Do unconscious, helpless targets get saving throws?

[magicalmagicman]

Or do they automatically fail their saves? I believe Tippy pointed out that there is a RAW rule that unconscious targets are considered "willling" for spells that require willing targets.

Further support is... how can they make reflex saves? I can't seem to find a rule saying that flat-footed, stunned, etc. stops you from your reflex save so there is no specific rule saying reflex saves are the exception, ergo if they are not entitled to a reflex save, they are not entitled to any save.

Additional support is that, helpless targets are not willing, but unconscious is. This specific statement might suggest that helpless gets saving throws, but not unconscious.

[Flickerdart]

"Willing" just means that spells with targets listed as "X willing creatures" can affect them. Foregoing a saving throw is not the same thing, and is described in a separate section of the rules.

We have this argument a lot, though.

[Segev]

They automatically fail reflex saves because they have 0 dex. The other saves apply normally.

[magicalmagicman]

They automatically fail reflex saves because they have 0 dex. The other saves apply normally.

Thanks, this negates my concerns with reflex saves. This information was under special abilities under evasion. Man, would it hurt the d20srd to repeat information on several pages?

edit: Yeah, RAW reading says you can only target unconscious creatures as willing, operative RAW word being target. So I am leaning on "No" to my question unless someone provides evidence otherwise.

[Khedrac]

They automatically fail reflex saves because they have 0 dex. The other saves apply normally.
Err, can you supply a rules citation for that? Even unattended magic items get a saving throw against spells (non-magic don't admittedly).
I thought they simply took the -5 penalty for their reflex saving throw for a dex of 0.

[magicalmagicman]

Err, can you supply a rules citation for that? Even unattended magic items get a saving throw against spells (non-magic don't admittedly).
I thought they simply took the -5 penalty for their reflex saving throw for a dex of 0.

Its under Evasion in special abilities.



As with a Reflex save for any creature, a character must have room to move in order to evade. A bound character or one squeezing through an area cannot use evasion.

Helpless is worse than bound.

[Lethologica]

Not getting saving throws would interact interestingly with the mandated Fortitude saving throw for CDG.

EDIT: Strictly speaking, bound is worse than helpless, as all bound characters are helpless, but not all helpless characters are bound.

[Necroticplague]

Or do they automatically fail their saves? I believe Tippy pointed out that there is a RAW rule that unconscious targets are considered "willling" for spells that require willing targets.
That simply means that spells the effect willing targets only can be used on them. For example, Teleport has Target "You and touched objects or other touched willing creatures". So you can't teleport an enemy, but if you knock him uncocious, then you can teleport him with you. However, they still get a Will save to avoid it.


Further support is... how can they make reflex saves? I can't seem to find a rule saying that flat-footed, stunned, etc. stops you from your reflex save so there is no specific rule saying reflex saves are the exception, ergo if they are not entitled to a reflex save, they are not entitled to any save.Easy: even unconcious people get reflex save. Since their effective DEX is zero, they have a -5 DEX mod instead of their normal DEX. They're entitled to reflex save just like they're entitled to FORT and WILL saves. I'd like to note that Nightmare can only be used on sleeping (thus helpless) people, but it still has a WILL save.


Additional support is that, helpless targets are not willing, but unconscious is. This specific statement might suggest that helpless gets saving throws, but not unconscious. No, it doesn't suggest that in any way, shape or form.

Unrelated to all the previous: try thinking of which is more reasonable. If unconcious people don't get saves, then following is true (since Sleep is unconsciousness):
Bed rest for sickness is a bad idea. If you auto-fail saves while sleeping, you need to make sure you're awake when the save vs. disease comes.

[Ashtagon]

They automatically fail reflex saves because they have 0 dex. The other saves apply normally.

No. They have an effective -5 Dex penalty to Reflex saves. That's not teh same as automatic failure.

Unattended magic items that have to make Reflesx saves also have 0 Dex (-5 penalty). They plainly can't dodge, yet they are allowed a save.

[Psyren]

"Willing" just means that spells with targets listed as "X willing creatures" can affect them. Foregoing a saving throw is not the same thing, and is described in a separate section of the rules.

We have this argument a lot, though.

Agreed on all counts.

As for those who think unconscious creatures being "willing" means "they don't get a will save", I submit the Nightmare (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/nightmare.htm) spell. The spell must be used while the target is sleeping or it fails, and contains a table of modifiers for their will saving throw. If the intent was that unconscious creatures failed will saves, both the text and table would be meaningless.

[atemu1234]

Agreed on all counts.

As for those who think unconscious creatures being "willing" means "they don't get a will save", I submit the Nightmare (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/nightmare.htm) spell. The spell must be used while the target is sleeping or it fails, and contains a table of modifiers for their will saving throw. If the intent was that unconscious creatures failed will saves, both the text and table would be meaningless.

Gee, it's almost like the rules are a broken, barely-functional mess, made by multiple different people with multiple different ideas of how the game should work.

[Psyren]

Gee, it's almost like the rules are a broken, barely-functional mess, made by multiple different people with multiple different ideas of how the game should work.

The rules are in fact very functional. The fact that a vocal minority opt for ridiculous readings doesn't stop most of us from playing.

[Khedrac]

Its under Evasion in special abilities.

<<As with a Reflex save for any creature, a character must have room to move in order to evade. A bound character or one squeezing through an area cannot use evasion. >>

Helpless is worse than bound.
Very interesting, also debatable as it does not outright say they don't get to save, just links it to them not being able to evade...

I will have to consider this one very carefully, but your position cannot simply be dismissed as "wrong" - I see a house rule clarification coming along.

Incidentally folks, there is a difference between "asleep" and "unconscious" - creatures that are asleep are not motionless (unless otherwise restrained) so should still get a reflex save at -5 (do they roll over in their sleep at right time). Unconscious creatures would still count as without room to move. (No, I would not allow a character to use evasion when asleep either.)

[StreamOfTheSky]

Being unable to move or having dex 0 does not mean you automatically fail reflex saves. You take a big penalty, but you still get a roll. Part of any save is an element of pure, dumb luck. What being paralyzed does do is take away your ability to use Evasion. So on your typical Reflex: Half damaging spell, you're still getting hit by some of it, whether or not you save. It just might not harm you as much as it could have.


The rules are in fact very functional. The fact that a vocal minority opt for ridiculous readings doesn't stop most of us from playing.

Agreed.

[Chewychunga]

If he has 0 dex doesn't it mean he is unable to move?
Dexterity 0 means that the character cannot move at all. He stands motionless, rigid, and helpless.
From the srd

[Necroticplague]

If he has 0 dex doesn't it mean he is unable to move?
Dexterity 0 means that the character cannot move at all. He stands motionless, rigid, and helpless.
From the srd
Indeed. How is that relevant to anything that's being discussed in this thread? All stats at 0 cause helplessness (except for CON).

[Chronikoce]

Indeed. How is that relevant to anything that's being discussed in this thread? All stats at 0 cause helplessness (except for CON).

From a colloquial standpoint being "unable to move/being rigid" and reflexes which require "an action to be performed without action or thought" are mutually exclusive. If I am unable to move then I am unable to perform a physical action whether with thought or not and thereby my reflexes are unable to assist me.

From a rules standpoint there is more of a gray area though. I would rule that when asleep you still get a reflex save because of the pure dumb luck of rolling over at the right time. But if you were paralyzed, petrified, or in some way unable to engage in movement of any form then I rule that your reflex save is auto-failed.

That being said, I can understand the argument of allowing a save. Basically it is complete and total luck so depending on the situation I might be swayed to rule the other way. The fireball hit or the rocks fell and the places that were hottest or where the largest and sharpest bits of rock landed just happened to be in locations other than where your inert body happened to be.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's already been said but it's worth repeating; willing is just a status that means you can be targetted by spells that require willing targets. You -always- get a fort or will save unless the you actively choose to forgoe them as a player. Reflex saves get a little gray around the issue of paralysis but that's the only place where saves might be auto-lost to the rules.

[Ashtagon]

If he has 0 dex doesn't it mean he is unable to move?
Dexterity 0 means that the character cannot move at all. He stands motionless, rigid, and helpless.
From the srd

So? Even unattended magic rings can get a Reflex save.

[RoboEmperor]

I guess the interpretation here is:
1. Reflex Save is dumb luck.
2. Reflex Save is literally, your character's reflex not dumb luck.

Case #1: Everything has a reflex save.
Case #2: If you can't move, no reflex save, such as squeezing, sleeping, bound, and being helpless.

I'm inclined to agree that its case #2 because of that RAW rule on evasion posted earlier in this thread. You'll notice that flat-footed character gets their full reflex save, no dex bonus reduction.

Further more, dazed or stunned creatures get reflex saves, where as paralyzed creatures don't, because in their description paralyzed creatures cannot move.

Magic Items get reflex saves as long as their held in a creature's hand. When unattended it drops to half their save. Now whether such a magic item is entitled to a reflex save... I guess both RAW interpretations on the matter are valid and its up to the DM. I personally would though. Since while held they get their reflex save instead of the creature's if its higher, so it's not a leap in logic that magic items can move...

Then again they maybe they can only help the creature that wields them move.

EDIT: I HAVE GIVEN MISINFORMATION! "When unattended it drops to half their save. " IS WRONG! I MISREAD MY OWN NOTES!

[Ashtagon]

Counterpoint: Saves represent not our defensive action, but a reinterpretation of the attack roll, wherein the defender rolls instead of the attacker (cf. that variant rule in Unearthed Arcana that allows you to convert save rolls into pseudo-attack rolls). In that light, a save represents not the target's ability to dodge or their dumb luck, but the attacker's abiliy to aim or their dumb luck.

[RoboEmperor]

Counterpoint: Saves represent not our defensive action, but a reinterpretation of the attack roll, wherein the defender rolls instead of the attacker (cf. that variant rule in Unearthed Arcana that allows you to convert save rolls into pseudo-attack rolls). In that light, a save represents not the target's ability to dodge or their dumb luck, but the attacker's abiliy to aim or their dumb luck.

Well, when you say reflex save, I think about fireball. I don't think there's a chance in hell the attacker's ability to aim matters.

But then we have reflex saves for single targets like bands of steel? Then I guess your interpretation might makes sense, but then we can also argue that the caster doesn't aim the spell, magic does. So kinda like instead of a guy shooting a sniper rifle, he fires a heat seeking missile, which does the aiming for him. This is supported by the fact that some spells have ranged touch, and their ability to aim is their BAB, not the opposition's reflex save.

[Ashtagon]

Ranged touch spells still have attack rolls, they just target the touch AC rather than the full AC.

[nyjastul69]

I guess the interpretation here is:
1. Reflex Save is dumb luck.
2. Reflex Save is literally, your character's reflex not dumb luck.

Case #1: Everything has a reflex save.
Case #2: If you can't move, no reflex save, such as squeezing, sleeping, bound, and being helpless.

I'm inclined to agree that its case #2 because of that RAW rule on evasion posted earlier in this thread. You'll notice that flat-footed character gets their full reflex save, no dex bonus reduction.

Further more, dazed or stunned creatures get reflex saves, where as paralyzed creatures don't, because in their description paralyzed creatures cannot move.

Magic Items get reflex saves as long as their held in a creature's hand. When unattended it drops to half their save. Now whether such a magic item is entitled to a reflex save... I guess both RAW interpretations on the matter are valid and its up to the DM. I personally would though. Since while held they get their reflex save instead of the creature's if its higher, so it's not a leap in logic that magic items can move...

Then again they maybe they can only help the creature that wields them move.

Can you give a source citation for the bit I bolded?

[RoboEmperor]

Can you give a source citation for the bit I bolded?

Nope, because it doesn't exist. I misread my horrible notes. MY BAD! I'M SORRY!

[Chronikoce]

That's actually really interesting about Flat-footed and reflex saves. Given the denial of AoO and Dex to AC it always made perfectly logical sense that one would either have to make the reflex save without the benefit of Dex or not at all depending on the DM ruling.

It appears that by RAW being Flat-footed does not impede the save at all. Which personally I don't think makes a whole lot of sense. I will continue to rule that your reflex save is with a penalty to Dex for being Flat-footed (albeit while now acknowledging this to be a houserule)

[RoboEmperor]

It appears that by RAW being Flat-footed does not impede the save at all. Which personally I don't think makes a whole lot of sense. I will continue to rule that your reflex save is with a penalty to Dex for being Flat-footed (albeit while now acknowledging this to be a houserule)

Reflex save represents your ability to react. A more dextrous man has better reflex than a slower man. From the same Evasion quote posted earlier:


As with a Reflex save for any creature, evasion is a reflexive ability. The character need not know that the attack is coming to use evasion.

[Chronikoce]

Reflex save represents your ability to react. A more dextrous man has better reflex than a slower man. From the same Evasion quote posted earlier:

I guess that makes sense. I'm still not fond of allowing a save while immobile due to 0 Dex though.

[Jowgen]

While I'd rather avoid partaking in another one of these, I feel like this discussion would be woefully incomplete lest the following were up for discussion.


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


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

Also, I recall there being something about how Plane Shift is will negates, but willing creatures seemingly get no saving throw or something like that, and maybe something about using it on unconscious allies (wasn't my argument at the time).

[RoboEmperor]

I guess that makes sense. I'm still not fond of allowing a save while immobile due to 0 Dex though.

Wait, immobile and flat-footed are two very different things. Flat-footed the guy was just caught unaware, he could still jump out of the way. Apparently same with stunned as well.

Immobile as in cannot move has no reflex saving throw. There is no direct rule about reflex saves and since a guy entagled to the point he cannot move a single square, I'm siding with no reflex save for that scenario too, since it's practically no different than squeezing, and some reflex saving throws require you to move upon a successful save (wall of stone). Can't do that when you're immobile.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Immobile as in cannot move has no reflex saving throw. There is no direct rule about reflex saves and since a guy entagled to the point he cannot move a single square, I'm siding with no reflex save for that scenario too, since it's practically no different than squeezing, and some reflex saving throws require you to move upon a successful save (wall of stone). Can't do that when you're immobile.

Yes, there is a saving throw. Cite a single source that says you are denied the reflex save. Again, part of any of the saves is sheer dumb luck, maybe the spell fails against or slightly misses you. For the VERY unique situation of a reflex save that includes moving out of the way like being enclosed by a wall spell, I'd agree if you can't move, you can't move out of the way. Most situations with reflex saves are not that, though.