Tricking the Willing...

[ARandomGod]

However, don't get bogged down in the specific situation - think of the generic one.

You should always be allowed a save vs any spell that allows it - unless you choose to not take that save.

In this case - if you role played the whole thing well enough, the fighter would never have clued in the first place, and thus the whole question becomes academic.

I know where I stand - I'd've rolled the fighters save for him without telling him anything about it. I'd trust the player to role play through it and not metagame .

I have to vote with the fighter gets the save.
I agree with the above quote as well. You should roll the save without him knowing. If you want him to fail for story reasons, he fails.

(Circumstance bonus to spell... trust, extensive research of true name, fingernail clippings and hair and blood scrapings. Extensive precast rituals to increase the DC of this spell. Cast with a one use metamagic item... OK, roll will save dc 439087267.)

But, other than that... The magic begins to take hold. You were prepared to be compelled to tell the truth, but you feel instead a greater liking and trust of this mage. You aren't compelled at all. You'd tell this mage anything freely, he's a great guy. You love him... Roll a will save VS Charm.

Either 1) or 2)
1) You made your save, your feelings of goodwill fade and you know something was wrong. You may roll spellcraft to determine what, exactly.
2) You failed your save. You feel the zone of truth complete. You tell the mage anything, not even tempted to lie. You like him and trust him (GM to player, you've been charmed, roleplay it).

 

[Squire James]

I think there's enough instinctual distrust there that the fighter should be allowed a save, perhaps at -4 for trying to trust the wizard. I'd only nix the save if the court wizard was established as a close friend of the fighter. The fighter WILL lose any Spell Resistance he might have against such things.

 

[andargor]

Per the RAW, the fighter would not get a saving throw:

Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.

Andargor

 

[Fieari]

He either has no spellcraft or failed his spellcraft roll.

He knows "a spell is comming" and has agreed to fail the save voluntarily.

Without knowing what the spell is, how could he possibly renage on his agreement? He doesn't have enough knowledge to distinguish between the spells until well after the spell is cast. Even IF he has this general world knowledge of what wizards can do, which I would also argue would be represented by ranks in spellcraft, but even IN this case, you have to admit that distinguishing between spells as they are being cast IS a matter of spellcraft. That's what spellcraft is FOR.

He doesn't have the knowledge of what the spell that SHOULD be cast looks like, or feels like for that matter. For all he knows, Zone of Truth looks and feels EXACTLY like Charm Person. All he knows is "a spell is being cast". And he's voluntarily giving up the save.

No. No save. The rules state he can give up the save. He's given up the save.

Additionally, from a purely gaming point of view, I don't see how this is at all unfair. He -had- some saving throws... specifically, all the sense motive/bluff checks. He just happened to fail those. He had a chance and lost. I see nothing wrong with sticking to that.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

which, respectfully should be represented as at least one rank in spellcraft on the fighters character sheet. If he doesn't care enough to buy some ranks, then he really shouldn't have a clue.

Not in the slightest. You don't need to spend a rank to acquire what is common knowledge to adventurers.

However, that being said, someone else has already quoted a passage from the SRD which does go to show that a save can be relinquished, so the RAW seems clear. Which makes my ruling a House Rule.

 

[Endur]

Just to add some more confusion to the thread.

The fighter can tell the wizard, "sure, go ahead and cast your spell" and then the fighter can make his saving throw anyway. Nothing prevents the fighter from lying about whether he is resisting the spell.

The wizard might not even know whether the fighter made his saving throw.

 

[Liquidsabre]

The wizard might not even know whether the fighter made his saving throw.

PHB p.177, Saving Throw:
"Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, such as a charm person, you sense that the spell has failed."

 

[The Iron Mark]

I would let the fighter have a save, if only because rogues (and other characters) can still get reflex saves when helpless.

 

[andargor]

I would let the fighter have a save, if only because rogues (and other characters) can still get reflex saves when helpless.

(slight hijack, sorry)

Well, it doesn't say directly in the rules, but the following seem to point towards not allowing Reflex saves to helpless characters:

Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (-5 modifier).

Dexterity: Any creature that can move has at least 1 point of Dexterity. A creature with no Dexterity score can't move. If it can perform actions (such as casting spells), it applies its Intelligence modifier to initiative checks instead of a Dexterity modifier. The creature automatically fails Reflex saves and Dexterity checks.

Dexterity 0 means that the character cannot move at all. He stands motionless, rigid, and helpless.

This strongly suggest that no Reflex save is allowed to a helpless creature.

Andargor

 

[Lord Pendragon]

andargor, you don't think there is a distinction between "no dexterity score" and "a dexterity score of 0"...?