Marc Davis's page

I imagine we look at the rules in different ways, I view the rules as written as the framework for the game world. Basically the general rules governing the world. I view the class abilities, feats and spells as the exceptions to the rules (in general). So when a spell has something that contradicts the general rules it doesn't cause any concern as it is an exception. It wouldn't cause me to go looking for some reasoning behind it or rules to back it up as long as there aren't glaring loop holes involved.

It's just a matter of consistency on an exception, in my mind. :-)

That being said I meant no offense with what I posted, just was trying to say that even though they might be few and far between, there are reasons for the classification that have been there from 3.5 and probably 3.0 and there haven't been large discussions about this particular subset as far as I've seen playing and watching thee boards the past several...

No offense taken guy. :-) Not at all.

As for the group issue, I'm suprised you guys haven't come up to some sort of way of dealing with inconsistencies before now. In our group(which also rotates) if something comes up the DM has the final say on the spot and we all go with it to minimize impact on game play.

Definitely agree and we actually do that and have. The GM/DM makes the decision and we move on for the most part, the issue comes in when it can change the dynamic of the play time. There have been many times when degression is made because of intrepretation of the rules so the GM/DM can make an informed decision.

Post game/pre next session we all hash it out with what ever we could find and come to a concensus(? Late) for how it will be run from then on. Regardless that is less a rule inconsistancy and more a player issue if people in the same group don't want to agree on something. If someone wants the rules to say something in a particular way, you better believe they will look at it and reason it out in such a way that it works that way even though it says the same thing in all the books and everyone else may look at it differently. It's called being stubborn and can occasionally be disruptive to gaming ;-)

We are all stubborn but one has to be but if it's one person that doesn't agree we acknowledge their disagreement and move on. If it's more than one person that doesn't agree and more than one agrees, for the most part, then it's not stubbornness, it's intrpetation. The GM/DM would have to make the final call for that game. We try to make it consistently applied, for the most part, but you have people with different opinions. It's the nature of gaming. :-) But there have also been times when one persons stubbornness sets the intrepration straight and I know in out group that has happened. But it's all fun times. :-)

Marc, in 3.5 the harmless classification was occassionally used as a descriptor as well. Certain creatures that were immune to spells were sometimes still able to benefit from spells that were "harmless" if I remember correctly. Reasoning being harmless spells were typically some sort of buffing mechanism and the protections were keeping the creature from gaining additional benefits due to them being magical in nature. The benefit of the additional protection was being a limitation which wasn't the intent.

Other than that I can only say you are possibly over complicating things for yourself it seems. If there are particular issues you are having, bring them up and I'm sure we will try to help explain/clear them up. If there is something that just rubs you the wrong way about a fairly well established rule set, I'm not sure anyone can help you with that ;)

With all due respect, you may see that as your idea of over complicating but I, in fact, do not.

All I can say is the "harmless" aspect, is as mentioned, is not really applicable or not desired to be done way, way more often than not. As you clearly stated and I definitely agree, it's a sort of buffing mechanism. That being the case and said, way, way more often than not, a creature will want the buff rather than risking not being buffed.

Yep, being an avid player for over 20 years, almost 30, and so many different versions. There has always been a common aspect that rubbed me the wrong way. That is the interpretation aspects as that can definitely lead to inconsistency on rulings. The inconsistency, albeit is the GM's choice, leaves for some head-shaking. :-) And with the same group playing for so many years, one time a GM has a ruling and another person that is GM'ing later has a different ruling for the same thing definitely challenges consistency and can lead to the same discussion on reasoning yet again.

You're absolutely correct in that I can pose the question to a forum like this. The willingness to respond and provide clarity is great and appreciated. It just comes down to either something was just clearly obviously missed that what in a RAW or a "common" interpretion garnered.

Spells are unique flowers, they have some parts that are the same which are the spell basics and then the spell texts which add additional unique effects. These may or may not be similar to any other spell which is why it's good to read all the spells carefully.

I find them quite similar. Let's go down comparison lane, shall we?

- Target of Sanctuary has a will save to negate the spell.
- Target(s) of Fascinate has a will save to negate the effect

Yeah...that's the nature of a save to negate an effect, or fail a skill. So, one could say that any spell is similiar. Not sure what your point is there.

- As long as nothing changes, both effect their targets.
- If a creature wants to attack the target of Sanctuary they must make a will save to overcome the effect.
- If something appears hostile/fishy to a target of Fascinate they must make a will save to overcome the effect.

You really have to take into account the circumstance on that. It's a "...potential threat..."

With santuary...if the creature attacks then it's an "obvious threat" but if they fail the save then no attack. And an "obvious threat" with Fascinate breaks the effect.

Is there nothing similar about these?

Nope, not really. :-)

Because that is what is written in the spell? I find it perfectly fine? Phantasmal Killer has two saves..

Gotchya, on that and agreed.

Each spell has its own specific rules... anything general about spells can be found in the magic chapter. Trying...

That seems to be the case and looking for a defined precedent or RAW doesn't seem to be there. IMO, what that means is that the interpretation of a rule is more prevalent which I wish could be avoided and always have. :-( I know I have read through several spells even as this thread was going on and the Aiming a spell but the spell rules seem to challenge that sometimes from my interpretation. What I was looking for is a precedent to set that ambiguity straight. That doesn't seem to exist but it sounds and appears that the spell specific rules trump the general and that means more intrepretation. :-)

It's all good; it's a fun game. Causes daim-bramage sometimes but it's all good. :-)

Marc Davis wrote:

I was a little incorrect in my assessment because Sanctuary DOES have a save and it's a WILL save. But it's not an attacking spell either. It's a little weird because one could construe that a 2 saves for the spell.

The spell rules state: "Any opponent attempting to directly attack the warded creature of the targeted spell, must attempt a Will save." We not talking about casting it on a warded creature. We're talking about once it is already on them. In essence, there are 2 WILL saves. 1 for the warded creature because it's like harmless in that sense. And the other for the attacking creature as mentioned in the spell rules.

This is correct. One save for the target (which is a general mechanic of spells) and the saves for people attempting to attack the target of sanctuary (which is the specific mechanic of this particular spell).

This is very similar to the Bard's Fascinate ability where already affected monsters are allowed new saving throws to break the Fascination under certain circumstances.

I guess I'm not understanding your question.. what is it that bothers you about the two will saves?

What bothers me is I'm trying to figure the consistency aspect. This thread started with the mage armor and the "harmless" nature identified in the descriptor and I'm trying to gather some confirmed consistency on the saves. The sanctuary spell having 2 saves whereas the first one is not harmless seems to be a unique case. I do not know of another spell (granted, off the top of my head) that has 2 saves. Basically, when one reviews the mechanics of the spell and there is an inconsistency type scenario like what, in my view, happened with the Sanctuary, and Atonement I'm pursuing some direction/guidance the material may offer to clarify the perceived inconsistency.

The Bard's Fascinate ability is similar? I would see any potential threat like a perception check which they get a -4 on. It's like a change a focus or attention where as with a spell it's dependent upon the duration of the spell or another's action to dispell. In what way, when I review that I'm not seeing that as similiar.

Why do you not find it strange that there are 2 saves for one spell?

Sueda wrote:

For sanctuary, the save is specifically for those trying to attack the warded creature per the description in the spell text. The target of the ward itself either (a) gets no save or (b) must make a save since the spell doesn't have the term (harmless) in the save descriptor.

What? That is not what the text is saying and it does say Will negates. Which is essentially the same as harmless for our discussion. If you are targeted by Sanctuary then you must make the save to negate the spell unless you choose to be the willing target of the spell... this is exactly how a cure spell works. Or Mage Armor. Or any other spell that lists a save in its mechanics.

Sueda wrote:

The latter is strange to me, but technically feasible as the target could then invoke the Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw mechanic (assuming he's conscious--could create problems if trying to ward a downed comrade).

If your friend is conscious, then they treat it as normal and voluntarily allow themselves to be targeted. If they are unconscious then they are automatically willing so they won't resist you.

PRD - Magic Chapter - Aiming A Spell: Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

I was a little incorrect in my assessment because Sanctuary DOES have a save and it's a WILL save. But it's not an attacking spell either. It's a little weird because one could construe that a 2 saves for the spell.

The spell rules state: "Any opponent attempting to directly attack the warded creature of the targeted spell, must attempt a Will save." We not talking about casting it on a warded creature. We're talking about once it is already on them. In essence, there are 2 WILL saves. 1 for the warded creature because it's like harmless in that sense. And the other for the attacking creature as mentioned in the spell rules.

A potion is a magic item. Mage Hand can't affect it. If an item is held, it is attended. Mage Hand can't affect it.

Mage Hand

The target line: "one nonmagical, unattended object weighing up to 5 lbs."

Excellent point!

What about the grabbing? Or would that be associated with "unattended object"?

For sanctuary, the save is specifically for those trying to attack the warded creature per the description in the spell text. The target of the ward itself either (a) gets no save or (b) must make a save since the spell doesn't have the term (harmless) in the save descriptor. The latter is strange to me, but technically feasible as the target could then invoke the Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw mechanic (assuming he's conscious--could create problems if trying to ward a downed comrade). As such, I've always gone with the former interpretation, especially since an unwilling target can simply attack and break the ward. It's a weird corner case, though, that's never impacted my game in the past decade of playing 3e, so I haven't given it much brain time...

Check, that's in part what sparked some of the OP; it's sad because I've been playing now for over 2 decades and this never hit me on some of the symantics. But when it did it made me start to think. I mean just in this thread alone and with Santuary there have been different opinions and nothing definitive. That's in part where some of the confusion came in.

Marc, look in the Magic section under Saving Throw. It defines various save-related rules, including:

PRD wrote:

(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.

So, only the target gets the save. Aiming A Spell section discusses targeting, but basically mage armor targets "creature touched" so that is the only person to get a save.

Sanctuary has no (harmless) entry so the targeted creature cannot resist (no SR either). The spell rules define how the Will save works for the spell.

Sueda, thanks for that location on confirmation. What I get out of that is as a "general" rule is IF the saving throw indicates (harmless) in any way, then the saving throw is optional (i.e. "...if it desires.") which as mentioned earlier way more often than not the target is willing. If it doesn't say (harmless) one MUST look a the spell rules. Because they wouldn't have an option but to accept: with Sanctuary, like Atonement, or Magic Missile there is no save; SR for Atonement and Magic Missile; but no save which means the target has no option but to take it willingly or unwillingly unless something would impact. (i.e. Shield for Magic Missile)

Correct assessment?

Saving Throws can only be made by the target of a non-area spell. Mage armor is a non-area spell. The target is one creature, and it is whoever gets armored up. That creature can make a save. No other creature is the target. No other creature can make a save.

Just because the spell impedes your attack does not make you its target. Thus attackers get no save.

QED

Alorha, I'm a little confused on your statement. Can you clarify that some, please? Also, where is that stated?

There are some things that seems to counter your statement. The reason: take for instance the burning hands spell. That is an area spell and it DOES have a saving throw. In addition, the Sanctuary spell is a non-area spell yet the attacker MUST make a save.

You underestimate the power of shenanigans. It's in there because there's always a chance to resist anything- and under the right circumstance it can be employed against the target.

Case and point: I don't remember what the spell was called, and it might just be a 3.5 spell, but it made a some protective bubble around you that protected from clouds or some such. If cast underwater it made you float rapidly to the surface at like 100 ft per round. Harmless. Until you cast it onto a fish monster.

Sanctuary effectively has 2 saves, once against the target and another for anyone wishing to attack the target of the effect. Both saves just happen to be will.

Also- isn't coming to mind right now, but there's some spell/effect that makes the target have to make saving throws, even against 'harmless' or the spells of allies.

So, in answer to the OP question, no the ogre doesn't have to make a will save to pierce the force armor.

Ok, either I really do not understand what you are saying or I do but what you indicated just does not make any sense.

Your case in point isn't supported as I'm not sure what spell you are referring to.

This one really throws me...how and where does Sanctuary even imply that there are 2 saves necessary? One for the target and one for the attacker? There is no indication of that in the spell.

When you mention "...there's some spell/effect that makes the target have to make saving throws, even if against 'harmless' or spells of allies" is precisely what I'm talking about... where is that because I don't see anywhere? If it's not clearly stated then I would say that is subject to DM/GM decision or *an* interpretation of "saving throws".

So, in what way does that even come close to answering the OP question or indicate that the "...ogre doesn't have to make a will save to pierce the force armor"?

Thus far, I am not hearing or seeing anything that doesn't still have a question (or isn't irrefutable). Is there anything that answers that question without any doubt? (like the examples below)

Example: "Stand Up" (pg 187) provokes an attack of opportunity. Spell Resistance (pg 564-565) does not stack.

The will save if only for whoever gets the spell cast on them, not the ones attacking. The party mage can try to cast the spell on the party rogue, but if the rogue doesn't want it, he can make a Will save to negate it.

Most people wouldn't care, but if for some reason you did not want mage armor to be cast on you, you can make a Will save.

You're absolutely correct in that "Most people wouldn't care,..." and on the same token it really doesn't make much sense. One person in the party isn't going to necessarily do something another party member isn't going to want especially if you're being proactive to help. Granted, there may be cases for that where someone doesn't want it but more often than not, and I would definitely suspect way more often than not, it's something you want in a effort to help you.

Which brings me back to this...where is it irrefutably defined that the saving throw is for the person for whom it's cast on rather than for someone/something has to beat? Page 216 really doesn't clearly and concisely say, nor does page 180. Because as mentioned, the Santuary spell on page 336 says pretty much the same thing on the saving throw but that is for the attacker. So, how does one know for certain which is which? Is it based on interpretation of the DM/GM?

All,

I'm a little curious...

The core rule book states on page 306 that Mage Armor have a saving throw of Will negatives (harmless).

Does this mean that whomever or whatever is in combat against the person that has the mage armor MUST pass the WILL save before the attack can be affective assuming they can successfully passed the +4 to AC?

For instance, if a wizard has an AC of 12 and casts mage armor on himself it would make his AC 16. Let's say he goes into combat with an Ogre - if the Orge attacks the wizard and let's say the Orge gets a 19 to attack. But does the Orge HAVE to pass the WILL check first before the 19 will actually hit?

I'm not sure if it acts like the Santuary spell on page 336. They both have Will negates.

The interpretation might rely off the description between the 2 spells but I would think 2 are the same in nature with the save. Because how would one otherwise know the scope of the saving throw?

Anybody have any information on that?

Thanks!