Suprise inflict wounds!

[Shademan]

So If you are wounded and the party cleric says in-character, Im going to heal you now, and the wounded character fully believes he is going to be healed but instead the cleric uses a inflict wounds spell instead. Do the character get a will save or does he notice the effects too late?

[Kaiyanwang]

I'd rule that the starting perception is pain, so the target could immediately, instinctively try to resist and so try the will save.

[Steelblood]

The way we've always played it is, if you accept a spell(inflict or whatever) you accept it, no save.

[Shademan]

how about a compromise? a reflex save to see if the character manages to act fast enough to resist?
:smalltongue:

[Ernir]

Hmm.

I'm pretty sure the decision of whether to attempt a saving throw comes after the spell has been cast. It's always "the enemy Wizard makes the gestures of a spell. Roll a will save.". And if you don't have ranks in Spellcraft, you have no way of knowing beforehand what happens if you don't make the save.

Now, the real funny thing is that the Cure spells do allow saves. So it must be assumed that every time a friendly Cleric casts a cure spell, the saving throw is forfeited.
So the interchange must be
Cleric: "This is a healing spell. Don't resist, or it won't work as well."
BSF: "OK, I will not resist."
Cleric: *Heals*
BSF: *Voluntarily fails saving throw*
Maybe the BSF trusts the Cleric really well, so he decides to never resist the Cleric's touch spells, but this is something that has to be established.


So if the Cleric chooses to betray the patient, I'd
1) Make the Cleric roll a bluff check, to hide his true intentions
2) Allow the target a spellcraft check to identify the spell in time.
and thus, the target would only not get its saving throw if it doesn't figure out the Cleric is up to something, AND it can't identify the spell, AND it had agreed beforehand to fail its next saving throw against a spell cast by the Cleric.

[Curmudgeon]

So if the Cleric chooses to betray the patient, I'd
...
2) Allow the target a spellcraft check to identify the spell in time.
How generous of you to simply follow the rules here:
Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.

[Ernir]

How generous of you to simply follow the rules here:

What can I say, I'm a peach.

[Eloel]

I don't think they need to 'agree to fail next save', they can decide when the spell hits. If they had to agree, unconcious people would get a save against healing that they could not prevent (or not get one against inflict, same can of worms)

[Dyllan]

Do you get a will save against it when your're unconscious? You don't get relfex when unconscious because you can't dodge. Can you exert your will against something when you're unaware of it (in this case, due to unconsciousness)?

[olelia]

Aiming A Spell
You must make some choice about whom the spell is to affect or where the effect is to originate, depending on the type of spell. The next entry in a spell description defines the spell’s target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate.

Target or Targets
Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.

If the target of a spell is yourself (the spell description has a line that reads Target: You), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The Saving Throw and Spell Resistance lines are omitted from such spells.

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.


Looks like no he does not.

[Ernir]

I don't think they need to 'agree to fail next save', they can decide when the spell hits.
Yup, my point is that if they don't know any spellcraft, they won't know what the spell that is about to take effect on them will do.

[pasko77]

1) Make the Cleric roll a bluff check, to hide his true intentions
2) Allow the target a spellcraft check to identify the spell in time.


This seems to me the most logical course of action.

[Dimers]

Looks like no he does not.

"Willingness" isn't the same as auto-failing/ neglecting to save; the passage quoted applies only to spells that have a note about willingness in the 'target' line of their descriptions. AFB for another two days, but I have previously found a passage that makes the difference clear.


I don't think they need to 'agree to fail next save', they can decide when the spell hits. If they had to agree, unconcious people would get a save against healing that they could not prevent (or not get one against inflict, same can of worms)

Huh. I never noticed that. Well, heck, now I have to either create a houserule, suck up the idea that spells can't be sneaky, or just hope the rest of my group never notices. :smallfrown: Of course, there's text somewhere in the book that indicates you're NOT supposed to be able to decide without Spellcraft; it was something about "the party cleric says he's going to heal you, but he actually casts Charm Person instead, too bad you said you weren't resisting you poor schmuck." The rules are fighting themselves again.

[Alex Star]

I would give a massive circumstance bonus to the check.

Spot and listen checks (DC 15 for a touch spell) for the character being inflicted to know that this healing spell looks and sounds completely different than the one the cleric has cast hundreds of times before

then a huge bonus to the spellcraft to realize it's not the same spell before deciding if they want to attempt to resist.

[Blackfang108]

So If you are wounded and the party cleric says in-character, Im going to heal you now, and the wounded character fully believes he is going to be healed but instead the cleric uses a inflict wounds spell instead. Do the character get a will save or does he notice the effects too late?

You get the will save. You're willing to let a healign spell go through, sure. but you're NOT willing to let the inflict spell go through. Also, remember that the Will save if for Half damage.

Finally: Does the Cleric have a plan for if this spell doesn't kill the target?

Because most of my characters will bring the Sky down upon this #######'s head the minute he tries this. (and even my magicless characters have at least 1 rank in spellcraft.)

[Killer Angel]

Yup, my point is that if they don't know any spellcraft, they won't know what the spell that is about to take effect on them will do.

Before the casting of the spell, there could be a contest sense motive Vs bluff.
If you haven't spellcraft, neither sense motive, you must trust the cleric...

[Ernir]

"Willingness" isn't the same as auto-failing/ neglecting to save; the passage quoted applies only to spells that have a note about willingness in the 'target' line of their descriptions. AFB for another two days, but I have previously found a passage that makes the difference clear.
Huh. Looks to me like unconscious characters need to save vs. Cure spells, then.

Does anyone know of any RAW to contradict this?

You get the will save. You're willing to let a healign spell go through, sure. but you're NOT willing to let the inflict spell go through. Also, remember that the Will save if for Half damage.
But what if you don't know enough spellcraft to tell the difference? That is, if you fail the spellcraft check to identify? :smalltongue:

Finally: Does the Cleric have a plan for if this spell doesn't kill the target?
Well, if the target was in negative HP before, only a low-level Inflict spell or a low-level caster has so much as a chance to leave the target alive.

If the victim was conscious before, I suppose there's a chance of the victim surviving.
It would still be seriously wounded, and standing (or worse, sitting or lying down) within arm's reach of a Cleric. :smallamused:

[Sliver]

If it's a character that doesn't suspect the cleric:

Passive Sense Motive vs Bluff.

If success:

Active Spellcraft and he can decide if he wants to forfeit the save or not even if he fails the spellcraft.

If Sense Motive failed:


Passive Spellcraft. If the passive Spellcraft failed, he doesn't suspect anything, forfeits the save automatically.

The spell effects you after you save (or fail to), without a "you feel you are going to get buffed, want to save?" or "you feel it is a hostile spell, want to save?" just a "it's a spell, want to save?" (that asked only when specific conditions are met)

[Blackfang108]

Huh. Looks to me like unconscious characters need to save vs. Cure spells, then.

Does anyone know of any RAW to contradict this?

But what if you don't know enough spellcraft to tell the difference? That is, if you fail the spellcraft check to identify? :smalltongue:

Well, if the target was in negative HP before, only a low-level Inflict spell or a low-level caster has so much as a chance to leave the target alive.

If the victim was conscious before, I suppose there's a chance of the victim surviving.
It would still be seriously wounded, and standing (or worse, sitting or lying down) within arm's reach of a Cleric. :smallamused:

Unconcious creatures are automatically willing, per RAW. Ergo, no.

And just because he's a Cleric doesn't mean he's able to kill me when I know he's coming.

[Evard]

Well if they say "do it" they are willing to take the spell what happens is...

1) Cleric touches person (reflex and AC )
2) spell goes into person (this is where resistances and will defense comes in)
3) Spell effects (this would be when the person realizes they are in more pain)

therefore by the time the person finds out... its to late

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Huh. Looks to me like unconscious characters need to save vs. Cure spells, then.

Does anyone know of any RAW to contradict this?
The block on voluntarily giving up saves does not indicate one must be conscious to do so. Saves tend to be a little on the Meta side as it is: Hence a bound rogue with improved evasion still being able to take no damage from that fireball. So one doesn’t necessarily have to make an in-character choice about making a save.

Further, cure <x> wounds are listed as (harmless) spells, which effectively reverses the usual mechanic. You automatically give up the save unless you choose otherwise.

Personallyf, I tend to treat harmless spells as “feeling” different from non-harmless spells. So on the occasion the decision of whether to save is being made in-character, the character will know if the spell is harmless or not, even if the character doesn’t know what the effect is yet. So the victim of a treacherous cleric would get a save because the moment the inflict spell is cast, the character would feel that it’s harmful and try to resist before it can do full damage.


Unconcious creatures are automatically willing, per RAW. Ergo, no.
Cure Light Wounds does not require a willing target. Otherwise it would be useless against Undead, who would almost never be willing.

As outlined above, Willingness is not the same as voluntarily giving up a save.


Well if they say "do it" they are willing to take the spell what happens is...

1) Cleric touches person (reflex and AC )
2) spell goes into person (this is where resistances and will defense comes in)
3) Spell effects (this would be when the person realizes they are in more pain)

therefore by the time the person finds out... its to late
While this can certainly be considered correct by the order which things happen in game/Out-of-Character, I feel my approach is better from an In-character viewpoint. After all, if one didn’t feel any effects until the spell was fully resolved, spellcasters could deny a saving throw by casting spells on unaware targets (improved invisibility plus Silent Spell for the win). So, from an in-character point, one can clearly tell they are the target of a harmful spell before they make their save but before any effects are applied.

[Riffington]

Cure Light Wounds does not require a "willing" target. It is, however, harmless. Cause Light Wounds does not require a "willing" target either. It is, however, not harmless.

This means:
If you are targeted by a spell, you get a choice to save or not. The "default" is to save for all spells except harmless ones. The default matters only because you must want to save to get a save vs a harmless spell. That means you must be aware of the harmless spell to get a save vs it.

Therefore:
Unconscious or sensory-deprived characters get no save vs Cure Light Wounds because they are not aware of it and that's the "default"; they do get a save vs Cause Light Wounds because they are not aware of it and that's the "default".

Characters who are aware a spell is being cast get to decide based on context clues, not "absolute knowlege of spell cast". So "Hey let me cure you" works just fine if they buy it.

Now as to what's rolled:
*When someone tries to bluff you, you don't get two separate rolls to beat their bluff. Bluff is the art of making you see what you want to see. It's straight-up Bluff vs Sense Motive by RAW; a successful bluff causes your spellcraft roll (whether successful or unsuccessful) to come up with the result the caster wants it to come up with.

*However, I would be a bit nicer than this, personally, and let the target roll the higher of [Sense Motive or Spellcraft] vs the caster's Bluff. That makes sense given that feinting can be opposed by BAB if that's higher than Sense Motive.

[deuxhero]

You are both party memebers? The player get's hit with a DMG for being stupid evil.

[Shademan]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/curelightwounds.htm cure wounds require a will save

[Riffington]

You are both party memebers? The player get's hit with a DMG for being stupid evil.

He didn't say they were both PCs.

[Shademan]

You are both party memebers? The player get's hit with a DMG for being stupid evil.

there is no game. we are talking purely rulewise here ;P

Tho' if it was ingame he's get a free velocity DMG, yes.

unless it was a evil every-man-for-himself game


also: he could be a npc betraying the party

"Jozan, you mook! how could you!"
"CATNIP FOR THE CATGOD!"
"GASP! you were a heretic all along! stabbify him!"

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Characters who are aware a spell is being cast get to decide based on context clues, not "absolute knowlege of spell cast".
If they have absolute knowledge of the spell and absolutely recognize the spell being cast, why not?

[/quote]*When someone tries to bluff you, you don't get two separate rolls to beat their bluff. Bluff is the art of making you see what you want to see. It's straight-up Bluff vs Sense Motive by RAW; a successful bluff causes your spellcraft roll (whether successful or unsuccessful) to come up with the result the caster wants it to come up with.[/QUOTE]
That’s like saying just because someone Bluffs you that they don’t have a friend hiding in the shadows you don’t get your normal passive Spot check against that freind’s Hide. The Spellcraft check isn’t to see through the Bluff. It’s to recognize the spell that is being cast. It is a completely different exchange. A high Bluff score does not change the specific components needed to cast a spell—the components by which a spell is recognized with the Spellcraft check—any more than a high Bluff score prevents your friend in the shadows from poking his head out at the wrong time.

Aren’t there a number of feats and special class abilities aimed at disguising the nature of the spells you cast and making them harder to recognize? Doesn’t folding such an ability into a regular use of Bluff make those abilities useless?


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/curelightwounds.htm cure wounds require a will save
A “(harmless)” Will save. Different from inflict’s not-so-harmless save.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Many of those feats and special class abilities were already folded into Sleight of Hand by Rules Compendium.

[Shademan]

A “(harmless)” Will save. Different from inflict’s not-so-harmless save.

if you're undead it is not harmless. and vice versa with inflict

[Riffington]

If they have absolute knowledge of the spell and absolutely recognize the spell being cast, why not?
You see what you expect to see.
Same reason a Disguise check doesn't get opposed by a Spot, a Listen, a Sense Motive, and a Knowlege (Local). You get one.




That’s like saying just because someone Bluffs you that they don’t have a friend hiding in the shadows you don’t get your normal passive Spot check against that freind’s Hide.
A better analogy would be "that's like saying just because someone Bluffs you that a mutual friend is hiding in the shadows you don't get a Spot check to see that said "friend" is in fact a different person entirely". Which you don't.


Aren’t there a number of feats and special class abilities aimed at disguising the nature of the spells you cast and making them harder to recognize?
Yes. Unfortunately.



Doesn’t folding such an ability into a regular use of Bluff make those abilities useless?
I wish. Unfortunately, you need those abilities to hide the spell from *everyone who sees*. A mere bluff check fools only one target. And takes a round (or an action in combat). So you'd have to take an action telling the person you're going to heal him, then heal him. Those feats are useful if you want to fool multiple people or do it quicker.

[Subotei]

This is really just initiation of a surprise combat - no difference. So if we allow this approach then logically we would have to remove saves during all surprise rounds - which is silly. You get a will save when you need to resist a spell whenever it occurs. The only case when you wouldn't is if you're unconscious. Why make it any more complicated?

[Riffington]

This is really just initiation of a surprise combat - no difference. So if we allow this approach then logically we would have to remove saves during all surprise rounds - which is silly. You get a will save when you need to resist a spell whenever it occurs. The only case when you wouldn't is if you're unconscious. Why make it any more complicated?

Normally you walk around with your saves up. This guy lowered his.

[Sliver]

Lets say you are a blackguard. You wear full plate but have hide, and someone needs to infiltrate a place but it could get risky, and you have to remain silent. A cleric comes to you "I will cast Silence on you" and you fail the spellcraft check to recognize that Silence is a ranged spell and he touches you. You get a will save straight away, and know it's not a harmless effect, but was pretty clear that Silence isn't totally harmless..

Now the target knows it isn't harmless and targets a will save.. So it is a beneficial spell that the target doesn't suspect it to not be such..

Also:
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a
targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.

I don't know, how do you get from that description that a harmless spell pings a "I'm harmless! Don't save against me!" note in the target's mind?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

You see what you expect to see.
Saying “You see what you expect to see” only works in areas of extreme ambiguity. Scenario: my friend convinced me he was going to play a game of basketball. However, when I go out to join him, I found him playing baseball. Basketball and Baseball are two unamigusly different sports. Does the fact that I expected to see basketball mean I think he’s actually playing that game as he hits the little white ball and runs around the bases?

Similarly, if I have enough ranks in Spellcraft I can tell the difference between a cure light wounds and inflict light wounds very clearly. Does the fact my friend said he was casting one spell just before he cast a spell which I know to be another change that?


Same reason a Disguise check doesn't get opposed by a Spot, a Listen, a Sense Motive, and a Knowlege (Local). You get one.
You get one chance to oppose one roll from the disguised individual. That it is a Spot check is because the rules specify that as the specific type of check to see through a disguise. Just as the rules specify one uses Spellcraft to recognize a spell.

Unlike a one-off disguise, there are two actions here. Two separate times to fail. First is the bluff check. A check to which you probably get a bonus because the victim wants to believe you. With this action you convince your friend you will a cast particular spell. Second, there is the actual casting of the spell. Unless you have an ability to disguise your spell, whether or not your “friend” recognizes the spell is based on a Spellcraft check. Them’s the rules.

I’ll also point in regards to your disguise example that a disguise meant to last over an extended period may require multiple rolls. Each day you get up and have to apply the disguise again as well as get back into character. You don’t get automatic successes just because you fooled your opponent once.


A better analogy would be "that's like saying just because someone Bluffs you that a mutual friend is hiding in the shadows you don't get a Spot check to see that said "friend" is in fact a different person entirely". Which you don't.
If you make out the “friend” with a Spot check versus the Hide, yes you do. You still get a roll to oppose the “friend’s” Disguise check.

“Hey! Who’s that in the shadows behind you?”

“Who? That? That’s just our good friend, Bob.”

“No, it’s not! It’s just some guy with a crappy fake nose and a hat like the one Bob wears.”

“No, it’s Bob.”

“Bob doesn’t have a goatee.”

“He just grew it.”

“I just saw Bob two hours ago. That’s not enough time to grow a goatee.”


I mean, really, if that works, why take the Disguise skill at all when you can get a friend just to Bluff you through everything?


This is really just initiation of a surprise combat - no difference. So if we allow this approach then logically we would have to remove saves during all surprise rounds - which is silly. You get a will save when you need to resist a spell whenever it occurs. The only case when you wouldn't is if you're unconscious. Why make it any more complicated?
You still get saves when you’re unconcious.


if you're undead it is not harmless. and vice versa with inflict
Harmless in this case, is not a matter of perspective, but a rule-specfic classification of spell’s save type (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/soveliorsage/magicOverview.html#harmless)

Cure spells are still have a save entry of (harmless) when cast upon undead. And like any other target, they may choose to save against it if they wish. Similarly, they may choose to voluntarily forgo a save against an inflict spell if they so choose.


Normally you walk around with your saves up. This guy lowered his.
Unlike spell resistance, voluntarily failing a save doesn’t require an action and doesn’t last longer it would normally take to make the save. When it comes to saves, you can “lower your defenses” faster than you can think.

In any case, that doesn’t matter. As pointed out above, you don’t “lower your defenses” for cure spells. You take no save by default. Against a harmless spell, you specifically “raise” your defenses, which would be a different type of defense from the one you lower when you voluntarily fail against a non-harmless spell.

Think of it this way. Your character is a house. The attack spell is an intruder that always tries to surprise you by crashing through your windows. Meanwhile the harmless spells are friends that always come through your door—a door you always leave open because the intruder always comes through the windows, and you want your friends to drop by at any time. If you want the intruder for any reason, you do nothing to the door; you just open a window. If you want to keep your friend out for any reason, you do nothing to the windows; you just close the door. Two different mechanisms for two different classes of visitor.

[Shademan]

but if the guy THINK it is a cure spell... and it isnt?

[Kantolin]

Personally, if I was the dying fighter, and my cleric buddy for the past several years or at least adventures jogged over to me and casted a spell on me (assuming no ranks in spellcraft), and it turned out to be an inflict, it'd absolutely work on me.

Now, from that moment onwards, I wouldn't let that guy anywhere near me, as a mild statement, unless there was mind-control involved somewhere. But really, if my buddy the cleric who is a terrible liar is charmed and says, "Hey, buddy... I'm gonna heal ya now *Wink*", I still probably wouldn't think twice about it and thus would automatically fail my save against it.

[deuxhero]

He didn't say they were both PCs.

"If you are wounded and the party cleric says in-character"

What are "you" if not a party member.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

but if the guy THINK it is a cure spell... and it isnt?
Well, if it isn’t and it is non-harmless, then it will be trying to come through the window, because intruders always come through the window.


"If you are wounded and the party cleric says in-character"

What are "you" if not a party member.
Parties include henchmen, hirelings, and the occasional NPC tagging along for some absurd reason or another. And, of course, sometimes the party cleric gets replaced by an impostor. Oftentimes, the DM lets the player of the replaced PC play the still-technically-an-NPC impostor in order to better carry out the ruse.

[Shademan]

"If you are wounded and the party cleric says in-character"

What are "you" if not a party member.

he can be a minion?
8P

the point isnt if he's in the group or not but how it works out

[Sliver]

Well, if it isn’t and it is non-harmless, then it will be trying to come through the window, because intruders always come through the window.

Could you refer me to the place it tells you that you know you are targeted by a harmless spell or not?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Could you refer me to the place it tells you that you know you are targeted by a harmless spell or not?
At the point you are choosing whether to make a save rather than choosing whether to forgo a save.

[Sliver]

And now the page where it says that, please. I really do want to read that myself ya know..

As far as I know, there is no RAW difference..


The terms “object” and “harmless” mean the same thing for spell
resistance as they do for saving throws. A creature with spell
resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action)
in order to be affected by a spell noted as harmless. In such a case,
you do not need to make the caster level check described above.

[Noble Savant]

And now the page where it says that, please. I really do want to read that myself ya know..

As far as I know, there is no RAW difference..



The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.

If it desires. In other words, you need to want a saving throw, to actively desire it. This means that the default is no save. A will save against a harmful spell is an instinctive reaction, your mind tries to repel the harm that is attacking you.

There is already a benefit to "sneak inflicting". You don't need to make the touch attack, you get hit because you're letting him touch you. It doesn't mean you don't try to repel the spell when you feel a hostile influence trying to eat your brain or whatever it is the the inflict line does.

[Sliver]

And I see that the target feels a hostile force only on a successful saving throw, and no mention about actually knowing anything about the nature of the spell before that. It doesn't say anything about knowing what happens on the "Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw" and there isn't much to go either way.. Eventually, it is a vague thing that ends up a DM's call.. I remain unconvinced..

[Shhalahr Windrider]

And now the page where it says that, please. I really do want to read that myself ya know..
The distinction is not explicit, but here’s my reasoning.


(harmless): (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/soveliorsage/magicOverview.html#harmless) The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a
targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.
The creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires. For a (harmless) spell, you normally don’t make a save. But you can choose to do so.

For other spells, you normally make a save. But you can choose not to do so. (oluntarily-giving-up-a-saving-throw)

They’re both choices between A and B, but one defaults to A while the other defaults to B. If this distinction isn’t there, then the classification of (harmless) is completely redundant.

At some point, either in-character or out of character, you will be used to usually receiving A. But on the occasion you receive B, there’s got to be something to let you know that A is an option.

I’ve been looking for an example where it has to work this way for some spells and powers to be practical. This example was from an actual game. It involved a Will (harmless) long-range telepathy power. If you didn’t get some sense that it was harmless, you’d always be blocking out your friend, because you’d just feel the power, expect an attack, and roll your Will save.

Unfortunately, I can’t seem to find the power l that would have caused the scenario to play out with the example. It’s possible that the SRD had been updated with new errata that made it “Save: None” at some point since I ran that.

Anyway, if you can find any long-range (harmless) spell where the subject wouldn’t know where the spell was coming from, the same principle will apply. If you feel the chance to make the save but can’t tell that it defaults to know save, you’ll probably assume it’s an attack rather than a benefit and try and roll it off every time. That is, of course, assuming one exists.


And I see that the target feels a hostile force only on a successful saving throw, and no mention about actually knowing anything about the nature of the spell before that.
You always know when you make a save. You can always choose to forgo a save. So you feel something at the point you are making the roll, not just after.

Whether or not you feel if it’s hostile or harmless depends on how transparent you find the difference between “Choose A your you get B,” and “Choose B or you get A.”

Keep in mind, also, my earlier point about certain aspects of saving throws being pure OOC meta-constructs. Does the Character really have to be aware of that distinction for it to make a difference, or is it sufficient the player is?

[Blackfang108]

And I see that the target feels a hostile force only on a successful saving throw, and no mention about actually knowing anything about the nature of the spell before that. It doesn't say anything about knowing what happens on the "Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw" and there isn't much to go either way.. Eventually, it is a vague thing that ends up a DM's call.. I remain unconvinced..

The default for a spell without (harmless) is automatic save. you must choose to forgo the save.

The default on a spell with the (harmless) descriptor is no save. You must choose to make the save.

If you're expecting a C[whatever]W spell, you're not choosing to forgo a save, you're choosing to let the caster touch you. You still get a save against a spell without the (harmless) descriptor(or whatever we're calling it).

Reason: you are not choosing to modify the Save critera away from normal for the spell being cast. As such, the normal default for the spell actually being cast is what applies.

Edit: fixing.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

The default for a spell without (harmless) is automatic save. you must choose to make the save.

The default on a spell with the (harmless) descriptor is no save. You must choose to forgo the save.
I think you have that turned around.

[KurtKatze]

This is really a nice one ^^

I first thought that you should get the save because for me the nature of every saving throw would be a reflex of the mind or body to prevent something harmfull to happen.

But if that was true you really would have to say "yes, i accept the spell" for everything the party buffer casts on you.

If we make this the premise, there will soon be an agreement, that for every known beneficial spell the save failing will be auto-agreed to, to save time.

In that case I'd say, go with the spellcraft solution. No bluff necessary as you have come to terms with your cleric that when he aproaches and touches you after you were wounded he is going to heal. If you can tell the inflict wounds from the cure you get your save but when the "silent agreement" is in order you won't because not saying "no i won't fail my save" is the same meaning like "yes i will fail my save".

Of course after this has happened once or twice the players may want to change the silent agreement thingy into "saying nothing means i won't fail my save".

But this really would have to be made clear beforehand.

[Blackfang108]

I think you have that turned around.

Nevermind. Darnit. Fixing it now.

[Riffington]

Saying “You see what you expect to see” only works in areas of extreme ambiguity. Scenario: my friend convinced me he was going to play a game of basketball. However, when I go out to join him, I found him playing baseball. Basketball and Baseball are two unamigusly different sports. Does the fact that I expected to see basketball mean I think he’s actually playing that game as he hits the little white ball and runs around the bases?

This is, again, a bad analogy. A whole game of basketball is super obvious.
DC is sub-zero. This is a good analogy to believing a guy is swinging a sword when in fact he's casting a spell.
The difference between one spell and another is a much more subtle difference: say, DC 15+spell level. So the better analogy is handing someone four pennies and telling them you gave them four cents, but secretly one of them is a Canadian penny. They don't get a separate Spot and Sense Motive check. Pick one.



Similarly, if I have enough ranks in Spellcraft I can tell the difference between a cure light wounds and inflict light wounds very clearly.
Just like if I have enough ranks in Sense Motive, I can tell the difference between a Truth and a Lie very clearly. Unless, in either case, the caster has a decent Bluff.
(note that he gets +5 up on me, because casting a Cure is something I want to be true).


Unlike a one-off disguise, there are two actions here.
A disguise has three actions. Talking, walking, and projecting. You still only get one roll. That's how Bluff works: you believe what's being said. You don't get a separate Lore to tell if the "fact" is false.



I’ll also point in regards to your disguise example that a disguise meant to last over an extended period may require multiple rolls. Each day you get up and have to apply the disguise again as well as get back into character. You don’t get automatic successes just because you fooled your opponent once.

You get automatic successes for an entire *day*.
And you want to give the guy an extra roll over a couple seconds??



I mean, really, if that works, why take the Disguise skill at all when you can get a friend just to Bluff you through everything?
Bluff has one target. Disguise doesn't.



You still get saves when you’re unconcious.

Agreed.




Harmless in this case, is not a matter of perspective
Agreed. However, you still have to decide whether to save. And if you think it's harmless you typically decide not to.


As pointed out above, you don’t “lower your defenses” for cure spells. You take no save by default.
You say this, but the rules don't agree with you.


The attack spell is an intruder that always tries to surprise you by crashing through your windows. Meanwhile the harmless spells are friends that always come through your door
There's really nothing in the rules to support this. Nor does it make any sense.


Nowhere does it say you can "take default" or even "know the default". If you have a choice, you have to make that choice. If you believe the choice to be obvious (guy healing me), then you will make the obvious choice.

Note that this was how it's worked since 2e, and it worked well then and it works well now. The only thing that's changed is that Bluff now has to be rolled; before that was done in character.

[Blackfang108]

You say this, but the rules don't agree with you.




From earlier in the thread: Windrider provided a link, even.

The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a
targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.

This implies that the default saving position for a (harmless) spell is no save, and the save is only made if the creature chooses to save. It also implies that this is different from spells without the (harmless) descriptor.

[Riffington]

From earlier in the thread: Windrider provided a link, even.


This implies that the default saving position for a (harmless) spell is no save, and the save is only made if the creature chooses to save. It also implies that this is different from spells without the (harmless) descriptor.

This doesn't prove what you think it proves. It doesn't give you the right to say "I do the default". You get a choice with that spell, just like with every other spell: you can save if you want, or not save if you want. The difference comes up with people who don't have a choice (such as unconscious people).

[Blackfang108]

This doesn't prove what you think it proves. It doesn't give you the right to say "I do the default". You get a choice with that spell, just like with every other spell: you can save if you want, or not save if you want. The difference comes up with people who don't have a choice (such as unconscious people).

um...

NO. YOU'RE MISREADING WHAT I'M SAYING.

I've run out of different ways to say it, or I'd include another way.

[Otodetu]

Think of it this way. Your character is a house. The attack spell is an intruder that always tries to surprise you by crashing through your windows. Meanwhile the harmless spells are friends that always come through your door—a door you always leave open because the intruder always comes through the windows, and you want your friends to drop by at any time. If you want the intruder for any reason, you do nothing to the door; you just open a window. If you want to keep your friend out for any reason, you do nothing to the windows; you just close the door. Two different mechanisms for two different classes of visitor.

I have to say this is the way is see it too.

[Subotei]

Normally you walk around with your saves up. This guy lowered his.

What type of action is a save?? Its not - you just get it any time you want. As soon as you feel yourself under attack just reach for the dice. Same difference. Saying you need to know what type of spell it is etc is illogical.

If you want just tell the DM 1st day at level 1 you always keep a save in place for spells that are attempting harm.

[Riffington]

What type of action is a save?? Its not - you just get it any time you want.
Yeah. And you didn't want it.



As soon as you feel yourself under attack just reach for the dice. Same difference.
Agreed. But you didn't feel yourself under attack. You felt you were about to receive a Cure.



If you want just tell the DM 1st day at level 1 you always keep a save in place for spells that are attempting harm.
That's fine. But you don't magically know which spells are attempting harm.

[Subotei]

Yeah. And you didn't want it.

And then I decided I did. Which I can do at any time.


Thats enough of that. Enjoy the discussion.

[Foryn Gilnith]

I think that this conversation has made it blatantly obvious that the answer to the OP's question is "ask the DM".

[Shademan]

I am the dm...

[Bibliomancer]

I am the dm...

Well, what did you say at the time? Or is this something that hasn't happened yet but will soon?

[Shademan]

nah, I just thought beter safe than sorry

[Iethloc]

Agreed. But you didn't feel yourself under attack. You felt you were about to receive a Cure.

If a healer tells you he's going to cure your wounds, but instead stabs you, are you going to assume it's a healing shiv? That's about how badly most Inflict X Wounds spells hurt (if not more).

[Riffington]

If a healer tells you he's going to cure your wounds, but instead stabs you, are you going to assume it's a healing shiv? That's about how badly most Inflict X Wounds spells hurt (if not more).

Yeah, I certainly agree that you'll notice your mistake. Too late, though. That "healing" shiv will get all the sneak attack dice that flatfootedness can grant.

[Harperfan7]

Haven't read any earlier posts, so I'm just replying to the original thread post.

A. The cleric is lying, so sense motive checks and all (though the cleric probably gets that +5 bonus for the target wanting to believe him). If the target thinks the cleric is a friend, it would be smartest for the cleric to just cast the spell and not say "I'm going to heal you".

B. He is casting a spell, so if the target has spellcraft, he may identify it.
B2. If he does, roll initiative

C. The cleric can get sneak attack with this, if he has it.

That's it.

[Sophismata]

1. Cure Light Wounds does not allow a saving throw unless you are undead, so it's a poor example of 'stealth betrayal'. There is no save to forfeit or fail. (For the OP - replacing Cure with Inflict won't work - the target gets his save.)

Conversely, Inflict Wounds is never a 'harmless' spell, so even undead must specifically choose to forfeit or fail their save - see below.

Wow, this really screws over mindless undead. Shame on you, Wizards, with your bigotry against the forgotten brainless.

2. Unconscious targets are automatically willing means that they are considered 'willing targets' for spells that require such (as seen in their target line) - it doesn't mean that they don't get a Will save.

3. There are two saving throw states, harmless and not harmless. You default to no save against a harmless spell (but may choose to take one anyway), and you default to saving against non-harmless spells (but may choose to fail/forfeit that save). As it pertains to the unconscious / trickery thing, I would argue unconscious characters cannot make that choice, but conscious characters could be tricked into making the wrong choice. (Eg, with Silence vs Hold Person).

[Iethloc]

Yeah, I certainly agree that you'll notice your mistake. Too late, though. That "healing" shiv will get all the sneak attack dice that flatfootedness can grant.

If this cleric has been healing the party for a while, then the recipient of the spell would probably have seen him cast Cure X Wounds many times. But when it's Inflict X Wounds instead, a spell that's literally the opposite of a Cure spell, it would most likely have DIFFERENT vocal and somatic components, just like you'd see the healer drawing a shiv instead of bandages. You don't necessarily know what it is, but it WILL be obvious it's unusual. Unless it's Silenced and Stilled, but since it's worse than useless to add Spell levels to a Cure spell their absence will make it more obvious.