Voluntarily failing saves when spellcasters lie

[Wolfspider]

If I were a player and the DM in that situation didn't give me a saving throw, I would more than likely quite the game fairly quickly afterwards.

It's penalty enough to have an evil cleric get close enough to be able to cast such a spell unmolested. Auto death? Totally unfair.

And giving the character--a fighter--who likely doesn't have Sense Motive or Spellcraft as a skill a check using one of those skills to detect the aut-death deception? Even more lame.

 

[danzig138]

If I were a player and the DM in that situation didn't give me a saving throw, I would more than likely quite the game fairly quickly afterwards.

Aren't you the guy who said he'd quit a game if his Paladin fell also?

To the OP: interesting question. I think it's probably been answered well enough, but in my games, it wouldn't be an issue. I don't let people voluntarily fail Fortitude saves, and to fail a Will save, you have to succeed on a Concentration check (DC 25 or so, I'd have to check for the actual number).

 

[Wolfspider]

Aren't you the guy who said he'd quit a game if his Paladin fell also?

No. I've never played a paladin before.

On reflection, my reaction does seem like a bit of a hissy fit. I probably wouldn't quite the game, but I would have a healthy discussion with my DM. Instant kill with no saving throw doesn't really spell exciting or adventurous to me. Maybe other people are fond of that kind of thing....

 

[Bleahdom]

In this situation I think I would apply some extended roleplay logic in thinking of an answer.
Relaxing your guard for a spell is one thing, but the idea behind saves for spells is to allow you the ability to shrug off the incoming effects of a spell.
I would imagine the "feel" a Cure Wounds spell has would be quite different from that of a Slay Living spell, when the "feel" of death creeps up on you, you should get an automatic save when the spell allows it regardless of if you had your guard up or not as you are resisting this unnatural death.

 

[Ceska]

If I were a player and the DM in that situation didn't give me a saving throw, I would more than likely quite the game fairly quickly afterwards.

It's penalty enough to have an evil cleric get close enough to be able to cast such a spell unmolested. Auto death? Totally unfair.

And giving the character--a fighter--who likely doesn't have Sense Motive or Spellcraft as a skill a check using one of those skills to detect the aut-death deception? Even more lame.

Isnt it the right of the GM to roleplay as well? I´d say, if you trust a PC/NPC enough to let him cast a cure spell on you without saving, than it is probably right to assume that you don´t get a save (when you are unaware that the NPC/PC was replaced by an evil doppelganger).
As a GM I WOULD give you a sense motive or even a spellcraft check to get a hint that something is not as it should be. But its not my fault or problem as a GM when this skill is not one of the characters list of class skills.

 

[Wolfspider]

Isnt it the right of the GM to roleplay as well? I´d say, if you trust a PC/NPC enough to let him cast a cure spell on you without saving, than it is probably right to assume that you don´t get a save (when you are unaware that the NPC/PC was replaced by an evil doppelganger).
As a GM I WOULD give you a sense motive or even a spellcraft check to get a hint that something is not as it should be. But its not my fault or problem as a GM when this skill is not one of the characters list of class skills.

I didn't think that it was a roleplaying issue.

I just think it's a dirty trick, and I wouldn't use it on a PC ever.

Being instantly killed out of hand without a chance to resist doesn't seem very heroic or fun to me at all.

It may be legal according to the RAW, but it certainly seems to go against the spirit of the game, which is heroism (oh, and actually being able to play the game).

Mind you, I have no problem killing a character who acts stupidly or who is going down in a blaze of glory. But instant death with no save? Again, not in my games.

I'm really surprised to be getting so much opposition to my position on this issue....

 

[Wolfspider]

In this situation I think I would apply some extended roleplay logic in thinking of an answer.
Relaxing your guard for a spell is one thing, but the idea behind saves for spells is to allow you the ability to shrug off the incoming effects of a spell.
I would imagine the "feel" a Cure Wounds spell has would be quite different from that of a Slay Living spell, when the "feel" of death creeps up on you, you should get an automatic save when the spell allows it regardless of if you had your guard up or not as you are resisting this unnatural death.

Exactly.

With a cure spell, you begin to feel your bones knit back together, wounds close, power enter your body.

As soon as the damaging spell is cast, you'd feel tissue die, blood burn, you would instantly, instinctively begin to resist. That seems to me to be the very definition of a saving throw.

I guess DMs shouldn't allow PCs to resist the effects of a poisoned goblet of wine either, since they trusted the barmaid who gave it to them and willingly drank the wine....

 

[Hypersmurf]

I think it's nasty, but indeed, if you voluntarily forgo your save, you'll be affected. Not choosing is not an option - the question is, are you resisting the spell's effects, or not?

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.

 

[Ceska]

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. Imposter casts slay living. Fighter dead. Yes, he is tricked into accepting the spell, or better, he thinks that he gets a cure and gets a deadly spell. Sense motiv and spellcraft are appropriate. When he realizes that something is wrong, he would get a save. You see, there IS a security net, but its not the fault of the GM when the fighter is not very good in this skills.

For the situation with the poison: no saving throw is willingly foregone.

 

[Wolfspider]

*shrugs*

Different strokes for different folks.

Hope your players have fun with that interpretation.