Voluntarily Failing Saves

[Ziggurat]

Anyone can voluntarily fail their saving throw (PHB 150); do they have to be aware of which spell they are accepting?

If, for example, PCs were tricked into believing that a spellcaster wanted to help them when in fact s/he intends them harm, and agree to have a spell cast on them, do they get a save?

Would they get a Spellcraft check to realize that they were in trouble? Even if they made it, would they have time to do something about it? If it's a spell that involves mental domination would they get a save anyway, or is that abdication of rights also covered by voluntarily giving up their save? Wouldn't this be a really easy way to kill someone (i.e. get them to trust you, and then lay down a Finger of Death)?

 

[Vaxalon]

A spellcraft check is the appropriate skill to use to identify a spell being cast.

Once that check is made, the character can choose to allow the spell to affect him.

I don't think that someone who was charmed or dominated, however, should be capable of allowing a spell.

 

[Henrix]

Anyone can voluntarily fail their saving throw (PHB 150); do they have to be aware of which spell they are accepting?

No, that would make it impossible to forego saves against spells you were not acquainted with.

If, for example, PCs were tricked into believing that a spellcaster wanted to help them when in fact s/he intends them harm, and agree to have a spell cast on them, do they get a save?

If they choose to forego the save, they would not get a save.

Would they get a Spellcraft check to realize that they were in trouble? Even if they made it, would they have time to do something about it?

I would only allow a spellcraft check if they explicitly said they were going to try and see what spell was being cast. If they did, they would have a prepared action to do something.
Foregoing or not a save is probably not an action.

If it's a spell that involves mental domination would they get a save anyway, or is that abdication of rights also covered by voluntarily giving up their save?/QUOTE]
If they agree to forego the save they don't get any, unless the spell description says otherwise, or if they have special abilities that do.

Wouldn't this be a really easy way to kill someone (i.e. get them to trust you, and then lay down a Finger of Death)?

Yes.

 

[Ziggurat]

*steeples fingers*

Excellent.

I currently have my party convinced that their arch-enemy is actually a good friend (despite warnings to the contrary from friends, the church, the plot...), and he's been dripping poison into their ears for a few months now (I'm hoping they'll learn not to trust every 'source' unequivocally from now on). I am about to lead them down a particularly Machiavellian path...

 

[Al]

I'd allow a Spellcraft roll irrespective of trust and the like. Perhaps a penalty to the DC, but there are just I always regard Spellcraft as just something you know. Much as a chemist could recognise a particular distinctive chemical or a botanist a particular plant, a spellcrafter can always recognise the spell.

The fun starts against characters without spellcraft. Just hope they have a decent Sense Motive...suddenly Bluff becomes an awfully useful spell (although of course in a combat situation I'd be a bit wary of a foe who suddently wants to 'heal' me)