Geas vs. Lesser Geas

[Aquillion]

Is it just me, or are the penalties for disobeying a Lesser Geas actually far worse than disobeying a Geas?

Lesser Geas gives you a cumulative -2 to all ability scores, up to a max of -8. Realistically, someone with -8 to all ability scores is utterly useless.

By comparison, Geas does 3d6 damage a day. No, not 3d6 ability damage (I had to read it three times to be sure), 3d6 normal damage, less than you'd take in a typical attack at that level, and it's almost certainly taken outside of combat when you can go seek healing safely. The damage doesn't increase, either. There's a fort save to avoid being sickened, but who cares? Sickened is -2 to some checks, while reaching -4 or more to your ability scores would give the same penalty (or worse) to everything. Unless you're somehow casting a Geas on something with less than 3d6 hit points, or one with no recourse to magical healing at all, I just don't see the point.

Geas does have the advantages of any HD target and no saving throw, but still. Why is the penalty for ignoring it just so much weaker? The only thing I can think of is that you might not want the Geas to hit the victim so hard, since you want them to be able to fufill it where a few days of being forced to ignore a Lesser Geas could easily leave them unable to do so... but still, it strikes me as odd.

[Aximili]

Geas does have the advantages of any HD target and no saving throw, but still. Why is the penalty for ignoring it just so much weaker?

Your question follows its answer.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Your question follows its answer.

Typically the higher spell level is payment enough. Hold monster and dominate monster are both identical in effect to hold person and dominate person, with the increase in spell level being the only payment for the greater range of targets.

As it is, you have the odd situation of wanting to use a "lesser" version of the spell if you can verify the target doesn't have too many hit dice. That doesn't make any sense. It's like saying a sledgehammer does a worse job of smashing a balsa wood airplane model than a normal hammer.

[Aximili]

I'm not saying it's right It's just the only reason I can think off.

But from hold person to hold monster the only difference is the target. From Lesser Geas to Geas you have the huge advantage of not allowing saving throws (though the casting time of 10 minutes should already make up for that).

[Indon]

Would the two spells stack; i.e. you place both spells on one target with the same geas, and they take the penalties for both?

[Mewtarthio]

I'm not saying it's right It's just the only reason I can think off.

But from hold person to hold monster the only difference is the target. From Lesser Geas to Geas you have the huge advantage of not allowing saving throws (though the casting time of 10 minutes should already make up for that).

If you've got a target helpless for ten minutes, you're going to be able to make him fail a save eventually.

[Aximili]

Indeed, "the casting time of 10 minutes should already make up for that".

[Shhalahr Windrider]

From Lesser Geas to Geas you have the huge advantage of not allowing saving throws (though the casting time of 10 minutes should already make up for that).

Wow. I looked past that one.

Yeah, I think the casting time difference should make up for that anyway.

[Douglas]

How about changing it to a 3d6 (stacking) penalty to hit points? That way it affects maximum hp, can't be removed by any means but removing the Geas itself, and goes away automatically when the subject resumes following the Geas. Keep ignoring a Geas like that, and you'll eventually end up dead just from having maximum hp of 0, but if you decide you've had enough and resume following it you don't have to find healing to get back to having your full capabilies available for satisfying the mage's demand.

[TheOOB]

Well, a lesser geas is incapable of killing the target, and can be removed by any 5th level cleric you come across, so theirs not a huge incentive for them to complete the geas. Sure they are weakened if they don't attempt to complete it, but they are entirely capable of surviving while under the effects of the spell, and even in a fairly low magic campaign it should be too hard to find someone capable of casting remove curse. Also all the ability damage goes away after you attempt to complete the geas for 1 day, so they don't even need to do it quickly.

A geas/quest on the other hand can and will kill the target if they don't work to complete the geas, 3d6 isn't much to an adventurer, but it's a lot to most people in the world, and unless they have a cleric friend willing to spare a cure spell or two every day for the rest of their lives they will die from it eventually. Also, a geas is a pain in the but to use, as not just any 5th level cleric can remove it, you need someone whos caster level is at least 2 levels higher then you, which can be very very hard to find.

[Quietus]

I'd houserule that it's 3d6 per day that you don't follow the geas. So if you follow the geas for a week, then try to ignore it the next day, whack, 3d6 damage. "Crap!", you say to yourself, then continue following the geas for another week, until you get annoyed, realize you're a high level adventurer, and can take the 3d6... so you stop following it for a day. And take 6d6. Then 9d6 the next day. Sure, the hit points can be healed, but it's a huge pain in the rear, and if you try to ignore it for long enough, eventually, that damage will stack high enough that it WILL be notable.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

...3d6 isn't much to an adventurer, but it's a lot to most people in the world...

But how many wizards capable of casting geas are gonna be interested in casting it on "most people in the world" rather than people a bit closer to their own level?

[Indon]

I just noticed that the penalty really isn't as important as I thought; Geas isn't just "Hey, go do this, you get punished if you don't," it's a compulsion; it FORCES the target to comply. The penalty is only if something is preventing the target from trying to follow the compulsion.

I seem to recall that previous versions of the spell weren't compulsory, so this surprised me.

[Aximili]

Well, a lesser geas is incapable of killing the target, and can be removed by any 5th level cleric you come across, so theirs not a huge incentive for them to complete the geas. Sure they are weakened if they don't attempt to complete it, but they are entirely capable of surviving while under the effects of the spell, and even in a fairly low magic campaign it should be too hard to find someone capable of casting remove curse. Also all the ability damage goes away after you attempt to complete the geas for 1 day, so they don't even need to do it quickly.

Actually, he is forced to comply. The penalty only comes when he is impeded from complying. Which means he is not gonna go looking for a cleric.

Of course, if he's an adventurer in a party with a friendly cleric, the guy's gonna notice it right away and cast the necessary 3rd level spell. But if he's not in a party with a friendly cleric...

[Mewtarthio]

Actually, he is forced to comply. The penalty only comes when he is impeded from complying. Which means he is not gonna go looking for a cleric.

Of course, if he's an adventurer in a party with a friendly cleric, the guy's gonna notice it right away and cast the necessary 3rd level spell. But if he's not in a party with a friendly cleric...

Which is why I've always wondered why geas/quest is recommended for Paladins and the like who wish to atone. You're forcing them to do something: There's no redemption involved. It would be like winning a lawsuit against someone and thanking them for giving you such nice compensation, or even those infamous gunpoint conversions and confessions that we see throughout history ("Are you a witch?" "No!" "Die, you lying fiend!" "No, wait, I'm a witch, and the devil told me to lie." "Praise God! She at last speaks the truth!"). What next? Casting Dominate Person on the ex-Paladin, forcing him to give all his money to the poor, and then restoring his powers because of that?

[Variable Arcana]

Re: Paladin redemption...

Think of it this way, the Paladin can either:

1) Go on a good and noble quest (without his powers) and through his perseverence and sacrifice prove his worthiness to regain his powers.

or

2) Accept (i.e. willingly fail his saving throw) a Geas to go on that same good and noble quest, the completion of which would prove his worthiness, and receive his powers back in advance -- and get to use them in furtherance of the quest, rather than having to perform it as an under-strength fighter.

[Tobrian]

How about changing it to a 3d6 (stacking) penalty to hit points? That way it affects maximum hp, can't be removed by any means but removing the Geas itself, and goes away automatically when the subject resumes following the Geas. Keep ignoring a Geas like that, and you'll eventually end up dead just from having maximum hp of 0, but if you decide you've had enough and resume following it you don't have to find healing to get back to having your full capabilies available for satisfying the mage's demand.

Oh I like that idea. Very devious.

I just noticed that the penalty really isn't as important as I thought; Geas isn't just "Hey, go do this, you get punished if you don't," it's a compulsion; it FORCES the target to comply. The penalty is only if something is preventing the target from trying to follow the compulsion.

I seem to recall that previous versions of the spell weren't compulsory, so this surprised me.

*opens the PHB 3.5 and checks*
You're right. That's odd, if the spell places the victim under a mental compulsion similar to Dominate Person, then why the penalties? They used to be a threat and deterrent, now they're just... a curse?

Sounds like the spell was changed between 3.0 and 3.5 (I don't have my old 3.0 PHB to hand right now to check) and the game writer didn't think about it long enough to notice that now saddling the victim with penalties of any kind is rather superfluous. So now the victim gets punished with a curse-like effect or wounds when someone else prevents the victim of the Geas from following the Geas? Isn't that self-defeating?
Unless you're a sadist and put a (lesser) Geas on someone and then lock them up in a small room and gloat while they suffer, what good is it if the person you put under the Geas grows weaker when someone locks her up, which means her ability to free herself and resume the task grows worse every day.

[Reinboom]

Unless you're a sadist and put a (lesser) Geas on someone and then lock them up in a small room and gloat while they suffer,

Ooo, I think I shall try that.


Hmmn, I think a good houserule would be to take either side of geas. Either have stacking 3d6 damage -or- make it a compulsion effect, but not both.