Voluntarily failing saves when spellcasters lie

[Hypersmurf]

It's a fort save, which to me implys that the body, not the mind, is fighting off the effects.

Sounds good to me.

Nor can you consciously tell it to not fight off the slay living spell.

Yes, you can.

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

Whether it implies to you that the body or the mind is fighting off the effects makes no difference. A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result.

Remember, Enlarge Person is Fortitude Negates, which means that your body automatically attempts to fight it... unless you voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept the spell’s result. If the wizard is wasting a one round casting time and a spell slot to embiggen the fighter, he doesn't want it all for nothing because the fighter has a good Fort save!

-Hyp.

 

[Kiehtan]

Sounds good to me.


Whether it implies to you that the body or the mind is fighting off the effects makes no difference. A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result.



-Hyp.

I should have been more clear. Yes, you can choose to not make a save. But, at what point do you choose to voluntarily give up the save? Is it before the spellcaster begins casting (that guy is gonna cast a spell on me and I will accept the consequences)? Is it during the casting (that guy is casting a spell on me and I will accept the consequences)? Is it after the spell has been cast (that guy cast a spell on me that seems to be sucking the freaking life out of me, oh well, I have a death wish, I guess I will accept the consequences)? My interpretation is that the spell goes off, begins to affect your body, and you take a free action to descide whether or not to save.

 

[nittanytbone]

The purpose of saving throws has always been to give heroes (and villains) a fighting chance, even against insurmountable odds. In the 1E DMG, Gary Gygax wrote that he would give a hero chained to a rock a save vs. a dragon's breath -- perhaps he finds a crevice just in time, or the dragon's aim is off, or the fighter manages to shield his face and avoid inhaling the worst of the fumes, whatever.

Sticking with that philosophy, I would give the fighter a save, but perhaps apply a -2 or -4 circumstance penalty as he has been taken by surprise. I would allow a Spellcraft check and Sense Motive check as immediate actions to avoid being surprised. I would allow the spellcraft check to be made untrained if the fighter had been exposed to this particular spell before -- he should have a chance to remember the components that go along with Cure Light Wounds and realize that something is amiss even though he has no formal training in Arcana.

This may not be strictly "By the Book," but it is a ruling which remains true to the spirit of two very basic guidelines in D&D: Always give the players and the monsters a fair shake and a chance to escape the impossible (1E DMG), and the Rule of 2 (3.5 DMG).

 

[Kiehtan]

The closest thing I can find that would seem to support my theory that you decide on a save after the spell is cast and it begins affecting you would be the resurrection type spells. You are dead, your soul is on another plane of existence. Someone on the Prime Material casts resurrection. You did not know they were gonna cast it. You did not see it go off. You did not choose to save against the spell. But the spell goes off, it begins to affect you, to draw you back to the Prime. If you don't want to go, the spell fails, but you can't choose to not want to go until after the spell is cast and attempts to get a hold of you. All you know is that a priest of whatever god is trying to draw you back and you decide to fight it. I would say the Slay Living spell is similar. All you know is that a spell is attemptig to snuff out your life force and you can choose to fight it (make a save) or die. I would not modify the save one way or another because he was "taken by surprise." The soul being resurrected is just as much being taken by surprise, but he gets no penality to his decision to allow or disallow the resurrection.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The closest thing I can find that would seem to support my theory that you decide on a save after the spell is cast and it begins affecting you would be the resurrection type spells.

That's a separate mechanic to saving throws. There isn't a saving throw vs Resurrection; rather, you can elect not to return.

A saving throw determines whether or not a spell affects you (if it's a Save Negates, at least). So you can't use the effect of the spell to decide whether you wish to save or not; by the time the spell has affected you, you've either saved or you haven't already. So the decision has to be made before the spell affects you, which means you can't use how the spell feels to base your decision... 'cos you haven't felt anything yet.

-Hyp.

 

[Kiehtan]

Here's the answer from Wizard's customer support:

Subject
Spells - Voluntarily failing saves when spellcasters lie

Discussion Thread
Response (Support Agent) 09/02/2007 03:40 PM
James,

Anytime a hostile effect is cast on the character they get a save. You are walking the fine line between OOC and IC "deception". The reality is, he is going to get a save. Chosing to save or not is not something you drop. You may be confusing this with SR. If he drops his SR to accept the heal? Then yes, then slay living will not check SR, but the character always gets a save against a spell they do not wish to affect them even if the character believes that spell to be friendly in nature and it is fact hostile. When their body or spirit (or whatever determines resists) senses hostile magic, it pushes back with a save.

Does that make sense? Please let me know if you need anymore help!


John K.
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST
Customer (James Silva) 09/02/2007 07:47 AM
Here's a qustion that has caused some serious debate and disagreement. Hoppefully, you guys can help:

Doug the fighter has finished his latest battle with significant injuries. He asks his friend Mike the cleric to heal his wounds, and Mike agrees. Unbeknown to Doug, Mike has been replaced by an evil doppelganger cleric. Instead of casting cure moderate wounds, the trickster casts Slay Living instead.

Does the fighter get a save?

Why?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Does that make sense? Please let me know if you need anymore help!

Maybe point out:
Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result.
... in response to "Chosing to save or not is not something you drop."

-Hyp.

 

[Kiehtan]

Ok, I did, and here is the response:

D&D rule "fact" is an elusive thing. The reality is yes, on page 173 it says "A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. PHP p 173". 100% correct. However, as a byline of saving throws and we tell you this because it simply is how saving throws work, is that in all reality a player can voluntarily drop their save. However, the player should be informed what spell they are dropping the save for truthfully. So if someone touches them and they believe its a heal in character, that player should then be informed "Actually you are being affected by Slay Living. Do you wish to save?"

This is not a game of out of character deception. However, Rules Interpretations allows for DMs to interpret the rules how they like. A particular sadistic or tough DM may opt to not give the player that choice and simply have them die. As we interpret that rule however, a player is allowed a truthful decision about if they wish to save against a spell or not regardless if they are "duped" in character.

Truthful interactions with players during IC deceptions also fosters good feelings of trust among a gaming group. If a DM is simply out to slay PCs and show how clever they can be by deceiving players out of character, then likely those players may somehow feel that the decision was unfair. As a policy we encourage DMs to have fun with their players and challenge them. However, we do not encourage OOC trickery.

Besides, if you want to get truly technical, Cure Wounds spells do not HAVE saves. So when someone is touched with a cure wounds they will not even be asked to make a save so they will be asked nothing. However, when Slay Living comes into play, they will have to be asked if they wish to save. Dropping your saving throw applies only to a specific spell each individual time. Not that you drop it for a specified period, etc.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So if someone touches them and they believe its a heal in character, that player should then be informed "Actually you are being affected by Slay Living. Do you wish to save?"

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".

Besides, if you want to get truly technical, Cure Wounds spells do not HAVE saves. So when someone is touched with a cure wounds they will not even be asked to make a save so they will be asked nothing. However, when Slay Living comes into play, they will have to be asked if they wish to save.

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.

 

[Rystil Arden]

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".

Agreed. This gets even more ridiculous when you're dealing with a subtle effect with a Will Save. Let's say a Psion NPC who is along with the party in a dungeon room, secretly an enemy, eliminates all the displays of her Psionic Dominate with the trivial Concentration check. Her plan is to use it a few times on the party Barbarian until it succeeds. If it should fail, he'll know he's making a Will Save, but he won't know what--it might just be an enemy Scrying on him, or a trap in the room.

But with CustServ's interpretation, you have to tell the player "Actually, that Will Save is a Psionic Dominate." I think that's pretty silly and extraordinarily metagamey, particularly if the character has no ranks in Psicraft.