Re: OT: Narf has gone looney and wants to GM.
 

Hmm, let's see... You're sleeping/meditating for the night, and thus are present willingly. The thief sneaks in without waking you up, picks up the book without triggering the Symbol (because you are present willingly, if not awake), and sneaks off.

/me thinks this condition is a little flawed.

Re: OT: Narf has gone looney and wants to GM.
 

hmm. I'd work on that some more but right now my brain is about as active as a jug of week-old warm milk...

Re: OT: Narf has gone looney and wants to GM.
 

...Full of colourfull activity?

Re: OT: Narf has gone looney and wants to GM.
 

You get colour in those? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif

Nah, I was actually thinking it's just partially solid and overgrown with god only knows what...

Re: OT: Narf has gone looney and wants to GM.
 

Week-old warm milk? I presume so.

Re: OT: Narf has gone looney and wants to GM.
 

Ah, but a cat is Int 2; I think of spells more like computer programs (Int -, like most constructs). Willing is actually a very high-level concept, by definition existing in the mind of the person the person in question - which isn't observable (however, straining muscles are, as is rapid back-and-forth movement, a pinning condition, open eyes, wounds, et cetera; but the spell can't just assume that's the kind of thing you are looking for....). That clause is not valid for the spell. Replacing "Sanctioned" with "attuned" (definined in the spell - declared at casting) is valid, but the Symbol doesn't magically know who you have sanctioned or not, with another definition of the word.

Also, I'll want a specific list of those for whom you are attuning it when you cast the spell.

Re: OT: Narf has gone looney and wants to GM.
 

Guess we'll leave it at password... hmmph, I can't make my spells have magical knowledge? *grumble*

For attuning, how about the current party? Derrel, Elorin, Kibby, Jason.

Let's see...

if(identity == 'Derrel' || identity == 'Elorin' || identity == 'Kibin' || identity == 'Jason')
trigger = 0;
else if(presencePermittedBy('Kaylin') == 1)
trigger = 0;
else
trigger = 1;

Harrumph.

Re: OT: Narf has gone looney and wants to GM.
 

presencePermittedBy(X) has the same issue as "willing presence" and for the same reason... unless, of course, you want it to read "anyone in your presence" (after all - Kaylin is a powerful sparkcaster - anyone she doesn't want in her presence is soon gone... if she knows about them.... and knows who they actually are....)

Re: OT: Narf has gone looney and wants to GM.
 

I'd interpret "Presence Permitted" as somewhat different than "Willing" since, as was pointed out earlier, "willing" could mean that Kaylin isn't necessarily concious, just willing to be in the area, while "presence permitted" would - to me - imply a concious decision to permit someone's presence. Of course, that gets back to the problem of how does the trap know...

I suppose it's highly unlikely that Kaylin will ever try to get someone to fetch her spellbook for her, outside of the party, so I suppose the trigger condition "Detonate on object touch" would work once the rest of the party is attuned.

Re: OT: Narf has gone looney and wants to GM.
 

About Kibin's hit points, I did a little more searching for the clause about constitution changes due to polymorph not changing HP that I thought I remembered, and here's what I found:

Kaylin's Great Warping is based on Shapechange IIRC
Shapechange is "like polymorph, except..."
Polymorph is "like alter self, except..."
Alter Self says "Your class and level, hit points, alignment, base attack bonus, and base save bonuses all remain the same."
The only mention of hit points in the exceptions noted in Polymorph and Shapechange is the target of Polymorph healing as if having rested for one night.

I'm not entirely sure which way this is supposed to be interpreted. Polymorph makes no mention at all about hit points changing due to changing constitution, either to say that it does or that it doesn't. A strict reading would say that max hit points stay the same because no exception to that provision is noted, but it could easily just be a minor oversight on the part of whoever wrote the Polymorph spell description. On the other hand, it could be a balancing factor to avoid people polymorphing into something with insanely high constitution just to gain HP. I have checked both errata and the D&D FAQ on wizards.com, and neither of them mentions the issue.