Question about the Whip of Pain

[darthauthor]

Does the person who gets hit by the whip of pain get a saving throw versus magic?

Or is it automatically take effect if the attacker hits the victim who fails their dodge and/or parry?

The Whip of Pain is a specially enchanted weapon is designed to immobilize the enemy with pain (Agony
spell), leaving them helpless to resist further attacks.

When activated to inflict magical Agony, it is effective against mortal and mega-damage beings, as per the
spell.
Rate of Fire: Once the magic is activated it inflicts Agony to everybody it strikes with each attack for one minute.

[Library Ogre]

The spell allows a save, so I would say this does. It works like being able to cast the spell multiple times.

[darthauthor]

Thank you, Library Ogre

Sometimes I get "stuck" on wording.

I want to believe the literal words when they are in my favor, as a player, as a GM when I am running the opponant.

While the "it makes sense" type of thinking is agreabble if I stopped to think what did the author intend it to be given "so in so" could do "this" or "that" so it common sensically follows that you ought to be able to "this"

For a moment, I intertained the idea that the roll to hit ("strike") too the place of the save versus magic difficulty number while the victim did not get a save but instead a DODGE or PARRY roll replacing their save versus magic.

The worst case interpretation of this "whip of Pain" would, from the attackers point of view, they have to strike, and the victim gets to parry (no melee actions lost) and if they fail to parry, they get to also make a save vs magic. So the defendor (er) effectively gets 2 saves versus the agony spell. One to parry and another once versus the actual spell.

While the "best" interpretation, for the attacker, is if they succeed on a strike while the defender fails either their dodge or parry and the defender suffers the effects of the agony spell.

[Prysus]

I want to believe the literal words when they are in my favor, as a player, as a GM when I am running the opponant.

Greetings and Salutations. Well, what the wording states that it inflicts Agony on whoever it strikes. The only thing I see close to indicating it may negate a save is that it states it "inflicts Agony" when it strikes, and that really doesn't say it negates a save. Note: If there's some other wording that suggests the negation of a saving throw, please clarify.

So let's think about it from a different point of view. If I'm a Ley Line Wizard and cast a spell to inflict Agony on you, what happens? Do you get a save?

If your answer is yes, then why do you feel the wording of the item bypasses this aspect of the spell and works differently without any wording telling you that it bypasses saves? Inflicting a spell on someone is not the same as negating an ability to save.

The worst case interpretation of this "whip of Pain" would, from the attackers point of view, they have to strike, and the victim gets to parry (no melee actions lost) and if they fail to parry, they get to also make a save vs magic. So the defendor (er) effectively gets 2 saves versus the agony spell. One to parry and another once versus the actual spell.

While the "best" interpretation, for the attacker, is if they succeed on a strike while the defender fails either their dodge or parry and the defender suffers the effects of the agony spell.

On the other hand, you can look at it from the defender's point of view or any game balance point of view (this is in addition to the above point). I'll give an example, and start with the lowball of characters only having 4 attacks per melee (though characters can very easily have more).

A: If someone casts the Agony spell on you, it'll take 2 actions and 20 P.P.E. for 1 attempt. To try again, it'll cost another 2 actions and 20 P.P.E. To do this every chance you get for 4 minutes would give you 32 tries and cost 640 P.P.E. There's also 32 chances you can be interrupted and not cast the spell at all (per RUE page 189), you cannot even parry or dodge without being interrupted, and just taking the hit can be just as problematic).
B: Meanwhile, with the Whip of Agony you spend 20 P.P.E. (presumably 1 action), and then it lasts for 4 minutes. So in the same 4 minutes (as above), the character can cast Agony 64 times and it only costs 20 P.P.E., which is twice as many attempts at 1/32 the P.P.E. cost, and cannot be interrupted. This can also be used by people who cannot cast the spell by other methods.

The first method takes skill (must be able to cast spell magic AND know this particular spell), is costly (640 P.P.E.!), and runs a lot of risks (can be interrupted very easily).
The second method removes the need for any skill, is relatively cheap (20 P.P.E. for 64+ times the number of castings), and doesn't run much risk (cannot be interrupted, can dodge and parry like normal, and you're still armed with a weapon that inflicts damage even if the opponent makes a save).

With reading the item as written (I don't see anything saying saving throws are negated) and/or thinking about balance (allowing an opponent effectively 2 saves vs. each casting when attacker can spam the spell against said opponent 64+ times for less effort than a normal casting of the Invocation), I don't see any reason to think a saving throw should be negated. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Library Ogre]

I want to believe the literal words when they are in my favor, as a player, as a GM when I am running the opponant.

While the "it makes sense" type of thinking is agreabble if I stopped to think what did the author intend it to be given "so in so" could do "this" or "that" so it common sensically follows that you ought to be able to "this"

I borrow a rule from Hackmaster.

To paraphrase, if a ruling seems pretty reasonable, the GM should decide with the reasonable choice. If it's a bit less reasonable, and clearly favors the player, then the GM should rule against the player (but keep it consistent thereafter).

In this case, I don't think it is completely unreasonable that "The attack roll and defense roll replaces the saving throw". But I also think that "You get a save v. spell against the spell, so you should get it against the weapon that casts the spell" is a lot more reasonable. OTOH, I might argue that you only have to touch the character to affect them... their armor won't help, and their parry might not.

[Kraynic]

I use a similar thought process in my games.

If players are asking for a particular interpretation of an ability for their use, are they going to be fine with npcs using the ability in that exact same way against them? If the answer to that question is no, then they can't use the ability in that particular way. If the answer is yes, then the ability in question works that way for everyone, pc and npc alike.