[Pathfinder] Living spell components?

[Scribble]

This was remark on in another thread I made but the Pathfinder spell Appearance of Life (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/appearance-of-life) has a material component of "one Tiny or larger living creature".

A material component is annihilated by the arcane energies of the spell it's being used to cast.

So... does the component get a save? Does it need to be helpless? Could a Necromancer grab a PC and use them as the spell component, instantly destroying them? What are the limits on this? I know it's probably meant to use like a rat or a chicken for this, but what're the limits?

[legomaster00156]

Spider Climb has a similar component. Great for dealing with giant enemy spiders.

[Malimar]

I always think there's a rule that you need to "possess" or have a material component "in hand" to use something as a material component, but then I go to look and nope, there's no such rule.

At least 3.5 had the rule that the live spider for spider climb "must be eaten by the subject", making it difficult to use on larger-than-usual spiders, but PF did away with that line.

[Calthropstu]

So baleful polymorph, use as spell component.

Nice.

[Yawgmoth]

So baleful polymorph, use as spell component.

Nice. Don't even need that, it says "tiny or larger living creature".

It's dumb things like this that keep me far, far away from PF for anything except their skill skill list. This is a question that should have been asked by anyone setting eyes on it before it went to print.

[legomaster00156]

Weird exploitable rules are hardly the sole province of Pathfinder.

[exelsisxax]

Don't even need that, it says "tiny or larger living creature".

It's dumb things like this that keep me far, far away from PF for anything except their skill skill list. This is a question that should have been asked by anyone setting eyes on it before it went to print.

You've never had anyone destroy the sun with iron heart surge?

[Calthropstu]

Don't even need that, it says "tiny or larger living creature".

It's dumb things like this that keep me far, far away from PF for anything except their skill skill list. This is a question that should have been asked by anyone setting eyes on it before it went to print.

So it does. Ok my 8th level sorcerer can now defeat the tarrasque.

Although, to be fair, 3.5 as well as all other forms of D&D have all had major exploits. I bet if I logged into paizo and checked, pretty sure there is an errata which says "must be helpless or willing"

[Yawgmoth]

I bet if I logged into paizo and checked, pretty sure there is an errata which says "must be helpless or willing" Then please do so, because I'd be willing to bet no one's even thought about it. Their devs seem to assume that everyone will just know what they intend.


You've never had anyone destroy the sun with iron heart surge?No, I haven't. Because that's GitP style of rules "lawyering"; taking a game concept, running it through a linguistic cipher or ten, then using the output to justify some absurdity is not a basic failure of the specific mechanic so much as a lack of supreme specificity and the general desire of people on this forum to justify dumb things to one another.


Weird exploitable rules are hardly the sole province of Pathfinder. While nominally true, PF has numerous issues with rules that don't even work within themselves. 3.5 at least has the good graces to not have any feats that make you worse at the thing it should be making you better at, or actually fail to do anything to the rules they are ostensibly modifying.

tl;dr: 3.5 has issues with "wait, how does [rule from supplement X] work with [thing from entirely different supplement]?" PF has problems with "wait, how is this thing actually supposed to work at all?"

[legomaster00156]

At this point, I have to wonder if the only reason you came into this thread with a Pathfinder tag is to complain about a system you never liked. :smallconfused:

[Calthropstu]

No errata, this spell is from a very recent publication and has no errata about it yet.

[Ruethgar]

While nominally true, PF has numerous issues with rules that don't even work within themselves. 3.5 at least has the good graces to not have any feats that make you worse at the thing it should be making you better at, or actually fail to do anything to the rules they are ostensibly modifying.

Minor nitpick here, but Tome of Magic has a lovely feat that makes you worse at Truenaming. And you also have the Mageslayer feat line, because arguably the best mage slayer is a mage and lowering your CL is a severe detriment to that. I mean, I guess you could get all healing spells based on CL and have a massive negative CL. Cast it on someone, they Spellcraft that it's a heal and sense that it's Will Negates(Harmless) and bam, half dead from negative heals.

[Jack_Simth]

This was remark on in another thread I made but the Pathfinder spell Appearance of Life (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/appearance-of-life) has a material component of "one Tiny or larger living creature".

A material component is annihilated by the arcane energies of the spell it's being used to cast.

So... does the component get a save? Does it need to be helpless? Could a Necromancer grab a PC and use them as the spell component, instantly destroying them? What are the limits on this? I know it's probably meant to use like a rat or a chicken for this, but what're the limits?

Oh, hey: I got a reference. For those curious, the Post in question (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21410627&postcount=11).

The closest I can find to the game rules specifying how much control you need over a thing to use it as a material component comes from the Magic Overview, specifically the Choosing a Spell (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Choosing-a-Spell) step:
To cast a spell, you must be able to speak (if the spell has a verbal component), gesture (if it has a somatic component), and manipulate the material components or focus (if any). Additionally, you must concentrate to cast a spell.(emphasis added)

... which doesn't actually say much. Is anyone able to find a rules quote that's more specific? At all?

[legomaster00156]

I guess that would imply requiring at least a grapple?

[Scribble]

I guess that would imply requiring at least a grapple?

Can't cast while grappling in PF, only when being grappled. Even then it requires a Concentration check.

[Jack_Simth]

I guess that would imply requiring at least a grapple?

Oh, I don't know... might just require a quick Bluff vs. Sense Motive. That is, after all, manipulating someone....

[Necroticplague]

Bull-rushing someone is manipulating them in a more physical sense....

[Calthropstu]

Can't cast while grappling in PF, only when being grappled. Even then it requires a Concentration check.

Wrong. When you grapple someone, you gain the grappled condition and, as such, are subject to the rules of being grappled. So a grappling wizard must make a concentration check same as the reverse.

[Psyren]

3.5 at least has the good graces to not have any feats that make you worse at the thing it should be making you better at, or actually fail to do anything to the rules they are ostensibly modifying.

HAHAHAHAHAHAha....

Oh wait, you were serious.


I always think there's a rule that you need to "possess" or have a material component "in hand" to use something as a material component, but then I go to look and nope, there's no such rule.

At least 3.5 had the rule that the live spider for spider climb "must be eaten by the subject", making it difficult to use on larger-than-usual spiders, but PF did away with that line.

You still have to be able to manipulate the component, which implies a much more involved sort of contact than simply touching it. This can rule out the larger spiders (unless you yourself are pretty big.) As there is no in-game definition of "manipulate," your GM gets to decide what kind of manual interaction qualifies, and what does not.