Greater Magic Weapon: Seriously Broken?

[Inevitability]

Greater Magic Weapon is a spell with a saving throw of "Will negates (harmless, object)". These descriptors are explained as follows in the PHB:


(object)

The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature’s saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. (This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects.) A magic item’s saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + one-half the item’s caster level.


(harmless)

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


Now, beneficial spells cast on creatures can be voluntarily accepted; the game is very clear about that:


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.

But do beneficial spells cast on objects have any similar line? And if not, would that mean your +1 Flaming longsword has to roll a saving throw if you cast Greater Magic Weapon on it, by strict RAW?

[Beni-Kujaku]

I mean, it would make some sense that an inanimate magic item would not know what spell is cast on it, and its magic would automatically try to repel it.

[Duke of Urrel]

No, magic weapons generally do not make saving throw against spells that are identified as harmless.

A creature must choose to resist a harmless spell in order to make a saving throw against it; otherwise, by default, it makes no saving throw. Although the rule for spells identified as harmless does not explicitly apply to magic items, I think it is reasonable for us to assume that most magic items, being inanimate and unconscious, do not make choices. Thus, magic items do not choose to resist harmless spells and do not make saving throws against them.

An intelligent magic item, in contrast to a normal magic item, is conscious and can make choices. Thus, an intelligent magic item may choose to make a saving throw against a harmless spell.

[Morphic tide]

No, magic weapons generally do not make saving throw against spells that are identified as harmless.

A creature must choose to resist a harmless spell in order to make a saving throw against it; otherwise, by default, it makes no saving throw. Although the rule for spells identified as harmless does not explicitly apply to magic items, I think it is reasonable for us to assume that most magic items, being inanimate and unconscious, do not make choices. Thus, magic items do not choose to resist harmless spells and do not make saving throws against them.

...Do you have a citation that the rules default to not attemping a save? Because this is what I find on the SRD:


Generally, when you are subject to an unusual or magical attack, you get a saving throw to avoid or reduce the effect.

Furthermore, this is the entry on item saves, most relevant bit emphasized:

Nonmagical, unattended items never make saving throws. They are considered to have failed their saving throws, so they always are affected by spells. An item attended by a character (being grasped, touched, or worn) makes saving throws as the character (that is, using the character’s saving throw bonus).

Magic items always get saving throws. A magic item’s Fortitude, Reflex, and Will save bonuses are equal to 2 + one-half its caster level. An attended magic item either makes saving throws as its owner or uses its own saving throw bonus, whichever is better.

It seems the default is attempting a saving throw, and magic items specifically "always get" them.

Also, it's nice to stumble into more fuel for my "is literally a magic item" thought process, having "your base save is 2+1/2 CL" rolled into the magic item properties avoids needing to cover it with outsized Resistance bonus.

[Pinkie Pyro]

...Do you have a citation that the rules default to not attemping a save?


(harmless)

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

a choice has to be made specifically to attempt the saving throw, and non-intelligent magical item cannot make choices.

[Inevitability]

a choice has to be made specifically to attempt the saving throw, and non-intelligent magical item cannot make choices.

A targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires. A targeted object isn't something that sentence talks about at all: how could we use it to draw conclusions about objects?

[Duke of Urrel]

A targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires. A targeted object isn't something that sentence talks about at all: how could we use it to draw conclusions about objects?

The rules don't tell us everything. With regard to spells identified as harmless and how magic items react to them, we have no choice but to make our own judgement. The rules don't dictate what conclusion we must draw. Nonetheless, we must draw some conclusion here.

I believe we must make this judgement call: Do magic items resist spells just as creatures do, or do they resist spells more strongly than creatures do? And I make this judgement: Magic items resist spells just as creatures do. They are not more resistant to spells than creatures are (unless they are artifacts). And why should they be? After all, unattended objects that are nonmagical generally don't make saving throws at all. Being magical empowers magic items to resist magic, as nonmagical objects do not. But I judge that merely being magical does not compel magic items to resist magic any more than creatures do.

Creatures, the rules tell us, do not make saving throws against spells that are identified as harmless, unless they choose to resist them. In my judgement, magic items should react to harmless spells just as if they were creatures.

I can't force everybody to accept my judgement, but I hope I can persuade everybody that some judgement must be made here. The rules really don't tell us everything, and they omit a lot of detail just for the sake of brevity. If every rule included every detail of how to apply the rule in every possible situation, each of the D&D rulebooks would have millions of pages and would weigh a ton.

The fact is that the description of harmless spells in the Player's Handbook omits any mention of magic items. We have to choose one of two interpretations: (1) that the game designers, by omitting any mention of magic items in their description of harmless spells, intended to exclude magic items from the rule, or: (2) that they omitted mentioning magic items merely for the sake of brevity. I choose the second interpretation.

If you prefer to choose the first interpretation, I can't stop you.

[Telonius]

I think the key bit is in this quote:


The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature’s saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater.

If the object is magical (whether it's attended or not), it gets a saving throw. If the object is attended by a creature trying to resist the spell (whether the object is magical or not), it gets a saving throw.

I would say that an unattended magical item would make the saving throw. An unattended magical sword is not a creature, and voluntarily giving up saving throws is something that it specifies that "a creature" can do.

I think the only ambiguity there is whether a person wielding a magical item can decide to fail the save on behalf of the item. Now, Greater Magic Weapon is tagged with the (harmless) descriptor; and (harmless) means that it's usually beneficial but a creature can "attempt a saving throw if desired." But the target of Greater Magic Weapon is "One weapon or fifty projectiles." Those aren't creatures. Why would they put the (harmless) descriptor there? I think it would make sense that the intent is to indicate that a magic item wielder would get to choose whether to resist the spell or not.

[Seward]

Attended magic items use the save of their weilder, not their intrinsic save, so I would assume the intent of the weilder matters, and they could fail the save on behalf of their item.

An intelligent item could also probably choose to fail the save and accept the buff if it wanted to. Likewise an item that was somehow animated at the level of a mindless zombie or golem probably could have in its instruction set by creator explicitly allowing such spells to land. A default magic item that is unattended would get a save I suppose.

I've never seen this come up in a lot of GMW uses...magic weapons that are attended are common targets, as you improve, say, a +1 undead bane longsword to a +3 undead bane longsword, but the only times I've seen the spell used on unattended targets they were all mundane (my telekenetic sorcereress used the normal and chained version of this spell a LOT on things she wanted to hurl at enemies over the next few hours, and it's fairly common to group ammunition into a 50 item pile before casting which may not be attended by anyone specific). I played these charcaters in organized play ( Living Greyhawk and Pathfinder Society), so this spell was used with a LOT of GM's at various tables, and the problem never came up.

Mostly "DBAD" applies. Is it fun to have an interpretation where an attended magic weapon can not be buffed? Probably not and likely against the intent of the game authors. Is it mildly interesting flavor if it only comes up in situations a player can avoid once they learn the problem? (as with unattended magic items)? Perhaps. I'd probably enjoy having that kind of quirk come up if a GM sprung it on me, since the problem can be easily worked around and it helps the magic system seem a touch more consistent, but obviously I never missed not having it come up.

[Darg]

Something interesting to note is the wording change between 3.0 and 3.5:


An item attended by a character (being grasped, touched, or worn) receives a saving throw just as if the character herself were making the saving throw.


An item attended by a character (being grasped, touched, or worn) makes saving throws as the character (that is, using the character’s saving throw bonus).

I think the general consensus is that the rule hasn't changed. Though, that could be argued against based on whether the addition of the parenthetical is definitive or partially explanatory.

I've personally always held that attended unintelligent magical objects follow the will of the user. Other than that though, they are entitled to a saving throw.

[Telok]

The general rule is creatures makes saves. That's based on the assumption of a character with non-null stats being affected by a harmful spell. One exception is objects, specifically magic weapons here, get to makes saves if they meet criteria. The other exception is that you don't normally make saves against harmless spells unless the character makes a consious choice.

The debate then is which specific exception takes precedence. Personally I'd think the harmless spell exception is more specific and applicable than the object saves exception. But that's just me.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Generally, when you are subject to an unusual or magical attack, you get a saving throw to avoid or reduce the effect.

Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect.Emphases mine.

A harmless spell is not an attack (a category which includes harmful spells). To my knowledge, nothing actually states that the default is to save against harmless effects such as GMW. Creatures may save against a harmless effect, but that is easily parsed as an exception to the general/default rule of not saving against a harmless effect. In fact, it's more easily parsed that way. If it were the reverse, the writers should have phrased it like "creatures may forego saving against harmless effects if they so desire" or such.

Barring specific text it's technically a hole in the rules, but one that is so reasonably adjudicated that it basically never comes up due to the common assumption of how the rules should go.

[Duke of Urrel]

(object)
The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature’s saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater.

We need to parse this rule carefully. Objects make saving throws in two separate and distinct situations.

1. If an object is a magic item, it makes saving throws. It makes no difference whether a magic item is "attended [...] by a creature resisting the spell" or not. A magic item makes saving throws even if it is unattended.

2. If an object is attended by a creature who resists the spell, it "uses the creature's saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater." An object can have "its own bonus" only if it is a magic item.

As far as I can tell, the question of whether a magic item is attended or not has nothing to do with the question of whether a magic item makes its own saving throw against a spell that is identified as harmless.

We know that creatures independently resist most spells that allow saving throws, but that they do not, by default, make saving throws against spells identified as harmless. They resist these spells only if they choose to do so.

We also know that magic items, as a general rule, independently resist spells that allow saving throws (that is, they resist these spells even if they are unattended). What we do not know is whether magic items, by default (and independently of creatures attending them), react to harmless spells as creatures do, that is, by not making saving throws against them. My belief is that we must make our own judgement about this, and I recommend that we assume that magic items react to harmless spells just as creatures do.

[Darg]

We know that creatures independently resist most spells that allow saving throws, but that they do not, by default, make saving throws against spells identified as harmless. They resist these spells only if they choose to do so.

We also know that magic items, as a general rule, independently resist spells that allow saving throws (that is, they resist these spells even if they are unattended). What we do not know is whether magic items, by default (and independently of creatures attending them), react to harmless spells as creatures do, that is, by not making saving throws against them. My belief is that we must make our own judgement about this, and I recommend that we assume that magic items react to harmless spells just as creatures do.

Thanks to the quote I brought up earlier, 3.0e allows the character attending an object to decide whether the magic item drops it's guaranteed saving throw or not. Ultimately, the changed line in 3.5e doesn't necessarily change how that works. Unattended magic items always recieve a saving throw.

Most, if not all, harmless object targeting spells require touch. Ultimately that lends credence to the necessity of attending the item in question as part of using the spells. This provides the vehicle in which you don't need to roll a saving throw.

I think the evidence points most toward non magic weapons don't receive a saving throw when unattended, magic items always receive a saving throw when unattended, and all attended items receive saving throws "as the character," which happens to be a creature by the way. Otherwise it pretty much undermines the entirety of the game as has been played for two decades.