Tricking the Willing...

[Hypersmurf]

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

There is, indeed, a distinction.

Nevertheless, we also find in the entry for Evasion: "As with a reflex save for any creature, a character must have room to move in order to use evasion."

If you're paralyzed, it doesn't matter how much room you have... it's not 'room to move'...

-Hyp.

 

[dragonsworn]

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



Andargor

I have to agree Andargor on this. The SRD seems to be quite clear. Once the PC decides to forgo the save and voluntarily allow the spell to happen then there is no turning back.

In our current campaign this happens all the time. I play a cleric of Wee Jas and there are many times where she will cast spells on the other PC's of a more or less beneficial nature, but she will not always state the spell she is casting. One spell in particular she casts is Gift of Reason from Green Ronin's Pocket Grimoire Divine. This spell temp changes the PC's alignment to LN and also gives them bonuses on saves vs mind affecting magic. Some PC's may think this is beneficial, and others may find it detrimental due to the alignment changing effect. Once the PC decides to trust the caster and voluntarily relinquishes the save then the spell happens and the PC is stuck with the effect.

 

[Scharlata]

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

... and you wouldn't have to concern yourself why the tricked character gave up his save. He just gave it up for good.

Kind regards

 

[S'mon]

Per the RAW, Will saving throws are automatic (don't require awareness) UNLESS you voluntarily lower your defenses, which characters will often do on request so they can be Scryed, Detected etc. Once you forfeit your save, you forfeit your save even if the spell being cast on you isn't what you expected. Tough luck.

 

[andargor]

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

Yes, I do think there's a distinction in game terms. All I'm saying is that those three paragraph nevertheless make a good case for disallowing Reflex saves to helpless characters.

Andargor

 

[Tilla the Hun (work)]

Originally Posted by srd35

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.



Um...
Sure, he 'voluntarily' gave up his saving throw to accept the designated spell's result.

Except the spell he surrendered to wasn't the spell's result he thought it was.

At this point, it becomes GM's adjudication.

Sorry, but the RAW isn't really all that clear here.

You could run it as a bluff (sounds like fun) or a secret save (like I'd do) or any of the other suggestions here... but understand it's a judgement call

 

[Lamoni]

Um...
Sure, he 'voluntarily' gave up his saving throw to accept the designated spell's result.

Except the spell he surrendered to wasn't the spell's result he thought it was.

At this point, it becomes GM's adjudication.

Sorry, but the RAW isn't really all that clear here.

I agree... and I would run it slightly different than what others have posted. Although I would gladly accept any ruling from the DM since either position is understandable.

I would say that if the fighter opened his mind to forego a will save, it would have no affect on spells that require a Fort save. The fighter opened his mind, but didn't surrender his body. As long as the spell the fighter was expecting had the same type of save as the spell that was actually cast, I would allow no save. Of course, beforehand I would directly ask the fighter if he drops his defenses rather than just assume that he does so. PC's can lie just as easily as NPC's can.

 

[reanjr]

Saving Throws represent more than resistance, or agility in dodging traps or whatnot. A part of what a Saving Throw represents is luck. Heroic good fortune or what have you. Because of that, I don't deny a saving throw against a harmful effect, even if the PC was duped into believing it would be beneficial. There's a reason it's called "dumb luck."

Edit to add:It takes, what?, a few hours to familiarize yourself with the PH and know what spells a wizard can cast. You think a fighter, whose life depends on knowing such things, wouldn't have taken a few hours to know what wizards and clerics are capable of?

The ones that took ranks in Spellcraft, yes.

There is no handy reference like a PH for the fighter to reference before he goes to bed to try to learn all this stuff.

 

[reanjr]

I agree... and I would run it slightly different than what others have posted. Although I would gladly accept any ruling from the DM since either position is understandable.

I would say that if the fighter opened his mind to forego a will save, it would have no affect on spells that require a Fort save. The fighter opened his mind, but didn't surrender his body. As long as the spell the fighter was expecting had the same type of save as the spell that was actually cast, I would allow no save. Of course, beforehand I would directly ask the fighter if he drops his defenses rather than just assume that he does so. PC's can lie just as easily as NPC's can.

I have to agree with you there. Submitting to Will saves wouldn't cause you to take a fireball to the left eye without flinching.

 

[Scharlata]

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. [...]

Sure, he 'voluntarily' gave up his saving throw to accept the designated spell's result. Except the spell he surrendered to wasn't the spell's result he thought it was.

Yepp, that's the trick of the trick...

...forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result....

It does neither say "an anticipated", nor "a desired", nor "only the spell bargained for".

If you desire something you often drop your guard. So, that's the root of misinterpretation and disappointment. You lower your guard, you MIGHT get tricked and other people MIGHT get the better off of you. Isn't that part of the background for much storytelling in or out of history and fantasy history. Someone you trusted turns his coat and sticks a poisoned dagger into your kidney? Did you see that coming? You lowered your guard, now you are disappointed?

Your DM would probably let you make a Spot and/or a Sense Motive check if someone you really trusted comes to you, a dagger hidden beneath his cloak. You probably lowered your guard because you failed the checks or - and that's the point - you forewent [?, forego] your check because you trust him. He now has the opportunity to sneak attack you. Why shouldn't it be possible to do the same thing with a spell?

If your are tricked to give something like a saving throw willingly up, you are uttermost vulnerable.

Buy some ranks in Spellcraft, in Sense Motive, and Spot, and maybe you are safe.

Kind regards