Ok, I asked this on the James Jacobs thread as I wanted his opinion, but many players have chimed in so I decided to go ahead and post the question here so we can discuss it and not clutter up his thread... so the issue is...
I am playing a Black-Blooded Oracle, so she's healed by negative energy and harmed by positive energy. When discussing Sanctuary and Hide from Undead's cancellation on an attack, I was told that as Inflict Light Wounds is an attack spell, I cannot heal myself without canceling the spell. He is further saying that if a cleric casts Inflict Light Wounds on me I must make a saving throw and FAIL or I don't get healed as Inflict is not harmless like Cure Light Wounds is (he's being "nice" and letting me not save when I cast it on myself.) Nothing is directly said in the entry of the oracle curse, it just says you are treated as undead in regards to positive and negative energy, and the undead entry doesn't say anything either. When I told him I was going to ask he said he's doing it that way no matter what you say, because it's a curse but I still want to know if this is how it's intended or if I am getting screwed more than the rules intend.
Back in 3.5 you could also intentionally fail a save.
Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic (for example, an elf’s resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality.
3.5 definition of attack (and how it affects Invisibility):
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. For instance, invisibility is dispelled if you attack anyone or anything while under its effects. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents (such as disarm and bull rush) are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Summon monster I and similar spells are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.
Since you are not attacking an opponent you are not breaking the invisibility spell. Unless you are your own opponent.
3.5 invisibility quote:
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. (Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions.)
- Gauss
PF versions in a minute (I used 3.5 because you mentioned there was confusion with 3.5.)
Edit: merged two posts and added 3.5 version of invisibility for comparison with later post.
The curse is exactly what the books says it is nothing less nothing more. Aside from the negative energy based healing, the only side affect is this:
he curse also dulls the oracle’s coordination somewhat, imparting a –4 penalty on all Dexterity-based skill checks. At 5th level, she gains cold resistance 5. This increases to cold resistance 10 at 10th level, and immunity to cold at 15th level.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a copy of my previous post:
A spell is an attack based on its use. As an example cure light wounds is an attack versus undead.
With that aside
Special Spell EffectsMany special spell effects are handled according to the school of the spells in question. Certain other special spell features are found across spell schools.
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.
This use of the spell is not harming anyone.
If a cleric cast inflict wounds on you, then you don't have to make a save you can voluntarily fail.
Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.
You my friend are getting screwed by a random house ruling. He has no text to support what he is doing. There is nothing in the Black-Blooded entry that says you can no longer voluntarily give up saving throws.
3.5 online glossary
EnemyA creature unfriendly to you.
Source: PHB
If you click on the link it takes you to the WoTC website with the 3.5 definitions so no matter if he tries to use 3.5 or PF he is still wrong.
PF voluntarily giving up a saving throw:
Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.
PF invisibility:
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear.
Since you are not your own foe, you are not breaking invisibility.
This is a case where your GM is either making a spot ruling or he does not like you benefiting from the 'curse'. Sometimes a spot ruling goes against the rules but often GMs will realize this later when there is time or you explain it. If he does not go back on this I would suggest talking about a rebuild. Ultimately, the GM cannot make you play a specific character.
- Gauss
Edit: merged two posts.
Well as the game ended we got into a fight because he's saying that nothing any of you say on a website forum matter, not even what James Jacobs says, what matters is what the book says and he's apparently going to use Rules Lawyeresque interpretation of how HARMLESS spells work... So please if you can give me direct page numbers to help here, I will need it desperately to convince him that this is how the rules work.
I gave him the example, which I know is the rules, but I can't find the section in Pathfinder where it said it, but I know it was in 3.0/3.5 A healer can tell someone they are casting Cure Light Wounds and instead cast Inflict Light Wounds. If the person fails their Spellcraft check, they think the spell is Cure Light Wounds, and so they give up their saving throw/spell resistance and take full damage.
Other than this I have been really enjoying this game, but if I am not able to heal myself while under the effects of a Sanctuary/Invisibility/Etc spell because it's an ATTACK spell regardless of what I'm using it for, it's going to kill the game for me. Which means no more playing at my house. When I pulled the threat to end the game, one of the other players said they can play at his house. That pissed me off even more and I actually walked out to their car and said "DO you have my Carrion Crown books?" and the other player who was the driver was in so much of a hurry to get home to bed the GM pretty much was blowing me off with "I'll read it and decide blah blah blah" and so he still left with my books... so right now I'm HOPING he'll come to his senses but if not, this is going to seriously cramp our friendship and I might not get my books back.. :(
Actually what we quoted was the rules. If he can't logically defeat our arguments then he his point is not valid.
The rules for "harmless" spells are also in the magic chapter
Saving ThrowUsually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect. The saving throw entry in a spell description defines which type of saving throw the spell allows and describes how saving throws against the spell work.
Negates: The spell has no effect on a subject that makes a successful saving throw.
Partial: The spell has an effect on its subject. A successful saving throw means that some lesser effect occurs.
Half: The spell deals damage, and a successful saving throw halves the damage taken (round down).
None: No saving throw is allowed.
Disbelief: A successful save lets the subject ignore the spell's effect.
(object): The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature's saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects. A magic item's saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + 1/2 the item's caster level.
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.
My quote about voluntarily giving up a saving throw is on page 217.
A healer can tell someone they are casting Cure Light Wounds and instead cast Inflict Light Wounds. If the person fails their Spellcraft check, they think the spell is Cure Light Wounds, and so they give up their saving throw/spell resistance and take full damage.
That is not true either. You can save against an effect just because it is harmful. Being bluffed does not take your save away.
This came up in a debate about potions, but it would apply to spells also.
Potions: If I drink a potion, do I automatically forgo my save against that potion?
No. Nothing in the potion rules says it changes whether or not you get a saving throw against the spell stored in the potion. Even if someone hands you a potion of poison and tells you it’s a potion of cure serious wounds, you still get a save.
—Sean K Reynolds, 03/01/12 Back to Top
Actually what we quoted was the rules. If he can't logically defeat our arguments then he his point is not valid.
The rules for "harmless" spells are also in the magic chapter
Saving ThrowUsually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect. The saving throw entry in a spell description defines which type of saving throw the spell allows and describes how saving throws against the spell work.
Negates: The spell has no effect on a subject that makes a successful saving throw.
Partial: The spell has an effect on its subject. A successful saving throw means that some lesser effect occurs.
Half: The spell deals damage, and a successful saving throw halves the damage taken (round down).
None: No saving throw is allowed.
Disbelief: A successful save lets the subject ignore the spell's effect.
(object): The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature's saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects. A magic item's saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + 1/2 the item's caster level.
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.
My quote about voluntarily giving up a saving throw is on page 217.
Right, but Inflict Light Wounds is not listed as a harmless spell in it's entry. That may very well be the problem in how he's reading it. As he went out the door he said "I already told you I wouldnt make you roll the saving throw when you use inflict on yourself and nobody else is probably going to be casting that spell" so that aspect isn't as much of a problem, but there is still the issue of me healing myself counts as an attack and negates Sanctuary/Invisibility/Etc.
I did, each of my quotes comes with a page number. In both 3.5 AND PF rulebooks.
- Gauss
You do not need to be hit with a harmless spell to voluntarily give up your saving throw. Harmless just presumes you start with giving it up and you may save if you choose. On CRB p217 (voluntarily giving up a saving throw) it mentions NOTHING about harmless.
- Gauss
A healer can tell someone they are casting Cure Light Wounds and instead cast Inflict Light Wounds. If the person fails their Spellcraft check, they think the spell is Cure Light Wounds, and so they give up their saving throw/spell resistance and take full damage.That is not true either. You can save against an effect just because it is harmful. Being bluffed does not take your save away.
This came up in a debate about potions, but it would apply to spells also.
Potions: If I drink a potion, do I automatically forgo my save against that potion?
No. Nothing in the potion rules says it changes whether or not you get a saving throw against the spell stored in the potion. Even if someone hands you a potion of poison and tells you it’s a potion of cure serious wounds, you still get a save.
—Sean K Reynolds, 03/01/12 Back to Top
Ah ok that's cool then, so at least I don't have to worry about someone trying to "cure" me and me not getting a saving throw because it's harmless (though I don't think he would make that ruling, I'm at this point not putting it past him!)
The next time you talk to him tell him to cite the rules supporting his point, and to logically defeat our points. If he can't do so then he should admit he is wrong. Many people are not likely to admit they are wrong when they are upset.
As a spellcaster I always invest in spellcraft. This is a good idea, even if the GM is not making rules up.
I did, each of my quotes comes with a page number. In both 3.5 AND PF rulebooks.
- Gauss
Ah, ok thanks. Yeah, it was actually Concerro that was just saying "magic chapter" and not page numbers, but yeah.
As I said, he also mentioned how in past games he's had necromancers frustrated because their undead were making successful saving throws vs. the necromancer's "inflict" spells.
The next time you talk to him tell him to cite the rules supporting his point, and to logically defeat our points. If he can't do so then he should admit he is wrong. Many people are not likely to admit they are wrong when they are upset.
Well, he'd say you have no points as you are not the game designer standing in front of him. Nothing said on this site means anything to him. Honestly, he's a worse rules lawyer than I am and I've had GMs kick me out of games for it (granted, if they hadn't I would have quit as the house rules I was arguing against were total rubbish.)
As a spellcaster I always invest in spellcraft. This is a good idea, even if the GM is not making rules up.
Oh yeah I have my full allowed ranks in Spellcraft.
I did, each of my quotes comes with a page number. In both 3.5 AND PF rulebooks.
- Gauss
Ah, ok thanks. Yeah, it was actually Concerro that was just saying "magic chapter" and not page numbers, but yeah.
As I said, he also mentioned how in past games he's had necromancers frustrated because their undead were making successful saving throws vs. the necromancer's "inflict" spells.
I put the page number after you asked for them.
I said:
Page 216 wrote:.......
and
My quote about voluntarily giving up a saving throw is on page 217.
:)
You might want to introduce him to the PRD also. The words are the same as the books. Well actually the PRD is updated with errata so it more accurate if he is using an older book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well AbsolutGrnZer0, Im heading to bed. I hope you get your books back. If not, take him to small claims court.
I have a game to GM tommorow actually...gotta kill me some PCs...muahahah!
- Gauss
Well AbsolutGrnZer0, Im heading to bed. I hope you get your books back. If not, take him to small claims court.
I have a game to GM tommorow actually...gotta kill me some PCs...muahahah!
- Gauss
Heh thanks. I'm hoping he'll come to his senses and if he doesn't then at least he'll be willing to return the books and we can still be friends. I mean this isn't enough to make me not want to be friends, it is however something that very well might make me not want to play a black-blooded oracle when my curse is WORSE than intended by the game rules...
I have no "friends" to be on my side as one of the other players is the type of person that doesn't care about the rules or house rules or anything as long as he can play a fox character (he's a kitsune) and the other player doesn't know the rules as he never really even played 3rd edition D&D, so he's got no clue what has changed since 2nd edition.
Reminds me of a time with another GM when he told me that vampires (Vampire the Masquerade) lost a point of blood for each point of damage they took, then had to spend a point of blood to heal it (he noticed cause I was spending blood for Celerity every turn, then healing a point of damage also). I outright told him that was rubbish and I refused to play that way. He said he's always been doing it that way, he thought I knew that and I was like the rules as written specifically contradict that when they say (and i'm paraphrasing, as it's been years) "This blood loss from damage only applies to humans and other living creatures" and showed him the page. In the end he agreed to change his rule only because at the time it was a one on one game and he had nobody but me to play with.
EDIT: Ok, he messaged me just now on Facebook and has read over the rules, and it SEEMS like he's now reading it in such a way that my character won't be screwed over worse than intended by her curse, though he's mad at me for arguing about "stupid s**t in game when it's not immediately relevant" and to me, it was as we were just restarting the session after a short break to level up our characters and I was considering the Sanctuary spell which if what he was originally saying was the case, I would NOT waste a precious spell known (as a halfling I can't get bonus spells from the alternate class thing like humans can) on the spell.
Ah ok that's cool then, so at least I don't have to worry about someone trying to "cure" me and me not getting a saving throw because it's harmless (though I don't think he would make that ruling, I'm at this point not putting it past him!)A healer can tell someone they are casting Cure Light Wounds and instead cast Inflict Light Wounds. If the person fails their Spellcraft check, they think the spell is Cure Light Wounds, and so they give up their saving throw/spell resistance and take full damage.That is not true either. You can save against an effect just because it is harmful. Being bluffed does not take your save away.
This came up in a debate about potions, but it would apply to spells also.
Potions: If I drink a potion, do I automatically forgo my save against that potion?
No. Nothing in the potion rules says it changes whether or not you get a saving throw against the spell stored in the potion. Even if someone hands you a potion of poison and tells you it’s a potion of cure serious wounds, you still get a save.
—Sean K Reynolds, 03/01/12 Back to Top
But WHEN do you give up your saving throw becomes the question?
Is it as it's being cast, or is it like it deals half damage to you and you are then able to go "OH CRAP" and make your save to negate the REST of the damage?
Is it a case of the metaphysical world of magic just forbids you to be fooled, so even though you were willing to give up your save when you thought he was casting cure light wounds, when it turns out to be inflict instead you are protected from your stupidity?
Because, to me it seems that if you THINK the caster is casting cure light wounds then you are willing to give up your save, he touches you, and OH CRAP THAT'S NOT THE SPELL I THOUGHT IT WAS.
Also, just thought of something...
Is he right in having zombies and skeletons make saving throws vs. inflict spells as they are not intelligent enough to voluntarily fail? Cure is listed as harmless but specifically mentions undead still get their saving throws, however there is nothing to say under Inflict is treated as "harmless" for undead.
I would say that for Fort saves, your body is automatically trying to fight the effects if they're harmful to you, but for Ref saves, it's your instincts trying to protect you, and for Will saves you're making a subconscious effort to overcome the effect. If a creature voluntarily allows an effect to be used on them that allows a Ref or Will save, they are foregoing the saving throw (overcoming their instincts or consciously choosing to do so), but a Fort save, even if "voluntarily given up" is still allowed against harmful effects.
AbsolutGrndZer0, you're entirely correct (as others have proven) about how the rules should work.
However, I feel your DM is entirely justified in being upset with you making a game-ending threat over a ruling. He is the GM and has full rights to interpret the rules, or make a house rule. Escalating the argument to the level you have indicated is not appropriate in my opinion, and your relationship would probably be improved by apologizing for it.
Again, his ruling is way off-based. However I'm sure he was somewhat influenced by the fact that your "curse" doesn't seem to have almost any drawback (other than the Dex skill-penalty). Considering that a lot of the fun flavor and role-play of the Oracle class comes from their curse, this may be rather disappointing for him.
Good luck.
Ah ok that's cool then, so at least I don't have to worry about someone trying to "cure" me and me not getting a saving throw because it's harmless (though I don't think he would make that ruling, I'm at this point not putting it past him!)A healer can tell someone they are casting Cure Light Wounds and instead cast Inflict Light Wounds. If the person fails their Spellcraft check, they think the spell is Cure Light Wounds, and so they give up their saving throw/spell resistance and take full damage.That is not true either. You can save against an effect just because it is harmful. Being bluffed does not take your save away.
This came up in a debate about potions, but it would apply to spells also.
Potions: If I drink a potion, do I automatically forgo my save against that potion?
No. Nothing in the potion rules says it changes whether or not you get a saving throw against the spell stored in the potion. Even if someone hands you a potion of poison and tells you it’s a potion of cure serious wounds, you still get a save.
—Sean K Reynolds, 03/01/12 Back to Top
But WHEN do you give up your saving throw becomes the question?
Is it as it's being cast, or is it like it deals half damage to you and you are then able to go "OH CRAP" and make your save to negate the REST of the damage?
Is it a case of the metaphysical world of magic just forbids you to be fooled, so even though you were willing to give up your save when you thought he was casting cure light wounds, when it turns out to be inflict instead you are protected from your stupidity?
Because, to me it seems that if you THINK the caster is casting cure light wounds then you are willing to give up your save, he touches you, and OH CRAP THAT'S NOT THE SPELL I THOUGHT IT WAS.
Also, just thought of something...
Is he right in having zombies and skeletons make saving throws vs. inflict spells as they are not intelligent...
You give up the saving throw when it is time to roll the dice. Basically you know when a spell is bad for you, and when it is not. At that point you can choose to resist or not.
Inflict spells have always healed zombies without making them save. It is not in the book, but it is assumed in every story they are used in, that they accept it. Inflict spells are to undead what cure spells are to the living. Those exact words are not written, but the RAW does not cover everything.
Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell cures such a creature of a like amount of damage, rather than harming it.
<---That is in the inflict description, and the closed you will get rules wise to what I just wrote.
It seems your "buddy" will try to use RAW when it benefits him, and ignore it when it does not.
EDIT: Ok, he messaged me just now on Facebook and has read over the rules, and it SEEMS like he's now reading it in such a way that my character won't be screwed over worse than intended by her curse, though he's mad at me for arguing about "stupid s**t in game when it's not immediately relevant" and to...
Like I said in the other thread. Rule #1: HAVE FUN. Corollary: ARGUMENTS AREN'T FUN. It doesn't even matter if you're wrong or right. You need to wait until after the session is over before making your case. I suggest apologizing for spewing your legalese during the game session. (And I say that as someone who thinks that you're right.)
EDIT: Ok, he messaged me just now on Facebook and has read over the rules, and it SEEMS like he's now reading it in such a way that my character won't be screwed over worse than intended by her curse, though he's mad at me for arguing about "stupid s**t in game when it's not immediately relevant" and to...
I missed this. Well it is good that things are better. I thought your character was in eminent danger. I probably would have held off until after the game in that case.