Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheSword" data-source="post: 9729655" data-attributes="member: 6879661">I get what you’re saying, and it’s a fair point. But I think we’re coming at this from different directions. I revise my original point about not being touched if you don’t want to be touched. You are right - that is too specific.Instead let me explain it this way. There is a basic principle replicated across a huge number of spells that if you don’t want something to affect you, whether player or NPC, you have the ability to resist. Either by actively avoiding the attack (AC) or by throwing your energy into resisting the effect (Save). There are hostile exceptions but they are exceedingly rare.Meanwhile there is a whole class of touch spells that don’t have this requirement as standard because they are usually beneficial and it is assumed the person affected wants to be. Presumably the designers didn’t want to add text and caveats to every spell like this just for the one in a thousand chance someone wouldn’t want to be cured. You seem to treat beneficial spells as if they were intentionally designed to overcome all defenses. When in fact the text just doesn’t need a thousand extra words to say something that is largely redundant.However let’s take another scenario. I have a player who doesn’t want a fly spell to be cast on him. The other player tries to cast Fly on him against his will. The first player said they want to actively resist this. It sounds like because it’s not in the text you wouldn’t allow the player any defense against that effect - to try and leap out of the way or fend the wizard off with a weapon. I think this would be a mistake because resisting beneficial spells is not envisioned in the original framing of spell. If it did it would be treated like other spells folks want to resist like shocking grasp or inflict wounds and either allow a save or an attack roll.There is an even more fundamental point behind this. I try and give a PC broad autonomy over their characters wherever possible. I don’t give them broad autonomy over other characters.Direct control over a PC for possession or Domination is usually a temporary measure. I have no problem with a cure spell automatically working on a player for that reason. Being unable to control your character as a player is generally not great so as a DM being generous in overcoming that is a good thing.By the same token in the case of the BBEG possessed dragon - a creature designed by the DM to be a particular challenge - the DM has huge latitude in deciding the abilities of monsters. This can easily be justified in game by the length of time the dragon has been possessed or event the sheer fury of the dragon. Or as Maxperson said the fact that they were all hurtling through the air. Either way this is (as it is in the case of player who doesn’t want to fly) totally within the rules of the game for the DM to make judgement calls around sensible exceptions to the normal running of the game where it is warranted.Folks in my games that don’t like that can raise it and have a discussion about style in the same way they would if they didn’t like any other judgement call. I hope that explains my position better.</blockquote>

Verification