Voluntarily failing saves when spellcasters lie

[cheshire_grin]

Cure spells channel positive energy in D&D, though, which very specifically is a force that creates life, rejuvenates living creatures, and gives a kind of warm feeling or buzz from the raw vital energy it instills. And Cure spells remove nonlethal damage at the same time as normal damage, so they obviously relieve pain.

Why did you quote me? I (and the person I quoted) were explicitly talking about non-[harmless] spells like Enlarge, which isn't a cure spell and doesn't channel positive energy.

The original question is moot, because [harmless] spells like cures don't require you to forgo a saving throw at all.

 

[werk]

err, damn. that's why I don't play clerics. In fact, I cut out most of the spells and got my group to play Iron Heroes instead for a change..

I'm confused...you don't play clerics because you are bad at reading?

Wouldn't all spellcasters suffer from this in your game?

 

[WarShrike]

I dont see the use of spellcraft in this issue. Priest spells arent magical in nature, and dont require the reciting of mystical phrases. Knowledge Religion would serve better, as a priest must pray to his/her/its diety. If my character was being targeted for a healing spell and heard the goodly priest praying to Hextor/Cyric, he'd know well enough to get the hell out of the way.

As to the original question, i agree that an instant kill is harsh, but if the fighter has no reason to suspect foul play, he shouldnt get a full save. I'd go with the penalty to save.

WarShrike

 

[Nail]

I dont see the use of spellcraft in this issue. Priest spells arent magical in nature, and dont require the reciting of mystical phrases. Knowledge Religion would serve better, as a priest must pray to his/her/its diety.

Read the Spellcraft skill description.

"Use this skill to identify spells as they are cast or spells already in place." Etc.

You don't use Know(religion) to identify "priest" spells.

 

[UltimaGabe]

Priest spells arent magical in nature, and dont require the reciting of mystical phrases. Knowledge Religion would serve better, as a priest must pray to his/her/its diety.

.....er....

...wait... what?

 

[Arkhandus]

Why did you quote me?

Err, apparently I must've clicked the Quote buttton one post down from the post I actually meant to quote. Was supposed to be quoting Slag Mortar, as it was his comment I was responding to. Fixed now.

 

[cheshire_grin]

Err, apparently I must've clicked the Quote buttton one post down from the post I actually meant to quote. Was supposed to be quoting Slag Mortar, as it was his comment I was responding to. Fixed now.

No worries, I was just confused.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

I'm confused...you don't play clerics because you are bad at reading?

Wouldn't all spellcasters suffer from this in your game?

No, because I don't want to be the healbot bandage patrol. I haven't studied the divine spells closely enough. I prefer the maneuver-type 'spells'.

 

[werk]

No, because I don't want to be the healbot bandage patrol. I haven't studied the divine spells closely enough. I prefer the maneuver-type 'spells'.

What does that have to do with the OP?

 

[akbearfoot]

I think he should get a save...

I also think it's pretty low down to try and kill a PC using a 'dirty trick' like this. I can't see many players having this happen to them NOT being exrtemely pissed and basically thinking 'Why is the DM picking on me'. Evne if it is within RAW, which I don't think it is, it's a simple case of you wanting to kill a player/s, not you wanting to run a fun, heroic adventure for/with you PCs.

That said, I agree with hypersmurf's interpretation that he would be allowed a save since the spell isn't [harmless].


The text in the book doesen't say 'each time someone casts a spell on you, you must CHOOSE to forego your save or try and resist it.' Choosing not to actively resist a [harmless] spell is NOT the same thing as willingly failing a saving throw against it.

Pretend its like makeing out....Boy starts to makeout with a girl, they kiss and touch, a little bit of harmless fun, doesen't mean she's agreed to go 'all the way'. If boy's hands start to wander too far south, then she's gonna respond with a saving throw to his right cheek! Same thing with magic...guy casts a spell on you, it 'feels' harmless so you're not actively resisting, but your also not actively making yourself more vulnerable to it...then the magic starts trying to do sick and depraved things to your soul and your body decides it doesen't like that so much, so you resist. If mechanically you had to decide to make saves or not BEFORE spells were cast, then I would agree that fighter asking for a cure spell = autofail....But there has got to be some sort of tangible interaction between the time a spell is cast on a person, the time the spell takes to 'sink in' and start TRYING to work, and the time they decide to make a save or not.

If you want to use a tactic like this, then you should alway's ask your party for EVERY spell they cast on each other, every time, and thats lame. The PLAYER might not know that he has been forgoing a WILL save a thousand times, but the CHARACTER should notice when the WILL save he has been giving up so many times suddenly feels like a FORT save instead.


Also for what its worth, Enlarge person is a bad example of a spell thats good to sneakily trade for a save-nah- die spell....It's a 1 round casting time. Even without spellcraft its gonna be pretty obvious that the casting time is way off.