Long story short. We're fighting a purple worm. Bad things have happened and we need to free a party member. Thing is, worms hurt. A lot. And can swallow you. I have an idea where I cast haste on it and then immediately drop it robbing it of it's turn. I'm fine with the creature not being willing after; it's learned I'll do that; but the first time? Not only is it a worm with no understanding of magic but it would probably consider it to be beneficial if it could understand that. I'm reviewing my options and I'd REALLY rather burn a spell slot on haste to give us a free turn than a higher-level spell slot on something that wouldn't be as effective as a missed turn.
If you're fighting an enemy (of any kind) and it feels some unknown magic taking hold of it, I don't think its first response would be "go for it". You would have to convince it first.
The reason why you normally don't ask your fellow adventurers for consent regarding buffs is purely because of metagaming. Or if you choose to rule that most creatures innately and instantly know whether particular types of magic are good for them (essentially having an altered version of Detect Magic going on at all time).
DM decide if monsters and NPC are willing target or not for spells and effects. Like @BeyondMisty said, it's unlikely that a creature would willingly accept to be the target of any effects produced by an enemy unless its been duped or convinced.
Sounds like a firm no to me. The scenario your talking about is exactly why the spell description has the word “willing” in it in the first place. Otherwise, it’s a full round of combat for your party guaranteed with no save for a 3rd level slot. That’s actually stronger than “power word…” spells if you take into account that they’re higher level and limited by hitpoints totals, and sometimes prevented by charm immunity.
if you could make a purple worm a “willing” recipient of a magic spell, when you are the enemy, then the battle should be over since your not really enemies anymore. Purple worms have 1 int and 8 wisdom. Good luck with that.
Long story short. We're fighting a purple worm. Bad things have happened and we need to free a party member. Thing is, worms hurt. A lot. And can swallow you. I have an idea where I cast haste on it and then immediately drop it robbing it of it's turn. I'm fine with the creature not being willing after; it's learned I'll do that; but the first time? Not only is it a worm with no understanding of magic but it would probably consider it to be beneficial if it could understand that. I'm reviewing my options and I'd REALLY rather burn a spell slot on haste to give us a free turn than a higher-level spell slot on something that wouldn't be as effective as a missed turn.
Short answer: no, because the worm is hostile.
Medium answer: no, because the worm is hostile, and I think the intent is that willing-only spells work like opportunity attacks.
Long answer: The rules are deeply unclear on the mechanics involved in a spell that works only on the willing, so we're getting into DM fiat territory here. Xanathar's has some rules for working out whether or not you're observably casting a spell, but but purple worms are Int 1 - it's unlikely they have any idea what a spell is, so while it can definitely hear you cast the spell and can probably "see" you with its incredibly acute sense of touch/hearing, odds are 0 it understands you're casting a spell. Haste is VSM and range 30, with no attack or save listed - willing is the resist - and a DM has to account for the fact you may have the wherewithal to cast the spell Subtly (for example, using Subtle Spell and some way to hide the M component - even barring other solutions which involve varying levels of DM fiat, any Sorcerer can do this with Subtle Wish), so there may truly be nothing observable about the cast.
So what's the definition of willing? Does it have to be informed consent? That is, if you cast a truly unobservable buff, is it possible for a target to be willing (or unwilling)? We have no rules governing this, and the "plain English" meaning of willing provides no answer at all. The only solution I can think of for allowing uninformed consent is to base the spell on the target's attitude towards you - which has rules precedent. For example, Opportunity Attacks are psychic: you can only OA a hostile target. Someone who isn't hostile to you won't provoke an OA, no matter how hostile you are to them. For informed consent, I can't think of any general solution that gets around the Purple Worm problem of Int 1 targets, since they can't be informed. In any case, I can think of two general solutions:
Willing-only spells work like OAs in reverse: they only work on targets that feel friendly towards you. This means targets don't generally consent to spells being cast on them per se - the spell just telepathically checks their attitude before resolving. Haste auto-fails on the Purple Worm, but a completely Subtle Haste will usually work on e.g. that beggar you just handed a platinum to. By definition, this allows a caster to determine a target's attitude by casting a spell, and it means a genuinely hostile creature can't consent to a spell, even if it genuinely wants to.
You can extend this to all non-hostiles, but I think it's a big stretch arguing neutral/apathetic creatures are actually willing, and this allows such spells to work on any target truly unaware of you, which is a big power bump.
Willing-only spells work like a save the target can just choose to pass or fail. Because there are serious rules problems with such a spell working unless the target does something to stop it, this is only workable if willing-only spells fail unless the target does something to let them work. Haste auto-fails on the Purple Worm, but completely Subtle buffs also generally auto-fail on party members. Ways to implement this all involve violating some other rule, but to avoid interacting with a variety of conditions, I recommend against simulating a strength or dexterity save, and it makes no sense to intentionally succeed or fail on a constitution save, so that leaves simulating a mental save:
Willing-only spells involve a mental sensation, and a target who's been trained to recognize it lets the spell happen by relaxing. This means targets are always aware something is happening, and there are potential problems buffing int 1 companions/familiars/pets/etc.
In both cases, you need to be careful ruling how creatures in exotic game states are determined to be willing or not - like if an unconscious target is willing or not, which governs all manner of things, like whether or not you can cast Mind Blank on them to try and keep them safe.
I suspect you're intended to use the first solution, since that's how OAs already work, but that's deeply non-immersive, in the same way OAs are.
A dim-witted, ravenous force of nature, this creature regards anything it encounters as food
While this would be up to the DM, I don't think you would be able to convince the worm that 1) you aren't food, and 2) the thing you are wanting to do is beneficial to it. I don't even think charm spells would work unless they were one of the higher levels spells like dominate monster since the worm can't understand spoken language.
My answer is a firm NO in this case. The default condition for any creature for any spell is unwilling - otherwise, you'd be able to wander around casting spells on creatures without saves.
Planeshift - "You and up to eight willing creatures who link hands in a circle are transported to a different plane of existence." "You can use this spell to banish an unwilling creature to another plane. Choose a creature within your reach and make a melee spell attack against it. On a hit, the creature must make a Charisma saving throw. If the creature fails this save, it is transported to a random location on the plane of existence you specify."
If creatures were automatically "willing" until they knew better - you could planeshift anyone the first time rather than have to hit them, then they get a charisma save.
Dimension Door - "You can also bring one willing creature of your size or smaller who is carrying gear up to its carrying capacity. The creature must be within 5 feet of you when you cast this spell." YES! Let's dimension door that opponent out over the crevasse with a 1000' drop - I have feather fall so it won't hurt me - they are willing the first time (NOT).
Willing means that the creature has decided to allow the magic to affect them.
In your case, the purple worm is not willing since they probably don't even have the mental capacity to assess the spell effect and what it could do. Being indifferent is not the same as being willing.
Anyway, you may be desperate to save your party but haste will not do it in this case.
I have always assumed "willing " requires trust. With many spells you instinctly try to resist a spell as it is cast on you, for a few like calm emotions or polymorph you can choose whether to resist or not (I would allow this for a wider range of spells particularly out of combat for example if you want to convince someone you are telling the truth you could choose to fail zone of truth). For spells that only affect willing creatures I think of it as would the target trust the caster to cast a spell on them. Cast haste on a pet mastiff, yes it is willing it trusts you, cast it on a the mastiff of an NPC you have recently met and it won't, it certainly won't work on a purple worm.
Regarding unconcious targets, I would allow it. Spells like raise dead imply that the soul of a dead creature still has a will so it makes sense for an unconcious creatures soul also to have will.
Regarding what it means to be "willing", it is clearly meant to be an active choice going by the wording alone.
I have always thought of it the following way:
I cast a warm fuzzy onesie (spell) in the face of the target. The target can now choose to either wear the onesie or leave it. If the target leaves the onesie, the onesie doesn't fulfill its purpose (being worn). It fails. If the target actively starts to put on the onesie, the onesie fulfills its purpose. It succeeds. The onesie can't put itself on the target, so if the target is unconscious, the onesie fails. However the target doesn't need to trust neither me nor the onesie. I can trick it to wear it by coming with a convincing Suggestion, or I can even Command it to wear the onesie (technically against it will, but by its choice).
Regarding what it means to be "willing", it is clearly meant to be an active choice going by the wording alone.
I have always thought of it the following way:
I cast a warm fuzzy onesie (spell) in the face of the target. The target can now choose to either wear the onesie or leave it. If the target leaves the onesie, the onesie doesn't fulfill its purpose (being worn). It fails. If the target actively starts to put on the onesie, the onesie fulfills its purpose. It succeeds. The onesie can't put itself on the target, so if the target is unconscious, the onesie fails. However the target doesn't need to trust neither me nor the onesie. I can trick it to wear it by coming with a convincing Suggestion, or I can even Command it to wear the onesie (technically against it will, but by its choice).
The probem with this approach is is assumes the target knows what spell is being cast. What if you cast the warm fuzzty onesie of death spell (that pours acid on the wearer as soon as it is put on), oes the target know the difference? A wozard probably will, a barbarian probably not and purple worm definately not.
Over the course of our campaign, party members have been swallowed by a Remorhaz and Slarkrethehel. I pointed out that if survival relied on the swallowed character freeing themselves, it was most likely a death sentence when you consider the penalties of blinded and restrained. My DM agreed. We used a combination of rules and DM fiat to survive.
As far as rules go, if you get swallowed: try to do the 30 points of damage from inside it. Take a strong healing potion/use a powerful heal spell.
As a party, kill the worm quickly(obviously). Depending on who gets swallowed, maybe having a second character get swallowed who is able to deal the damage, is a viable high risk plan.
DM fiat NOT RULES.A few ideas we used that were allowed. Decanter of Endless Water to dilute the acid damage. Cast Antilife Shell(I used this on my Cleric) and the DM said I was no longer restrained. The spell made the creature feel bloated and expelled me. I was lucky. A second part might involve casting a light spell. Now you would have no penalties. The third part could involve the AR against the stomach. Is it really armored and at 18 or is it fleshy and at say, 12?
Regarding what it means to be "willing", it is clearly meant to be an active choice going by the wording alone.
I have always thought of it the following way:
I cast a warm fuzzy onesie (spell) in the face of the target. The target can now choose to either wear the onesie or leave it. If the target leaves the onesie, the onesie doesn't fulfill its purpose (being worn). It fails. If the target actively starts to put on the onesie, the onesie fulfills its purpose. It succeeds. The onesie can't put itself on the target, so if the target is unconscious, the onesie fails. However the target doesn't need to trust neither me nor the onesie. I can trick it to wear it by coming with a convincing Suggestion, or I can even Command it to wear the onesie (technically against it will, but by its choice).
The probem with this approach is is assumes the target knows what spell is being cast. What if you cast the warm fuzzty onesie of death spell (that pours acid on the wearer as soon as it is put on), oes the target know the difference? A wozard probably will, a barbarian probably not and purple worm definately not.
It doesn't assume the target knows what spell is being cast. Whether or not a target is willing to be affected by a spell comes down to either (1) trust in the caster, (2) being coerced to accept the spell, or (3) being otherwise tricked into believing that the spell is somehow beneficial. However the target must have some awareness that a spell is trying to take affect on it, otherwise it can't actively give consent. And this is despite RAW stating that spells are generally not perceived by the target unless stated otherwise (being willing > active consent > knowledge that something requires consent). Whether or not the target feels the difference between a beneficial spell and a harmful spell is another part of the equation.
Personally, I like to think that it depends on both the skill of the caster, as well as the spell being cast. For example, a target might feel alarmed if it suddenly feels a burning sensation in its mouth from a spell such as Dragon's Breath. A skillful wizard might be able to make the target feel a warm, non-alarming sensation instead. Whether or not the target then allows the spell to take effect depends on the 3 factors mentioned above. This is of course all my own way of doing things as this is an area not covered in RAW.
Over the course of our campaign, party members have been swallowed by a Remorhaz and Slarkrethehel. I pointed out that if survival relied on the swallowed character freeing themselves, it was most likely a death sentence when you consider the penalties of blinded and restrained. My DM agreed. We used a combination of rules and DM fiat to survive.
As far as rules go, if you get swallowed: try to do the 30 points of damage from inside it. Take a strong healing potion/use a powerful heal spell.
As a party, kill the worm quickly(obviously). Depending on who gets swallowed, maybe having a second character get swallowed who is able to deal the damage, is a viable high risk plan.
DM fiat NOT RULES.A few ideas we used that were allowed. Decanter of Endless Water to dilute the acid damage. Cast Antilife Shell(I used this on my Cleric) and the DM said I was no longer restrained. The spell made the creature feel bloated and expelled me. I was lucky. A second part might involve casting a light spell. Now you would have no penalties. The third part could involve the AR against the stomach. Is it really armored and at 18 or is it fleshy and at say, 12?
Another option is teleporting out , the last time I was swallowed I fortunately had a cape-of-the-mountebank. Using misty step or thunder step might be possible if you can get line of sight through the creatures mouth (but might take some damage if all you can see is sky)
if survival relied on the swallowed character freeing themselves, it was most likely a death sentence when you consider the penalties of blinded and restrained.
There's really no penalty: the disadvantage from Blinded and Restrained doesn't stack. Also, the rules say "When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it" and "If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither"
if survival relied on the swallowed character freeing themselves, it was most likely a death sentence when you consider the penalties of blinded and restrained.
There's really no penalty: the disadvantage from Blinded and Restrained doesn't stack. Also, the rules say "When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it" and "If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither"
Kotath refuted this perfectly.
I would also like to add that even though disadvantage doesn't stack, you still need to get rid of both conditions in order to remove the disadvantage. My post shows how you might do this.
I would also like to add that even though disadvantage doesn't stack, you still need to get rid of both conditions in order to remove the disadvantage. My post shows how you might do this.
If you have advantage and disadvantage, you have neither. If you are blind, restrained, and hidden you do not have disadvantage.
Now that doesn't necessarily mean you are hidden from a creature you are inside of. That is up to DM.
So I have a bucket of something. We have been fighting and im going to throw that bucket of something at you....... Are you going to dodge it just incase its like acid or rocks or do you just take it figuring it is like water?
While they don't know the spell maybe an animal typically can get an idea of the intent of a creature. Good bad indifferent.... etc
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Long story short. We're fighting a purple worm. Bad things have happened and we need to free a party member. Thing is, worms hurt. A lot. And can swallow you. I have an idea where I cast haste on it and then immediately drop it robbing it of it's turn. I'm fine with the creature not being willing after; it's learned I'll do that; but the first time? Not only is it a worm with no understanding of magic but it would probably consider it to be beneficial if it could understand that. I'm reviewing my options and I'd REALLY rather burn a spell slot on haste to give us a free turn than a higher-level spell slot on something that wouldn't be as effective as a missed turn.
If you're fighting an enemy (of any kind) and it feels some unknown magic taking hold of it, I don't think its first response would be "go for it". You would have to convince it first.
The reason why you normally don't ask your fellow adventurers for consent regarding buffs is purely because of metagaming. Or if you choose to rule that most creatures innately and instantly know whether particular types of magic are good for them (essentially having an altered version of Detect Magic going on at all time).
DM decide if monsters and NPC are willing target or not for spells and effects. Like @BeyondMisty said, it's unlikely that a creature would willingly accept to be the target of any effects produced by an enemy unless its been duped or convinced.
Sounds like a firm no to me. The scenario your talking about is exactly why the spell description has the word “willing” in it in the first place. Otherwise, it’s a full round of combat for your party guaranteed with no save for a 3rd level slot. That’s actually stronger than “power word…” spells if you take into account that they’re higher level and limited by hitpoints totals, and sometimes prevented by charm immunity.
if you could make a purple worm a “willing” recipient of a magic spell, when you are the enemy, then the battle should be over since your not really enemies anymore. Purple worms have 1 int and 8 wisdom. Good luck with that.
Short answer: no, because the worm is hostile.
Medium answer: no, because the worm is hostile, and I think the intent is that willing-only spells work like opportunity attacks.
Long answer: The rules are deeply unclear on the mechanics involved in a spell that works only on the willing, so we're getting into DM fiat territory here. Xanathar's has some rules for working out whether or not you're observably casting a spell, but but purple worms are Int 1 - it's unlikely they have any idea what a spell is, so while it can definitely hear you cast the spell and can probably "see" you with its incredibly acute sense of touch/hearing, odds are 0 it understands you're casting a spell. Haste is VSM and range 30, with no attack or save listed - willing is the resist - and a DM has to account for the fact you may have the wherewithal to cast the spell Subtly (for example, using Subtle Spell and some way to hide the M component - even barring other solutions which involve varying levels of DM fiat, any Sorcerer can do this with Subtle Wish), so there may truly be nothing observable about the cast.
So what's the definition of willing? Does it have to be informed consent? That is, if you cast a truly unobservable buff, is it possible for a target to be willing (or unwilling)? We have no rules governing this, and the "plain English" meaning of willing provides no answer at all. The only solution I can think of for allowing uninformed consent is to base the spell on the target's attitude towards you - which has rules precedent. For example, Opportunity Attacks are psychic: you can only OA a hostile target. Someone who isn't hostile to you won't provoke an OA, no matter how hostile you are to them. For informed consent, I can't think of any general solution that gets around the Purple Worm problem of Int 1 targets, since they can't be informed. In any case, I can think of two general solutions:
In both cases, you need to be careful ruling how creatures in exotic game states are determined to be willing or not - like if an unconscious target is willing or not, which governs all manner of things, like whether or not you can cast Mind Blank on them to try and keep them safe.
I suspect you're intended to use the first solution, since that's how OAs already work, but that's deeply non-immersive, in the same way OAs are.
The monster's description indicates:
A dim-witted, ravenous force of nature, this creature regards anything it encounters as food
While this would be up to the DM, I don't think you would be able to convince the worm that 1) you aren't food, and 2) the thing you are wanting to do is beneficial to it. I don't even think charm spells would work unless they were one of the higher levels spells like dominate monster since the worm can't understand spoken language.
My answer is a firm NO in this case. The default condition for any creature for any spell is unwilling - otherwise, you'd be able to wander around casting spells on creatures without saves.
Planeshift - "You and up to eight willing creatures who link hands in a circle are transported to a different plane of existence." "You can use this spell to banish an unwilling creature to another plane. Choose a creature within your reach and make a melee spell attack against it. On a hit, the creature must make a Charisma saving throw. If the creature fails this save, it is transported to a random location on the plane of existence you specify."
If creatures were automatically "willing" until they knew better - you could planeshift anyone the first time rather than have to hit them, then they get a charisma save.
Dimension Door - "You can also bring one willing creature of your size or smaller who is carrying gear up to its carrying capacity. The creature must be within 5 feet of you when you cast this spell." YES! Let's dimension door that opponent out over the crevasse with a 1000' drop - I have feather fall so it won't hurt me - they are willing the first time (NOT).
Willing means that the creature has decided to allow the magic to affect them.
In your case, the purple worm is not willing since they probably don't even have the mental capacity to assess the spell effect and what it could do. Being indifferent is not the same as being willing.
Anyway, you may be desperate to save your party but haste will not do it in this case.
I have always assumed "willing " requires trust. With many spells you instinctly try to resist a spell as it is cast on you, for a few like calm emotions or polymorph you can choose whether to resist or not (I would allow this for a wider range of spells particularly out of combat for example if you want to convince someone you are telling the truth you could choose to fail zone of truth). For spells that only affect willing creatures I think of it as would the target trust the caster to cast a spell on them. Cast haste on a pet mastiff, yes it is willing it trusts you, cast it on a the mastiff of an NPC you have recently met and it won't, it certainly won't work on a purple worm.
Regarding unconcious targets, I would allow it. Spells like raise dead imply that the soul of a dead creature still has a will so it makes sense for an unconcious creatures soul also to have will.
Regarding what it means to be "willing", it is clearly meant to be an active choice going by the wording alone.
I have always thought of it the following way:
I cast a warm fuzzy onesie (spell) in the face of the target. The target can now choose to either wear the onesie or leave it. If the target leaves the onesie, the onesie doesn't fulfill its purpose (being worn). It fails. If the target actively starts to put on the onesie, the onesie fulfills its purpose. It succeeds. The onesie can't put itself on the target, so if the target is unconscious, the onesie fails. However the target doesn't need to trust neither me nor the onesie. I can trick it to wear it by coming with a convincing Suggestion, or I can even Command it to wear the onesie (technically against it will, but by its choice).
I'd say no.
The probem with this approach is is assumes the target knows what spell is being cast. What if you cast the warm fuzzty onesie of death spell (that pours acid on the wearer as soon as it is put on), oes the target know the difference? A wozard probably will, a barbarian probably not and purple worm definately not.
Not to pile on with the reasons for No, but I don't think something with a 1 int can give consent to be considered willing.
Over the course of our campaign, party members have been swallowed by a Remorhaz and Slarkrethehel. I pointed out that if survival relied on the swallowed character freeing themselves, it was most likely a death sentence when you consider the penalties of blinded and restrained. My DM agreed. We used a combination of rules and DM fiat to survive.
As far as rules go, if you get swallowed: try to do the 30 points of damage from inside it. Take a strong healing potion/use a powerful heal spell.
As a party, kill the worm quickly(obviously). Depending on who gets swallowed, maybe having a second character get swallowed who is able to deal the damage, is a viable high risk plan.
DM fiat NOT RULES. A few ideas we used that were allowed. Decanter of Endless Water to dilute the acid damage. Cast Antilife Shell(I used this on my Cleric) and the DM said I was no longer restrained. The spell made the creature feel bloated and expelled me. I was lucky. A second part might involve casting a light spell. Now you would have no penalties. The third part could involve the AR against the stomach. Is it really armored and at 18 or is it fleshy and at say, 12?
It doesn't assume the target knows what spell is being cast. Whether or not a target is willing to be affected by a spell comes down to either (1) trust in the caster, (2) being coerced to accept the spell, or (3) being otherwise tricked into believing that the spell is somehow beneficial.
However the target must have some awareness that a spell is trying to take affect on it, otherwise it can't actively give consent. And this is despite RAW stating that spells are generally not perceived by the target unless stated otherwise (being willing > active consent > knowledge that something requires consent). Whether or not the target feels the difference between a beneficial spell and a harmful spell is another part of the equation.
Personally, I like to think that it depends on both the skill of the caster, as well as the spell being cast. For example, a target might feel alarmed if it suddenly feels a burning sensation in its mouth from a spell such as Dragon's Breath. A skillful wizard might be able to make the target feel a warm, non-alarming sensation instead. Whether or not the target then allows the spell to take effect depends on the 3 factors mentioned above. This is of course all my own way of doing things as this is an area not covered in RAW.
Another option is teleporting out , the last time I was swallowed I fortunately had a cape-of-the-mountebank. Using misty step or thunder step might be possible if you can get line of sight through the creatures mouth (but might take some damage if all you can see is sky)
Discussed here.
There's really no penalty: the disadvantage from Blinded and Restrained doesn't stack. Also, the rules say "When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it" and "If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither"
Kotath refuted this perfectly.
I would also like to add that even though disadvantage doesn't stack, you still need to get rid of both conditions in order to remove the disadvantage. My post shows how you might do this.
If you have advantage and disadvantage, you have neither. If you are blind, restrained, and hidden you do not have disadvantage.
Now that doesn't necessarily mean you are hidden from a creature you are inside of. That is up to DM.
So I have a bucket of something. We have been fighting and im going to throw that bucket of something at you....... Are you going to dodge it just incase its like acid or rocks or do you just take it figuring it is like water?
While they don't know the spell maybe an animal typically can get an idea of the intent of a creature. Good bad indifferent.... etc