Lover of Nature vs Spider Climb spell

[graeylin]

I have a question. My PC has the lover of nature flaw.

[lover of nature]You do not wish harm upon any natural creature. You must succeed at a DC 12 Will save before you can attack any creature with the animal, plant, or vermin type, or you lose your action. Note that animals, plants, and vermin may attack you without penalty.

Spider climb, as the spell, has the following description:
[spider climb]Material Component: A drop of bitumen and a live spider, both of which must be eaten by the subject.

So... Can I actually cast this spell? Do I need a make a dc 12 will save to do so every time? Is eating a spider alive an attack?

[geekintheground]

an attack is something that requires an attack role, so in the case of spider climb no you dont need the will save (99.99% sure)

[veti]

"Eating a live spider" may not legalistically qualify as an attack, but it's definitely harming it. I think it would be in character for you to refuse to have the spell in your spellbook at all.

Or you could research your own version of it, which doesn't require the live spider.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Technically yes, but you'd have to be one pedantic hardnosed DM to give a player a hard time over that. :p If it was brought to my attention, I'd just change the component to be a dead spider, or the husk of one (some spider species do molt, at least).

[VoxRationis]

Need I even mention Eschew Materials?

[(Un)Inspired]

I would actually force the saving throw. I don't think there's any rules precedent for it but Lover if Nature is a pretty easy peasy flaw to deal with.

You're very slightly limiting (it's dc 12 will) a single spell for a full caster in a highly flavorful way.

[SiuiS]

Technically yes, but you'd have to be one pedantic hardnosed DM to give a player a hard time over that. :p If it was brought to my attention, I'd just change the component to be a dead spider, or the husk of one (some spider species do molt, at least).

Conversely, the character took a flaw. You'd have to be a huge softy to not actually penalize that.

Consider that avoiding the save is easy for a wizard; he's high enough level for spider climb, that's a failure on a 5 or less on the die. He can take a feat (or use an action point) to ignore the need for the spider. He can take a feat to craft his components into rune tags instead and never worry about it. There are wYs to get around the flaw, but until then you should always play a flaw as a flaw.


I personally change them in my games. Every flaw has a trigger, once per session either the DM or another player can 'trigger' it when it would be dramatically appropriate. We've had star-crossed, triggered by a player who decided the PC should be smitten with the BBEG. We've had socially awkward, triggered by the DM which shut down the party face when the negotiator brought up embarrassing childhood secrets. We've had one that involves a frankensteinian ignorance of morality, triggered when the party necromancer had to listen to the villain monologue about the sanctity of life and the slippery slope of playing with souls (both villain and necromanced were Lawful, villain was a paladin). We've had murky eyes and shaky taken with the rheum and laid low, missing the vital shot that would have felled the end-game boss as it fled. Those are all cooler than "I'm not gonna rol because of my -6."

My most recent game I just handed out two feats and said I would occasionally screw party members over based on their personality and backstory, when it was appropriate to the story. A much simpler system in my opinion.

[SiuiS]

I would actually force the saving throw. I don't think there's any rules precedent for it but Lover if Nature is a pretty easy peasy flaw to deal with.

You're very slightly limiting (it's dc 12 will) a single spell for a full caster in a highly flavorful way.

Vow of nonviolence lets you lose your feat forever if there is an ant in your cup when you drink water.

[Dr.Gara]

Vow of nonviolence lets you lose your feat forever if there is an ant in your cup when you drink water.

No, you wouldn't. "To fulfill your vow, you must not cause harm or suffering to humanoid or monstrous humanoid foes."

Ants are neither humanoid, or foes for that matter. Thus, you can kill them with complete impunity.

[Piedmon_Sama]

TBH I don't even like flaws and have since started just giving bonus feats to my players. The problem with flaws is you've essentially got two types: passive flaws like a permanent penalty to a save or skill, and situational flaws like this one. With the situational flaws you get stuff like a fighter who never fights with anything but her signature greatsword taking Pride of Arms, or stuff that comes up so rarely I'll never remember it when it should apply, which isn't fair to the guy who took a permanent and constant penalty. So yeah in reality I would never have bothered with the flaw to begin with.

[Valtu]

Technically yes, but you'd have to be one pedantic hardnosed DM to give a player a hard time over that. :p If it was brought to my attention, I'd just change the component to be a dead spider, or the husk of one (some spider species do molt, at least).

That's what I'd do. The material components in a lot of spells seem fairly arbitrary, and especially in this case I doubt it'd really change anything to make it a spider's discarded exoskeleton, a bit of spiderweb, etc.

I'd hope that was an option, rather than making the player waste a valuable feat slot on Eschew Materials if they otherwise weren't going to get it.

[graeylin]

Feats aren't all that hard, I can eventually get eschew material components, if I chose. We are in an E6 game, so there's eventually plenty of feats available, just a matter of deciding to choose that one over some other.