The will save if only for whoever gets the spell cast on them, not the ones attacking. The party mage can try to cast the spell on the party rogue, but if the rogue doesn't want it, he can make a Will save to negate it.
Most people wouldn't care, but if for some reason you did not want mage armor to be cast on you, you can make a Will save.
|
The will save if only for whoever gets the spell cast on them, not the ones attacking. The party mage can try to cast the spell on the party rogue, but if the rogue doesn't want it, he can make a Will save to negate it.
Most people wouldn't care, but if for some reason you did not want mage armor to be cast on you, you can make a Will save.
And thus was born the encounter with the ghost from that little known sect of force-effect-hating wizards. Silly though it seemed, he always went after the guy with the force effect spell up. Poor Jimmy Wiggletoes, he really didn't want that mage armor but the sacrificial node he did indeed become.
The will save if only for whoever gets the spell cast on them, not the ones attacking. The party mage can try to cast the spell on the party rogue, but if the rogue doesn't want it, he can make a Will save to negate it.
Most people wouldn't care, but if for some reason you did not want mage armor to be cast on you, you can make a Will save.
You're absolutely correct in that "Most people wouldn't care,..." and on the same token it really doesn't make much sense. One person in the party isn't going to necessarily do something another party member isn't going to want especially if you're being proactive to help. Granted, there may be cases for that where someone doesn't want it but more often than not, and I would definitely suspect way more often than not, it's something you want in a effort to help you.
Which brings me back to this...where is it irrefutably defined that the saving throw is for the person for whom it's cast on rather than for someone/something has to beat? Page 216 really doesn't clearly and concisely say, nor does page 180. Because as mentioned, the Santuary spell on page 336 says pretty much the same thing on the saving throw but that is for the attacker. So, how does one know for certain which is which? Is it based on interpretation of the DM/GM?
You underestimate the power of shenanigans. It's in there because there's always a chance to resist anything- and under the right circumstance it can be employed against the target.
Case and point: I don't remember what the spell was called, and it might just be a 3.5 spell, but it made a some protective bubble around you that protected from clouds or some such. If cast underwater it made you float rapidly to the surface at like 100 ft per round. Harmless. Until you cast it onto a fish monster.
Sanctuary effectively has 2 saves, once against the target and another for anyone wishing to attack the target of the effect. Both saves just happen to be will.
Also- isn't coming to mind right now, but there's some spell/effect that makes the target have to make saving throws, even against 'harmless' or the spells of allies.
So, in answer to the OP question, no the ogre doesn't have to make a will save to pierce the force armor.
Developer
|
Saving Throws can only be made by the target of a non-area spell. Mage armor is a non-area spell. The target is one creature, and it is whoever gets armored up. That creature can make a save. No other creature is the target. No other creature can make a save.
Just because the spell impedes your attack does not make you its target. Thus attackers get no save.
QED
|
Marc, look in the Magic section under Saving Throw. It defines various save-related rules, including:
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.
So, only the target gets the save. Aiming A Spell section discusses targeting, but basically mage armor targets "creature touched" so that is the only person to get a save.
Sanctuary has no (harmless) entry so the targeted creature cannot resist (no SR either). The spell rules define how the Will save works for the spell.
There is only a saving throw if the magic effects the target. Mage Armor does not effect the attacking creature in any way - it does not reduce the attackers attack roll. It boosts the targets AC, so only the target gets a saving throw.
|
|
Sueda, thanks for that location on confirmation. What I get out of that is as a "general" rule is IF the saving throw indicates (harmless) in any way, then the saving throw is optional (i.e. "...if it desires.") which as mentioned earlier way more often than not the target is willing. If it doesn't say (harmless) one MUST look a the spell rules. Because they wouldn't have an option but to accept: with Sanctuary, like Atonement, or Magic Missile there is no save; SR for Atonement and Magic Missile; but no save which means the target has no option but to take it willingly or unwillingly unless something would impact. (i.e. Shield for Magic Missile)
Correct assessment?
Correct. And note that with regard to SR, the creature must use a Standard Action to drop SR and accept the spell. Otherwise the caster must make a caster level check to overcome the SR. This applies to, for instance, cure light wounds.
.....
with Sanctuary, like Atonement, or Magic Missile there is no save...
That is incorrect.
Sanctuary
School abjuration; Level cleric 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, DF
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance no
There is a save.
I guess I better take this farther
Aiming a Spell
You must make choices about whom a spell is to affect or where an effect is to originate, depending on a spell's type. The next entry in a spell description defines the spell's target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate.
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
There would be no point in having a save if nobody could save against it. You always get a save unless you choose to autofail. In the case of harmless spells it is assumed you will accept the spell because generally they are beneficial, but you can resist if you want to.
I may be incorrect.
Saving ThrowUsually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect. The saving throw entry in a spell description defines which type of saving throw the spell allows and describes how saving throws against the spell work.
Negates: The spell has no effect on a subject that makes a successful saving throw.
Partial: The spell has an effect on its subject. A successful saving throw means that some lesser effect occurs.
Half: The spell deals damage, and a successful saving throw halves the damage taken (round down).
None: No saving throw is allowed.
Sanctuary is not covered by any of these.
What I get out of that is as a "general" rule is IF the saving throw indicates (harmless) in any way, then the saving throw is optional
You can always voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result.
If it doesn't say (harmless) one MUST look a the spell rules.
I think one must always look at the spell rules. Specific overrides general.
Atonement, for example, has no save. But the target must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds.
Sanctuary has a save, which most creatures would probably voluntarily forego. But if you really don't want it, you could choose to save. ("Damn clerics always casting stuff at me without sayin' what it is, NOT THIS TIME!")
|
|
For sanctuary, the save is specifically for those trying to attack the warded creature per the description in the spell text. The target of the ward itself either (a) gets no save or (b) must make a save since the spell doesn't have the term (harmless) in the save descriptor. The latter is strange to me, but technically feasible as the target could then invoke the Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw mechanic (assuming he's conscious--could create problems if trying to ward a downed comrade). As such, I've always gone with the former interpretation, especially since an unwilling target can simply attack and break the ward. It's a weird corner case, though, that's never impacted my game in the past decade of playing 3e, so I haven't given it much brain time...
|
When you mention "...there's some spell/effect that makes the target have to make saving throws, even if against 'harmless' or spells of allies" is precisely what I'm talking about... where is that because I don't see anywhere? If it's not clearly stated then I would say that is subject to DM/GM decision or *an* interpretation of "saving throws".
Things like the Barbarian rage power "Superstition"
Superstition (Ex): The barbarian gains a +2 morale bonus on saving throws made to resist spells, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities. This bonus increases by +1 for every 4 levels the barbarian has attained. While raging, the barbarian cannot be a willing target of any spell and must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies.
I think that there are others out there, I just cannot remember where they are right now.
|
I know the circumstance might be absurdly limited, but there might be times you want to refuse a harmless spell. For example:
Arena combat rules state no magical aid, but someone wants to disqualify a competitor by slipping on a "mage armor" spell to them, which would look like the type of spell one might try to sneak into the competition.
For sanctuary, the save is specifically for those trying to attack the warded creature per the description in the spell text. The target of the ward itself either (a) gets no save or (b) must make a save since the spell doesn't have the term (harmless) in the save descriptor.
What? That is not what the text is saying and it does say Will negates. Which is essentially the same as harmless for our discussion. If you are targeted by Sanctuary then you must make the save to negate the spell unless you choose to be the willing target of the spell... this is exactly how a cure spell works. Or Mage Armor. Or any other spell that lists a save in its mechanics.
The latter is strange to me, but technically feasible as the target could then invoke the Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw mechanic (assuming he's conscious--could create problems if trying to ward a downed comrade).
If your friend is conscious, then they treat it as normal and voluntarily allow themselves to be targeted. If they are unconscious then they are automatically willing so they won't resist you.
PRD - Magic Chapter - Aiming A Spell: Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
There are times when you may not want a spell cast on you. For example, if you need to get by someone with a form of detect magic going. I can't think of any in Pathfinder, but there have been monsters in the past that were attracted to magic. Not wanting magic on you could be a way to avoid the problem. Mage Armor would be a small problem. If you are wearing Bracers of Armor +1 with heavy fortification, mage armor would effectively turn off the bracers of armor since mage armor grants a higher armor bonus.
I was a little incorrect in my assessment because Sanctuary DOES have a save and it's a WILL save. But it's not an attacking spell either. It's a little weird because one could construe that a 2 saves for the spell.
The spell rules state: "Any opponent attempting to directly attack the warded creature of the targeted spell, must attempt a Will save." We not talking about casting it on a warded creature. We're talking about once it is already on them. In essence, there are 2 WILL saves. 1 for the warded creature because it's like harmless in that sense. And the other for the attacking creature as mentioned in the spell rules.
This is correct. One save for the target (which is a general mechanic of spells) and the saves for people attempting to attack the target of sanctuary (which is the specific mechanic of this particular spell).
This is very similar to the Bard's Fascinate ability where already affected monsters are allowed new saving throws to break the Fascination under certain circumstances.
I guess I'm not understanding your question.. what is it that bothers you about the two will saves?
If you are wearing Bracers of Armor +1 with heavy fortification, mage armor would effectively turn off the bracers of armor since mage armor grants a higher armor bonus.
It'd only turn off the armor bonus, not the heavy fortification.
Basically, when one reviews the mechanics of the spell and there is an inconsistency type scenario like what, in my view, happened with the Sanctuary, and Atonement I'm pursuing some direction/guidance the material may offer to clarify the perceived inconsistency.
Spells are unique flowers, they have some parts that are the same which are the spell basics and then the spell texts which add additional unique effects. These may or may not be similar to any other spell which is why it's good to read all the spells carefully.
The Bard's Fascinate ability is similar? I would see any potential threat like a perception check which they get a -4 on. It's like a change a focus or attention where as with a spell it's dependent upon the duration of the spell or another's action to dispell. In what way, when I review that I'm not seeing that as similiar.
I find them quite similar. Let's go down comparison lane, shall we?
- Target of Sanctuary has a will save to negate the spell.
- Target(s) of Fascinate has a will save to negate the effect
- As long as nothing changes, both effect their targets.
- If a creature wants to attack the target of Sanctuary they must make a will save to overcome the effect.
- If something appears hostile/fishy to a target of Fascinate they must make a will save to overcome the effect.
Is there nothing similar about these?
Why do you not find it strange that there are 2 saves for one spell?
Because that is what is written in the spell? I find it perfectly fine? Phantasmal Killer has two saves..
The target first gets a Will save to recognize the image as unreal. If that save fails, the phantasm touches the subject, and the subject must succeed on a Fortitude save or die from fear. Even if the Fortitude save is successful, the subject takes 3d6 points of damage.
Each spell has its own specific rules... anything general about spells can be found in the magic chapter. Trying to find consistency in the spell texts is like trying to find consistency between Feats. Each one is pretty different.
Some have one save, others two, some none at all. Some are affected by spell resistance, while others are not, etc.
Atonement has no saving throw, but the target must be "truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds" that's GM discretion.
It'd only turn off the armor bonus, not the heavy fortification.
That is true in 3.5, but not in Pathfinder. It was changed.
Alternatively, bracers of armor can be enchanted with armor special abilities. See Table: Armor Special Qualities for a list of abilities. Special abilities usually count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of an item, but do not improve AC. Bracers of armor cannot have a modified bonus (armor bonus plus armor special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +8. Bracers of armor must have at least a +1 armor bonus to grant an armor special ability. Bracers of armor cannot have any armor special abilities that add a flat gp amount to their cost. Bracers of armor and ordinary armor do not stack. If a creature receives a larger armor bonus from another source, the bracers of armor cease functioning and do not grant their armor bonus or their armor special abilities. If the bracers of armor grant a larger armor bonus, the other source of armor ceases functioning.
In Pathfinder, if your regular armor is better, you get absolutely no benefit from wearing any bracers of armor. And it probably changed for that specific reason. People getting +1 Bracers, then loading them up with special properties to wear with their also-enchanted armor.
Marc, in 3.5 the harmless classification was occassionally used as a descriptor as well. Certain creatures that were immune to spells were sometimes still able to benefit from spells that were "harmless" if I remember correctly. Reasoning being harmless spells were typically some sort of buffing mechanism and the protections were keeping the creature from gaining additional benefits due to them being magical in nature. The benefit of the additional protection was being a limitation which wasn't the intent.
Other than that I can only say you are possibly over complicating things for yourself it seems. If there are particular issues you are having, bring them up and I'm sure we will try to help explain/clear them up. If there is something that just rubs you the wrong way about a fairly well established rule set, I'm not sure anyone can help you with that ;)
There are a handfull of other threads on a similar topic right now. From generally looking at what's written, the common consensus seems to be that all spell (harmless or otherwise) that allow a saving throw, also allow for the save to be intentionally failed or waived. The save for any spell is made by the spell's target as listed above the description. For the case of mage armor, this is the character receiving the armor, not the attackers. For the case of sanctuary, this is the character receiving the buff, the spell description extends a second save against a different effect to those who attack the spell's target (the warded creature). I hope that's a good summary and I hope this accurately represents the majority opinion, or the "more correct" interpretation.
With all due respect, you may see that as your idea of over complicating but I, in fact, do not.All I can say is the "harmless" aspect, is as mentioned, is not really applicable or not desired to be done way, way more often than not. As you clearly stated and I definitely agree, it's a sort of buffing mechanism. That being the case and said, way, way more often than not, a creature will want the buff rather than risking not being buffed.
Yep, being an avid player for over 20 years, almost 30, and so many different versions. There has always been a common aspect that rubbed me the wrong way. That is the interpretation aspects as that can definitely lead to inconsistency on rulings. The inconsistency, albeit is the GM's choice, leaves for some head-shaking. :-) And with the same group playing for so many years, one time a GM has a ruling and another person that is GM'ing later has a different ruling for the same thing definitely challenges consistency and can lead to the same discussion on reasoning yet again.
You're absolutely correct in that I can pose the question to a forum like this. The willingness to...
I imagine we look at the rules in different ways, I view the rules as written as the framework for the game world. Basically the general rules governing the world. I view the class abilities, feats and spells as the exceptions to the rules (in general). So when a spell has something that contradicts the general rules it doesn't cause any concern as it is an exception. It wouldn't cause me to go looking for some reasoning behind it or rules to back it up as long as there aren't glaring loop holes involved. That being said I meant no offense with what I posted, just was trying to say that even though they might be few and far between, there are reasons for the classification that have been there from 3.5 and probably 3.0 and there haven't been large discussions about this particular subset as far as I've seen playing and watching thee boards the past several years. Basically, they did what they were supposed to do and what little wriggle room or off the way reasoning people used to exploit the language was far enough off the mark that people got the intent and laughed off or explained the actual ruling.
As for the group issue, I'm suprised you guys haven't come up to some sort of way of dealing with inconsistencies before now. In our group(which also rotates) if something comes up the DM has the final say on the spot and we all go with it to minimize impact on game play. Post game/pre next session we all hash it out with what ever we could find and come to a concensus(? Late) for how it will be run from then on. Regardless that is less a rule inconsistancy and more a player issue if people in the same group don't want to agree on something. If someone wants the rules to say something in a particular way, you better believe they will look at it and reason it out in such a way that it works that way even though it says the same thing in all the books and everyone else may look at it differently. It's called being stubborn and can occasionally be disruptive to gaming ;-)
It'd only turn off the armor bonus, not the heavy fortification.That is true in 3.5, but not in Pathfinder. It was changed.
Alternatively, bracers of armor can be enchanted with armor special abilities. See Table: Armor Special Qualities for a list of abilities. Special abilities usually count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of an item, but do not improve AC. Bracers of armor cannot have a modified bonus (armor bonus plus armor special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +8. Bracers of armor must have at least a +1 armor bonus to grant an armor special ability. Bracers of armor cannot have any armor special abilities that add a flat gp amount to their cost. Bracers of armor and ordinary armor do not stack. If a creature receives a larger armor bonus from another source, the bracers of armor cease functioning and do not grant their armor bonus or their armor special abilities. If the bracers of armor grant a larger armor bonus, the other source of armor ceases functioning.In Pathfinder, if your regular armor is better, you get absolutely no benefit from wearing any bracers of armor. And it probably changed for that specific reason. People getting +1 Bracers, then loading them up with special properties to wear with their also-enchanted armor.
Oooh, thanks. Another change that slipped past me.
Marc Davis draws up a good point: the rules need to be clear because otherwise there's controversy in game, which wastes both time and dispels the atmosphere.
A lot of the protective spells are misleading in that those bullet points / summaries detail the specifics of casting the buff on the friendly while the real effects are buried in the description. Yeah, yeah it's the standard format- but anyone who just say "you're a fool; read the description always" is missing the point. People are naturally going to look to the bolded bits at the top for the basic idea of how the spell works- And it just gets a little confusing when all the spell does is place an ongoing effect on a target (maybe tries to save), and the effect functions almost as a different spell with its own targets/ save/ range etc. Sanctuary case and point.
Marc Davis draws up a good point: the rules need to be clear because otherwise there's controversy in game, which wastes both time and dispels the atmosphere.
A lot of the protective spells are misleading in that those bullet points / summaries detail the specifics of casting the buff on the friendly while the real effects are buried in the description. Yeah, yeah it's the standard format- but anyone who just say "you're a fool; read the description always" is missing the point. People are naturally going to look to the bolded bits at the top for the basic idea of how the spell works- And it just gets a little confusing when all the spell does is place an ongoing effect on a target (maybe tries to save), and the effect functions almost as a different spell with its own targets/ save/ range etc. Sanctuary case and point.
I am going to have to respectfully disagree, anyone who wants to know how the spell works will read the spell, not just the bolded parts. if you are looking for a particular spell that doesn't allow a save, doesn't worry about SR, or can work in silence (components) then you might just browse the bolded points. Many times if there is a harmless tag, "see text" notation, or anything besides REF/FORT/WILL/Half/Negates, that should be a flag to look further into it.
For what it's worth, I believe sanctuary reads like it does, because it used to be a personal range spell (i.e. it only affected the cleric/caster). Much like Fire Shield, there's no need to specify the saving throw if it only affects the caster. That probably wasn't considered when the targets were widened.
Given that, I don't think the target of Sanctuary officially would get a saving throw, but probably should receive a Will Negates (Harmless) one.