To keep it simple, let's just say a cleric wants to Bluff an NPC that they are casting a Cure when they are really casting a Cause. They have already Bluffed the target into believing they worship a god they do not actually serve. So, what happens?
If the Cleric has a Bluff adjusted result of 25 and the target has nothing in sense motive, does the bluff work automatically, or can the target identify the spell with spellcraft or Knowledge Arcane?
If they fail to identify the spell or the Bluff, does the target get any save or have they willingly forgone the save because they think they are getting a helpful or harmless spell?
its a pretty easy spellcraft check, but technically you can voluntarily fail any save. But whether or not he succeeds in his bluff, circumstances could still make him apprehensive about it. For example, Mr. rando-strange-fella approaches me at the mall and says, let me touch you and cure your sickness. He rolls his high bluff check from being trained and practiced and being a jerk and gets a 25. My sense motive result fails, so I have no reason not to believe him, but I sure as crap still wont let him touch me. I say, if the player role played it really well, it's not a rules question its a reward, but if the circumstances are against him and he is just trying to rules lawyer to win the game then just say no. Bluff is not mind control, people still wont do things that they wouldn't normally do.
As far as the spellcraft check, if a really smooth talker convinces you that their pet is a poodle, but your eyes see a pitbull, what happens? Bluff skill is not mind control.
As for whether or not a save would then be allowed, I'm not certain the book has your answer. But my logic: if the target were completely unaware of the spell until the moment it effected them, what would happen? They would get a save vs the harmful one and have the option of allowing the beneficial one. This suggests to me that the target can 'feel' what the spell is before deciding to save.
Roll spellcraft. That and / or bluff or sense motive. In the latter case it's less to do with magic and more with reading people.
There's metamagic, a trait, and class features to disguise what spell you're casting by increasing the spellcraft DC. Otherwise, you can only fool the people who can't make the check themselves.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I'd say a successful Bluff check vs. Sense Motive lets you essentially get a surprise round to cast the spell.
If the target can't or doesn't ID the spell with Spellcraft, you don't have to roll to touch them.
If they do ID the spell, you'll have to roll an attack vs. their flatfooted touch AC.
Regardless of how well you've suckered them, they get a save. Targets of hostile spells always get a save, provided the spell allows one.
If the target has spellcraft, barring specific abilities that allow you to disguise the spell you cast, it can be identified by spellcraft.
Regardless they get a save against the spell no matter what.
Taking a case where the target has zero knowledge or expectation of the spell, say target is blind and deaf, and caster is casting a silent, still spell while stealthing under the effects of greater invisibility.
Is the target forced to decide save or not vs a heal before knowing what it is? If the answer to this is no, then you cannot bluff the target into not saving.
Easy answer to these types of save questions. The situation is not "Do you want a save: Yes or No", but rater, "Yes, No, No prefrence". You can choose to forego a save you are entitled to, and you can choose to make a save against a harmless spell. You are not required to make any such choice. You don't have to choose to not save vs a harmless spell, so there is no reason for someone expecting a harmless spell to go out of their way to not make a save.
This is a thing too.
Choosing to make a save against harmful spells, doesn't mean you try to make saves against Harmless spells. And choosing not to make saves against Harmless spells doesn't mean you don't get a chance to save against harmful spells.
|
If you are looking for an "absolute rules" answer, there isn't one. If you are looking for advice I'd suggest using Bluff vs. Sense Motive, with the target getting a bonus equal to the "initial attitude" modifier in the Diplomacy skill. So a target that is friendly to you would get a +10 modifier to his Sense Motive.
If the target doesn't have any ranks in Spellcraft you're good from that point. If he does, then he does get a check to identify the spell. The Stylized Spell chain (from Ultimate Intrigue and Inner Sea Intrigue) contains specific rules for disguising spell descriptors.
Are people actually saying that bluff can trick someone into a situation that a guy in a coma wouldn't fall for?
To keep it simple, let's just say a cleric wants to Bluff an NPC that they are casting a Cure when they are really casting a Cause. They have already Bluffed the target into believing they worship a god they do not actually serve. So, what happens?
If the Cleric has a Bluff adjusted result of 25 and the target has nothing in sense motive, does the bluff work automatically, or can the target identify the spell with spellcraft or Knowledge Arcane?
If they fail to identify the spell or the Bluff, does the target get any save or have they willingly forgone the save because they think they are getting a helpful or harmless spell?
How would you handle this if an NPC were doing the same to a PC? Would you still give the PC a save vs cause wounds even if they had failed to see through the bluff and not identified the spell? If so, let the NPC make a save too. Give the NPCs an even break.
Personally, I'd require the PC to make a bluff check vs sense motive, have the target make a spellcraft check (if trained), and then I'd still give the NPC the save. Same with PCs.
Some details - this has not happened but is going to. The PC aligned with some NPCs in the guise of being patron of a god they have heard of, but none of the NPCs with the PC have a lick in Know:Rel or Know: Arcane, and only one has a Spellcraft Rank. The PC has confirmed now that his NPC "pals" are actually behind some bad stuff in town. He has made bluff checks all along, has cured them in the past, it would be unfair of me to say any of the NPCs are aware of the PCs suspicions on them. I know he is going to try a bluff to cast some kind of attack spell (most likely cause serious wounds) because there is talk of exactly what "choosing not to have a saving throw" means.
If the bluff is good (it should be) and no one notices the spell is not what it appears to be (we are fairly RAW and if the spell does not have a visual affect described, we don't assume one, so no "black tendrils of negative energy") the core of my dilemma is some kind of RAW based evidence that you would get a save, or is the bluff combined with no other knowledge constitute a forgoing a save.
Can anyone provide RAW that you actually get a save no matter what?
EDIT: PC has the holy symbol of the god he's faking to worship but has a trait that allows a mark on his body to actually be his true Holy Symbol, so he has done well disguising his true faith. No evil gods involved here.
I think the choice of whether to save vs. the spell happens when the character feels the results of the spell coming on, i.e. after the spells is cast and as the spell is affecting the character. Therefore, I do not think that the bluff trick negates the save.
I think the bluff trick would permit the caster to touch the target without needing to make a touch attack. However, I also think that a successful spellcraft prior to the touch attack would alert the target to the nature of the spell, thereby requiring the caster to make a touch attack.
I have no issue with the latter part of that, spellcraft would reveal the truth of the spell, bluff or not. But there is clearly a theme in raw about voluntary submission to a spell, like Cures (which allows saves) and Unconscious creatures, which are always deemed "willing". Even rules about voluntarily lowering SR (on your turn) to allow spells to affect you. Clearly you have an option to forgo a save. What I can't seem to find is a rule that says once you have decided to do so, like when you accept a cure, you can change your mind and save anyway.
I suppose a CON based save is your body, and you would get that save n matter what, but Reflex and Will saves involve choosing. If you choose to let that guy cast a spell on you, should you suddenly get a save? Is there any rule that says YES YOU DO??????
Here is some RAW for my position above. Note the last line of the FAQ.
Page 12 CRB:
Saving Throw: When a creature is the subject of a dangerous spell or effect, it often receives a saving throw to mitigate the damage or result. Saving throws are passive, meaning that a character does not need to take an action to make a saving throw—they are made automatically.FAQ posted March 2012
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.Edit - Fixed the FAQ link.
Pretty good stuff.
Bluff vs sense motive
Won't work at all if the guy can make the spellcraft check.