Question about Initiate of the Sevenfold Veils

[curious-puzzle]

So I did some google-searching and found a good amount of posts with a lot of arguing and not one overly clear answer regarding what happens to some poor schmuck crossing the Violet veil.


This barrier destroys all objects and effects that cross it, as if they were disintegrated. Living creatures passing a violet veil must succeed on a Will save or be shifted to a random place on a random plane (as the plane shift spell)

So what do you wise and kind playground-folk rule happens? I doubt that there is a 100% right answer, so the most reasonable and/or most solidly backed one may be the best to go with.

a) Said schmuck (let's call him Wilhelm for now) is instantly nude as all of his equipment and clothing is disintegrated into nothingness, and then must make a save or be hurledscreaming (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn6hhrX34Pw) into another plane of existence

b)Wilhelm's equipment is safe, as they are attended items and not subject to the effects of spells except on critical failure. He just has to save vs the Plane shift section of the veil. Only an unattended object (such as fired ammunition or hurled furniture/etc) is dusted by the veil.

c)Poor Wilhelm's equipment is affected by the disintegrate line, but gets to use Wilhelm's saving throw vs disintegrate (though even on a save 5d6 damage will ruin a LOT of equipment). Then depending on saves, a slightly more nude Wilhelm needs to save vs Plane shift

There is an NPC in my game that has enough levels in the prestige class, and I know my players are probably gunning to hunt them down and try to "un-alive" them. Seeing as how this is one of the nastiest abilities of the prestige class, some additional knowledge would be appreciated!

[Mike Miller]

I vote c) as the equipment is attended. I don't really see an argument for b) as the text clearly says objects crossing the veil are affected. However, a) is wrong because there is a save involved for disintegrate and this explanation doesn't include that.

C!

[Max Caysey]

I too vote C as to what I think RAI are. However RAW, I think it's A.

[Gildedragon]

I'd say B. The items cross with the living creature.
But that leaves you back in square one

Now if W swung his sword and the blade then crossed the veil... then C. Item uses Willie's save.

[Khedrac]

I'd say that both RAW and RAI is b) - attended items count as part of the creature. If you think they don't do you rule that you can teleport/planeshift people out of their gear and clothes?

Now an interesting possibility is that if the character rolls a '1' then following standard AoE failure rules one of their items might be destroyed instead of being 'ported...

[Hish]

RAI (as well as how I'd rule as a GM), probably B. RAW, C. Definitely not A, because attended items get a saving throw.
I think they were trying to differentiate between what happens to a crossbow bolt or the like, and what happens to a creature trying to cross. So I think B is what they intended.

Edit: As for on a nat 1 on the saving throw, the objects might be subject to Plane Shift, not Disintegration. Plane Shift was the effect aimed at the creature, creature failed, Plane Shift doesn't affect objects, objects are unaffected.

[Beheld]

Um... it doesn't look like it says that it's disintegrated as the spell, so either they are destroyed, or they aren't, there is no 5d6 damage effect at all.

[curious-puzzle]

Glad it's not just me that is conflicted about this :D

As tempting as it is to the sadistic corner of my brain, pretty sure my players would mutiny and lynch me if I went with option A. Players are far more sensitive about their stuff than anything else.

Leaning towards B, but still torn on what to do with reach weapons...

[Braininthejar2]

I went with B for simplicity.

A guy swings a sword at the wizard - he saves, he gets through. He fails, he gets sent away, with all his equipment.

[Hish]

Um... it doesn't look like it says that it's disintegrated as the spell, so either they are destroyed, or they aren't, there is no 5d6 damage effect at all.

Oh yeah. So in C there shouldn't be any 5d6 damage. Otherwise unchanged.


Glad it's not just me that is conflicted about this :D

As tempting as it is to the sadistic corner of my brain, pretty sure my players would mutiny and lynch me if I went with option A. Players are far more sensitive about their stuff than anything else.

Leaning towards B, but still torn on what to do with reach weapons...

I support B. Reach weapons... the character didn't cross, so no Plane Shift. I think it would get a save as an attended item against the purple veil (not Disintegrate). If it fails, it's disintegrated, otherwise no effect on the weapon.

[DarkSoul]

B, mostly. If Wilhelm tries passing through the veil, he and all his equipment gets plane shifted. If he rolls a 1 on the save not only is he plane shifted, but the rules on page 177 of the PHB say that one of his items has to make a save.

If he just stands outside the veil and pokes his weapon through, though, it should make a save because he's willingly subjecting the item to the effects of the veil, even if he doesn't know what those effects are. This would apply for all weapons: melee, reach, or ranged.

[Melcar]

I would go for option C all day long! And here's why:

There are to my knowledge no effects that disintegrates, except for the effect created by a disintegrate spell. Furthermore the part about the effect is italicized, which is the way spells are usually written. Please note that it IS the way spells are written in the whole writeup of the class, so to me that pretty obviously means that the veil functions as effected by the disintegrate spell.

Choosing option C, would thus also mean that the veil would mirror Mordenkainen's Disjunction, in terms of how it affects items, which I personally think follows some continuity of logic.

Since you get no save against the disintegration effect, its not option B, and its not option A for obvious reasons: (Nothing in the game flat out destroys players items, not even Mord's Disjunction!)

That leaves option C; which is not only the most logic, but also the one that gives most continuity.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'd say B. The items cross with the living creature.
But that leaves you back in square one

Now if W swung his sword and the blade then crossed the veil... then C. Item uses Willie's save.

This is how I'd rule it, too.

[Telonius]

I'd go with B. The wording says that objects are affected as if they were disintegrated. In Disintegrate, carried equipment is undamaged; it's only unattended objects that poof out of existence.

So, the equipment is unaffected by the disintegrate effect, and goes forward with Wilhelm. If he makes his save, he and his equipment stay put. If he fails his save, he and his equipment get sent to a random plane. If he rolls a 1 on his save, equipment might be damaged or destroyed, as usual (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#itemsSurvivingafteraSavingTh row); so he might be slightly more nude when he gets there.

The Purple Veil is basically the "Leave me alone!" line of defense. You can't shoot stuff through it, you can only try to walk through it; and you'd better have a pretty strong will to try that.

[Melcar]

The way I read it: because the veil mentions the items specifically being affected by disintegrate, they are, and thus are to be treated as if subject to the disintegrate spell, regardless if they attended or not.

Therefore I still believe its option C.

[Psyren]

In Pathfinder at least, JJ checked with the devs and clarified that B is the intended outcome. He also clarified that it won't destroy artifacts.

There's also the simple fact that A and C are much less fun, well unless you're running a Jigsaw sadist campaign anyway. So put me down in column B.

[curious-puzzle]

running a Jigsaw sadist campaign

<_<

>_>

*Guilty cough*

I'm not that bad...most of the time...

But thanks for all the input! If said battle ever occurs, I'll go with option B, and save the disintegrating for the spell itself (or unattended objects hurled across).

[Max Caysey]

But thanks for all the input! If said battle ever occurs, I'll go with option B, and save the disintegrating for the spell itself (or unattended objects hurled across).

Question: what do you mean by the underscored part?

[curious-puzzle]

Sorry, that was weirdly worded. As in I'll just prepare the spell disintegrate to use against the players (especially considering two of them are frenzied berserkers).

[Max Caysey]

Sorry, that was weirdly worded. As in I'll just prepare the spell disintegrate to use against the players (especially considering two of them are frenzied berserkers).

Ok... so you'll disregard the veils effect? Because the disintegration effect of the veil, does not affect creatures at all...

[Psyren]

I think he wants to try and zap their gear directly (and individually), though I could be wrong.

[curious-puzzle]

Nope, Psyren's got it, if I want the PCs to be disintegrated (gear or otherwise), it'll be with disintegrate spells. Or if they're nutty enough to try throwing their equipment through the veil (wouldn't put it past them).

[Max Caysey]

Nope, Psyren's got it, if I want the PCs to be disintegrated (gear or otherwise), it'll be with disintegrate spells. Or if they're nutty enough to try throwing their equipment through the veil (wouldn't put it past them).

So your effective removing the disintegration effect from the veil on attended items? The spell disintegrate, which has (object) in its saving throw line, is for all intense and purpose targeted at items only by the veil. When reading under the spell description rules about spells with (object) it says that such spells can be targeted at items, which is specifically what the veil says it does. Items then get a save if they are magical or tended (held, worn etc), in which case they use the PC's or their own which ever is greater. How does that not translate into option C? Again there is no save against the disintegration effect so therefore it cant be only on a natural 1 that items get effected. So either its there all the time affecting any held or otherwise item or its not... being held doesn't change the veils ability to affect it.

[Psyren]

So your effective removing the disintegration effect from the veil on attended items? The spell disintegrate, which has (object) in its saving throw line, is for all intense and purpose targeted at items only by the veil. When reading under the spell description rules about spells with (object) it says that such spells can be targeted at items, which is specifically what the veil says it does. Items then get a save if they are magical or tended (held, worn etc), in which case they use the PC's or their own which ever is greater. How does that not translate into option C? Again there is no save against the disintegration effect so therefore it cant be only on a natural 1 that items get effected. So either its there all the time affecting any held or otherwise item or its not... being held doesn't change the veils ability to affect it.

I think you're off on a completely different tangent. He's saying that his villain/NPC will use the Disintegrate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disintegrate.htm) spell itself if he ever wants to target their equipment, not that he would use the veils to do so.

(Or if they ever choose to physically throw their gear through the veils, at which point it is no longer attended.)

[Max Caysey]

I think you're off on a completely different tangent. He's saying that his villain/NPC will use the Disintegrate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disintegrate.htm) spell itself if he ever wants to target their equipment, not that he would use the veils to do so.

(Or if they ever choose to physically throw their gear through the veils, at which point it is no longer attended.)

But the veil does target all attended and non-attended items with a disintegrate, when crossing the veil. If he chooses not to follow the rules, by all means, that's his prerogative as a DM, but it's not raw, nor rai! That's the tangent I was off on!

[Psyren]

But the veil does target all attended and non-attended items with a disintegrate, when crossing the veil. If he chooses not to follow the rules, by all means, that's his prerogative as a DM, but it's not raw, nor rai! That's the tangent I was off on!

Then you are more than a few posts behind the OP as well as several of us. We already agreed on interpretation B (that the disintegrate part of the veil does NOT apply to attended objects, therefore you won't end up on Plane X partially or completely naked.) He is having his bad guy prep disintegrate in case he still wants that outcome, and doing so will give the players more chances to escape it.

[Max Caysey]

Then you are more than a few posts behind the OP as well as several of us. We already agreed on interpretation B (that the disintegrate part of the veil does NOT apply to attended objects, therefore you won't end up on Plane X partially or completely naked.) He is having his bad guy prep disintegrate in case he still wants that outcome, and doing so will give the players more chances to escape it.

Indeed... I think "agreed upon" is a strong wording, but yes most of you had that interpretation, but that directly goes against what the veil says it does. I'm just pointing that out. One can do what ever they want at their own table of course (I'm not arguing against that), but in terms of what the veil actually does, which incidentally is effecting all items (without distinction between tended or otherwise) with a disintegrate spell. For a disintegrate spell to affect an item it does not need to be untended, therefore the veil must too affect attended items as per the spell. Crossing the veil is like getting all your items targeted with by disintegrate and the creature with plane shift.

I'm not arguing that he should not use whatever interpretation he wants, but that the interpretation is wrong.

EDIT: I want to say, that this is of course my interpretation of the rules. :smallsmile:

[Psyren]

One can do what ever they want at their own table of course (I'm not arguing against that), but in terms of what the veil actually does, which incidentally is effecting all items (without distinction between tended or otherwise) with a disintegrate spell.



EDIT: I want to say, that this is of course my interpretation of the rules. :smallsmile:

The condescending "you can do what you want at your own table" kind of undermines the "this is my interpretation" attempt at being humble.

As for me, I play 3.PF, and the Pathfinder devs have confirmed that Interpretation B is RAI for that prismatic layer. I'm not "doing what I want at my own table" - I'm following the designer intent. So by all means, do what you want, and thankfully I won't be at that table.

[Beheld]

Indeed... I think "agreed upon" is a strong wording, but yes most of you had that interpretation, but that directly goes against what the veil says it does. I'm just pointing that out. One can do what ever they want at their own table of course (I'm not arguing against that), but in terms of what the veil actually does, which incidentally is effecting all items (without distinction between tended or otherwise) with a disintegrate spell. For a disintegrate spell to affect an item it does not need to be untended, therefore the veil must too affect attended items as per the spell. Crossing the veil is like getting all your items targeted with by disintegrate and the creature with plane shift.

I'm not arguing that he should not use whatever interpretation he wants, but that the interpretation is wrong.

EDIT: I want to say, that this is of course my interpretation of the rules. :smallsmile:

There is no reasonable interpretation that it effects items with the Disintegrate spell at all.

[curious-puzzle]

I decided to err on the side of the Pathfinder devs, but I can certainly see the arguments for the veil forcing a save vs disintegration on all items. Like I said originally, all the previous threads I could find on this never had a definitive answer. Sorry for bringing a contentious topic back up, but thank you for all the input, everyone!

[Max Caysey]

The condescending "you can do what you want at your own table" kind of undermines the "this is my interpretation" attempt at being humble.

As for me, I play 3.PF, and the Pathfinder devs have confirmed that Interpretation B is RAI for that prismatic layer. I'm not "doing what I want at my own table" - I'm following the designer intent. So by all means, do what you want, and thankfully I won't be at that table.

The reason for my attempt at humbleness was that I saw I was coming across as being condescending. I'm always advocating doing what fits your table. We use homebrew, 3rd-party and are in no way hung up on RAW at my table, so it was a sincere attempt to show that I understand choosing something different than RAW... Again I am sorry for coming across like that. We actually have a good game. Would you not want to play with someone because of one ruling? That's a bit harsh... don't you think?

By the way... do you have a reference for the PF-development statement/clarification?


There is no reasonable interpretation that it effects items with the Disintegrate spell at all.

Yes there is. The veil specifically state that: the veil "destroys all objects and effects that cross it, as if they were disintegrated" The way disintegrate interacts with items are via a saving throw. Either its own or its holder, which ever is highest - and only if they are magical. Otherwise they are just destroyed. So the veil literally says that all items crossing the barrier are effected by the disintegrate spell. Which consequently does not care if the item is held or not.

Anytime in the writeup a spell is mentioned, its italicized. The part about "all items are destroyed that cross the veil as if they were disintegrated is italicized. I personally take that for meaning the spell disintegrate. If they do not mean disintegrate, then they probably don't mean plane shift either. And again, as mentioned, the spell disintegrate does not target the creature, but the items specifically and the way disintegrate handles items are by allowing a saving throw or be dusted. I really cant put it more simply than that.


I decided to err on the side of the Pathfinder devs, but I can certainly see the arguments for the veil forcing a save vs disintegration on all items. Like I said originally, all the previous threads I could find on this never had a definitive answer. Sorry for bringing a contentious topic back up, but thank you for all the input, everyone!

You should not apologize at all. I like a good argument. This is how we learn stuff. To think, if one day, there would be topics that we could not openly discuss for fear that someone might get their feelings hurt. That would be the day society as a whole would start degenerating... Sure am glad there's no places like that :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

We actually have a good game. Would you not want to play with someone because of one ruling? That's a bit harsh... don't you think?

Holding to a ruling that nukes my equipment before displacing me from the party is a bit harsh, don't you think?

No, I absolutely would not play with a GM who did that. It's the same reason our groups use PF Disjunction even when we play otherwise 3.5 games.



By the way... do you have a reference for the PF-development statement/clarification?

"Objects, in this case, refers to nonmagical non-living things that are used to try to breach the wall. Like thrown rocks, thrown tables, arrows, catapult boulders, and so on. Any objects or items or whatever that are "attended" (as in, carried or worn by a creature) are NOT destroyed, but travel with the person carrying/holding them off to whatever other plane that person ends up going to. If the person makes their Will save to avoid being sent to another plane, he can stroll right on through the wall with all his stuff intact.

Allowing prismatic wall to automatically destroy every object that passes through it, in other words, IS a bit excessive. The intent of the spell is to prevent anyone from making ranged attacks with weapons or spells or abilities against those on he other side, basically, not to provide a static disintegration wall. The limitations of the table format forced us to be a bit more brief than we should have been in describing it, alas." (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kkvg?Prismatic-Wall-Violet-Layer-Severe#7)

[Max Caysey]

Holding to a ruling that nukes my equipment before displacing me from the party is a bit harsh, don't you think?

No, I absolutely would not play with a GM who did that. It's the same reason our groups use PF Disjunction even when we play otherwise 3.5 games.



"Objects, in this case, refers to nonmagical non-living things that are used to try to breach the wall. Like thrown rocks, thrown tables, arrows, catapult boulders, and so on. Any objects or items or whatever that are "attended" (as in, carried or worn by a creature) are NOT destroyed, but travel with the person carrying/holding them off to whatever other plane that person ends up going to. If the person makes their Will save to avoid being sent to another plane, he can stroll right on through the wall with all his stuff intact.

Allowing prismatic wall to automatically destroy every object that passes through it, in other words, IS a bit excessive. The intent of the spell is to prevent anyone from making ranged attacks with weapons or spells or abilities against those on he other side, basically, not to provide a static disintegration wall. The limitations of the table format forced us to be a bit more brief than we should have been in describing it, alas." (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kkvg?Prismatic-Wall-Violet-Layer-Severe#7)

Items get a save against Mordenkainen's Disjunction too you know! :smallwink:


Thank you for that link. A few questions arise from that:

1) Are the rules exactly the same in PF and D&D 3.5 for the prismatic spell line?

2) Does the PrC exist in both rule-sets?

3) Is this link (and the designers explanation) more or less official than "Ask Wizards"?

4) Do all the designers across the two rule-sets agree to this interpretation of the prismatic wall?

5) Do all the designers across the two rule-sets agree to this interpretation of PrC?

6) Since there is no direct explanations in the prismatic wall spell, as to how the spell destroys, I can buy that that's the way its intended. But, at the same time, the IotSV specifically tells os that items are hit by disintegrate. So by RAW, I'm right, by RAI, I'm apparently wrong! So I guess this is again one of the many places where inconsistency and terrible wording is making a mess of things. I guess the PrC is then open for interpretation as to whether one uses the RAI (at least by a PF-designer) or by the way the designers actually wrote/ worded the PrC.

One could argue, that being a PrC focusing on a single spell's effects, that the effects were empowered and thus the violet veil gained significant power. However one could also argue that the PrC 100% mirrors the effect of the prismatic wall spell - no more, no less. In each case, there is a blatant inconsistency in what apparently is the intention and what is actually written. I will of course be arguing either way depending on what side of the veil I'm going to be, should that class ever come up in a game. :smallbiggrin:

I don't know... Maybe I'm assuming that the level of play involving an Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil is at a level where saving against such spells become trivial. Let's assume my interpretation: The violet veil comes online at level 16 (not considering some Tippy-method to get it at level 1 :smallwink:). At that level you are looking at a potential (no cheese) maximum DC of 34 for the disintegration effect. And probably substantially less. Not an impossible roll to make (With the same level of optimization as the level 16 Initiate, a melee mundane character would have +29 fort. save). So about 80% chance of saving. Again lower levels of optimization of both parts will reduce both DC and save but probable keep it around 75%.

The higher the level the lower the save DC is going to be, since save DC doesn't advance as quickly as saving throws does. At something like level 30 all but a 1 will destroy the items. At that level there are easier ways than walking through a blanket of disintegration. The effect thus are most potent at level 16...

I do think its fair game to use the interpretation of the designer (the link) and I think its fair game to use my interpretation. But I'm still convinced that the RAW interpretation (however much the wording is a mistake by the designers) is to have all items affected by disintegrate.


EDIT: I just realized that its a spell-like effect, which means the DC is: 10 + level of the effect (8th for the violet veil) + charisma modifier, which for most wizards would be less that impressive. I had never noticed that before! I wonder if the spell focus (abjuration) improves the DC for the spell like ability, which the veils are?

[Psyren]

(1) Many spells were tweaked, but those specific spells are the same, yes.
(2) Yes and no. PF is backwards compatible, and I specified 3.PF to denote that.
(3) More official, PF doesn't have the "Primary Source" rule that plagues 3.5.
(4-5) You'd have to ask the 3.5 devs that. (And while you have them on the phone, ask them about the ToB errata, would you?)



I do think its fair game to use the interpretation of the designer (the link) and I think its fair game to use my interpretation. But I'm still convinced that the RAW interpretation (however much the wording is a mistake by the designers) is to have all items affected by disintegrate.

And that's totally fine, no one is stopping you. It just means I have no interest in playing at your table. Glad we could reach that understanding.

[Max Caysey]

(1) Many spells were tweaked, but those specific spells are the same, yes.
(2) Yes and no. PF is backwards compatible, and I specified 3.PF to denote that.
(3) More official, PF doesn't have the "Primary Source" rule that plagues 3.5.
(4-5) You'd have to ask the 3.5 devs that. (And while you have them on the phone, ask them about the ToB errata, would you?)

Ok thanks. Ha ha... If only that were so easy. I would ask them to proof read the whole shebang! And write op some official explanations for the endless dysfunctions and inconsistencies across the rule-set.



And that's totally fine, no one is stopping you. It just means I have no interest in playing at your table. Glad we could reach that understanding.

Aww.. come on man... give us a chance... :smallwink:


On a different note, I actually looked up the spell in my 1st and 2nd ed books. Therein the spell does not have the destroy seen in the violet color, only the plane shift effect. That leads me to believe that its a 3.0 invention. Do we by any chance know, what specifically James Jacobs designed? Or who might have had the responsibility of updating spells?

[Psyren]

If you want more information about the Paizo design team and their thought process, you should probably ask them. Since I agree with their conclusion (and since I don't particularly care about the 3.5 team), I haven't felt the need to dig further.

[Max Caysey]

If you want more information about the Paizo design team and their thought process, you should probably ask them. Since I agree with their conclusion (and since I don't particularly care about the 3.5 team), I haven't felt the need to dig further.

True... Makes sense.

I know I'm changing the subject, but since the thread is over... I actually want to run something by you.

Since the order in which you pass through the wall is:

Red=> Orange => Yellow => Green=> Blue=> Indigo => Violet, but all items are blocked before the violet (destroying) layer. One can assume that no items ever gets destroyed this way... right?(The idea is that they are thrown or shot into the wall?

And what about the indigo stopping all spells. Does it differs from ongoing spell effects like mage armor, fireball? If it does not, then either the spell effect is stripped of the creature stopping at the indogo color or the whole creature is blocked from passing through... again never reaching the violet color.

Also how does the colors know when your axe if a trowing weapon or not? And if your carrying said weapon is that blocked too? And what about arrows and or bows? Can the colors tell the difference between a strung and unstrung bow (essentially a small staff?)

My point being, that unless one is to take down the first seven layers one will never get to the violet... one is simply blocked before ever reaching it.

Again the veils can be put up so only the violet is up, but for prismatic wall... just something I've been thinking about! Call me nuts :smallredface:

[Psyren]

The spell itself answers your question: "Violet makes the other colors redundant."

Remember you have to take the layers down one at a time (unless you nuke it via MJ/RoC.) Violet is basically there so that nothing can gets through the wall until you get rid of the whole thing. It serves as "goalie" for all the other colors.

Basically, it's a convenience for the GM and players - as long as any part of the wall is standing, they know intuitively that anything standing behind the wall is safe without having to constantly look up what the other layers do, because that last layer is a catch-all. So yes, red and orange and indigo are blocking most ranged attacks too, but if you get rid of all those, you don't have to open your PHB/CRB to know that you still have work to do.