Voluntarily Suppressing Your Immunities

[Endarire]

Greetings!

I recall reading something in the D&D 3.5 PHB about an Elf who voluntarily suppressed his sleep immunity. It may have been regarding voluntarily failing a saving htrow.

Thus, where is this text in D&D 3.5's rules? Pathfinder 1e's rules?

Thankee!

[Vaern]

It's in the PHB, I think, and in the SRD under the same heating as foregoing a saving throw to willingly accept a spell's effect. The PHB uses the specific example of an elf suppressing its resistance to sleep effects, though the SRD doesn't supply an example.

http://dndsrd.net/magicOverview.html
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/Magic/#TOC-Saving-Throw
Spell descriptions - > Saving throw - > Voluntarily giving up a saving throw

[Biggus]

PHB p.177 in 3.5.

[Doctor Despair]

Huh. I was always under the impression that you could fail a save, but couldn't do so if you were immune to the effect. That is interesting.

[zlefin]

It's a bit wonky; and it may lead to rather nonsensical interactions. There's some debates about just what kind of special abilities/properties should be voluntarily suppressable. I don't remember what the conclusions of those are; just that there's some debate about just what kinds of things should qualify for the clause "Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.". since the PHB wording does allow one to suppress an actual immunity.

[Endarire]

Thankee.

What about the Pathfinder equivalent to this rule? Where is it?

From the PFSRD I see this page (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/) about voluntarily giving up a saving throw, but nothing about ignoring personal immunities.

[Crake]

Thankee.

What about the Pathfinder equivalent to this rule? Where is it?

From the PFSRD I see this page (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/) about voluntarily giving up a saving throw, but nothing about ignoring personal immunities.

The reason it's not in pathfinder is because specific examples were removed from the SRD, and pathfinder is based on the OGL SRD.

[sreservoir]

The reason it's not in pathfinder is because specific examples were removed from the SRD, and pathfinder is based on the OGL SRD.

There's another one for the examples removed from the SRD with rules interpretation implications.

[newguydude1]

the rules arent universal. theyre specific.

you can lower spell resistance because it specifically says you can. but golems cant lower their magic immunity.
elves can ignore their sleep resistance because it specfically says you can. but fire immunes cant lower their fire immunity.

[Crake]

the rules arent universal. theyre specific.

you can lower spell resistance because it specifically says you can. but golems cant lower their magic immunity.
elves can ignore their sleep resistance because it specfically says you can. but fire immunes cant lower their fire immunity.

Elves lowering their sleep immunity (not resistance) isn't a specific rule, it's an example of a general rule.

However, I do agree that there should be limitations to such a rule, especially when the immunity is due to physical reasons that can't simply be willed away. Examples such as undead being immune to poison due to not having a metabolsim, or mindless creatures being immune to mind affecting due to not having minds to be affected.

I would say leave it down to your GM's sensibility as to which immunities can be lowered and which cannot.

[Vaern]

Elves lowering their sleep immunity (not resistance) isn't a specific rule, it's an example of a general rule.

However, I do agree that there should be limitations to such a rule, especially when the immunity is due to physical reasons that can't simply be willed away. Examples such as undead being immune to poison due to not having a metabolsim, or mindless creatures being immune to mind affecting due to not having minds to be affected.

I would say leave it down to your GM's sensibility as to which immunities can be lowered and which cannot.
The rule says that creature's with special resistances to magic can lower that property. You might argue that the blanket immunities in the creature type descriptions apply to all effects both magical and mundane, and since they aren't immunities to specifically magical effects can't be lowered. A creature who is immune to poison couldn't willingly allow itself to be poisoned by a contagion spell, but a creature immune to magical poison effects could.
You might also argue that the rule applies only to resistances and immunities specifically mentioned in an individual creature's description and not those granted by belonging to a particular creature type, though as broad as the rule allowing you to voluntarily accept a spell's effect is it would be difficult to argue that this distinction is significant in any way.

Also, mindless creatures being able to lower their immunity to mind-affecting effects wouldn't make a difference because the description of the mind-affecting descriptor says that it only functions on creatures with an intelligence score of 1 or higher anyway. They still wouldn't be a valid target even without their immunity, so the immunity to mind-affecting effects for being mindless is redundant.

[Biggus]

the rules arent universal. theyre specific.

you can lower spell resistance because it specifically says you can. but golems cant lower their magic immunity.
elves can ignore their sleep resistance because it specfically says you can. but fire immunes cant lower their fire immunity.

Didn't you read the rule? Here is what it says:


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.

[Crake]

The rule says that creature's with special resistances to magic can lower that property. You might argue that the blanket immunities in the creature type descriptions apply to all effects both magical and mundane, and since they aren't immunities to specifically magical effects can't be lowered. A creature who is immune to poison couldn't willingly allow itself to be poisoned by a contagion spell, but a creature immune to magical poison effects could.
You might also argue that the rule applies only to resistances and immunities specifically mentioned in an individual creature's description and not those granted by belonging to a particular creature type, though as broad as the rule allowing you to voluntarily accept a spell's effect is it would be difficult to argue that this distinction is significant in any way.

Also, mindless creatures being able to lower their immunity to mind-affecting effects wouldn't make a difference because the description of the mind-affecting descriptor says that it only functions on creatures with an intelligence score of 1 or higher anyway. They still wouldn't be a valid target even without their immunity, so the immunity to mind-affecting effects for being mindless is redundant.

Hmm, an interesting take on the subject, specifying magic. Not one I necessarily like, because I regularly have the fiends in my settings partake in the use of various drugs, which they should be immune to thanks to their poison immunity, but I allow them to voluntarily lower it. Kinda makes sense that demons, the kings of debauchery, would be able to get high, y'know? But from a consistency point, it is much easier to manage.

[Talakeal]

Even limiting it to magic, you get really weird results. Like sickening skeletons or burning fire elementals. This is also the same rule that some people use to argue that sleeping characters automatically fail all saves and lose all immunities.

Personally I just kind of ignore this rule as a DM and allow them to supress immunity as makes sense on a case by case basis.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Even limiting it to magic, you get really weird results. Like sickening skeletons or burning fire elementals. This is also the same rule that some people use to argue that sleeping characters automatically fail all saves and lose all immunities.

Personally I just kind of ignore this rule as a DM and allow them to supress immunity as makes sense on a case by case basis.

It gets a whole lot less weird if you read that rule more strictly.

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.
For comparison, the elf example:

Immunity to magic sleep effects
Elves aren't immune to sleep, they're immune to magic sleep effects. Alchemical items like Sleep Sand or poisons like Sleep Smoke work just fine on elves.
Fire elementals or skeletons on the other hand aren't immune to magical fire or being magically sickened, they're outright immune to those effects no matter their source.
It's not a special resistance to magic, so the rule doesn't apply.

It makes a lot more sense if you play it that way (though i'm not aware of any RAW support beyond that single line and the PHB example).

Edit: just noticed that Vaern already mentioned this. Swordsage'd by my own failure to read properly i guess. :smalltongue:



As for sleeping characters automatically failing saves or losing immunities the rules are pretty clear. Sleeping induces the helpless condition:

A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (-5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks gets no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.

As a full-round action, an enemy can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless foe. An enemy can also use a bow or crossbow, provided he is adjacent to the target. The attacker automatically hits and scores a critical hit. (A rogue also gets her sneak attack damage bonus against a helpless foe when delivering a coup de grace.) If the defender survives, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die.

Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity.

Creatures that are immune to critical hits do not take critical damage, nor do they need to make Fortitude saves to avoid being killed by a coup de grace.
They're probably confusing sleep with unconsciousness and counting as willing with not getting a save at all, but they're not the same thing by RAW.
See the magic overview section on aiming spells and the condition summary.

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.

Knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having current hit points between -1 and -9, or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.
Also from some poisons, but that's besides the point. Sleep is not Unconscious, as shown by the ability to make listen checks to wake up.
Much like the often-confused difference between being flat-footed and losing your dex bonus to AC an unconscious creature is always helpless but a helpless creature isn't necessarily unconscious.

So there really is no argument to be made for sleeping people being automatically willing, let alone auto-failing saves or losing immunities. In fact it directly contradicts the rules.

[Vaern]

Hmm, an interesting take on the subject, specifying magic. Not one I necessarily like, because I regularly have the fiends in my settings partake in the use of various drugs, which they should be immune to thanks to their poison immunity, but I allow them to voluntarily lower it. Kinda makes sense that demons, the kings of debauchery, would be able to get high, y'know? But from a consistency point, it is much easier to manage.

You could treat drugs the same way as ravages, in that they function like poisons and are subject to spells that negate, neutralize, or delay the effects of poisons, and yet are somehow not poisons and therefore are not subject to being blocked by immunity to poison. That's one way to justify it.
The description of drugs doesn't mention how or if they interact with immunity or resistances to poison, of course, so this is purely a rule 0 call. Personally, though, since it's not specifically called out I'd probably default to the "drugs function like poisons" line and assume that they are treated as poisons in regards to immunity.

It's also worth noting that in the description of poisons it mentions that "oozes, plants, and certain kinds of outsiders are also immune to poison, although conceivably special poisons could be concocted specifically to harm them." If you were to rule that outsiders are immune to drugs due to their immunity to poison, they could still potentially develop drugs for themselves specifically to affect themselves.

[the_tick_rules]

Most groups I played in also said you could suppress some magical item effects if you want. Blink is a fantastic combat spell but taking a ring of blinking on and off so you don't look weird AF in town is a lot. Same thing for a lot of magical items that give off light, except for magic weapons since they specifically say you can't turn it off.

[Duke of Urrel]

Most groups I played in also said you could suppress some magical item effects if you want. Blink is a fantastic combat spell but taking a ring of blinking on and off so you don't look weird AF in town is a lot. Same thing for a lot of magical items that give off light, except for magic weapons since they specifically say you can't turn it off.

You don't have to bend the rules very much to allow players to turn the effect of a magic Blink ring on and off. Here's what the SRD (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm) says about Blink rings.


Blinking
On command, this ring makes the wearer blink, as with the blink spell.

It's a command-activated item. This implies that you activate a Blink ring by uttering a command word as a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. It also implies either that the Blink effect lasts no longer than the Blink spell or that the wearer can dismiss it by uttering a word of dismissal, again using a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, or both.

The glow of magic weapons also doesn't have to be a total nuisance. As you observe, the DUNGEON MASTER'S GUIDE (on page 221) forbids the light of a magic weapon to be shut off but also specifies that it glows "when drawn." We can easily assume that a magic weapon doesn't glow when it is not drawn. The MAGIC ITEM COMPENDIUM offers confirmation (on page 36) that a magic weapon with the "illuminating" quality glows like a torch "when drawn." It doesn't say that this kind of weapon glows when it is stowed away or unattended by any creature.

So we are free to assume all that you need to do to stop a magic weapon from glowing is to stow it away in your gear, which takes a move action that provokes attacks of opportunity. Possibly dropping the weapon on the ground, which is a free action, achieves the same thing.

[ShurikVch]

Elves aren't immune to sleep, they're immune to magic sleep effects. Alchemical items like Sleep Sand or poisons like Sleep Smoke work just fine on elves.
Fire elementals or skeletons on the other hand aren't immune to magical fire or being magically sickened, they're outright immune to those effects no matter their source.
It's not a special resistance to magic, so the rule doesn't apply.
There is still may be a problem:
Lumi are immune to vorpal (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#vorpal) weapon
Isn't vorpal magical?..

[sleepyphoenixx]

There is still may be a problem:
Lumi are immune to vorpal (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#vorpal) weapon
Isn't vorpal magical?..
The immunity to vorpal is a side effect of their heads not being attached to their body.
Vorpal already makes allowances for creatures being immune because of their physiology in the description of the ability.

Even if you ruled that Lumi could suppress that immunity - which wouldn't make sense since they have no necks to be cut and can't just grow one - they couldn't be affected by a vorpal weapon anyway since the ability itself prevents it.

[the_tick_rules]

You don't have to bend the rules very much to allow players to turn the effect of a magic Blink ring on and off. Here's what the SRD (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm) says about Blink rings.



It's a command-activated item. This implies that you activate a Blink ring by uttering a command word as a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. It also implies either that the Blink effect lasts no longer than the Blink spell or that the wearer can dismiss it by uttering a word of dismissal, again using a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, or both.

The glow of magic weapons also doesn't have to be a total nuisance. As you observe, the DUNGEON MASTER'S GUIDE (on page 221) forbids the light of a magic weapon to be shut off but also specifies that it glows "when drawn." We can easily assume that a magic weapon doesn't glow when it is not drawn. The MAGIC ITEM COMPENDIUM offers confirmation (on page 36) that a magic weapon with the "illuminating" quality glows like a torch "when drawn." It doesn't say that this kind of weapon glows when it is stowed away or unattended by any creature.

So we are free to assume all that you need to do to stop a magic weapon from glowing is to stow it away in your gear, which takes a move action that provokes attacks of opportunity. Possibly dropping the weapon on the ground, which is a free action, achieves the same thing.

Ok that wasn't the best example I forgot it as command but there are others that serve my point better. If you can't suppress a ring of entropic deflection you are a walking disco ball in town.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Ok that wasn't the best example I forgot it as command but there are others that serve my point better. If you can't suppress a ring of entropic deflection you are a walking disco ball in town.

There are no rules to suppress item effects and that doesn't sound like a problem to me.
Similar to how a fighter can't go to a fancy party in full plate it's just not acceptable to run around with obvious magical defenses in every situation.

If the effect of an item isn't appropriate to your current location you'll simply have to take it off or get a Ring of Arming,