Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Rydis Mar 13, 2015 7:11:07	whats considered a "willing" creature it terms of allowing someone to cast a spell on you.   For example, Feign death. It can only be case on a willing creature you touch. However, our dm was ruling that because someone "shook" his hand willingly, that he is considered a willing creature and the spell should work.   So going off this logic..would grappling be considered willing..or any form of willing touch..regardless of known intent be considered willing in terms of casting a spell that requires one?
#2 mellored Mar 13, 2015 7:24:15	Touching does not mean willing.   But DM's are allowed to bend and break rules.  And are even encuraged to for fun and clever ideas. Though personally, i would of had given the creature a Wisdom save.
#3 Rydis Mar 13, 2015 7:32:48	Even if it goe. Against breaking what a character can do. For example..this character has the alert feat. So can never be surprised. He didn't know a spell was being casted on him. the only willing part was a handshake that was used to seal a deal they made. Now..I thought myself that it may be considered willing because he touched him.willing..but brought up the argument of what is considered willing and he felt this in no way could of actually happened to his character..he In fact built it to.avoid such scenarios. Now I'm.all for trying to come up with ways to get things to happen..but ho. Do you think it should of been handled.
#4 Noctaem Mar 13, 2015 7:49:52	mellored wrote:
#5 mellored Mar 13, 2015 8:31:09	Noctaem wrote:
#6 Bloodsausage Mar 13, 2015 9:05:10	Rydis wrote:
#7 mellored Mar 13, 2015 9:08:26	Bloodsausage wrote:
(Reply to #7) Rydis	mellored wrote:
#9 mellored Mar 13, 2015 9:24:03	Touch is not willing.   But again, with all that, i don't see an issue with the DM allowing it. Though personally i would of had a Wis saving throw.
#10 jaelis Mar 13, 2015 9:33:01	I think the default interpretation for most people would be "willing to have that spell cast on you."
#11 Macv12 Mar 13, 2015 10:11:23	This sounds much more appropriate to a warlock than a sorcerer. If your magic comes from a Lawful Evil entity that lives to create contracts and trick people into entering them, then it makes more sense that someone can be "accidentally willing" as far as the spell's wording is concerned.   Seems weird for a sorcerer though. There's no intelligent entity granting or parsing the spell, it's just the nature of the thing. It seems like there would be some reason it only affects willing creatures - like the nature of the magic can't circumvent someone's will, or isn't strong enough to do so, or only "coalesces" and has effect if the target acknowledges and accepts to it. You can't get these things to happen with a handshake. They're no more agreeing to the spell at that point than they were 10 seconds prior.
#12 Noctaem Mar 13, 2015 11:36:13	The Bad Touch
#13 Nevvur Mar 13, 2015 11:41:57	Doesn't count as willing, IMO. This is not an offensive crowd control spell.   I would allow the caster to use deception to obtain a creature's consent to cast the spell on him. For example, "I am going to heal you. This might make you feel a little woozy, just let it happen."
#14 QwertyAzerty Mar 13, 2015 12:36:52	Rydis wrote:
(Reply to #10) Coredump00	jaelis wrote:
#16 BZA Mar 13, 2015 16:28:32	The target was willing to shake hands, not willing to be affected by the spell.   If I were DM and I really wanted the spell to work, I would roll the save behind my screen and claim it failed, regardless of the actual result of the roll. I realize not all DMs do that sort of thing (or even think it's okay, though I do and if it were not way off-topic, might go on at length about why I think so).