|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
For all situations, the receiving creature has no ranks in Spellcraft or Knowledge (Arcana):
1) Fact: If I cast inflict light wounds on a hostile target, they get a will save for half damage.
2) Fact: If I cast cure light wounds on a target (hostile or not) they are allowed a will save for half healing.
3) Question: If I cast cure light wounds on a non-hostile target, are they considered to be voluntarily failing their save, or do they not get a save at all?
4) Question: If I tell a non-hostile target that I am casting cure light wounds, but I instead cast inflict light wounds (and succeed on a Bluff vs. Sense Motive check), does the answer to number 3 still apply?
5) Question: The FAQ states that the drinker of a falsely labeled cure potion would still get a save against any harmful effects. Presumably they are not forced to save against non-harmful effects, so how is it they know the difference? How does this affect the answer to number 4?
The answer to 5 is that saves are not a conscious thing. For example, you don't consciously try not to be poisoned when you get hit by a snake's bite attack, that happens automatically.
So for 4, they will still get a save.
For number 3, voluntarily failing their save, I believe.
The (harmless) descriptor says that "a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires." I interpret that to mean they have to choose to resist it. Because they don't have to choose to fail their save against the cure spell, they won't be choosing to fail even against a secretly harmful spell.
Therefore:
3) They don't get a save at all, unless they deliberately choose to resist it.
4) Because they didn't have to choose to allow the cure spell, they would still get the automatic save against the inflict
5) No difference.
|
|
So there is no way to bluff or coerce a character into accepting a harmful spell? An NPC always instinctively knows the difference between a helpful and harmful spell?
And the snakebite is a poor comparison. When's the last time you saw someone willingly fail a save against rabies, or snake venom? And yet, the rules allow it.
This topic has come up before. The way i rule is you can't trick someone into giving up their saving throw. If you could, then you could make potions of harmful spells and you would get no saving throw when drinking them.
|
|
I suppose my real question is: What is the order of operations, and where is this found in the rules?
You are subject to an effect -> You save against the effect -> You know whether the affect was harmful or harmless.
or
You are subject to an effect -> You know whether the effect was harmful or harmless -> You save (or not) against the effect.
5) Question: The FAQ states that the drinker of a falsely labeled cure potion would still get a save against any harmful effects. Presumably they are not forced to save against non-harmful effects, so how is it they know the difference? How does this affect the answer to number 4?
Given that characters unknowingly drinking a harmful potion get a save against the harmful effects, I think it's clear that a character bluffed into thinking they were accepting a Cure spell but were instead accepting an Inflict spell would get a save against the Inflict spell's effects; however, I don't think that there is no value to the caster of going through the motions of bluffing the target.
If you cast a cure spell on a willing target, the caster does not need to make a melee touch attack. It seems reasonable to me, therefore, that if you bluff your target into willingly accepting what it thinks is a cure spell you should not have to make a melee touch attack to deliver the inflict spell, and you would not incur an AOO from the target.
Sure, the target still gets to save for half, but you don't have to worry about making the touch attack or taking an AOO.