Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Vegepygmy" data-source="post: 5665092" data-attributes="member: 40109">I do not agree with Greenfield's interpretation of the RAW. I'm not aware of any place where the RAW says what Greenfield claims.&nbsp;Spells that allow a saving throw may cause the target to feel a &quot;hostile force or a tingle&quot; (PHB page 177), but mark of justice doesn't allow a save, so that doesn't apply. The rules for what constitutes an &quot;attack&quot; that breaks invisibility are expressly limited to the invisibility spell alone, so they don't apply. Anyone want to quote another rule that does apply?&nbsp;In the absence of such a rule, I'd say common sense governs. A creature that can't identify the spell as it is being cast (because it has no ranks in Spellcraft, for example) can't possibly know if the spell is harmful or beneficial until after it's been subjected to it. So if you tell a charmed victim that you're going to cast a beneficial spell on it, but you're really casting mark of justice, it's going to believe you (because of the charm) and let you do it.&nbsp;The moment you actually mark it, I'd say the creature would recognize that you tricked it and put a harmful spell on it, and that would break the charm. But it would already be marked.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vegepygmy, post: 5665092, member: 40109"] I do not agree with Greenfield's interpretation of the RAW. I'm not aware of any place where the RAW says what Greenfield claims. Spells that allow a saving throw may cause the target to feel a "hostile force or a tingle" (PHB page 177), but [I]mark of justice[/I] doesn't allow a save, so that doesn't apply. The rules for what constitutes an "attack" that breaks [I]invisibility[/I] are expressly limited to the [I]invisibility[/I] spell alone, so they don't apply. Anyone want to quote another rule that [I]does[/I] apply? In the absence of such a rule, I'd say common sense governs. A creature that can't identify the spell as it is being cast (because it has no ranks in Spellcraft, for example) can't possibly know if the spell is harmful or beneficial until after it's been subjected to it. So if you tell a charmed victim that you're going to cast a beneficial spell on it, but you're really casting [I]mark of justice,[/I] it's going to believe you (because of the charm) and let you do it. The moment you actually mark it, I'd say the creature would recognize that you tricked it and put a harmful spell on it, and that would break the charm. But it would already be marked. [/QUOTE]

Verification