Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 788064" data-attributes="member: 3146">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.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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification