Simon the sorcerer has some sort of grudge against Fred the fighter and wants to pull a prank on him in combat. He tells him he's going to cast Enlarge Person on him when he's actually going to cast Reduce Person on him. Fred is not a willing subject of Reduce Person but is a willing subject of Enlarge Person. Could Simon make a bluff check against Fred's sense motive (and Fred could maybe get a spellcraft check to identify the spell as well) to trick him into being a willing subject for the spell?
|
Sure. Fred also might forego his saving throw for the spell. This would just use the typical modifiers for a Bluff: is it highly plausible, a bit suspect, or difficult to believe that the sorcerer would offer to cast that spell on Fred at that point?
I doubt Fred the fighter would get an untrained Spellcraft check, though if Fred had particular knowledge of sorcery for some reason, represented by a cross-class skill, it would make sense that he might recognise the spell.
I doubt this would be practical between or towards PCs. If a player made no objection in a situation where it was reasonable to think he was going to receive a beneficial spell, then the character was fooled. If the player asked for a Sense Motive or Spellcraft roll, he could have one and I would then ask directly, whatever the outcome (or true nature of the spell) whether he was willing or wanted to make a saving throw, since he clearly expressed suspicion.
Technically, Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate (except for Demoralizing) do not work on PCs. That said, I've always resolved this sort of thing as Bluff vs Sense Motive, yes, and if Fred the Fighter had Spellcraft trained (remember, it's a trained-only skill) he could try to identify the spell as it was cast. If one of the other party members was paying attention and made the Spellcraft check, they could also warn Fred.
That's all outside the rules, though. Players are generally allowed to determine what their characters think except when mind-affecting magic is involved.
|
I'm not sure I buy that. I think it would take some extreme circumstances (and mostly metagaming!!!) for mr. Fighter to get a Save or a Sense Motive check. Unless they have Spellcraft, that is. (I'm also imagining that 1.) the caster is not an idiot and 2.) this is a one-time thing that Fighter has no reason to think might happen again.)
In combat terms, mr. Fighter is essentually an unaware target. It's not being fair to the caster to allow the Fighter to "notice" something that he shouldn't have any chance of and that the character (likely) has no knowledge of. It is less a reaction to something than it is them not being aware that there is a "threat".
But, this is also something outside of the rules and depends a bit on specifics.
I'm not sure I buy that. I think it would take some extreme circumstances (and mostly metagaming!!!) for mr. Fighter to get a Save or a Sense Motive check. Unless they have Spellcraft, that is. (I'm also imagining that 1.) the caster is not an idiot and 2.) this is a one-time thing that Fighter has no reason to think might happen again.)
In combat terms, mr. Fighter is essentually an unaware target. It's not being fair to the caster to allow the Fighter to "notice" something that he shouldn't have any chance of and that the character (likely) has no knowledge of. It is less a reaction to something than it is them not being aware that there is a "threat".
But, this is also something outside of the rules and depends a bit on specifics.
I would disagree that the fighter gets no sense motive. I would let him do an opposed sense motive vs the mage's bluff, because otherwise the player would feel very cheated. I would give the mage a major + the first time though.
If a character is swallowing a potion voluntarily I usually would not give them a save.
In the case of a caster if he allows a spell cast on him without intent of resisting like expecting to receive a beneficial spell, I'd not allow a savingthrow either, it is one reason why wizards aren't very much trusted I suppose ;)
In the case of player vs player I'd allow an opposed bluff / sense motive, as with most people who would have reason to be at least a little wary, on a roll of 1 they might think the caster is trying to trick them even if that is not the case. The bluff check might be modified by npc attitude, for better or worse.
I usually go the "nice" way and say you cannot be tricked into accepting a spell that has a save that is not considered harmless.
In the example, the enemy tells you that it's a enlarge spell, but the second you feel shrinking, you instinctively fight it.
Going the other way sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion.
I usually go the "nice" way and say you cannot be tricked into accepting a spell that has a save that is not considered harmless.
In the example, the enemy tells you that it's a enlarge spell, but the second you feel shrinking, you instinctively fight it.
Going the other way sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion.
+1
|
|
But in this case, neither spell is "harmless". The mage isn't trying to hurt or damage the Fighter, and there is a skill involved. It just happens to be a skill the Fighter is probably not proficient in.
I am also thinking that the Wizard is not saying "Hey Fighter let me cast Enlarge Person on you" and than casting Reduce Person as much as just going up an doing it, which just wouldn't give the Fighter a reason to resist it BEFORE the spell takes effect. There shouldn't be any reason to think that the Caster is faking anything (unless they have Spellcraft), and by the time the realize that they are not getting bigger, the spell is cast and done.
Now if this starts happening more than once, sure they should get a chance to resist, but not the first time when the character would have no reason to do so, and the only reason the player does is Metagame knowledge. But that is just me. I would however allow the Fighter a Save if they specifically requested one most of the time the Wizard cast any spell on them, showing that they don't automatically trust magic or something, (and about half the time Buffs fail to work on them).
As for the Potion, in 3E, they are a willing target, but they still can get a Save, because they are unsure what the Potion does. I don't think PF changed this.
But in this case, neither spell is "harmless". The mage isn't trying to hurt or damage the Fighter, and there is a skill involved. It just happens to be a skill the Fighter is probably not proficient in.
I am also thinking that the Wizard is not saying "Hey Fighter let me cast Enlarge Person on you" and than casting Reduce Person as much as just going up an doing it, which just wouldn't give the Fighter a reason to resist it BEFORE the spell takes effect. There shouldn't be any reason to think that the Caster is faking anything (unless they have Spellcraft), and by the time the realize that they are not getting bigger, the spell is cast and done.
Now if this starts happening more than once, sure they should get a chance to resist, but not the first time when the character would have no reason to do so, and the only reason the player does is Metagame knowledge. But that is just me. I would however allow the Fighter a Save if they specifically requested one most of the time the Wizard cast any spell on them, showing that they don't automatically trust magic or something, (and about half the time Buffs fail to work on them).
As for the Potion, in 3E, they are a willing target, but they still can get a Save, because they are unsure what the Potion does. I don't think PF changed this.
My argument is that since the mage's intention is not beneficial, that can be read by someone trained to do so. Therefore, the fighter gets a sense motive check against the mage's bluff. The mage would get a bonus the first time, though, since the fighter isn't actively looking for it.
I agree with pranks are better left out of combat especially if it reduces their combat prowess. If your "prank" resluts in PC death hard feelings could reslut. Just a warning have seen good friendships ruined over a "prank" in and out of game.