Unconscious, Willing, Choosing to fail a save: rules and opinions?

[Jowgen]

I've found myself wondering at the rules for when and how a creature is considered willing and/or can simply choose to be affected by something; and thought I'd ask what people's reading of the rules and opinions on them were. Here be them relevant texts:


Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: 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.


VOLUNTARILY FAILING
A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a consequence.


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.

Now, here are some issues I see with how this is all written out.

1st: Voluntary failure in general seems straightforward at a first glance, but there are some instances where this gets weird. Lets say you -in character- are unaware of the fact that you're making a save (e.g. exposure to disease, sneaky mind-affecting magic). Do you get the option of failing or are you "forced" to attempt the save? Also, there are some effects where -by fluff- it doesn't seem like you should be able to choose failure. Suppressing your reflexes or letting some external force warp your mind are at least somewhat reasonable, but how would one choose to "shut-off" one's immune system for example?

2nd: The Elves-sleep-immunity clause seems to give the option to just "suppress" inherent immunities at will (at least against spells, by RAW; SR being obvious specific exception). Just how far does this go? Lets take Undead for example. Can they choose to be subject to mind-affecting things? Can they choose to take physical ability damage, or hell, choose to be affected by a poison? I imagine a reasonable DM would draw a line here somewhere, but is there any RAW basis for that? Where would you personally draw the line?

3rd: Is choosing to forgo a saving throw and being willing the same thing? Unconsciousness makes you willing per these rules, so does this mean you automatically forgo all saving throws while unconscious? It certainly makes sense for Reflex saves (although really, being helpless should suffice for those.... I digress...), but does unconsciousness simply take away your mind/body's ability to resist ANY external influence? I can see some abuse-potential here.

4th: Lastly, how does one fluff forgoing a saving throw? This kinda ties into my first issue, with in-character-awareness and apparent complete-self-control being in play. Wizard says "I'm going to cast this transmutation spell on you, DON'T try to maintain your current form"? Or to go broader "hey, if you want to see your family again, don't put up any kind of resistance against stuff"? It just seems a bit off to me for some reason.

So yeah, that's my 2 copper; very much curious what everyone thinks :smallsmile:

[Psyren]

I don't think that "willing" and "voluntarily foregoing a save" are synonymous. If you automatically failed all saves while asleep, that would be extremely overpowered - you could scry on anyone, dominate/enslave them, instantly kill them regardless of their defenses etc.

In addition, spells like Nightmare (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/nightmare.htm) suggest that you do in fact continue to make saves while sleeping, despite the fact that that makes you "willing" for the purposes of spells that only work on willing targets, like teleport.

[Morcleon]

2nd: The Elves-sleep-immunity clause seems to give the option to just "suppress" inherent immunities at will (at least against spells, by RAW; SR being obvious specific exception). Just how far does this go? Lets take Undead for example. Can they choose to be subject to mind-affecting things? Can they choose to take physical ability damage, or hell, choose to be affected by a poison? I imagine a reasonable DM would draw a line here somewhere, but is there any RAW basis for that? Where would you personally draw the line?

If you have immunity to something based on a physical restriction, you can't just forego it. An example would be an intelligent undead being able to be affected by mind-affecting effects if they wished, but they couldn't be affected by poison since they have no physiology to be poisoned.

However, an elf can willingly be affected by a sleep spell because it's not something where they are incapable of sleeping, it's just that they usually don't want to.

[Jowgen]

I don't think that "willing" and "voluntarily foregoing a save" are synonymous. If you automatically failed all saves while asleep, that would be extremely overpowered - you could scry on anyone, dominate/enslave them, instantly kill them regardless of their defenses etc.

In addition, spells like Nightmare suggest that you do in fact continue to make saves while sleeping, despite the fact that that makes you "willing" for the purposes of spells that only work on willing targets, like teleport.

Sleeping and Unconscious are separate conditions strangely enough, although there is more overlap than difference really (e.g. you still get to make listen checks while sleeping), so the abuse potential isn't that bad actually and it reconciles Nightmare allowing a save.

Interestingly, that spell actually designates being in a Trance as an auto-fail-saving-throws condition. I strongly assume that Elf-trances are different, since their race still exists...


If you have immunity to something based on a physical restriction, you can't just forego it. An example would be an intelligent undead being able to be affected by mind-affecting effects if they wished, but they couldn't be affected by poison since they have no physiology to be poisoned.

However, an elf can willingly be affected by a sleep spell because it's not something where they are incapable of sleeping, it's just that they usually don't want to.

Is it ever explained why Undead get mind-affecting immunity? Don't recall anything from Libris Mortis on the subject, although might have just missed that. Either way, physical restrictions seems like a good rule of thumb by which to draw the line, although that does open the question on how you define a physical restriction. Is a Druid 9 physically restricted from choosing to be affected by a poison for example?

Also, fun fact, according to Drow of the Underdark, some Drow have taken to sleeping rather than meditating purely because Drow-life stresses them out so much that trances just won't cut it anymore.

[Psyren]

Sleeping and Unconscious are separate conditions strangely enough, although there is more overlap than difference really (e.g. you still get to make listen checks while sleeping), so the abuse potential isn't that bad actually and it reconciles Nightmare allowing a save.

Does this mean then that under your interpretation, sleeping characters are not automatically willing?

But there is also precedent for unconscious characters getting to make a saving throw. For instance, the Dawn spell in SpC allows a fort save, and specifically can be used on both sleeping and unconscious characters.

In addition, both sleep and unconsciousness render you helpless (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#helpless) - and since you can still make the fort save vs. CDG while helpless (regardless of cause), that too suggests that being unconscious does not remove your ability to make saves. In fact, if anything it strengthens the interpretation that unconscious characters can make saves, since the damage from a CdG would not wake an unconscious character like it would a sleeping one, but they still explicitly get a save.


Interestingly, that spell actually designates being in a Trance as an auto-fail-saving-throws condition. I strongly assume that Elf-trances are different, since their race still exists...

This vulnerability is specific to the trance that the Nightmare spell places you under. Other trances, like Animal Trance, do not mention this. (Animal Trance does include a line about wild animals not getting a save, but that is for the spell itself rather than any subsequent attacks.)

[Jowgen]

Does this mean then that under your interpretation, sleeping characters are not automatically willing?

Indeed, they are after all seperate things that happen to have the whole lying-helpless thing incommon. Just to be clear, I'm personally not sold about the no-save-thing myself either. Just trying to get to the truth *looks dramatically into the distance*


But there is also precedent for unconscious characters getting to make a saving throw. For instance, the Dawn spell in SpC allows a fort save, and specifically can be used on both sleeping and unconscious characters.

*looks up Dawn* Hmmm, that is something; although I don't think it's watertight. It specifically requires the creature to be unconscious because non-lethal, making it rather specific; which very much implies a specific-trumps-general in this case. :smallannoyed:


In addition, both sleep and unconsciousness render you helpless (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#helpless) - and since you can still make the fort save vs. CDG while helpless (regardless of cause), that too suggests that being unconscious does not remove your ability to make saves. In fact, if anything it strengthens the interpretation that unconscious characters can make saves, since the damage from a CdG would not wake an unconscious character like it would a sleeping one, but they still explicitly get a save.

Oh, good one. :smallsmile:

Unconscious characters not getting a CDG save really seems like one of those things they would have spelled out. It's not entirely free of ambiguity, but it's certainly the basis for a solid case.

Incidentally, this now makes me wonder if a character could choose to be Helpless; but that's a whole different topic.


This vulnerability is specific to the trance that the Nightmare spell places you under. Other trances, like Animal Trance, do not mention this. (Animal Trance does include a line about wild animals not getting a save, but that is for the spell itself rather than any subsequent attacks.)

You have saved the Elven race yet again. :smalltongue:

Still, the fact that this particular trance does make you auto-fail saves does seem like something that could be seen as having implications; in that is lists being "defenseless, both physically and mentally" as being at least fluff-wise grounds for having to auto-fail saves. Would be easy to equate Unconsciousness to being "defenseless, both physically and mentally". Are there any other status conditions that this could be applied to as to discount that?

[Flickerdart]

3rd: Is choosing to forgo a saving throw and being willing the same thing? Unconsciousness makes you willing per these rules, so does this mean you automatically forgo all saving throws while unconscious? It certainly makes sense for Reflex saves (although really, being helpless should suffice for those.... I digress...), but does unconsciousness simply take away your mind/body's ability to resist ANY external influence? I can see some abuse-potential here.
They are not the same thing at all. "Willingness" only applies to spells that only affect willing creatures. Giving up a saving throw applies only to spells with saving throws. You will notice that there is no overlap between these types of spells.


4th: Lastly, how does one fluff forgoing a saving throw? This kinda ties into my first issue, with in-character-awareness and apparent complete-self-control being in play. Wizard says "I'm going to cast this transmutation spell on you, DON'T try to maintain your current form"? Or to go broader "hey, if you want to see your family again, don't put up any kind of resistance against stuff"? It just seems a bit off to me for some reason.
The same way you intentionally don't dodge when someone punches you in the face, only with magic. The wizard could just say "don't resist this spell."

[Ogh_the_Second]

What feels 'off' for me, is willingly failing saves against shadow magic, or figments. "Oh yeah, I totally know that my party wizard casts illusions all of the time, but if I just don't try to disbelieve, it's totally real to me."

[Jowgen]

They are not the same thing at all. "Willingness" only applies to spells that only affect willing creatures. Giving up a saving throw applies only to spells with saving throws. You will notice that there is no overlap between these types of spells.

I'm not sure the distinction. How is being willing to be affected by a spell different from voluntarily accepting the results of a spell? The words "willing" and "voluntary" seem like completely synonyms to me. :smallconfused:

The fact that no willing-only spells allow saves can be easily seen as an example of this. If the spell only works for creatures that are willing, and being willing means you would forgo a saving throw even if there was one, then of course the spell won't allow a save. There'd be absolutely no point in it having a save, because even if there was one, the fact that the target is willing would mean they'd need to forgo the save anyway.

I had a quick check for spells that allow saves but mention willing creatures, and there are no instances of the mentioned willing creatures getting a save. Plane-shift for example doesn't mention the people who link hands being allowed a save, but there are probably better examples of this?



The same way you intentionally don't dodge when someone punches you in the face, only with magic. The wizard could just say "don't resist this spell."

A challenger appears:


willingly failing saves against shadow magic, or figments. "Oh yeah, I totally know that my party wizard casts illusions all of the time, but if I just don't try to disbelieve, it's totally real to me."

My two-coppers: I think a lot of this comes down to how the experience and mechanics of magic are fluffed in any given situation. I mean, how can one explain a creature choosing to not resist an effect when we don't know how it goes about resisting an effect and experiences/understands the act of doing so in the first place?

I imagine a barbarian and a cleric respectively have very different approaches on how they "steel themselves" against external influences. Considering their different save-progressions, we can infer that their approaches differ in how effective they are in certain cases, but they both seem to have the choice to willingly/voluntarily accept any given effect regardless. *shrug*

[Flickerdart]

I'm not sure the distinction. How is being willing to be affected by a spell different from voluntarily accepting the results of a spell? The words "willing" and "voluntary" seem like completely synonyms to me. :smallconfused:
The funny thing about rules is that synonyms mean nothing. "Willing" is a rules term.

[Jowgen]

The funny thing about rules is that synonyms mean nothing. "Willing" is a rules term.

If it had a glossary defintion of any variety I'd agree, but all we know about it is that "willing" is something that a) is required for the targeting of certain spells, b) one can declare oneself to be at any time, and c) an unconscious creature automatically counts as.

More importantly, the rules text for voluntarily forgoing a saving throw literally describes the forgoing of said saving throw as "willingly accept a consequence". You forgo a saving throw when willing to accept a consequence, and you count as willing when you are unconscious. I don't really see any wiggle room there. :smallconfused:

[Flickerdart]

If it had a glossary defintion of any variety I'd agree, but all we know about it is that "willing" is something that a) is required for the targeting of certain spells, b) one can declare oneself to be at any time, and c) an unconscious creature automatically counts as.

More importantly, the rules text for voluntarily forgoing a saving throw literally describes the forgoing of said saving throw as "willingly accept a consequence". You forgo a saving throw when willing to accept a consequence, and you count as willing when you are unconscious. I don't really see any wiggle room there. :smallconfused:
Yes, that is the entirety of what "willing" is, in the context of letting "willing creature only" spells affect you. It is not the same thing as the conditions for giving up a saving throw.

The rules for the two are in different places, refer to different sections of a spell's description, and don't reference each other in any way. Hanging on a single word to try and conflate them is misguided at best; it is clear from the context of these rules that they do not mix. Willingness to accept a save and willingness to accept a "willing only" spell are distinct rules entities. There are other types of willing - a mount must be willing to accept a rider. Under your reading of the rules, the mount is thus also automatically failing all saves?

[Jowgen]

Yes, that is the entirety of what "willing" is, in the context of letting "willing creature only" spells affect you. It is not the same thing as the conditions for giving up a saving throw.

The rules for the two are in different places, refer to different sections of a spell's description, and don't reference each other in any way. Hanging on a single word to try and conflate them is misguided at best; it is clear from the context of these rules that they do not mix. Willingness to accept a save and willingness to accept a "willing only" spell are distinct rules entities. There are other types of willing - a mount must be willing to accept a rider. Under your reading of the rules, the mount is thus also automatically failing all saves?

Hmmm, I can see where you're coming from now. They do seem somewhat separate as rule entities due to placement. And you do bring up an excellent point in regards to different kinds of willingness. Lets see what we have so far:

1st, the willingness to be affected by a willing-only spell/effect. This willingness can be decided at any time it comes up, which would be when someone tries to target you with with a "willing only" spell.

2nd, the willingness to accept the result of an spell/effect to auto-fail the save. This willingness can also be decided at any time it come up, namely when a character is entitled to a save... although, arguably not when he's unware of the save... or maybe even then it's one the the issues I mentioned in the OP that hasn't seen discussion yet.

3rd, the willingness to be ridden. Again, same thing as the other two, with the decision point being when someone tries to ride you.

All three have in common that you can, at any point, decide your willingness. Deciding your willing-ness ahead of time doesn't really seem sensible (I mean, if that were possible, would the rules even allow for you to delcare yourself uni-willing if you change your mind later?), so the question whether you're willing in each case always gets asked at the time the thing in question happens. The mount decides whether it's willing to be ridden when someone tries to ride it, but is someone targets it with a spell it gets asked for willingness again. "Willing" is not a status condition one turns on or off, it's a decision one makes whenever called for.

When unconscious, a creature can not choose to be unwilling in regards to a willing-only spell/effect. The thing we're discussing is whether it gets the choice to be unwilling to accept a save-allowing spell. As for the riding willingness... I don't see how a horse could be unwilling to be ridden while unconscious. Terribly ineffective at being ridden, yes, but unwilling?

I think it might be worthwhile to consider the other types of willing-ness you have mentioned. Perhaps one of them proves to be an odd-one out in regards to unconsciousness. Some kind of effect or rule for which you couldn't be considered willing while unconscious I mean. If we can find one, it would demonstrate that the willigness stemming from unconsciousness doesn't apply to everything for which willingness is required.

[Duke of Urrel]

My interpretation of the rules you are asking about (which appear here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#targetorTargets) in the SRD) has changed recently. I've done a lot of thinking about these rules, and here are my own conclusions. Please feel free to critique them. A friendly warning: There are house rules ahead! You may notice that my thinking has changed since the last time I commented on one of your threads.


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.

This paragraph presents some interpretive challenges, so I will clarify my own interpretation here.

• “Some spells restrict you to willing targets only.” I interpret this sentence to mean that the entire paragraph refers exclusively to spells that restrict you, the spellcaster, 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).” I interpret this sentence to mean that declaring yourself willing to accept a spell that works only on willing targets is a reaction, that is, a nonaction that you take as a reaction to a situation, even outside of your turn or while you are surprised.

• “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.” I interpret this sentence strictly, so that you are vulnerable to spells that work only on willing targets whenever you are unconscious, but not while you are conscious, but also immobile or helpless.

I consider you to be vulnerable even to the Polymorph spell while you are unconscious, because this spell ends only when its subject is rendered unconscious; it does not fail merely because its subject is unconscious to begin with.

An important question to answer is whether you can be deceived into declaring yourself a willing target. I don’t allow you to be deceived into declaring yourself a willing target, because as soon as you are targeted by a spell that works only on willing targets and that threatens to harm you, I allow you to change your mind as a reaction, provided that you are conscious.

I agree with Flickerdart; voluntarily giving up a saving throw is not the same as being willing to accept a spell that works only on willing targets. The relevant rule appears here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow) in the SRD.


Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw

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.

I consider the act of voluntarily giving up a saving throw to be a free action, and I require you to be conscious to take this action. You can voluntarily choose to give up a saving throw only during your turn, whereas the spell that you choose not to save against affects you outside of your turn; therefore, you cannot change your mind and decide, at the last instant, to make a saving throw after all.

An important question to answer is whether you can be deceived into voluntarily giving up a saving throw. I believe your body cannot be deceived; therefore, I don’t allow you to be deceived into giving up a Fortitude save or a Reflex save. However, I do allow your mind to be deceived; therefore, I allow you to be deceived into giving up a Will save.

I allow you to use Bluff skill, the Suggestion spell, or any Charm spell to deceive someone into giving up a Will save. You must take two turns to do this. During your first turn, you deceive your opponent. The opponent, during his or her own turn, voluntarily chooses not to make a Will save against your spell. Then, during your next turn, you cast the spell that your opponent cannot resist.

[Jowgen]

You may notice that my thinking has changed since the last time I commented on one of your threads.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/57978208.jpg

*ahem*

Thank you for bringing up the deceiving into forgoing issue, I hadn't thought of that. Just to clarify, you allow choosing to fail on Fort and Ref normally but not when it comes to deception? Also, how do you handle things that target the mind but require saves other than will (e.g. Phantasmal Killer)?

I agree with your reading of Willingness being a reaction. Also, it probably won't come into this discussion, but as you linked the SRD text I should probably clarify that I use the Rules Compendium text on forgoing saving throws, as the SRD only mentions spells, which is inconsistent as there is other stuff where you can explicitly choose to fail (e.g. Drugs).

Am I right to assume that making choosing to fail a save a free action is a house-rule of yours? Why did you decided to make it so? Under that system, it certainly makes sense to treat it different from Unconscious willingness, but do you have reasons for not considering unconscious willingness to be save-forgoing-willigness beyond that?

Also, as you require someone to be conscious to make the choice to willing forgo a saving throw, how do you deal with saves that creatures are unaware of making (e.g. contracting a subtle disease)?


As for the general discussion, I should probably at this point mention that I do now personally think that unconsciousness should be considered as a auto-fail for saves, as fluff and game balance tip the scales of rules-ambiguity in that direction for me. The Nightmare spell trance makes you auto-fail because you're both mentally and physically defenseless, and I think that Unconsciousness... the most debilitating of status conditions that lets you do literally nothing... fully fits that bill. Having unconscious things auto-fail mitigates the nonsense of a passed out rogue being unscathed by breath weapons. Fort and Will saves having a dependence on presence of mind in some variety also fits with the "no Mettle when Unconscious/Sleeping" clause. I chalk up CDG-save still applying to the either the body naturally resisting it's own demise or a creature's soul trying to hang onto a vessel that really shouldn't be able to hold it anymore.

Lastly, I think it stream-lines some game-play elements. Knowing that basically all your effects will work on an enemy once you've knocked them unconscious gives players incentive to think outside the Murder-hobo-box. By the same token, it makes unconsciousness a far greater threat in combat, as save-or-dies become CDG-level threats to survival and being captured alive is far more worrysome.

The biggest one for me though, is the issue of when you try to use a beneficial spell on an unconscious ally. I can see no reasonable justification for an unconscious creature being able to make the reactive choice of whether to accept a spell or not. Their unconscious character would have no clue whether the spell they're getting is a cure serious wounds or a mindrape, so letting the player chose would be text-book metagaming. As such, I think there needs to be a default setting for what an unconscious creature does regarding saves, and having them auto-resist everything is just not conductive to gameplay (and arguably fluff-inconsistent with being willing for willing only spells).

If the party paladin is knocked out in the surprise round by poison in a drow ambush, the cleric should be able to feel secure in knowing that he can reliably bring him back up by casting neutralize poison. If the whole party is in the process of getting murdered and the same cleric has a single Plane Shift (not a harmless spell) left, I want him to agonize over the choice of whether to save himself or his unconscious adjacent ally, not have the excuse of the plane-shift maybe failing in this case.

Anyway, rant over.

[Psyren]

I see the nightmare trance as an even more severe state than merely being unconscious. Nowhere does unconsciousness say "you're defenseless, both mentally and physically," like that trance does. And again, being unconscious still allows you to make the fort save vs. CdG, so you are explicitly not defenseless.

I further do not see this as being good for the game or the setting. Consider an interrogation scenario - why bother with torture or making a deal, when you can just deck them with a chair and then rifle through their memories with abandon. or warp their mind to serving you totally? Even a Solar, Elder Brain, or similarly strong-willed foe would be vulnerable to such a basic tactic.

Regarding your agonizing cleric, this is hardly a conundrum - he can walk over to the unconscious paladin and shift them both to Celestia to escape. Plane Shift allows for more than one target.

[Jowgen]

I see the nightmare trance as an even more severe state than merely being unconscious. Nowhere does unconsciousness say "you're defenseless, both mentally and physically," like that trance does. And again, being unconscious still allows you to make the fort save vs. CdG, so you are explicitly not defenseless.

I don't know, lack of ability to take any physical or mental action seems pretty defenseless in a physical and mental sense to me. Is there anything other than this trance and unconsciousness that does both? The closest thing is Sleep, but even that lets you listen and wake up in response to certain things. The CdG is a solid argument, but then again, it never explicitly states that an unconscious creature actually gets to make that save. CdG talks about working on Helpless creature and those creatures getting a save or instantly dying, but it doesn't mention unconscious and Unconscious IS more than just being Helpless. Specifically, it is "knocked out and helpess". I would personally allow a CdG save to an unconscious player, but really that would be a house-rule of mine.


I further do not see this as being good for the game or the setting. Consider an interrogation scenario - why bother with torture or making a deal, when you can just deck them with a chair and then rifle through their memories with abandon. or warp their mind to serving you totally? Even a Solar, Elder Brain, or similarly strong-willed foe would be vulnerable to such a basic tactic.

I don't think it's much of a concern, as this kind of magic already makes the whole mundane torture aspect moot by itself. If you have something captured so securely that you can interrogate it at your leisure, and you have access to that kind of magic, you WILL invariably succeed anyway. All the difference is makes that instead of casting your mind-magic an average of 20 times, you first render the captive unconscious (if possible), use your magic once and then maybe wake them up, if need be. Yes it makes it faster, but not by that much and it doesn't really change any end-result. *shrug*


Regarding your agonizing cleric, this is hardly a conundrum - he can walk over to the unconscious paladin and shift them both to Celestia to escape. Plane Shift allows for more than one target.

Multi-target plane shift technically requires hand joining (arguably in a circle) for it to work like a willing-spell, but that's hardly the point. If player characters are getting murdered, the last thing they want is to have to roll a save against an effect that can save them. Yes, I could let them use meta-knowledge and give their unconscious characters the ability to somehow make a forego-save choice, but that just really isn't me. :smallannoyed:

[Flickerdart]

I don't know, lack of ability to take any physical or mental action seems pretty defenseless in a physical and mental sense to me.
You can say the same of Dazed - and yet it's not enough to surrender your saves.

[Psyren]

I don't know, lack of ability to take any physical or mental action seems pretty defenseless in a physical and mental sense to me. Is there anything other than this trance and unconsciousness that does both? The closest thing is Sleep, but even that lets you listen and wake up in response to certain things. The CdG is a solid argument, but then again, it never explicitly states that an unconscious creature actually gets to make that save. CdG talks about working on Helpless creature and those creatures getting a save or instantly dying, but it doesn't mention unconscious and Unconscious IS more than just being Helpless. Specifically, it is "knocked out and helpess". I would personally allow a CdG save to an unconscious player, but really that would be a house-rule of mine.

By RAW, all helpless creatures get to make that save. The onus is on you to prove that unconscious creatures are a special kind of helpless that must forego it.

And no, Dream and Nightmare are the only places where the term "defenseless" is even used, further supporting the idea that the trances used to cast those two spells are special. (Furthermore, they make YOU - the caster - defenseless, not your sleeping target.)

Neither "unconscious" nor "helpless" say you are "defenseless."



I don't think it's much of a concern, as this kind of magic already makes the whole mundane torture aspect moot by itself. If you have something captured so securely that you can interrogate it at your leisure, and you have access to that kind of magic, you WILL invariably succeed anyway. All the difference is makes that instead of casting your mind-magic an average of 20 times, you first render the captive unconscious (if possible), use your magic once and then maybe wake them up, if need be. Yes it makes it faster, but not by that much and it doesn't really change any end-result. *shrug*

Time is not as dismissable a factor as you make it out to be. After all, casting Mindrape or Programmed Amnesia 20 times will take you at least several days, unless you have so many 9th-level slots you're practically a deity. That's plenty of time for the heroes to pull off an upset.



Multi-target plane shift technically requires hand joining (arguably in a circle) for it to work like a willing-spell, but that's hardly the point. If player characters are getting murdered, the last thing they want is to have to roll a save against an effect that can save them. Yes, I could let them use meta-knowledge and give their unconscious characters the ability to somehow make a forego-save choice, but that just really isn't me. :smallannoyed:

Unconscious creatures have hands too. Just take the paladin's in yours.

Neutralize Poison has a save too, so if you're worried about "metaknowledge," you should be applying that particular drawback consistently. (The "harmless" tag doesn't actually mean anything.)

[Jowgen]

You can say the same of Dazed - and yet it's not enough to surrender your saves. Dazed lets you keep your AC (and thoughts, and non-proneness, and awareness of surroundings), so you are still very much able to defend yourself. But yes, non-action-taking is indeed not enough, I should've included that.

Did you recall any other instances of willigness-factor beyond the riding one?


By RAW, all helpless creatures get to make that save. The onus is on you to prove that unconscious creatures are a special kind of helpless that must forego it.

My argument was merely that one can not infer that Unconscious creatures get the save purely because Helpless creatures in general get it. That would be like equating denied dex to flat-footed. I never intended to make an argument that CdG not specifically mentioning Unconscious automatically meant unconscious didn't get a save, sorry if it came across that way.


And no, Dream and Nightmare are the only places where the term "defenseless" is even used, further supporting the idea that the trances used to cast those two spells are special. (Furthermore, they make YOU - the caster - defenseless, not your sleeping target.) Neither "unconscious" nor "helpless" say you are "defenseless."

Dreaming Puppet from HoR is another one. Works the same. Also, Vow of Nonviolence mentions defenseless ("Your purity is so great that any ally of yours who slays a helpless or defenseless foe within 120 feet of you feels great remorse") but I really doubt that has anything to do with anything. I don't think "defenseless" qualifies as a rules-term (lacks a glossary entry, only mentioned to describe these few effect), but really falls in the realm of fluff- or common sense-terms. In my mind, unconscious describes defenseless very well and may or may not the only instance it can be applied to.

Would you be willing to suggest a definition?


Time is not as dismissable a factor as you make it out to be. After all, casting Mindrape or Programmed Amnesia 20 times will take you at least several days, unless you have so many 9th-level slots you're practically a deity.

Well, the next best thing would be do is use a bunch of low-level mind-effects that you have more frequent access to as to make them accept your mindrape willingly. That makes it 20 charm-esques and 1 Mindrape. Right after that we'd have save-crippling, starting with a touch of idiocy and working onwards with your choice of ability damage dealers. Really, there is just so many ways to go about this with high efficiency; I don't think one more matters.


Unconscious creatures have hands too. Just take the paladin's in yours.

That's a tad iffy rule-wise. You can touch creatures as part of the casting, but doing something so specific would likely warrant an extra action. Which you may not be able to take if you need your hands for the casting itself. DM-dependent I'd say.


Neutralize Poison has a save too, so if you're worried about "metaknowledge," you should be applying that particular drawback consistently. (The "harmless" tag doesn't actually mean anything.)

Just thought I'd demonstrate that the issue goes beyond harmless spells in case someone thought to suggest fixing it by houseruling an exception for harmless. I absolutely believe that there needs to be a consistent application that functions without meta-knowledge/decisions, and when having to choose between default-resist and default-accept, I think default-accept is the better call as per my elaborations.


EDIT: I've been reviewing some old threads on the topic, and came across something interesting. Plane shift can target up to 8 willing creatures joining hands. Plane Shift allows a saving throw. Under you interpretation, which treats willingness and forgoing saving throws as seperate, the willing creatures joining hands could still attempt the saving throw, correct?

[Shoat]

This is purely my opinion, but I find voluntary save-failing to be bull**** (as in: it feels stupid to play it through) in almost every practical scenario that may occur.


Choosing to fail a ref save makes no sense in many cases because reflexes are hard, if not impossible, to surpress. You can specifically train yourself over a long amount of time to not have your body react to very specific things, but that only applies to those very specific things - you can't choose on-the-go to not reflexively dodge that fireball, it'd require getting used to taking fireballs to the face many times over.

Choosing to fail a fortitude save makes no sense in ANY case, because it's your body (not you) resisting the effects of some dangerous force (poison/sickness/getting knocked out).
You can't tell your body 'Hey, stop resisting that common cold virus that just entered.' or 'Hey, how about you DON'T resist that spell that's trying to stop our heart right now.'.

Choosing to fail a will save is the least bad of them all, since it's the only type of save that actually involves you (instead of just your body). Yet it's still unlikely to make sense - while you can choose to let someone hit you with a mind-affecting effect if you know about it, it stops making sense as soon as you get to illusions or such (because failure suggests that you don't know there's an illusion, but in order to voluntarily fail something you have to know about it, and if you know there's an illusion you have already succeeded to overcome it).

[Jowgen]

This is purely my opinion, but I find voluntary save-failing to be bull**** (as in: it feels stupid to play it through) in almost every practical scenario that may occur.


Choosing to fail a ref save makes no sense in many cases because reflexes are hard, if not impossible, to surpress. You can specifically train yourself over a long amount of time to not have your body react to very specific things, but that only applies to those very specific things - you can't choose on-the-go to not reflexively dodge that fireball, it'd require getting used to taking fireballs to the face many times over.

Choosing to fail a fortitude save makes no sense in ANY case, because it's your body (not you) resisting the effects of some dangerous force (poison/sickness/getting knocked out).
You can't tell your body 'Hey, stop resisting that common cold virus that just entered.' or 'Hey, how about you DON'T resist that spell that's trying to stop our heart right now.'.

Choosing to fail a will save is the least bad of them all, since it's the only type of save that actually involves you (instead of just your body). Yet it's still unlikely to make sense - while you can choose to let someone hit you with a mind-affecting effect if you know about it, it stops making sense as soon as you get to illusions or such (because failure suggests that you don't know there's an illusion, but in order to voluntarily fail something you have to know about it, and if you know there's an illusion you have already succeeded to overcome it).

Word. I completely agree that it is a vastly unrealistic set of rules.


Now, I found something very weird but certainly pertinent.


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

Now, three things. 1st, this blatantly flat-out supports unconscious=no save reading. 2nd, the spell resistance part fits with the "elves-forgo-sleep-immunity" clause, but obviates with the rule that lowering spell-resistance is a standard action, so someone somewhere probably messed up; 3rd, Eberron books are known for throwing curve-balls in rule-sketchy areas (e.g. that one sentence that allows dragon-blood-subtypes a select feats that require being a dragon).

EDIT:

Aaaaand, since I'm at it, for what little it is worth... Sage FAQ *sigh*


Note that when you’re using the teleport spell, you teleport yourself and other willing creatures. Unless you can command the golem (and you probably don’t unless you created the golem), it probably isn’t willing to accompany you and receives a saving throw to resist

[Morcleon]

Choosing to fail a will save is the least bad of them all, since it's the only type of save that actually involves you (instead of just your body). Yet it's still unlikely to make sense - while you can choose to let someone hit you with a mind-affecting effect if you know about it, it stops making sense as soon as you get to illusions or such (because failure suggests that you don't know there's an illusion, but in order to voluntarily fail something you have to know about it, and if you know there's an illusion you have already succeeded to overcome it).

There's a difference between knowing there's an illusion and believing in the illusion. This makes sense because even if someone points out an illusion to you, you don't auto-succeed on the save. Thus, you could simply believe in the power of friendship illusion. :smallbiggrin:

[Jowgen]

There's a difference between knowing there's an illusion and believing in the illusion. This makes sense because even if someone points out an illusion to you, you don't auto-succeed on the save. Thus, you could simply believe in the power of friendship illusion. :smallbiggrin:

Well, it gives you a +4 on the save to disbelief. And then there is this: "A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw.".

...
DM: Your detect magic and spellcraft check reveal that this wall is magic from the illusion school.
Player: So I get a save?
DM: No, you don't need to make a save. You have proof it is an illusion.
Player: But I want a save so I can choose to fail it!

And thus we have suspension of disbelief inside an RPG. :smallbiggrin:

[Duke of Urrel]

Just to clarify, you allow choosing to fail on Fort and Ref normally but not when it comes to deception? Also, how do you handle things that target the mind but require saves other than will (e.g. Phantasmal Killer)?

Yes, I do allow voluntarily foregoing a Fortitude or Reflex save, but I don't allow you to be deceived into doing it. If somebody deceives you into expecting a spell to be harmless and then your body feels that it is harmful, or at least not what you expected, I allow you to make the Fortitude or Reflex save as a reaction. However, if you are not deceived, but you are willing to accept a spell that normally grants you a Fortitude save or a Reflex save, such as the Reduce Person spell or the Resilient Sphere spell (respectively), you can voluntarily forego your saving throw, so that the spell automatically succeeds.

The Phantasmal Killer spell is a special case, of course, because it grants you a Will save first, and if this fails, it grants you a Fortitude save. Following my rule – and I admit that it is a house rule – you can be deceived into believing that the phantasmal horror that you see is real, but you cannot be deceived into believing that it is harmless. Therefore, you may, for example under the influence of the Suggestion spell, be denied your Will save to disbelieve the Phantasmal Killer spell, but you always get a Fortitude save, because your body cannot be deceived.


I agree with your reading of Willingness being a reaction. Also, it probably won't come into this discussion, but as you linked the SRD text I should probably clarify that I use the Rules Compendium text on forgoing saving throws, as the SRD only mentions spells, which is inconsistent as there is other stuff where you can explicitly choose to fail (e.g. Drugs).

Am I right to assume that making choosing to fail a save a free action is a house-rule of yours? Why did you decided to make it so? Under that system, it certainly makes sense to treat it different from Unconscious willingness, but do you have reasons for not considering unconscious willingness to be save-forgoing-willigness beyond that?

Yes, the rule that voluntarily foregoing a saving throw is a free action is my own house rule. I made this rule in order to underscore the difference between being willing because of unconsciousness and being willing because you have performed a voluntary act, which you cannot do while unconscious. Moreover, I believe my rule avoids arguments with players over whether foregoing a saving throw was really voluntary or not. If you did it during your own turn, for whatever reason (even if it was because you were deceived), then you did it voluntarily. This avoids the question of whether you can really do something voluntarily while you are surprised, for example.


Also, as you require someone to be conscious to make the choice to willing forgo a saving throw, how do you deal with saves that creatures are unaware of making (e.g. contracting a subtle disease)?

I don't believe Fortitude saves or Reflex saves represent conscious acts; I believe they represent subconscious or even totally unconscious reactions of the body. After all, I argue, you aren't aware of your body's white blood cells or antibodies as your body resists disease, and you can reflexively jerk your hand away from a hot stove before your conscious mind becomes aware of the heat.

I don't believe Will saves necessarily represent conscious acts, either. In my view, your will is just as much subconscious as conscious. Like your alignment (if you incline in any direction away from pure Neutrality), your will is always latently present, even while you are asleep or unconscious. I don't believe it ever shuts off completely, and I believe it sticks with you until you die and your soul leaves your body.

Although it may seem unrealistic that you can make Reflex saves even while you're unconscious or paralyzed, the rules do allow you to make Reflex saves under these conditions.* I don't argue with the rules on this point, for two reasons.


Firstly, I believe saving throws are an important limit on the power of magic. Whenever we deny a saving throw for reasons of verisimilitude, we skew the game even more in favor of spellcasters and against everybody else.



Secondly, if magic breaks the rules of physics, then one's natural resistance to magic should break the rules of physics, too. Not only spell resistance, which is classified as extraordinary by the rules, but also ordinary saving throws can and should be considered extraordinary, from a real-world point of view.


The upshot of all this is that I'm not bothered when the rules allow you to make a Will save against the Nightmare spell even though you're asleep, or when the rules allow you to make a Reflex save even though you're paralyzed – albeit with a Dexterity score of zero and a Dexterity modifier of -5.


The biggest one for me though, is the issue of when you try to use a beneficial spell on an unconscious ally. I can see no reasonable justification for an unconscious creature being able to make the reactive choice of whether to accept a spell or not. Their unconscious character would have no clue whether the spell they're getting is a cure serious wounds or a mindrape, so letting the player chose would be text-book metagaming. As such, I think there needs to be a default setting for what an unconscious creature does regarding saves, and having them auto-resist everything is just not conductive to gameplay (and arguably fluff-inconsistent with being willing for willing only spells).

If the party paladin is knocked out in the surprise round by poison in a drow ambush, the cleric should be able to feel secure in knowing that he can reliably bring him back up by casting neutralize poison. If the whole party is in the process of getting murdered and the same cleric has a single Plane Shift (not a harmless spell) left, I want him to agonize over the choice of whether to save himself or his unconscious adjacent ally, not have the excuse of the plane-shift maybe failing in this case.

From the players' point of view, it is certainly advantageous, in most cases, to make saving throws, by default, against all spells that are not harmless. Likewise, it is certainly advantageous, in most cases, to make no saving throws, again by default, against all spells that are harmless. I allow players the best of both worlds, in accordance with the rules. I justify this with the fluffy explanation I offered above, namely that all resistance to magic is somewhat extraordinary. Harmful magic simply sends out harmful vibes that naturally provoke a creature's spontaneous natural resistance to harm. Harmless magic does the opposite.

The Neutralize Poison spell is unproblematic, because it is identified in the Saving Throw line as (harmless). Therefore, nobody makes a saving throw against it who doesn't actually want to be poisoned. (I suppose you could voluntarily choose to make a Will save against the Neutralize Poison spell if you had just quaffed some strong booze and were determined to become properly drunk. For the record, I would consider this choice to represent a free action, just like voluntarily choosing to forego a saving throw.)

The Plane Shift spell, as I understand it (somebody correct me if I'm wrong), presents no difficulty when you want to bring an unconscious person with you to another plane. I interpret this spell as either affecting up to eight willing targets or affecting one touched target, presumably an unwilling one, who gets to make a Will save. In the first case, the Plane Shift spell belongs to the category of spells that work exclusively on willing targets – including unconscious targets. In the second case, the Plane Shift spell belongs to the category of spells that grant saving throws even to unconscious targets. So in effect, the willingness of a creature targeted by the Plane Shift spell always counts, regardless of the situation.
____________________________________
*For a detailed discussion of this, look at this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?377821-Willing-Targets), but keep in mind that it's pretty old and that my opinions have changed slightly since then. My point here is that the rules very, very rarely deny you a Reflex save.

[Psyren]

My argument was merely that one can not infer that Unconscious creatures get the save purely because Helpless creatures in general get it.

That's exactly what you're supposed to infer, and no, you're misapplying the analogy here. It's more like this (putting aside Uncanny Dodge and the like):

All flat-footed creatures are denied Dex to AC. All Denied Dex to AC creatures can be sneak attacked. Therefore, flat-footed creatures can be sneak attacked.
All unconscious creatures are helpless. All helpless creatures get a fort save vs. CdG. Therefore, unconscious creatures can make saves.




Dreaming Puppet from HoR is another one. Works the same. Also, Vow of Nonviolence mentions defenseless ("Your purity is so great that any ally of yours who slays a helpless or defenseless foe within 120 feet of you feels great remorse") but I really doubt that has anything to do with anything. I don't think "defenseless" qualifies as a rules-term (lacks a glossary entry, only mentioned to describe these few effect), but really falls in the realm of fluff- or common sense-terms. In my mind, unconscious describes defenseless very well and may or may not the only instance it can be applied to.

Would you be willing to suggest a definition?

Note that Vow of Nonviolence actually supports my point of view, by considering "defenseless" to be separate from "helpless." They are not the same thing. Defenseless is a more severe form of helpless, just like "flatfooted" is a more severe form of "denied dex," and we know that because of what defenseless means every time it has been defined.

As for a definition, it's easy; it means what the designers have said it means whenever it comes up - like helpless, except you also automatically fail saves.




Well, the next best thing would be do is use a bunch of low-level mind-effects that you have more frequent access to as to make them accept your mindrape willingly. That makes it 20 charm-esques and 1 Mindrape. Right after that we'd have save-crippling, starting with a touch of idiocy and working onwards with your choice of ability damage dealers. Really, there is just so many ways to go about this with high efficiency; I don't think one more matters.

Charming someone does not make them auto-fail subsequent saves either. Dominating them to lower their saves is "obviously self-destructive" and thus will fail. So we're right back to you taking a whole week this way, and burning quite a lot of magic besides.



That's a tad iffy rule-wise. You can touch creatures as part of the casting, but doing something so specific would likely warrant an extra action. Which you may not be able to take if you need your hands for the casting itself. DM-dependent I'd say.
...
EDIT: I've been reviewing some old threads on the topic, and came across something interesting. Plane shift can target up to 8 willing creatures joining hands. Plane Shift allows a saving throw. Under you interpretation, which treats willingness and forgoing saving throws as seperate, the willing creatures joining hands could still attempt the saving throw, correct?

Of course they could, why is this a problem?

And no, I see no reason why it would warrant an extra action. If you can draw six characters (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/arcaneMark.htm) in that amount of time, simply taking someone's hand is perfectly fine in my book.



Just thought I'd demonstrate that the issue goes beyond harmless spells in case someone thought to suggest fixing it by houseruling an exception for harmless. I absolutely believe that there needs to be a consistent application that functions without meta-knowledge/decisions, and when having to choose between default-resist and default-accept, I think default-accept is the better call as per my elaborations.

I don't think it's default accept. I think the body knows what kind of magic is going in even while unconscious, just as your body knows if you've swallowed a healing potion, inflict potion or a potion of poison and makes that save for you involuntarily.

[Jowgen]

All unconscious creatures are helpless. All helpless creatures get a fort save vs. CdG. Therefore, unconscious creatures can make saves.

CdG is a special attack, which allows a save just like any other effect that allows a save. The helpless bit only comes into it in that it's the condition required... like being grappled by a creature before it can swallow whole (specific ability depending, of course). Anywho, the real point is that there is nothing special about the CdG save; i.e. anything that can cause you to auto-fail a save can cause you to auto-fail the CdG save. Nothing prevents you from choosing to fail a CdG save. If one of the conditions that causes you to qualify to be Coup de Graced (i.e. Unconscious) happens to make it so you auto-fail the resulting saves then that may be unfortunate, but it's in no way rule/game breaking.


Note that Vow of Nonviolence actually supports my point of view, by considering "defenseless" to be separate from "helpless." They are not the same thing. Defenseless is a more severe form of helpless, just like "flatfooted" is a more severe form of "denied dex," and we know that because of what defenseless means every time it has been defined.

As for a definition, it's easy; it means what the designers have said it means whenever it comes up - like helpless, except you also automatically fail saves.

I never suggested that Helpless and Defenseless are the same thing. My reasoning was simply that -in a fluff sense- Unconsciousness seemed to make you as defenseless as you can be. It's a subjective thing, others might disagree.

Either case, I don't think there is enough to go on to consider Defenseless a game term. It comes up in 3 spell descriptions and gets casually used in one feat description; which is next to nothing compared to how many times the word happens to be used in pure fluff text (e.g. descriptions of good-flavored classes that are called out to defend the defenseless).


I think the body knows what kind of magic is going in even while unconscious, just as your body knows if you've swallowed a healing potion, inflict potion or a potion of poison and makes that save for you involuntarily.

I don't see a rule basis for this. A DM can obviously house-rule an innate good/bad body sense into existence, same as he can give the Helpless tag actual significance in this case, but that's about it.

__________________________________________________ _________________

This seems like a good point to review what we have so far.

Pro "Willing=Forgo save" (rulewise):
- Forgoing a save means to willingly accept consequence of an effect, implying one follows from the other
- Eberron Campaign p. 13 has an effect that explicitly states that willing creatures receive no saves
- The sage FAQ explicitly states that if one is not willing to be teleported, one receives a saving throw against the teleport. This fixes the Planeshift issue.

Con "Willing= Forgo save" (rulewise):
- Coup de Grace rules state that helpless targets get a save, being Unconscious makes you helpless, and Coupe de Grace rules do not make special mention of unconscious as an exception, implying Unconscious CDG targets are meant to get a save
- The rules for being willing, and counting as unconscious while being willin,g are on page 175 of the PHB where it explains the Target-line of spell entries, while the rules for voluntarily failing a saving throw are on page 177 of the PHB where it explains the Saving Throw-line of spell entries, which arguably implies they're part of different rule entities.

Pro "Willing = Forgo Save" (game-wise)
- Forgoing all saves while unconscious is arguably better for gameplay, as it means that an unconscious creature will invariably be able to benefit from allies spells attempting to help it. (While unconscious, a creature can not decide to be unwilling; so it should not be able to decide whether or not to forgo a save either, meaning there is a need to either consistently have the creature attempt all saves or forgo all saves.)

Con "Willing = Forgo Save" (game-wise)

- Forgoing all saves while unconscious is arguably bad for gameplay, as it leaves any unconscious creature at the complete mercy of enemy effects that it may otherwise be well-able to resist for an extended period of time. (While unconscious, a creature can not decide to be unwilling; so it should not be able to decide whether or not to forgo a save either, meaning there is a need to either consistently have the creature attempt all saves or forgo all saves.)
- Casting is already powerful enough, not letting creatures continue to make their saves while unconscious would could worsen the problem

Pro "Willing=Forgo Save" (fluffwise)
- Dream, Nighmare and Dreaming Puppet spells place caster in a trance that causes auto save-failure due to being "physically and mentally defenseless", which is something one may or may not consider Unconsciousness to also cause
- As Unconsciousness leaves a creature unable to resist willing-target effects, which require little to no effort or ability whatsoever to resist, it seems nonsensical that Unconsciousness would allow a creature to resist effects that do require effort and/or ability to resist.
- Plane Shift allows a save, but can also target willing creatures, so unless being willing means one forgoes ones saving throws, each willing creature would also receive a saving throw; meaning it would either have to choose to forgo it's saving throw in addition to declaring itself willing, or attempt the saving throw... meaning it would be choosing to resist an effect that it is also choosing to be affected by... which just makes no sense.

Con "Willing=Forgo Save" (fluffwise)
- If one considers a creature's body to be able to tell the difference between good and bad influences, then it makes sense to allow Harmless/beneficial effects to go through unchecked but still save against other stuff; circumventing aforementioned game-play issues.

- Sleeping is and Unconscious are different conditions.
- Helpless is a state that results from a range of effects, including Unconsciousness and Paralysis
- "Defenseless" is not a defined game term, so it's arguably just an English word occasionally used to get a point across.
- Creatures can be deceived into forgoing their saves using the bluff skill and/or cleverly used enchantment-school magic, as it is a choice like any other.
- There are no spells that only work on willing targets that allow saves, but there are spells that can target willing and/or unwilling targets and allow a save.


Stuff that hasn't been covered yet:

- Types of willingness beyond the one to accept a willing-target spell, to forgo a save, and to serve as a mount.
- The ability to forgo immunities in addition to saves (partially discussed in regards to undead having no physiology that can be poisoned).
- How to fluff forgoing a save against a number of effects where it seems to make no sense


Did I leave anything out or get something wrong?

Looking at all of this, it seems to me like the scales are very much tipped in the Pro-side's favour. It has a clear cut quote from a 1st party sourcebook, a clear cut sage ruling, and the Plane-Shift-paradox (which has the Sage ruling in its support) as its strong-points, plus some fluff and english-language implications. The Con side's strongest points are the CDG argument and the different-rule-entity implication of text placement, both of which are very much debatable in my opinion.

If you'd care to introduce additional evidence in the Con-side's favour or surmise your points in a manner that strengthens your case, then please.

[Psyren]

CdG is a special attack, which allows a save just like any other effect that allows a save. The helpless bit only comes into it in that it's the condition required... like being grappled by a creature before it can swallow whole (specific ability depending, of course). Anywho, the real point is that there is nothing special about the CdG save; i.e. anything that can cause you to auto-fail a save can cause you to auto-fail the CdG save. Nothing prevents you from choosing to fail a CdG save. If one of the conditions that causes you to qualify to be Coup de Graced (i.e. Unconscious) happens to make it so you auto-fail the resulting saves then that may be unfortunate, but it's in no way rule/game breaking.

Bold is exactly my point. It's just like any other save, and just like any other save, helpless creatures - regardless of how they got helpless - get to make a save. The burden of proof is on you to show that "unconscious-helpless", "paralyzed-helpless" and "sleeping-helpless" are different when it comes to foregoing that save. Until you do, the RAW is clear.


I never suggested that Helpless and Defenseless are the same thing. My reasoning was simply that -in a fluff sense- Unconsciousness seemed to make you as defenseless as you can be. It's a subjective thing, others might disagree.

Either case, I don't think there is enough to go on to consider Defenseless a game term. It comes up in 3 spell descriptions and gets casually used in one feat description; which is next to nothing compared to how many times the word happens to be used in pure fluff text (e.g. descriptions of good-flavored classes that are called out to defend the defenseless).

Of course it barely comes up, it's completely imbalanced. Saving throws are a creature's absolute last line of defense, they should be difficult to waive or bypass.



I don't see a rule basis for this. A DM can obviously house-rule an innate good/bad body sense into existence, same as he can give the Helpless tag actual significance in this case, but that's about it.

I'm saying that "awareness" is not a requirement for foregoing a save. You're the one houseruling here by saying so. If you drink a potion willingly, assuming that it is a healing potion, and it turns out to be something harmful, you still get a save do you not? So why then do you think lack of awareness stops saving throws?

[Jowgen]

The burden of proof is on you to show that "unconscious-helpless", "paralyzed-helpless" and "sleeping-helpless" are different when it comes to foregoing that save.

Unconscious is the only helpless that makes you willing. ECS and Sage say willing is to not get save. Plane Shift gets way silly unless ECS and Sage are right.



If you drink a potion willingly, assuming that it is a healing potion, and it turns out to be something harmful, you still get a save do you not?

You would not.

"The drinker of a potion is both the effective target and the caster of the effect (though the potion indicates the caster level, the drinker still controls the effect)."

"If the target of a spell is yourself (the spell description has a line that reads Target: You), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply"