Forums of the Megaverse®

Yeah, sorry, but no 'can't make land mines and porta-ward tapestries' doesn't do anything to say that you can't put a ward on someone, nor does it say a diabolist can't handle a warded item without setting it off. It only says that IN THESE CASES those abilities can't let you get away with doing these things. Those limitations don't say 'no you can't do those things you can do' they say 'can't do these things even if you can do that'.

If you had two passages and one said 'can make ward tapestries' and another said 'can't make ward tapestries' you'd have a contradiction, but nothing about what it says you can't do can be reasonably interpreted to mean it's saying you can't do things you can do. Ward mines and ward grenades don't work for reasons that have nothing to do with a Diabolist's ability to safely touch and handle items he's warded nor does the ability for someone to walk around with a working ward on them have anything to do with whether or not a non-living item can be tossed around with one on it and not have it fail.

But again you aren't willing to accept that the limitations aren't contradictions because you wish to make Diabolists more powerful because you perceive them to be weak and ineffectual in areas that they're supposed to be weak in, rather than accept that they can't do what they can't do and what they can do has no bearing on what they're told they can't do.

If someone can use all weapons but can't touch yellow by your reasoning he can use a yellow weapon anyway because 'well it's a contradiction, he can use all weapons so should be able to use the yellow one too'. But that's not a contradiction, it's a limitation qualifying that his ability to use all weapons isn't absolute. The diabolist's ability to safely handle his own runes is not absolute, it will not allow for warded items that are moved about or frequently handled like weapons to escape the runes being damaged and rendered inert nor will it allow you to paint wards onto tapestries to unfurl as needed because again that ability won't make the ward immune to being damaged and rendered inert by being rolled up and later unrolled.

It's the physical activity that's directly destroying the ward, because again they aren't made to be handled and are easily wiped away and destroyed. Which is why the Diabolist's immunity doesn't matter, he can no more handle it without risking rubbing away the physical runes than anyone else can he just doesn't have to worry about it blowing up in his face when he handles the item like it would anyone else. These should be very simple and obvious facts and it's baffling to me that you think these wards are indestructible and the Diabolist can handle warded items without fear he'll rub off the very easily damaged wards for no other reason than 'well he's immune to setting them off so somehow bizarrely that means the wards are immune to being rubbed away and ruined'. Because you're definitely espousing a contradiction that in spite of the books saying wards can be easily damaged and destroyed that they're immune to being damaged by any sorts of vigorous activity because the Diabolist's touch is magically making them immune to being wiped away while he's handling them. NOTHING in the books should be leading anyone to think Diabolists can't damage their own wards by mishandling them, in fact the 'can't be placed on anything handled or used frequently' makes it quite clear that even the diabolist can still damage them and it rises to a certainty for frequently handled items.

Natasha wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Natasha wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Natasha wrote:Since the intent of the ward creator is that the icon is not a grenade and the intent of the rules that the icon is not a grenade, then it ought not be handled as a grenade. The moment it is used as such, the ward is rendered inert. The paladin will suffer no ill effects from catching it. If he continues to carry it around with him, that is a different story.

Would that mean that I could carry a warded item and be fine, as long as the item wasn't intended to be carried, since I am not violating the intent of the ward? *visualizes people juggling loot to prevent the wards from working *

No, you are violating the intent of the ward by moving the object; the verb you choose is irrelevant.

that's the POINT though. If a thief can make a ward deactivate by 'violating the intent' wouldn't they...violate the intent so they can deactivate the ward?
the issue is does
1) the ward work all the time the statue is moved, regardless of the intent of the mover
2) only work when the statue is moved, and the intent of the mover is not to do something that might violate the intent of the ward maker

this is important. since in case 1 you can make a situation where you have a grenade/mine. In case 2 you have a situation where you can get around a ward by violating its intent. Either way seems to break one of the base conditions for the ward.

The devil is in the details. Few rules can cover every case, which is why people say that there are exceptions to every rule and that rules are made to be broken.

Two solutions being mutually exclusive do not rule both out as a solution. It only means that they cannot be used simultaneously. The Game Master may use context to determine the proper solution.

Except we aren't seeing mutually exclusive rules, we don't have a 'can do X' rule vs a 'Can't do X' rule, we have a 'can do X' and a 'but can't do Y'. 'Can handle your own warded items safely' and 'but still can't make ward tapestries' aren't mutually exclusive rules, the fact you can handle your own bomb without it blowing up in your face doesn't mean you can't still break it handling it wrong.

Wards are vulnerable to being rubbed away and destroyed no matter who handles the item, including the diabolist who created them (NO rule anywhere says that their wards are immune to that happening), and pre-made ward mines are certainly going to end up rubbed away and damaged being transported around, and a ward tapestry is going to be ruined the moment you roll it up as the wards are smeared around the opposing surface. While an exception might be made for applying some wards to people given it's an explicitly stated thing and not written as a broad rule it certainly can't be applied to whether or not you can get away with ward grenades or ward tapestries, people aren't rocks or pieces of cloth. Heck maybe it's as simple as skin is a surface wards like better than cloth, we don't know, we don't need to know, we just need to know that they work that way on living things but not on non-living things.

Nightmask wrote:Except we aren't seeing mutually exclusive rules, we don't have a 'can do X' rule vs a 'Can't do X' rule, we have a 'can do X' and a 'but can't do Y'. 'Can handle your own warded items safely' and 'but still can't make ward tapestries' aren't mutually exclusive rules, the fact you can handle your own bomb without it blowing up in your face doesn't mean you can't still break it handling it wrong.

Wards are vulnerable to being rubbed away and destroyed no matter who handles the item, including the diabolist who created them (NO rule anywhere says that their wards are immune to that happening), and pre-made ward mines are certainly going to end up rubbed away and damaged being transported around, and a ward tapestry is going to be ruined the moment you roll it up as the wards are smeared around the opposing surface. While an exception might be made for applying some wards to people given it's an explicitly stated thing and not written as a broad rule it certainly can't be applied to whether or not you can get away with ward grenades or ward tapestries, people aren't rocks or pieces of cloth. Heck maybe it's as simple as skin is a surface wards like better than cloth, we don't know, we don't need to know, we just need to know that they work that way on living things but not on non-living things.

I didn’t say we are seeing mutually exclusive rules. I said mutually exclusive solutions do not negate each solution. Use the solution that solves the problem.

As for the second part of your post, I don’t know why you’re directing it to me.

Nightmask wrote:Yeah, sorry, but no 'can't make land mines and porta-ward tapestries' doesn't do anything to say that you can't put a ward on someone, nor does it say a diabolist can't handle a warded item without setting it off. It only says that IN THESE CASES those abilities can't let you get away with doing these things. Those limitations don't say 'no you can't do those things you can do' they say 'can't do these things even if you can do that'.

If you had two passages and one said 'can make ward tapestries' and another said 'can't make ward tapestries' you'd have a contradiction, but nothing about what it says you can't do can be reasonably interpreted to mean it's saying you can't do things you can do. Ward mines and ward grenades don't work for reasons that have nothing to do with a Diabolist's ability to safely touch and handle items he's warded nor does the ability for someone to walk around with a working ward on them have anything to do with whether or not a non-living item can be tossed around with one on it and not have it fail.

But again you aren't willing to accept that the limitations aren't contradictions because you wish to make Diabolists more powerful because you perceive them to be weak and ineffectual in areas that they're supposed to be weak in, rather than accept that they can't do what they can't do and what they can do has no bearing on what they're told they can't do.

If someone can use all weapons but can't touch yellow by your reasoning he can use a yellow weapon anyway because 'well it's a contradiction, he can use all weapons so should be able to use the yellow one too'. But that's not a contradiction, it's a limitation qualifying that his ability to use all weapons isn't absolute. The diabolist's ability to safely handle his own runes is not absolute, it will not allow for warded items that are moved about or frequently handled like weapons to escape the runes being damaged and rendered inert nor will it allow you to paint wards onto tapestries to unfurl as needed because again that ability won't make the ward immune to being damaged and rendered inert by being rolled up and later unrolled.

It's the physical activity that's directly destroying the ward, because again they aren't made to be handled and are easily wiped away and destroyed. Which is why the Diabolist's immunity doesn't matter, he can no more handle it without risking rubbing away the physical runes than anyone else can he just doesn't have to worry about it blowing up in his face when he handles the item like it would anyone else. These should be very simple and obvious facts and it's baffling to me that you think these wards are indestructible and the Diabolist can handle warded items without fear he'll rub off the very easily damaged wards for no other reason than 'well he's immune to setting them off so somehow bizarrely that means the wards are immune to being rubbed away and ruined'. Because you're definitely espousing a contradiction that in spite of the books saying wards can be easily damaged and destroyed that they're immune to being damaged by any sorts of vigorous activity because the Diabolist's touch is magically making them immune to being wiped away while he's handling them. NOTHING in the books should be leading anyone to think Diabolists can't damage their own wards by mishandling them, in fact the 'can't be placed on anything handled or used frequently' makes it quite clear that even the diabolist can still damage them and it rises to a certainty for frequently handled items.

To whom is this directed?

Nightmask wrote:Yeah, sorry, but no 'can't make land mines and porta-ward tapestries' doesn't do anything to say that you can't put a ward on someone, nor does it say a diabolist can't handle a warded item without setting it off. It only says that IN THESE CASES those abilities can't let you get away with doing these things. Those limitations don't say 'no you can't do those things you can do' they say 'can't do these things even if you can do that'.

If you had two passages and one said 'can make ward tapestries' and another said 'can't make ward tapestries' you'd have a contradiction, but nothing about what it says you can't do can be reasonably interpreted to mean it's saying you can't do things you can do. Ward mines and ward grenades don't work for reasons that have nothing to do with a Diabolist's ability to safely touch and handle items he's warded nor does the ability for someone to walk around with a working ward on them have anything to do with whether or not a non-living item can be tossed around with one on it and not have it fail.

But again you aren't willing to accept that the limitations aren't contradictions because you wish to make Diabolists more powerful because you perceive them to be weak and ineffectual in areas that they're supposed to be weak in, rather than accept that they can't do what they can't do and what they can do has no bearing on what they're told they can't do.

If someone can use all weapons but can't touch yellow by your reasoning he can use a yellow weapon anyway because 'well it's a contradiction, he can use all weapons so should be able to use the yellow one too'. But that's not a contradiction, it's a limitation qualifying that his ability to use all weapons isn't absolute. The diabolist's ability to safely handle his own runes is not absolute, it will not allow for warded items that are moved about or frequently handled like weapons to escape the runes being damaged and rendered inert nor will it allow you to paint wards onto tapestries to unfurl as needed because again that ability won't make the ward immune to being damaged and rendered inert by being rolled up and later unrolled.

It's the physical activity that's directly destroying the ward, because again they aren't made to be handled and are easily wiped away and destroyed. Which is why the Diabolist's immunity doesn't matter, he can no more handle it without risking rubbing away the physical runes than anyone else can he just doesn't have to worry about it blowing up in his face when he handles the item like it would anyone else. These should be very simple and obvious facts and it's baffling to me that you think these wards are indestructible and the Diabolist can handle warded items without fear he'll rub off the very easily damaged wards for no other reason than 'well he's immune to setting them off so somehow bizarrely that means the wards are immune to being rubbed away and ruined'. Because you're definitely espousing a contradiction that in spite of the books saying wards can be easily damaged and destroyed that they're immune to being damaged by any sorts of vigorous activity because the Diabolist's touch is magically making them immune to being wiped away while he's handling them. NOTHING in the books should be leading anyone to think Diabolists can't damage their own wards by mishandling them, in fact the 'can't be placed on anything handled or used frequently' makes it quite clear that even the diabolist can still damage them and it rises to a certainty for frequently handled items.

I think you miss the point of my exercise. I am demonstrating that the rules ARE mutually exclusive and contradictory. I am doing so, not by saying that it is, but by giving a concrete example of how the two rules have different outcomes for the same action. Since this is not Schrodinger's ward I will assume that it is limited to one outcome per act. If you would like I can make a clear, step by step explanation of how this occurs, and the logic behind it.

Natasha wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Yeah, sorry, but no 'can't make land mines and porta-ward tapestries' doesn't do anything to say that you can't put a ward on someone, nor does it say a diabolist can't handle a warded item without setting it off. It only says that IN THESE CASES those abilities can't let you get away with doing these things. Those limitations don't say 'no you can't do those things you can do' they say 'can't do these things even if you can do that'.

If you had two passages and one said 'can make ward tapestries' and another said 'can't make ward tapestries' you'd have a contradiction, but nothing about what it says you can't do can be reasonably interpreted to mean it's saying you can't do things you can do. Ward mines and ward grenades don't work for reasons that have nothing to do with a Diabolist's ability to safely touch and handle items he's warded nor does the ability for someone to walk around with a working ward on them have anything to do with whether or not a non-living item can be tossed around with one on it and not have it fail.

But again you aren't willing to accept that the limitations aren't contradictions because you wish to make Diabolists more powerful because you perceive them to be weak and ineffectual in areas that they're supposed to be weak in, rather than accept that they can't do what they can't do and what they can do has no bearing on what they're told they can't do.

If someone can use all weapons but can't touch yellow by your reasoning he can use a yellow weapon anyway because 'well it's a contradiction, he can use all weapons so should be able to use the yellow one too'. But that's not a contradiction, it's a limitation qualifying that his ability to use all weapons isn't absolute. The diabolist's ability to safely handle his own runes is not absolute, it will not allow for warded items that are moved about or frequently handled like weapons to escape the runes being damaged and rendered inert nor will it allow you to paint wards onto tapestries to unfurl as needed because again that ability won't make the ward immune to being damaged and rendered inert by being rolled up and later unrolled.

It's the physical activity that's directly destroying the ward, because again they aren't made to be handled and are easily wiped away and destroyed. Which is why the Diabolist's immunity doesn't matter, he can no more handle it without risking rubbing away the physical runes than anyone else can he just doesn't have to worry about it blowing up in his face when he handles the item like it would anyone else. These should be very simple and obvious facts and it's baffling to me that you think these wards are indestructible and the Diabolist can handle warded items without fear he'll rub off the very easily damaged wards for no other reason than 'well he's immune to setting them off so somehow bizarrely that means the wards are immune to being rubbed away and ruined'. Because you're definitely espousing a contradiction that in spite of the books saying wards can be easily damaged and destroyed that they're immune to being damaged by any sorts of vigorous activity because the Diabolist's touch is magically making them immune to being wiped away while he's handling them. NOTHING in the books should be leading anyone to think Diabolists can't damage their own wards by mishandling them, in fact the 'can't be placed on anything handled or used frequently' makes it quite clear that even the diabolist can still damage them and it rises to a certainty for frequently handled items.

To whom is this directed?

The thread originator.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Yeah, sorry, but no 'can't make land mines and porta-ward tapestries' doesn't do anything to say that you can't put a ward on someone, nor does it say a diabolist can't handle a warded item without setting it off. It only says that IN THESE CASES those abilities can't let you get away with doing these things. Those limitations don't say 'no you can't do those things you can do' they say 'can't do these things even if you can do that'.

If you had two passages and one said 'can make ward tapestries' and another said 'can't make ward tapestries' you'd have a contradiction, but nothing about what it says you can't do can be reasonably interpreted to mean it's saying you can't do things you can do. Ward mines and ward grenades don't work for reasons that have nothing to do with a Diabolist's ability to safely touch and handle items he's warded nor does the ability for someone to walk around with a working ward on them have anything to do with whether or not a non-living item can be tossed around with one on it and not have it fail.

But again you aren't willing to accept that the limitations aren't contradictions because you wish to make Diabolists more powerful because you perceive them to be weak and ineffectual in areas that they're supposed to be weak in, rather than accept that they can't do what they can't do and what they can do has no bearing on what they're told they can't do.

If someone can use all weapons but can't touch yellow by your reasoning he can use a yellow weapon anyway because 'well it's a contradiction, he can use all weapons so should be able to use the yellow one too'. But that's not a contradiction, it's a limitation qualifying that his ability to use all weapons isn't absolute. The diabolist's ability to safely handle his own runes is not absolute, it will not allow for warded items that are moved about or frequently handled like weapons to escape the runes being damaged and rendered inert nor will it allow you to paint wards onto tapestries to unfurl as needed because again that ability won't make the ward immune to being damaged and rendered inert by being rolled up and later unrolled.

It's the physical activity that's directly destroying the ward, because again they aren't made to be handled and are easily wiped away and destroyed. Which is why the Diabolist's immunity doesn't matter, he can no more handle it without risking rubbing away the physical runes than anyone else can he just doesn't have to worry about it blowing up in his face when he handles the item like it would anyone else. These should be very simple and obvious facts and it's baffling to me that you think these wards are indestructible and the Diabolist can handle warded items without fear he'll rub off the very easily damaged wards for no other reason than 'well he's immune to setting them off so somehow bizarrely that means the wards are immune to being rubbed away and ruined'. Because you're definitely espousing a contradiction that in spite of the books saying wards can be easily damaged and destroyed that they're immune to being damaged by any sorts of vigorous activity because the Diabolist's touch is magically making them immune to being wiped away while he's handling them. NOTHING in the books should be leading anyone to think Diabolists can't damage their own wards by mishandling them, in fact the 'can't be placed on anything handled or used frequently' makes it quite clear that even the diabolist can still damage them and it rises to a certainty for frequently handled items.

I think you miss the point of my exercise. I am demonstrating that the rules ARE mutually exclusive and contradictory. I am doing so, not by saying that it is, but by giving a concrete example of how the two rules have different outcomes for the same action. Since this is not Schrodinger's ward I will assume that it is limited to one outcome per act.

Sorry, this wasn't intended to be a response to your thought exercises, but to the thread originator. Think I need a day off as I'm repeating myself and getting way to verbose and confusing some with who I'm replying to.

As far as the rules go, they aren't mutually exclusive, but there is some greyness because writers don't generally do things like 'will wear off and fail after being handled X number of times' but just shorthand to things like 'can't be used on items handled frequently' where the GM has to decide what frequently means or how much handling would damage a ward enough to cause it to fail.

eliakon wrote:I think you miss the point of my exercise. I am demonstrating that the rules ARE mutually exclusive and contradictory. I am doing so, not by saying that it is, but by giving a concrete example of how the two rules have different outcomes for the same action. Since this is not Schrodinger's ward I will assume that it is limited to one outcome per act. If you would like I can make a clear, step by step explanation of how this occurs, and the logic behind it.

And one of two mutually exclusive solutions. The correct solution may be determined by the context. The only requirement is that solution be used every time for that particular context.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Wards are subject to wearing off (as in physical wear, i.e. rubbing off) which is likely at least one reason you can't put them on frequently handled items. Because you're handling it you're damaging the ward (since few wards are permanent and nearly all are done up using easily rubbed away materials) resulting in its destruction rendering it useless. Which is also why wards are generally placed in static locations where they won't be disturbed, because they can't generally survive the wear and tear of movement.

a thoughtful insight, and quite likely a good reason not to put a ward on a frequently handled item. And it is something I intend to make more use of in the future.
That said though it would seem to support that theory that "no wards on handled items" is a limitation that is separate from the actual rules of magic. especially if the diabolist DOES make the ward Permanent.

Well a Permanency Ward obviously renders wards immune to being worn away or damaged, which moves things into different territory. For which I suppose there's an opening for one to argue that if you use Permanency Wards on those other Wards you could create what amounts to portable Ward Mines, provided you can afford to acquire the materials and make the sacrifices necessary to apply such an expensive ward. Given we aren't told why you can't put the wards on such frequently handled items it is certainly a valid argument that the limitation is a mundane one based on the wards simply not being able to handle the physical abuse, inability to make Ward Grenades or Ward Tapestries though seems more likely a limitation in the magic itself rather than a more mundane reason. After all we're primarily shown that Wards go on static objects and locations there must be something about that which is necessary for proper creation of a ward in normal circumstances.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:People on the other hand have latent magical potential that in cooperation with a properly drawn ward may be why you can place them on people (or sew them in the case of a permanency ward), the nature of a living body is somehow more compatible with wards (not surprising when you consider rune weapons get their power by binding living beings to them) than an unliving thing. So maybe the Diabolist should invest in some turtles and work wards into their shells since presumably they could accept those wards that affect living beings and get around some of the limitations on Diabolists.

That is an interesting hypothesis, and would make a pretty cool house rule. But it has zero support from the game, and thus is not exactly a strong argument to use for arguing the nature of wards.

Well I did use qualifiers that maybe that's why but that there are easily other reasons why it might be so that such things are possible on living things but not non-living things. I wasn't presenting it as a 'clearly the book supports this reason for why', only as a possible reason for why it may work that way.

eliakon wrote:Thought Exercise time
1.) Diabolist A places a ward sequence on the bottom of a small statue of Isis he prays to. Sequence is Permenent, Inflict, Cold
2.) Our Diabolist takes the statue when he moves houses (moved, but not frequently handled).
3.) During the move his convoy is attacked, and everything is stolen. When the thieves open his pack they find the statue.
4.) Thief #1 tries to take statue, and is chilled
5.) Thief #2 tries and is chilled
6.) Thief #3 is an undead that is immune to cold, so he takes the statue and puts it in his pocket
7.) On their next raid they are chassed by a paladin, Thief #3 takes the statue out of his pocket (and ignores the chill) and tosses it at the paladin yelling 'catch'.
8.) The paladin catches the statues and is chilled

Are these legal? if this is NOT legal....where does it stop being legal, and what happens at that point?

Well again we're talking an item that's got a ward rendered indestructible by Permanency, it's not in the same category as a general ward but a special case. It can't be damaged or removed (outside of extremely remote conditions rendering it a moot point) so generates a special case. As a result whether or not the Ward can remain active while being moved about becomes a GM prerogative thing, although the Palladin example the Palladin shouldn't take damage in any case since he was making no effort to locate and remove it from a set location but instead the item was in motion being tossed to him rendering the Ward inactive for at least a short amount of time.

Permanent inflict cold means the stature itself is cold, not that it causes the condition on others (that's protection by infliction).

So the statue would feel like a bag of frozen peas or similar.

Destroying an active (not yet discharged) ward is harder than some think.

PFRPG wrote:destroying an energized ward without activating it is extremely difficult...

The only exceptions are wards made of loose powder/dust or written in the dirt or dust. These wards can be destroyed by having its components blown away...

Other substances like wood carvings and powders adhered with glue or resin are magically impervious to the elements and conditions that would normally affect them, like heat, cold and solvents. This means a chest with a wax ward on it can sit in the heat of a desert for 100 years without melting, but once the magic has been activated, it will soften, liquify and run like normal wax.

Pretty sure that normal wear from handling would fall under "conditions that would normally affect them". So assuming the ward is carved into the object or made with glued on powders (or carved and then the carving filled with glue and powder mix) its not gonna just rub or wear off no matter the amount of handling.

This could even apply in a limited fashion to wards on cloth. Imagine wax or glue on cloth that cannot be removed by heat (short of fire burning up the cloth) or solvents (water is a solvent) being able to wash out the glue. So while it says no wards on cloth it seems wards on cloth would be just as hard to destroy as other glue or wax wards. My GM said the rule was probably meant to prevent clothes from being warded and made into armor.

there are so many contradictions in the diabolist write up its ridiculous, even the "attempts to make paper armor simply does not work" is contradicted by the fact that they then go on to tell you that if you do make its really just not effective as you may expect (half damage from piercing attacks & half damage from fire for the first 1D4
melee rounds, full damage thereafter).

The Diabolist is perhaps the most obvious place where you can detect the play-style-into-rule-set nature of the game.

The Dark Elf wrote:Permanent inflict cold means the stature itself is cold, not that it causes the condition on others (that's protection by infliction).

So the statue would feel like a bag of frozen peas or similar.

what ever, I think people can tell what the intent was (statue zaps people with cold forever)

Natasha wrote:The Diabolist is perhaps the most obvious place where you can detect the play-style-into-rule-set nature of the game.

which is fine and dandy. but it still leaves us with rules that either conflict, or rules that apply only part of the time. either way the RAW don't work.

RAW: A permanent ward will always zap anyone who touches/disturbs it
RAW: No moving wards

Result: Either: the ward is not permanent; the ward is permanent but doesn't always activate; moving wards can be made

you have to pick. its not a 'just intention, both areas apply' You have to have one part of the rules over ride another part of the rules. the question is what part overrides, and when does it override.

Nightmask wrote:The diabolist's ability to safely handle his own runes is not absolute, it will not allow for warded items that are moved about or frequently handled like weapons to escape the runes being damaged and rendered inert nor will it allow you to paint wards onto tapestries to unfurl as needed because again that ability won't make the ward immune to being damaged and rendered inert by being rolled up and later unrolled.

It's the physical activity that's directly destroying the ward, because again they aren't made to be handled and are easily wiped away and destroyed. Which is why the Diabolist's immunity doesn't matter, he can no more handle it without risking rubbing away the physical runes than anyone else can he just doesn't have to worry about it blowing up in his face when he handles the item like it would anyone else.

PFRPG 125
There is no limit to how many prepared but not energized wards can be created in advance and carried by the mage, except for time requirements, weight and availiability of components. The prepared but unenergized ward symbols and the prepared components for making and affixing wards constitute the Diabiolist's ward arsenal.

These should be very simple and obvious facts and it's baffling to me that you think these wards are indestructible and the Diabolist can handle warded items without fear he'll rub off the very easily damaged wards for no other reason than 'well he's immune to setting them off so somehow bizarrely that means the wards are immune to being rubbed away and ruined'.

You're espousing a theory that's not actually stated in the books. There is no actual reason stated in the books why certain wards cannot be used in certain ways.
There's nothing wrong with coming up with a in-game theory to explain why the rules are as they are, but you're also assuming that any of the rest of us have guessed what your theory IS, and that we agree with it.
Which is an inaccurate assumption.

Also, some wards ARE effectively indestructible.
Any set of wards that includes a permanence ward, for example, (PFRPG2 132):
Once activated, the ward is permanently affixed to that item or place and the entire ward phrase is indestructible...

Furthermore, "damaging the wards by moving them" is NOT the reason stated in the books for the inability to affix wards to weapons and other commonly used items.
PFRPG2 121
Wards cannot be placed or weapons or any portable item that is used frequently, unless the weapon is put into storage. Otherwise, the instant the weapon is drawn, used, bumped or struck the wards will be set off.

Placing active wards on weapons, any small object or vehicle... that is being carried, moved or used just cannot be done until the wards have been deactivated (or unless done secretly as a bushwhacking tactic).

The contradiction is that the reason given that wards cannot be placed on objects that are used frequently is that the result will be triggering the ward.
IF you ward frequently used item, THEN the ward will be triggered the moment the item is moved/used/bumped.
The ward being triggered is the ONLY consequence that is described.
It is also a consequence that does not apply when the Diabolist himself/herself is the one moving or using the object.

Thinyser wrote:there are so many contradictions in the diabolist write up its ridiculous, even the "attempts to make paper armor simply does not work" is contradicted by the fact that they then go on to tell you that if you do make its really just not effective as you may expect (half damage from piercing attacks & half damage from fire for the first 1D4
melee rounds, full damage thereafter).

Which is actually better than a lot of normal armor.
Also, it seems to assume a kind of "paper bag" style armor, not anything intelligently designed, utilizing layers.
By trying to come up with reasons why it wouldn't work, they actually come out up with ways to make it work quite effectively, albeit expensively.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Furthermore, "damaging the wards by moving them" is NOT the reason stated in the books for the inability to affix wards to weapons and other commonly used items.
PFRPG2 121
Wards cannot be placed or weapons or any portable item that is used frequently, unless the weapon is put into storage. Otherwise, the instant the weapon is drawn, used, bumped or struck the wards will be set off.

Placing active wards on weapons, any small object or vehicle... that is being carried, moved or used just cannot be done until the wards have been deactivated (or unless done secretly as a bushwhacking tactic).

The contradiction is that the reason given that wards cannot be placed on objects that are used frequently is that the result will be triggering the ward.
IF you ward frequently used item, THEN the ward will be triggered the moment the item is moved/used/bumped.
The ward being triggered is the ONLY consequence that is described.
It is also a consequence that does not apply when the Diabolist himself/herself is the one moving or using the object.

Or what if you WANT the ward to go off all the time? A necklace with Permanent Inflict Knowledge would be pretty useful. Goes off everytime it moves? Great! there are tons of configurations of wards that being set off every time the object is 'draw, bumped, or struck' would be wonderful. And that is SITLL not counting the fact that the diabolist CAN'T set off the ward themselves.

eliakon wrote:

Natasha wrote:The Diabolist is perhaps the most obvious place where you can detect the play-style-into-rule-set nature of the game.

which is fine and dandy. but it still leaves us with rules that either conflict, or rules that apply only part of the time. either way the RAW don't work.

RAW: A permanent ward will always zap anyone who touches/disturbs it
RAW: No moving wards

Result: Either: the ward is not permanent; the ward is permanent but doesn't always activate; moving wards can be made

you have to pick. its not a 'just intention, both areas apply' You have to have one part of the rules over ride another part of the rules. the question is what part overrides, and when does it override.

I don’t think it’s fine and dandy, I think it’s the epitome of what is wrong with Palladium’s system, why we get into situations in which the rules just break down completely. I won’t speak for others but I did not say “both areas apply”; I said they are mutually exclusive, that means they cannot both apply. For to know which one overrides and when it is necessary to examine the context, the details of the situation. Intent is a part of the context and in my experience it is the most useful telling part of the context.

I will start with a disclaimer that until this thread, I have always passed over the diabolist OCC unless I needed something flashy for my NPC alchemist.

The books as a whole contradict themselves. That silly donkey carrying all those warded packages in Old Ones prove that.

"Ward Placement" (pg 121) says "typical" when discussing their sensitivity. That infers that there are some not so sensitive.

The limitations are fine....if you have a nice settled residence or shop. That does not describe a typical PC adventuring group.

The sentence on pg 125 says "Wards are primarily defensive and protective magic." That's a pretty big limitation.

Pg 121 flat out says that someone exempted by a ward can move a warded item around, but if an un-exempted person touches it, it goes off. It does not say that the exempted person can't be touching it at the same time, unless it happens to be the diabolist. And it does say it can handle being moved, without limitation as to the amount of movement.

Digging a little deeper into the library, 1ed revised does not have these limitations. So more than likely a creative player thought outside the box, turned defensive and protective into some nasty stuff, and broke the gaming group. But that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Bottom line, there are contradictions, and there is nonsensical (il)logic. The whole OCC is in bad need of a GM's call when it comes down to which rule to follow. If you like a low magic game, ignore pg 121. If you like a high magic game, use the silly donkey from Old Ones as your inspiration (loved that sphinx, he made himself at home at a temple in a town they acquired later on and enjoyed every moment of his revenge).

eliakon wrote:
Thought Exercise time
1.) Diabolist A places a ward sequence on the bottom of a small statue of Isis he prays to. Sequence is Permenent, Inflict, Cold
2.) Our Diabolist takes the statue when he moves houses (moved, but not frequently handled).
3.) During the move his convoy is attacked, and everything is stolen. When the thieves open his pack they find the statue.
4.) Thief #1 tries to take statue, and is chilled
5.) Thief #2 tries and is chilled
6.) Thief #3 is an undead that is immune to cold, so he takes the statue and puts it in his pocket
7.) On their next raid they are chassed by a paladin, Thief #3 takes the statue out of his pocket (and ignores the chill) and tosses it at the paladin yelling 'catch'.
8.) The paladin catches the statues and is chilled

The statue was a legal target for the diabolist (object, not commonly handled...it sits on a shelf and is worshiped)
then the thieves take it and move it around several times
THEN the undead (who is immune) takes it, and uses it as a grenade

so is step 1 legal? 2? 6? 8? where does the ward go from 'legal' to 'illegal' and what are the consequences of ignoring the limitations?

OK after some extensive review of the Diabolist and Wards in PFRPG this thought exercise will not work.
1st: After a ward phrase is triggered that ward cannot be triggered again. Even the original Diabolist cannot re-energize the existing ward. pg 122 You have to make a whole new ward/ward phrase.
2nd: Permanence causes only the magical effect to last forever, not a repeatedly activating ward phrase. In this case the first time the statue is touched / moved the ward will trigger a permanent cold effect on its victim if they fail the saving throw. After that the ward phrade is no longer energized and the cold thief or anyone else can move / handle the statue all they want with no fear. (Unless there were additional wards previously included to go off in sequence).

Now to talk about wards to create magic weapons and why they are not allowed. Lets say for example a warded weapon is sort of allowed. Now we want to make a flaming sword perhaps. We have a large broad sword, (space near the base of the blade to affix our ward phrase), Inflict Fire and Permanence (becasue we want the sword to be on fire). Now this ward phrase is likely to be glued onto the base of the sword blade and once energized the ward itelf is indestructable, the weapon is not.

The diabolist handles it carefully and places it in a sheath and the only person that ever touches it is the diabolist. However the first time he swings the sword or draws it violently from the sheath the ward is triggered. Not triggered by the diabolist but my the sharp movement or violent jolt (pg 125). Now the ward phrase will immediately start to inflict fire upon the sword. Yeah, success the sword is on fire. The problem is the fire is being inflicted on the sword and is damaging the sword at 1d6 per level per melee forever. The sword will be melted to slag in minutes at best. Even if your sword was previously indestructable for some reason it would become too hot to hold, to sheath, to set on a table, eventually may cause items nearby to burst into flames, like your clothes or plants nearby. So to get around this you make the sword first impervious to fire, great now the ward keeps applying fire to the sword but the sword never even heats up a little becasue fire does not affect it. You wasted a very valuable permanence ward in all of these situations.

Also area affect wards are always centered on the place that they were energized / first activated (pg 126) so trying to make a grenade will not work, becasue the enchantment is at a fixed spot. Creating ward land mines yes, throwable grenades no.

42dragon wrote:

eliakon wrote:
Thought Exercise time
1.) Diabolist A places a ward sequence on the bottom of a small statue of Isis he prays to. Sequence is Permenent, Inflict, Cold
2.) Our Diabolist takes the statue when he moves houses (moved, but not frequently handled).
3.) During the move his convoy is attacked, and everything is stolen. When the thieves open his pack they find the statue.
4.) Thief #1 tries to take statue, and is chilled
5.) Thief #2 tries and is chilled
6.) Thief #3 is an undead that is immune to cold, so he takes the statue and puts it in his pocket
7.) On their next raid they are chassed by a paladin, Thief #3 takes the statue out of his pocket (and ignores the chill) and tosses it at the paladin yelling 'catch'.
8.) The paladin catches the statues and is chilled

The statue was a legal target for the diabolist (object, not commonly handled...it sits on a shelf and is worshiped)
then the thieves take it and move it around several times
THEN the undead (who is immune) takes it, and uses it as a grenade

so is step 1 legal? 2? 6? 8? where does the ward go from 'legal' to 'illegal' and what are the consequences of ignoring the limitations?

OK after some extensive review of the Diabolist and Wards in PFRPG this thought exercise will not work.
1st: After a ward phrase is triggered that ward cannot be triggered again. Even the original Diabolist cannot re-energize the existing ward. pg 122 You have to make a whole new ward/ward phrase.
2nd: Permanence causes only the magical effect to last forever, not a repeatedly activating ward phrase. In this case the first time

Err you do realize that the whole POINT of the permanent ward is that it DOES make the ward phrase reactivate? Since either the 1) the ward phrase is the magical effect that is permanent or 2) you are saying that the damage/effect the ward creates is permanent.
Since I don't think that the intent here is to allow you to arbitrarily harm a person forever, especially since making spells permanent on people is covered elsewhere, I think that the ward phrase is the permanent magical effect.

42dragon wrote:the statue is touched / moved the ward will trigger a permanent cold effect on its victim if they fail the saving throw. After that the ward phrade is no longer energized and the cold thief or anyone else can move / handle the statue all they want with no fear. (Unless there were additional wards previously included to go off in sequence).

See above about how permanence works

42dragon wrote:Now to talk about wards to create magic weapons and why they are not allowed. Lets say for example a warded weapon is sort of allowed. Now we want to make a flaming sword perhaps. We have a large broad sword, (space near the base of the blade to affix our ward phrase), Inflict Fire and Permanence (becasue we want the sword to be on fire). Now this ward phrase is likely to be glued onto the base of the sword blade and once energized the ward itelf is indestructable, the weapon is not.

The diabolist handles it carefully and places it in a sheath and the only person that ever touches it is the diabolist. However the first time he swings the sword or draws it violently from the sheath the ward is triggered. Not triggered by the diabolist but my the sharp movement or violent jolt (pg 125). Now the ward phrase will immediately start to inflict fire upon the sword. Yeah, success the sword is on fire. The problem is the fire is being inflicted on the sword and is damaging the sword at 1d6 per level per melee forever. The sword will be melted to slag in minutes at best. Even if your sword was previously indestructable for some reason it would become too hot to hold, to sheath, to set on a table, eventually may cause items nearby to burst into flames, like your clothes or plants nearby. So to get around this you make the sword first impervious to fire, great now the ward keeps applying fire to the sword but the sword never even heats up a little becasue fire does not affect it. You wasted a very valuable permanence ward in all of these situations.

only if the sword is the target. You do realize that you can make a ward target the thing that disturbs it and not what its written on right? So the example sword would inflict fire on what disturbs it. the sword isn't flaming, but anything it touches would get zapped.
.... which brings us back to the fact that as written the limitations appear to be totally arbitrary

42dragon wrote:Also area affect wards are always centered on the place that they were energized / first activated (pg 126) so trying to make a grenade will not work, becasue the enchantment is at a fixed spot. Creating ward land mines yes, throwable grenades no.

No argument there....

eliakon wrote:

42dragon wrote:
OK after some extensive review of the Diabolist and Wards in PFRPG this thought exercise will not work.
1st: After a ward phrase is triggered that ward cannot be triggered again. Even the original Diabolist cannot re-energize the existing ward. pg 122 You have to make a whole new ward/ward phrase.
2nd: Permanence causes only the magical effect to last forever, not a repeatedly activating ward phrase. In this case the first time

Err you do realize that the whole POINT of the permanent ward is that it DOES make the ward phrase reactivate? Since either the 1) the ward phrase is the magical effect that is permanent or 2) you are saying that the damage/effect the ward creates is permanent.
Since I don't think that the intent here is to allow you to arbitrarily harm a person forever, especially since making spells permanent on people is covered elsewhere, I think that the ward phrase is the permanent magical effect.

The rules are very specific and no, it does not make the ward phrase reactivate. I gave page number examples, pg 122 Ward Energizing, and pg 125 Ward Limitations.
Permanence Ward description pg 132 and pg 122, very specifically says that the permanence makes the magic effect (from a ward, circle, spell ect.) permanent / last forever / always active, no where does it give the ward sequence the ability to reactivate.

eliakon wrote:

42dragon wrote:the statue is touched / moved the ward will trigger a permanent cold effect on its victim if they fail the saving throw. After that the ward phrade is no longer energized and the cold thief or anyone else can move / handle the statue all they want with no fear. (Unless there were additional wards previously included to go off in sequence).

See above about how permanence works.

You described how you want/interpret permanence wards to work. There is nothing in the book that describes permanence wards working in this way.

eliakon wrote:

42dragon wrote:Now to talk about wards to create magic weapons and why they are not allowed. Lets say for example a warded weapon is sort of allowed. Now we want to make a flaming sword perhaps. We have a large broad sword, (space near the base of the blade to affix our ward phrase), Inflict Fire and Permanence (becasue we want the sword to be on fire). Now this ward phrase is likely to be glued onto the base of the sword blade and once energized the ward itelf is indestructable, the weapon is not.

The diabolist handles it carefully and places it in a sheath and the only person that ever touches it is the diabolist. However the first time he swings the sword or draws it violently from the sheath the ward is triggered. Not triggered by the diabolist but my the sharp movement or violent jolt (pg 125). Now the ward phrase will immediately start to inflict fire upon the sword. Yeah, success the sword is on fire. The problem is the fire is being inflicted on the sword and is damaging the sword at 1d6 per level per melee forever. The sword will be melted to slag in minutes at best. Even if your sword was previously indestructable for some reason it would become too hot to hold, to sheath, to set on a table, eventually may cause items nearby to burst into flames, like your clothes or plants nearby. So to get around this you make the sword first impervious to fire, great now the ward keeps applying fire to the sword but the sword never even heats up a little becasue fire does not affect it. You wasted a very valuable permanence ward in all of these situations.

only if the sword is the target. You do realize that you can make a ward target the thing that disturbs it and not what its written on right? So the example sword would inflict fire on what disturbs it. the sword isn't flaming, but anything it touches would get zapped.

I used the ward phrase "inflict" which is used and then normally force activated by the diabolist to inflict the condition (fire) on the item it was placed on. That is how you would make a magic weapon. Now if you used "protection by infliction" in your ward string then yes, you are correct it would activate at what ever disturbs it. Just the one time because we only put one ward phrase on the weapon. Per page 125, fire, falls from great heights, attacks that inflict great damage, sudden sharp movements, or violent jolts will set off the ward. So swinging the sword or violently removing it from the scabbard would set of the ward, and the ward would affect the air or the scabbard that triggered it. Again just as useless.

eliakon wrote:.... which brings us back to the fact that as written the limitations appear to be totally arbitrary.

The rules do not contradict the limitations in any way, nor do they seem arbitrary to me. Wards are mostly used defensively and they perform that role very well.

Now to the original question, if I was being the GM. I would probably relax some of the limitations, but I would need to have a long talk with the player before hand to see what they want to get out of the class and what types of things they want to be able to do with the wards. Creating magic weapons or magic hand grenades is not something I would relax the rules on. But having a rolled up set of non-activated wards they can quickly deploy at their feet and then spend and action or two touching up then activating any one ward phrase (at a time), I would most likely allow.

42dragon wrote:

eliakon wrote:
Thought Exercise time
1.) Diabolist A places a ward sequence on the bottom of a small statue of Isis he prays to. Sequence is Permenent, Inflict, Cold
2.) Our Diabolist takes the statue when he moves houses (moved, but not frequently handled).
3.) During the move his convoy is attacked, and everything is stolen. When the thieves open his pack they find the statue.
4.) Thief #1 tries to take statue, and is chilled
5.) Thief #2 tries and is chilled
6.) Thief #3 is an undead that is immune to cold, so he takes the statue and puts it in his pocket
7.) On their next raid they are chassed by a paladin, Thief #3 takes the statue out of his pocket (and ignores the chill) and tosses it at the paladin yelling 'catch'.
8.) The paladin catches the statues and is chilled

The statue was a legal target for the diabolist (object, not commonly handled...it sits on a shelf and is worshiped)
then the thieves take it and move it around several times
THEN the undead (who is immune) takes it, and uses it as a grenade

so is step 1 legal? 2? 6? 8? where does the ward go from 'legal' to 'illegal' and what are the consequences of ignoring the limitations?

OK after some extensive review of the Diabolist and Wards in PFRPG this thought exercise will not work.
1st: After a ward phrase is triggered that ward cannot be triggered again. Even the original Diabolist cannot re-energize the existing ward. pg 122 You have to make a whole new ward/ward phrase.
2nd: Permanence causes only the magical effect to last forever, not a repeatedly activating ward phrase. In this case the first time the statue is touched / moved the ward will trigger a permanent cold effect on its victim if they fail the saving throw. After that the ward phrade is no longer energized and the cold thief or anyone else can move / handle the statue all they want with no fear. (Unless there were additional wards previously included to go off in sequence).

While I admit the rules do state that the permanence ward makes the magical effect permanent I've never run into a GM that ran this as meaning the ward fires off once and never again unless it was something afixed to a person like "permanent protection from darkness" which gives the bearer of said ward nightvision all the time.

Their stance has been that the ward's effect is to protect, and under the permanence ward it also states "Once activated, the ward is permanently affixed to that item or place and the entire ward phrase is indestructible and makes whatever other magic effect, be it caused by a ward, circle, magic curse or magic spell, permanent and always active in the immediate area around the ward!"
which is interpreted that the permanence ward makes the effect of another ward (protection by infliction of ______) permanent and always active. The effect of a "permanent protection by infliction of cold" should be permanent protection not permanent cold on a single victim. But hey the ambigious rules again support it either way.

Now to talk about wards to create magic weapons and why they are not allowed. Lets say for example a warded weapon is sort of allowed. Now we want to make a flaming sword perhaps. We have a large broad sword, (space near the base of the blade to affix our ward phrase), Inflict Fire and Permanence (becasue we want the sword to be on fire). Now this ward phrase is likely to be glued onto the base of the sword blade and once energized the ward itelf is indestructable, the weapon is not.

Inflict wards are placed on living beings, protection by infliction are placed on objects. So really you would put a "permanent protection by infliction fire" on the sword then it would actually inflict fire on the people you hit with it.

The diabolist handles it carefully and places it in a sheath and the only person that ever touches it is the diabolist. However the first time he swings the sword or draws it violently from the sheath the ward is triggered. Not triggered by the diabolist but my the sharp movement or violent jolt (pg 125).

Nope the diabolist cannot set off his own wards unless he wills it to and spends PPE to do so.

Now the ward phrase will immediately start to inflict fire upon the sword. Yeah, success the sword is on fire. The problem is the fire is being inflicted on the sword and is damaging the sword at 1d6 per level per melee forever. The sword will be melted to slag in minutes at best. Even if your sword was previously indestructable for some reason it would become too hot to hold, to sheath, to set on a table, eventually may cause items nearby to burst into flames, like your clothes or plants nearby. So to get around this you make the sword first impervious to fire, great now the ward keeps applying fire to the sword but the sword never even heats up a little becasue fire does not affect it. You wasted a very valuable permanence ward in all of these situations.

Which is why you wouldn't use inflict (its meant for living beings not objects anyhow) you use protection by infliction this way the sword inflicts fire on those that it touches (of course other than the diabolist since he is immune to activating his own wards no matter how violent his movement of them is)

Also area affect wards are always centered on the place that they were energized / first activated (pg 126) so trying to make a grenade will not work, becasue the enchantment is at a fixed spot. Creating ward land mines yes, throwable grenades no.

Again it specifically states under the limitation of AoE wards that "Only the Diabolist who made the wards can move the object without causing them to go off." So the diabolist has an unactivated AoE ward on a stone, he spends the PPE to activate it, then he moves it (throws it towards his target) where it detonates because they aren't immune from setting it off.

42dragon wrote:

eliakon wrote:

42dragon wrote:
OK after some extensive review of the Diabolist and Wards in PFRPG this thought exercise will not work.
1st: After a ward phrase is triggered that ward cannot be triggered again. Even the original Diabolist cannot re-energize the existing ward. pg 122 You have to make a whole new ward/ward phrase.
2nd: Permanence causes only the magical effect to last forever, not a repeatedly activating ward phrase. In this case the first time

Err you do realize that the whole POINT of the permanent ward is that it DOES make the ward phrase reactivate? Since either the 1) the ward phrase is the magical effect that is permanent or 2) you are saying that the damage/effect the ward creates is permanent.
Since I don't think that the intent here is to allow you to arbitrarily harm a person forever, especially since making spells permanent on people is covered elsewhere, I think that the ward phrase is the permanent magical effect.

The rules are very specific and no, it does not make the ward phrase reactivate. I gave page number examples, pg 122 Ward Energizing, and pg 125 Ward Limitations.
Permanence Ward description pg 132 and pg 122, very specifically says that the permanence makes the magic effect (from a ward, circle, spell ect.) permanent / last forever / always active, no where does it give the ward sequence the ability to reactivate.

Uhhh, okay. So what your saying is that in your game, once you get hit by a ward, if it was permanent then you can never solve it?
so a statue with Protection by Infliction + Agony + Permenent means that the person is forever in agony? Because I read it as meaning that the magic that is made permanent is the WARD. You make a circle permanent then the effects of the circle are always up. Thus a permanent circle of power can always be used to cast a call lightning. It does NOT mean that the one call lightning spell will last forever (how would that work anyway). The underlying magic (the circle, or ward) is permanently energized, not the external manifestation of it.
the other interpretation leads to some incredibly abusive and silly results since if the effect is the permanent result, then any ward with permanent will have a PERMENENT effect. Hope that wasn't an Agony ward, or a Mystic Drain or any of a number of other wards that would be game breaking to have the effects last forever. Oh and why bother sewing a ward to the skin? I could just put it here in a nice safe place, and then be effected forever and ever amen.....

eliakon wrote:

42dragon wrote:

eliakon wrote:

42dragon wrote:
OK after some extensive review of the Diabolist and Wards in PFRPG this thought exercise will not work.
1st: After a ward phrase is triggered that ward cannot be triggered again. Even the original Diabolist cannot re-energize the existing ward. pg 122 You have to make a whole new ward/ward phrase.
2nd: Permanence causes only the magical effect to last forever, not a repeatedly activating ward phrase. In this case the first time

Err you do realize that the whole POINT of the permanent ward is that it DOES make the ward phrase reactivate? Since either the 1) the ward phrase is the magical effect that is permanent or 2) you are saying that the damage/effect the ward creates is permanent.
Since I don't think that the intent here is to allow you to arbitrarily harm a person forever, especially since making spells permanent on people is covered elsewhere, I think that the ward phrase is the permanent magical effect.

The rules are very specific and no, it does not make the ward phrase reactivate. I gave page number examples, pg 122 Ward Energizing, and pg 125 Ward Limitations.
Permanence Ward description pg 132 and pg 122, very specifically says that the permanence makes the magic effect (from a ward, circle, spell ect.) permanent / last forever / always active, no where does it give the ward sequence the ability to reactivate.

Uhhh, okay. So what your saying is that in your game, once you get hit by a ward, if it was permanent then you can never solve it?
so a statue with Protection by Infliction + Agony + Permenent means that the person is forever in agony? Because I read it as meaning that the magic that is made permanent is the WARD. You make a circle permanent then the effects of the circle are always up. Thus a permanent circle of power can always be used to cast a call lightning. It does NOT mean that the one call lightning spell will last forever (how would that work anyway). The underlying magic (the circle, or ward) is permanently energized, not the external manifestation of it.
the other interpretation leads to some incredibly abusive and silly results since if the effect is the permanent result, then any ward with permanent will have a PERMANENT effect. Hope that wasn't an Agony ward, or a Mystic Drain or any of a number of other wards that would be game breaking to have the effects last forever. Oh and why bother sewing a ward to the skin? I could just put it here in a nice safe place, and then be effected forever and ever amen.....

Bingo. EVERYBODY I've played under or with has intuitively understood this to be how permanent wards work. The ward stays energized so it can zap, zap again, and zap every time somebody comes into range or touches it. It would be totally retarded to waste a chip of demon, dragon, godling bone (at 6000gp an OUNCE) to make a ward that fires off once and its inflicted consequence is permanent.

While those are interpretations of the way permanence wards works. That is not what the text specifically says. And yes, it would be silly and a waste of materials to use a permanence ward in this way.

Using some of the printed adventures as examples, permanence wards are typically used very sparingly and in the following ways.
Inflict + Invisibility + Permanence = just made your chest of valuable ward components permanently invisible.
Protection from + Darkness + Permanence (sewn into skin) = just gave yourself or another permanent night vision 60ft.
Permanence + Power Leech Circle = a Power Leech circle that will drain power for eternity (typically used to weaken a powerful immortal prisoner)
Permanence + Dimensional Rift spell = a permanent Rift linking two locations or dimensions provides instant 2 way travel that is always open

In all these examples you can see it is the magical effect that is made permanent, not for example a dimension rift spell that keeps being cast over and over.

42dragon wrote:While those are interpretations of the way permanence wards works. That is not what the text specifically says. And yes, it would be silly and a waste of materials to use a permanence ward in this way.

Using some of the printed adventures as examples, permanence wards are typically used very sparingly and in the following ways.
Inflict + Invisibility + Permanence = just made your chest of valuable ward components permanently invisible.
Protection from + Darkness + Permanence (sewn into skin) = just gave yourself or another permanent night vision 60ft.
Permanence + Power Leech Circle = a Power Leech circle that will drain power for eternity (typically used to weaken a powerful immortal prisoner)
Permanence + Dimensional Rift spell = a permanent Rift linking two locations or dimensions provides instant 2 way travel that is always open

In all these examples you can see it is the magical effect that is made permanent, not for example a dimension rift spell that keeps being cast over and over.

I think a more helpful example would be to actually look at an example of a permanent WARD.
Old Ones 2nd ed pg 156
On the statue's base is a ward of permanence and blind. This means every time anyone touches the statue, they must save vs ward magic or become temporarily blinded.
Old Ones 2nd ed. pg 209
The other side of the medallion has wards of good, blind, cold, and permanence. This insures that only characters of good alignment can use it. (interestingly this is a worn/moved item that has a ward effect.....) .... Evil and selfish characters must always save against blindness and will take one point of damage from cold for every melee that they are in contact with the medallion.

I could find other examples but here are two sets of permanent wards with explanations that they go off repeatedly, NOT that they zap you once and the zap is permanent but that they zap you and zap you and zap you and.....

eliakon wrote:

42dragon wrote:While those are interpretations of the way permanence wards works. That is not what the text specifically says. And yes, it would be silly and a waste of materials to use a permanence ward in this way.

Using some of the printed adventures as examples, permanence wards are typically used very sparingly and in the following ways.
Inflict + Invisibility + Permanence = just made your chest of valuable ward components permanently invisible.
Protection from + Darkness + Permanence (sewn into skin) = just gave yourself or another permanent night vision 60ft.
Permanence + Power Leech Circle = a Power Leech circle that will drain power for eternity (typically used to weaken a powerful immortal prisoner)
Permanence + Dimensional Rift spell = a permanent Rift linking two locations or dimensions provides instant 2 way travel that is always open

In all these examples you can see it is the magical effect that is made permanent, not for example a dimension rift spell that keeps being cast over and over.

I think a more helpful example would be to actually look at an example of a permanent WARD.
Old Ones 2nd ed pg 156
On the statue's base is a ward of permanence and blind. This means every time anyone touches the statue, they must save vs ward magic or become temporarily blinded.
Old Ones 2nd ed. pg 209
The other side of the medallion has wards of good, blind, cold, and permanence. This insures that only characters of good alignment can use it. (interestingly this is a worn/moved item that has a ward effect.....) .... Evil and selfish characters must always save against blindness and will take one point of damage from cold for every melee that they are in contact with the medallion.

I could find other examples but here are two sets of permanent wards with explanations that they go off repeatedly, NOT that they zap you once and the zap is permanent but that they zap you and zap you and zap you and.....

Again THIS is the intended effect of a permanent ward, and is backed by canon examples. The ward is effective forever (can be repeatedly triggered forever) not that the wards consequence lasts forever but is only triggered once.

Those are good examples. I do think they violate the rules of wards the way they are written, but I guess since they are published works we have to assume that the rules as written just don't apply.

Interesting to note, the Medallion of Thoth there is a save vs blindness, but no save vs. the cold. Yet another quirk that violates the rules. Does that mean, there is no longer a saving throw vs the cold ward?

I think most of this comes from copying over from 1st edition Old Ones where 1st edition PFRPG ward rules were much more lax. But it looks like we should allow it.

In that case I guess a warded weapon would work, as a medallion is meant to be worn and moved and swinging free during activity and still retains its active wards. You would probably need to come up with rules and conditions about how the wards are attached to items, and can they be knocked off (since the ward is indestructable but the item is not), or influence the balance of the weapon that would need to be taken into account.

So here is what i have come up with for my house rules:

1) Wards can be placed on items that can be moved or carried. However, when the ward effects are triggered only the Diabolist who created the ward will be unaffected. The one exclusion to this rule would be area affects.(This made sense to me since according to the rules you can place wards on a person with paint or as a tattoo. if you can do this then why not otherwise. Though i think I might restrict what kind or the number of wards -depending on the amount of energy contained in the ward phase)
2) Only another diabolist can try to deactivate an energized ward(s). This cost the diabolist 5 P.P.E. per ward within a phase; 10 if a power ward. This cost is paid whether or not they succeed to deactivate the ward(s). They have a 45% chance to successfully deactivate a Ward, this is done by slowly draining the energy out of the ward(s) and into the surrounding area. Diabolist gain an additional +3% per level of experience to deactivate wards. if the diabolist fails to deactivate the wards then there is a 15% chance that they will not trigger the wards in response.This excludes permanence Wards.

Some of this might be expanded or augmented as i work on it over the next few weeks.