Voluntarily failing saves when spellcasters lie

[irdeggman]

I agree with Hyp pretty much entirely here.

If a character decides to forgo his saving throw then he can't change his mind. Spellcraft checks used against spells being cast only help when counterspelling (and that is a ready action). In this case the character would have used his action to "not save". You can't decide to actively defend yourself once someone has already hit you with a sword (to avoid being hit from that blow) - spells work the same way. You are not casting all round for a standard action spell - the casting and the result happen effectively at the same time.

But he doesn't have to say that. A hamless spell works differently than others and the character shouldn't be "forced" to choose. He could be "enticed" to think he has to choose, but if he has been healed before he would "know" that the spell works even if he is unconscious (and can't actively choose to forgo his saving throw).

Also Slay Living requires a melee touch attack. It does not state touch it states melee touch attack. I know it is rather rules-lawery but it is not handled the same as a cure spell (that only requires the touch attack if the recipient is in melee).

I also assume the doppleganger had the spell memorized since he can't freely swap it out. Looks too contrived (at at the last minute) to me.

 

[dren]

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

I agree with this statement 100%. This is a tactic I've seen PCs do on other PCs, but we are friends and sometimes this kind of trickery is acceptable and fun; but not for the DM, it's just mean spirited.

 

[Carpe DM]

Apologies if someone has already mentioned this, but a thought experiment shows that the "default" position is correct:

Let's say the casting happened while the fighter was at -1 hitpoints, unconscious. If it was a heal, he's healed, no save. If it was not a heal, he'd get a save before dying. *Edit* -- I see someone else did say this, so just add me as a supporter of this idea */Edit*

Independently, although I'm all about the rules, being a LN game master, I have to say: any situation that is a kill with no save causes players to take inefficient precautions. I would really rather give the fighter a save, instead of having players second-guessing every spell cast by everyone.

Look, if you really want to kill a PC, have the doppleganger knife the guy while he's asleep. You don't even have to bend the rules.

And as for their clever plan -- the "they did it to an NPC, now I'll do it to them," I don't see the need for it. Just say that you made a mistake, it doesn't change the past, but on a going-forward basis the "trick someone into dying" gambit isn't going to work.

best,

Carpe

 

[UltimaGabe]

Look, if you really want to kill a PC, have the doppleganger knife the guy while he's asleep. You don't even have to bend the rules.

This, right here, is probably the best statement in this entire thread. I agree 100%.

Doing down-and-dirty tricks to your PCs to try and kill them without a save is not only wrong, it's unnecessary. If all you're trying to do is kill your PCs, why not just toss a 40th-level Tarrasque sorcerer at them while they're resting? There's nothing they can do to prevent against it, and surely none of them will see it coming. And it's so much easier to just say, "Alright, everyone give me a DC 60 Fortitude save. Alright, you're all dead," than to work out some rules-bending situation to kill someone without a save. If you're trying to get your PCs to be on their toes, do it some other way than killing them without saves.

Me, personally, I'd never use this tactic, for Carpe DM's reason. (Just to reinforce, I also agree wholeheartedly with Hypersmurf's ruling.) If all I was trying to do was kill PCs, I wouldn't bother with a Doppleganger and a voluntarily failed save. Now, I might use this situation- maybe- with some sort of a non-save-or-die spell, but a save-or-have-some-sort-of-long-term-hindrance spell like Bestow Curse. But, even still, I'd allow a save unless the player chooses to forego it on a non-[Harmless] spell.

 

[Nail]

"Rocks fall and you all die.

.....roll up new PCs, please."

 

[WarShrike]

So your against instant kill spell situations but advocate the Doppler "coup-de-graceing" the entire party when their sleeping? (like say during his watch). I still dont agree with the insta kill, but he knows hes getting a spell cast on him, he asked someone he still trusts to heal him, hes expecting a heal, he should at least get a penalty. Im not saying its his fault, if the Dopp was well RPed, theres no reason to suspect him. Well, Dopps are a little jittery in the head, prolonged exposure to his company should raise some questions.

WarShrike

 

[WarShrike]

Whoops, read that wrong, my bad. I agree with changing the spell to something less drastic. If the fighter is badly hurt, it'd be kinda funny to cast a Life Ward on him. It's not listed as harmless, but i wonder if since its intended as a protecton spell, would the fighter auto-resist it?

WarShrike

 

[TheBladeOfEilistraee]

Evil doppleganger kills party cleric. Fighter gets boo-boo on balls, calls the cleric to heal. Cleric tries to cast "Slay Living" on him, instead of Cure X Wounds...what happens?

In my own opinion the Fighter would definately notice the different hand gestures and spell incantation of "Slay Living" then that of "Cure X Wounds". But the issue here seems more along the lines of how long has he been traveling with the Cleric (who's name is Mike...). If it's been a 1+ days he wouldn't recognize the hand signs OR other means of invoking Healing Spells (I play a Cleric of Eilistraee and instead of hand signs I use a song... it's different for every God. ex. Eilistraee and Helm have very different means of recieving divine aid).
Then again, if the Fighter and the Cleric have known each other, and have adventured together for quite a while now, it's a whole different story all together. Ex.: If Gre'l'lesh the party Orc Barbarian with an Inteligence score of 8 (-2) was wounded and requested help from me as the party Cleric andhe doesn't know that I got replaced by a Doppleganger. The Doppleganger doesn't know my invocation of healing spells, in other words he doesn't know I sing. The Barbarian does, eaven with a simpleton mind like his (if oyu ever read this I'm sorry Stan) so he would definately notice something strange, and probably stop the false me from doing the invocation.
Since this is a Barbarian we're talking about, he'll definately sense there is something not very right with the spell. He doesn't have ranks in Spellcraft, but he does in Sense Motive (2). Eaven with such low ranks he's familiar with the Cleric. He notices something different. If the Doppleganger attacks, he shouts a warning to the rest of the party.
The Barbarian class and Fighter class are very similar. They have trigger that says "Not a Healing Spell!!!" in they're heads.

Also on the subject of the Saving Throws, PC's or NPC's sleeping or in state of Unconcious get Saving Throws. From my point of view the Saving Throw is a natural defensive reaction. When somebody tries to pokes you with a needle in the hand, you move it away to avoid further inuries or pain (Reflex Saving Throw).
When some guy off the street tries to fool a kid to get into the car, the kid get's a chance to Sense Motive, and het a Will Saving Throw, and then gets to use Run (wich is a naturally high ranking skill in kids).
Furthermore, a Fighter upon who has been cast "Slay Living" will get a natural body reaction (a FORTITUDE SAVE) to avoid death. If he makes it he'll rip the Doppleganger to shreads ignoring the searing pain coursing still through his body.
There is still the issue of the Touch for succesfull completion of "Slay Living". Surely the Fighter will notice the Negative Energy pulsing through the Clerics hands and body?

I'm done ramling now (thanks your Gods )

 

[Dargon]

anyway it is a will save you give up NOT a fort. save
so you would still get the fort. save for the slay spell

 

[eamon]

I don't think it's a good idea to kill a PC outright, but if that's the situation that arrises... well I might try to avoid it, but I prefer a consistent world in which a PC's happened to randomly die instead of one in which is inconsistent yet they live.

So by all means, try to find a way around it, but if that's the only thing that makes sense... well... tough luck!

Incidentally, I think there's something odd about making [harmless] saving throws more difficult to resist than normal saving throws. That strikes me as somehow... arcane . I suppose it's an unfortunate corner-case, but I'd be tempted to completely remove the [harmless] modifier from the game if that's your interpretation, and to have unconscious characters automatically fail reflex and will saves. Blech... irritating rules... can't they just work?