Would a newborn count as willing?

[Calthropstu]

Say a child born 5 minutes ago in the middle of a battle, mother died in birth and nearby is a wizard ready to teleport/dimension door the group to safety.
Would the child automatically count as willing? Or would the fear a baby has mean an automatic refusal?

[JNAProductions]

OH THANK GOD! I was worried seeing this thread title.

I would rule that yes, the baby is willing, because the alternative is baby death. Give it some explanation-the baby senses the good intent and safety of the magic being cast, and so is willing, but would NOT be willing for something cast with evil and malignant intent.

[Sagetim]

I mean, to be fair, the newborn probably fails it's will save anyway, because if it's even got stats at all, they're probably sub 10, and it doesn't have any class levels yet, so it's will save is going to be negative something. Meanwhile, a wizard that can cast dimension door or teleport is rocking at least 14-15 int, so the dc is, at minimum, 16 to 17. Since your standard adventurer is built with the elite array, they probably started with 15 int, have bumped that up at level 4 to 16 baseline, and are likely to have gotten their hands on a +2 headband of int, for 18 int baseline. This bumps the dc up to 18 to 19. With a -1 or -2 on it's will save, the newborn is now in the realm of 'can only succeed on a nat 20'.

That's assuming the baby even counts as unwilling. After all, it's a newborn, it doesn't know jack about the world around it. With a successful babying check, that newborn may well be consolable into sticking around in the wizard's arms. Baby's aren't exactly hard to diplomacy into giggling for a few moments, and that's all the wizard would need to get a teleport or dimension door off.

And that's assuming the baby is even considered as having the ability to be willing or unwilling as the target of a spell. They aren't generally coming out of the womb with any kind of knowledge or great amounts of consciousness, let alone an idea of 'yes' or 'no'.


I suppose what I'm getting it is, the baby just isn't really going to have a choice in the matter. They probably can't make the saving throw with baby stat penalties to their mental stats and an utter lack of any kind of character class or hit die, and an argument could be easily made that they don't even Get a saving throw because their brain isn't nearly well developed enough to register that options are things yet.

[Crake]

The way I generally rule it is that harmless spells require you to actively choose to roll a save, wheras non-harmless spells require you to actively forego your save, which is why an unconscious person is considered willing for harmless spells. In this circumstance, the baby isn't really capable of actively rejecting the spell, since it doesn't have any idea what's going on, so it would be considered a willing recipient.

[Karl Aegis]

Your equipment goes with you so.... Just equip the newborn.

[molten_dragon]

I mean, to be fair, the newborn probably fails it's will save anyway, because if it's even got stats at all, they're probably sub 10, and it doesn't have any class levels yet, so it's will save is going to be negative something.

The baby wouldn't get a will save if it was unwilling. The spell explicitly says you can only target willing creatures with it, so it couldn't be targeted at all.

Honestly, this is completely a DM call. Personally, I'd allow the teleport to work.

[Inevitability]

I fail to see how making the newborn not count as willing would enhance the story in any way, and the houserule is unlikely to ever be abused by the players. I say let them teleport the baby.

[Anxe]

Your equipment goes with you so.... Just equip the newborn.

My players routinely jump into a communal portable hole for teleporting. Gets around the limits of how many people you can bring along. EQUIP THAT BABY!

More serious: Inevitability's answer gets to the heart of the matter. You could probably rule this either way, but what's the advantage of either answer to this question. This ruling probably can't be abused. Allowing the teleport lets them save the infant easily. Not allowing it puts the PCs in a difficult situation. Do they stay and fight their way out against difficult odds? Do they mistreat the infant by charming it first or throwing it in a bag of holding. Do they consider leaving the infant behind?
Which is more fun for you?

[Calthropstu]

The baby wouldn't get a will save if it was unwilling. The spell explicitly says you can only target willing creatures with it, so it couldn't be targeted at all.

Honestly, this is completely a DM call. Personally, I'd allow the teleport to work.

This was my inclination as well. However, it would make good cause to force the wizard to escape on foot instead of simply teleporting away.
I am thinking of using this as a campaign ploy. I was going to use the "since babies are incapable of giving permission, they always count as unwilling" explanation.

[CharonsHelper]

I am thinking of using this as a campaign ploy. I was going to use the "since babies are incapable of giving permission, they always count as unwilling" explanation.

Have you ever held a little baby? They are unwilling to do pretty much EVERYTHING except for eating & sleeping. And they're squirmy! (though less so with newborns)

So if the wizard can somehow mix the teleporting with a bottle of milk then they're good. Otherwise - unwilling. Of course - that begs the question - why not teleport the mom just BEFORE the baby is born then?

[Calthropstu]

Have you ever held a little baby? They are unwilling to do pretty much EVERYTHING except for eating & sleeping. And they're squirmy! (though less so with newborns)

So if the wizard can somehow mix the teleporting with a bottle of milk then they're good. Otherwise - unwilling. Of course - that begs the question - why not teleport the mom just BEFORE the baby is born then?

Yes, I have held my daughter when she was squirmy. It's why I considered this being an issue at all.

[Afgncaap5]

Honestly... a newborn baby is kind of a weird situation. They're geniuses at teaching themselves how to think, but not much else...

It's probably unfair to say that a baby has a Charisma or Wisdom of 0, so you can't say that a baby gets treated the same as, say, a fern. However, I think as a DM I'd probably rule that babies count as "effective objects" for purposes of things like teleportation spells. I mean, it might not be "willing" but I'm not sure it's aware enough to say "Wait a second, you're casting a SPELL there!", even on an instinctual level. Probably more of a "Etheric energy oscillating with high arcana? Dude, whatever, just don't HOLD me like that, also it's COLD and NOISY!"

That's super subjective, though, and I don't even think I'd make the "effective object" ruling in all situations. Say, if the teleportation spell's being cast by a roaring Beholder, that thing's gonna freak anyone out. And in the middle of a war zone, I can see that definitely applying, so making a baby "always unwilling", even only situationally, is a great excuse for a scene that makes a wizard run on foot.

[Remuko]

The way I generally rule it is that harmless spells require you to actively choose to roll a save, wheras non-harmless spells require you to actively forego your save, which is why an unconscious person is considered willing for harmless spells. In this circumstance, the baby isn't really capable of actively rejecting the spell, since it doesn't have any idea what's going on, so it would be considered a willing recipient.

I agree with this 100% and I'd use it as a blanket ruling for all willing/unwilling instances not just this baby one.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Depends entirely on the question, "It's a baby what?"

I mean, many dragons and aboleths are both born with racial memories, and so they have knowledge of what's going on around them, with enough force of will to make a passable attempt at resisting any action you care to name.

Humans, though? Might as well be barnacles for what they're capable of.

[zlefin]

As a meta point, I think i'ts best to count the baby as willing.
otherwise the best play in the situation, since the rules say an unconscious creature counts as willing, is to punch the baby, dealing nonlethal damage so its unconscious. then heal it up afterwards.
i don't want the best play to be punching the baby.

[Anxe]

As a meta point, I think i'ts best to count the baby as willing.
otherwise the best play in the situation, since the rules say an unconscious creature counts as willing, is to punch the baby, dealing nonlethal damage so its unconscious. then heal it up afterwards.
i don't want the best play to be punching the baby.

"What are you doing!?!"
"I NEED TO BEAT THIS BABY INTO UNCONSCIOUSNESS SO WE CAN ESCAPE! You can thank me later."

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Kyle Broflovski: "Kick the baby!" *Kick to the back of the head*

Baby Sinclaire: "Not the mama!" *Frying pan to the face*

[Psyren]

Your equipment goes with you so.... Just equip the newborn.

This is less crazy than it sounds. Newborn goes in pack, pack goes on you, teleport away.

[Tryxx]

I would say that the baby does attempt to make the save (and more than likely fails). I'm thinking the baby is treated something like an intelligent item - a sentient object that's also unwilling.

Mostly I just want the baby to qualify for the Spelltouched Feat Accurate Jaunt and become a Jaunter/Wayfarer someday.

[Calthropstu]

I would say that the baby does attempt to make the save (and more than likely fails). I'm thinking the baby is treated something like an intelligent item - a sentient object that's also unwilling.

Mostly I just want the baby to qualify for the Spelltouched Feat Accurate Jaunt and become a Jaunter/Wayfarer someday.

There is no save for teleport. If you are unwilling, you don't go. The spell ONLY works on willing subjects.

[Pleh]

There is no save for teleport. If you are unwilling, you don't go. The spell ONLY works on willing subjects.

In this case, I think a fun solution is to tell your player, "earn the baby's trust, or escape by foot". Diplomacy or wild empathy would probably work (human enough to diplomance, animal enough to empathize). Rather than going by a will save for the baby (opposed to the dip check, not the spell), just set a static DC in your mind and apply circumstance bonuses and penalties as needed (sound of battle is a penalty, the hero having raised kids before is a bonus, etc).

If the player is evil enough to punch the baby, there should be consequences, like a 50% or greater chance that the punch is lethal anyway, or otherwise crippling the child for life. They should never get away with no consequences there.

But a simple Sleep spell or a bardic lullaby (I would be fine letting a bard expend bardic music to sing the babe to sleep, even if it only works on young humanoid children) would also provide unconsciousness without physical trauma to the child.

[Tryxx]

There is no save for teleport. If you are unwilling, you don't go. The spell ONLY works on willing subjects.

I read this part of the Teleport spell description and think differently: As with all spells where the range is personal and the target is you, you need not make a saving throw, nor is spell resistance applicable to you. Only objects held or in use (attended) by another person receive saving throws and spell resistance.


I feel like the baby should count as an object that is attending itself. Say this same Wizard has somehow disarmed a Fighter of his intelligent sword, and now wants to Teleport away with it - I feel like the Sword should get to make a save. Same goes for the baby. Don't know if there's any RAW support for that behavior, and it likely wouldn't help/change the story at all, but it's what makes sense to me from a rules perspective.

[Psyren]

Say this same Wizard has somehow disarmed a Fighter of his intelligent sword, and now wants to Teleport away with it - I feel like the Sword should get to make a save.

It's better than that - the intelligent sword, as a separate creature in its own right, must be willing. This is superior to needing a save because saves can fail at least 5% of the time.

[Pleh]

I'm really uncertain about calling a living baby any kind of object. Sure, maybe it would be best to use those rules to simplify this specific scenario, but wouldn't it be more accurate to describe them as an animal?

[Karl Aegis]

I'm really uncertain about calling a living baby any kind of object. Sure, maybe it would be best to use those rules to simplify this specific scenario, but wouldn't it be more accurate to describe them as an animal?

A piece of terrain that counts as a humanoid and a trap with its own CR like slimes, mold and fungi (except humanoid). Touch trigger, touch attack, attempt to grapple trap. Newborns do do that.

[Pleh]

Really? So, because the infant knows only one solution to any problem (flailing their arms and probably screaming), therefore they are basically a trap object?

I would have thought that just made them a really unoptimized ubercharger.

I remain unconvinced, though I suppose it is not necessary that I be convinced.

[paddyfool]

A piece of terrain that counts as a humanoid and a trap with its own CR like slimes, mold and fungi (except humanoid). Touch trigger, touch attack, attempt to grapple trap. Newborns do do that.

Don't forget the alarm function and associated concentration penalty for all within earshot

[Karl Aegis]

Really? So, because the infant knows only one solution to any problem (flailing their arms and probably screaming), therefore they are basically a trap object?

I would have thought that just made them a really unoptimized ubercharger.

I remain unconvinced, though I suppose it is not necessary that I be convinced.

It's a newborn. It has one solution to the one problem it has. It has recently lost it's sole source of nourishment and needs to secure a new one. It does that by latching on to anything that gets near its face or hands. The fact that it happens to be in a different dangerous situation than starvation isn't really a problem for it, like it isn't a problem for random rocks and loose change.

[Feantar]

Alright first, a newborn is of animal intelligence. As in Int 2.

As such it would not be unreasonable to use handle animal on it. Now, let's say the trick is "Grab hold of me" which is something babies do instinctively and as such they can be considered to know the "trick".

Handle Animal, Task: Handle an Animal DC: 15. (As you're handling a being that has int 2 but is not an animal)

I would give you a +1 circumstance bonus to the check if you were also humanoid, and a +2 if you were of the same, or very similar, race - as in the baby is Human, you're an elf, dwarf, halfling etc, but not a kobold or a goblin. So, in essence, the DC is 13.

Idea: Use prestidigitation to a)warm a cloth wrapped around it, and b) make yourself smell as the baby's mother. That would adjust the DC dramatically.

Note that untrained uses of handle animal allow you to use a charisma check to handle only domestic animals; and I think that the baby would count as domestic (after all, [species] are made to live among [species]).

So, in the worst case scenario, a rankless wizard with a dumped charisma, would have to roll a 16 or greater to handle the baby in the middle of the battle, and spend a standard action.

Other Alternatives:

Sleep, Colour Spray,Charm person, Deep Slumber, Hold Person, Charm Monster(Aww...), Dominate Person, Symbol of Sleep,
Detect Thoughts would possibly help with the DC due to getting feedback.
Touch of Fatigue might send it to bed immediately.
IF you have some kind of bottle to feed the baby, Minor Creation: Coconut Milk is safe, and would calm the little sweetheart down almost instantly, at least judging from my nephew (I am talking 6 to 10 seconds maximum - it's scary how fast they go from panic to food, food, everything is good).
Bad Option: Use minor creation to make Drow Poison(I think it's made from underground mushrooms, if not Major Creation) and feed the baby a bit. Since it has stats and only causes unconsciousness, by RAW it should be safe.
Really Bad Option: This one is just a bit better than outright punching it, but if it saves its life... Either you carry some, or you use minor creation to create a little alcochol and have the baby smell it. It'll knock them out. Can cause brain damage, but people did it in olden years and it didn't kill most infants.


Those in yellowish might result in trauma. Paralysis is not pleasant, and dominate might be extremely disorienting and violent for a baby's mind.

PS: Suggestion would not work, it's language dependent.

[Pleh]

It's a newborn. It has one solution to the one problem it has. It has recently lost it's sole source of nourishment and needs to secure a new one. It does that by latching on to anything that gets near its face or hands. The fact that it happens to be in a different dangerous situation than starvation isn't really a problem for it, like it isn't a problem for random rocks and loose change.

Objects, by RAW, do not require nourishment.

[Dimers]

Your equipment goes with you so.... Just equip the newborn.

What, in your head slot or something? I don't know where else you might wear a baby.


So if the wizard can somehow mix the teleporting with a bottle of milk then they're good.

Teleport is a bit outside the level range of a potion.

[ksbsnowowl]

I'm thinking the baby is treated something like an intelligent item - a sentient object that's also unwilling.


But this brings up the question... can an intelligent item choose to be unwilling? I would rule it could, as "Intelligent items can actually be considered creatures because they have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Treat them as constructs."

Similarly, I would rule against the direction this thread is going. The baby is incapable of being willing. Better get it to sleep, or unconsciousness, quick. Or just put it in a bag of holding (either baby, or intelligent item).

[Spore]

Good lord you can really suck the drama out of any plot point. Children up to a certain age have "Lady of Pain" type stats. This means they are not harmed (except by plot), they count as willing for anything that drives the plot along and unwilling to anything that harms them (except non lethal curses. I feel babies attract curses if fairy tales are any indication).

[Calthropstu]

Good lord you can really suck the drama out of any plot point. Children up to a certain age have "Lady of Pain" type stats. This means they are not harmed (except by plot), they count as willing for anything that drives the plot along and unwilling to anything that harms them (except non lethal curses. I feel babies attract curses if fairy tales are any indication).
I disagree.
As earlier stated, babies squirm. They resist attempts to move them from comfort. Putting them to sleep is likely the easiest way.