Short question. If a character is willing, in the sense they trust you and are happy for you to cast spells on them in blind faith, can they decide they are unwilling once they realize the spell will effect them in a negative manner?
Backstory. (Be warned I waffle).
So I was a guest character in a game and plot twist I was an evil guy. I revealed myself on the third day (Part of the DM's plan). Nobody suspected I was bad and I was the only druid spell caster so nobody was capable of understanding the spells I was casting. (In his campaign every type of spell caster casts spells differently. So a bard, a cleric and a druid would all cast healing word in a unique way.) Every time I cast a spell I didn't say the name I just said I was casting a protection spell or a healing spell. I had convinced them to explore the sea. When I was ready to attack I cast water walk on all of them apart from the wizard. Initially they were fine with it but once they started rocketing up through the sea and I started attacking the wizard it caused a big fuss.
Everyone claimed that by default they would not be willing to be targeted by a spell that could hurt them, so that overruled the fact they were initially willing for me to cast a spell on them. My counter argument was that this spell was benign in nature and I had even cast the same spell on the party on a previous occasion and they were fine with it. The Dm retconned it because one or two players became really irate at this point and we moved on.
What is everyone's thoughts on the matter? (Please no disrespecting players or the dm. He was trying something new and some of the players did not like the player character betrayal.)
A "willing target" is willing to the extent that they are willing at the moment. Yes, that's a tautology. :P
Point being "willing" doesn't have any magical hidden meaning to it. If the other PCs thought you were their ally, thought you were helping them with your spells, and desired your help at the time... they were willing. They cannot choose to end the spell effect either, but they could respond with their own abilities that end spell effects on a target (Dispel Magic, Arcana Cleric's Spell Breaker Feature, etc). They got tricked; mission accomplished. How they chose to respond is on them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
My thought is that the determination is made when the spell is being targeted. They can't change their mind once the spell has taken effect.
So in your example, you have already cast Water Walk. When you were in the process of casting it, they were still willing. They didn't realize what you were actually doing until after the spell was already in effect and they were forcibly surfacing. In order to be valid for target selection, they must be willing creatures (which, at the time, they were). So the spell has now taken effect. They are free to change their minds, but it doesn't matter with respect to that casting of Water Walk -- it's already in effect.
But now that you have presented yourself to be a hostile actor, it's clear they would no longer be willing, so any further spell effects cast on that that require a willing target would not work. They are no longer willing.
That is a very cool story. I like how creative your DM is.
I think the biggest disadvantage regarding the other players is: Their positive in-game Insight checks don't work. They need real-life Insight skill. XD
The question of “do I automatically know what the spell is when I first decide whether I’m willing?” is probably in some way related to how the DM treats Counterspell and arcana checks to identify spells. Were it me DMing, I’d tell the party that they generally don’t know what their companions are casting until it takes effect, and if they’ve never shown any hesitancy to accept spells from the Druid before, there’s no reason other than meta gaming that they should resist now before they realize what’s at stake.
Only problem I have in this scenario is, that after becoming unwilling, there is RAW no way to get rid of the spell, because typically beneficial spells do not have the means of being resisted.
In this very very very specific case, I would either end the spell as the targets are no longer willing or grant the players some form of saving throw each round.
1) The characters decide whether they are willing when the spell is cast. If they say yes to the spell then it affects them. It is up to the DM whether the characters need to know what the spell is in order to be willing to have it cast on them. Is it possible for a character to be willing for an unknown spell to be cast on them? I'd say probably but you would need to get the character to specifically say yes to having an unknown spell cast on them.
2) However, the water walk is a cool idea but in my reading of the spell is that it doesn't work that way.
"This spell grants the ability to move across any liquid surface—such as water, acid, mud, snow, quicksand, or lava—as if it were harmless solid ground (creatures crossing molten lava can still take damage from the heat)."
It grants the ability to move across any liquid surface. It does NOT say that you have use it. It does not say that if you are immersed in a liquid you suddenly burst to the surface as if you were suddenly buoyant. It simply gives the character the ability to move across any liquid surface. So I don't think the cool plan would actually work.
It grants the ability to move across any liquid surface. It does NOT say that you have use it. It does not say that if you are immersed in a liquid you suddenly burst to the surface as if you were suddenly buoyant. It simply gives the character the ability to move across any liquid surface. So I don't think the cool plan would actually work.
Hm, last paragraph of the spell says exactly that.
"If you target a creature submerged in a liquid, the spell carries the target to the surface of the liquid at a rate of 60 feet per round."
That is not by choice, the spell does that always.
Only problem I have in this scenario is, that after becoming unwilling, there is RAW no way to get rid of the spell, because typically beneficial spells do not have the means of being resisted.
In this very very very specific case, I would either end the spell as the targets are no longer willing or grant the players some form of saving throw each round.
Uh RAW - Dispel Magic or Some other class feature that allows to remove spell effects. Also running out the spell duration.
There are also plenty of "bad effect" spells that once the initial spell is failed there is no save after. The only way out is Dispel or end duration.
I think the bigger issue here is the DM possibly not playing to if any of your characters had high Insight, high enough insight could have given them a "Hmm something about the guy" but not give too much detail sort of thing. There is a reason for passive insight.
Only problem I have in this scenario is, that after becoming unwilling, there is RAW no way to get rid of the spell, because typically beneficial spells do not have the means of being resisted.
In this very very very specific case, I would either end the spell as the targets are no longer willing or grant the players some form of saving throw each round.
Uh RAW - Dispel Magic or Some other class feature that allows to remove spell effects. Also running out the spell duration.
There are also plenty of "bad effect" spells that once the initial spell is failed there is no save after. The only way out is Dispel or end duration.
I think the bigger issue here is the DM possibly not playing to if any of your characters had high Insight, high enough insight could have given them a "Hmm something about the guy" but not give too much detail sort of thing. There is a reason for passive insight.
Yeah, I ignored external means like dispel magic on purpose.
But "permanent" bad effect spells are save or die (or suffer the effect) after a failed save. Here it is just suffer, no save, no resist, nothing, except for being tricked by an false ally.
No chance at all, to do anything about it. That is what is not the best way of doing it, in my opinion.
Only problem I have in this scenario is, that after becoming unwilling, there is RAW no way to get rid of the spell, because typically beneficial spells do not have the means of being resisted.
In this very very very specific case, I would either end the spell as the targets are no longer willing or grant the players some form of saving throw each round.
Uh RAW - Dispel Magic or Some other class feature that allows to remove spell effects. Also running out the spell duration.
There are also plenty of "bad effect" spells that once the initial spell is failed there is no save after. The only way out is Dispel or end duration.
I think the bigger issue here is the DM possibly not playing to if any of your characters had high Insight, high enough insight could have given them a "Hmm something about the guy" but not give too much detail sort of thing. There is a reason for passive insight.
Yeah, I ignored external means like dispel magic on purpose.
But "permanent" bad effect spells are save or die (or suffer the effect) after a failed save. Here it is just suffer, no save, no resist, nothing, except for being tricked by an false ally.
No chance at all, to do anything about it. That is what is not the best way of doing it, in my opinion.
I agree with the saving throw per round as a fair compromise between the two, maybe disadvantage on the first save? I say this because I did have to jump through some hoops to engineer the situation and it is not something one could just abuse time and time again.. (Convincing them I was trustworthy took a whole session and some self sacrifice and then convincing them that they needed to explore an ancient shipwreck in the second session took a few lucky rolls and some RP to do.) While dispel magic is an option only the wizard had it so that would put him in a difficult position. (Try and deal with the threat or rescue his team mates.) Of course hindsight is 20/20 so no disrespect to my dm.
Building of off your thoughts I think it would be cool to run a campaign were every spell requires a save, with no "willing creature" stipulation. You could of course choose to fail the save on purpose. I just think it allows for some interesting situations...the evil mage/PC trying to teleport away with a hostage using dimension door or a crazy druid casting barkskin on someone and attacking them with an axe to show them what trees feel. I don't think it would be open to abuse? Not sure.
Only problem I have in this scenario is, that after becoming unwilling, there is RAW no way to get rid of the spell, because typically beneficial spells do not have the means of being resisted.
In this very very very specific case, I would either end the spell as the targets are no longer willing or grant the players some form of saving throw each round.
Uh RAW - Dispel Magic or Some other class feature that allows to remove spell effects. Also running out the spell duration.
There are also plenty of "bad effect" spells that once the initial spell is failed there is no save after. The only way out is Dispel or end duration.
I think the bigger issue here is the DM possibly not playing to if any of your characters had high Insight, high enough insight could have given them a "Hmm something about the guy" but not give too much detail sort of thing. There is a reason for passive insight.
Yeah, I ignored external means like dispel magic on purpose.
But "permanent" bad effect spells are save or die (or suffer the effect) after a failed save. Here it is just suffer, no save, no resist, nothing, except for being tricked by an false ally.
No chance at all, to do anything about it. That is what is not the best way of doing it, in my opinion.
That's the whole point. There is nothing wrong with what went down (from the info & perspective we have), and this really isn't the type of situation where we should be focused on how the players feel about it. That is a conversation for the DM's forum.
Rules-wise, the only thing I can see that would've been appropriate (and I don't necessarily know that it didn't happen) is for the DM to either check passive, or ask for active, insight skill checks periodically while the false ally was with the party. They definitely should've had the chance to notice something was off, but otherwise it is what it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
So I could switch sides to the enemy as a cleric/warlock/bard before a battle starts and offer my healing and buff spells to them instead of the party, but instead cast Feign Death on their leader, if my deception is good enough?
So I could switch sides to the enemy as a cleric/warlock/bard before a battle starts and offer my healing and buff spells to them instead of the party, but instead cast Feign Death on their leader, if my deception is good enough?
Yes, why wouldn't you be able to offer to heal the enemy? It's up to your DM how difficult it is to pull off the lie, and the enemy will get an arcana check to recognize the spell, but yes. Be aware the rules for identifying a spell only require one witnessed component, and turning off all components for a spell is potentially very difficult - without wish, M components are always observable, so you need to not be seen. V and S can be solved with the Subtle Spell metamagic.
It's tricky, because it requires some extrapolation from other parts of the rulings. Usually in gameplay a player says "I cast Bless on these targets." The players know that it's a Bless, and so they are willing. But what if the spell is being cast by a hidden creature?
Do they know who is casting the spell? The answer is no. This is evident because if a Charm Person is being cast in a crowd, they won't know who the caster is.
Do they feel anything as the spell is being cast? The answer is yes. This is evident because they get to determine whether or not they are "willing."
Can they try to resist the spell? The answer is yes, as they make a choice about whether to resist or not when targeted by a Polymorph.
Do they know the text of the spell? Maybe, maybe not. They don't have to have all the spell's effects explained to them before they decide. So if they were told it was Water Walking, they might know what it will do, but otherwise no.
It is assumed that characters in combat have a strangely accurate idea of everything that's going on around them, since they know what actions other characters are taking.
It therefore comes down to how what your character feels. They feel the effects of a spell taking place upon them, and they may choose to be willing or not. They don't have to know what it does, and they don't need the spell's name before it's cast.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Short question. If a character is willing, in the sense they trust you and are happy for you to cast spells on them in blind faith, can they decide they are unwilling once they realize the spell will effect them in a negative manner?
Backstory. (Be warned I waffle).
So I was a guest character in a game and plot twist I was an evil guy. I revealed myself on the third day (Part of the DM's plan). Nobody suspected I was bad and I was the only druid spell caster so nobody was capable of understanding the spells I was casting. (In his campaign every type of spell caster casts spells differently. So a bard, a cleric and a druid would all cast healing word in a unique way.) Every time I cast a spell I didn't say the name I just said I was casting a protection spell or a healing spell. I had convinced them to explore the sea. When I was ready to attack I cast water walk on all of them apart from the wizard. Initially they were fine with it but once they started rocketing up through the sea and I started attacking the wizard it caused a big fuss.
Everyone claimed that by default they would not be willing to be targeted by a spell that could hurt them, so that overruled the fact they were initially willing for me to cast a spell on them. My counter argument was that this spell was benign in nature and I had even cast the same spell on the party on a previous occasion and they were fine with it. The Dm retconned it because one or two players became really irate at this point and we moved on.
What is everyone's thoughts on the matter? (Please no disrespecting players or the dm. He was trying something new and some of the players did not like the player character betrayal.)
A "willing target" is willing to the extent that they are willing at the moment. Yes, that's a tautology. :P
Point being "willing" doesn't have any magical hidden meaning to it. If the other PCs thought you were their ally, thought you were helping them with your spells, and desired your help at the time... they were willing. They cannot choose to end the spell effect either, but they could respond with their own abilities that end spell effects on a target (Dispel Magic, Arcana Cleric's Spell Breaker Feature, etc). They got tricked; mission accomplished. How they chose to respond is on them.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
My thought is that the determination is made when the spell is being targeted. They can't change their mind once the spell has taken effect.
So in your example, you have already cast Water Walk. When you were in the process of casting it, they were still willing. They didn't realize what you were actually doing until after the spell was already in effect and they were forcibly surfacing. In order to be valid for target selection, they must be willing creatures (which, at the time, they were). So the spell has now taken effect. They are free to change their minds, but it doesn't matter with respect to that casting of Water Walk -- it's already in effect.
But now that you have presented yourself to be a hostile actor, it's clear they would no longer be willing, so any further spell effects cast on that that require a willing target would not work. They are no longer willing.
(completely off-topic)
That is a very cool story. I like how creative your DM is.
I think the biggest disadvantage regarding the other players is: Their positive in-game Insight checks don't work. They need real-life Insight skill. XD
The question of “do I automatically know what the spell is when I first decide whether I’m willing?” is probably in some way related to how the DM treats Counterspell and arcana checks to identify spells. Were it me DMing, I’d tell the party that they generally don’t know what their companions are casting until it takes effect, and if they’ve never shown any hesitancy to accept spells from the Druid before, there’s no reason other than meta gaming that they should resist now before they realize what’s at stake.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Only problem I have in this scenario is, that after becoming unwilling, there is RAW no way to get rid of the spell, because typically beneficial spells do not have the means of being resisted.
In this very very very specific case, I would either end the spell as the targets are no longer willing or grant the players some form of saving throw each round.
Two comments ...
1) The characters decide whether they are willing when the spell is cast. If they say yes to the spell then it affects them. It is up to the DM whether the characters need to know what the spell is in order to be willing to have it cast on them. Is it possible for a character to be willing for an unknown spell to be cast on them? I'd say probably but you would need to get the character to specifically say yes to having an unknown spell cast on them.
2) However, the water walk is a cool idea but in my reading of the spell is that it doesn't work that way.
"This spell grants the ability to move across any liquid surface—such as water, acid, mud, snow, quicksand, or lava—as if it were harmless solid ground (creatures crossing molten lava can still take damage from the heat)."
It grants the ability to move across any liquid surface. It does NOT say that you have use it. It does not say that if you are immersed in a liquid you suddenly burst to the surface as if you were suddenly buoyant. It simply gives the character the ability to move across any liquid surface. So I don't think the cool plan would actually work.
Hm, last paragraph of the spell says exactly that.
"If you target a creature submerged in a liquid, the spell carries the target to the surface of the liquid at a rate of 60 feet per round."
That is not by choice, the spell does that always.
Uh RAW - Dispel Magic or Some other class feature that allows to remove spell effects. Also running out the spell duration.
There are also plenty of "bad effect" spells that once the initial spell is failed there is no save after. The only way out is Dispel or end duration.
I think the bigger issue here is the DM possibly not playing to if any of your characters had high Insight, high enough insight could have given them a "Hmm something about the guy" but not give too much detail sort of thing. There is a reason for passive insight.
Yeah, I ignored external means like dispel magic on purpose.
But "permanent" bad effect spells are save or die (or suffer the effect) after a failed save. Here it is just suffer, no save, no resist, nothing, except for being tricked by an false ally.
No chance at all, to do anything about it. That is what is not the best way of doing it, in my opinion.
I agree with the saving throw per round as a fair compromise between the two, maybe disadvantage on the first save? I say this because I did have to jump through some hoops to engineer the situation and it is not something one could just abuse time and time again.. (Convincing them I was trustworthy took a whole session and some self sacrifice and then convincing them that they needed to explore an ancient shipwreck in the second session took a few lucky rolls and some RP to do.) While dispel magic is an option only the wizard had it so that would put him in a difficult position. (Try and deal with the threat or rescue his team mates.) Of course hindsight is 20/20 so no disrespect to my dm.
Building of off your thoughts I think it would be cool to run a campaign were every spell requires a save, with no "willing creature" stipulation. You could of course choose to fail the save on purpose. I just think it allows for some interesting situations...the evil mage/PC trying to teleport away with a hostage using dimension door or a crazy druid casting barkskin on someone and attacking them with an axe to show them what trees feel. I don't think it would be open to abuse? Not sure.
That's the whole point. There is nothing wrong with what went down (from the info & perspective we have), and this really isn't the type of situation where we should be focused on how the players feel about it. That is a conversation for the DM's forum.
Rules-wise, the only thing I can see that would've been appropriate (and I don't necessarily know that it didn't happen) is for the DM to either check passive, or ask for active, insight skill checks periodically while the false ally was with the party. They definitely should've had the chance to notice something was off, but otherwise it is what it is.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
So I could switch sides to the enemy as a cleric/warlock/bard before a battle starts and offer my healing and buff spells to them instead of the party, but instead cast Feign Death on their leader, if my deception is good enough?
Yes, why wouldn't you be able to offer to heal the enemy? It's up to your DM how difficult it is to pull off the lie, and the enemy will get an arcana check to recognize the spell, but yes. Be aware the rules for identifying a spell only require one witnessed component, and turning off all components for a spell is potentially very difficult - without wish, M components are always observable, so you need to not be seen. V and S can be solved with the Subtle Spell metamagic.
It's tricky, because it requires some extrapolation from other parts of the rulings. Usually in gameplay a player says "I cast Bless on these targets." The players know that it's a Bless, and so they are willing. But what if the spell is being cast by a hidden creature?
It therefore comes down to how what your character feels. They feel the effects of a spell taking place upon them, and they may choose to be willing or not. They don't have to know what it does, and they don't need the spell's name before it's cast.