There are certain spells that state that you can cast the spell on a 'willing' creature.
To me that means that whatever that individual would feel when a spell is cast (if anything), they would not resist and allow the spell to take hold.
My question is this...
If my character is going to cast a spell on another character or NPC, and they get the permission from that character or NPC, but cast a different spell that requires them to give permission, would the replacement spell take hold?
Example: I get permission to cast Polymorph, but I cast Feign Death instead... would Feign Death take hold?
Thoughts?
Cheers!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Breathe, dragons; sing of the First World, forged out of chaos and painted with beauty. Sing of Bahamut, the Platinum, molding the shape of the mountains and rivers; Sing too of Chromatic Tiamat, painting all over the infinite canvas. Partnered, they woke in the darkness; partnered, they labored in acts of creation.
To my knowledge, there is no official definition of “willing” under the rules. This means it is a question for your DM, to decide.
I expect most DMs would say that a “willing” creature knows what spell is being cast before they give their consent to allow the spell to take hold. You get into some really messy issues with consent if you are tricking people into accepting things they did not actually know they were accepting. That creates both an Ick factor and some gameplay problems - and is the kind of thing best avoided by taking a more consensual approach to the rules as intended.
If my character is going to cast a spell on another character or NPC, and they get the permission from that character or NPC, but cast a different spell that requires them to give permission, would the replacement spell take hold?
This is up to your DM. Personally I would not allow this, because willingness is checked at the moment of casting a particular spell, not by "priming" the target by communicating one thing and then doing another. You can be unwilling for the purposes of a spell even if the caster says nothing to you at all (e.g. if someone passes within 10ft of you and you quickly cast Teleport, they won't go with you) so for me, it doesn't matter what the character is expecting if they can choose to be unwilling at a moment's notice. To me, willingness only counts towards the specific thing that's happening.
Willing is generally considered a creature that is allied with you or at least trusts you won't harm them. The spell Friends would temporarily make them consider you a trusted ally. Until the spell ends in which case they're probably going to be hostile to you.
Getting consent for a spell and then casting a different spell might work once but then why would they ever trust you again?
I would rule it can't be done. But if you don't want to rule it out, then perhaps an Arcana check to see if the target realizes you're casting Feign Dead instead of Polymorph. On a success, they're not willing. On a failure they are. Or a Deception check on your part.
Willingness is one of those concepts in D&D that seems simple on the surface, but can rapidly unfold into a messy situation if not handled carefully. That's why my principle for what counts as willingness is the very clear and unambiguous Informed, Enthusiastic Consent. This means that for any creature to be able to willingly do something, they must be able to meet the following criteria:
Informed - The creature must be able to comprehend and understand what is going to happen to them. This doesn't mean they need to understand the inner workings of magic, but they need to be able to understand the basics of what's going to happen.
Enthusiastic - The creature mustn't be coerced or otherwise forced into being "willing".
Consent - The creature must be able to give assent to the course of action in the moment, or be able to withdraw prior given consent. If a creature cannot do that, they cannot consent.
That's my guideline for "willing". Yes, it does exclude some things like taking a mount with you when you cast dimension door or teleporting an unconscious ally. But there is nothing that sits well with me about where considering animals or unconscious people able to be consent leads.
Wait until you have a fellow player not want a buff cast on them when its your initiative because it might stop them from doing what they want on their initiative.
As a player I rp it to the hilt. I still cast the spell because my character does not know not to. Even if the spell does get wasted its good role playing.
Easy enough to negate the "trick" issue. The PC or NPC says "go ahead and cast Polymorph". Any other attempted spell would fail as the recipient was not willing to submit to that spell. In my current game everyone basically told our mage and ceric that they are always willing to be healed or teleported just in case. We do have one PC that stated they are not willing for any other spells unless they specifically agree. (I am waiting for the DM to rule on that one if he ever needs to be raised from the dead)
Any raising besides Revivify specifically gives the subject discretion to refuse to be raised (Revivify seeming to be more like a literal "magic AED" given the 1 minute window than actually calling someone back from the afterlife). And, in point of fact, the RAW- or at least SA- is that unconscious creatures cannot be "willing".
We do have one PC that stated they are not willing for any other spells unless they specifically agree.
Ordinarily, healing doesn't require the target to be willing. But in your game's case, what happens if that PC is unconscious (at zero hit points) and someone wants to heal them? Do you just let them die and then perform a seance to get consent to bring them back?
We do have one PC that stated they are not willing for any other spells unless they specifically agree.
Ordinarily, healing doesn't require the target to be willing. But in your game's case, what happens if that PC is unconscious (at zero hit points) and someone wants to heal them? Do you just let them die and then perform a seance to get consent to bring them back?
Maybe the setting has fantasy Good Samaritan Laws.
The answer on healing magic is easy. Spells that do not require saves render consent irrelevant. The target does not get an independent save vs a weapon slash or stab or impact, despite presumably not having given consent to it.
In combat, a DM might require some sort of to hit roll for a touch range, I suppose, although that is pretty old school. This is something that DM's used to require if the target was in combat (and thus moving around not so easy to simply touch) or if the target was openly distrusting somehow. However, as long as touch is achieved, if there is no save, there is no save to choose to resist or not.
The raise spells are a specific exception, presumably because, other than revivify (where the person's spirit likely has not made the journey yet) said spirit or soul is presumably in the afterlife where there are higher (or lower) powers also at play. You cannot simply pull an unwilling person out of Heaven without their consent, even if you otherwise have been granted the power to do so.
i consider willing have consent as in contracts (just oral), therefore if effect agreed differs - spell work (or don't) as with unwilling creature
and i guess lawyer will find a lot of places in 5e rules where some effects not specified letter to letter and players with bad faith intentions could try abuse it or find another subject to dance around, like idk eg shape water- because rules don't forbid this, this and this
but despite 5e isn''t perfect i guess most players prefer RAI and good faith RAW over abused RAW, and at tables where i play this try to lawyer-bypass willling would be shut down by DM's
I rule that unless otherwise stated or implied, targets are aware of the spell being cast on them and what spell it is. There is no tricking them unless it's part of the spell - so they then get a choice to resist it or not.
The only complication then is if they're unconscious. For NPCs, I'd let them do it. For PCs, I'd adjudicate on the scenario case by case. Knocking them out and then teleporting them to a safe place is different to doing the same but having them reappear over a lava pit. How the player feels should be taken into account. In my current game of
Rime of the Frostmaiden
, one player has the Berserker Greataxe (I didn't realise how much that adventure trolled players!). If they managed to subdue him after his berserks, he'd say his character would be unhappy about having a spell cast on him to get him out of harm's way...but he himself as a player would be cool with it.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Greetings D&D Beyond and Community,
There are certain spells that state that you can cast the spell on a 'willing' creature.
To me that means that whatever that individual would feel when a spell is cast (if anything), they would not resist and allow the spell to take hold.
My question is this...
If my character is going to cast a spell on another character or NPC, and they get the permission from that character or NPC, but cast a different spell that requires them to give permission, would the replacement spell take hold?
Example: I get permission to cast Polymorph, but I cast Feign Death instead... would Feign Death take hold?
Thoughts?
Cheers!
Breathe, dragons; sing of the First World, forged out of chaos and painted with beauty.
Sing of Bahamut, the Platinum, molding the shape of the mountains and rivers;
Sing too of Chromatic Tiamat, painting all over the infinite canvas.
Partnered, they woke in the darkness; partnered, they labored in acts of creation.
To my knowledge, there is no official definition of “willing” under the rules. This means it is a question for your DM, to decide.
I expect most DMs would say that a “willing” creature knows what spell is being cast before they give their consent to allow the spell to take hold. You get into some really messy issues with consent if you are tricking people into accepting things they did not actually know they were accepting. That creates both an Ick factor and some gameplay problems - and is the kind of thing best avoided by taking a more consensual approach to the rules as intended.
This is up to your DM. Personally I would not allow this, because willingness is checked at the moment of casting a particular spell, not by "priming" the target by communicating one thing and then doing another. You can be unwilling for the purposes of a spell even if the caster says nothing to you at all (e.g. if someone passes within 10ft of you and you quickly cast Teleport, they won't go with you) so for me, it doesn't matter what the character is expecting if they can choose to be unwilling at a moment's notice. To me, willingness only counts towards the specific thing that's happening.
Willing is generally considered a creature that is allied with you or at least trusts you won't harm them. The spell Friends would temporarily make them consider you a trusted ally. Until the spell ends in which case they're probably going to be hostile to you.
Getting consent for a spell and then casting a different spell might work once but then why would they ever trust you again?
I would rule it can't be done. But if you don't want to rule it out, then perhaps an Arcana check to see if the target realizes you're casting Feign Dead instead of Polymorph. On a success, they're not willing. On a failure they are. Or a Deception check on your part.
Willingness is one of those concepts in D&D that seems simple on the surface, but can rapidly unfold into a messy situation if not handled carefully. That's why my principle for what counts as willingness is the very clear and unambiguous Informed, Enthusiastic Consent. This means that for any creature to be able to willingly do something, they must be able to meet the following criteria:
That's my guideline for "willing". Yes, it does exclude some things like taking a mount with you when you cast dimension door or teleporting an unconscious ally. But there is nothing that sits well with me about where considering animals or unconscious people able to be consent leads.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Wait until you have a fellow player not want a buff cast on them when its your initiative because it might stop them from doing what they want on their initiative.
As a player I rp it to the hilt. I still cast the spell because my character does not know not to. Even if the spell does get wasted its good role playing.
Any raising besides Revivify specifically gives the subject discretion to refuse to be raised (Revivify seeming to be more like a literal "magic AED" given the 1 minute window than actually calling someone back from the afterlife). And, in point of fact, the RAW- or at least SA- is that unconscious creatures cannot be "willing".
Ordinarily, healing doesn't require the target to be willing. But in your game's case, what happens if that PC is unconscious (at zero hit points) and someone wants to heal them? Do you just let them die and then perform a seance to get consent to bring them back?
Maybe the setting has fantasy Good Samaritan Laws.
The answer on healing magic is easy. Spells that do not require saves render consent irrelevant. The target does not get an independent save vs a weapon slash or stab or impact, despite presumably not having given consent to it.
In combat, a DM might require some sort of to hit roll for a touch range, I suppose, although that is pretty old school. This is something that DM's used to require if the target was in combat (and thus moving around not so easy to simply touch) or if the target was openly distrusting somehow. However, as long as touch is achieved, if there is no save, there is no save to choose to resist or not.
The raise spells are a specific exception, presumably because, other than revivify (where the person's spirit likely has not made the journey yet) said spirit or soul is presumably in the afterlife where there are higher (or lower) powers also at play. You cannot simply pull an unwilling person out of Heaven without their consent, even if you otherwise have been granted the power to do so.
i consider willing have consent as in contracts (just oral), therefore if effect agreed differs - spell work (or don't) as with unwilling creature
and i guess lawyer will find a lot of places in 5e rules where some effects not specified letter to letter and players with bad faith intentions could try abuse it or find another subject to dance around, like idk eg shape water- because rules don't forbid this, this and this
but despite 5e isn''t perfect i guess most players prefer RAI and good faith RAW over abused RAW, and at tables where i play this try to lawyer-bypass willling would be shut down by DM's
I rule that unless otherwise stated or implied, targets are aware of the spell being cast on them and what spell it is. There is no tricking them unless it's part of the spell - so they then get a choice to resist it or not.
The only complication then is if they're unconscious. For NPCs, I'd let them do it. For PCs, I'd adjudicate on the scenario case by case. Knocking them out and then teleporting them to a safe place is different to doing the same but having them reappear over a lava pit. How the player feels should be taken into account. In my current game of
Rime of the Frostmaiden
, one player has the Berserker Greataxe (I didn't realise how much that adventure trolled players!). If they managed to subdue him after his berserks, he'd say his character would be unhappy about having a spell cast on him to get him out of harm's way...but he himself as a player would be cool with it.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.