Do potion drinkers get saving throws?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

mdt wrote:
Omelite wrote:


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.

What you've just said illustrates that whether or not you take your will save has nothing to do with a conscious awareness of the effect or an understanding of what the effect does. Your body or mind handle it on their own. I am not disagreeing with that.

Tell me, if I poured a potion down an unconscious man's throat, does he attempt the will save to resist half of the healing? Your view necessitates that he does, while mine says that he does not. We both agree that he would attempt to save against inflict.

Quote:
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.

No, that's not the only way. It's also possible that what I'm saying is true - that you automatically attempt saves against harmful effects, and automatically don't attempt saves against harmless effects, unless you choose to fail the former or choose to attempt the latter. The scenario you've described - of still making your saves when you're unconscious - is not a point of contention between us, and it's not something that indicates that I am either right or wrong.

Given that it's a point of agreement between our views, it is not evidence of either one of our views being truer than the other.

Quote:
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.

I'm not disputing that. Certainly you're free to voluntarily give up a save against a harmful spell, by either of our views. I'm simply arguing that the body/mind's natural reaction to a harmless spell (let it go through) is different from its natural reaction to a harmful one (attempt a save).


Omelite wrote:
So I'm taking it that it's your position that (harmless) has absolutely no mechanical meaning?

My take on this is that when someone is affected by a spell, they should be offered a save, and told if there is a (harmless) tag on the spell.

Examples wrote:


- GM: "You get a spell cast on you. It's a Fortitude save"
PC: "I resist" *rolls dice*

- GM: "You get a spell cast on you. It's a harmless Fortitude save."
PC: "I'll let it through."

In the case of a charmed character, they would drink the potion, the spell would cast, and they'd get the option to save vs. the spell. If the GM doesn't give the "Harmless" tag, then the PC should be VERY concerned... even under charm.

This might just be me, but I don't think I'd change the tags for Undead characters... Part of the drawback to being undead is having to remember that things which are normally harmless (like holy water, sunlight, etc), aren't necessarily the case anymore.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm not going into semantics it's very simple.

IF an NPC did this to a PC and I did not allow a save, the players would scream to high heaven. So yes I allow a save, no matter who is doing what to whom.


mdt wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


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.

The rules don't agree with you, and just to be clear I am arguing the intent of the rules, not a gamestyle preference. I don't see how you have to choose in the invisible situation, but the imbribed poison automatically gets you save. They are basically the same thing, except one is directly from the caster, and the other is in a premade solution.

The poison situation would also apply to an potion situation since in short it is basically not even about spells but a harmful vs beneficial affect.


mdt wrote:


Do you not see that as metagaming? The very definition of metagaming is using information you the player have but your character doesn't.

The whole idea of deciding whether or not to make a save is meta-gaming. Sure, it's in the rules, but it is still meta-gaming.

Maybe it's just a play-style thing, but this question has never even come up in the groups I have played in.


Beckett wrote:

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.

In the case of the potion(inflict moderate wounds) and the poison you are expecting no ill affects. I see no difference. The fact that you get the exact opposite would of what you expect would only enforce that you get a save.

edit:Some poisons have a delayed effect so are you going to argue that having to make a save against something changes because due to time. If so how much time, .00022 seconds, 2 minutes?


mdt wrote:


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.

That does not mean you can't resist your own spell. You have to willing decide to fail a save. Me dropping a fireball in my area is not the same as willing failing the save.

Does it make sense to make a save in the middle of what is basically an explosion? I would say no, but by the rules that is how it works. You are making a playstyle argument instead of a rules argument.


wraithstrike wrote:
mdt wrote:


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.

That does not mean you can't resist your own spell. You have to willing decide to fail a save. Me dropping a fireball in my area is not the same as willing failing the save.

Does it make sense to make a save in the middle of what is basically an explosion? I would say no, but by the rules that is how it works. You are making a playstyle argument instead of a rules argument.

You still have not answered why you would resist an inflict potion that you believe to be a cure. You acknowledge you are the caster and target of same, that the character has no idea it's an inflict, but yet he is somehow aware of the fact it is an inflict anyway. Then why did he drink it? Either he thought it was a cure and forwent his save, or he takes his save for all cures. Anything else is metagaming information. He can't decide to not forgo his save once he already has when it begins to hurt him, a save is to stop the magical effect, once it hurts him, it's too late to resist it.

Again, you keep mixing apples and oranges. You are mixing him resisting things done to him by others with what he does himself. He picks up a wand of cure light mass, and uses it. He obviously isn't trying to save against it. However, the wand is cursed and 1 in 6 chances it casts fireball instead. Oops, he rolled a 1 this time, and unlike the last 4 times he cast it, this time it explodes. He has already willingly forgone his saving throw, yet somehow, he magically knows that this is not a cure at the same time he knows it is. It's shroedinger's cat, he's both aware of it being dangerous and unaware simultenously. I don't like quantum physics in my games.

Anyway, it's useless to argue anymore. Do whatever you want in your games Wraith. I'll do what I find correct in mine. In mine, if you drink a potion and you think it's a cure and it's actually an inflict, you took it.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
mdt wrote:
Omelite wrote:


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.

Quote:
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.

This phrase disagrees. You have actively choose to fail the save, and drinking a potion is not the same as an active choice to fail.

The magic has intent is not supported by any rules meaning we are going back to playstyle/theory.
The willing is not meaningless. What it means is that you get to choose whether to save against it or not, as opposed to being forced to make the save unless you actively choose otherwise.

Example
Bad spell: Automatic save unless you choose not to.
Good(harmless) spell:Automatic acceptance unless you choose to save against it.

They are complete opposites. The rules that determine whether or not you get a save don't go by what you think they do. They go by what the spells actually do.


mdt wrote:


You still have not answered why you would resist an inflict potion that you believe to be a cure.

I have. My post just before this one. :)


Coriat wrote:
mdt wrote:
Coriat wrote:

A core rules example demonstrating that you do get a save:

Quote:

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, Will DC 14 negates). The charm effect wears off in 1d3 hours.

That's an elixir, and not a potion.
And how does that make a difference, please?

I'm still waiting on a satisfactory answer. Because tricking someone into drinking the love potion is one of if not the major trope of its use; who would drink it if the were not expecting beneficial effect instead of mind-affecting attack?

Shadow Lodge

@ Wrathstrike,

The difference Im talking about is that with the ale you are probably in a neutral state. But with the mislabled potion, you have lowered your defences, so to speak. You have already accepted that you are takong a potion and are allowing it to take affect.

So I would either require the players to save against all unknown potions (or spells or whatever), or none. But not get to pick and choose once they find out if they want it's effect. It also really depends to a point on the circumstances. This is also a choice I let the players make for themselves.

I do see it assumed that players should know what spells and potions feel like before the save, which I dont agree with, either. Not even as a rule of thumb.


Coriat wrote:


I'm still waiting on a satisfactory answer. Because tricking someone into drinking the love potion is one of if not the major trope of its use; who would drink it if the were not expecting beneficial effect instead of mind-affecting attack?

It's an artifact that calls out a specific, non-caster DC in it's description. All artifacts are, by RAW, unique and have unique rules. That's why I said using one is as an example is useless. Artifacts can't be created, can't be duplicated, don't follow the core rules. They follow whatever rules are inherent in them. Thus the save is granted even though you willingly take it, because it is specifically described as doing so. Specific trumps general.


What I see a lot of people ruling is the PC is making the conscious decision to resist the effect (make a saving throw). I view saving throws more along the body/mind rejecting something negative that is happening to them.

You unknowingly drink a poison thinking it is a cure potion. You of course willingly allowed the potion thinking it would heal you, but your body recognizes the difference so therefore your fortitude save kicks in.

It is a defensive mechanism on the part of your body/mind, than the character thinking “Oh, this is bad, I better resist it.”

Now, reflex saves can vary a bit. A lot of times you truly are making that conscious decision to ‘jump out of the way’ of that spell. But you can also argue that a reflex save is just that, it can be reflexive to just move out of the way of something coming towards you without thinking about it, as well.


Beckett wrote:

@ Wrathstrike,

The difference Im talking about is that with the ale you are probably in a neutral state. But with the mislabled potion, you have lowered your defences, so to speak. You have already accepted that you are takong a potion and are allowing it to take affect.

So I would either require the players to save against all unknown potions (or spells or whatever), or none. But not get to pick and choose once they find out if they want it's effect. It also really depends to a point on the circumstances. This is also a choice I let the players make for themselves.

I do see it assumed that players should know what spells and potions feel like before the save, which I dont agree with, either. Not even as a rule of thumb.

I see your point, but I think my last post that quotes rules is supported by the rules since it explains why the "harmless" matters, and even though it is gamist it is the rules.

A lot of the rules are gamist, and being able to divorce playstyle from what the book says is essential to finding the correct answer. The silly notion of making a reflex save while paralyzed is an example of that. I had to point that out to someone in a thread a long time ago, even though I never really cared for it.

I will say this again:

The rules that determine whether or not you get a save don't go by what you think they do. They go by what the spells actually do.
PS:I am not saying you can't divorce playstyle from what the book says, but I do think that is what is going on now.

Shadow Lodge

Thats fine. Im just saying how I do ot and prefer it done.

As for tje Refl, I jave a friend that likes to say, hey, batman can have a bomb go off in his face and be fine as long as there is the shadow of a pebble within 80ft. :)


I would probably allow a bluff check to make someone accept a save though.

PC:It will hurt at first, but trust me it makes everything better. [bluff check 34]
a few rounds later
PC:-6 con, That @#$@! liar!!!!!


wraithstrike wrote:

I would probably allow a bluff check to make someone accept a save though.

PC:It will hurt at first, but trust me it makes everything better. [bluff check 34]
a few rounds later
PC:-6 con, That @#$@! liar!!!!!

Don’t really agree with that either. You can’t bluff the body into thinking a poison is something else. You drink the poison, the body is immediately going to start trying to fight it (i.e., the attempted Fortitude save).


Hobbun wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I would probably allow a bluff check to make someone accept a save though.

PC:It will hurt at first, but trust me it makes everything better. [bluff check 34]
a few rounds later
PC:-6 con, That @#$@! liar!!!!!

Don’t really agree with that either. You can’t bluff the body into thinking a poison is something else. You drink the poison, the body is immediately going to start trying to fight it (i.e., the attempted Fortitude save).

That was not a rules thing. It was more of an plausible house rule thing.

Liberty's Edge

Coriat wrote:


I'm still waiting on a satisfactory answer. Because tricking someone into drinking the love potion is one of if not the major trope of its use; who would drink it if the were not expecting beneficial effect instead of mind-affecting attack?

Usually you mix the love elixir with something palatable: a good drink, a granita and so on.

If I was making one I would try to make it as enticing as possible so it would be easy to get the target to drink it, but, has the target normally think it is a mundane liquor he get his save as he has no reason to waive it.

If you convince the target that the elixir of love is a beneficial potion or elixir and he willingly accept to waive the ST to get the full effect s/he will not get a save against the love effect.

Liberty's Edge

Quote:

Example

Bad spell: Automatic save unless you choose not to.
Good(harmless) spell:Automatic acceptance unless you choose to save against it

Let's use Polymorph as an example:

Quote:

Polymorph

Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)

For the "you know if the spell is harmless" field so you don't save:

The spell is harmless, so if I cast it on another person normally he will not roll a saving throw, right?

Well, your are in my party, we are in a inn relaxing and you have annoyed me to no end. I cast Polymorph on you and give you a ugly face with a bulbous nose, very large ears and so on, while, at the same time you get the positive aspect of the spell (turning into a medium humanoid, so +2 strength). Your chances to woo the barmaid drop to near 0.

At that point you get the ST or not? And why?

By your reasoning you know that it is a harmless spell and even a beneficial one so you have no reason to resist.
On the other hand the spell will make you ugly and ridicule for a time, so you will probably find it has an unwanted effect.

You get a retroactive ST because it wasn't so harmless after all?


Diego Rossi wrote:
Quote:

Example

Bad spell: Automatic save unless you choose not to.
Good(harmless) spell:Automatic acceptance unless you choose to save against it

Let's use Polymorph as an example:

Quote:

Polymorph

Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)

For the "you know if the spell is harmless" field so you don't save:

The spell is harmless, so if I cast it on another person normally he will not roll a saving throw, right?

Well, your are in my party, we are in a inn relaxing and you have annoyed me to no end. I cast Polymorph on you and give you a ugly face with a bulbous nose, very large ears and so on, while, at the same time you get the positive aspect of the spell (turning into a medium humanoid, so +2 strength). Your chances to woo the barmaid drop to near 0.

At that point you get the ST or not? And why?

By your reasoning you know that it is a harmless spell and even a beneficial one so you have no reason to resist.
On the other hand the spell will make you ugly and ridicule for a time, so you will probably find it has an unwanted effect.

You get a retroactive ST because it wasn't so harmless after all?

I don't know who is being address so I will clarify my stance for this situation.

If the spell is harmless there is no save unless you actively choose to save against it. In short is it something you would want to happen to you?
The point of saves is to resist undesirable affects.

If the spell were harmful such as baleful polymorph you automatically save unless you choose to let it effect you.

PS:I think the issue is that the rules don't cover being tricked into a save and assume the character knows ahead of time whether a spell is generally harmful or not. This is made into a bigger issue because the only way to know if something is harmful in many cases is with a spellcraft check.
It is a case of the rules not supporting the rules, and now is making me think it is a house-rule issue more than an actual rules issue until a dev chimes in.


mdt wrote:
You still have not answered why you would resist an inflict potion that you believe to be a cure.

I'll answer, and in two parts. First off, because to resist a harmful effect, you don't have to willfully and consciously attempt to resist it. You showed that earlier when you brought up that unconscious characters get their saves.

Second, because it's an inflict spell. If there was a food that you believed provided a fort [harmless] save against its nourishment, then even if you're ready to accept its nourishment your body's still going to resist a poison that's been put into the thing. You don't "turn off" your body or mind's natural defenses against outside harm.

Quote:
You acknowledge you are the caster and target of same, that the character has no idea it's an inflict, but yet he is somehow aware of the fact it is an inflict anyway.

No. Before he drinks it, he doesn't know it's inflict. However, as soon as it tries to do something to him - which is when he gets to make the save - he knows it's harmful.

Quote:
Again, you keep mixing apples and oranges. You are mixing him resisting things done to him by others with what he does himself. He picks up a wand of cure light mass, and uses it. He obviously isn't trying to save against it. However, the wand is cursed and 1 in 6 chances it casts fireball instead. Oops, he rolled a 1 this time, and unlike the last 4 times he cast it, this time it explodes. He has already willingly forgone his saving throw, yet somehow, he magically knows that this is not a cure at the same time he knows it is.

No. As soon as the fireball effect manifests, he gets to try and evade it. Just like any other time he gets surprised by a fireball to the face without prior knowledge thereof. This example is probably the best one for my side, as there's absolutely no coherent way that being willing to receive a spell would hinder one's ability to dodge a fireball.


This came up in my group a few years ago.

We decided that the effect of the spell becomes apparent at the time a save is required. So any decision whether to resist or not happens after the effect of the spell is revealed. Using my group's logic you can decide to save or not after drinking a potion based on it's true effect. I think our ruling is consistent with the spirit of the rules, even in Pathfinder.


Omelite wrote:
mdt wrote:
You still have not answered why you would resist an inflict potion that you believe to be a cure.

I'll answer, and in two parts. First off, because to resist a harmful effect, you don't have to willfully and consciously attempt to resist it. You showed that earlier when you brought up that unconscious characters get their saves.

That's exactly the point. An unconscious person gets a save. That means that EVERYONE saves against EVERYTHING at ALL TIMES unless they choose not to. You missed the point of that explanation. If you save when unconscious, the only way you wouldn't save vs the cure is if you specifically chose not to.

The point being, the rules assume you save at all times (even while you can't consciously choose to, such as being unconscious or tied up), therefore the only way you could avoid a save is to intentionally not save. Therefore, if you are drinking a cure potion, you are intentionally choosing not to save. If that cure potion turns out to be an inflict, it's too late to save by the time you figure it out, you've already suppressed your own save.


wraithstrike wrote:


PS:I think the issue is that the rules don't cover being tricked into a save and assume the character knows ahead of time whether a spell is generally harmful or not. This is made into a bigger issue because the only way to know if something is harmful in many cases is with a spellcraft check.

This much I can deffinately agree with you on. The rules are silent about what happens when you willingly do something that is dangerous, like drinking an inflict potion when you think it's a cure potion, or setting off a cursed cure mass wand and getting a fireball.

Given that, it's interpretation by the GM. I've been giving my interpretation, you've been giving yours. Unfortunately, nothing in RAW will ever decide this because it's one of those corner cases where the RAW can be read both ways.


mdt, do you keep the effects secret? If so I can understand why you ruled as you did, even if I disagree with it. But I have had clever players who would use such a ruling against NPCs and monsters alike to use bluff for example to deprive an otherwise unwilling target of a saving throw.

Shadow Lodge

Sounds like a good tactic.


mdt wrote:
Omelite wrote:
mdt wrote:
You still have not answered why you would resist an inflict potion that you believe to be a cure.

I'll answer, and in two parts. First off, because to resist a harmful effect, you don't have to willfully and consciously attempt to resist it. You showed that earlier when you brought up that unconscious characters get their saves.

That's exactly the point. An unconscious person gets a save. That means that EVERYONE saves against EVERYTHING at ALL TIMES unless they choose not to. You missed the point of that explanation. If you save when unconscious, the only way you wouldn't save vs the cure is if you specifically chose not to.

No, it doesn't mean that.

When the devs explained that unconscious characters get their saves, what did they use as an example? Did they use a potion of cure light wounds being poured down someone's throat? Probably not. I'm sure the example they gave was a harmful spell, which both you and I agree would automatically prompt a save.

Assuming that their example was a harmful spell, all it shows is that you automatically try to make saves against harmful effects, which is a point of agreement between us. It says absolutely nothing about whether harmless spells are auto-resisted unless you choose not to resist or auto-accepted unless you choose to resist.

Quote:
If that cure potion turns out to be an inflict, it's too late to save by the time you figure it out, you've already suppressed your own save.

No. You don't decide whether or not to save when you see the enemy spellcaster waving his hands. You decide whether to save when the effect hits you. Likewise, you don't decide whether to save as you're drinking the spell, you decide as the potion takes its effect. And that's not even the important point of contention between us.

Points of disagreement between us:

1. I think that harmless spells are auto-allowed unless you resist and harmful spells are auto-resisted unless you forgo the save. You think all spells are auto-resisted. As a result, I don't think you need to make any particular decision about saves before you drink a potion of cure. You drink the potion, and you either default to resisting [if it's harmful] or not resisting [if it's harmless]. You think that you have to make a decision before receiving any beneficial spell effect that you want to consciously allow the spell to go through.

2. I think that when the effect takes place - for instance, after drinking the potion, the character has an idea of what sort of effect the potion is attempting on him, at least to the extent of knowing whether it's (harmless) or not. I would probably go further and say that you (or rather, the subconscious will that's making the save) knows whether it's mind-affecting, a fear effect, a compulsion, a charm, a death effect, etc., but all that's necessary here is that the character or his body/will can tell the difference between harmful effects and harmless ones when the option to save is presented.


Min2007 wrote:

mdt, do you keep the effects secret? If so I can understand why you ruled as you did, even if I disagree with it. But I have had clever players who would use such a ruling against NPCs and monsters alike to use bluff for example to deprive an otherwise unwilling target of a saving throw.

Nope, if the players can figure out a way to get a bad guy to willingly drink a potion that would hurt them (like, the rogue using slight of hand to replace a potion of cure moderate with inflict moderate), then the NPCs don't get a saving throw either. He thought he was drinking his cure moderate, and he instead drank an inflict moderate.

One thing I can not stand is a GM who does things the PCs can't do. I've been in that game, hated it, don't want to go back. I'm also a big believer in the idea that what the PCs do, the GM can do to them as well. I find it keeps the players from cheesing out, and from a game world perspective, I treat it as the idea of a gentleman's agreement. Most people don't sunder equipment because they want the equipment, and they don't want their own sundered. If the PCs start sundering all the time, then rumors begin to get around, and the BBEGs start doing the 'arms race' things. Just like drug gangs, they'll tend to escalate across the board as soon as one group does. Like if there's an agreement that underage family members are off the list of targets, and then someone blows up a gang leader's house and kills his kids, then all the gangs start doing the same thing, shooting everyone's relatives and little brothers and sisters. It get's really nasty really fast. Since we see that in the real world, I feel comfortable with my world having that 'gentlemans agreement' in place, until it's broken. Once it's broken, things get nasty real fast, then eventually everyone get's sick of it, and the agreement begins to slowly reestablish itself, until the next time someone breaks it.


Omelite wrote:
Arguments

I understand your point of view, I just disagree with it. I think at this point, we're both firmly of the opinion that the RAW will support our respective stances, and we're both right on that, in my opinion. So, I guess we're at the point where we both just shrug and say 'Have fun with your game'.


Min2007 wrote:

This came up in my group a few years ago.

We decided that the effect of the spell becomes apparent at the time a save is required. So any decision whether to resist or not happens after the effect of the spell is revealed. Using my group's logic you can decide to save or not after drinking a potion based on it's true effect. I think our ruling is consistent with the spirit of the rules, even in Pathfinder.

This is the way I'm going to take it if it ever comes up with my GM.


One more point I need to make before I go. I figure you should know all the abuses and absurdities your ruling creates.

mdt wrote:
Nope, if the players can figure out a way to get a bad guy to willingly drink a potion that would hurt them (like, the rogue using slight of hand to replace a potion of cure moderate with inflict moderate), then the NPCs don't get a saving throw either. He thought he was drinking his cure moderate, and he instead drank an inflict moderate.

All you need is a good bluffer who can cast save or lose spells. A sorcerer, for instance. Bluff the enemy into thinking you're on their side and you're going to buff them so they can fight the rest of the treacherous PCs with you, or whatever. While it might be "far-fetched," it's not "impossible" and it's also likely that most enemies will also "want it to be true," so in the end the total penalty to the bluff check is only -5. That's simple to make for a competent bluffsman, even against someone with moderate sense motive. He accepts your spell, which happens to be a save or lose, and the only defense he got against it was a sense motive check. Word of this tactic never gets out into the rest of the world, because you kill him before he can spread word about it.

To show some more ridiculousness, casting Restoration on someone with 0 STR [uncsoncsious] will result, by your interpretation, in them automatically attempting a will save to negate it, as they're not conscious and so can't consciously forgo the save. Better hope it wasn't a cleric or monk who went down, or you might have to blow through a lot of restorations, and their material components, before one actually goes through! Same thing for 0 CHA or INT [or WIS, but they're probably failing the save if their wismod is -5].

Similar case I already mentioned with a cure spell on an unconscious character, though at least it's not will negates, otherwise a DC 11 will save would completely negate wand healing on an unconscious character.

A character died last round due to HP damage. Good thing the cleric has Breath of Life - a resurrection that doesn't require an expensive material component! Oh wait, it has Will Negates [harmless], so if the fallen character has a decent will save, he's probably not going to be raised, as his unconscious mind will automatically resist the effect unless overridden by his conscious mind =[

It just brings, for me anyway, a whole new level of ridiculousness to the game.


wraithstrike wrote:
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:

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.

Right, that's what I said, you would be forced to drink it, but you don't have to trust that the caster is your friend.


Omelite wrote:

One more point I need to make before I go. I figure you should know all the abuses and absurdities your ruling creates.

mdt wrote:
Nope, if the players can figure out a way to get a bad guy to willingly drink a potion that would hurt them (like, the rogue using slight of hand to replace a potion of cure moderate with inflict moderate), then the NPCs don't get a saving throw either. He thought he was drinking his cure moderate, and he instead drank an inflict moderate.

All you need is a good bluffer who can cast save or lose spells. A sorcerer, for instance. Bluff the enemy into thinking you're on their side and you're going to buff them so they can fight the rest of the treacherous PCs with you, or whatever. While it might be "far-fetched," it's not "impossible" and it's also likely that most enemies will also "want it to be true," so in the end the total penalty to the bluff check is only -5. That's simple to make for a competent bluffsman, even against someone with moderate sense motive. He accepts your spell, which happens to be a save or lose, and the only defense he got against it was a sense motive check. Word of this tactic never gets out into the rest of the world, because you kill him before he can spread word about it.

To show some more ridiculousness, casting Restoration on someone with 0 STR [uncsoncsious] will result, by your interpretation, in them automatically attempting a will save to negate it, as they're not conscious and so can't consciously forgo the save. Better hope it wasn't a cleric or monk who went down, or you might have to blow through a lot of restorations, and their material components, before one actually goes through! Same thing for 0 CHA or INT [or WIS, but they're probably failing the save if their wismod is -5].

Similar case I already mentioned with a cure spell on an unconscious character, though at least it's not will negates, otherwise a DC 11 will save would completely negate wand healing on an unconscious character.

A character died last round due...

I'd rule that an unconscious player still has the ability to decide. Otherwise, as you pointed it, it makes resurrections and such much more difficult. To me, the intended reason for there being a save is the rule that you have to wish to be resurrected. If for some reason you prefer to remain dead, then you get your save.


Do you choose to forfeit the save before or after the effect.

Quote:
A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result

also:

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

I'd say that normally only harmless effects are assumed to be 'forgone'.

'harmless' seems to say the save can be made if desired. Otherwise you must willingly forego the save via my first quote.

Sovereign Court

I see that I am late to teh show here, but I wanted to respond to mdt.

mdt wrote:
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.

You just threw the whole "RAW" phrase out there so I figured you had something to show me that was RAW. That phrase comes off poorly but it is not meant in a poor way. I understand other probably have a better understanding on some of the rules than I do so figured that since you used the RAW term you knew of something RAW that I didn't.

As per RAW. You get a save vs effects that you wish to save against. No matter the caster. You as a player decide, as a meta-game. The PC instinctively decides in game.

It is something done as the effects are hitting him, so that the player/PC understand how positive/negative the effects will be.

mdt wrote:
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.

See above. I believe that RAW is that you save as you are affected by the effects. Not before. It does not have to be meta-gaming.

I obviously feel that Positive energy and Negative energy "feel" different in how they affect your body. Instinctively, if you drink a CxW potion and start to feel "negative energy feelings you resist.

mdt wrote:
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.

No. Because I see you using the information that your body will report to you...as in "This was not a cure potion because of how I feel as is starts to affect my body".

mdt wrote:
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 this is his friend wouldn't he recognize the voice? Spell casting needs a strong voice, so unless you keep adding "Gotcha" portions to the scenario it should be more clear who is casting what on you than you are assuming in this scenario. At worst you should give a DC5 perception check to recognize a familiar, but invisible, voice in the midst of battle. while it is next to you casting a spell.

So again. No meta-gaming.

Liberty's Edge

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
I'd rule that an unconscious player still has the ability to decide. Otherwise, as you pointed it, it makes resurrections and such much more difficult. To me, the intended reason for there being a save is the rule that you have to wish to be resurrected. If for some reason you prefer to remain dead, then you get your save.
Quote:
Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. 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.

A different situation, but an interesting note.

Liberty's Edge

OilHorse wrote:


...

It is something done as the effects are hitting him, so that the player/PC understand how positive/negative the effects will be.

....

See above. I believe that RAW is that you save as you are affected by the effects. Not before. It does not have to be meta-gaming.

I obviously feel that Positive energy and Negative energy "feel" different in how they affect your body. Instinctively, if you drink a CxW potion and start to feel "negative energy feelings you resist.

...

No. Because I see you using the information that your body will report to you...as in "This was not a cure potion because of how I feel as is starts to affect my body".

...

Your whole argument is "I feel how it is affecting my body and I react" but at that point you are already affected by the spell.

At least for the will spells you start to react when they try to interact with you, not when they have started affecting you.

I am still waiting to hear a reply to my question about the Harmless Polymorph.
(wraithstrike has replied to something different, so 0 replies so far)


Diego Rossi wrote:
OilHorse wrote:


...

It is something done as the effects are hitting him, so that the player/PC understand how positive/negative the effects will be.

....

See above. I believe that RAW is that you save as you are affected by the effects. Not before. It does not have to be meta-gaming.

I obviously feel that Positive energy and Negative energy "feel" different in how they affect your body. Instinctively, if you drink a CxW potion and start to feel "negative energy feelings you resist.

...

No. Because I see you using the information that your body will report to you...as in "This was not a cure potion because of how I feel as is starts to affect my body".

...

Your whole argument is "I feel how it is affecting my body and I react" but at that point you are already affected by the spell.

At least for the will spells you start to react when they try to interact with you, not when they have started affecting you.

I am still waiting to hear a reply to my question about the Harmless Polymorph.
(wraithstrike has replied to something different, so 0 replies so far)

The spell itself is harmless(I did not look it up) so if your buddy did not notice you were annoyed at him, and he did not save then he takes the affect. If he does notice you are annoyed he should get a sense motive check against your bluff check.

You don't get to save against how the spell is used, only the spell itself.

PS:I am assuming this is the time you disfigure the annoying party member so the girls don't talk to him.

edit:Of course that is house rules territory which is described in my first response to that question.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Omelite wrote:

All you need is a good bluffer who can cast save or lose spells. A sorcerer, for instance. Bluff the enemy into thinking you're on their side and you're going to buff them so they can fight the rest of the treacherous PCs with you, or whatever

There are an amazing amount of people that seem to think that there is nothing that can't be Bluffed through. There are going to be situations where the Bluff DC reads "impossible", like bad Jedi who rely on the Jedi Mind Trick a bit too much.

Sovereign Court

Diego Rossi wrote:


Your whole argument is "I feel how it is affecting my body and I react" but at that point you are already affected by the spell.
At least for the will spells you start to react when they try to interact with you, not when they have started affecting you.

I see it more as a "I have a Bad Feeling about this..." and the body's instincts kick in to fight off the effects.

Otherwise why have a save against a Charm spell, this is not a harmless spell nor will it have any obvious markings as a spell. Cast it at an unsuspecting person and BAM, insta-buddy, no save.

No. IMO, the person is aware of an effect and if it is positive or negative to its body to determine if a save if warranted. They start to "Get a Feeling" and the body and mind reacts to survive vs the effect. This happens as the effects starts to interact.

Saves to me are Reactive. Not Proactive.


OilHorse wrote:


I see it more as a "I have a Bad Feeling about this..." and the body's instincts kick in to fight off the effects.

Otherwise why have a save against a Charm spell, this is not a harmless spell nor will it have any obvious markings as a spell. Cast it at an unsuspecting person and BAM, insta-buddy, no save.

No. IMO, the person is aware of an effect and if it is positive or negative to its body to determine if a save if warranted. They start to "Get a Feeling" and the body and mind reacts to survive vs the effect. This happens as the effects starts to interact.

Saves to me are Reactive. Not Proactive.

This is exactly my feelings and what I was saying in my above posts. You aren’t consciously thinking “Oh, this potion is bad, I better resist it.” The defenses of your body begin to kick in (i.e. Fortitude save attempt).

Just because you have already ingested a poison and are aware of it, doesn’t mean you still can’t fight it off.


Brandon Tomlinson wrote:

Do you choose to forfeit the save before or after the effect.

Quote:
A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result

That was pretty much the line in the book that made up my mind the way I have posted. It's the only thing that makes sense to me. If you are drinking a potion or whatever, you are willingly accepting a spell's result. Unfortunately, it may not be the result you expected.


LazarX wrote:
Omelite wrote:

All you need is a good bluffer who can cast save or lose spells. A sorcerer, for instance. Bluff the enemy into thinking you're on their side and you're going to buff them so they can fight the rest of the treacherous PCs with you, or whatever

There are an amazing amount of people that seem to think that there is nothing that can't be Bluffed through. There are going to be situations where the Bluff DC reads "impossible", like bad Jedi who rely on the Jedi Mind Trick a bit too much.

First off, it's not impossible that one adventurer might use an encounter as an opportunity to turn on the rest of his party, whether for their loot or for some story-related reason. It's probably "far-fetched."

Regardless, for a higher level character, especially with magical help, even "impossible" rolls are simple to make. If you didn't know, there's actually a modifier on the bluff tables for if what you're saying is "impossible." Telling impossible lies is only a -20 penalty on your bluff check to convince someone, and that can easily be brought up to -15 if your lie is something the person wants to believe, as that's a +5.

By level 10, you can have the following:
10 Ranks
3 Class skill
8 CHA
6 skill focus
4 Deceitful
1 cracked pink and green Sphere (costs 200g)

=32

When you're making an impossible lie against someone who wants what you're saying to be true, you're rolling a D20+17 against a sense motive check. Not a lot of enemies have a +17 on sense motive regardless of level, so you have better than average odds of success against the vast majority of enemies.

Be a bard or use UMD to cast glibness on yourself beforehand (it's 10m/level), and it just gets more ridiculous. A D20+37 vs their sense motive for impossible lies that they want to be true. Good luck, enemy.


I would place "want to believe" alongside "willing to believe"
Unless the enemy has some really compelling, corroborating, and factual evidence that the PC isn't a combatant, that Bluff DC should skyrocket.


Well this is making ingested poisons look more and more interesting.

DM: 'The waiter brings you the lovely spicy curry.'

PARTY: 'WE SAVE'

If it is ruled that willingly ingested things get no save expect to see a number of high damage DC1 ingested will effecting toxins.

Or will effecting inhaled toxins

DM: "You walk out of the cave and into a lovely spring morning. The scent of flowers fills the rainwashed air"

PARTY: "WE SAVE"

The current rules work fine.


Gruuuu wrote:

I would place "want to believe" alongside "willing to believe"

Unless the enemy has some really compelling, corroborating, and factual evidence that the PC isn't a combatant, that Bluff DC should skyrocket.

I think that's already covered in "You possess convincing proof", which is another positive modifier on your bluff check. If you don't have evidence, no penalty, but if you do, you get a bonus of up to +10. Even this could probably be staged by a cohesive group - if you know where the encounter's going to happen you could have a heated chase sequence with the rest of the party, or something like that.

Certainly most GMs would houserule some stiffer DCs on bluff if a character started abusing this, but with the modifiers actually listed in the core rulebook it's actually quite easy for a bluffmaster to convince anyone of just about anything. Especially with glibness, as its +20 allows the caster to convince people of *impossible* things as if they were believable, not to mention the protection from magical lie detection.


Poor Wandering One wrote:

Well this is making ingested poisons look more and more interesting.

DM: 'The waiter brings you the lovely spicy curry.'

PARTY: 'WE SAVE'

If it is ruled that willingly ingested things get no save expect to see a number of high damage DC1 ingested will effecting toxins.

Or will effecting inhaled toxins

DM: "You walk out of the cave and into a lovely spring morning. The scent of flowers fills the rainwashed air"

PARTY: "WE SAVE"

The current rules work fine.

Excellent straw man. Way to go, it's the best example I've seen so far. You should do this more often, so people can see what straw men are.

That was your purpose, right? To show a straw man argument? Because what you've posted is not what anyone has said. In any way shape or form.

Summary :

If you don't forego your save, you get it automatically, against everything. That means against things you think are helpful too. So your poison above or inhaled toxins would be :

DM : "You get a spicy curry."

PARTY : Cool, does it have Coconut in it? Is it yellow or red curry? Hey, I didn't order Curry! I ordered Tikka Masala! Waiter!

Later

DM : Make fort saves, someone put poison in the curry, unless you'd rather forego your saves?

PARTY : NO WAY! WE WANT OUR SAVES!

The issue comes when you are giving yourself something you are under the impression is good for you, you forego your saves on it, since most people want full effect on their cure potion, not no effect.

Sovereign Court

mdt wrote:
Brandon Tomlinson wrote:

Do you choose to forfeit the save before or after the effect.

Quote:
A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result
That was pretty much the line in the book that made up my mind the way I have posted. It's the only thing that makes sense to me. If you are drinking a potion or whatever, you are willingly accepting a spell's result. Unfortunately, it may not be the result you expected.

That is your interpretation of that line. I do not read it as you have decided to forfeit the save just because you drank a potion. To me the choice to make a save is when the effects are coming upon you. Otherwise you get situations like the Charm Person scenario I presented.

To me it is the only way it makes sense. When it is clear if effects are harmful or not is when you get to decide to make the save.

But since you have confirmed you are sticking by your choice, as is your prerogative, there is no need to discuss it further.

51 to 100 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Do potion drinkers get saving throws? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.