|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two questions expanding on what it means to be a "willing target" for spells restricted to willing targets.
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.
1) Is a target still considered willing if it is deceived as to the nature of the spell?
1a) If you tell a creature you're teleporting it to city A, can you teleport it to city B because it's willing to be teleported?
1b) If a creature thinks it's being teleported, can you Sequester it?
This FAQ which says that you still get a save against a harmful potion even if you think it's harmless seems to suggest that the same issue would prevent using deception to make a target willing, but it's not quite the same scenario and I'd like opinions.
2) Do these rules about what counts as willing extend to Supernatural abilities that require willing targets?
1) I'd say yes.
a) yes
b) there's already no save, so yes
2) The nature of potions are more physical I feel. Will is mental and thus, based on your perception of the caster. Arsenic will always harm your body, no matter how friendly you are to your poisoner. However, if someone casts Charm Person on you, making you allies, then you would mentally be willing to teleport with them. Or become sequestered by them.
That sounds dirty :). Also I didn't realize that Sequester even existed. I'll remember that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some instances might call for a Bluff check.
The target might be entitled to a Sense Motive check.
And lastly, a spellcaster who doesn't trust you would roll Spellcraft.
Two questions expanding on what it means to be a "willing target" for spells restricted to willing targets.
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.1) Is a target still considered willing if it is deceived as to the nature of the spell?
1a) If you tell a creature you're teleporting it to city A, can you teleport it to city B because it's willing to be teleported?
1b) If a creature thinks it's being teleported, can you Sequester it?
This FAQ which says that you still get a save against a harmful potion even if you think it's harmless seems to suggest that the same issue would prevent using deception to make a target willing, but it's not quite the same scenario and I'd like opinions.
2) Do these rules about what counts as willing extend to Supernatural abilities that require willing targets?
I generally assume the targets know the general nature of the spell after it is cast but before saves or declaring themselves a willing target, since that is how the system works best in my opinion.
1) I'd say no, if someone drinks a potion that turns out to be poison you still get a save and I'd extrapolate that to the willingness to be a target as well.
1a and b)I'd allow this if the target was willing to be teleported, but i'd not consider it a willing target to be sequestered. A spell which only allows willing targets will not allow a save, that should not make the spell more powerful offensively, even by trickery. Personally I treat a spell with 'willing target only' as spell on which you always make your save unless you want to fail.
I think the designers point of view is made clear in regards to such things judging from the harmful potion scenario even if not RAW clarified I don't see their ruling to be any different.
2) I'd say yes, in case it specifically mentions willing targets.
1a) Yes
1b) No
2) Can you give some examples of the supernatural abilities you have in mind? If it is stuff like a profane gift, then no, you cannot trick someone into accepting a profane gift disguised as a cure light wounds (or whatever).
I'd say logically yes you can trick them into accepting another spell, for game balance and other purposes I would say logic be damned, NO!
Otherwise it's too easy to charm an enemy, convince them to teleport, and teleport them 200 ft up in the air. Hello 20d6 fall damage.
|
|
2) Can you give some examples of the supernatural abilities you have in mind? If it is stuff like a profane gift, then no, you cannot trick someone into accepting a profane gift disguised as a cure light wounds (or whatever).
.
Though I'm curious about the issue in general, my current application is that I have a PC who has been associating with a succubus unbeknownst to him. The succubus finds him useful and wants to help him in his current quest (and gain more leverage over him) but doesn't want to reveal her identity, so I'm wondering if I can give him a profane gift on the sly. This is not an attempt to screw the player over as once the nature of the effect is revealed I expect the PC to be able to easily get rid of it (assuming he wants to) and I know the player well and am pretty sure he will enjoy this twist.
Think it would work with an unconscious target (since unconsciousness definitely counts as willing for spells)?
Otherwise it's too easy to charm an enemy, convince them to teleport, and teleport them 200 ft up in the air. Hello 20d6 fall damage.
I didn't think you could teleport into mid-air - I'd always assumed it had the same limitation as summoning spells and required you to teleport onto a solid surface, though now that I look it up I can't find that stated.
It does make charm a bit more dangerous, but you can already talk a charmed person into doing dangerous things, especially if they're not aware of the danger. For example, asking them to open a door that you believe is trapped, or to "hold this" (the trigger object for trap the soul).
I didn't think you could teleport into mid-air - I'd always assumed it had the same limitation as summoning spells and required you to teleport onto a solid surface, though now that I look it up I can't find that stated.
Worse yet, you can teleport them into a volcano. Or plane shift them into the negative/positive energy plane as necessary. The end result is power creep that I just don't care for.
Or dimension door them straight up in the air 800ft.
Not that I would ever. Unless I was "dominated to do it"...
Its the classic, old school question: "Do you give up your saving throw?"
This just makes me think its even better to play a Superstitious Barbarian. "Hey, I'm your friend, you should let me teleport us to someplace awesome." 'Sorry bro, but I'm just so angry right now, you can try but I'm not going to make it easy."
** spoiler omitted **
While not exactly the same, I believe the FAQ on potions is similar enough to interpret RAI:
Potions: If I drink a potion, do I automatically forgo my save against that potion?No. Nothing in the potion rules says it changes whether or not you get a saving throw against the spell stored in the potion. Even if someone hands you a potion of poison and tells you it’s a potion of cure serious wounds, you still get a save.
Since tricking someone into drinking a potion of poison still grants a save, casting a spell on someone should still grant a save if you deceived them into thinking the spell was something else. Potions produce spell effects after all.
Other than that, since you can declare yourself a willing target at any time you could trick someone into letting you cast sequester on them IMO. If they make a spellcraft check while you are casting the spell and identify the spell though, they could instantly withdraw their consent to being a willing target.
You cannot dimension door or teleport into open space (ie, straight up in the air).
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.
- Gauss
You cannot dimension door or teleport into open space (ie, straight up in the air).
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.
Umm... You might want to read the rest of that quote.
That debate has been had Majuba. In short, it is bad wording but when you are teleporting you are teleporting to 'your location' thus it applies.
Since the definition of 'your location' is completely mutable it really has no meaning. Is 'your location' the 5' space you occupy? Is it 10'? Is it the entire planet? There is no clear definition.
Anyhow, we should not get into that debate again here. It was already debated ad nauseam. And here is James Jacob's opinion if that matters to you.
- Gauss
Hmmm... I disagree with James, but glad to know you weren't just ignoring the text :)
you follow this logic through, how do spells with "Will (Harmless)" etc. saves ever come into effect...
What do you mean? You can still choose to forgo a saving throw as normal. You just can't be tricked into forgoing your saving throw against a spell that you believe is another spell. That is what I am saying.
Example:
PC: let me cast lesser restoration on you as a gesture of good faith
NPC: OK
PC casts hold person
NPC still gets his saving throw even though he was going to forgo his saving throw against the lesser restoration
This just makes me think its even better to play a Superstitious Barbarian. "Hey, I'm your friend, you should let me teleport us to someplace awesome." 'Sorry bro, but I'm just so angry right now, you can try but I'm not going to make it easy."Of course, that cuts both ways. Like you're, say, trying to escape from the dragon...
No need to escape, RAGELANCEPOUNCE!
Personally, I disagree with the idea that you get a save if you are tricked. It negates the whole purpose of tricking someone.
Now, if they make a spellcraft check and recognize the spell, then absolutely, they can make a save.
If they do a sense motive check and determine that the spellcaster is doing something off, they will be provided that information.
But, forgoing a save against an unknown spell is forgoing a save against an unknown spell. The name is meaningless to the person.
Caveat: effects which are things like 'you physically resist the effect' (poisons etc) I would state still have a save since you feel the spell going wrong.
- Gauss
Willing targets absolutely do not forfeit their saves automatically. Unconscious targets are always considered willing, yet they still always get a save. You get a save unless you intentionally suppress it.
Furthermore, you cannot trick a target into suppressing their save against a harmful by telling them it's harmless. You don't have to suppress the save against a harmless spell (you have to intentionally try to save, otherwise an unconscious target could not benefit from a cure spell), ergo the fact that he have to suppress a save at all tells the target that the spell is, in fact, harmful.
Personally, I disagree with the idea that you get a save if you are tricked. It negates the whole purpose of tricking someone.
Now, if they make a spellcraft check and recognize the spell, then absolutely, they can make a save.
If they do a sense motive check and determine that the spellcaster is doing something off, they will be provided that information.
But, forgoing a save against an unknown spell is forgoing a save against an unknown spell. The name is meaningless to the person.
Caveat: effects which are things like 'you physically resist the effect' (poisons etc) I would state still have a save since you feel the spell going wrong.
- Gauss
You say that you disagree. Can you quote a rule that supports your disagreement? The FAQ I quoted was for potions but potions are spells so it should apply. You are free to interpret it your way for your games but this is the rules questions forum so I was providing a rules supported answer.
Robert, I prefaced it with the statement that it was personal. Perhaps you should read the whole thing? It was already established what the rule was. I was adding a personal opinion on the rule.
Yes, this is the rules forum, but after the rules have been established it is well within our rights as posters to state how we prefer to run things.
Finally, I at no point contradicted you or even responded to you as I did not mention your name at all. Yet, somehow, you seem to think I was. Try not to read more into someone's statement than is actually there. :)
- Gauss
Willing targets absolutely do not forfeit their saves automatically. Unconscious targets are always considered willing, yet they still always get a save. You get a save unless you intentionally suppress it.
Furthermore, you cannot trick a target into suppressing their save against a harmful by telling them it's harmless. You don't have to suppress the save against a harmless spell (you have to intentionally try to save, otherwise an unconscious target could not benefit from a cure spell), ergo the fact that he have to suppress a save at all tells the target that the spell is, in fact, harmful.
Some non-harmless spells have mixed effects -- see "Enlarge Person" for such an example.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Gauss - thanks for the rules on teleportation, I was thinking of that line but wasn't sure it applied to all conjuration and not just (summoning).
Some old posts on the subject.
Thanks, that's helpful for that specific situation.
Willing targets absolutely do not forfeit their saves automatically. Unconscious targets are always considered willing, yet they still always get a save. You get a save unless you intentionally suppress it.
"Willing only" effects generally do not allow a save because it's assumed the (willing!) target is not resisting - Teleport and Sequester only allow saves to attended or magical objects. So an unconscious creature (willing) does not get a save or any chance to resist Teleport. You knock someone unconscious and you can teleport them anywhere you like as long as it's a solid surface.
I find it interesting that unconsciousness:
1) Does not prevent you from resisting (making saves vs) harmful effects
2) Makes you totally incapable of resisting specific effects designated "willing only" (and presumably those designated "harmless") whether or not they would be harmful to you.
The idea is that there are some categories of magic that you instinctively accept and some that you instinctively reject in situations where you can't consciously recognize the magic acting on you.
So what does this say about situations where you think you know consciously what's going on but you're wrong?
We know that you recognize a hostile spell consciously if you succeed at your saving throw. If trickery can never deny you a save vs a hostile effect (the potion of poison), even a mental one, it implies that you can recognize this sense even as the spell is being cast on you and thus automatically have the opportunity to resist, say, a Dominate Person being passed off as CLW. But willing-harmless spells should slip under that radar - if you accept them by default when unconscious and also consciously want the spell to take effect (even if you're misinformed about what the spell does) where, logically, does the resistance come from?
Some non-harmless spells have mixed effects -- see "Enlarge Person" for such an example.
I wasn't aware of that and it adds an interesting wrinkle in the above system - based on the lack of the (harmless) tag, Enlarge Person would feel as hostile as Dominate Person or Baleful Polymorph. If we extrapolate outside of RAW a clever caster could tell a target familiar with this oddity that the spell they are casting is Enlarge Person and the target should not resist the spell even though it feels hostile. This would allow a character to cheat the system with zero grounding in RAW and 100% grounding in common sense.
Another weird result of making this distinction solely based on presence of the willing/harmless tags is that an unconscious dhampir does not get a save against a Cure spell cast on him/her while unconscious but is required to save vs a restorative Inflict spell (no harmless tag). I don't think this is the intent.
Actually, I don't think that "don't resist" being the default for (harmless) spells is supported by RAW since it never actually says that an unconscious character can't make saves against (harmless) effects - this is only called out for "willing only" effects. So really unconsciousness only results in a default level of resistance for those effects - for everything else you can pick and choose what you save against as normal.
Seems like a part of the system designed solely for balance and ease of use, not internal consistency or story reasons...