ah, you're right. More explicitly, it says it is immune to effects that target specific numbers of creatures, unless the effect is mind-affecting and the swarm has a hive mind. So yeah, this just won't work (as, again, it's not mind-affecting).

[Radar]

Actually...the SRD says that the target is "One Creature." Which, by reading the text, is clearly the creature being possessed. That you can switch targets during the same casting of the spell is an oddity, but the RAW do say that the target is a creature, not "you." (In fact, targeting yourself with it after entering the jar explicitly ends the spell. For this magic item, if I wanted to keep my own body, I'd design it such that this is no longer the case, but in truth, it's easier and better not to try, as doing so enters into nebulous territory that using a "loaner" body avoids neatly.)
Not by my reading at least. The spell clearly states, that the immediate effect of the spell is placing your soul in the jar, so the primary target is you or anyone else, who wants to use the jar.

It is also explicitly stated, that you can attempt to hijack other bodies only after you find yourself in the jar and it takes a full round action to do so. In other words, casting of the spell and possession of other bodies are two separate actions. Therefore you can't Chain the spell to possess multiple bodies. You might however Chain it to allow many people to use the same jar.

Using the possession ability granted by the Magic Jar is not the same thing as casting Magic Jar.

[Segev]

Not by my reading at least. The spell clearly states, that the immediate effect of the spell is placing your soul in the jar, so the primary target is you or anyone else, who wants to use the jar.

It is also explicitly stated, that you can attempt to hijack other bodies only after you find yourself in the jar and it takes a full round action to do so. In other words, casting of the spell and possession of other bodies are two separate actions. Therefore you can't Chain the spell to possess multiple bodies. You might however Chain it to allow many people to use the same jar.

Using the possession ability granted by the Magic Jar is not the same thing as casting Magic Jar.

Look at the "target" entry in the spell header. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicJar.htm) Nothing in the spell text says "the target is the jar" or "the target is you." It does spell out how the spell works, and special rules for selecting the target, including rules for changing targets by going back into the jar and trying again. But nothing in the text contradicts the "target" entry in the header.

Your reading is one that makes a certain amount of sense, and, absent the header specifying otherwise, I would agree your reading is as valid as the one I've spelled out here. However, RAW, it's definitely a spell that targets "one creature," and a reading of the text only clarifies that that one creature is the being who you're shoving out of his body and into the jar when you possess him.

You could house rule it to be as you read it, and by and large the spell would work just as well (albeit with a different interaction with Chain Spell). But since even going with your reading (which is contrary to the RAW) leads to odd results (as you've noted), there's not even a really strong RAI nor "common sense" argument to be made in favor of choosing your reading over the way I'm describing it.

And, again, I don't think there's any room to argue that what I'm describing is the RAW, and that yours is not. To reiterate, your reading isn't "bad" in a balance or sensibility sense, but it is no better than mine in those senses, and the RAW is definitely in line with what I'm spelling out.

[Radar]

You could house rule it to be as you read it, and by and large the spell would work just as well (albeit with a different interaction with Chain Spell). But since even going with your reading (which is contrary to the RAW) leads to odd results (as you've noted), there's not even a really strong RAI nor "common sense" argument to be made in favor of choosing your reading over the way I'm describing it.
Odd results are because of Chain Spell metamagic and they won't be normal no matter, how you read the spell. In fact, sharing a Magic Jar is less ridiculous, then possessing a whole bunch of creatures at once - there is no way of determining, how it would even work.

The whole target mess is because there might be two of them: user of the spell and the victim of the ability granted by the spell, so only because the word target is used in two places, it doesn't mean it's the same thing. I see, where your interpretation comes from and after further reading I can eventually agree, that it's RAW, but because of a different bit of text: mention of the Will save. The spell can be resisted and the only participant, that is entitled a save is the creature you try to hijack. Therefore I can agree, that by RAW, the target is the one getting highjacked even if you don't really need to possess anyone during the whole duration of the spell. You can't even target the spell precisely, since the senses provided by the Magic Jar don't allow you to determine creature types or positions.

While this interpretation is indeed RAW, it is seriously messed up: you cast a targeted spell without specifying the target (you can't even do that considering the text of the spell), then during the duration of said targeted spell you may eventually choose a target or a sequence of targets.

If anything, interpreting the spell as granting the target the ability to possess others through the jar cleans up a lot of rule problems.

[Crake]

If you were worried about dying when the gem is destroyed, you could have the gem include fitting that adds a storage unit for a shrunk body (via shrink item, since your body is now technically an item rather than a creature it should qualify) that gentle reposes the contents. As soon as the crystal is destroyed, your body no longer qualifies for shrink item and you pop out (make sure the storage unit is designed to allow the stored body to pop out without harm to the body or the storage), same when you walk into an AMF.

[Segev]

Er, there's no reading of it that says the target can possess others via the jar. The target is selected after the spell is cast, during its duration. This is RAW, and a case of specific trumping general.

I do agree that chain spell just gets weird with Magic Jar.

I think I know how I'd run it, as DM: You still only have one action. So most of your bodies are standing around doing nothing while you act. I might permit all of them to take pure movement actions if they're all moving together more or less as a mass, or if they're following a crowd. This is, of course, just how I'd run it. I think it's in LINE with the RAW, but it's definitely a DM call on how to deal with it, because there are probably multiple other by-the-RAW ways to handle it due to vagueness.