Mistakenly Forgoing a Saving Throw

[Croaker]

According to the PHB, creatures can voluntarily forgo a saving throw. What happens if the creature is tricked or coerced into giving up a save? Do they somehow realize that an effect is not desirable and instinctively resist it? Or do they have to suck it up? In most games I have run and played, there is never any question that PCs will attempt to resist beneficial spells cast by their allies. Some examples may clarify what I am getting at:

Example 1: Tricky Tim, evil cleric of Nerull (Trickery and Death domains) has managed to bushwhack the party's cleric in the middle of a fight, and has used Change Self to take on said cleric's appearance. When Tricky Tim walks up to the wounded party fighter and offers to cast a Cure Critical Wounds on him, then casts an Inflict Critical Wounds instead, would the fighter get a saving throw? Would Tricky Tim have to make a touch attack? If he used his Death Touch ability instead, would he have to make a touch attack?
The fighter would, of course, have the chance to see through Tim's disguise (unlikely, since fighters don't get Spot as a class skill, and Tricky Tim's Change Self offsets the fighter's +10 bonus for knowing the subject intimately.) Should Tim also have to make a Bluff check to cover up the differences between the two spells' verbal components (assuming that the fighter even has a chance to notice the diference between two spells when he has no ranks in Spellcraft)?

Example 2: Sneaky Pete, pickpocket extraordinaire, has been hired to filch the party wizard's potion of Spider Climb, and replace it with a dose of Id Moss (Fort DC 14, 1d4 Int/2d6 Int) cleverly disguised with a Nystul's Magic Aura. Assuming that Sneaky Pete succeeds at both the lift and the plant undetected (quite likely, since wizards also don't get Spot as a class skill) what happens when the wizard decides to drink the potion? Since he would naturally want to forgo the saving throw against Spider Climb, does he automatically fail the save against the poison? Does it matter that the poison call for a Fort save while Spider Climb allows a Will save? Would the wizard have a chance to notice some difference in taste? Would forgoing the first save have any effect on whether the wizard would have to forgo the second save?

Example 3: Mindbender Mike has successfully cast Charm Monster on a troll, and knows that the duration of the spell is going to expire tomorrow. Would the troll allow him to cast another spell on him without making a save? What if Mindbender Mike told the troll that the spell was Bull's Strength? Is a Charm effect strong enough to allow someone to keep recasting the spell without a saving throw after the first?

Any thoughts or feedback on these examples would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Crothian]

I don't like the idea of tricking PCs to forgo saving throws, and I think it would only serve to disrupt the group.

 

[gfunk]

1. Example 1

The fighter is pretty much screwed. Unless he makes his Spot check to notice the disguise (unlikely) or has ranks in Spellcraft to notice what spell is being cast (even more unlikely), I would rule that he would suffer the effects of the spell.

2. Example 2

Unless a creature knows something to be poisonous and voluntarily forgoes a save, you *always* get a Fort save against poison.

3. Example 3

I would allow an opposed Charisma roll to see if the Mindbender could convince the troll. If Mike fails, then the troll refuses but is still under the Charm Monster spell. If Mike convinces the Troll, then I would allow it.

However, since the spell clearly did not increase the troll's strength, I would ask Mike to make another opposed Charisma roll to convince the troll otherwise.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

According to the PHB, creatures can voluntarily forgo a saving throw. What happens if the creature is tricked or coerced into giving up a save? Do they somehow realize that an effect is not desirable and instinctively resist it? Or do they have to suck it up? In most games I have run and played, there is never any question that PCs will attempt to resist beneficial spells cast by their allies. Some examples may clarify what I am getting at:

An interesting question. I would say yes in some cases and no in others. Hopefully some kind of coherent rationale can emerge from my read of the individual cases.

Example 1: Tricky Tim, evil cleric of Nerull (Trickery and Death domains) has managed to bushwhack the party's cleric in the middle of a fight, and has used Change Self to take on said cleric's appearance. When Tricky Tim walks up to the wounded party fighter and offers to cast a Cure Critical Wounds on him, then casts an Inflict Critical Wounds instead, would the fighter get a saving throw? Would Tricky Tim have to make a touch attack? If he used his Death Touch ability instead, would he have to make a touch attack?
The fighter would, of course, have the chance to see through Tim's disguise (unlikely, since fighters don't get Spot as a class skill, and Tricky Tim's Change Self offsets the fighter's +10 bonus for knowing the subject intimately.) Should Tim also have to make a Bluff check to cover up the differences between the two spells' verbal components (assuming that the fighter even has a chance to notice the diference between two spells when he has no ranks in Spellcraft)?

Well, in this case, the fighter would get at least three chances to see through the deception.
1. A spot check vs. the priest's disguise check at +10 for intimate knowledge of the target.

2. A sense motive check vs. the priest's bluff since the priest is attampting to deceive him WRT his identity and the nature of the spell he's casting.

3. A spellcraft check (even if he doesn't have the skill, I'd consider allowing a secret untrained roll to see if he noticed that the cleric is casting the spell differently--it ought to be much easier to notice differences in the spells than to recognize which specific spell is being cast).

More significantly, other party members should get to make these checks as well. Also, Tricky Tim would have to bushwack the party cleric outside of everyone else's line of sight and hide the body. Otherwise, his bluff would be too transperent to even be worth rolling for.

But if he managed to get by all of that (and he might well do so), I think he should be able to use his death touch or inflict wounds spells without making the touch attack. I'd also lean towards denying the save for the inflict wounds spell.

Example 2: Sneaky Pete, pickpocket extraordinaire, has been hired to filch the party wizard's potion of Spider Climb, and replace it with a dose of Id Moss (Fort DC 14, 1d4 Int/2d6 Int) cleverly disguised with a Nystul's Magic Aura. Assuming that Sneaky Pete succeeds at both the lift and the plant undetected (quite likely, since wizards also don't get Spot as a class skill) what happens when the wizard decides to drink the potion? Since he would naturally want to forgo the saving throw against Spider Climb, does he automatically fail the save against the poison? Does it matter that the poison call for a Fort save while Spider Climb allows a Will save? Would the wizard have a chance to notice some difference in taste? Would forgoing the first save have any effect on whether the wizard would have to forgo the second save?

I think this is a different case than the first one. Saves for poisons and spells seem to be justified slightly differently--the one relating to the poison's weakness, PC's gag reflex, luck etc and the other relating to the strength of the PC's will or constitution to resist magic. The will save/fort save issue is probably relevant as well. After all, if one were truly pedantic about it, every character would probably drink their potions saying "I voluntarily forgoe my will save but not any other kind of applicable save."

Finally, the first save never has any direct effect on the secondary save for poison. So, if the wizard failed the first save and lost con, his second save would be less likely to succeed (because losing con drops his fort save). However, a successful first save doesn't negate the need for a second save nor does a failed first said remove the possibility of a second.

Example 3: Mindbender Mike has successfully cast Charm Monster on a troll, and knows that the duration of the spell is going to expire tomorrow. Would the troll allow him to cast another spell on him without making a save? What if Mindbender Mike told the troll that the spell was Bull's Strength? Is a Charm effect strong enough to allow someone to keep recasting the spell without a saving throw after the first?

In principle, this seems like it should be possible. In practice, however, I would be a very annoyed DM if this were the mindbender's regular practice. I'd probably load up his enemies with dispel magics (usually a good opening gambit for both parties anyway) and see if any of them managed to dispel the charm but not the other spells on the troll. (Which would leave the PC facing the ordinary bad guys PLUS a buffed troll who's rather upset about having been charmed). Alternately, I might adopt a very strict readings of what qualifies as "against the creature's nature" (thereby granting a second save) and the creature considers the caster [but no-one else] to be his FRIEND [not king/commander/etc] in order to guard against abuse.

In other words, I'd probably let this tactic work on the basis of my logic from the first example but really crack down on charms and compulsions in general if the character used it to the detriment of the campaign.

 

[Sollir Furryfoot]

I would say it would be harder than usual, they get a sense motive check if they think its suspicious-if he makes this check and his opponent still casts the spell he gets an AoO, followed by a spellcraft roll to see which spell their friend is casting, perhaps with a bonus if he's seen how the normal spell usually is cast (otherwise the Fighter is usually screwed, heh) -but no AoO if he realizes at this point its the wrong spell, just a save.

 

[Zhure]

Wouldn't the fighter be a tad bit suspicious when his "friend" the cleric has to use a symbol of Nerull to cast a spell rather than the symbol to Pelor?

Greg

 

[gfunk]

Wouldn't the fighter be a tad bit suspicious when his "friend" the cleric has to use a symbol of Nerull to cast a spell rather than the symbol to Pelor?
Greg

Assuming he has ranks in Knowledge (Religion). The fighter's lack of skill points and class skills strikes again!

 

[Sollir Furryfoot]

That might be what though, DC 5, or 10? Heh, just hope they didn't use int as the 'dump' stat

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Saving throws are more than simply willpower (Will), hardiness (Fort) and agility (Reflex). Saves include luck, circumstance, and even karma. It's getting out of a situation in spite of standing in the path of the lightning bolt or drinking the Black Lotus Extract.

That said, I will not take away a PC's save vs. anything, despite the circumstances. I may assign a circumstance penalty with regards to the Inflict spell from the evil cleric, but the PC would still get a save.

 

[Janos Antero]

When this last came up in our game, the DM applied a -2 to -4 circumstance penalty to the save, and it seemed to work rather well. If the conditions were something like the last example with the troll, the DM rolled a chance to break the spell but gave the troll a penalty on that check.

I think it's a very good and viable concept, for characters and foes both, but the trick would be a good balance.