Hello, a creature charmed or controlled is it a willing target ?
Is it possible to make a creature a willing target with a Request from Diplomacy or other similar means ?
Thanks for your future answer.
Charmed/controlled, I would rule not, mostly on the grounds that RAW seems to suggest that a player could still declare their character (un)willing no matter what the character's state is, so I'd afford NPCs/Monsters the same courtesy. I'm specifically citing PC1 pg. 300 "Targets" regarding spells, though I'm aware PC1 pg. 426 "Targets" regarding effects in general has different language that's much less cut and dry.
Diplomacy to Make Request on the other hand I would definitely rule in favor of. You're not making someone do something against their will, they're choosing to comply with your request thanks to your charisma.
Willing target is basically a target that won't try to resist. If the charmed/controlled creature won't resist to a beneficial effect (remember that most spells that charms or controls creatures breaks if you make hostile actions or goes against their interests so you cannot consider willing target to those effects).
With that said it's perfectly possible to make any creature a willing target if this creature considers the effect beneficial to it no mater if it's helpful, friendly or indifferent as long this creature accept this effect. Even unfriendly and hostile creatures can accept an effect willing but usually this not happen because they normally distrust and can easily consider that effect as some possible disguised harm effect. Yet depending from situations it's possible that unfriendly and hostile being forced to work together with you in order to solve a greater problem and may accept your beneficial effects.
Hello, a creature charmed or controlled is it a willing target ?
That is a big can-o-worms that you will definitely want to talk to your players about before doing it in game.
It is also a bit unclear. The Controlled condition doesn't say anything about deciding to be a willing target for further spells, so strict RAW would say that no, the player owning that character still decides what they are willing towards.
And that is probably the safest way of playing. The Controlled condition is bad enough already. It doesn't need further buffs.
Another option for ruling on it is to allow the controlling character to decide the willingness of the target, but only for the duration of the Controlled condition. When the Controlled condition ends, they can then decide to not be a willing target of the effect and therefore no longer a valid target for the effect and the effect automatically ends immediately.
Is it possible to make a creature a willing target with a Request from Diplomacy or other similar means ?
Maybe.
This is something that should only be available to use on NPCs. In general it isn't a good idea to allow NPCs to use Coerce or Make Request on the PCs. The NPCs can certainly talk to the player characters and ask them to do things - that is called a plot hook. But there shouldn't be game mechanics or dice involved.
As for using it on NPCs, that is a call that you as the GM of those NPCs characters are going to have to decide. Is the character's negotiations or deception or intimidation good enough to convince the NPC that they will be willing to accept the consequences of this spell? Can the NPC recognize the spell as it is being cast and change their mind at the last moment before the spell takes effect? And most importantly, is it a good path for the plot of the game to take to have this NPC allow this to happen?
And with a suggestion or telepathic demand, is it possible ?
The target must accept to take 1 piercing damage that inject an alchemical item. The item is expended, and if it was an elixir or ingested poison, the target is affected as though it consumed the item.
As a GM my ruling would generally be no condition can override the internal autonomy of a character to make a character willing with exceptions for Charm and Diplomacy. Charm (on a failed save) makes someone friendly to you. At which point if you talk to them and said "I'm going to cast this friendly spell on you" they would accept it. And diplomacy would work similarly, though you would need to get them to Friendly first and then make a request of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And with a suggestion or telepathic demand, is it possible ?
That is still a level of character deception and loss of player autonomy that you are going to have to discuss out with your players at your table rather than look to a general rule for.
Make the decision based on things like this and this rather than anything you find in Conditions or Spell effect descriptions.
As a GM my ruling would generally be no condition can override the internal autonomy of a character to make a character willing with exceptions for Charm and Diplomacy. Charm (on a failed save) makes someone friendly to you. At which point if you talk to them and said "I'm going to cast this friendly spell on you" they would accept it. And diplomacy would work similarly, though you would need to get them to Friendly first and then make a request of them.
To follow up with this, while Charm make get them to be willing to receive the spell, if they were capable of identifying the spell as it was cast I would allow them to choose based on that information. Spells that were harmful or questionable they would not be willing to accept and the act would be considered hostile for determining if Charm broke.
2024 D&D added a rule saying that willing targets can always automatically fail saving throws. This unfortunately allows casters to use Suggestion to force creatures to willing fail any number of saving throws for 8 hours, essentially letting the caster permanently enslave anyone.
Ironically, the rule would work better in PF2e, where nothing a caster does can make a target count as willing. But we do have a similar, hidden rule in the description for Gliminals, where the GM may allow you to worsen your degree of success on a save by 1 (or improve an assailant's degree of success by 1).
I think it's a common house rule to allow creatures to treat their roll as one step "better" (or worse depending on how the spell is written) if they would be willing to receive the effect.
The gliminals overwhelming healing is a good example. If you were already close to your max HP in temp HP, you would want to resist the healing effect. But otherwise you would probably want to receive that healing, because why avoid free healing?
There are definitely some scenarios where being willing to receive an effect could be too good if you could choose the critical fail/success outcomes. Like athletic to shove or reposition an ally, but allowing a willing recipient to adjust the outcome one degree of success is a good house rule to compromise on how it works out.
In the case of reposition I've definitely seen on this board where both players and GM made "devious" plans around using other character actions to move a higher value character around the field to avoid reactions and avoid that character spending their actions.
Like using a 3rd action to reposition an ally into melee attack range, or out of melee attack range (and avoiding Attacks of Opportunity). If you make them actually roll and allow them to adjust by one degree of success it's not nearly as reliable and abusable.
You can also Reposition an ally to break their immobilized condition.
If you're immobilized by something holding you in place and an external force would move you out of your space, the force must succeed at a check against either the DC of the effect holding you in place or the relevant defense (usually Fortitude DC) of the monster holding you in place.
The way this seems to work is as follows.
1. You Reposition an grabbed ally, rolling Athletics.2. If successful, you are an external force that would move them.
3. You make another check. What check you need to make is time is unspecified, but I'm guessing it's the same kind of check as the first one.
4. If the check result meets or exceeds either the effect's DC or the monster's Fort DC, the immobilized condition fails to prevent the movement.
5. If this moves the target beyond the reach of the grabber, I presume the grab ends.
Often it's better to just Reposition the grabber, but sometimes the monster is too big.
I mean, I consider that scenario legitimate, and the character doing the reposition would have to beat the DC of the of the person doing the grappling (assuming this is mostly relevant to grapple).
That said, I would tweak your steps a bit:
1. You attempt to Reposition an grabbed ally, rolling Athletics.
1b. Assess the effect based on the Fortitude save of the character, and in my games, including an allowance for counting as one step "better" on the success/failure chain for being willing. (So even if you rolled a failure, you would still count as a success and potentially move them 5ft).
2. If successful, you are an external force that would move them.
3. Youmake anothercompare that result against the effect that immobilized the creature...
4. If the check result meets or exceeds either the effect's DC or the monster's Fort DC, the immobilized condition fails to prevent the movement. (Unclear to me whether the comparison should be against the original roll that immobilized the target, the Fort DC, or the Athletics DC (reference escape action) of the creature immobilizing)
5. If this moves the target beyond the reach of the grabber, I presume the grab ends.
The DC is definitely not set by a roll. Rolls should contest DCs, not other rolls (except initiative). Stuff like that plagued players in early APs because the author didn't understand that Escaping against an Athletics roll of 50 wouldn't work.
I think the check should work if it beats either Athletics DC or Fortitude DC, because the condition doesn't say to use whichever is higher. Besides, Repositioning the monster directly would bypass Athletics DC anyway and break the Grapple.
Absolutely, It should be a relevant DC only. But its the GM that decides which DC to use. I don't agree that being able to beat one is enough since some creaures have methods impose the grabbed condition, but at the same time have an insanely or no athletics.
If a monster isn't using Athletics to impose grabbed, then the DC of the effect probably isn't Athletics DC (it's probably spell DC or something), so Athletics DC wouldn't be applicable to a check against the immobilized condition anyway. And even if the DC of the effect somehow was a terrible Athletics DC anyway, I don't see why an Escaping target should get to roll against that but not the external force.
I sometimes forget that opposed rolls aren't really a thing in PF2, so definitely exclude that from an option.
And whether it's an Athletics DC or Fort DC, or something else, probably depends on what was used to perform the thing that immobilized the target.
Grapple action? Athletics DC
Some special ability (grab?) Fortitude DC
Something else? Relevant Dc of that thing
When would a monster ever use its own Fortitude DC to immobilize a target?
When would a monster ever use its own Fortitude DC to immobilize a target?
I think grab is an appropriate time. The monster didn't make an athletics check to cause the immobilized condition, it was the result of the strike possessing grab.
You now need an Athletics check to Grab.
Fortitude DC is in case there's nothing else that makes sense, but it's rather exceptional.
You now need an Athletics check to Grab.
Really? I was just looking at the ability on AoN and the description didn't mention it, but maybe it was an older version of the ability.
You now need an Athletics check to Grab.Really? I was just looking at the ability on AoN and the description didn't mention it, but maybe it was an older version of the ability.
It's surprising that anyone doesn't know about it at this point. It's one of the most famous changes made by the remaster.
The Grab action now performs a subordinate, MAP-less Grapple. If the target is already grabbed or restrained, the action is instead used to automatically renew those conditions.
Overall, it's a sidegrade. The monster can now restrain someone with a critical success, or they can fail or even fall prone or get grabbed themselves. The change was made so that players could benefit from bonuses to their Fort DC against being Grappled.
There was controversy around this change because many Grabbing monsters have extreme Athletics, with some potentially having a 50% chance of restraining a PC.
Here's more food for thought.
The wizard is grabbed by a hungry Cave Worm and tries twice to Escape. He crit fails the second time so he can't try again. For his third action, he attempts to Reposition the adjacent fighter.
The wizard is untrained in Athletics and crit fails, allowing the fighter to move the wizard as though the fighter successfully Repositioned the wizard.
Is the fighter an external force that can make a check versus immobilized? Or is the wizard the force and therefore not external because it's the wizard's action?
Here's more food for thought.
The wizard is grabbed by a hungry Cave Worm and tries twice to Escape. He crit fails the second time so he can't try again. For his third action, he attempts to Reposition the adjacent fighter.
As a GM, just nah. I'd say that rule doesn't kick in, it's super gamist and I'm just not going to let that work at all.
In my opinion this is a corner case the rules weren't written to account for, and this is where a GM needs to step in.