Geas/Quest Question & Comment

[Draco_Lord]

Two things about Geas. One a question. Two an opinion.

Firstly. Can you spell sunder a Geas on yourself? Is there a rule that says you cannot find away to break it while you try to complete the quest? Must you complete the quest if you have the ability to right away?

Basically put in a situation where my character had a wish. He was also cursed to swap genders. He was very upset by this, as he very much liked being a man, and more importantly believed that all his magical abilities (that he believed he had) were based in his beard, which he lost. So he whined and cried. Enough so that the Warpriest decided to use Geas to force him to cast wish. Which I (as a player) didn't want to, because I'm a bit of a metagamer and that would have been such a waste of a wish, and too it was more fun to complain for a while, and have him not believe his wish would work. Would I have been able to use Spell Sunder to break that Geas?

I recently found out that Geas/Quest forces you to follow said quest regardless of your own opinion on the matter. But isn't that kind of dumb? The spell has penalties if you refuse to follow, so if you are prevented from following it, which is the only way for the penalties to apply, your ability to over come what stops you is lowered, and makes it harder to do the Quest you have to do.

[Draco_Lord]

Any answers/comments at all?

[Mystral]

Any answers/comments at all?

Geas has a list of things that can break it. Spell Sunder is not on that list, so it can't.

Geas doesn't force you to do what it says, you can still do whatever. You just have to live with the penalities. It punishes you for not fullfilling it. Also, it is a spell that should be used very carefully, especially against PCs, because many players react very badly to being forced into some action.

[Draco_Lord]

Damn. Though, Spellsunder would never be on that list.

And I am well aware. I was the PC who had the spell used on them. By another PC. Almost killed them. Did break all their nice fancy weapons and armour because they refused to remove it from me.

[Mystral]

Damn. Though, Spellsunder would never be on that list.[/b]

I'd say that the closest magical equivalent to spell sunder is dispel magic, which is specifically not able to break a geas.

[b]And I am well aware. I was the PC who had the spell used on them. By another PC. Almost killed them. Did break all their nice fancy weapons and armour because they refused to remove it from me.

Now THAT just isn't cool.

Is it a lesser or normal one?

[Psyren]

Geas has a list of things that can break it. Spell Sunder is not on that list, so it can't.

I'm not so sure this is correct. Geas says dispel magic can't affect it, and it gives a list of things that does, but it does not ever say "nothing that is not on this list can affect it." After all, disjunction isn't on that list either.

All Spell Sunder cares about is whether it's an "ongoing spell effect" which it is. IMO, so long as the person who geased you does not explicitly command you not to try and interfere with it, you can give that a try. It's therefore up to the caster to be savvy, and command you not to try and interfere with the geas itself.

[icefractal]

Is this 3.5 or Pathfinder?

In 3.5, Geas doesn't force you to do anything, just punishes you (ineffectually) if you don't. In Pathfinder, it does force you to follow it.

In either case, unless "and don't try to remove this Geas" was part of the instructions, you're not prevented from doing so.

[Mystral]

I'm not so sure this is correct. Geas says dispel magic can't affect it, and it gives a list of things that does, but it does not ever say "nothing that is not on this list can affect it." After all, disjunction isn't on that list either.

And Disjunction can't end a Geas, either, because it ends effects like Dispel Magic (which doesn't work in this case).

"A lesser geas (and all ability score penalties) can be ended by break enchantment, limited wish, remove curse, miracle, or wish."

That is an exclusive list.

[Psyren]

Is this 3.5 or Pathfinder?

In 3.5, Geas doesn't force you to do anything, just punishes you (ineffectually) if you don't. In Pathfinder, it does force you to follow it.

In either case, unless "and don't try to remove this Geas" was part of the instructions, you're not prevented from doing so.

Both versions do force you. Both 3.5 and PF geas include this line:

"The geased creature must follow the given instructions until the geas is completed, no matter how long it takes."

"Must follow" means you don't have a choice; it's mandatory. The consequences only occur if you are physically prevented from performing under the geas.


And Disjunction can't end a Geas, either, because it ends effects like Dispel Magic (which doesn't work in this case).

"A lesser geas (and all ability score penalties) can be ended by break enchantment, limited wish, remove curse, miracle, or wish."

That is an exclusive list.

Where does the list say this is exclusive? I don't see "only" or a similar qualifier, the only thing actually being excluded is dispel magic. By RAW, nothing in geas overrides disjunction's ability to disjoin magical effects, and nothing in it stops spell sunder either.

If Geas were instantaneous you would have a point - but it is not, it has a duration.

[icefractal]

Both versions do force you. Both 3.5 and PF geas include this line:

"The geased creature must follow the given instructions until the geas is completed, no matter how long it takes."More specifically, they inherit that line from Lesser Geas, which they function "similarly" to. There's a difference in the wording though:

Instead of taking penalties to ability scores (as with lesser geas), the subject takes 3d6 points of damage each day it does not attempt to follow the geas/quest.

If the subject is prevented from obeying the geas/quest for 24 hours, it takes a -3 penalty to each of its ability scores.

If you're compelled to follow the geas, then you can't choose "not to attempt" to follow the geas. It is a bit ambiguous because of the reference to Lesser Geas, so maybe you could read the PF one as just a clarification. But I don't think it's clear-cut that the 3.5 one does compel you.

[atemu1234]

Damn. Though, Spellsunder would never be on that list.

And I am well aware. I was the PC who had the spell used on them. By another PC. Almost killed them. Did break all their nice fancy weapons and armour because they refused to remove it from me.

That's mean.

[Surpriser]

If you're compelled to follow the geas, then you can't choose "not to attempt" to follow the geas. It is a bit ambiguous because of the reference to Lesser Geas, so maybe you could read the PF one as just a clarification. But I don't think it's clear-cut that the 3.5 one does compel you.

This is also how I would rule both Geas and the lesser variant. Simply because if you enforce the "must follow the instructions" line, Lesser Geas becomes a stronger Dominate Person spell at one spell level lower.
For the sake of power consistency, targets of Geas must have the ability to avoid the command and suffer the penalties instead.
Of course, it would be perfectly reasonable for a houserule to say that the penalties begin immediately if you willingly don't follow the command.

To answer the question in the beginning, Spell Sunder uses the word "dispel" in its description, which is normally used only in conjunction with Dispel Magic and its variants (Break Enchantment, Remove Curse and so on all use different wordings). So I would interpret Spell Sunder as an effect based on Dispel Magic and as such unable to remove a Geas spell.

[Psyren]

I don't consider it equivalent to Dominate. You can set them a goal but how they carry it out is up to them, and that's before you even get to the subversion and certain death clauses. All they have to do to avoid any penalties at all is "attempt" to follow it. In addition, Lesser Geas has an extremely small HD limit, you must also share a language with the target, and poor wording on your part can lead to it being discharged early. There's a lot of drawbacks there that dominate doesn't have.

[Draco_Lord]

Now THAT just isn't cool.

Is it a lesser or normal one?


That's mean.

It was a normal one.

And yeah it was. But it was what my character would do. He is a chaotic Neutral, almost Evil, Orc. He literally solves every last issue with violence. And honestly, breaking the weapons and armor stopped him from just killing them. Not saying it was right. Just curious if it was allowed.

I still don't understand why it punishes you for not following it when you have to follow it. That seems weird to me.

[atemu1234]

It was a normal one.

And yeah it was. But it was what my character would do. He is a chaotic Neutral, almost Evil, Orc. He literally solves every last issue with violence. And honestly, breaking the weapons and armor stopped him from just killing them. Not saying it was right. Just curious if it was allowed.

I still don't understand why it punishes you for not following it when you have to follow it. That seems weird to me.

You are most definitely not improving my opinion.

'Roleplaying' is not an excuse for being a jerk to other players.

[Psyren]

I still don't understand why it punishes you for not following it when you have to follow it. That seems weird to me.

It punishes you for being prevented from following it. And the whole point is that your colleagues/party members can't simply tie you down for a couple of days until it wears off or they can get a BE scroll to free you - at least, they can't do that without putting you in serious danger as you take damage or your stats dwindle away.

[Draco_Lord]

You are most definitely not improving my opinion.

'Roleplaying' is not an excuse for being a jerk to other players.

I would argue that using Quest on another player, trying to force them to use a wish to undo a very minor curse (gender swapped), is also a jerk move. Again, not saying I was right, honestly was a jerk move, but it really is not something I like done to me. It didn't help that I was in a foul mood from the GM letting them cast it in secret, next to my character, without a single perception check.


It punishes you for being prevented from following it. And the whole point is that your colleagues/party members can't simply tie you down for a couple of days until it wears off or they can get a BE scroll to free you - at least, they can't do that without putting you in serious danger as you take damage or your stats dwindle away.

Hmmm... that actually makes sense. The punishment is more of a meta thing then a real thing. Makes sense that way.