PDA

View Full Version : Prestidigitation saving throw?



Curmudgeon
2008-02-03, 10:46 AM
I'm confused about the saving throw for Prestidigitation:
Prestidigitation

Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 10 ft.
Target, Effect, or Area: See text
Duration: 1 hour
Saving Throw: See text
Spell Resistance: No

Prestidigitations are minor tricks that novice spellcasters use for practice. Once cast, a prestidigitation spell enables you to perform simple magical effects for 1 hour. The effects are minor and have severe limitations. A prestidigitation can slowly lift 1 pound of material. It can color, clean, or soil items in a 1-foot cube each round. It can chill, warm, or flavor 1 pound of nonliving material. It cannot deal damage or affect the concentration of spellcasters. Prestidigitation can create small objects, but they look crude and artificial. The materials created by a prestidigitation spell are extremely fragile, and they cannot be used as tools, weapons, or spell components. Finally, a prestidigitation lacks the power to duplicate any other spell effects. Any actual change to an object (beyond just moving, cleaning, or soiling it) persists only 1 hour. I don't see anything in the text that would explain the saving throw.

Here's the scenario: a group of adventurers enters a fancy inn. They've obviously got the money to pay, but their boots are covered with mud and maybe bits of goblinoid intestines. :smallyuk: So they're shown to a table, and a staff member attempts to unobtrusively clean them up with Prestidigitation. As attended objects I'd expect the boots would get a saving throw -- but is that right? Since the duration is 1 hour we can presume the spell was cast previously, before the party entered the inn.

UserClone
2008-02-03, 10:58 AM
In that case, it probably doesn't matter, as it's a harmless effect. Use your discretion on this one. I would call it Reflex negates (harmless) in that case, as you would be quickly sliding your feet away.

Curmudgeon
2008-02-03, 11:24 AM
I don't think Prestidigitation merits a (harmless) tag. It's a weak spell, certainly, but it can be used for mischief -- such as making someone's expensive dinner taste like jalapeño peppers. :smallmad:

In any case, it seems likely that the type of saving throw used could vary. While a Reflex save might make sense here, for the altered taste scenario a Fortitude save is clearly better.

I still don't understand how "see text" is supposed to explain things.

Theli
2008-02-03, 11:32 AM
Well, the question is who or what does the spell actually affect?

It seems to more or less only affect the caster. It's YOU who suddenly gains the ability to perform "simple magical effects". The capability of those effects are defined to some extent later in the text. But it doesn't seem like there's anything to state that this capability functions like any other spell. So I don't think you can assume that stuff like this even gets a saving throw.


Besides all this, I don't think there's any reason why even attended objects couldn't intentionally fail a saving throw if the person attending them choosing not to make one. (Does this particular adventurer just like grimy boots or what?)


So I'd either personally not worry about it, or just assume that the "spell effects" provided by this spell don't have an implicit saving throw. (Not even a (harmless) one.)

bugsysservant
2008-02-03, 11:47 AM
Yeah, I've actually always wondered about that. Mostly because I've always been tempted to clean the poison off an enemy's blade with it. "Oh, did that poison cost more than this sword? My bad."

Curmudgeon
2008-02-03, 11:49 AM
Besides all this, I don't think there's any reason why even attended objects couldn't intentionally fail a saving throw if the person attending them choosing not to make one. (Does this particular adventurer just like grimy boots or what?) You must have missed this:
a staff member attempts to unobtrusively clean them up There would be no way for this adventurer to know what the spell is, or what they'd be making the saving throw for, until after the fact.
Spellcraft

DC = 25 + spell level: After rolling a saving throw against a spell targeted on you, determine what that spell was.
Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw

A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. The adventurer could forego the save -- but would then never know exactly what spell they allowed to affect them or their possessions, since they didn't actually roll the saving thow. Or they could make the saving throw, and afterward have a chance to identify what they were saving against.

Kinda screwy the way the rules work, I think.

Theli
2008-02-03, 11:49 AM
Yeah, I've actually always wondered about that. Mostly because I've always been tempted to clean the poison off an enemy's blade with it. "Oh, did that poison cost more than this sword? My bad."

Hmm...

It can color, clean, or soil items in a 1-foot cube each round.

I guess it depends on if the universe considers poison as making the sword dirty. :p

bugsysservant
2008-02-03, 12:01 PM
I guess it depends on if the universe considers poison as making the sword dirty. :p

It doesn't say it removes dirt, just cleans. And if "cleaning" happens to remove the poison...

Theli
2008-02-03, 12:15 PM
Exactly, but poison may not even be considered in the process of cleaning. Hell, it may even get rid of the impurities IN the poison when it does its work, making it even stronger. :D

I didn't say anything about dirt. It's just a question of what the universe considers clean. Just because you consider removing the poison to be cleaning, doesn't mean that someone else would. (Such as the would-be assassin, for example.)

*shrugs* All I'm saying is that magic doesn't always work how you expect it to. Doubly so when you try to apply the same spell towards a different, unintended purpose. (Or at least, that's how magic SHOULD be treated, in my own humble opinion separate from any question of balance...)

I think a lot about the prestidigitation spell just lends itself much to DM fiat.

Theli
2008-02-03, 12:22 PM
You must have missed this: There would be no way for this adventurer to know what the spell is, or what they'd be making the saving throw for, until after the fact. The adventurer could forego the save -- but would then never know exactly what spell they allowed to affect them or their possessions, since they didn't actually roll the saving thow. Or they could make the saving throw, and afterward have a chance to identify what they were saving against.

Kinda screwy the way the rules work, I think.

True enough. But then I would rule that a low level, non-offensively-minded spell, such as this one, should get the (harmless) tag. (Even if it might be used to the discomfort of some.) A harmless tag should be communicable to the player I'd think... Though I'd be hard-pressed to justify that by RAW.

Again though, that's even assuming the granted spell effects get a saving throw to begin with. I'd personally rule that they do not. (Better lock up that evil anti-culinary magic adept...)

shadow_archmagi
2008-02-03, 12:29 PM
Indeed. Show me a way this spell could harm someone, and then allow it a saving throw.

However "Oh no, my food tastes bad!" or "NOO! MY FILTH!" would really be harmless. Unless you're an earth elemental or something. Interesting subject...

Can you "clean" away ooze and earth/water elementals? How about mud golems?

F.L.
2008-02-03, 12:38 PM
Indeed. Show me a way this spell could harm someone, and then allow it a saving throw.

However "Oh no, my food tastes bad!" or "NOO! MY FILTH!" would really be harmless. Unless you're an earth elemental or something. Interesting subject...

Can you "clean" away ooze and earth/water elementals? How about mud golems?

Hmm, I'm now thinking of a white eyebrowed, bald specialist wizard with a scrubbing bubble familiar.

Wraithy
2008-02-03, 12:38 PM
maybe there would be a saving throw for making someone's eyes really dirty?

Theli
2008-02-03, 12:55 PM
*shrugs* So you soil their eyes. Nothing that the "Craft Disturbing Mental Image" feat couldn't do.

I'd guess soiled eyes could get a -2 circumstance penalty to spot checks or something. (Making them blink a whole lot, but you can't really blind em.) Meh...

Jack_Simth
2008-02-03, 01:44 PM
*shrugs* So you soil their eyes. Nothing that the "Craft Disturbing Mental Image" feat couldn't do.

I'd guess soiled eyes could get a -2 circumstance penalty to spot checks or something. (Making them blink a whole lot, but you can't really blind em.) Meh...
Considering that such would basically be duplicating the effects of Flare, it's not really permitted at all.

Theli
2008-02-03, 01:53 PM
Hah, very true!

Finally, a prestidigitation lacks the power to duplicate any other spell effects.

Prestidigitation may be the only spell in the entire scope of DnD that actually gets WEAKER with codex creep. (Since what it can do gets defined more and more narrowly the more spells you allow in the game...)

UserClone
2008-02-03, 01:55 PM
I did say "in that case", as it seemed that this particular scenario was the only one the OP was concerned about. Like I said, if you have a PC who might want to keep his filth, make it Reflex negates (harmless). Otherwise, don't even bother. In fact, call for spot checks. If no one notices the person going under the table, wait until they get up from the table. Then have them one of them be surprised to notice everyone's shiny, clean boots!

GrassyGnoll
2008-02-03, 02:30 PM
I think the "see text" bit solves it all. There's nothing there ergo no saving throw, period. Prestidigitation is an irrevocable, albeit easily ignorable, change in the nature of the universe for an hour.

But how to utilize its nigh unstoppable influence for destruction? Can the "lift slowly" effect pull a trigger on a crossbow? Cool a cup with hot contents to make it break? Several cat-girls may have to die, but I'm willing to pay the price.

nargbop
2008-02-03, 03:38 PM
How about milking a cow ? Could the spell maneuver the bucket, grasp the teats, and not make a general mess of things ? Could it give encouraging noises to said cow ?

What if the cow, while not being technically capable of granting consent, could not be said to mind either?

Theli
2008-02-03, 03:40 PM
Unfortunately, that would be duplicating the effects of the spell "Milk Cow" from the Complete Dairy Farmer splatbook...

Chronos
2008-02-03, 04:00 PM
The "see text" entry refers to the bit in the text where it says that the DM should adjucate exactly what Prestidigitation can do, and how effective it is.

Unfortunately, they forgot to put that bit into the text, so the saving throw entry is sort of left hanging.

But just because they forgot to include that part, doesn't mean we need to, also. So, for instance, a Prestidigitation could surreptitiously clean someone's boots, or give someone a nosebleed, or create a very simple illusion. Those effects would, respectively, offer Reflex negates, Fortitude negates, and Will disbelief saving throws.