Poll: Do you let creatures fail saves?

[Dalebert]

If I want to take full damage from a fireball, can I use my dex to, instead of ducking for cover, face directly into the center of the blast and expose as much of my body as possible?

The game mechanics don't include anything about an option to purposefully fail a save. Some effects specify saves only for unwilling creatures. In other cases, how do you run it?

A) Yes, I let people fail a save whenever they want.
B) Depends on the context. I would allow it in some cases but not all.
C) I would allow you to save with disadvantage if you want.
D) No, you have to save if a save is allowed.

[King539]

B for me. Context is generally needed.

[EDL]

I agree with B.
I can imagine someone not dodging fireball, but you can't fail CON save vs poison at will, for example, cause you don't control your immune system by your wish.

[Dalebert]

B for me also.

Seems like in most cases I would allow it but there are some that don't make sense.

[DracoKnight]

Definitely B.

[Rynjin]

A.

Why would you ever force someone to make a save if they don't want to?

Other editions explicitly spell it out in the rules that you can, and I don't see any reason not to allow it.

If you want to take full damage form a fireball or be Charmed or Blinded or whatever, go for it.

[Arkhios]

I'm a bit contrarian here I see, but I'd say A. I just can't imagine a situation where I'd say no to a player's wish to fail a save willingly when allowed to save.

[Fishyninja]

We had something very similar here our Bard ran up and managed to grapple the BBEG and hold it in place he then called for us to throw vials of alchemist fire at him to make sure the BBEG was dead. DM said that he could try to dodge but the bard was worried about the BBEG escaping so chose to fail.
DM allowed it and described his death in cinematic detail.

[Draco4472]

B, mainly dependent on whether a creature wants to attempt to avoid the effect that requires a save.

[Dr. Cliché]

I'll say B just to be on the safe side (in case there's a scenario I haven't considered), but in practise it'll probably be A.

However, I'd like to expand the question a bit. Take something like this:

A---B---------O

A is a halfling
B is a half-orc
O is the centre of a fireball

B would like to try and shield A from the blast, taking the full brunt of it in the process.

Would you allow B to auto-fail their dexterity save against the fireball, in order for A to auto-pass their save?

[Arkhios]

However, I'd like to expand the question a bit. Take something like this:

A---B---------O

A is a halfling
B is a half-orc
O is the centre of a fireball

B would like to try and shield A from the blast, taking the full brunt of it in the process.

Would you allow B to auto-fail their dexterity save against the fireball, in order for A to auto-pass their save?

I would. Or at the very least give A advantage on the save (if A already has advantage, then instead auto-pass).

[Sariel Vailo]

a.if they want to fail a save than ye.
b.if contextuallly the situation to fail the save brings about maximum stupidity id ask them to plan out their next steps carefully.

[Contrast]

I can imagine someone not dodging fireball, but you can't fail CON save vs poison at will, for example, cause you don't control your immune system by your wish.

I think this is the main argument against A. There are some things you can't just will yourself into.

We do get into slightly tricky territory with things like Dr Cliches example. My initial thought is that I'd likely allow it (for the drama) That said, Fireball explicitly says it spreads around corners. If a wall being where the orc was wouldn't have blocked it then I'm not sure what justification we can give for the orc doing so. Then again I guess its just a passed save, rather than immunity.

I'd be happy to let it slide occasionally but would probably be concerned if it started to become a common thing.

[Cespenar]

I'll say B just to be on the safe side (in case there's a scenario I haven't considered), but in practise it'll probably be A.

However, I'd like to expand the question a bit. Take something like this:

A---B---------O

A is a halfling
B is a half-orc
O is the centre of a fireball

B would like to try and shield A from the blast, taking the full brunt of it in the process.

Would you allow B to auto-fail their dexterity save against the fireball, in order for A to auto-pass their save?

Not auto-pass, but maybe upgrade his cover from half to 3/4. Creatures already provide half cover anyway.

[Wymmerdann]

Logically, if a character can choose to fail a save, then a dominated character can have that choice made for them.

EDIT: Specifically in regards to affects other than the domination itself, of course.

[Dr. Cliché]

Notwithstanding my fireball example, why would a character want to fail a save?

[Deleted]

I'll say B just to be on the safe side (in case there's a scenario I haven't considered), but in practise it'll probably be A.

However, I'd like to expand the question a bit. Take something like this:

A---B---------O

A is a halfling
B is a half-orc
O is the centre of a fireball

B would like to try and shield A from the blast, taking the full brunt of it in the process.

Would you allow B to auto-fail their dexterity save against the fireball, in order for A to auto-pass their save?

First: totally would allow a reaction to trade saves.

But, to begin with, the halfling has cover (+2 dex save) from the fireball. So there is slightly a precedent for other creatures helping another not get hit by the fireball.

The problem however, is the slightly screwy fireball "physics" where that fireball wraps around corners more like a liquid than a gas (as the fire/explosion/magic isn't in a container)

The fireball would just wrap all around and still get to the Halfling.

Honestly, D&D could use a bit more 80's Action Movie rules when it comes to reactions.

Possible solutions.

Reaction to give another creature 3/4th cover (+5 AC/Dex Save)

Reaction to fail the dex save to let another creature pass.

Either way I don't see it being totally broken unless you are paying creatures to act as your personal Dex save...


Edit====


Why you would want to fail a save....

To feign weakness (Bruce: oh noooooo)

To feign allegiance (you and your allies are pulling a con)

To show how awesome you are (I don't fricken dodge fricken fireballs)

[silveralen]

Notwithstanding my fireball example, why would a character want to fail a save?

One that comes to mind is drinking. Now, not everyone drinks specifically to get drunk, but enough do that I could see it coming up, and generally that's a save to avoid sort of thing.

It's also an example of when I would not allow someone to choose to fail a save. A person with higher tolerance (in game terms, con save) would simply have to drink more, probably with a gradually increasing penalty to con to avoid the effect, rather than being able to choose to fail.

Of course most players probably won't actually want their character drunk from a game perspective, but in character it is a legitimate reason someone would want to fail.

[Talderas]

I think this is the main argument against A. There are some things you can't just will yourself into.

The primary difference between A and B is narrative and storytelling and what assumptions is makes about the player/character divide. It's a matter of whether the player is the character or whether the player is merely an agent of the character.

[Tanarii]

D. Saves are reflexive. If a PC regularly tries to override their reflexive responses, they're going to lose their save proficiency. Then get disadvantage on saves. Then they're going to fail them all. It's a bad path to start down. No PC should willingly un-train themselves, or more accurately train themselves to react wrong. And until they do that, they reflexively save automatically.



However, I'd like to expand the question a bit. Take something like this:

A---B---------O

A is a halfling
B is a half-orc
O is the centre of a fireball

B would like to try and shield A from the blast, taking the full brunt of it in the process.

Would you allow B to auto-fail their dexterity save against the fireball, in order for A to auto-pass their save?
No. Creatures can't provide cover.

Edit: however if you choose to ignore that and that the Halfling is probably too far away to get cover and you allow willing failing saving throws, at best the Halfling should get a cover bonus: advantage vs the save.

[Naanomi]

B here... I see it come up in mind control sometimes, where a character is mind controlled and someone else attempts to override it with a mind control of their own... or if the player wants to do an evil action when their character clearly wouldn't. I say no to both of those

[Dr. Cliché]

No. Creatures can't provide cover.

???

"Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat"

[Tanarii]

???

"Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat"
That doesn't sound right. I could swear creatures ... I must have been thinking of a different edition. Because creatures definitely provide cover if you try and make a polearm attack through them. Not sure what I was thinking. Maybe that you can't hide behind creatures? :smallredface:

Okay, but I'm still going with:
can't fail saves willingly
Even if it's possible, it should still be cover, not an auto save.

[Naanomi]

Oh and diseases with positive side effects, mostly different flavors of (insert animal prefix)anthropy... I don't allow people to fail those saves either

In fact... on restrospect I technically allow people to fail saves, but never in situations where most players would be asking to do so. In fact the only situation I can readily imagine in game if it came up I would say ok is if a character were suicidal (perhaps as a result of mental manipulation) I would let them fail some Dexterity and Strength saves to take full damage from attacks they could have attempted to avoid

[jas61292]

While the answer is definitely B for me, it is a different B than what I think most people are saying. It seems to me that a common response here is that DMs would allow people to fail, unless it's a situation that specifically would be involuntary. Personally, I have somewhat of an opposite view; saves are inherently involuntary defense mechanisms, and unless it is something you could physically force yourself not to react to, you should have to make a save.

Obviously, as others have mentioned, you can't force your body not to resist a poison or disease. However, I believe that the same is true for almost all mental saves. When something is trying to effect your mind, you don't stop and think... "hmm, do I want this?" No, your mind will just involuntarily resists, because what is happening is unnatural for it. Even with a lot of physical saves, I have a hard time justifying voluntary failure. A lot of what are now Dex saves were, in part editions, known as Reflex, and, as the name would suggest, those are not things you chose to do. When exposed to the triggering stimulus, you involuntarily respond. That's what a reflex is.

That said, the one area where I could consistently see save failure being allowed would be against forced movement, particularly if it is against a continuous force, rather than a sudden blast. Sure, upon immediate exposure to a force, you might reflexively resist it, but if it continues you could very easily choose to cease to resist. That to me is the key. In order to choose to fail, the defensive mechanism must be one that could be under your conscious control, AND it must not be something overly reflexive.

[Contrast]

On a somewhat related note, there are certain things about saves which don't make much sense to me.

Some spells with dex saves make sense. I can see how someone dodging a Flaming Sphere or interposing their shield with Shield Master will take less damage.

But what is someone even doing against Fireball. The whole area is literally engulfed in flames - you can't dodge out of it as everywhere around you is on fire too! What possible move allows you to take less damage (or if you're a rogue, walk out completely unsinged!).

[Naanomi]

On a somewhat related note, there are certain things about saves which don't make much sense to me.

Some spells with dex saves make sense. I can see how someone dodging a Flaming Sphere or interposing their shield with Shield Master will take less damage.

But what is someone even doing against Fireball. The whole area is literally engulfed in flames - you can't dodge out of it as everywhere around you is on fire too! What possible move allows you to take less damage (or if you're a rogue, walk out completely unsinged!).
Presumably you are ducking down, covering your face or vitals, minimizing surface areas exposed... as for a rogue, not sure

[Dr. Cliché]

On a somewhat related note, there are certain things about saves which don't make much sense to me.

Some spells with dex saves make sense. I can see how someone dodging a Flaming Sphere or interposing their shield with Shield Master will take less damage.

But what is someone even doing against Fireball. The whole area is literally engulfed in flames - you can't dodge out of it as everywhere around you is on fire too! What possible move allows you to take less damage (or if you're a rogue, walk out completely unsinged!).

Yeah, I've often thought the same thing.

The only thing I can think of is that you could maybe curl up and try to minimise the area of your body exposed to the blast. But even that seems like it wouldn't work, given that fireball can apparently travel round corners and such.

It seems like lightning-based attacks are equally weird in this respect. I can see someone dodging one entirely, but what would half-damage represent? I mean, even if you can reduce the portion of your body exposed to the lightning, wouldn't it just conduct to the rest of your body anyway? I guess you could maybe close your arms and legs, to try and prevent there being a significant potential difference between them, otherwise I've no idea. :smallconfused:

[Tanarii]

But what is someone even doing against Fireball. The whole area is literally engulfed in flames - you can't dodge out of it as everywhere around you is on fire too! What possible move allows you to take less damage (or if you're a rogue, walk out completely unsinged!).The "standard" explanation for D&D fireballs is that it has hotter and colder pockets in it, and thus you 'dodge' into a colder spot to take less damage.

Not 5e fireballs specifically. This has been the standard for them since time immemorial. Or at least since 3e, when the save became a Reflex save. Can't recall if I ever saw it before then, because saves weren't based on specific attributes.

Of course, if you're trying to get all simulation about it, 5e fireballs shouldn't allow a cover to apply at all. The fire spreads around corners.

[pwykersotz]

The "standard" explanation for D&D fireballs is that it has hotter and colder pockets in it, and thus you 'dodge' into a colder spot to take less damage.

Not 5e fireballs specifically. This has been the standard for them since time immemorial. Or at least since 3e, when the save became a Reflex save. Can't recall if I ever saw it before then, because saves weren't based on specific attributes.

Of course, if you're trying to get all simulation about it, 5e fireballs shouldn't allow a cover to apply at all. The fire spreads around corners.

That seems very convoluted. I mean, I understand that it doesn't introduce undesirable effects, but hotter and colder pockets in a magical explosion of fire seems way more strange to me.

I just run a houserule that you're dodging out of the explosion, and I allow successful savers to choose their new square. If you're contained or the explosion has a larger radius then your movement, you don't get a save. Obviously it's potentially abusable, but my players have never done so, so it stands as a table rule.

[Tanarii]

That seems very convoluted. I mean, I understand that it doesn't introduce undesirable effects, but hotter and colder pockets in a magical explosion of fire seems way more strange to me.Of course its somewhat convoluted. It's because people have this need to explain how a rule looks in the in-game reality. Map the abstract to the 'concrete', so to speak.

Of course sometimes they are more simulationist and want the rules to be a physics engine, so they go even more convoluted and do it the other way. They have a view of how the in-game reality looks, and start introducing house-ru..


I just run a houserule that you're dodging out of the explosion, and I allow successful savers to choose their new square. If you're contained or the explosion has a larger radius then your movement, you don't get a save. Obviously it's potentially abusable, but my players have never done so, so it stands as a table rule.... :smallamused:

Joking aside, introducing house rules to make the rules match how you view the in-game reality is just as convoluted as creating the in-game explanation to match the rules. Sometimes more so.



Or you can just do what I do and say it's an abstract rule, and it works how it works. Move on.
(Edit: in other words, I don't use the hot and cold pockets thing. I was just passing it on, because it's the most common 'how D&D fireballs work' explanation given. I think it was even in Sage Advice in either 3e or 4e.)

[pwykersotz]

Of course its somewhat convoluted. It's because people have this need to explain how a rule looks in the in-game reality. Map the abstract to the 'concrete', so to speak.

Of course sometimes they are more simulationist and want the rules to be a physics engine, so they go even more convoluted and do it the other way. They have a view of how the in-game reality looks, and start introducing house-ru..

... :smallamused: Seriously though, introducing house rules to make the rules match how you view the in-game reality is just as convoluted as creating the in-game explanation to match the rules. Sometimes more so.

Or you can just do what I do and say it's an abstract rule, and it works how it works. Move on.

I completely agree. Though in this particular situation, I think the hot/cold spots is particularly egregious. However, my table has a certain distaste for resolution mechanics without reason, and an equal distaste for nonsensical fluff. I am compelled to generate something.

[Tanarii]

I completely agree. Though in this particular situation, I think the hot/cold spots is particularly egregious. However, my table has a certain distaste for resolution mechanics without reason, and an equal distaste for nonsensical fluff. I am compelled to generate something.
Fair enough. I used to be hardcore for rules being effectively the physics engine* for the in-game universe, because 3e encouraged that. Then I flipped that to the in-game universe being explained from the results of the rules, because 4e encouraged that. Now I'm generally just playing the game and not worry too much about it and seeing the rules as generally an abstraction for resolution, similar to how I did playing BECMI.

However, I totally agree that when the abstract rules for resolution don't at all match the way you're viewing the in-game reality, nor allow you to create an in-game explanation that makes any sense, it's jarring. And if it's something relevant to play proceeding, then it's a bit of a problem.


*By which I mean treating the rules as if they are a model derived from what's happening in-game, which then allows them to be used to predict and be mapped back to new outcomes.

[Dalebert]

Notwithstanding my fireball example, why would a character want to fail a save?

My sorlock has the Red Dragon Mask. When he casts Investiture of Fire, fire heals him.

[Deleted]

To explain fireball, which doesn't have a pressure and is able to be dodged without going to a new location (ah, the fireball hopping rogue...), I always refluffed fireball as a ball of fire that shoots out streams of fire.

The best way for me to explain this is this item from Smash Wii U http://supersmashbros.wikia.com/wiki/X_Bomb



http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/ssb/images/e/e8/X-BombIcarus.png/revision/latest?cb=20140328225654



But D&D fireball shoots them out in many more locations and directions.

Why can it bend around cover? To explain it, it would be that the tendrils of fire are wisping around automatically and they just happen to go around bjects naturally and not like a gas filling a volume.

[RumoCrytuf]

We had something very similar here our Bard ran up and managed to grapple the BBEG and hold it in place he then called for us to throw vials of alchemist fire at him to make sure the BBEG was dead. DM said that he could try to dodge but the bard was worried about the BBEG escaping so chose to fail.
DM allowed it and described his death in cinematic detail.

*Takes off hat and bows head*
RIP Bard who sacrificed himself to stop the BBEG. He will be remembered.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

The "standard" explanation for D&D fireballs is that it has hotter and colder pockets in it, and thus you 'dodge' into a colder spot to take less damage.Not 5e fireballs specifically. This has been the standard for them since time immemorial. Or at least since 3e, when the save became a Reflex save. Can't recall if I ever saw it before then, because saves weren't based on specific attributes.Of course, if you're trying to get all simulation about it, 5e fireballs shouldn't allow a cover to apply at all. The fire spreads around corners.
I'm going to agree that that seems convoluted. And I don't remember seeing it anywhere in my many 3rd ed books.

All you'd really need to do to justify taking half damage would be to do something like cover your face with your arms, close your eyes and hold your breath to justify that (since the eyes and other mucus membranes, especially the lungs if the fire gets down your throat are probably where a lot of the damage is). People who failed their Reflex/Dex saves just didn't manage to do that in time. Especially if you're wearing thick, heavy adventuring clothes that offer some degree of protection from momentary heat.

[Dalebert]

Quickly covering your face and other sensitive areas while holding your breathe seems to be plenty of an explanation for half dmg. I imagine characters with evasion have taken extra precautions and learned special techniques for avoiding harm. A rogue might make a point to wear a grounded and flame-retardant cloak that he wraps around his body. A monk may have some way to channel his ki to actually become ever-so-briefly nearly immune to certain types of energy while at the same time covering vital areas. Get creative. Fluff it however you want. No biggy.

[Tanarii]

I'm going to agree that that seems convoluted. And I don't remember seeing it anywhere in my many 3rd ed books.It wasn't in the books. It was a common internet/forum, and *maybe* SA, explanation for how it worked.

Although now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure said explanation has nothing to do with saving for half, but rather how you could possibly use Evasion to take absolutely no damage while still not moving out of your square or taking cover.

Edit: My short term memory sucks. The post I originally responded to was including evading all the damage.

[JackPhoenix]

Even if Fireball spreads around the corners, it presumably spreads from the center of the effect. Save may represent turning less vulnerable parts of the body towards the center. While I wouldn't want to be hit by Fireball at all, If I had to, I'd rather have the full brunt to hit me in the back than in the face.

[Dalebert]

Why do people have it stuck in their heads that if the fire touches you anywhere for any length of time, you have to take dmg? Have you never put your finger through a candle flame or seen how long you can hold your hand over a candle flame before you burn?

Also, this thread is WAY off track. Just sayin'.

[Deleted]

Why do people have it stuck in their heads that if the fire touches you anywhere for any length of time, you have to take dmg? Have you never put your finger through a candle flame or seen how long you can hold your hand over a candle flame before you burn?

Also, this thread is WAY off track. Just sayin'.

The part where fireball is hot enough to ignite objects instantaneously breaks your narrative.

A candle wouldn't instantly catch a lot of things on fire. It takes a bit for the fire to catch on and even then it may smoulder out.

Fireball instantly sets everything in a 20' radius on fricken fire... Again... Instantly.

[Arkhios]

Why do people have it stuck in their heads that if the fire touches you anywhere for any length of time, you have to take dmg? Have you never put your finger through a candle flame or seen how long you can hold your hand over a candle flame before you burn?

Also, this thread is WAY off track. Just sayin'.

What's this? Fire doesn't work in D&D like it should in a realistic way? Outrageous and unprecedent! (not)

D&D has a long history of fire that doesn't burn wood, for example. In older editions, where there would be a thing called hardness for objects, the measly 1d6 fire damage per turn couldn't bore into the wood's hardness of 8 (or something).

(Hardness being basically damage reduction)

When talking about reality based logic and D&D, you should throw the logic out from the window before you hurt yourself with it.

[sir_argo]

I wish I could remember the movie, but I saw a film in which a character got hit with fire. The character spun quickly, half wrapping his cloak around him. After doing a 360, only the back of his cloak was on fire and he deftly folded it in half snuffing out even those flames. The whole motion took at most 1 second. I recall thinking, "That is how you save for no damage!"

[erok0809]

I would let my players voluntarily fail saves that aren't con saves, since you cannot control your constitution. Most everything else I'm okay with them autofailing.

As for the evasion talk, I explain it by rogues and monks and the like reflexively slipping partially or fully into "roguespace," a parallel sort of dimension, depending on if they made or failed their save. They cannot control this impulse, which explains why they can't do it for every instance of damage, but it's just something that certain people's bodies have learned how to do to avoid certain types of damage that would otherwise be certain. I don't mind my mundanes being a little magical.