[3.5]: Unconsciousness and saving vs spells.

[hamishspence]

In the section in the PHB on Targeting spells- specifically, spells with the Save (harmless) trait, it mentions that "unconscious creatures are considered to be willing"

Does this apply to all spells, or just those with the "Save (harmless)" line?

If it does- is it likely that this is RAI?

[Emperor Tippy]

Willing is the state that a character is in when 1) they choose to be or 2) they are unconscious.

If someone attempts to use a "Willing Only" spell on you and you are not willing the spell fails due to being an invalid target. This occurs before SR or Saves are rolled.

If you are willing then you automatically forgo your saving throw.

[Stegyre]

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
Sounds like this is only in the context of spells that restrict you to willing targets.

The OP's alternative suggestion would imply that all unconscious creatures automatically give up their saving throw. That doesn't sound like a very good game-play idea. (The objective now becomes "get the target unconscious" and then you can do anything to/with it.)

[Emperor Tippy]

Sounds like this is only in the context of spells that restrict you to willing targets.
You are making the mistake of assuming that "Willing" is something that only exists for targeting, it's not.


The OP's alternative suggestion would imply that all unconscious creatures automatically give up their saving throw. That doesn't sound like a very good game-play idea. (The objective now becomes "get the target unconscious" and then you can do anything to/with it.)

Yes, if you are unconscious then the bad guys can royally screw you over. Don't become unconscious and/or have other defenses that keep working when you are unconscious.

[Objection]

The OP's alternative suggestion would imply that all unconscious creatures automatically give up their saving throw. That doesn't sound like a very good game-play idea. (The objective now becomes "get the target unconscious" and then you can do anything to/with it.)

To be fair, the only save I can see an unconscious creature being able to get is Fortitude. Reflex is out of the window because (according to common sense at least) a creature that can't move can't evade an attack, and Will depends on the creature being able to mentally resist the effect of whatever is happening, and that's something that has to be done consciously.

Unless I've horribly misunderstood what Reflex and Will saves really mean.

[Sutremaine]

On a semantically-related note:



You get a special +2 bonus on your Use Magic Device check if you’ve activated the item in question at least once before.


From the UMD skill page, in the Activate Blindly section. Blind activation only, or on any item you've UMD'd before?

[hamishspence]

Way I see it, "willing" is only relevant when a spell says "willing creatures only"

Outside of that, there is "Voluntarily choosing to forgo a saving throw" which is not the same thing.

This seems to make more sense.

(I notice 4E doesn't make one's "defences" useless when one is unconscious- instead you just suffer a -5 penalty).

[Zeful]

That's the "Voluntarily Forgoing a Saving Throw" section, not the (harmless) section.

The general Saving Throw rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#savingThrows), in full.
Saving Throws
Generally, when you are subject to an unusual or magical attack, you get a saving throw to avoid or reduce the effect. Like an attack roll, a saving throw is a d20 roll plus a bonus based on your class, level, and an ability score. Your saving throw modifier is:

Base save bonus + ability modifier

Base Save Bonus
A saving throw modifier derived from character class and level. Base save bonuses increase at different rates for different character classes. Base save bonuses gained from different classes, such as when a character is a multiclass character, stack.

Saving Throw Types
The three different kinds of saving throws are Fortitude, Reflex, and Will:

Fortitude
These saves measure your ability to stand up to physical punishment or attacks against your vitality and health. Apply your Constitution modifier to your Fortitude saving throws.

Reflex
These saves test your ability to dodge area attacks. Apply your Dexterity modifier to your Reflex saving throws.

Will
These saves reflect your resistance to mental influence as well as many magical effects. Apply your Wisdom modifier to your Will saving throws.

Saving Throw Difficulty Class
The DC for a save is determined by the attack itself.

Automatic Failures and Successes
A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure (and may cause damage to exposed items; see Items Surviving after a Saving Throw). A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success.
General rule; if you are the target of a spell that allows a saving throw, you make one unless otherwise specified.


(harmless) rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow).
(harmless)
The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.
Specific rule: (harmless) spells cast specify that you must choose to roll a saving throw, in contrast to the above general rule.


Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow)
A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.
Specific rule: In constrast to the above general rule, a creature may choose not make a saving throw they are otherwise entitled to.


Topical information on Willing Targets (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#targetorTargets), from the Aiming a Spell; Target or Targets section.
Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#unconscious) creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
General rule; Spells that require willing targets also work on unconscious targets, no change to the general rule regarding saves.

Incidently, nearly every spell, power, and ability that requires willing targets does not allow saving throws, or are (harmless) or (object) saving throws. The only exception I've found in the SRD is Planeshift, which can be used on unwilling targets as well.


You are making the mistake of assuming that "Willing" is something that only exists for targeting, it's not.You of course have a rules source that says such then? Because based on the language used in the rules I've quoted and rules English operates on, yes it is.

[Emperor Tippy]

Way I see it, "willing" is only relevant when a spell says "willing creatures only"

Outside of that, there is "Voluntarily choosing to forgo a saving throw" which is not the same thing.
You become a willing target when you allow a spell to affect you, willingly forgoing your saving throw. If you don't forgo your saving throw then you aren't willing and the spell doesn't work because you are an invalid target.

Willing is basically a flag on the creature that is checked when it's hit by a spell. If the willing flag is set to yes then 1) you are a valid target for willing only spells and 2) you get no save to resist the spell. If it's set to no then 1) you are an invalid target for willing only spells and 2) you get a saving throw to resist the spell.


This seems to make more sense.
It makes no sense. Why in the world should an unconscious creature get to choose what spells effect it and which don't?


(I notice 4E doesn't make one's "defences" useless when one is unconscious- instead you just suffer a -5 penalty).
That would be a change to "fix" the problem.

[hamishspence]

It makes no sense. Why in the world should an unconscious creature get to choose what spells effect it and which don't?

They don't.

All spells with a "willing target" entry work on them.

All spells which say "you can choose to save against it" (rather than "you can choose not to save against it")- that is, beneficial, save (harmless) spells, work on them.

All other spells still have to beat their save.

[Taelas]

There is absolutely no reason why a (harmless) spell should be treated differently than a spell with an ordinary save when it is targetting an unconscious creature.

None.

The fact that you have the possibility of choosing to forego a save (or to make one, in the case of (harmless) spells) means that, every single time you are permitted a save, you make a conscious choice to do one or the other.

You cannot make that choice when you are unconscious. You are, instead, considered "willing", and you forego any such save. (And in the case of (harmless) spells, you cannot choose to try one.)

[hamishspence]

The fact that you have the possibility of choosing to forego a save (or to make one, in the case of (harmless) spells) means that, every single time you are permitted a save, you make a conscious choice to do one or the other.


The point being, that the "default" (in the absence of a choice) is different.

"You may choose to make a save" (absent the ability to choose, you can't make the save)

"you may choose to forgo a save" (absent the ability to choose, you can't forgo the save).

[Zeful]

There is absolutely no reason why a (harmless) spell should be treated differently than a spell with an ordinary save when it is targetting an unconscious creature.

None.That depends on factors that have been abstracted out, but that's not necessarily true.


The fact that you have the possibility of choosing to forego a save (or to make one, in the case of (harmless) spells) means that, every single time you are permitted a save, you make a conscious choice to do one or the other.Actually, given the way defaults actually work, you have to make a conscious choice to take a save against a (harmless) spell, or forego the save you are otherwise entitled to, so it's not a choice between two options.


You cannot make that choice when you are unconscious. You are, instead, considered "willing", and you forego any such save. (And in the case of (harmless) spells, you cannot choose to try one.)You are a willing target yes, but being a willing target does not create any exemptions to the saving throw rules (cited in my last post), and further more, Plane Shift (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planeShift.htm) still requires willing targets to make (and fail) a saving throw so no, being a willing target does not, in fact, automatically make you forego your saving throw.

[Taelas]

You are drawing an assumption based on an illogical premise. It makes no sense. Somehow he can differentiate between a beneficial spell and a harmful spell while unconscious? Why? How?

If you accept the fact that willing creatures always forgo a save, and that unconscious creatures are always considered willing, the discrepancy disappears; they are treated the same.

Either you save against everything, or you save against nothing.

The sheer fact that you have a choice means there is no true default.


You are a willing target yes, but being a willing target does not create any exemptions to the saving throw rules (cited in my last post), and further more, Plane Shift (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planeShift.htm) still requires willing targets to make (and fail) a saving throw so no, being a willing target does not, in fact, automatically make you forego your saving throw.

What? This is nothing but circular logic. Plane shift requires a save because willing targets don't forgo their saving throw, so willing targets don't forgo their saving throw?

No. Plane shift only requires a save when you are using it on a hostile target. Willing targets do not get to make a saving throw.

[hamishspence]

You are drawing an assumption based on an illogical premise. It makes no sense. Somehow he can differentiate between a beneficial spell and a harmful spell while unconscious? Why? How?

Exactly the same logic would apply to differentiating between a beneficial and a harmful spell while asleep (since asleep does not mean unconscious in 3.0-3.5E).

When conscious (even asleep), and whether you're aware of magic being used on you or not, your defences default to being "down" vs beneficial spells and "up" vs harmful spells.

A conscious person who does not know a spell is being cast on them, still follows these defaults- so why not an unconscious one?



No. Plane shift only requires a save when you are using it on a hostile target. Willing targets do not get to make a saving throw.

That's not what the spell description actually says though. If the willing target voluntarily chooses to forgo a save- then they make no saving throw, is the argument.

[lesser_minion]

I'm going to throw in my 2 cents, but I don't really want to get dragged into the debate. If anyone finds this interesting, cool; if not, oh well:

The rules do not say that you voluntarily forego your save because you are a willing target, they say that you are considered a willing target because you have voluntarily foregone your save. The two are entirely different, and one does not imply the other.

The conclusion that any willing target of any spell immediately and permanently falls unconscious comes from the exact same reasoning as that which claims that a willing character is always treated as having voluntarily foregone its save. It is invalid. "y if x" does not necessarily mean "x if y".

It is clear to me that the creature is not actually willing to have spells cast on it -- it is merely considered willing in terms of the mechanics, not in the conventional sense of a creature that either wants to or doesn't mind having a particular spell cast on it and which therefore "would" voluntarily forego its save.

The end result is:

An unconscious creature must attempt to save against any effect not explicitly called out as [harmless], even if it is beneficial in a given instance.
An unconscious creature never attempts to save against any effect that is explicitly called out as [harmless], even if it is harmful in a given instance.
If the spell requires a creature to be willing in order to work, it always works on unconscious creatures. These spells should not offer a save or should be flagged [harmless]: if they do not, it is a probable error, but (1) still applies.
If the spell explicitly says something to the effect that "unwilling creatures may attempt a save", an unconscious creature does not receive that save. This is a specific exception to the normal rules.


Fortitude and Will saving throws both presumably represent the body unconsciously trying to resist incoming magic. Presumably, [harmless] spells generally "feel good", while harmful spells generally "feel bad". If your DM agrees with me this far, you might want to ask her about the possibility of homebrew spells and feats that allow those feelings to be faked (insert mischievous smiley here).

[Talakeal]

You are drawing an assumption based on an illogical premise. It makes no sense. Somehow he can differentiate between a beneficial spell and a harmful spell while unconscious? Why? How?


This might hold water if a sleeping character, a mindless creature, or an inanimate object automatically failed saves. They don't, they can save as normal. So logically, why would a character who is knocked out be unable to make a choice, but a sleeping or mindless character not?

Further, the issue is choice. Harmless spells say the target may take a saving throw IF IT CHOOSES to do so.

Likewise, normal spells say that characters receive saves, immunity, and spell resistance unless the character CHOOSES to forego it.

The issue is being able to make a conscious choice. The only time a "willing flag" is checked is in the case of spells which specifically state that the target must be willing, and that unconscious targets are automatically willing. I don't know why someone would assume this applies to the rest of the game, or why the common English word "unconscious" only applies to a character who is knocked out, rather than a character who is sleeping or has no consciousness, which the word unconscious includes.

Furthermore, I am wondering why the people who think unconscious characters do not get a save think they still get immunity or SR. Just like saving throws those can be voluntarily lowered if a character is willing.

[Taelas]

Exactly the same logic would apply to differentiating between a beneficial and a harmful spell while asleep (since asleep does not mean unconscious in 3.0-3.5E).

When conscious (even asleep), and whether you're aware of magic being used on you or not, your defences default to being "down" vs beneficial spells and "up" vs harmful spells.

A conscious person who does not know a spell is being cast on them, still follows these defaults- so why not an unconscious one?
A conscious person has the opportunity to make a choice. He can choose whether he trusts the caster. If he doesn't know the spell's result, you shouldn't make that decision for him; you should give him the choice: "Do you choose to resist the spell?"

If you assume his actions for him, you take away his choice.

A sleeping person is still conscious to some degree, and should have the choice (which they must make based on what information they have while asleep).


That's not what the spell description actually says though. If the willing target voluntarily chooses to forgo a save- then they make no saving throw, is the argument.
The spell description doesn't address it one way or the other. It is absurd to require a willing target to make a saving throw, though.


This might hold water if a sleeping character, a mindless creature, or an inanimate object automatically failed saves. They don't, they can save as normal. So logically, why would a character who is knocked out be unable to make a choice, but a sleeping or mindless character not?

Sleeping characters are conscious to some degree. Inanimate objects do not get to make saves on their own unless they are magical. Mindless creatures have a limited form of consciousness (they are able to perceive their environment and differentiate between themselves and others).

[Talakeal]

I'm going to throw in my 2 cents, but I don't really want to get dragged into the debate. If anyone finds this interesting, cool; if not, oh well:

The rules do not say that you voluntarily forego your save because you are a willing target, they say that you are considered a willing target because you have voluntarily foregone your save. The two are entirely different, and one does not imply the other.

The conclusion that any willing target of any spell immediately and permanently falls unconscious comes from the exact same reasoning as that which claims that a willing character is always treated as having voluntarily foregone its save. It is invalid. "y if x" does not necessarily mean "x if y".

It is clear to me that the creature is not actually willing to have spells cast on it -- it is merely considered willing in terms of the mechanics, not in the conventional sense of a creature that either wants to or doesn't mind having a particular spell cast on it and which therefore "would" voluntarily forego its save.

The end result is:

An unconscious creature must attempt to save against any effect not explicitly called out as [harmless], even if it is beneficial in a given instance.
An unconscious creature never attempts to save against any effect that is explicitly called out as [harmless], even if it is harmful in a given instance.
If the spell requires a creature to be willing in order to work, it always works on unconscious creatures. These spells should not offer a save or should be flagged [harmless]: if they do not, it is a probable error, but (1) still applies.
If the spell explicitly says something to the effect that "unwilling creatures may attempt a save", an unconscious creature does not receive that save. This is a specific exception to the normal rules.


Fortitude and Will saving throws both presumably represent the body unconsciously trying to resist incoming magic. Presumably, [harmless] spells generally "feel good", while harmful spells generally "feel bad". If your DM agrees with me this far, you might want to ask her about the possibility of homebrew spells and feats that allow those feelings to be faked (insert mischievous smiley here).

I agree 100%. This is the solution that appears to be most correct by both RAW and RAI, and solves almost every game balance or verisimilitude issue that could arise. You should take this back to the original thread and offer this text as a submission to their playground errata.

I am sure there are a few specific spells which would still be problematic with this approach, but not many. Especially because most of the creatures who react to harmless spells in weird ways, for example undead vs. positive energy, can't become unconscious to begin with.

[Zeful]

The rules do not say that you voluntarily forego your save because you are a willing target, they say that you are considered a willing target because you have voluntarily foregone your save. The two are entirely different, and one does not imply the other.

The rules say neither of these things. When you choose to be a willing target for a spell that requires it, it has zero effect on the saving throw rules. You can be a willing creature for Conceal Thoughts (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/concealThoughts.htm) and then choose to make a saving throw against the power.

The rules for saving throws and targeting, where the issue is derived, have nothing to do with each other.

[hamishspence]

Imagine lining up six people, all helpless for a different reason, and all with high Reflex saves due to high level (even after Dexterity is counted as 0 due to being helpless)

Person A is asleep
Person B has just had Hold Person successfully cast on them
Person C is paralysed
Person D has been poisoned to Dex 0 with a Dex-based poison
Person E is bound
Person F is unconscious

A Fireball is thrown at all of them.

How come only person F would get no save?


Especially because most of the creatures who react to harmless spells in weird ways, for example undead vs. positive energy, can't become unconscious to begin with.
Ordinary people who've taken the Tomb Tainted Soul feat (Libris Mortis) can though and are harmed by positive energy

[prufock]

In the section in the PHB on Targeting spells- specifically, spells with the Save (harmless) trait, it mentions that "unconscious creatures are considered to be willing"

Does this apply to all spells, or just those with the "Save (harmless)" line?

If it does- is it likely that this is RAI?

The text you quoted is actually under the "Target or Targets" subheading of "Aiming a Spell," and has nothing to do with the "(harmless)" subheading at all.

While unconscious, you are considered "willing" for the purposes of targeting the spell. For instance, Teleport has "Target: You and touched objects or other touched willing creatures." If you are unconscious, you automatically qualify as a willing target.

No saving throw applies to willing targets.

Normally, unconscious characters still get saving throws, though they can choose to forgo them if desired.

EDIT: Having Dex 0 for being helpless means your Ref saves auto-fail use a Dex mod of -5.

[hamishspence]

On willing targets getting no save:


You can be a willing creature for Conceal Thoughts (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/concealThoughts.htm) and then choose to make a saving throw against the power.

The rules for saving throws and targeting, where the issue is derived, have nothing to do with each other.




EDIT: Having Dex 0 for being helpless means your Ref saves auto-fail.

Where's that stated? As far as I can tell, all that happens is you get -5 to your save.

[TuggyNE]

Like lesser_minion, I haven't wanted to get involved in this much, especially because everyone seems to be talking past each other and getting tangled up in the vagaries of RAW. (Note: I personally strongly suspect that RAW-wise, "willing" and "willingly" are two unrelated terms, however bizarre this may be.)


An unconscious creature must attempt to save against any effect not explicitly called out as [harmless], even if it is beneficial in a given instance.
An unconscious creature never attempts to save against any effect that is explicitly called out as [harmless], even if it is harmful in a given instance.
If the spell requires a creature to be willing in order to work, it always works on unconscious creatures. These spells should not offer a save or should be flagged [harmless]: if they do not, it is a probable error, but (1) still applies.
If the spell explicitly says something to the effect that "unwilling creatures may attempt a save", an unconscious creature does not receive that save. This is a specific exception to the normal rules.


Honestly, this seems like an extremely sensible approach to take to this whole mess; I agree, although with the note as follows:
When you choose to be a willing target for a spell that requires it, it has zero effect on the saving throw rules. You can be a willing creature for Conceal Thoughts (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/concealThoughts.htm) and then choose to make a saving throw against the power.

The rules for saving throws and targeting, where the issue is derived, have nothing to do with each other.



EDIT: Having Dex 0 for being helpless means your Ref saves auto-fail.

Where do you get this? You have a penalty to reflex saves, of course, but I cannot find a specific place in RAW where it actually says this. (So I would tend to disagree, honestly.) Perhaps it seems logical, perhaps it is even common sense, but RAW? Not so much.

[Malachei]

Thank you for starting the thread, hamishspence.


A conscious person has the opportunity to make a choice. He can choose whether he trusts the caster. If he doesn't know the spell's result, you shouldn't make that decision for him; you should give him the choice: "Do you choose to resist the spell?"
If you assume his actions for him, you take away his choice.
A sleeping person is still conscious to some degree, and should have the choice (which they must make based on what information they have while asleep).

This reasoning is not based on RAW. The rules offer mechanic solutions. You might not to agree with this, but the laws of physics or the medical sciences do not have a good fit with D&D (hey, no critical hits!). In game terms, the unconscious condition is defined as the helpless condition. You get saves.


Imagine lining up six people, all helpless for a different reason, and all with high Reflex saves due to high level (even after Dexterity is counted as 0 due to being helpless)

Person A is asleep
Person B has just had Hold Person successfully cast on them
Person C is paralysed
Person D has been poisoned to Dex 0 with a Dex-based poison
Person E is bound
Person F is unconscious

A Fireball is thrown at all of them.

How come only person F would get no save?

Exactly. And even a magical item, such as a scroll of shield would get saving throws. Even more problematic: As the debated part applies only to spells, you would get a saving throw versus a dragon's breath, but not versus the fireball.


When you choose to be a willing target for a spell that requires it, it has zero effect on the saving throw rules. You can be a willing creature for Conceal Thoughts and then choose to make a saving throw against the power.

I completely agree.

The default for (harmless) spells is that you do not take a save, unless you explicitly wish to.

The default for other spells is that you take a save, unless you explicitly not wish to.

The clause about being willing applies to spells that affect willing targets only, because it is presented in context, in a paragraph. I think Sutremaine's point illustrates well how rules cease to function when taken out of context:


On a semantically-related note:

Quote:Originally Posted by SRD
You get a special +2 bonus on your Use Magic Device check if you’ve activated the item in question at least once before.

From the UMD skill page, in the Activate Blindly section. Blind activation only, or on any item you've UMD'd before?

IMO, it is clear that the paragraph (Zeful has cited the rules texts in his post above) is to be read and applied in context. Otherwise, we can all start grabbing single sentences from paragraphs and see how we can now argue about all kinds of funny rules implications. Hence, it applies only to spells that are restricted to willing targets.

=> IMO, this is really RAW, but because it is debated so often, I've suggested rule 15 in Andorax's "Common Sense" approach to Rules thread, which says: "Unconscious is not Mindraped."

[prufock]

Where's that stated? As far as I can tell, all that happens is you get -5 to your save.


Where do you get this? You have a penalty to reflex saves, of course, but I cannot find a specific place in RAW where it actually says this. (So I would tend to disagree, honestly.) Perhaps it seems logical, perhaps it is even common sense, but RAW? Not so much.

You're both right, I was thinking of having no dex score at all. With Dex 0 you still get a save, though your modifier is treated as -5.

[Emperor Tippy]

And there is just as much support for the opposite position.

You are either willing or your aren't. You become willing by choosing to forgo your save, this makes you a valid target for willing only spells. If you choose to make a save then you aren't willing and willing only spells fail to work on you because of an invalid target.

If you are unconscious then you are automatically willing and thus don't get a save.

There is just as much, if not more, support for that position as their is for the opposite under the rules as they are written. I really don't see the point of this thread, both sides have their own opinion and no one is going to convince anyone else.

[Zeful]

No saving throw applies to willing targets.
Citation Needed]

Most spells that specify willing targets don't have saves to begin with, or only specify them for things that aren't the willing targets ((object) saves).

Still, Plane Shift, it has a save, one that does not possess (See text) or any other conditional modifier, thus even willing targets of the spell (all eight of them) have to either roll their will save, or choose to forego the save entirely.

[Malachei]

The point of this thread is to continue the discussion that started in Andorax's thread.

I think several posters have brought extensive evidence on why, IMO, there is actually a lot less support for disallowing saves.

I'm also not sure whether we're unable to convince anyone. I think there are many people on this board who might be interested in the points made. Not everybody may be posting in this thread, but some may be reading it.

[prufock]

And there is just as much support for the opposite position.

You are either willing or your aren't. You become willing by choosing to forgo your save, this makes you a valid target for willing only spells.

Not sure where you're finding support for this interpretation. It isn't under the "Aiming a Spell" or "Saving Throw" sections. Many spells that have "willing creatures" as target don't allow a saving throw in the first place.

Consider Teleport. "Target: You and touched objects or other touched willing creatures." "Saving Throw: None and Will negates (object)" with the caveat that "Only objects held or in use (attended) by another person receive saving throws." You can not be considered a willing creature by virtue of "choosing to forgo your save," because there is no save for willing creatures. This dictates that they are two separate factors.

[Taelas]

This reasoning is not based on RAW. The rules offer mechanic solutions. You might not to agree with this, but the laws of physics or the medical sciences do not have a good fit with D&D (hey, no critical hits!). In game terms, the unconscious condition is defined as the helpless condition. You get saves.

It's 'Szar', not 'Tsar'.

The reasoning for the difference between sleeping and unconscious is pure fluff, of course; RAW does not require a reason.

My interpretation of what precisely the RAW means, however, does, which is what I gave.

[moritheil]

The OP's alternative suggestion would imply that all unconscious creatures automatically give up their saving throw. That doesn't sound like a very good game-play idea. (The objective now becomes "get the target unconscious" and then you can do anything to/with it.)

To be fair, that's already the objective in most D&D encounters (the alternative being "get the target dead and then do what you want.")

[prufock]

Plane Shift, it has a save, one that does not possess (See text) or any other conditional modifier, thus even willing targets of the spell (all eight of them) have to either roll their will save, or choose to forego the save entirely.

That... is strange. I guess I'm making the assumption that if you are a willing target, you will choose to fail your save. Not necessarily true, by RAW, but an odd situation if not.

[Jeraa]

You're both right, I was thinking of having no dex score at all. With Dex 0 you still get a save, though your modifier is treated as -5.

Unattended magic items have no dexterity score (or any ability score at all), yet still get reflex saves. Only non-magical, unattended objects are denied a saving throw. Everything else, dexterity score or not, gets a save.

[Taelas]

Unattended magic items have no dexterity score (or any ability score at all), yet still get reflex saves. Only non-magical, unattended objects are denied a saving throw. Everything else, dexterity score or not, gets a save.

Incorrect. Any creature with a nonability in Dexterity automatically fails Reflex saves and Dexterity checks. (Page 312, Monster Manual.)

Magic items get saves because they are magic items, not for any other reason.

[Zeful]

That... is strange. I guess I'm making the assumption that if you are a willing target, you will choose to fail your save. Not necessarily true, by RAW, but an odd situation if not.

It is strange, and in almost every case involving that spell specifically, if you are willing, you will forgo the saving throw you are entitled on spell cast, simply because you're more than likely going someplace in another plane and the save would be problematic. Makes for interesting turncoat plays for evil characters though.

But in general, by keeping the willing target rules separate from the saving throw rules (something that nearly every "Target: X willing creature(s)" spell does by outright denying a save for those spells) you prevent players from just being one shot by a AoE save or Die spell because they were unconscious for whatever reason. This is a good thing IMO.

[Sholos]

From my reading it's pretty clear how it works. The only time "willing" is mentioned is being a "willing target". This is mentioned under the "Targeting Spells" section. It says nothing about saves. Trying to connect that to the sentence where it says it's possible to "willingly forgo" a save is just trying to play loose with wording simply because a similar word is used. You'll notice, however, that nowhere is it actually stated that a willing target automatically gives up his save. Only that a save may be given up if desired.

[Talakeal]

p 177

"A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic (for example, an elf's resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality."

So, if you are to take this to mean an unconscious creature automatically fails saves because the willingly in this section is a similar word to the "willing" in a different section, you must also ignore the "can" and "voluntarily" in this section, meaning that even by the most literal "RAW" reading this section contradicts you.

If you are going by "RAI" instead of "RAW" still believe that being unconscious denies you a save, why would you ignore the second half of the rule that which about suppressing immunities?

[UserClone]

Stranger still is the case of raise dead, the only line of spells I can think of off the top of my head which relies on the rule that when you are dead, you are no longer unconscious (since the soul, while not itself the dead creature targeted, can decide that said dead creature is unwilling)...buh? Because last time I checked, dead things are the opposite of conscious...

[Douglas]

Stranger still is the case of raise dead, the only line of spells I can think of off the top of my head which relies on the rule that when you are dead, you are no longer unconscious (since the soul, while not itself the dead creature targeted, can decide that said dead creature is unwilling)...buh? Because last time I checked, dead things are the opposite of conscious...
Oh, dead people just need Rageclaws and a little essentia.:smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

Incorrect. Any creature with a nonability in Dexterity automatically fails Reflex saves and Dexterity checks. (Page 312, Monster Manual.)

Nonability is not the same thing.

A nonability in Dex is Dex -, a creature like a shrieker mushroom.

"being treated as Dex 0" which is what helpless creatures are, isn't the same thing.

[moritheil]

Nonability is not the same thing.

A nonability in Dex is Dex -, a creature like a shrieker mushroom.

"being treated as Dex 0" which is what helpless creatures are, isn't the same thing.

Correct. Undead have Con - but this is a +0 modifier, not an automatic fail. To be sure, they tend to have terrible fort saves against things like disintegrate, but they do get to roll.


Stranger still is the case of raise dead, the only line of spells I can think of off the top of my head which relies on the rule that when you are dead, you are no longer unconscious (since the soul, while not itself the dead creature targeted, can decide that said dead creature is unwilling)...buh? Because last time I checked, dead things are the opposite of conscious...

Not only that, strictly RAW, when you die you gain the condition of being dead, but when you are raised, it does not strictly say that the condition ends. Anyone resurrected through magic is, strictly RAW, in a strange Shrodinger's cat state of not being definitively alive; it requires you to interpret "you bring someone back to life" as ending the dead condition.*

*Yes, I have heard this argument used before. Really. The argument was that they therefore could not die, being already dead . . .

[Malachei]

Incorrect. Any creature with a nonability in Dexterity automatically fails Reflex saves and Dexterity checks. (Page 312, Monster Manual.)

Magic items get saves because they are magic items, not for any other reason.

Since when is an item a creature, Szar_Lakol?

DMG:

For example, a lantern of revealing, wiht a caster level of 5th, has a Reflex save bonus of +4 if it is caught in a fireball.


p 177

"A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic (for example, an elf's resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality."

So, if you are to take this to mean an unconscious creature automatically fails saves because the willingly in this sentence is a similar word to the "willing" in a different section, you must also ignore the "can" and "voluntarily" in this sentence, meaning that even by literal rules lawyering this sentence contradicts you.

Further, if you are going by common sense and still believe that being unconscious, why would you ignore the second half of the rule that talks about suppressing immunities?

100% agreement, and this is exactly the point.

[TypoNinja]

Since when is an item a creature, Szar_Lakol?

DMG:

For example, a lantern of revealing, wiht a caster level of 5th, has a Reflex save bonus of +4 if it is caught in a fireball.



100% agreement, and this is exactly the point.

I agree, and further would point out that conflating the line "willingly accept a spell's result." as being "Willing" as per the actual state in terms of game mechanics to be incorrect. The two are not automatically linked. Yes they will likely be the same (hi magical healing, party wizard porting the party somewhere, buff spells, ect), but are not automatically so.

Further, interpreting 'willing' and 'willingly give up your save' as being automatically linked also requires reading the rules out of context. The section specifying an unconscious creature counts as willing says


Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing not 'are willing' but 'considered willing.' Not actually willing, but considered so for targeting. This is in the targeting section remember.

The section on giving up your saving throw is much further down the page, and uses the word willingly in different context.


Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw

A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result.

The important word here is voluntarily. You Voluntarily give up your save, as a result of this voluntary action, the descriptive phrase of what happens next is "and willingly accept the spell".

These are not all isolated things to be taken out of context, all of these bits show that a player decides if hes making a save or not.

[Spuddles]

There is absolutely no reason why a (harmless) spell should be treated differently than a spell with an ordinary save when it is targetting an unconscious creature.

None.

The fact that you have the possibility of choosing to forego a save (or to make one, in the case of (harmless) spells) means that, every single time you are permitted a save, you make a conscious choice to do one or the other.

You cannot make that choice when you are unconscious. You are, instead, considered "willing", and you forego any such save. (And in the case of (harmless) spells, you cannot choose to try one.)

Or, you know, magic.

[Gwendol]

Again, I don't see the point of the debate since the rules are very clear: being unconscious is being knocked-out and helpless (see Helpless). A helpless creature may roll saves vs spells, and in particular its Will save.

There is no difference gamewise between being unconcious and sleeping, and we really don't want to go there. However, people may rule as they please in their own games, as always.

[hamishspence]

4E writers made sleeping include the "Unconscious" condition- so it looks like they agree.

[Taelas]

Nonability is not the same thing.

A nonability in Dex is Dex -, a creature like a shrieker mushroom.

"being treated as Dex 0" which is what helpless creatures are, isn't the same thing.
I didn't say it was. :smallconfused:

Helpless creatures make Reflex saves at -5. Creatures with a nonability in Dexterity automatically fail them. Two entirely different situations.

I was refuting Jeraa's post.


Since when is an item a creature, Szar_Lakol?

DMG:

For example, a lantern of revealing, wiht a caster level of 5th, has a Reflex save bonus of +4 if it is caught in a fireball.

I never said items are creatures.

Magic items get saves because they are magical, not for any other reason. That includes Reflex saves.

[Zonasiy]

Curiously, in the description of a Kalashtar's Mindlink power(Eberron Campaign Setting, pg 18), the book has this to say:


The bond can be established only with a willing subject, who therefore receives no saving throw and gains no benefit from spell resistance.

Whoever wrote that section agrees that willing means no save. Whether that has any authority on the rules however is questionable.

[Zeful]

Whoever wrote that section agrees that willing means no save. Whether that has any authority on the rules however is questionable.

Again, most spells that require willing targets don't allow saves or SR to begin with (short of plane shift, most only allow (object) saves and SR), so I don't see how defining that a Supernatural/Spell-like ability a race possess doesn't have a save or allow SR shows anything of the sort, it's just following the precedent of similar abilities.

And it's not an authority on the general rules that are part of this discussion. It's a specific rule for a specific power, nothing more.

[hamishspence]

How about intelligent magic items? The DMG says that they are creatures- constructs. Does that mean that, as creatures, they get no Reflex save, when an "ordinary" magic item would?

Or do the "magic item rules" override the "creature" rules?

[Zonasiy]

Again, most spells that require willing targets don't allow saves or SR to begin with (short of plane shift, most only allow (object) saves and SR), so I don't see how defining that a Supernatural/Spell-like ability a race possess doesn't have a save or allow SR shows anything of the sort, it's just following the precedent of similar abilities.

And it's not an authority on the general rules that are part of this discussion. It's a specific rule for a specific power, nothing more.

Whether or not a spell has a save or not is irrelevant to what is written. It states clearly that because the target is willing, they receive no saving throw or spell resistance.

I agree that it's not much of an authority, given it's not a core book, but at least it's another point of reference to figure out how things are supposed to work.

[Talakeal]

Curiously, in the description of a Kalashtar's Mindlink power(Eberron Campaign Setting, pg 18), the book has this to say:



Whoever wrote that section agrees that willing means no save. Whether that has any authority on the rules however is questionable.

Note that this example also mentions that they get no spell resistance, something which I don't think that even the pro "unconsciousness = mindraped" crowd wants.

[hamishspence]

In Rules Compendium it's not entirely clear if sleeping creatures are willing or not. It says in the Willing Targets section on page 154 that conscious creatures that are immobile or helpless creatures aren't automatically willing- but doesn't list sleep among the "conscious, helpless" possibilities.

So a case could be made either way.

[Talakeal]

In Rules Compendium it's not entirely clear if sleeping creatures are willing or not. It says in the Willing Targets section on page 154 that conscious creatures that are immobile or helpless creatures aren't automatically willing- but doesn't list sleep among the "conscious, helpless" possibilities.

So a case could be made either way.

And here is a problem when you have an English word and a game term that don't necessarily mean the same thing, a common problem, which is why I always italicize game terms when writing my own rules.

In common usage someone who is asleep, comatose, passed out from drugs or poison, feinted from lack of blood pressure, in psychological shock, catatonic, and dazed by a blow to the head are all unconscious. If you want to stretch the term further you can be conscious of specific things or semi conscious depending on the situation.

In D&D game rules only characters who are between -1 and -9 HP or subject to very specific effects are unconscious.

It is very difficult to tell (and impossible without context despite what the hardcore RAW group would like you to believe) which applies in any given usage of the word.

[Glimbur]

Just to muddy the water further, there is a spell that offers a will save and can only be cast on sleeping creatures: Nightmare (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/nightmare.htm). If we assume that WotC is consistent and can apply their own rules correctly, this would suggest that sleeping characters are still entitled to Will saves. This is not an assumption I am willing to make, but it's something to consider.

[Talakeal]

Just to muddy the water further, there is a spell that offers a will save and can only be cast on sleeping creatures: Nightmare (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/nightmare.htm). If we assume that WotC is consistent and can apply their own rules correctly, this would suggest that sleeping characters are still entitled to Will saves. This is not an assumption I am willing to make, but it's something to consider.

Unfortunatly, that doesn't actually clear anything up, because the argument is the sleeping is not unconscious as per RAW.