Voluntarily failing saves when spellcasters lie

[Ceska]

*shrugs*

Different strokes for different folks.

Hope your players have fun with that interpretation.

You see, my players did this to an NPC of me and I ruled it this way regardless of the fact that it wasn´t my idea. I appreciated the fact that they planned and roleplyed it very well and they succeded (the NPC rolled an spellcraft check, but failed).

 

[Hypersmurf]

The Op said: Fighter demanded healing magic. The Fighter knows, that magic will be cast on him and foregoes saving throw.

And let that be a lesson to him.

In future, don't willingly forego a save on a healing spell, because simple non-choice will have the same effect without leaving you vulnerable to a switcheroo.

-Hyp.

 

[reanjr]

I think I would grant a save at a penalty. Perhaps -4. That way the tactic is effective but not perfectly.

Sense motive and spellcraft are both viable options, but I think for story purposes, the "beneficiary" would sense something wrong when the magic began to take its effect. "What are you doing to me?"

 

[Arkhandus]

He gets a save. And I'm quite certain a rejuvenating effect would feel differently from a harmful one, when the moment comes that he is given the choice to attempt a save to resist the sudden, wrenching pain of the spell attempting to kill him.

 

[KarinsDad]

Those are different situations:

The Op said: Fighter demanded healing magic. The Fighter knows, that magic will be cast on him and foregoes saving throw.

The OP did not say that.

The OP said that Fighter asked for a harmless spell. As a harmless spell, the Fighter is not doing anything. He is not voluntarily giving up his save as you claim (harmless spells do not require that). Nor is he attempting to save.

So, Slay Living = saving throw. The rules are clear on this.


If the Fighter wants a spell that is not harmless like Enlarge Person cast on him, he has to voluntarily give up his save, otherwise he gets a Fort save against Enlarge Person. But, he does not need to do that for a harmless spell. Harmless spells just work, even if unconscious unless the target actively tries to resist.


An interesting question is whether an enemy caster could ready a harmful spell and cast it when a Fighter gives up his saving throw for an Enlarge Person by his ally. I could see an adjudication both ways on that.

 

[tomBitonti]

Take the example of a character who is unconscious. He is incapable of making a choice.

Against Cure Light Wounds, a [harmless] spell which allows a save, he attempts no save; there is a saving throw against the spell, but because it is [harmless], it requires the target to elect to make that save. In the absence of such a choice, the save is foregone automatically... and because he's unconscious, he cannot choose.

Against Inflict Light Wounds, a non-[harmless] spell which allows a save, he automatically attempts the save; there is a saving throw against the spell, and since it is not [harmless], giving up that save requires the target to elect to do so. In the absence of such a choice, the save is attempted automatically... and because he's unconscious, he cannot choose.

So, similarly, when the cleric says to you "I'm going to cast Cure Light Wounds on you, so don't bother attempting a save", you don't need to make the conscious choice "I will forego this save"; rather, you make no choice at all. If it is, indeed, a [harmless] spell, it will take effect automatically, since you have not elected to attempt a save. If it is, however, actually a non-[harmless] spell that allows a save, like Slay Living, you will attempt a save automatically, since you have not elected to forego your save.

-Hyp.

Hey, I like that reasoning. But! Where are the rules for making saving throws specified for an unconscious character?

To change the scenario ...

A party encounters an NPC cleric of a strange and forgotten god. Receiving an offering, the cleric agrees to heal a party member, but with a non-harmless spell that inflicts a temporary loss of fortitude. (Say, -2 to CON for a day in exchange for 3d8 + 7 HP.) The cleric explains that the fighter must "consent" or the spell may fail.

Now, the offering is of a forbidden elder fruit. This offends the cleric, who will cast slay living instead of the requested spell.

All party members are given knowledge (religion) checks to tell if the correct offering is made, and are given sense motive checks to tell if the cleric is pleased by the offering, and the party spell casters can use spellcraft to verify what spell is being cast.

In this case, assuming that all of these checks fail, then my result is that the fighter does not get a saving throw.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hey, I like that reasoning. But! Where are the rules for making saving throws specified for an unconscious character?

From the Magic Overview:

Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result.

but also

(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.

So ordinarily, a saving throw is simply something that happens, but you can voluntarily forego your save. 'Voluntarily foregoing' requires a decision, and an unconscious character is in no position to make decisions.

However, if the spell if [harmless], the targeted creature only attempts a saving throw 'if it desires'. Desire to attempt a save requires a decision, and an unconscious character is in no position to make decisions.

In this case, assuming that all of these checks fail, then my result is that the fighter does not get a saving throw.

I'd agree with this; since the spell he expected to receive is not [harmless], he was required to make the conscious choice to forego his save in order to allow it to take automatic effect. The fact that the spell cast on him isn't what he expected doesn't change that he's foregone his save against the spell the cleric is casting.

-Hyp.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

Agreed, the various Cure spells are not [harmless] because they hurt undead, and they don't want the cleric's spells turning into beefed-up or area shocking grasps vs probably the most encountered dungeon creature type.

 

[Imp]

He gets a save. And I'm quite certain a rejuvenating effect would feel differently from a harmful one, when the moment comes that he is given the choice to attempt a save to resist the sudden, wrenching pain of the spell attempting to kill him.

That is how I would play it, and the rationale I'd use. I might throw in a -2 circumstance penalty. The touch attack scores automatically. But no way am I throwing a save-or-die at a player like that. Gross.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Agreed, the various Cure spells are not [harmless] because they hurt undead...

Er... the various Cure spells are [harmless].

You can tell from the Saving Throw and SR lines:

Saving Throw: Will half (harmless); see text
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless); see text

-Hyp.