| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This question relates to issues raised:
Here.
The question is around range Personal spells being able to be cast (inflicted) on to others and bypass the normal issues of SR/Saving Throws etc.
After reading up, I gather the spell descriptors don't have savng throws because their design never considered the need for one (Why would you save vs a spell you just cast on yourself willingly?) and further, most of those are dismissable.
I also note that in the absence of any other verbage, there is nothing to say that you have to accept a spell being cast on you either - indeed the concept of a saving throw is generally raised where the intent is that the subject might be unwilling - to force the spell upon someone you can force them to make a save to resist in line with the spell description. Touch spells call out that there is no save where applicable, but the 'anti-buffs' have no such riders.
Is there a contra point of view?
Hmm except in this case the spell is quite harmful, so doesn't say harmless.
Whilst saves can be willingly failed, a spell allowing no saving throw specifically says it allows no saving throw - hence the confusion here :)
Per link above.
|
An Alchemist with the infusion discovery can force it upon enemies (Touch Injection, Poisoners' Glove, Iron Cobra Gauntlet).
Without a save this would make a 1st level spell like Polypurpose Panacea immensely powerful: Enemy falls asleep without a save.
IMHO:
RAW: Yes , this would work
RAI: Enemy gets a saving throw (DC:10+spell level+int modifier)
You have left the area of the rules and run into DMs call.
Any sane dm will pick between get a save or it doesn't work at all. You're not allowed to auto hit something for half its hitpoints in this system with no save on a questionable rules exploit.
That(a save) is not RAI. Sometimes the rules just do things that are unintended because the players come up with ideas the devs did not think of.
I would suggest opening an FAQ for errata to get it fixed if it is an actual concern however.
I'm going to run with "If it doesn't specifically demand a save (or deny them one), they don't have to make one", the recipient of the spell can opt not to accept it. I back this with the notion that dismissing the spell is within their control anyhow (ie they have the power to dismiss it) so they can choose to not accept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have to make a save, unless the spell is "willing". That is the rules. I do think this needs to be FAQ'd so it can be fixed however. One can argue that the personal spells cast on someone else are automatically willing, but that is not the rules. If my assumption that the devs did not see this coming is wrong then at least we will know it was intentional to do bad things without allowing a save.
So if we are going by the current rules you don't have a choice. However I do think an FAQ will bring up errata to say the receiver can choose to not accept the spell.
The current OP's post is not written in a manner to ask a specific question so we can't really FAQ that one.
This has come up many times. Generally, the assumption with the specific case of skinsend and touch injection is that any reasonable GM is smart enough to not allow it to work despite the rules as written suggesting otherwise.
It's obviously too powerful an effect to allow with no save.
How we deal with these situations...well we have to FAQ it or house rule.
Personally I houserule no a long time ago and just haven't worried about it otherwise.
All of my play these days is PFS, which is why I can't just houserule unfortunately.
I guess I am stuck to the following logic -
Spells that do not allow a save specify they don't allow a save. Spells that allow a save specify they allow a save. Spells that don't mention saves would suggest you aren't required to make one.
It seems like a rules exploit, and that Personal spells were always assumed to be on willing target because when the spells were written there were no means by which to target another recipient, willing or otherwise.
All of my play these days is PFS, which is why I can't just houserule unfortunately.
I guess I am stuck to the following logic -
Spells that do not allow a save specify they don't allow a save. Spells that allow a save specify they allow a save. Spells that don't mention saves would suggest you aren't required to make one.It seems like a rules exploit, and that Personal spells were always assumed to be on willing target because when the spells were written there were no means by which to target another recipient, willing or otherwise.
I would suggest making a new thread if you are bound to PFS and not using houserules, because going by the rules a player would have a leg to stand on.
The reason I said he needed a new thread was partly because this a general game question and also because it would have to be reworded to be properly FAQ, d.
I would suggest making a new thread if you are bound to PFS and not using houserules, because going by the rules a player would have a leg to stand on.
Yep I asked in PFS, but then the thread was moved out.
I am curious as to the basis of the counter argument though.
ie If there is no save, why is that not called out in the spell description?
I would suggest making a new thread if you are bound to PFS and not using houserules, because going by the rules a player would have a leg to stand on.Yep I asked in PFS, but then the thread was moved out.
I am curious as to the basis of the counter argument though.
ie If there is no save, why is that not called out in the spell description?
A spell only has a save when one is listed. There is also no save because people are not expected to save vs self-buffs.
Why would they choose to inflict the 'sleep' Panacea on themselves? Why not just choose 'tenacity' or one of the other harmless effects?
Agreed - "When you use polypurpose panacea, choose one of the following effects" - the target is now 'You'.
A spell only has a save when one is listed.
No, it specifies when you aren't entitled to one ie
Magic Missile - Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yesYou don't get a save because it explicitly states you don't. Hence if there are none of the specifiers listed below then a save is not required - the spell cant be 'forced' on you.
Usually 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.
Disbelief
A successful save lets the subject ignore the spell's effect.
I'll repost an FAQ in regards to saving throws on Personal spells being cross targeted.
The personal spells lacks the entry "Saving throw: none" and thus it's a grey area of the rules on wheter the save is there or not.
Going RAW, i'd say that spells with the range of personal are specified in the general spell section as
Personal: The spell affects only you.
Extra emphasis on the word affect. So I would rule by RAW that a spell with the range of personal, even if delivered by other means, only takes effect if the recipient is the caster himself.
A spell only has a save when one is listed.No, it specifies when you aren't entitled to one ie
Magic Missile - Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
You don't get a save because it explicitly states you don't. Hence if there are none of the specifiers listed below then a save is not required - the spell cant be 'forced' on you.I'll repost an FAQ in regards to saving throws on Personal spells being cross targeted.
Usually 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.
Disbelief
A successful save lets the subject ignore the spell's effect.
When a spell has a saving throw they tell you how it works. Stop arguing with me because it is pointless. These spells were never intended to have saves. If you want results put up another FAQ, and word in a manner that it can be FAQ'd. I don't think it was ever the PDT's intent for these spells to be abused, but the result is that they can be. Debating with me won't change that. If all spells were intended to have saves by default then there would be a general rule on how to determine all conditions of the save such as partial saves, and which save such as fort or will was used.
These spells were not intended to be harmful. Hence, no save.You should specifically mention the interaction with the alchemist ability also.
Also that saving throw section in no way guarantees a saving throw. It tells you how the spell interacts with saving throws.
Usually 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 [/b]describes how saving throws against the spell work.
Now after that it gives several options, assuming the spell even has the saving throw area listed, which some do not. Was it forgotten? No. Personal spells are not harmful. Well now they are, but that is outside their original intent.
|
The personal spells lacks the entry "Saving throw: none" and thus it's a grey area of the rules on wheter the save is there or not.
Going RAW, i'd say that spells with the range of personal are specified in the general spell section as
Personal: The spell affects only you.Extra emphasis on the word affect. So I would rule by RAW that a spell with the range of personal, even if delivered by other means, only takes effect if the recipient is the caster himself.
This FAQ says otherwise.
Alchemist and infusions: Can I use the infusion discovery to create an infused extract of a personal-range formula (such as true strike), which someone else can drink?
Yes, you can. The design team may decide to close this loophole in the next printing of the Advanced Player's Guide.
Personally I think aside from Touch Injection Skinsend, it's fine. Compensates for the fact that multi-target spells like Haste will only affect one person when used by the alchemist.
|
|
I don't think so. The person affected by the spell gets to choose the effect, just like if they drink the infusion themselves. Why would they choose to inflict the 'sleep' Panacea on themselves? Why not just choose 'tenacity' or one of the other harmless effects?An Alchemist with the infusion discovery can force it upon enemies (Touch Injection, Poisoners' Glove, Iron Cobra Gauntlet).
Without a save this would make a 1st level spell like Polypurpose Panacea immensely powerful: Enemy falls asleep without a save.
IMHO:
RAW: Yes , this would work
RAI: Enemy gets a saving throw (DC:10+spell level+int modifier)
I figured it would be the same as brewing potions. The creator makes the choices when creating, not the imbiber. A panacea(sleep) infusion, comparable to a resist energy(cold) potion.
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).
I don't think so. The person affected by the spell gets to choose the effect, just like if they drink the infusion themselves. Why would they choose to inflict the 'sleep' Panacea on themselves? Why not just choose 'tenacity' or one of the other harmless effects?An Alchemist with the infusion discovery can force it upon enemies (Touch Injection, Poisoners' Glove, Iron Cobra Gauntlet).
Without a save this would make a 1st level spell like Polypurpose Panacea immensely powerful: Enemy falls asleep without a save.
IMHO:
RAW: Yes , this would work
RAI: Enemy gets a saving throw (DC:10+spell level+int modifier)I figured it would be the same as brewing potions. The creator makes the choices when creating, not the imbiber. A panacea(sleep) infusion, comparable to a resist energy(cold) potion.
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).
An FAQ indicates that you make the choice for extracts when you imbibe them, and infusions are extracts(the faq text uses the language "infused extract").
|
|
An FAQ indicates that you make the choice for extracts when you imbibe them, and infusions are extracts(the faq text uses the language "infused extract").
Ah, didn't know that, but makes perfect sense for regular extracts (as it's like a normal spellcaster you prepare protection form energy and decide when you cast it), but does this FAQ extend to infusions? IMHO no, extract is to infusion like spellcasting is to potion.
An FAQ indicates that you make the choice for extracts when you imbibe them, and infusions are extracts(the faq text uses the language "infused extract").Ah, didn't know that, but makes perfect sense for regular extracts (as it's like a normal spellcaster you prepare protection form energy and decide when you cast it), but does this FAQ extend to infusions? IMHO no, extract is to infusion like spellcasting is to potion.
There is literally no such thing as "an infusion" according to the pathfinder rules.
There is the Infusion Discovery, which allows the alchemist to create an infused extract.
Benefit: When the alchemist creates an extract, he can infuse it with an extra bit of his own magical power. The extract created now persists even after the alchemist sets it down. As long as the extract exists, it continues to occupy one of the alchemist’s daily extract slots. An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to gain its effects.
Unless you can find some rules text saying infused extracts act differently when it comes to making choices, then infused extracts act like extracts when it comes to making choices because they are extracts, as per the FAQ below.
If I make an extract of a multiple-choice spell (such as protection from energy), do I make that choice when I create the extract, or when I drink it?
You make the choice when you drink it.
Hmm this now gets wonderfully complex...
This FAQ says otherwise.
Personally I think aside from Touch Injection Skinsend, it's fine. Compensates for the fact that multi-target spells like Haste will only affect one person when used by the alchemist.Alchemist and infusions: Can I use the infusion discovery to create an infused extract of a personal-range formula (such as true strike), which someone else can drink?
Yes, you can. The design team may decide to close this loophole in the next printing of the Advanced Player's Guide.
I forgot that one. I should reformulate my stance on this. From now on Personal spell will count as a subset of willing target only. This should close any loopholes and still allow shield and cure infusin to work as intended.