D&D 5E Zone of truth 5e: Justice system revolution!

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yup. Merchants would use them all the time. It would be especially helpful with verifying documents. "To the best of your knowledge, are all the representations you have made in this contract as to the validity and quality of your wares correct and complete?" or even more simply "Are you withholding any information you think I would want to know?"... Evasive answers also don't have to be tolerated. You can limit the answers to "Yes" and "No", or rephrase your questions until "Yes" and "No" are valid answers. Failure to answer questions unambiguously could be considered presumptions of guilt.

"Yes" and "No" are actually more ambiguous and easier to abuse than full-sentence answers. I'd go the opposite way: I would not trust any statement made under a Zone of Truth which was not a full, declarative sentence.

"Are all of your wares of the quantity and quality stipulated in the contract you signed with my father one year ago?"

"Yes, Domenico, all of my wares are, to the best of my knowledge, of the quality and quantity stipulated in the contract I signed with your father one year ago" is harder to fake than a monosyllabic "Yes."

 

[Irda Ranger]

Just spitballing, here, but assuming that there was use of a zone of truth in a criminal "trial" (roughly approximating what we would think of as a trial), why wouldn't it simply be by a cleric at the service of the court, or, perhaps more pertinently, cast by the judge/cleric himself in his role as the factfinder?

Obviously that would be more efficient, as it only requires one caster and one spell. It's a question of whether you trust the cleric selected by the Court and can afford to bring your own.

Maybe for the poor defendants there's nothing for it but to be submitted to the Court's Zone of Truth and take the risk that it's a circus Court set up to maximize conviction rates rather than discern truth, but I can see a wealthy merchant or aristocrat demanding the right to have their own priests administer the spell. Especially if the charges against her are political in nature (such as treason).

Wouldn't that at least be a little closer to the ecclesiastical courts prior to the 17th century ... and it is a cleric spell?

D&D isn't a simulation of a specific time and place from history.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Obviously that would be more efficient, as it only requires one caster and one spell. It's a question of whether you trust the cleric selected by the Court and can afford to bring your own.

As pointed out earlier on this thread, there's a way around this: you can directly experience Zone of Truth (to verify that it is working), and you can also make the cleric stand in the AoE for long enough to (probably) fail his save, before rendering his verdict on whether or not the accused failed his save. E.g. you could have the cleric stand there for nine minutes while the accused testifies, and then in the tenth minute the cleric tells the court at what point the accused failed his save. Since the cleric is virtually guaranteed to have failed his own save by the tenth minute*, that's about as trustworthy a protocol as you're going to get.

* Some wonky combinations might be able to resist their own Zone of Truth indefinitely. E.g. a Blackguard cleric 3/paladin 6+ with Wisdom 13 and Charisma 20, when casting Zone of Truth as a cleric spell, will have DC 9 + prof, but will have +(10 + prof) to his Charisma saves, ergo he will always make his save against his own Zone of Truth.

And of course there's also always the trick where someone casts Subtle Dispel Magic on the Zone of Truth right before the priest renders his verdict.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

* Some wonky combinations might be able to resist their own Zone of Truth indefinitely. E.g. a Blackguard cleric 3/paladin 6+ with Wisdom 13 and Charisma 20, when casting Zone of Truth as a cleric spell, will have DC 9 + prof, but will have +(10 + prof) to his Charisma saves, ergo he will always make his save against his own Zone of Truth.

No matter the bonus, a natural 1 is still a failure on a saving throw. It's unlikely, but still technically possible, that someone could make all one hundred saves necessary to overcome the spell.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

No matter the bonus, a natural 1 is still a failure on a saving throw. It's unlikely, but still technically possible, that someone could make all one hundred saves necessary to overcome the spell.

Perhaps it's a house rule you've been playing with for so long you forgot; or perhaps it's an assumption carried over from other games, but either way in 5E that is incorrect. A natural 1 is only an auto failure on an attack roll in 5E. For ability checks and saving throws, a 1 is just a 1. If your mods are high enough, you can auto-succeed. This is great for certain Concentration saves.



Sent from my Moto G (4) using EN World mobile app

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Perhaps it's a house rule you've been playing with for so long you forgot; or perhaps it's an assumption carried over from other games, but either way in 5E that is incorrect. A natural 1 is only an auto failure on an attack roll in 5E. For ability checks and saving throws, a 1 is just a 1. If your mods are high enough, you can auto-succeed. This is great for certain Concentration saves.

That's good to know, thanks. This may well be the first ever edition of D&D where this is the case (barring 4E, which doesn't even have saving throws in the traditional sense). With luck, maybe 6E will get rid of the auto-hit on a 20 rule.

It also seems that a natural 20 on a saving throw is no longer an automatic success, which might cause problems with save-ends type spells that can't actually be saved against. It's not even much of a corner case, given how poorly non-proficient saves scale. Why aren't people complaining about that more?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That's good to know, thanks. This may well be the first ever edition of D&D where this is the case (barring 4E, which doesn't even have saving throws in the traditional sense). With luck, maybe 6E will get rid of the auto-hit on a 20 rule.

It also seems that a natural 20 on a saving throw is no longer an automatic success, which might cause problems with save-ends type spells that can't actually be saved against. It's not even much of a corner case, given how poorly non-proficient saves scale. Why aren't people complaining about that more?

If I had to conjecture, I'd say it's because it rarely comes up in actual play. Anything with DC 20+ is an ancient dragon or similar high-CR creature; and we have reason to suppose that most play takes place at low levels. It may not even occur.

Besides, there is little difference in practice between failing 95% and 100% of the time. It doesn't cause behavior changes the way auto-success does. Either way you're going to avoid subjecting yourself to the effect. With auto-success on the other hand, you can now subject yourself to the effect freely. You're a wizard holding up a Wall of Force in a vampire in the face of kobold arrow fire? Well, with +9 on your saves due to Resilient (Con) and a paladin buddy, there's no rush. They can't free the vampire no matter how hard they hit you, unless you run out of HP. No need to panic and Meteor Swarm them, just calmly take them out with Fire Bolt one at a time, Shielding the occasional hits. It's a game changer.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using EN World mobile app

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If I had to conjecture, I'd say it's because it rarely comes up in actual play. Anything with DC 20+ is an ancient dragon or similar high-CR creature; and we have reason to suppose that most play takes place at low levels. It may not even occur.

Most of my experience is with higher-level play, and it was not uncommon for an enemy to be at -1 against the PC spellcaster's DC 20. I think all of the PCs had at least one stat where their save was at 0 or -1, at least while they were away from the paladin.

The biggest concern is probably with the Hold spells, since an enemy who can't break free is one that can safely be ignored (rather than one which should be dispatched immediately, because it could otherwise break free at any moment). It also does leave open the possibility that, through some combination of passive bonuses, someone might actually be immune to the particular Zone of Truth of a less-than-powerful cleric; which would be an incredibly noteworthy feat, while still possibly being rare enough that it wouldn't impact the theoretical legal system which places great confidence in that spell.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

That's good to know, thanks. This may well be the first ever edition of D&D where this is the case (barring 4E, which doesn't even have saving throws in the traditional sense). With luck, maybe 6E will get rid of the auto-hit on a 20 rule.

It also seems that a natural 20 on a saving throw is no longer an automatic success, which might cause problems with save-ends type spells that can't actually be saved against. It's not even much of a corner case, given how poorly non-proficient saves scale. Why aren't people complaining about that more?

There was no "auto-fail on 1" rule for saving throws in AD&D either. I think that rule is mostly a 3E thing.