Voluntarily failing saves when spellcasters lie

[irdeggman]

While I don't agree with the "tell them what they are saving against" bit - the rest does in fact follow in line with what I said earlier about "no surprise" since casting a non-harmless spell is now an "ofensive" action (per the cust serv action, well paraphrased anyway).

Having said that, I believe I have previously made my opinion known on where in the "pecking order" cust serv answers fall

So always take them with a grain of salt.

 

[Kiehtan]

Interesting take, and one I disagree with entirely There's no reason either the player or the character should be told the name of the spell unless the character makes a Spellcraft check. He can be told a saving throw is required unless he voluntarily foregoes it, which will distinguish the spell from Cure X Wounds, but I see no requirement to say "Slay Living".

I think that is a DM call. There is no reason the character should know which spell is being cast (without a successful spellcraft check), but whether or not the Dm tells the player what spell is effecting his PC is up to the DM. Regardless, the fact that he is making a save would be enough to alert him that it is a hostile spell, and my point all along was that he is entitled to the save, regardless of any roleplaying dupe the Dm is trying to pull off.



Now that, I sort-of almost agree with (mostly - Cure Wounds spells do have saves, but they're also [harmless], which gives approximately the result he describes), and it's what has been said from the start - if you really want the Slay Living trick to work, you should use a non-[harmless] spell as your deception.

-Hyp.

No, they don't, unless you are undead and thus the spell can damage you. That is the only time the cure spells grant a save.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, they don't, unless you are undead and thus the spell can damage you. That is the only time the cure spells grant a save.

If you read it that way, then the saving throw undead receive is "Will half (harmless)"... which means they only make a saving throw if they choose to. Which suggests to me that mindless undead (skeletons and zombies) won't get a save, because they can't make a choice.

The way I've read it is that the saving throw is Will half (harmless) for everyone except undead; the (see text) note lets us see that for undead, the saving throw is instead simply Will half, as it's not a (harmless) spell to them.

This means that skeletons and zombies get to save, since no choice is required for them to attempt a saving throw, and that non-undead creatures may elect to save for half the normal amount of healing.

-Hyp.

 

[felwar]

I think this is using the letter of the rule to defeat the spirit of it, and as a DM, you're the one who is supposed to do the exact opposite. You're talking about killing a character and giving them absolutely no chance to avoid it... no die roll of any kind by yourself or them. That in itself should tell you something is wrong.

 

[Ibn Khaldun]

I would not rule consent as forgoing the saving throw in this instance unless the spellcaster says something like "This is going to hurt. You're going to want to resist but don't." and then I would, when it begins to hurt, give the player the option to resist or not. It may not be rules proper (I don't know) but I would do it anyway. Even then, I'd feel cheap doing the player in like this. I'd rather use the opportunity to turn him into stone, encase him in carbonite, or something else that I can work into the game (and that I can have reversed) than outright kill him. But that's just me.

(Yes, I could work death into the game too but I'd prefer the other ways still.)

 

[udalrich]

I'd be willing to say there's no save. However, before we get to that point, we have the following.

When the doppelganger first appears, everyone gets a Spot check against the doppelgangers Disguise check to recognize him. If the doppelganger takes 10, this is a DC 29 check, so only the characters with significant ranks in Spot will make it.

If there's any social interaction between the players (or they're together long enough that this would happen, even if it isn't role-played), everyone gets a Sense Motive check to notice the impostor. This is a DC 20 check, so even the wisdom 10 fighter with no ranks can make it (on a natural 20).

Some of these checks might get repeated if there's a long time between the first appearance and the battle.

During the battle, anybody with Spellcraft would get a check to notice that the doppelganger is casting spells differently than usual. DC depends on how much time the doppelganger has had to learn about the original cleric's casting technique. I expect a DC between 10 and 30, depending also on details about how much variation there is between individual casters in my game.

When the treachery finally occurs, spellcasters would get another Spellcraft check to see that he's casting the wrong spell (DC 15 + level), and the target gets a Sense Motive against Bluff check. If the target makes the Sense Motive check, he gets a save. If the spellcasters make their check, they won't be able to interrupt the doppelganger, but they will be able to shout a warning, again giving the target a save.

The spell would be an don't-save-and-die spell, but (with the iconic party of four), there were previously probably nine failed skill checks. Some where (near) impossible, but some where certainly reasonable.

 

[roguerouge]

Well, if I were a doppelganger I'd definitely choose the most effective spell.

However, perhaps the doppelganger could choose a less... obvious spell. Something which won't tip off other party members right away, and allow him to maintain his charade.


As a DM, that solution is nice, because it's rational in character, and it means that there aren't any death's without saving throws happening.

Dude, cast Charm Person! Or Dominate (if he's that high a level!) That way, you can pump him for information to solidify your disguise and have an ally when you are (inevitably) found out!

 

[Wolfspider]

I think this is using the letter of the rule to defeat the spirit of it, and as a DM, you're the one who is supposed to do the exact opposite. You're talking about killing a character and giving them absolutely no chance to avoid it... no die roll of any kind by yourself or them. That in itself should tell you something is wrong.

Well said.