Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lich thing 08-14-06, 07:59 PM	A character can always choose to fail in one save? Well, one of my friends used Charm Person in one creature and asked the subject to fail in its fortitude save to receive one healing spell (its harmless but have anyone can make the save...). Then he cast Desintegrate on it... well, the DM stopped the session cus of this.. he doesnt know how to manage the situation... Is that possible? Tnx and see ya?
Salla 08-14-06, 08:05 PM	Yes, a creature can always choose to fail a saving throw. If he is actually convinced that you're throwing a beneficial effect, not a damaging one via charm/suggestion/etc, then yes, he's in trouble. However, if he had ranks in Spellcraft, he should have been given a chance to identify the spell being cast (DC 15+level) to realize he was about to get blasted, then break the charm. It's also possible he would have realized that the person about to cast the spell in question probably didn't look like a cleric, if he was casting Disintegrate ... ;)
Deathmond 08-14-06, 08:11 PM	(Charm Person/suggestion on Creature) You: Hi, this guy <points> here is going to heal you. You have to voluntarily let this next spell effect you so we can heal you ok? Creature: Oh wow! HEALING! <chooses to fail> Guy-in-Robes: Ok, here comes the heal. <Disintegrate> <Creature dead> Party: Yay! We win!
Joseph_Silver 08-14-06, 08:20 PM	I don't think you can choose to fail fortitude saves. You can choose to fail a reflex save by not dodging, and you can choose to fail a will save by not resisting, but a fortitude save involves how your body works, and this include involuntary muscles, which you cannot control. For example, a fortitude save against poison means that the person's immune sysmem is fighting it. In real life, can you decide not to resist poison or disease? You can't. So this is why I think only will and reflex saves can be voluntarily failed.
Salla 08-14-06, 08:21 PM	I don't think you can choose to fail fortitude saves. You can choose to fail a reflex save by not dodging, and you can choose to fail a will save by not resisting, but a fortitude save involves how your body works, and this include involuntary muscles, which you cannot control. For example, a fortitude save against poison means that the person's immune sysmem is fighting it. In real life, can you decide not to resist poison or disease? You can't. So this is why I think only will and reflex saves can be voluntarily failed. By RAW, any save can be voluntarily failed. Yours would be a decent houserule, though. (By the way, was the creature in question actually wounded when the offer of healing was made?)
green_yawgmoth 08-14-06, 08:26 PM	I don't think you can choose to fail fortitude saves. You can choose to fail a reflex save by not dodging, and you can choose to fail a will save by not resisting, but a fortitude save involves how your body works, and this include involuntary muscles, which you cannot control. For example, a fortitude save against poison means that the person's immune sysmem is fighting it. In real life, can you decide not to resist poison or disease? You can't. So this is why I think only will and reflex saves can be voluntarily failed. You ever heard of someone not being able to fight off a disease because they lost the will to live? Volentarily failing a fortitude save. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Artector 08-14-06, 09:01 PM	I'd let you choose most saves to fail, poison and disease, not really. I would have to look into this more though before actually implementing it. Been on my mind for a while though... Well, the person speaking would have to make a bluff check in the least. Depending on the check he'd either get another check against charm or would continue on.
Alric 08-14-06, 11:30 PM	I don't think it works like that. I think its more of a metagaming thing, where you always know the spell that is being casted on you. I mean if suddenly your set on fire you obviously know its not a heal spell. I like the example of it being like your will to survive. You don't have to know what is hurting you to want to survive. Your will to survive is always there and just because you think your being healed wouldn't stop you from resisting something that would kill you.
Nom 08-15-06, 12:42 AM	I'd agree with Alric. You don't voluntarily fail a generic save, you voluntarily fail a save against a specific effect that is currently being applied to you. If another effect (or a different effect than the one you were expecting) hits you at the same time, you save as normal unless you voluntarily fail against that too. Besides, there are very few effects that you'd want to voluntarily fail that are not "(harmless)", which means that they don't trigger a save anyway. You can ask a guy to "not resist the healing magic" all you like, and it won't in any way suppress the instinctive resistance to inflict light wounds or disintegrate.
LordBOB777 08-15-06, 12:57 AM	...snip. For example, a fortitude save against poison means that the person's immune sysmem is fighting it. In real life, can you decide not to resist poison or disease?...snip HOW DARE YOU SAY " IN REAL LIFE" !!!! This is a GAME and has NOTHING to do with REAL LIFE. Im sure you knew better but you just forgot.
Vegepygmy 08-15-06, 01:42 AM	I don't think you can choose to fail fortitude saves.Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic (for example, an elf's resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality.If an elf who is totally immune to sleepiness can voluntarily be put to sleep, there's no reason to think he can't also voluntarily be infected with disease or be affected by poison.
DarkWhisper 08-15-06, 05:58 AM	SRD: Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality. If you are tricked into voluntarily foregoing your save against a spell, you forego it. However, IMC, simply charming someone and then casting a killing spells on them doesn't work; this includes bluff checks/spellcraft checks/sense motive checks/etc as applicable. On a successfull spellcraft check to identify the spell (in this scenario), the charm would be broken and the same would still aplly. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell.
Nom 08-15-06, 07:06 AM	If an elf who is totally immune to sleepiness can voluntarily be put to sleep, there's no reason to think he can't also voluntarily be infected with disease or be affected by poison.Yes. But my point is that he would have to voluntarily choose to be infected with disease or be affected by poison, not just fail to save against some unspecified effect that is about to happen. It's quite clear that saving throws against non-harmless spells are an automatic defense mechanism by the body, and apply even when unconscious. To voluntarily fail a save, you have to suppress your body's natural defenses. Similarly, to voluntarily attempt a save against a harmless spell you have to override your body's natural willingness to be harmed. Unlike lowering spell resistance, it's a reactive thing, not a deliberate action. Thus, nobody is going to mistake a harmless spell for a non-harmless spell. Even if you have a -10 in Spellcraft, your body/spirit will happily accept the former and strenuously resist the latter. From a game mechanic perspective, everyone automatically chooses not to save against healing, so asking a character to make such a choice has no game mechanic value (flavour value notwithstanding) and in no way invalidates saving against the latter. You might convince the target to be flat-footed or not take an AoO, and conceivably might convince a really really stupid / ignorant target to knowingly accept a harmful spell, but convincing them to not resist a harmless spell won't cause them to auto-fail a harmful one.
DarkWhisper 08-15-06, 08:38 AM	But my point is that he would have to voluntarily choose to be infected with disease or be affected by poison, not just fail to save against some unspecified effect that is about to happen. The rules stat that a character can forego the save against a spell. If the poison/disease is delivered by a spell, the character can forego the save. If it is because he is exposed to the disease (because of touching an infected person), he would not be able to forego it (I think). Thus, nobody is going to mistake a harmless spell for a non-harmless spell. Even if you have a -10 in Spellcraft, your body/spirit will happily accept the former and strenuously resist the latter. That's your interpretation, but not RAW. Any player can state "My PC will attempt to save agains every benefical spell cast upon him" and it stands until he revokes that statement. Of course, I myself think it is not a very "good" approach to charm someone and then disintegrate him after asking him to not to resist the spell, as it includes metainformation (saving throws, the ability to forego them and spells with an "harmless" entry) into the IC part.
Millennium 08-15-06, 09:11 AM	A character can always choose to fail in one save? Well, one of my friends used Charm Person in one creature and asked the subject to fail in its fortitude save to receive one healing spell (its harmless but have anyone can make the save...). Then he cast Desintegrate on it... well, the DM stopped the session cus of this.. he doesnt know how to manage the situation... Is that possible? Technically, yes. It's like the classic example where you convince a charmed creature that a vat of acid is really just water, and a quick dip would be refreshing. However, I would suggest that if the charmed creature has a means to identify the spell as it's being cast (and successfully does so), then it can change its mind before the time comes to make or fail the save.
Nom 08-15-06, 10:02 AM	That's your interpretation, but not RAW.No, it's RAW, as given by the definition of "harmless", PH pg 177. Any player can state "My PC will attempt to save agains every benefical spell cast upon him" and it stands until he revokes that statement.... or becomes unable to "desire" this. Qualification aside, what you say is true, but also irrelevant. If I redundantly choose to forfeit my save against the harmless spell caster X is about to cast and he chooses to cast a harmful spell on me instead, then I get a save. The only way a global forfeit would work within the game mechanics is if the character were explicitly tricked into knowingly accepting a harmful magical effect. And that plainly falls under the category of "obviously harmful orders".
ReadError 08-15-06, 10:15 AM	I don't think you can choose to fail fortitude saves. You can choose to fail a reflex save by not dodging, and you can choose to fail a will save by not resisting, but a fortitude save involves how your body works, and this include involuntary muscles, which you cannot control. For example, a fortitude save against poison means that the person's immune sysmem is fighting it. In real life, can you decide not to resist poison or disease? You can't. So this is why I think only will and reflex saves can be voluntarily failed. Well, I remember Bart Simpson failing a fortitude save so he wouldn't go to school :D
DarkWhisper 08-15-06, 10:39 AM	No, it's RAW, as given by the definition of "harmless", PH pg 177. I'm currently in military and can't check my books; the SRD says "Harmless : The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful (...)". Note the use of "usually". The only way a global forfeit would work within the game mechanics is if the character were explicitly tricked into knowingly accepting a harmful magical effect. I think, that's where we disagree; I'd say that they don't have to know that they are foregoing their save for a baneful spell; if they are tricked into foregoing their save, they forego it - no matter, what spell follows. (But, given the dangers of it, even asking for foregoing a save might be considered to be among the "obvious harmful orders" category). To take your own approach, the character would (while foregoing a save) supress his body/spirit's instinctive reaction to fight against the foreign magic, no matter what kind that magic is. And that plainly falls under the category of "obviously harmful orders". That's where I partially agree and would call for spellcraft / sense motive checks. But as I said before, it is integrating metagame-info IC - and therfore something I would not allow in the first place (and save myself a lot of trouble :D ). (I'm not withdrawing from this thread because I want to, but I probably won't have access to it for some time; if it is still going then, I'll come back in...)
Kimokeo 08-15-06, 10:45 AM	Voluntarily giving up a saving throw is a separate paragraph from the harmless spell: PHB 177. Therefore, you choose to give up your save? Anything harmless or harmful applies. Now, this person is charmed. Was the suggestion believeable? The charmed person is not an automaton. Just looks at you favorably. I would have applied a bluff check. AND, the healer (sic) didn't ask the person to fail their save. The words are more like, "Oh my poor soul. Are you hurt? Medic!" Up walks the mage "Someone in need of healing?" "Yes, can you help my friend here?" "Certainly my child." Mumbles a few syllables as he lays hands on the unsuspecting person. Now, bluff is based on belief. As for Spellcraft and identifying the spell. If the creature has no skills, he can't identify it. One spell is pretty much like any other. Otherwise, it a no time cost attempt so I would have given the creature a spellcraft check. DC21 (I think that's right) If the wizard didn't touch the person, Knowledge check in Religion could guess that Cure Spells normally require touch. Just because the wizard has no armor doesn't mean he can't be a cleric. It is also a Ray - another reason touching would be wise.
Horseshoe_Hermit 08-15-06, 03:13 PM	You ever heard of someone not being able to fight off a disease because they lost the will to live? Volentarily failing a fortitude save. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif Baseless pseudo-science which has no proof. It's a fairy tale which soothes those who were not terminal. Same with the 'hypersensitivity of disabled' myth. Now, the houserule about Fortitude would be nice, but the game tells us any saving throw can be ignored. So we go with that.
Nom 08-15-06, 08:18 PM	Let's go back to the original issue. Mechanically, "Don't resist this healing spell" is the equivalent of "Don't try to catch this ball between your ankles". Yes, the activity is conceivably possible, but it's sufficiently counter to the way things normally work so as to make you give the other party a funny look. Now, if someone said "To make sure you don't catch this ball with your ankles, I want you to shut your eyes, spread your arms, and wear this 'hit me' sign", would you do it?. Especially if the they swear that this is the only way to ensure that you can catch the ball? It might work on toddlers or really stupid creatures with only a single HD, but anything else knows that you are lying to them, and will react accordingly.
Deathmond 08-15-06, 08:30 PM	How about, instead of asking them to 'fail a save' you use the 'this vat of acid is cool water' example and get them to believe the magic forming in the hands of this guy touching them looks exactly like a healing spell?
Ogre4Hire 08-15-06, 09:09 PM	As a DM, I'd have to say that the most a PC in this situation could receive is a free attack against a flat-footed target. Saves don't require the target to register the danger beforehand. Being surprised by a Fireball from ambush or taking a Silenced Disintigrate from an invisible enemy doesn't negate your save. It doesn't even give you a penalty on your save. As soon as something bad starts to happen, you get a save. So a charmed creature, realising that the spell being cast on it was causing it damage, would immediately get a saving throw.
Nom 08-16-06, 12:32 AM	How about, instead of asking them to 'fail a save' you use the 'this vat of acid is cool water' example and get them to believe the magic forming in the hands of this guy touching them looks exactly like a healing spell?Firstly, that's suggestion, not charm person. Secondly, you're still missing the point. All characters automatically choose to fail saves against healing spells, regardless of whether they know the spell is coming or not. The character doesn't have to do anything to achieve this, so explicitly suggesting that they do so will simply maintain the status quo. What you need to do is get them to choose to fail their save against a non-harmless spell, which is quite a bit more difficult since it is by definition harmful.
Salla 08-16-06, 12:49 AM	Firstly, that's suggestion, not charm person. Secondly, you're still missing the point. All characters automatically choose to fail saves against healing spells, regardless of whether they know the spell is coming or not. The character doesn't have to do anything to achieve this, so explicitly suggesting that they do so will simply maintain the status quo. What you need to do is get them to choose to fail their save against a non-harmless spell, which is quite a bit more difficult since it is by definition harmful. I disagree with this; I think it is assumed, for ease of play, that all characters voluntarily forego saving throws on beneficial effects because, well, what moron is going to refuse a heal or a buff? It just saves time to not have to ask 'do you accept the Cure Light?' or 'The save DC For my Bull's Strength is 15, y'know, if you care'. (Okay, I did once have a character refuse a buff, but it was a 1-on-1 honor duel thing.)
Nom 08-16-06, 02:53 AM	Problem with that model is an unconscious character. At that point, you can't know the spell is coming, but you still get a save against a non-harmless spell and no save against a harmless one.
Jerks 08-16-06, 03:46 AM	As a DM, I'd have to say that the most a PC in this situation could receive is a free attack against a flat-footed target. Saves don't require the target to register the danger beforehand. Being surprised by a Fireball from ambush or taking a Silenced Disintigrate from an invisible enemy doesn't negate your save. It doesn't even give you a penalty on your save. As soon as something bad starts to happen, you get a save. So a charmed creature, realising that the spell being cast on it was causing it damage, would immediately get a saving throw. I'm inclined to agree with Ogre here. You can bluff or charm a person all they want, but when a gout of fire comes barreling there way, plain instinctive preservation takes over and they dodge. In the disintegrate example, I'd allow the character to gain an advantage in that the target would be flat-footed against the ranged touch attack needed for the spell. However, when the victim's body starts to discorporate two things will happen. 1) The victim will try as hard as he can to not get dead (rolling the save). 2) He'll no longer consider the caster a friend.
Lich thing 08-19-06, 09:28 PM	I'll tell exactly what happened: I was a rogue/cleric. There's some others in the group and this wizard that always loved to desintegrate anyone in his way. So... we found this ogre with two other orcs. Then i cast Charm Person on the ogre and he become... er, harmless... After faillin', he become a nice guy as we smashed his friends. At the end of the combat, the ogre was a bit injuried (his dum orc friends attacked him... nice to see... XD) and he asked for heal. So, i came and "persuade" him - very close to what Kimokeo said - to accept the spell that is goin to be cast on him. Then, the wizard come and... *pouf*! Thats it. In the disintegrate example, I'd allow the character to gain an advantage in that the target would be flat-footed against the ranged touch attack needed for the spell. However, when the victim's body starts to discorporate two things will happen. I dunno. The spell doesnt "discorporate" no one until it takes effect. I think in Desintegrate like something instantaneous, not an "Aw my god! I'm desintegrating! Hey Jorge! I'll write my will so you can... *pouf*!". Got? The session stills breaked...
Nom 08-19-06, 09:48 PM	ISo... we found this ogre with two other orcs. Then i cast Charm Person on the ogre and he become... er, harmless... After faillin', he become a nice guy as we smashed his friends.There's your first problem. charm person makes him best buddies with you. He still hates your friends. He still likes his friends. And he ain't gonna stand there while your friends beat his friends to pulp; he might even consider this a "hostile action" and thus auto-break the spell. At the end of the combat, the ogre was a bit injuried ... and he asked for heal. So, i came and "persuade" him - very close to what Kimokeo said - to accept the spell that is goin to be cast on him. Then, the wizard come and... *pouf*!Do you need to decide to make a save when someone casts a healing spell on you? Well neither does an ogre. "Accepting the spell" simply means he wont try to take an AoO when you cast it on him or otherwise prevent you from doing so. Besides, this whole situation seems ridiculous. disintegrate is a level 6 spell. You don't need a level 6 spell to kill a 3 HD opponent! Heck, the thing will lose over half his total hit points on a successful save.
Dark Brandon 08-19-06, 10:05 PM	As a DM, I'd have to say that the most a PC in this situation could receive is a free attack against a flat-footed target. Saves don't require the target to register the danger beforehand. Being surprised by a Fireball from ambush or taking a Silenced Disintigrate from an invisible enemy doesn't negate your save. It doesn't even give you a penalty on your save. As soon as something bad starts to happen, you get a save. So a charmed creature, realising that the spell being cast on it was causing it damage, would immediately get a saving throw. As a DM, and all rules concidered, I think this is probably the best route to go.
Inigo Carmine 08-20-06, 01:44 AM	i cast Charm Person on the ogre and he become... er, harmless... After faillin', he become a nice guy as we smashed his friends. Failing saves aside, this right here also has two things wrong with it. 1) Charm Person won't do anything to an Ogre. Ogre are giants, not humanoids. 2) has already been pointed out by Nom...the only person he is charmed by is you, not the rest of your party.
Lich thing 08-26-06, 03:04 PM	Hehehe, sorry! It was Charm Monster!!! My miss!;) And it was no simple ogre... Ok, the charm thing (about me vs. the ogre)i got it. DM's miss. But... i dunno, i still thinks it would not work... Well, the DM made the save roll normally. The campaign continues... but with some headache! :D See ya!
Jerks 08-27-06, 01:04 AM	I dunno. The spell doesnt "discorporate" no one until it takes effect. I think in Desintegrate like something instantaneous, not an "Aw my god! I'm desintegrating! Hey Jorge! I'll write my will so you can... *pouf*!". Got? The session stills breaked... I guess I'm more viscious than you. I always picture disintegrate like a Klingon or Romulan disrupter. The victim burns away like so toilet paper before a match. Time for one last blood curdling scream before disreality reaches their throats.
Master_of_the_Arcane 08-27-06, 10:37 AM	I say just give him a -4 circumstance penalty on the fort save. Since he is trying to lower his guard when the thing hits.
wonlee76 08-27-06, 02:39 PM	I'll tell exactly what happened: I was a rogue/cleric. There's some others in the group and this wizard that always loved to desintegrate anyone in his way. So... we found this ogre with two other orcs. Then i cast Charm Person on the ogre and he become... er, harmless... After faillin', he become a nice guy as we smashed his friends. At the end of the combat, the ogre was a bit injuried (his dum orc friends attacked him... nice to see... XD) and he asked for heal. So, i came and "persuade" him - very close to what Kimokeo said - to accept the spell that is goin to be cast on him. Then, the wizard come and... *pouf*! 2 problems with this situation. #1: Ogres are giants and are immune to Charm Person. Charm Monster on the other hand is a different story. #2: Even if he's under the effects of Charm Person, he considers you a friend. Not everyone else in the group. Shoot, I would've played the ogre as trying to stop you and your buddies from attacking his orc buddies stepping in between you two and if he got hit in the process by you or your allies, a new save to break the charm person effect. You convinced him to fail a save from a spell you would cast but a different person (non-friend) came in to disintigrate him. I would've ruled that he would've taken a spell from you and failed that save but against your wizard friend, a save against that spell.
Sines 08-27-06, 04:18 PM	The way I see it, you can trick a creature into forgoing thier Reflex saves (Though depending on the spell, I might allow them to take back thier reflex save at penalty, due to a late start when they realize thats not a positive energy burst, but a fireball). Fort and Will saves are really internal. I might give a creature the ability to surrender a will save, but at that point he'd have a decent idea of whats going on, so he'd have to want whatever effect. Fort saves are a NO NO. Thats all internal, unless you play some race that has direct mental control over his body. However, that has given me a brilliant idea. Spell Resistance can be voluntarily lowered. Ineed, it has to, according to the PHB, 'A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the Resistance (A standard action) in order to be affected by a spell noted as harmless.' A note I'll never bring up to my DM if I get spell resistance ^_^, but I'll make sure to bring it up when appropriate. A healthy dose of bluff or charm means that your 'friend' will lower his resistance so that you can heal him, or buff him, or as appropriate. He still gets his save (And you can be sure as heck he'll get massive saves if you try to charm him again :p), but you went straight past his Spell Resistance. Could be fun... My next party is going to be a party where everyone has high charisma, and low strength. Completly by accident, but should make a pretty fun game ^_^
Nom 08-28-06, 09:20 AM	I guess I'm more viscious than you.I hope you're more viscous (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=viscous) than a lich. ;)