Not sure what's up with the forums deleting posts, but here goes again.
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.Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber. The character taking the potion doesn't get to make any decisions about the effect—the caster who brewed the potion has already done so. The drinker of a potion is both the effective target and the caster of the effect (though the potion indicates the caster level, the drinker still controls the effect).
Emphasis mine.
Yes, the barbarian would have to make a save against the effect of the potion.
While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.
Nothing there or in Superstition says that a barbarian cannot use magic items, so go right a head and use them.
"Like" a spell is very different from "is" a spell.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Like" a spell is very different from "is" a spell.
Generally when used in a description of an ability or effect, it means that it functions as the thing referenced. In this case a potion is no different than a spell cast from a wand, and a Superstitious Barbarian would have to save against that.
I am with the must save vs. potions but can drink them crowd.
People with Spell Resistance must be SUPER sad in your guys' games.
Wow, yeah this whole thread got gutted and a thread I started is completely gone... :(
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Superstitious barbarians don't trust magic nor do they trust those who use magic...
Look at it this way...
Cleric: You're pretty messed up. Drink this potion of Cure Serious Wounds.
Barbarian: Thanks. *starts to drink potion then superstition kicks in and he makes his save!* WAIT... IS THIS THE EVIL VERSION? You trying to trick me???
Cleric (noticing that the wounds did not heal): Oh for crying out loud... of course not! Who in their right mind would make a potion of Inflict Wounds?
Necromancer: Actually... that's not a bad idea...
Barbarian: I knew it! You two are conspiring against me!
People with Spell Resistance must be SUPER sad in your guys' games.
Sorry Rynjin but it does say All spells. If you were a caster casting a spell on yourself and somehow you benefited from Superstitious, yes, you would have to save against your own spell.
Superstitious is still stupid good.
I find it odd that the Barbarian has to make a save to halve the healing from the potion but doesn't have to make any sort of check to drink the potion, which he knows is magical and will cast a spell on him. If the potion makes him the caster as well as the target does that mean the Barbarian just cast a spell and no longer trusts himself?
People with Spell Resistance must be SUPER sad in your guys' games.
Spell resistance is not always a boon no. But i houseruled the monks to only work when he wanted it to.
The magic immunity of golems also make teleportationen less fantastic for the wizard that want to bring his dolls.I think superstition is still worth it.
Wow, nobody in our Kingmaker game had thought of golems being immune to Teleport. It looks like our best defensive army will be kind of immobile. Regarding Monks and SR, it would be nice if there were a magic item or spell allowing a caster to establish a link with a creature which bypasses SR (as if the caster's spell were cast by the creature itself). I think many DMs house rule that "harmless" spells can get through just fine.
I find it odd that the Barbarian has to make a save to halve the healing from the potion but doesn't have to make any sort of check to drink the potion, which he knows is magical and will cast a spell on him. If the potion makes him the caster as well as the target does that mean the Barbarian just cast a spell and no longer trusts himself?
I find it odd as well. I'm getting contradicting bits from people.
Is a potion a spell? Arguable. I say no.
Is a potion a spell "cast by an ally"? Since you count as your own ally, yes. So if a potion is a spell, you need to save against a potion.
However, you can't be a willing recipient of any spell. Since you're choosing to use the potion, shouldn't that notion be void before it even begins? I find it hard to see how you could drink it at all, given that that would be willingly subjecting yourself to a spell...
It just raises too many questions. Much simpler to go by what it actually SAYS. Potions are LIKE a spell. They are not actually a spell.
Much like Extracts, SLAs, some Su abilities, and so on.
Compare/Contrast a scroll which really does say "A srcoll is a spell".
|
I disagree, I think a potion is a spell. The idea is that a spell is put into potion form to "stabilize" it so that it can be expended at some later point and without the need for casting. Compare a spell of enlarge person and a potion of enlarge person, both do exactly the same thing but a potion can be consumed as a standard and the spell is a full round. This provides a benefit for the potion beyond the spell but the spell is still cast at some point.
One of the problems with SR is that it rarely scales enough to help you vs. the BBEG or even his major mooks, but is very effective vs. wands/scrolls and other magic items whose level doesn't go up. In much the same way, superstition has a specific downside and trying to go around it via potions which are basically spells in liquid form is contradictory in my mind to both RAW and RAI.
I find it odd that the Barbarian has to make a save to halve the healing from the potion but doesn't have to make any sort of check to drink the potion, which he knows is magical and will cast a spell on him. If the potion makes him the caster as well as the target does that mean the Barbarian just cast a spell and no longer trusts himself?I find it odd as well. I'm getting contradicting bits from people.
Is a potion a spell? Arguable. I say no.
Is a potion a spell "cast by an ally"? Since you count as your own ally, yes. So if a potion is a spell, you need to save against a potion.
However, you can't be a willing recipient of any spell. Since you're choosing to use the potion, shouldn't that notion be void before it even begins? I find it hard to see how you could drink it at all, given that that would be willingly subjecting yourself to a spell...
It just raises too many questions. Much simpler to go by what it actually SAYS. Potions are LIKE a spell. They are not actually a spell.
Much like Extracts, SLAs, some Su abilities, and so on.
Compare/Contrast a scroll which really does say "A srcoll is a spell".
If i am confusing you i can try to clarify by saying that superstitious Barbarians will also try to save vs. SLAs im my game.
But they dont have to save vs. there own boots of speed and the like.I still take the power if i play a barbarian.
|
|
I find it odd that the Barbarian has to make a save to halve the healing from the potion but doesn't have to make any sort of check to drink the potion, which he knows is magical and will cast a spell on him. If the potion makes him the caster as well as the target does that mean the Barbarian just cast a spell and no longer trusts himself?I find it odd as well. I'm getting contradicting bits from people.
Is a potion a spell? Arguable. I say no.
Is a potion a spell "cast by an ally"? Since you count as your own ally, yes. So if a potion is a spell, you need to save against a potion.
However, you can't be a willing recipient of any spell. Since you're choosing to use the potion, shouldn't that notion be void before it even begins? I find it hard to see how you could drink it at all, given that that would be willingly subjecting yourself to a spell...
It just raises too many questions. Much simpler to go by what it actually SAYS. Potions are LIKE a spell. They are not actually a spell.
Much like Extracts, SLAs, some Su abilities, and so on.
Compare/Contrast a scroll which really does say "A srcoll is a spell".
Rynjin, if you are tricked into drinking a harmful potion you still get a saving throw, even if you are willingly drinking it.
The barbarian is in the same situation, He can choose to have faith in his friends, but deep down he know that it is magic, and magic is bad. So he will still resist, even if he is forcing himself to drink the potion.
The correct answer is rage cycling. Drop rage, drink, rage again.
I guess folks are saying that casting a spell on yourself wouldn't necessarily make you "a willing target". That's what seems odd to me since you're the one who decided to cast the spell (by drinking the potion). Maybe I'm just being picky about the wording.
That said, I'm in a game where the DM allows another player's superstitious barbarian to drink potions without any saving throw hassles, and I haven't really seen a game balance issue with it. Potions are rather expensive in both GP and action economy costs and only heal a small portion of the barbarian's 300+ raging HP. Our Mystic Theurge also just got access to Heal, which really changes the in combat healing landscape. A "normal" party with a Cleric or Oracle would have had Heal for several levels already.
"Willing target" shouldn't be taken too literally. You have to make a Will save if someone casts a healing spell on you, but that doesn't mean you have to run away and not let them touch you.
Sure, you don't have to run away from allies. Should you be able to cast a spell on yourself though? Maybe so if the resistance is something deep down in the barbarian's soul which rejects magic rather than something in his mind. Perhaps he could even run up to the Bard and beg for Cure Moderate Wounds only to end up resisting it because "it's in his nature" (like the scorpion stinging the frog who is giving him a ride across the river)
It just seems a little off kilter to me somehow. I guess maybe it is a just matter of taste rather than a potential rules issue. The concern is more artistic than mechanical though I wouldn't presume to assume what the RAI is in this case. If I had to guess I'd say RAI is you can drink potions but need to make the save. I wouldn't count on it though and could see being prohibited from drinking potions or able to drink them without any issues both as being real possibilities. I guess by RAW you can probably drink them and make the save depending on how we interpret "willing".
But they dont have to save vs. there own boots of speed and the like.
How's that? Boots of Speed cast haste on you. You "act as though affected by a haste spell", including "Fortitude negates (Harmless)".
Funnier, the description taken literally makes any spellcaster a potential enemy, therefore if any of this "magic-guy" try to cast a spell next to you, you "should" use an AoO to make him stop his foolishness!
Back to the potion stuff, the description is not about spells and stuff. It's about magic.
Potions are magic items. Boots of Haste are magic items. The party wizard is a magic user.
I think it's up to the GM to place the limit of such "suspicion", but I think that literally this rage power is a suicide at high level: No magic items, potentially no spellcasters as friends, etc etc...
IMO, this is one of the best low-level rage power, and it continues to shine at high level. Still IMO, the downside seems to be designed to be high too, so I'll keep it that way.
So, while you rage, I would houserule that you can't use a magic item or a potion (except in extreme necessity, but probably with a saving throw), and you try to resist any spell. I would even make the barbarian go for an AoO on casting friend some time to time.
When the barbarian stop raging, he should be just at least a little suspicious about this "magic stuff".
But I would talk about it with the player before.
But they dont have to save vs. there own boots of speed and the like.How's that? Boots of Speed cast haste on you. You "act as though affected by a haste spell", including "Fortitude negates (Harmless)".
Do you play like that?
Do you play like that?But they dont have to save vs. there own boots of speed and the like.How's that? Boots of Speed cast haste on you. You "act as though affected by a haste spell", including "Fortitude negates (Harmless)".
Haven't encountered it, but I would certainly.
"Superstitious" Barbarians in 1st edition couldn't even use magic weapons until higher levels.
Funnier, the description taken literally makes any spellcaster a potential enemy, therefore if any of this "magic-guy" try to cast a spell next to you, you "should" use an AoO to make him stop his foolishness!
I don't play like that though (even back in 1e).
Do you play like that?But they dont have to save vs. there own boots of speed and the like.How's that? Boots of Speed cast haste on you. You "act as though affected by a haste spell", including "Fortitude negates (Harmless)".Haven't encountered it, but I would certainly.
"Superstitious" Barbarians in 1st edition couldn't even use magic weapons until higher levels.
We all do it differently it seems.
As though affected by a haste spell does not mean as though a haste spell were cast on you. Being affected is what happens after you resolve saving throws.
As though affected by a haste spell does not mean as though a haste spell were cast on you. Being affected is what happens after you resolve saving throws.
This.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oups, I just figured out I confused the description of archetype with the rage power. Silly me. >.>
This rage power seems to imply your character is a little paranoid even when you're not raging, and the rage just amplify it to a more extreme level.
Barbarian is all about instincts, IMO. Here is a paranoid instinct against magic, so yeah, I would make the barbarian try the save vs potions.