Can you trick someone into Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw?

[Mouseferatu]

Isn't "I want you to elect to fail this saving throw" a metagame concept as well?

Only if you phrase it that way.

"I want you to fail your save" is metagame.

"I'm going to cast a spell; try not to fight it" is perfectly in-character.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

It is possible that it "should" be allowed by a sympathetic reading of the rules for voluntarily failing a save. It's definite that I "would" never allow it without a special feat and a hefty bluff check. I simply wouldn't allow as significant balancing factor as saves be skipped that easily.

 

[ElectricDragon]

Even if you elected to give up your save, wouldn't you get to change your mind at the last minute if you had ranks in Spellcraft and made the roll to determine the spell was detrimental to your health?

Ciao
Dave

 

[Twowolves]

As far as the RAW go, I see no reason not to allow someone to con someone into foregoing a save. In fact, I've had PCs convince other PCs to forego a save, versus Charm no less!

If a PC is gullible enough to let his actively choose to lower his guard, he gets what he deserves. In the case of PC vs NPC, Bluff vs Sense Motive seems appropriate.

 

[Jack Simth]

Ah, there we go - neither Enlarge Person nor Reduce Person have the (Harmless) tag. So if the target thinks you'll be casting one of those, any ranged Fort save spell will do the job - provided they can't beat your Bluff, or don't have Spellcraft to identify it's characteristics (such as the one-round casting time).

 

[Felix]

Isn't "I want you to elect to fail this saving throw" a metagame concept as well?

-Hyp.

What the vampiric flying mouse said.

It's like the dentist saying, "this isn't going to hurt a bit, so relax"; you know it will hurt, but you try to be calm and let it happen.

 

[Hypersmurf]

What the vampiric flying mouse said.

It's like the dentist saying, "this isn't going to hurt a bit, so relax"; you know it will hurt, but you try to be calm and let it happen.

But he's never had to specifically relax for a cure spell, or a fly spell, or an invisibility spell.

And it's why I think the caster needs to be careful what he picks as his Bluff. If it's a spell the target hasn't experienced, then Spellcraft will tell him whether it's harmless or not. But if it's a spell he has experienced, then Spellcraft or no Spellcraft, he may remember that there was no special calming or relaxing required last time...

-Hyp.

 

[Felix]

And it's why I think the caster needs to be careful what he picks as his Bluff. If it's a spell the target hasn't experienced, then Spellcraft will tell him whether it's harmless or not. But if it's a spell he has experienced, then Spellcraft or no Spellcraft, he may remember that there was no special calming or relaxing required last time...

So you admit the possibility, then, and merely caution how it's done?

 

[roguerouge]

Dude, that's what bard spells are all about:

"I'm going to cast a spell on you, don't resist it."
"Okay."
Cure light wounds.
"I'm going to cast another cure spell. Don't resist it."
"Okay."
Charm person.

Presto!

 

[Hypersmurf]

So you admit the possibility, then, and merely caution how it's done?

Oh, sure.

I'm basically saying "Pick your bluff carefully", because the mechanics of saving vs harmless and non-harmless spells are different.

If you choose a bluff that uses the same mechanic as what you're actually casting, you're less likely to have that bluff called.

-Hyp.