Possession Question

[razorback]

Question about possession.

What happens when a creature capable of possessing a creature tries to possess a creature that is already possessed by a Fiend of Possession, Ghost or creature with a similar power, such as Magic Jar?
Would the possessing creature have to make the will save and the base creature, too?
In the case of Magic Jar, who gets 'Jarred'?

[Kelb_Panthera]

There's no official rule to cover this particular circumstance. The Dm simply has to make a call.

I'd rule as such:

FoP = both creatures have possession of the body and must cooperate. If they disagree, roll opposed cha checks.

In cases based on magic jar, the posessing creature is typically untargettable by outside effects and the possessed creature's mind is inaccessable therefore the effect fails.

Though, again, this is just how I'd rule it; nothing official.

[nedz]

It depends upon the combination of effects and how they are worded.

For example if you were to use Magic Jar on some creature who had already been Magic Jarred then the possessing soul would be forced into your gem leaving the original soul in the first gem — assuming that it fails it's save. I think that the soul which is now in your gem can return to it's own (if it's in range) which would force the original soul back into it's body and you back to your gem. Confused ? You should be.

Other means of possession might work differently, of course.

[sovin_ndore]

If this occured at my table, I would probably rule that since your posession action has a declared target, you could only possess the FoP if you were aware of it. ...and given the way that class makes the FoP very well hidden, it is unlikely to be a viable target.

That said, we would then need to figure out what sort of power struggle exists between two things attemping to control the same target. I don't have canned rules for this but would probably consult how Ego tests are handled for Intelligent items as a starting point. ... It might just be opposed Will Saves or somesuch.

[razorback]

Thanks guys. I'm glad I wasn't just missing something.

I think I'm going to go with the contest of wills to see if the second possessor can steal control of the first possessor and probably muddle through the rest.