PDA

View Full Version : Magic Jar + Imprisonment



Segev
2016-03-07, 10:38 AM
Step 1: Use magic jar with a 10,000 gp ruby as the material component.
Step 2: Possess a desirable, preferably high-hp body.
Step 3: Use imprisonment (minimus containment) on your own body, with the same ruby as the material component. (It's worth 10,000 gp, enough to contain you even if you're level 20.)

You now have an indestructible magic jar with your body right inside of it. If you get dispelled, your body is right there to re-inhabit. If the DM rules that the imprisonment clause about the gem being indestructible over-rules the magic jar clause that destroys the gem, you keep the gem and (since imprisonment's minimus containment variant doesn't keep you from casting spells) can re-cast magic jar from inside your self-imposed prison. IF the DM rules that magic jar's "gem is destroyed" clause over-rules the indestructibility clause of imprisonment's minimus containment variant, then your body is still right there on your person to re-inhabit, and is now freed from imprisonment. Same is true if the imprisonment gets dispelled at the same time as the magic jar.


The one downside to this stunt is that you need to find bodies with a lot of hp, because 5e's magic jar requires you to make a charisma save (not usually a wizard's best) against his own spell DC (which is dumb, but the RAW) when the body he's in is slain, or die along with it. You can avoid this, somewhat, by being willing to hop out of the possessed body when it's running low on hp, but it's still risky unless it has comparable hp to your own body. So possessing random goblins, commoners, etc. is not so hot an idea.


Thoughts? Have I missed anything that makes this not work? Is there anything that can be done to make it better?

manny2510
2016-03-07, 11:32 AM
The DM needs to agree to a destruction clause. This means he can still prevent this ^.

MaxWilson
2016-03-07, 11:33 AM
Seems like a lot of bother for a stunt that is worse than Magic Jar + Clone.

As you acknowledge in your final paragraph, the gem is no longer the Achilles Heel of Magic Jar in 5E--the weak point is the host body you're possessing.

BTW, the ideal body to possess is a weretiger or werebear.

RulesJD
2016-03-07, 12:31 PM
Seems like a lot of bother for a stunt that is worse than Magic Jar + Clone.

As you acknowledge in your final paragraph, the gem is no longer the Achilles Heel of Magic Jar in 5E--the weak point is the host body you're possessing.

BTW, the ideal body to possess is a weretiger or werebear.

Exactly this. Just bring Clone online and you're golden. Even better, just use a Simulacrum.

Segev
2016-03-07, 01:57 PM
The DM needs to agree to a destruction clause. This means he can still prevent this ^.That's a weird hold-over from 3e, I think; it says specifically that the caster "may" put in a termination clause, not that he must. In 3e, that clause raised the DC of the save. In 5e, it does nothing but make it endable by something other than dispelling. Which makes the "the DM must agree it can come to pass" clause silly, since the only reason to include it would be if you wanted it to be endable without you dispelling it.

It is optional, per the RAW. Of course, a DM could force it anyway. But he could also just disallow the use of the spells in combination, or either of the spells, or...anything, really. He's the DM.


Seems like a lot of bother for a stunt that is worse than Magic Jar + Clone.Is there more to this than "if you die, the Clone comes online?"

MaxWilson
2016-03-07, 03:20 PM
Is there more to this than "if you die, the Clone comes online?"

Nope. It's that simple.