I someone drinks a harmful potion do they get a saving throw? Or is this a "willing action" that automatically negates saving throw and spell resistance?
Two examples:
(a) A PC uses Beguiling Gift to give a foe a potion of Reduce Person. Does the foe get the Fortitude saving throw to avoid the spell's effect?
(b) A PC finds a potion labeled "Cure Light Wounds" which is actually a potion of Inflict Light Wounds. The PC drinks it. Does the PC get the Will saving throw to avoid the damage?
You could say that by drinking a potion, you are willing to receive its effects by default.
Or
You could also say that by drinking a potion, you are willing to receive the effects you think it is giving you and will resist anything unexpected and unwanted.
So that might be a GM call there.
Director of Narrative
|
Yep, the drinker is the target, so they'd get to save just as if the spell was cast on them.
Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber. The character taking the potion doesn't get to make any decisions about the effect—the caster who brewed the potion has already done so. The drinker of a potion is both the effective target and the caster of the effect (though the potion indicates the caster level, the drinker still controls the effect).
Yep, the drinker is the target, so they'd get to save just as if the spell was cast on them.
But they are also the caster. Normally a caster forfeits the saving throw when casting a spell upon himself or herself.
This may indeed be a GM call... Should we FAQ-Flag this?
Yep, the drinker is the target, so they'd get to save just as if the spell was cast on them.But they are also the caster. Normally a caster forfeits the saving throw when casting a spell upon himself or herself.
This may indeed be a GM call... Should we FAQ-Flag this?
You don't auto-fail your own saves or any save. You can always resist.
But they are also the caster. Normally a caster forfeits the saving throw when casting a spell upon himself or herself.
You get a save when affected by your own fireball, don't you? (For single target spells, well I guess the creators of all different versions of d20 never thougt about someone enfeebling himself or something like that, most chars are not masochistic)
A creature can be tricked to accepting a spell thinking it was something else and forfeiting their save, I am not sure a potion is really any different. As a houserule I take a middleground and apply a -4 penalty to a save if they take the potion willingly.
A creature can be tricked to accepting a spell thinking it was something else and forfeiting their save, I am not sure a potion is really any different. As a houserule I take a middleground and apply a -4 penalty to a save if they take the potion willingly.
I like that idea.
Perhaps a slight modification: Will saving throws get a -4 penalty (the imbiber's willingness to drink might delay resisting too long). Fortitude saves have no penalty (the imbiber immediately resists when he or she starts to feel hurt or strange).
|
I dunno what's wrong with the standard rules here. Spells that have saving throws should have saving throws.
Fly
School transmutation; Level sorcerer/wizard 3
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
So you drink a fly potion and roll you roll your saving throw to see if it work?
If not you are voluntary waiving your ST away.So if someone has tricked you into believing that the Inflict Serious Wounds is a Fly potion you don't get a saving throw as you are waving it away to get the spell effect as you think it is a positive effect.
|
|
The saving throw would apply since saving throws are granted against effects even when you are surprised (for example, if you were given a mug of poisoned ale). An important note though, is that SR should be bypassed since creatures that are expecting to quaff a potion would need to drop SR to accept the effect of the potion.
You need to drop the ST too or you have to roll it against beneficial effects too.
I agree with those that say no saving throw. If you are told it's a Cure Light Wounds and you trust the caster, you are giving up your saving throw then you find out OUCH it was Inflict Light Wounds. it's same as if the caster says "Hey! Mr. Lich! I'm gonna cast Harm on you, ok ol' buddy ol' pal?" Then the lich is like "Sure!" so he gives up his saving throw then the caster throws Heal on him and the Lich like "OMFG OUCH YOU TRICKED ME! I THOUGHT WE WERE FRIENDS"
As for Beguiling Gift, I'd say you fail your saving throw for it, you would still get a saving throw for the potion itself, as you aren't being told "hey this is a beneficial potion" just "Hey you have to take this and drink it"
I agree with those that say no saving throw. If you are told it's a Cure Light Wounds and you trust the caster, you are giving up your saving throw then you find out OUCH it was Inflict Light Wounds. it's same as if the caster says "Hey! Mr. Lich! I'm gonna cast Harm on you, ok ol' buddy ol' pal?" Then the lich is like "Sure!" so he gives up his saving throw then the caster throws Heal on him and the Lich like "OMFG OUCH YOU TRICKED ME! I THOUGHT WE WERE FRIENDS"
As for Beguiling Gift, I'd say you fail your saving throw for it, you would still get a saving throw for the potion itself, as you aren't being told "hey this is a beneficial potion" just "Hey you have to take this and drink it"
Just because you accept the gift that does not mean you accept the results of what it does.
A core rules example demonstrating that you do get a save:
Elixir of Love
This sweet-tasting liquir causes the character drinking it to become enraptured with the first person she sees after consuming the draft (as charm person-the drinker must be a humanoid of Medium or smaller size, . The charm effect wears off in 1d3 hours.
A core rules example demonstrating that you do get a save:
Elixir of Love
This sweet-tasting liquir causes the character drinking it to become enraptured with the first person she sees after consuming the draft (as charm person-the drinker must be a humanoid of Medium or smaller size, . The charm effect wears off in 1d3 hours.
That's an elixir, and not a potion.
I'm fine with them getting the saving throw, if my players want it. But, if they do, then they make saving throws vs any potion. It's not ignore saving throw except when bad things happen. It's either get the saving throw for all potions, or none if you take it willingly. If you are drinking ale with poison in it, you did not willingly take the poison, nor did you willingly drink the beguiling gifted potion. This is why spells that are beneficial say (harmless) on save, you can save if you choose to, but only if you make that choice. In the case of a potion, if you are willingly imbibing it, you are making the choice not to save against it. Now, if you know it's not a healing potion, I would allow you to imbibe and still get a saving throw.
Remember, potions can be cursed as well.
|
As a houserule, I first ask the player if they want to try to resist the effect, (good or ill). There have been a time or two when a character didn't want a beneficial touch spel from an ally on them, so basically he same thing, I thought.
Alternatively, as a house rule, I generally allow Fort saves, but not Refl, and rarely Will saves from potions, and similar things.
As a houserule, I first ask the player if they want to try to resist the effect, (good or ill). There have been a time or two when a character didn't want a beneficial touch spel from an ally on them, so basically he same thing, I thought.
Alternatively, as a house rule, I generally allow Fort saves, but not Refl, and rarely Will saves from potions, and similar things.
When an effect hits, don't characters at least know whether the effect is (harmless) or not? Even if not all saves cause different sensations to the characters, certainly harmless and non-harmless ones do, and thus they should decide when the effect happens.
When you choose to automatically fail a will save, you don't do it beforehand (as with SR, taking it down before receiving a spell), you do it WHEN the effect hits and the decision to save is available. If you get the "hostile effect" feeling, then you'll probably try to save. If you don't, then you probably won't (though you still may).
The RAW doesn't specify, and leaves either way open, but it seems incoherent and very troublesome to have the "a saving throw is allowed" sensation be the same in all cases, especially whether the spell is harmless or not.
A core rules example demonstrating that you do get a save:
Elixir of Love
This sweet-tasting liquir causes the character drinking it to become enraptured with the first person she sees after consuming the draft (as charm person-the drinker must be a humanoid of Medium or smaller size, . The charm effect wears off in 1d3 hours.
That's an elixir, and not a potion.
I'm fine with them getting the saving throw, if my players want it. But, if they do, then they make saving throws vs any potion. It's not ignore saving throw except when bad things happen. It's either get the saving throw for all potions, or none if you take it willingly. If you are drinking ale with poison in it, you did not willingly take the poison, nor did you willingly drink the beguiling gifted potion. This is why spells that are beneficial say (harmless) on save, you can save if you choose to, but only if you make that choice. In the case of a potion, if you are willingly imbibing it, you are making the choice not to save against it. Now, if you know it's not a healing potion, I would allow you to imbibe and still get a saving throw.
Remember, potions can be cursed as well.
I am sure if you willing imbibe anything harmful your body will try to fight it off, and as another point of view, doing something while being mind-controlled is not exactly willing.
That's an elixir, and not a potion.A core rules example demonstrating that you do get a save:
Elixir of Love
This sweet-tasting liquir causes the character drinking it to become enraptured with the first person she sees after consuming the draft (as charm person-the drinker must be a humanoid of Medium or smaller size, . The charm effect wears off in 1d3 hours.
And how does that make a difference, please?
I am sure if you willing imbibe anything harmful your body will try to fight it off, and as another point of view, doing something while being mind-controlled is not exactly willing.
I'm willing to bend on the Fort save stuff. But that still begs the question of Fort Save (Harmless) effects, and why your body doesn't fight it off. It's still something interacting with your natural body in some way, speeding it up, healing it, or something. Think of it like Meth. Your body either tries to fight it or not, whether you need it or not, or it doesn't fight it at all, and the drug affects you no matter what.
And I agreed that being mind-controlled was not willing, if you reread, so I'm not sure why that was part of your argument.
|
|
What i mean is, if they try to drink an unknown potion (good or bad), I ask them if they want to resist it. After they have drunk it, but before it takes effect. Take what you said and let's say the potion is poison. The players don't know its poison, just a potion.
So they decide at some point to drink it. At that point they can attempt to resist, but its to late to not drink it. Im not sure in most cases that they would have any sensation about if it is a helpful, harmful, or harmless spell until it actually takes affect or is successfully resisted, though.
I am sure if you willing imbibe anything harmful your body will try to fight it off, and as another point of view, doing something while being mind-controlled is not exactly willing.I'm willing to bend on the Fort save stuff. But that still begs the question of Fort Save (Harmless) effects, and why your body doesn't fight it off. It's still something interacting with your natural body in some way, speeding it up, healing it, or something. Think of it like Meth. Your body either tries to fight it or not, whether you need it or not, or it doesn't fight it at all, and the drug affects you no matter what.
And I agreed that being mind-controlled was not willing, if you reread, so I'm not sure why that was part of your argument.
It does not matter if it is a fort save or not. Either they get the save or they don't.
Yeah it is a gamist answer, but the game is an abstraction, not a simulation. It would be like testing a potion, and it was a potion of inflict moderate wounds. You still get save.Example: PC is in a fight. Both the enemy and the ally cast it as a silenced spell because they don't want to give their position away.
Invisible Ally:<cast cure critical wounds> There is no save because it is harmless.
Invisible Enemy(cast inflict critical wounds> There is a save because it is harmful.
Putting the spell into a bottle does not change whether you get a save or not.
Putting the spell into a bottle does not change whether you get a save or not.
It has nothing to do with the fact it's in a bottle, it has to do with the fact the PC is willingly using it on himself. I'd rule the same way if a PC picked up a wand and thought it was cure light when it was actually harm, or read and activated a scroll which he thought was heal and was actually a Curse spell. The whole thing comes down to the fact that harmless saves indicate you can resist if you want to. If you can resist if you want to, you can not resist if you don't want to. Nobody who's about to get healed really wants to resist under normal circumstances, so they are willingly not resisting.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
A core rules example demonstrating that you do get a save:
Elixir of Love
This sweet-tasting liquir causes the character drinking it to become enraptured with the first person she sees after consuming the draft (as charm person-the drinker must be a humanoid of Medium or smaller size, . The charm effect wears off in 1d3 hours.
That's an elixir, and not a potion.
I'm fine with them getting the saving throw, if my players want it. But, if they do, then they make saving throws vs any potion. It's not ignore saving throw except when bad things happen. It's either get the saving throw for all potions, or none if you take it willingly. If you are drinking ale with poison in it, you did not willingly take the poison, nor did you willingly drink the beguiling gifted potion. This is why spells that are beneficial say (harmless) on save, you can save if you choose to, but only if you make that choice. In the case of a potion, if you are willingly imbibing it, you are making the choice not to save against it. Now, if you know it's not a healing potion, I would allow you to imbibe and still get a saving throw.
Remember, potions can be cursed as well.
Spells don't require that the target be aware that they're being cast at in order to get a saving throw, so in my mind, the 'saving throw' event happens while the spell or potion effects are already occuring. Reflex save: you start to slip on some grease, but are able to keep your feet under you; Fortitude save: you just drank something and it appears to be really doing a number on your tummy, but you yak it back up in time before it has time to do anything; Will save: you hear the beautiful song by the stunning creature standing before you, but then you realize that this doesn't quite add up so you take a step back and start to think rationally.
That's how I plan on thinking about it from now on, unless someone has some specific examples that refute the idea?
Spells don't require that the target be aware that they're being cast at in order to get a saving throw, so in my mind, the 'saving throw' event happens while the spell or potion effects are already occuring. Reflex save: you start to slip on some grease, but are able to keep your feet under you; Fortitude save: you just drank something and it appears to be really doing a number on your tummy, but you yak it back up in time before it has time to do anything; Will save: you hear the beautiful song by the stunning creature standing before you, but then you realize that this doesn't quite add up so you take a step back and start to think rationally.That's how I plan on thinking about it from now on, unless someone...
That's all perfectly valid and great, and I agree with it 100%.
However, if you notice all your examples, these are all external forces acting on the character. The issue we are discussing is the character doing it to themselves by drinking a potion, or activating a wand, or whatever, and unknowingly doing themselves harm. They are drinking a potion of inflict instead of the cure they thought it was, for example.
Putting the spell into a bottle does not change whether you get a save or not.
It has nothing to do with the fact it's in a bottle, it has to do with the fact the PC is willingly using it on himself. I'd rule the same way if a PC picked up a wand and thought it was cure light when it was actually harm, or read and activated a scroll which he thought was heal and was actually a Curse spell. The whole thing comes down to the fact that harmless saves indicate you can resist if you want to. If you can resist if you want to, you can not resist if you don't want to. Nobody who's about to get healed really wants to resist under normal circumstances, so they are willingly not resisting.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
So when your invisible ally cast cure spells on you are you saying you have to decide right then and there whether to save or not since it might also be the invisible bad guy instead?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Actually, his second example is this situation exactly. You drink something, notice it's not doing what you expected, and you fight the effect.
I think what it comes down to for me is, I don't see the difference between:
I can't imagine a situation in which the latter wouldn't give you a save (it's basically textbook "This is an example of a Fortitude save" material), so I think the former should as well.
|
Actually, his second example is this situation exactly. You drink something, notice it's not doing what you expected, and you fight the effect.
I think what it comes down to for me is, I don't see the difference between:
Drinking what you think is a perfectly harmless potion of cure light wounds, but is actually a potion of inflict light wounds Drinking what you think is perfectly harmless mug of ale, but is actually deadly poisoned ale. I can't imagine a situation in which the latter wouldn't give you a save (it's basically textbook "This is an example of a Fortitude save" material), so I think the former should as well.
While I agree, you should understand that the step where you save to resist is prior to any overt effects that would tip you off that you should choose to save against it... so therein lies the conundrum. Besides 99% of the time this will be because of some compulsion effect to imbibe, or otherwise drink the potion, and those allow for a save already. Ruling the save is automatic only nerfs the concept for one, and two sneaky underhandedness is a tactic the players should be able to use.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
While I agree, you should understand that the step where you save to resist is prior to any overt effects that would tip you off that you should choose to save against it... so therein lies the conundrum. Besides 99% of the time this will be because of some compulsion effect to imbibe, or otherwise drink the potion, and those allow for a save already. Ruling the save is automatic only nerfs the concept for one, and two sneaky underhandedness is a tactic the players should be able to use.
Mechanically yes, but conceptually this isn't always the case, which was Gruuuu's point.
For instance, you don't make the save against grease until the ground gets slippery, so it makes sense that the choice of whether or not to forgo the save should wait until the ground gets slippery as well.
In the same sense, you don't make the save against the negative energy eating away at your insides until the negative energy starts eating away at your insides. Therefore, you would also wait until then to forgo the save.
Anyway, that's the in-game rationalization. I'm for giving the save for gamist reasons as well (which was my potion/poison point).
Imbribed poisons give you a chance to save, and more than likely they were added to food or drink so the I drank it on purpose falls apart right there.
|
|
Actually, his second example is this situation exactly. You drink something, notice it's not doing what you expected, and you fight the effect.
I think what it comes down to for me is, I don't see the difference between:
Drinking what you think is a perfectly harmless potion of cure light wounds, but is actually a potion of inflict light wounds Drinking what you think is perfectly harmless mug of ale, but is actually deadly poisoned ale. I can't imagine a situation in which the latter wouldn't give you a save (it's basically textbook "This is an example of a Fortitude save" material), so I think the former should as well.
The ST isn't "this poison don't affect me" but "I have noticed a strange taste in my drink, I spit it before swallowing it, that few drops that haven been ingested will not (hopefully) affect my strong body."
So if you drink the supposedly harmless potion you gulp it down fast and don't care about "taste" a probably it has bad taste like a lot of medicinal drugs (in this situation taste can be the perceived effect on your body).
Conversely you drink your ale, notice a strange taste and stop drinking it, taking only a small dose of poison.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
The ST isn't "this poison don't affect me" but "I have noticed a strange taste in my drink, I spit it before swallowing it, that few drops that haven been ingested will not (hopefully) affect my strong body."So if you drink the supposedly harmless potion you gulp it down fast and don't care about "taste" a probably it has bad taste like a lot of medicinal drugs (in this situation taste can be the perceived effect on your body).
Conversely you drink your ale, notice a strange taste and stop drinking it, taking only a small dose of poison.
That's an interesting way to look at it, but I don't believe it's supported by the rules. Fortitude is "your ability to stand up to physical punishment or attacks against your vitality and health", not "your ability to detect the taste of poison". The latter would fall under the Perception skill, if anything. It also causes weird interactions with the way multiple doses work. Rationally, you add more poison to the drink, the taste of the poison should overwhelm the taste of the ale, and become easier to "notice". Yet adding more doses instead makes the DC go up, making the poison harder to "notice". Besides, it all sort of presumes that the character knows what ale tastes like to begin with, doesn't it? Otherwise, how do they know it "tastes funny"? If it's their first time drinking, maybe they'll just think ale tastes like poison :D
I can understand running it that way though, especially if you want a grittier, more 'realistic' game, where the idea of characters guzzling hemlock and suffering no ill-effects does seem out of place.
Even so, we have the same problem. Why give a Saving Throw to let the character notice that the taste of one is wrong, but not the other? The character should get the chance to notice someone replaced their DayQuil with TheraFlu and spit the stuff out, same as the ale.
So when your invisible ally cast cure spells on you are you saying you have to decide right then and there whether to save or not since it might also be the invisible bad guy instead?
If my ally didn't tell me he was casting? Why wouldn't I, if I knew the enemy was about also invisible? I feel magic whirling around me from an unknown source. Saying I wouldn't resist it because it's my friend, whom has not said 'Hey! I'm healing you!' because he doesn't want to give away his position is the very height of metagaming.
|
That's all perfectly valid and great, and I agree with it 100%.However, if you notice all your examples, these are all external forces acting on the character. The issue we are discussing is the character doing it to themselves by drinking a potion, or activating a wand, or whatever, and unknowingly doing themselves harm. They are drinking a potion of inflict instead of the cure they thought it was, for example.
I refer back to the "poisoned ale" that was drunk. You still get a save to avoid the effects of the poison, even though you willingly imbibed the solution.
You are expecting a certain reaction from what you just took into your system and the body/mind automatically kicks into survival mode when it is not receiving what it is expecting.
|
|
There is a difference between drinking a magical potion that you know (or greatly suspect) will make you feel all tingly vs drinking an ale that happens to be poisoned. This would go for any potion that they do not know what it is.
In the case with the invisible cleric, i would require a save as well, but i would handle it so that the target didn't know that's what they were making a save for. That is if the cleric didn't let them know somehow.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
There is a difference between drinking a magical potion that you know (or greatly suspect) will make you feel all tingly vs drinking an ale that happens to be poisoned. This would go for any potion that they do not know what it is.
In the case with the invisible cleric, i would require a save as well, but i would handle it so that the target didn't know that's what they were making a save for. That is if the cleric didn't let them know somehow.
But Ale makes you feel all tingly as well, if you drink enough of it. :D
That's all perfectly valid and great, and I agree with it 100%.However, if you notice all your examples, these are all external forces acting on the character. The issue we are discussing is the character doing it to themselves by drinking a potion, or activating a wand, or whatever, and unknowingly doing themselves harm. They are drinking a potion of inflict instead of the cure they thought it was, for example.
I refer back to the "poisoned ale" that was drunk. You still get a save to avoid the effects of the poison, even though you willingly imbibed the solution.
You are expecting a certain reaction from what you just took into your system and the body/mind automatically kicks into survival mode when it is not receiving what it is expecting.
Besides, you're missing the relevant RAW. When you imbibe a potion, you are casting a spell, you are both the caster and the target, by RAW. When you drink poisoned ale, you are not casting a spell, and are not the caster by RAW. Again, you're comparing apples and oranges. RAW says you cast the spell on yourself if you drink a potion. If that potion is a cure wounds, it heals. If it's an inflict wounds that's been labeled 'CURE' by some paranoid alchemist you looted then you instead are casting an inflict on yourself. You have no way of knowing what it is until it affects you if you don't bother spellcrafting or alchemy checking the potion to see what it is before you drink it.
None of this applies to a regular non-potion poison. If you pick up a vial of non-magical poison and drink it, you get all your saves, even if you did it willingly. Magic is a different animal. By RAW, if you drink a potion willingly, you are the caster and target.
|
|
There is a difference between drinking a magical potion that you know (or greatly suspect) will make you feel all tingly vs drinking an ale that happens to be poisoned. This would go for any potion that they do not know what it is.
In the case with the invisible cleric, i would require a save as well, but i would handle it so that the target didn't know that's what they were making a save for. That is if the cleric didn't let them know somehow.
Not as per game mechanics...you get a save against an effect that you wish to save against, whether it is to your immediate knowledge or not.
Your body decides to make the save against poison, even though you didn't taste it while drinking it, or smell it.
Drinking a potion that has an ill effect you were tricked into drinking is no different.
Do not want the effect? Make your save.
|
|
Besides, you're missing the relevant RAW. When you imbibe a potion, you are casting a spell, you are both the caster and the target, by RAW. When you drink poisoned ale, you are not casting a spell, and are not the caster by RAW. Again, you're comparing apples and oranges. RAW says you cast the spell on yourself if you drink a potion. If that potion is a cure wounds, it heals. If it's an inflict wounds that's been labeled 'CURE' by some paranoid alchemist you looted then you instead are casting an inflict on yourself. You have no way of knowing what it is until it affects you if you don't bother spellcrafting or alchemy checking the potion to see what it is before you drink it.
None of this applies to a regular non-potion poison. If you pick up a vial of non-magical poison and drink it, you get all your saves, even if you did it willingly. Magic is a different animal. By RAW, if you drink a potion willingly, you are the caster and target.
Mechanics please? Rules quote that you do not get to save on spells you cast on yourself?
That's all perfectly valid and great, and I agree with it 100%.However, if you notice all your examples, these are all external forces acting on the character. The issue we are discussing is the character doing it to themselves by drinking a potion, or activating a wand, or whatever, and unknowingly doing themselves harm. They are drinking a potion of inflict instead of the cure they thought it was, for example.
I refer back to the "poisoned ale" that was drunk. You still get a save to avoid the effects of the poison, even though you willingly imbibed the solution.
You are expecting a certain reaction from what you just took into your system and the body/mind automatically kicks into survival mode when it is not receiving what it is expecting.
Besides, you're missing the relevant RAW. When you imbibe a potion, you are casting a spell, you are both the caster and the target, by RAW. When you drink poisoned ale, you are not casting a spell, and are not the caster by RAW. Again, you're comparing apples and oranges. RAW says you cast the spell on yourself if you drink a potion. If that potion is a cure wounds, it heals. If it's an inflict wounds that's been labeled 'CURE' by some paranoid alchemist you looted then you instead are casting an inflict on yourself. You have no way of knowing what it is until it affects you if you don't bother spellcrafting or alchemy checking the potion to see what it is before you drink it.
None of this applies to a regular non-potion poison. If you pick up a vial of non-magical poison and drink it, you get all your saves, even if you did it willingly. Magic is a different animal. By RAW, if you drink a potion willingly, you are the caster and target.
I can see your point here. I guess it would be a fool indeed that picked up potions that were labelled as something, believed it, and drank it expecting it to do what it said. Well, either a fool or a new player. For most it would only take once!
Come to think of it, most potions, when they're picked up, aren't labelled; they require an identification. In the case of someone telling someone else it was something it wasn't, they should get a sense motive at the very least.
The ST isn't "this poison don't affect me" but "I have noticed a strange taste in my drink, I spit it before swallowing it, that few drops that haven been ingested will not (hopefully) affect my strong body."
When you get injured by a poisoned blade, making your save does not represent realizing that it was poison and extracting it from your bloodstream before it takes effect. It represents your body fighting off the ill effects of the poison, negating the harm it would have caused. It's the body's response to a hostile force, and does not require conscious attention from the injured character.
Anyway, here's the relevant rules text for my interpretation, though I'm not sure any of it is conclusive enough to be an open and shut case.
Saving Throws: Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect [...] Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack.
These two quotes seem to indicate that as a default, you make saves against hostile/harmful forces, and it is assumed that that's all you're making saves against.
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.
The "but" clause here indicates that while making a save against a harmless effect is not default, the player is allowed to do it anyway if they so desire.
The above interpretation indicates that players, at the very least, know whether an effect is harmless or not. If it is a harmless effect, it is assumed that they will not be making a saving throw unless they explicitly choose to. If it is a harmful effect, it is assumed that they will be making a saving throw unless they explicitly choose not to. So when a character drinks an inflict light wounds potion, thinking it's CLW, he still gets a saving throw because he did not explicitly state that he was going to forego it [nor would he have had to if it was actually a CLW potion].
For this to make sense in game, all one must do is assume a different sensation for being targeted by harmless and harmful effects.
Mechanics please? Rules quote that you do not get to save on spells you cast on yourself?
I didn't say you couldn't take a save on spells you cast on yourself, but you have to choose to take them. For example, if you cast fireball in your square, you darn sure want that reflex save. If you cast cure on yourself, you darn sure don't.
The point is, if you drink a potion of inflict light wounds instead of cure light wounds, but you thought it was cure, you would be intentionally not wanting your save when you drank it. If you give the save anyway, when the person didn't want it, then you are metagaming. I think it's cure, but it's actually inflict, so I take my save anyway, even though I would never take my save on an actual cure light potion.
Do you not see that as metagaming? The very definition of metagaming is using information you the player have but your character doesn't. it's the same as Wraithstrikes example above of invisibility.
Your cleric is running around invisible, so is the enemy cleric. Someone touches you and starts casting a spell. Neither identify themselves so as not to reveal who they are. Do you take your save or not? It could be your friend healing you, or it could be the enemy casting an inflict on you, but you have no idea. The player knows it's his friend casting a cure on him because he heard Jim tell the GM what he was doing, but if he acts on that information and says I'll not take the save, he's metagaming.
I can see your point here. I guess it would be a fool indeed that picked up potions that were labelled as something, believed it, and drank it expecting it to do what it said. Well, either a fool or a new player. For most it would only take once!Come to think of it, most potions, when they're picked up, aren't labelled; they require an identification. In the case of someone telling someone else it was something it wasn't, they should get a sense motive at the very least.
You'd be surprised at how many people buy a potion of cure light in a country that has evil people in it, and never bother checking the potion. :)
But yes, a sense motive check would be appropriate.
Doesn't help if the person selling it thinks it's a cure, or the person giving it, or if it's cursed and they don't know. But if it's maliciously done, yep, sense motives all around. :)
For example, if you cast fireball in your square, you darn sure want that reflex save. If you cast cure on yourself, you darn sure don't.
Mechanics please? Rules quote that you do not get to save on spells you cast on yourself?
If you cast inflict on yourself under the misconception that it's cure you darn sure do. Same as if you bluff an enemy into thinking you're healing him before using inflict on him.
Your cleric is running around invisible, so is the enemy cleric. Someone touches you and starts casting a spell. Neither identify themselves so as not to reveal who they are. Do you take your save or not? It could be your friend healing you, or it could be the enemy casting an inflict on you, but you have no idea. The player knows it's his friend casting a cure on him because he heard Jim tell the GM what he was doing, but if he acts on that information and says I'll not take the save, he's metagaming.
If it's a cure spell, or any other harmless effect, he is never asked whether he wants to take a save or not. Rather, it's assumed that he will not unless he says he does because it is a harmless spell. Do your GMs normally ask whether you want to make a saving throw every time a harmless spell is cast on you?
To think that, in world, there's only one "I need to make a will save" sensation is a bit ridiculous IMO. Certainly, at the very least, something like inflict is going to cause a different sensation than the opposite effect. It's not ridiculous for characters to know whether effects are harmless or not, and in fact, if they don't then there's no mechanical reason to include (harmless) in the spell description.
To think that, in world, there's only one "I need to make a will save" sensation is a bit ridiculous IMO. Certainly, at the very least, something like inflict is going to cause a different sensation than the opposite effect. It's not ridiculous for characters to know whether effects are harmless or not, and in fact, if they don't then there's no mechanical reason to include (harmless) in the spell description.
The Dhampyr would like to dispute your assertion. He never wants to ignore harmless healing spells when cast on him. He always wants his save against harmless cure spells.
The Dhampyr would like to dispute your assertion. He never wants to ignore harmless healing spells when cast on him. He always wants his save against harmless cure spells.
To think that, in world, there's only one "I need to make a will save" sensation is a bit ridiculous IMO. Certainly, at the very least, something like inflict is going to cause a different sensation than the opposite effect. It's not ridiculous for characters to know whether effects are harmless or not, and in fact, if they don't then there's no mechanical reason to include (harmless) in the spell description.
A reasonable GM would probably rule that, when targeting things which are healed by negative and harmed by positive, inflict becomes (harmless) and cure becomes harmful.
However, even without such GM concessions, this can be solved by players knowing to a rough degree what effect they're making a save against. When told that he's being targeted by a positive energy effect, he's probably going to opt to take that saving throw even though it's not default. Likewise, he'll probably explicitly choose to fail his saves when he's told "make a save against negative energy damage."
Obviously the optimal approach would be to use sanity and switch around harmful and harmless for positive and negative when targeting undead.
So I'm taking it that it's your position that (harmless) has absolutely no mechanical meaning?
So I'm taking it that it's your position that (harmless) has absolutely no mechanical meaning?
Yeah, pretty much. Here's why. Devs have already said if you are unconscious you get your will saves. If you're tied up and immobile, you still get a reflex save. So, the only way you don't automatically get a save against everything, logically, is if you intentionally don't take it. So the harmless is sort of meaningless, since you get a save all the time unless you don't take it intentionally. Ergo, if you think something magical is helping you, you are going to forgo your save.
This is different from something non-magical, in that if a rock falls from a cliff, and you are immobile, you don't get a save to avoid being crushed. Poison enters your bloodstream and you get saves no matter what. Burning hemp can still mess up your brain and you get a will save even if you are wanting to inhale it.
To me, magic has something of intent to it. If you intentionally allow the magic to affect you, guess what, it does. Non-magical are chemistry and physics based stuff, which has no interaction with your will one way or the other. You can't will the poison to affect or not affect you, it just does. You can, however, will the magic to affect you even if normally your body would try to reject it.