| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
There are a handful of spells with the "Harmless" descriptor that still allow saving throws. My question is, if you target a creature with a spell that is harmless, do they "know" (meaning, is it imparted somehow) that the spell effect is, in fact, harmless before it takes effect?
Here's what the PRD says:
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.
This states outright that a targeted creature chooses whether or not to make a saving throw, but it doesn't really explain how they would know to do so.
I see a couple of interpretations of this:
1. Harmless spells impart some knowledge to the target that the spell effect is, in fact, harmless. The targeted creature can then decide on their own what they want to do, knowing that the spell will not harm them.
2. The targeted creature just knows they've been hit with a spell, and knows nothing about the effect. Since targeted creatures generally attempt saving throws, they will act depending on what it knows about the person casting the spell and what they've been told. If you say it's a harmless spell, and they trust you, they would be inclined to not attempt the save. If they are hostile or don't otherwise trust you, they would be inclined to attempt the save.
This has implications for attempting, say, unexpected healing of NPCs and the like. There have been a few discussions about this and Spell Resistance, but in the end I think it comes down to whether or not targeted creatures "know" somehow that the spell effect is harmless before it hits.
As we rule it in our home table, the answer is yes if the target know the spell is about to receive with a successful spellcraft check; or trusts the caster enough to let the spell take effect on him.
Usually as a GM I prefer to give hints when the party needs to be under a certain spell in critical situations. Like... "in the midst of battle you suddenly feel that a warm ligh envelops you and makes the pain go away... do you resist it?"
Out of curiosity. May I ask what's the problem with Spell Resistance?
Harmful spells force a save unless the person chooses not to save. The book does say that if someone is targeted by a "bad" spell they get hostile sensation, but that is not until after the save is made.
Helpful spells dont allow a save unless the person calls for it.
It's not meant to be a guessing game. Bad guys are not generally going to help you, and the party is not going to harm you.
To answer how do they know-->There is no way to know what a spell does without a spellcraft or knowledge arcana check once the spell effect has been seen.
In my games as GM and player there always tends to be someone who is good at spellcraft and speaking is a free action.
Stepping outside of the rules: If you don't want to require spellcraft I would say you get a hostile feeling from the spell before you make the save, not after. You would also get a good feeling from a harmless spell before you decide to make the save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, RAW, creatures don't know unless they're trained in Spellcraft to identify the spell being cast that they're being affected by.
RAI, if you're going to have players who won't trust their party to actually do something for them, you're going to have problems way bigger than "He hit me with an Inflict spell after he told me he was gonna heal me!" happening within the game.
By RAW the "harmless" qualifier has no effect. As already quoted:
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.
But a few lines down it also says:
Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result.
So you can always choose not to make a saving throw, and the "harmless" qualifier really does nothing.
In my games I rule that the target knows if a spell is harmless, and can thus choose to make a save or not, but that's a house rule.
In a realistic scenario, a creature won't know whether that glowing hand is beneficial or not unless he either A. Is told it is or has received that spell from that spellcaster before, or B. Makes a Spellcraft check to identify the spell as beneficial to them.
Otherwise? That glowing hand could very well be an Inflict spell in disguise. It'd certainly make for a very interesting plot twist that you were hit with a Harm spell and not a Heal spell.
This question came about out of something I tried in a game. We needed to communicate with two other creatures but none of us spoke a common language. While we had Comprehend Languages available to us, we didn't have anything that would allow two-way communication e.g. Tongues.
To solve this problem, I used Codespeak which I conveniently had on a scroll. The discussion with the GM was whether or not the targets would accept the spell.
The circumstances are a little different, of course. With Codespeak, there's no saving through and no spell resistance, but the description does say that the targets must be willing. The question for the GM was, would the targets accept the spell? Would they know they aren't being harmed?
He ruled that it would work in this instance, since we were trying to communicate already. But that was a house ruling in the moment, not necessarily a global ruling on how this works in general. Which got me thinking about similar spells with harmless effects: do the targets know the spell isn't trying to harm them?
The rules are not clear. Obviously, it's an edge case that doesn't come up often, but in our case it did so I thought I'd ask in case there is a rule somewhere that I don't know about. Failing that, I am curious what people think the RAI should be.
Whether or not the targets would accept the spell is more of an RP thing to me than a rules issue.
If I was a PC, and NPC X wanted to cast a spell on me I might not accept it unless I could trust him.
Now with some GM's, who have the trust of their players to not do certain things, they can just say he cast <beneficial spell>, and the RP could be bypassed.
It comes down to play style really because if we go by the rules they can't know if the "nonfriend" is really helpful or not so they have to decide if they don't want to resist.
In this case since the GM controls the NPC's he has to decide if he will just handwave certain things to let the story move forward more quickly, or if he will RP it out and go for a more realistic response.
Neither way is wrong. It once again, goes back to style of play.
edit: I would have had the players make a diplomacy check if the person had a less than neutral starting position or if they didn't trust the PC's.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Suppress Charms and Compulsions is a Harmless spell. That could be important in getting someone affected by Confusion to accept it.
So if a Confused creature succeeds at the spellcraft check, he'd certainly be okay with it, since "it's harmless".
Question is, would he be inclined not to resist even if he doesn't have (or succeed at) spellcraft?
Suppress Charms and Compulsions is a Harmless spell. That could be important in getting someone affected by Confusion to accept it.
Pretty much all the status removal spells are listed as "Will negates (harmless)". Remove Fear, Remove Curse, Restoration... Your example, though, is one of the stickier ones since your ally might not recognize you as such.
Suppress Charms and Compulsions is a Harmless spell. That could be important in getting someone affected by Confusion to accept it.
So if a Confused creature succeeds at the spellcraft check, he'd certainly be okay with it, since "it's harmless".
Question is, would he be inclined not to resist even if he doesn't have (or succeed at) spellcraft?
In most games nobody tries to make the save against a harmless spell even when the spell is cast by an enemy. The confused spell also does not change who your enemy is. It can make you attack the closest person, but it doesn't change their status. It just makes you want to kill them, but a GM could say it does. It all depends on how he thinks the flavor of the spell is meant to be.
It could just make you think that your buddy is better off dead.
The confused spell also does not change who your enemy is. It can make you attack the closest person, but it doesn't change their status.
I don't think I agree with that. An enemy is anyone you're treating as an enemy. If two confused people are trying to murder each other, abilities that are defined as only affecting enemies ought to work.
The confused spell also does not change who your enemy is. It can make you attack the closest person, but it doesn't change their status.I don't think I agree with that. An enemy is anyone you're treating as an enemy. If two confused people are trying to murder each other, abilities that are defined as only affecting enemies ought to work.
I agree that my comment is an arguable point, but you can attack an ally due to a misdirected attack. That does not make the two of you enemies. It makes you the target of friendly fire.
The "Redirect Attack" feat can do this. I think there is also a rogue ability that allows it to happen if they can make a successful bluff check.
|
|
I generally explain Confusion as "you're no longer sure who your friends and enemies are" - but the spell mentions that you don't take AoOs against people you weren't already devoted to attacking. So confused creatures could be said to give the benefit of doubt to things they don't recognize as harmful.
The other big case would be when someone who's being mind-controlled might try to resist Protection from Evil.
Agreed. And, this happens often enough that I don't think it's an edge case, either. We've certainly seen it multiple times in a campaign, and always ignored the fact that, technically, the target is allowed a saving throw.
The trick is to come up with a house rule that enforces the saving throw option (using a harmless spell on an unwilling or unaware target) without impacting peoples' enjoyment of the game (an ally or NPC resisting a status removal spell that is intended to help them).
|
|
I think it really depends on the kind of effect someone got hit by.
Someone charmed or suggested, would almost certainly not resist protection from evil cast by an ally.
Someone dominated, might - if the dominator forgot to tell the dominatee to no longer accept spells from his allies. Dominate forces someone to carry out orders, not to enjoy it.
Without Spellcraft, I would have the target fall back on a Sense Motive check.
There must be a discernable difference, even if on a subconscious level, as the rules treat harmless and non-harmless differently. Any ruling that negates the respective choice is pretty bad form. I would no more expect someone to resist a harmless spell, than I would someone to voluntarily allow themselves to be affected by a non-harmless spell, either way there needs to be a pretty good reason.
Knowing the difference between harmless and not, doesn't give you any knowledge about the spell, just it's harm status.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An unconscious person still gets all their saving throws. But no one asks for saving throw when you try cure the dying fighter, while you would give them a saving throw if an enemy was casting inflict. So I suggest that that 'Harmless' is a real in-universe property of spells just like the save type and this is always obvious to the target..
So, pulling from the 'willing target' distinction: If a character is not in a position to decide to save or not against a harmless spell, it defaults to no save. For example, the dominated fighter that was beat into unconsciousness by his allies that will now cast protection from evil on him.
Most other cases have to considered on a case by case distinction with the above in mind, most of the conclusions being: They don't trust you, they resist.
Bad guys are not generally going to help you, and the party is not going to harm you.
Well, I have played with a party AoE blaster that did not bother with the Selective feat, nor with leaving other party members our. :-) Getting hit by a friendly AoE hurts!
As to wanting to save from a harmless spell, what about Code of Conduct or Vows that forbid using healing magic while a friendly wants to heal you with curative spells? That certainly calls for a saving throw.
/cevah
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The much lambasted manifestations may help here. Even without spellcraft, a harmless spell may look all white and glowy with tinkling music while a harmful spell pulses with the unholy powere of the night.
Bad guys are not generally going to help you, and the party is not going to harm you.Well, I have played with a party AoE blaster that did not bother with the Selective feat, nor with leaving other party members our. :-) Getting hit by a friendly AoE hurts!
As to wanting to save from a harmless spell, what about Code of Conduct or Vows that forbid using healing magic while a friendly wants to heal you with curative spells? That certainly calls for a saving throw.
/cevah
The AoE example does not counter my point about "generally". It is corner case. Most people are not going to AoE their party members. I've seen it, but it is rare.
As for the 2nd example it is also a corner case and as party members that is something the PC's can discuss. If the other PC tries to help you anyway then you just know to always save against their spells since you have no way of knowing what spell they are using on you. Even if you dont want the effect, it is still a harmless spell.
PS: I don't know anything about Code of Conduct or vows that would do that so I am going to assume it is just an example you are using to make a point.
The Purity Legion Enforcer's Nonbeliever class feature and the Superstition Rage Power count as examples.
By the way, it is unsafe to assume that beneficial and harmful spells are necessarily identifiable to someone not trained in Spellcraft. For instance, I wouldn't assume that Cure Light Wounds cast by a Cleric of Zon-Kuthon necessarily feels any better than Inflict Light Wounds cast by them, until a sufficient amount of time has elapsed to be able to experience (and possibly die from) the aftereffect . . . .
The Purity Legion Enforcer's Nonbeliever class feature and the Superstition Rage Power count as examples.
By the way, it is unsafe to assume that beneficial and harmful spells are necessarily identifiable to someone not trained in Spellcraft. For instance, I wouldn't assume that Cure Light Wounds cast by a Cleric of Zon-Kuthon necessarily feels any better than Inflict Light Wounds cast by them, until a sufficient amount of time has elapsed to be able to experience (and possibly die from) the aftereffect . . . .
Those force you to make a save, which is different from you choosing to make a save.
By the rules they are not identifiable. You need spellcraft or knowledge arcana(after the spell is cast) to identify it.
As for your inflict wounds vs curing someone you would know when you are hurt and when you are healed. Those instantaneous effects. Who they are cast by does not change how they work.
A GM can always say deity X's spells are different, but that would just be a house rule.
By the way, it is unsafe to assume that beneficial and harmful spells are necessarily identifiable to someone not trained in Spellcraft. For instance, I wouldn't assume that Cure Light Wounds cast by a Cleric of Zon-Kuthon necessarily feels any better than Inflict Light Wounds cast by them, until a sufficient amount of time has elapsed to be able to experience (and possibly die from) the after effect . . . .
I don't think this is the way it is intended to work, because an unconscious ally would not roll to save against that same cure while they would get to save against the inflict. It has to be more than just the target's spellcraft skill; it is a property of the spell/magic just like the spell's range and the save it targets.
The only guidance I can find is from the Medium class from Occult Adventures with the Trickster spirit's Influence Penalty. It says:
"Influence Penalty: The trickster within you is a protean manipulator, and you begin to see the possibility that everyone around you might have ulterior motives as well. You never count as an ally for the purpose of gaining benefits from another creature’s abilities, nor do you count as a willing target for spells. Anyone attempting to target you with a touch range spell, even a beneficial spell, must succeed at a melee touch attack, though you need not attempt saving throws against harmless spells. You gain no benefit from another creature’s aid another attempts, as you are too busy making sure they aren’t secretly tricking or sabotaging you."
Now here is a distrusting spirit that causes you to try to avoid being touched be even a BENEFICIAL spell, thus a touch attack is required even by your ally trying to cure you. But, once touched, you NEED NOT ATTEMPT SAVING THROWS AGAINST HARMLESS SPELLS. No mention of a Spellcraft or Knowledge Arcane check required, even the dubious trickster spirit know the spell is harmless innately.
Now, that said, if someone is trying to bluff you into thinking they are using a beneficial, harmless, spell when they are not, I think that's a different situation. Similarly if an ally is possessed or in some way perceives you as a foe - that touch attack may be required. But this selection makes me feel there is at least some RAW to support the idea harmless spells are intuitively identified as harmless.
The Purity Legion Enforcer's Nonbeliever class feature and the Superstition Rage Power count as examples.Those force you to make a save, which is different from you choosing to make a save.
I thought that's what you were looking for (or at least close to it -- beliefs that make you attempt a Save even against a beneficial spell sent your way).
By the way, it is unsafe to assume that beneficial and harmful spells are necessarily identifiable to someone not trained in Spellcraft. For instance, I wouldn't assume that Cure Light Wounds cast by a Cleric of Zon-Kuthon necessarily feels any better than Inflict Light Wounds cast by them, until a sufficient amount of time has elapsed to be able to experience (and possibly die from) the aftereffect . . . .By the rules they are not identifiable. You need spellcraft or knowledge arcana(after the spell is cast) to identify it.
As for your inflict wounds vs curing someone you would know when you are hurt and when you are healed. Those instantaneous effects. Who they are cast by does not change how they work.
A GM can always say deity X's spells are different, but that would just be a house rule.
What I meant was that regardless of whether you know what the incoming spell was from the Kuthite caster, it would probably not feel friendly to most people.
This is a great discussion. I want to thank everyone for their input.
So, pulling from the 'willing target' distinction: If a character is not in a position to decide to save or not against a harmless spell, it defaults to no save. For example, the dominated fighter that was beat into unconsciousness by his allies that will now cast protection from evil on him.Most other cases have to considered on a case by case distinction with the above in mind, most of the conclusions being: They don't trust you, they resist.
So far I like this interpretation the best. In addition to also having a basis in RAW, I think it makes good sense in general.
I do too. I have always had a problem with helpless creatures getting reflex saves at all. Wisdom based saves refers to a state of mind, so if you distrust you are unwilling, but harmless spells have been identified as being somehow different, despite the fact an unconscious creature is treated as willing in regards to saves. Constitution based saves are based on the fortitude of the body and should always be allowed.
I would love official clarity on this, but RAW clearly implies harmless spells are somehow realized as such.