Post/Author/DateTime	Post
koiulpoi 10-06-07, 03:11 AM	There's not much more I need to say. We had this argument today in a session - fighting a planetar with non evil-aligned weapons and it passed out, someone cast a spell on it that required a will save. The question was brought up - does it auto-fail, or is it affected at all by not being concious? And, if so, what about sleeping? And, if not, what about when dying?
Mejdrich 10-06-07, 04:25 AM	Yea, I can't find the reference, but unconscious and sleeping characters auto-fail their will saves. Remind that DM that normally an NPCs at 0 hps is dead, not unconscious. For PCs, conscious but dying doesn't effect saving throws.
Callix 10-06-07, 04:34 AM	Unconscious creatures are treated as willing, but do not necessarily automatically fail will saves. If the spell description says "an unwilling target is allowed a Will save", then they aren't allowed to try and save. This means that you can Plane Shift, Teleport etc freely, but doesn't let you put a Dominate Monster on it, then wake it up. Basically, if you can gain some form of advantage from the spell, but may also be disadvantaged, you are automatically affected if unconscious. However, if it's all negative, they still get a normal save. The other upside is that they count as willing for "willing-creatures-only" spells like Etherealness.
Mejdrich 10-06-07, 06:52 AM	No, willing creatures voluntarily give up their saving throws. You automatically succeed with Dominate Monster or whatever else you fancy. But again, usually this can't happen because monsters don't fall unconscious, unless you are using nonlethal damage. At 0 hp, they're dead. PHB p 175, Aiming a Spell: 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. Later on p 177: 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.
Ace_of_time 10-06-07, 10:27 AM	The DM might have given the save because he didn't want you to have access to the monster like that. Wouldn't have anything to do with the rule. He just didn't want to say no I won't let you do that. He just gave the save and was done with it. OR if the thing had some kind of healing effect he could have wake up and not got up yet.
Myzery78 10-06-07, 11:03 AM	Mejdrich, Im not sure where you're getting that from, as NPCs dont function any differently than PCs. At 0 hp they are still alive, conscious in fact. They can take only a move or standard action each round. At -1 to -9 they are still very much alive, but bleeding out. Only undead and constructs are destroyed at 0hp. Callix said everything that needed to be said on the subject of what they get a save against and what they dont.
Ace_of_time 10-06-07, 11:51 AM	My book says dead at -10. It used to be 0 back in the day, I think. Not in 3.5.
faeriehunter 10-06-07, 12:22 PM	Yea, I can't find the reference, but unconscious and sleeping characters auto-fail their will saves. Remind that DM that normally an NPCs at 0 hps is dead, not unconscious. For PCs, conscious but dying doesn't effect saving throws. Like others have said, death is at -10 for NPCs too. The exception are undead and constructs, who are destroyed at 0 hp. Not that it matters here, because planetars have regeneration. Non-evil weapons only deal nonlethal damage to them. As for saving while unconscious, Callix already said how that works. While an unconscious creature is automatically willing, a willing creature does not automatically voluntarily forego a saving throw. Sure, a creature that is willing to receive a spell usually voluntarily foregoes any associated saving throw, but being willing and voluntarily foregoing a saving throw are two separate things. Edit: The dying condition, by itself, does not affect saving throws. A dying creature is automatically unconscious though unless it has a special ability, such as the Diehard feat, which keeps it conscious. Spell resistance also functions normally while a creature is unconscious or asleep.
Ace_of_time 10-06-07, 12:31 PM	So if the DM allowed the save then he was faking and no one noticed that he wasn't unconscious.
koiulpoi 10-06-07, 01:31 PM	1) I am the DM. I gave it the save because I saw no reason why being unconcious stopped your mental resistance to spells. It had regeneration, so the players had thusfar done only nonleathal damage (except for perhaps 50 or so spell damage). 2) The players knew it was unconcious and regenerating. 3) A player argued it should auto-fail its save, but went on to change his argument to "it should affect the creature". While I like Callix's interpretation, I would like a source to back it up.
Tempest Stormwind 10-06-07, 01:52 PM	That part about "willing" applies to willing targets, such as for Teleport. It doesn't mean you voluntarily drop the saving throw. You take the second sentence out of the context of the first: "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". A willing 'target' refers to the Target entry of a spell, such as "Willing creature touched". Nothing to do with giving up the save.
faeriehunter 10-06-07, 03:24 PM	The problem with the "Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing" line in the PHB, page 175, is not about voluntarily failing the save, but about whether or not unconscious creatures get a save for spells that normally allow only unwilling creatures to save, such as Silence. The rules are unclear about this, but my opinion is that that line was only meant to help determine whether a spell's target is valid, not whether or not they get to save. Note that spells that affect only willing targets almost never allow saves or spell resistance. My guess as to why unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing is that this way, when a fight is going badly the party can teleport away without worrying that unconscious party members save (or resist with Spell Resistance) and are left behind.
MrCustomer 10-06-07, 03:25 PM	No, willing creatures voluntarily give up their saving throws. You automatically succeed with Dominate Monster or whatever else you fancy. But again, usually this can't happen because monsters don't fall unconscious, unless you are using nonlethal damage. At 0 hp, they're dead. PHB p 175, Aiming a Spell: 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. Later on p 177: 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. PHB says"(harmless): The spell is ussually benificial, not harmful, but a targeted character can attempt a saving throw is it desires" Where someone is "willing" refers to benificial, harmless spells, an unconcisous person is automatically willing since they can't choose to resist. The spell automatically works unless the target chooses otherwise. In the case of harmful spells, they can only be "willing" to not resist them when they are awake, only a concious person would decide to not resist a harmful spell. For example a creature who is ammune to paralasis or fire etc does not loose that ability simply because they are sleeping. By your definition of the rules subjects loose all immunities/resistances while asleep, this obviously is not the case, something that is immune to spells is always immune to spells unless they deliberately choose to drop that resistance. "a creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance" pg 177 under Spell Resistance, they can only make such a choice while awake. So if you try and teleport your party members to escape your enemy, the knocked out fighter automatically is willing. Likewise if you cast mass-bless on the party while the rogue is trying to hide from the wizard with Sense Magic then he can choose to resist (otherwise he suddenly shows up with a spell aura) And a sleeping Red dragon is still immune to fire.
Ace_of_time 10-06-07, 05:20 PM	Are they good or evil aligned group? SR says 30. Assuming 16th level and baring bonuses that put them needing 14 or high SR which would have been rolled first. He said he gave the save so he might have had them roll SR and just didn't say that.
koiulpoi 10-06-07, 06:42 PM	Are they good or evil aligned group? SR says 30. Assuming 16th level and baring bonuses that put them needing 14 or high SR which would have been rolled first. He said he gave the save so he might have had them roll SR and just didn't say that. The spellcaster got through SR. I didn't feel it was neccesary to say. I felt there was no reason SR should drop just because you're knocked unconcious - that wasn't my question at all.
Ace_of_time 10-06-07, 07:55 PM	I was pointing that fact out. Not faulting you on anything. My point to you was that the thing would get a new will save every time they make it do something it would normally do. Don't think working for evil party wouldn't take to long for that and I would bother telling them that ether.
Mejdrich 10-07-07, 12:58 AM	Well, I disagree. If the intent of "willing" targets was simply to teleport or heal your friends, then why does the entry include:... 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.Clearly they had a hostile intent in mind. If you want to rule that unconscious characters get will saves, well, it's your game. But remember, it cuts both ways. If unconscious characters do get saves, they get them all of the time, whether they're hit with Dominate Person or Cure Light Wounds. An unconscious person can't tell the difference between the spells that are hitting them. They can't be willing to the nice ones and unwilling to the bad ones. It's all or nothing. 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. ... Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing.
faeriehunter 10-07-07, 07:40 AM	Well, I disagree. If the intent of "willing" targets was simply to teleport or heal your friends, then why does the entry include:... 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.Clearly they had a hostile intent in mind. I don't think so. It just means that despite being bound, cowering, etcetera, the target is still conscious and can decide for itself whether or not it is willing. If unconscious characters do get saves, they get them all of the time, whether they're hit with Dominate Person or Cure Light Wounds. That is one interpretation. Another interpretation is that a creature targeted by a spell with (harmless) in the save entry only gets to save when it desires to, because the spell doesn't have any negative effects. Admittedly the rules seem to support the first interpretation, since the PHB, page 177, says that the term "harmless" means the same thing for spell resistance as it does for saving throws, and spell resistance must be voluntarily lowered in order to avoid resisting a harmless spell. I think the second interpretation is more practical however. Finally, I think that if being unconscious causes a creature to automatically fail all saving throws, then that fact would have been included in the DMG entry on unconsciousness (page 301).
Ace_of_time 10-07-07, 11:01 AM	The SRD says this. Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell. 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. The Saving Throw and Spell Resistance lines are omitted from such spells. 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. Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. And the spell says. Dominate Monster Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting] Level: Sor/Wiz 9 Target: One creature This spell functions like dominate person, except that the spell is not restricted by creature t Which is not the same as a spell like this. Rage Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting] Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 3 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) Targets: One willing living creature per three levels, no two of which may be more than 30 ft. apartDuration: Concentration + 1 round/level (D) Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes Each affected creature gains a +2 morale bonus to Strength and Constitution, a +1 morale bonus on Will saves, and a –2 penalty to AC. The effect is otherwise identical with a barbarian’s rage except that the subjects aren’t fatigued at the end of the rage. still look for the save thing. But the SRD says the only auto success and failiures or 1s and 20s. I'll keep looking.
Ace_of_time 10-07-07, 11:15 AM	So far this is what I have found the SRD only says this. Unconscious: 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. And under helpless. Helpless: 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. If you auto failed saves when unconscious you wouldn't get the fort save for a coup de grace attack. You would just die. And if you say your allowed the save for that then you have to allow the save for spell.
Mejdrich 10-07-07, 11:37 AM	Right. I understand that. "Willing" is only mentioned twice in the PHB, about mechanics anyway, with virtually the same context: accepting spells. p 177: 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. p 175: 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. They are both talking about accepting spells. They both talking about being "willing". I may not bet my books on it, but that seems to that the intent is that unconscious creatures willingly fail their saves against spells. It seems odd that an unconscious creature, mentally defenseless by definition, would keep a will save on certain spells. Again, how could the unconscious creature know to accept some spells and fight others? I agree that it is more clear that unconscious creatures are willing to targeted spells, but I think the intention (due to the similarity in language) is that unconscious creatures are willing, across the board. Thats my reading, anyway, and how I've always played. It's never really been an issue, honestly. Anyone who can get close enough to abuse willing creatures could just as easily coupe-de-grace. *shrug* I don't see the harm.
Dragoncat 10-07-07, 03:36 PM	To throw another log onto the fire, what about the following? The Nightmare spell Nightmare Illusion (Phantasm) [Mind-Affecting, Evil] Level: Brd 5, Sor/Wiz 5 Components: V, S Casting Time: 10 minutes Range: Unlimited Target: One living creature Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Will negates; see text Spell Resistance: Yes You send a hideous and unsettling phantasmal vision to a specific creature that you name or otherwise specifically designate. The nightmare prevents restful sleep and causes 1d10 points of damage. The nightmare leaves the subject fatigued and unable to regain arcane spells for the next 24 hours. Knowledge Will Save Modifier 1. You must have some sort of connection to a creature you have no knowledge of. None1 +10 Secondhand (you have heard of the subject) +5 Firsthand (you have met the subject) +0 Familiar (you know the subject well) -5 Connection Will Save Modifier Likeness or picture -2 Possession or garment -4 Body part, lock of hair, bit of nail, etc. -10 The difficulty of the save depends on how well you know the subject and what sort of physical connection (if any) you have to that creature. Dispel evil cast on the subject while you are casting the spell dispels the nightmare and causes you to be stunned for 10 minutes per caster level of the dispel evil. If the recipient is awake when the spell begins, you can choose to cease casting (ending the spell) or to enter a trance until the recipient goes to sleep, whereupon you become alert again and complete the casting. If you are disturbed during the trance, you must succeed on a Concentration check as if you were in the midst of casting a spell or the spell ends. If you choose to enter a trance, you are not aware of your surroundings or the activities around you while in the trance. You are defenseless, both physically and mentally, while in the trance. (You always fail any saving throw, for example.) Creatures who don’t sleep (such as elves, but not half-elves) or dream are immune to this spell. The spell is cast only when the subject is asleep. It has a will save. Thoughts?
Mejdrich 10-07-07, 04:06 PM	lol But if you cast Dominate Person on the guy in a trance, he auto-fails his save. :D You are defenseless, both physically and mentally, while in the trance. (You always fail any saving throw, for example.) Another one comes to mind.. Mind Probe from EPH offers a will save, but assumes an auto-success when cast on a sleeping target. *shrug* Anyway (to the OP), whether the designers of D&D would agree or not, I think your players had a reasonable argument. Make a clear ruling one way or the other, whichever seems the most comfortable to your game, and stick with it. This isn't a game-breaker, imho, one way or the other.
Ace_of_time 10-08-07, 12:35 AM	So the thing would have gotten a save for coup de grace but would not for the will save? Don't see how that make sense?:confused: :confused: That part about willing person clearly states it is talking about spells that have the target enrty of a willing creature. That spell cause awake people to go into a trance. And in that trance caused by the spell it is that way. If it was that way reg they would not have put that in the spell entry.
Ayra 10-08-07, 09:19 AM	Hmm. It does look like the rules are sort of contradictory here. I've always thought that unconcious and sleeping creatures do not get a will save and don't get a reflex save. The only save they are entitled to is fortitude, which is also the save for a CdG. I have no rules to back this up other than what Mejdrich has quoted, but it only seems logical. A person or creature who has no awareness of his surroundings can't distinguish harmful spells from non-harmful spells, so he either gets no save at all or a save against everything. Since he can't offer any form of mental resistance (because you can't think while sleeping or unconscious, otherwise you may as well be able to cast spells that require no components), I always assumed that no will save is allowed. Since you can't move, the reflex save is pretty clear. Fortitude is different in ways that you don't have to think to activate your physical defenses against, for instance, poison or death from massive damage. I agree with Mejdrich's point, I wouldn't allow will saves on unconcious or sleeping characters. It would result in a tactical advantage too. Think of a kidnapping. You knock the one you want to kidnap unconcious with subdual damage and then take them with you through a teleport, which they otherwise would not be willing to do. It would be quite annoying that you can teleport away and then notice that the damn guy you want to kidnap made his will save even though you've knocked him unconscious and he's still lying in his home.
Ace_of_time 10-08-07, 03:35 PM	They don't get ref save because they can't move and are helpless. the mind still works even while you sleep and only stops working upon death. The same with you body on fort. You could impose a -4 penalty when unconcious or asleep On will saves. that wouldn't be to far out there. For that matter every one who drop below 0 HP would die (with out healing, No stablize roll) and you could bring some back from the dead even if they didn't want to be brought back. Just FYI Teleport Conjuration (Teleportation) Level: Sor/Wiz 5, Travel 5 Components: V Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal and touch Target: You and touched objects or other touched willing creatures Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None and Will negates (object) Spell Resistance: No and Yes (object) Willing creatures don't get a save on that one. You're not really attacking the creatures mind just taking the body. That's what I and others have been saying. That Quote only applies to these type of spells. That require some willing in the target entry.
koiulpoi 10-08-07, 07:27 PM	You know, something about slapping a Helm of Opposite Alignment on a sleeping person and having it work every time seems very wrong to me. Big bad evil wizard? Sneak into his quarters and switch his alignment to good! Just make sure you're a good enough rogue. So, even if the designers disagree with me on this point, I'm houseruling it the other way - you don't become suddenly more succeptable to magic just because you're unconcious.
Mejdrich 10-08-07, 11:13 PM	You know, something about slapping a Helm of Opposite Alignment on a sleeping person and having it work every time seems very wrong to me. Er, well, Helm of Opposite Alignment is annoying and stupid if you give them a will save or not. I wouldn't rule based on how it interacts with one specific magical item. you don't become suddenly more succeptable to magic just because you're unconcious. Thats like saying that you shouldn't suddenly lose to reflex-challenges, just because you're unconscious. For crying out loud, your brain is shut down. How much mental resistance could you have? But, hey, it's your game and you're the DM. Do what you want.
Ace_of_time 10-09-07, 12:34 AM	That's called brain dead! Your mind NEVER shuts down until you die.
koiulpoi 10-09-07, 12:43 AM	Er, well, Helm of Opposite Alignment is annoying and stupid if you give them a will save or not. I wouldn't rule based on how it interacts with one specific magical item. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of ruling it that particular way. If that's not good enough for you, try suggestion for a low(ish)-level option, or Baelful Polymorph's second save (the one to forget you're a person). Better hope you're not sleeping when that 24 hour mark hits, else you're going to forget who you are and how to talk! Because, when unconcious, your mind just can't defend itself. I don't buy it. Thats like saying that you shouldn't suddenly lose to reflex-challenges, just because you're unconscious. For crying out loud, your brain is shut down. How much mental resistance could you have? There's a clear definition for "helpless", and it means you lose reflex saves and does not include losing Will saves. And, even if it does, it's still ridiculous. Sometimes RAW isn't right. And, not to get into this, but your brain isn't shut down when sleeping or unconcious; it's in a different state. Your body doesn't need any extra prompting to resist a poison inside it; why should it need something to resist Inflict Wounds? Why is Negative Energy more effective on sleeping people? Because the sleeping mind can't understand that pain is bad and can't resist it? Why not? But, hey, it's your game and you're the DM. Do what you want. I do, especially in cases like this, but thank you.
Ayra 10-09-07, 04:58 AM	You know, something about slapping a Helm of Opposite Alignment on a sleeping person and having it work every time seems very wrong to me. Big bad evil wizard? Sneak into his quarters and switch his alignment to good! Just make sure you're a good enough rogue. So, even if the designers disagree with me on this point, I'm houseruling it the other way - you don't become suddenly more succeptable to magic just because you're unconcious. Any high level big bad evil wizard that doesn't set up proper protections when he's asleep deserves to be put out of his misery. He can easily be CdG'ed. A wizard has a low fortitude save so he might even die on the spot. Regardless, I wouldn't allow will saves when unconscious or sleeping. You can be killed while asleep by a coupe de grace, you can be hit by anything that would otherwise require a reflex save, plus I like the scenario of a rogue knocking someone unconscious and subsequently using use magic device to teleport both himself and his victim away, leaving only a ransom note. As I said before, it would be pretty lame to have a person who may as well be dead succeed on his saving throw and not be teleported along, resulting in a failed mission. He gets his saving throw when he's still conscious, which is only fair.
Ace_of_time 10-09-07, 09:33 AM	Even when the person will dons the helm, Awake, He/she still gets a save. I see no reason why someone unconscious would not get one. The entry would have to unless willingly dons the helm. Which it doesn't, so someone unconscious would still get the will save if the helm was put on while they were Asleep. What if it was the players that were unconscious? Would you let the bad guys use things like trap soul on them? And I know what your going to say. That all you have to is the trigger item type of this spell and that is not true. The person the item was made for has to accept the item or pick it up. You can't touch some unconscious and and let it work. Originally Posted by SRD Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell. 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. The Saving Throw and Spell Resistance lines are omitted from such spells. 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.Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.That entry every keeps post says that only some spells require willing target and only on those type of spells are unconscious targets willing not all will save. Nothing in this entry say they give up their will save if unconscious. You'll have to post something that says "unconscious or sleeping creatures auto fail will saves". Good luck.
Mejdrich 10-09-07, 10:14 AM	That entry every keeps post says that only some spells require willing target and only on those type of spells are unconscious targets willing not all will save. Nothing in this entry say they give up their will save if unconscious. You'll have to post something that says "unconscious or sleeping creatures auto fail will saves". Good luck. Yes. We're very familiar with that quote. The point is that the PHB says straight out that unconscious creatures are automatically willing, just two pages further: 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. ... p 177 Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing ... p 175 These are the only two places where the PHB comments on what "willing" is. Some of us make the connection. Moreover, it makes sense that someone who is unconscious doesn't have their mental defenses up, in the same way that they auto-fail reflex saves. Anyway, that's how I read this, but you are more than welcome to run your games as you see fit.
Ace_of_time 10-09-07, 11:16 AM	They can't "voluntarily forego a saving throw" If they are not wake to say they let it happen. They always have to roll the save except REF when unconcious or asleep Uless the spell's target entry so willing target. It the word voluntarily that give it away. You can't volunteer if you are not awake. I under stand they use the word willing in that part but that doesn't change the fact that the other one is only refering to spell that require willing targets not all will saves. You have to read the whole part in order to understand not just the one part of the sentance. 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. It says the same thing on Page 175 PHB and both mean the same thing. It only counts on those types of spells.
koiulpoi 10-09-07, 11:44 AM	...but if you don't have your "mental defenses" up because you don't "have a mind", how can any spell requiring a mind affect you? How can somebody dominate your conciousness if you don't have it?
infideli 10-09-07, 12:29 PM	Do plants automatically fail saves? They are not more conscious than an unconscious person. [EDIT] Blight and Awaken say plants don't get a save. G
infideli 10-09-07, 12:45 PM	What would be a good house rule to clear this up? Failing reflex saves when immobile or unconscious is pretty obvious. Rolling a save against life draining and poison should be uneffected by consciousness. A dominate or charm should work as normal if there is a mind to actually effect. Healing effects could be ruled to work as "willing" since your body is being aided from the first touch. Transmutation must also get a save... so you could not automatically teleport away with a friend is they are unconscious and NOT able to willingly allow the spell. So the rule could be: While unconscious, reflex saves are automatically failed, beneficial healing spells automatically succeed, and all other spells that normally allow a save must be failed before they take effect on the target. G
Mejdrich 10-09-07, 01:53 PM	They can't "voluntarily forego a saving throw" If they are not wake to say they let it happen Right, except that p 175 says "Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing". The context is the same. They're both talking about lowering your defenses to a spell. They both use language around being "willing".
MrCustomer 10-09-07, 03:07 PM	Quote: Originally Posted by Ace_of_time They can't "voluntarily forego a saving throw" If they are not wake to say they let it happen Right, except that p 175 says "Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing". The context is the same. They're both talking about lowering your defenses to a spell. They both use language around being "willing". Except that these different senteces are under different headings and refering to differeent cases. One refers to when a person can choose to be willing or unwilling to an otherwise benificial spell. Teleport for example is generally benificial, but if someone doesn't want to be teleported then they can choose to resist. When you cast such a spell on a person they choose to be willing or unwilling, someone unconcious is automatically willing The second refers to someone casting a Harmful spell, the target can choose to not resist. In this case he is a willing target. Think on this. A Dragon has a Natural immunity to fire. However he can choose to be a willing target to a fireball attack in which case his immunity drops and he takes full damage, as a willing target. Sleeping targets are automatically willing, so does a sleeping dragon automatically loose his fire immunity? No, of course not. When sleeping the dragon is only a willing target of benificial spells that he could otherwise choose to accept or resist.
snakeman830 10-09-07, 04:35 PM	Here's a great example for this argument: The Illithid Slayer Lucid Buffer (Ex) At 3rd level, a slayer becomes especially skilled at resisting mental attacks. She gains a +4 competence bonus on saving throws against all compulsions and mind-affecting effects. This ability is active even if the slayer is unconscious, stunned, or otherwise helpless. Emphasis mine. Now, if an uncouncious target always "voluntaily" forgoes a saving throw, why is that line there? Surely the ability would be useless if that were the case and it would never be printed. Yet it was. Thus, uncouncious=willing Willing =|= Voluntarily giving up saving throws
Matthew77 10-09-07, 06:40 PM	Moreover, it makes sense that someone who is unconscious doesn't have their mental defenses up, in the same way that they auto-fail reflex saves. Anyway, that's how I read this, but you are more than welcome to run your games as you see fit. Helpless targets don't autofail reflex saves. They take the -5 penalty for having an effective dex of 0, but they still get to roll the save. Remember that saving throws include a large helping of luck, not just active defenses. You always get a saving throw, even if you are completely unaware of the attack and helpless. Those two quotes from the PHB simply mean that an unconscious target follows the default position: accepting beneficial spells that require a willing target, and making a saving throw. Choosing to forego a saving throw is a deliberate act, that cannot be done while unconscious. Choosing to be unwilling is also a deliberate act. So an unconscious person is not allowed to change from the default - a willing target, but they still get the saving throw. Regardless, I wouldn't allow will saves when unconscious or sleeping. You can be killed while asleep by a coupe de grace, you can be hit by anything that would otherwise require a reflex save, plus I like the scenario of a rogue knocking someone unconscious and subsequently using use magic device to teleport both himself and his victim away, leaving only a ransom note. As I said before, it would be pretty lame to have a person who may as well be dead succeed on his saving throw and not be teleported along, resulting in a failed mission. He gets his saving throw when he's still conscious, which is only fair. Teleport doesn't allow a saving throw. Even when you are conscious! That's the whole point of the difference between being willing and voluntarially failing a saving throw. Some spells (like teleport) are willing = it works without a saving throw, and unwilling = it never works. Some spells (like dominate monster) allow a saving throw, in which case it doesn't matter if you are willing or not. Instead you either roll your save, or forgo your save. Helpless targets are always willing, but can never forgo a saving throw.
Agile_thieve 10-09-07, 10:35 PM	I think it actually depends on why your making the save, for example if you where asleep or unconscious and someone tried to cast a spell like charm, or control monster, then you "soul" or "spirit" could still fight and a fort save could be placed under your body fights the poison while you sleep. However you cannot react to a reflex save when your not aware of it so that might auto-fail
wizarddog 10-10-07, 12:03 AM	How about this ruling: You make your will save when you regain consciousness :evillaugh
Ace_of_time 10-10-07, 12:13 AM	You fail ref saves when asleep because you can't move not because your asleep.
Ace_of_time 10-10-07, 12:24 AM	Right, except that p 175 says "Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing". The context is the same. They're both talking about lowering your defenses to a spell. They both use language around being "willing". The part on Page 175 and the quote on from SRD say the same thing and are clearly talking about spell who's targets have to be willing to work on them. Your only posting half the thing and then saying it proves your point. .
koiulpoi 10-10-07, 12:40 AM	Helpless targets don't autofail reflex saves. They take the -5 penalty for having an effective dex of 0, but they still get to roll the save. Remember that saving throws include a large helping of luck, not just active defenses. You always get a saving throw, even if you are completely unaware of the attack and helpless. I wasn't aware of that. That's very interesting, and the SRD backs it up. So, it would appear that there are no times when you automatically fail a saving throw - you're always given at least some kind of fighting chance, even just random luck. EDIT: It's a houserule, but I think it'd be reasonable to just consider your Wisdom score 0 for purposes of will saves while unconcious.
Mejdrich 10-10-07, 08:31 AM	Good lord... now you people are convincing yourself unconscious people get reflex saves? Teleport doesn't allow a saving throw. Even when you are conscious! That's correct. Teleport is a ‘willing only’ spell, which means an unconscious foe gets no save and is 'willing'. He can be teleported to the center of the earth without a roll in his defense -- and you're saying charm monster is out of line. Helpless targets don't autofail reflex saves. They take the -5 penalty for having an effective dex of 0, but they still get to roll the save. Sure, as long as your DM cherry picks the rules and has not an ounce of common sense. You are even misquoting p 301, which only states a Dex of 0 is a -5 modifier (under ‘helpless’ and ‘paralyzed’). Tell me, how can an unconscious character avoid a fireball any easier than they can avoid a Coupe-de-Grace? You can’t make a reflex save if you can’t move. If the authors of D&D didn't write it out explicitly, I think it's probably because they thought it was obvious enough when they said: “- Dexterity 0 means that the character cannot move at all. He stands motionless, rigid, and helpless.” p 289 Moving on... One refers to when a person can choose to be willing or unwilling to an otherwise benificial spell. Teleport for example is generally beneficial … The second refers to someone casting a Harmful spell, the target can choose to not resist. I think you’re making my point for me. An unconscious character has no way of knowing if a spell is “beneficial” or “harmful” - he has to accept or reject them indiscriminently. To me, what you're proposing just doesn't make sense. An unconscious character can be Levitated and let fall hundreds of feet to his death. You can Teleport him to the center of the earth. You can Plane Shift him to the to the Nine Hells -- but you can’t cast Bull’s Strength on an unconscious ally? He's forced to make a will save against this one, because it doesn't say "target: willing" in the entry? Well, not in my games. Sleeping targets are automatically willing, so does a sleeping dragon automatically loose his fire immunity? No because fire immunity isn’t a bonus to a save. Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. ... Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing. - p 177, 175
Ace_of_time 10-10-07, 09:22 AM	I say you were right. Nothing in RAW specifically that you can't make a will save while unconcious?
Mejdrich 10-10-07, 09:57 AM	I say you were right. Nothing in RAW specifically that you can't make a will save while unconcious? I've quoted RAW three or four times already. It's even at the end of my last post. Read it for yourself. There are plenty of things that the books don't bother explicitly saying, assumedly because the writers figured we'd have some common sense. Are players allowed a tumble check while unconscious, helpless, or paralyzed? The RAW doesn't specifically say so in those words, but any inference from the context and meaning of those words makes it obvious. The no-unconscious-will-saves is not quite as obvious, but it is supported by RAW never the less. You can do what you want in your games, but realize that under your interpretation, you aren't allowing buff spells like Bull's Strength on unconscious allies, but you are allowing Teleport (to the center of the earth) on unconscious enemies. If you are comfortable with that, have fun.
Ace_of_time 10-10-07, 12:01 PM	And I have told you 4-5 times that that quote is only referring to spells that require willing target in the target entry of the spell. I can't make you see that if you don't see it. All I know is that is what that quote means. I also note: again that teleport also requires willing target. See post 26 for details on teleport
PhaedrusXY 10-10-07, 12:07 PM	Why is it that even when the rules are crystal clear, and everyone else agrees on them more or less, there is always one person who argues violently for the opposing viewpoint? It's pretty amazing.
Ace_of_time 10-10-07, 12:13 PM	Maybe I'll stop posting back to that one, it might help would help.
Mejdrich 10-10-07, 12:32 PM	And I have told you 4-5 times that that quote is only refering to spells that require willing target in the target entry of the spell. I can't make you see that if you don't see it. All I know is that is what that quote means. 1) Pages 175 and 177 are both talking about scenarios where saves auto-fail. 2) They both use the language of being "willing". 3) If pages 175 and 177 have nothing to do with each other, it makes a mess out of the spell list. Btw, you don't need to get snippy. You ask where in RAW it says unconscious creatures don't get a will save, and I showed you. If you don't like it, that's your right, but reinforcing your displeasure in bold-underline isn't particularly persuasive, as far as arguments go. :rolleyes: If you want to hold that position that p 175 and 177 have nothing to do with each other, good for you, but then explain why an unconscious creature is willing to be Teleported into the center of the earth or Plane Shifted to the Nine Layers of Hell, but not willing to receive buff spells like Bull's Strength or Bear's Endurance.
Matthew77 10-10-07, 01:11 PM	I changed the order of your quotes to group all the reflex stuff together and the spell stuff together. Good lord... now you people are convincing yourself unconscious people get reflex saves? Yes they do, according to everything in the PHB, SRD and FAQ. Find any line about reflex saves or the helpless condition that indicates helpless people don't get a reflex save.... Sure, as long as your DM cherry picks the rules and has not an ounce of common sense. You are even misquoting p 301, which only states a Dex of 0 is a -5 modifier (under ‘helpless’ and ‘paralyzed’). Right.. and in D&D rules a negative modifier is known as a "penalty" which is exactly what I stated. If I was quoting, I would have put quotation marks around the statement, instead of paraphrasing it. Tell me, how can an unconscious character avoid a fireball any easier than they can avoid a Coupe-de-Grace? Because a Coup de Grace is a full round action that involves you finding a weak point on the target (maybe unlacing his armor, etc..) and delivering a deadly blow, and a fireball is just chucking a burst of heat into a area, and hoping the unconscious target isn't lying in a slight hollow, or he's behind a tree, or a gust of wind doesn't come up, or his armor protects him, or he's protected by his gods, etc... Now, if any weapon attack on a helpless target was an automatic hit, then you might have a legitmate argument, but don't try to compare a special action designed solely to damage helpless targets to an area-effect spell. You can’t make a reflex save if you can’t move. If the authors of D&D didn't write it out explicitly, I think it's probably because they thought it was obvious enough when they said: “- Dexterity 0 means that the character cannot move at all. He stands motionless, rigid, and helpless.” p 289 You are forgetting that D&D is an abstract combat system. Just like having 100 hp doesn't mean you can get whacked in the head with an axe and not be hurt, reflex saves do not require movement. Can you make a reflex save when you are crawling through a 3' tall dungeon passage? Can you make a reflex save when you are part of a shoulder to shoulder infantry formation? Can you make a reflex save while walking a tightrope over a pit of lava? Can you make a reflex save while paralyzed or helpless? Yes, yes, and yes. There is no condition defined in the D&D rules that disallows your chance to make a saving throw. That's correct. Teleport is a ‘willing only’ spell, which means an unconscious foe gets no save and is 'willing'. He can be teleported to the center of the earth without a roll in his defense -- and you're saying charm monster is out of line. Well, you would have to teleport yourself and the target to the center of the earth. Because the spell target is you plus willing creatures, not just a willing creature by itself. I think you’re making my point for me. An unconscious character has no way of knowing if a spell is “beneficial” or “harmful” - he has to accept or reject them indiscriminently. Whether or not a spell is beneficial or harmful is defined in the spell description. It may be arbitrary on the part of the rules, but it isn't indiscriminent. This is exactly my argument. If you are awake, you have the option of deciding for yourself if the spell is harmless or if you want to resist it. If you are helpless, you are forced to abide by the default position as specified in the spell description. (and for the spell dominate monster, that default position is "you make a will saving throw") To me, what you're proposing just doesn't make sense. An unconscious character can be Levitated and let fall hundreds of feet to his death. You can Teleport him to the center of the earth. You can Plane Shift him to the to the Nine Hells -- but you can’t cast Bull’s Strength on an unconscious ally? He's forced to make a will save against this one, because it doesn't say "target: willing" in the entry? Well, not in my games. Yes you can levitate him up 20', at which point he wakes up, and becomes unwilling to be levitated farther. If someone is completely helpless and not just asleep, 2d6 damage per round is hardly the worst thing you can do to him, even if you are just a peasant with a stick instead of a mid-level mage. You can teleport or plane shift him, if you are going with him. You can't just send him alone because the spell specifes that the caster must accompany the willing target. This would be the magical equivalent of throwing him in a cart and hauling him off to jail, so the ruling makes perfect sense to me. Bull's Strength has a saving throw entry of "Will negates (harmless)", which is defined in the rules as "The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires." Since the default position is no saving throw, the unconscious person cannot "desire" to make one. All of your examples demonstrate a failure to actually read the rules and text of the spells you are citing. If you spend some time really looking at the rules, I think you will find that the game mechanics work fine as they are, without you needing to cover the gaps in your knowledge of the rules by applying "common sense".
MrCustomer 10-10-07, 02:07 PM	Good lord... now you people are convincing yourself unconscious people get reflex saves? That's correct. Teleport is a ‘willing only’ spell, which means an unconscious foe gets no save and is 'willing'. He can be teleported to the center of the earth without a roll in his defense -- and you're saying charm monster is out of line. Teleport is a generally benificial spell, unless it is used against the target's will. ie trying to teleport an attacking enemy, the subject of saving throws doesn't come up. When the Wizard teleports the party it's up to the players to declare that they are Unwilling and attempt a saving throw. Charm Monster is an offensive spell. Please think of the difference between an offensive and a benificial spell and how these apply to save situations. Whereas a person could ussually declare to resist a benificial spell (they don't want to be healed, they don't want to be teleported, they don't want Cat's Grace, etc) they can't do that while asleep and so are automatically willing. As for Offensive spells, one is automatically unwilling unless they decide otherwise. Obvious they can't decide to be willing nor unwilling while asleep. Sure, as long as your DM cherry picks the rules and has not an ounce of common sense. You are even misquoting p 301, which only states a Dex of 0 is a -5 modifier (under ‘helpless’ and ‘paralyzed’). Tell me, how can an unconscious character avoid a fireball any easier than they can avoid a Coupe-de-Grace? You can’t make a reflex save if you can’t move. If the authors of D&D didn't write it out explicitly, I think it's probably because they thought it was obvious enough when they said: A subject who is helpless or paralyzed only looses Reflex saves, he still retains his Will save. Likewise a sleeping person looses Reflex saves but not will saves. I think you’re making my point for me. An unconscious character has no way of knowing if a spell is “beneficial” or “harmful” - he has to accept or reject them indiscriminently. Yes, and benificial spells are automatically willing, harmful spells are automatically unwilling, unless the target chooses otherwise. While unconscious a target cannot choose to be willing or unwilling so defaults to the automatic choice. A cleric casts Cure Moderate Wounds on someone, it lands, no save is asked for. Only when someone decides they don't want healing do they make a save, your automatically Willing unless you consciously choose otherwise. A decision you cannot make while sleeping. For harmfull attacks, you automatically make a will save. Fireball, you make a reflex save, Charm, you make a will save. Unless for some reason you consciously decide not to resist. You decide to stand still and take the fireball, or you decide to succumb to the charm spell. You decide to be a willing target. If you are unconsious you cannot make such a decision. To me, what you're proposing just doesn't make sense. An unconscious character can be Levitated and let fall hundreds of feet to his death. You can Teleport him to the center of the earth. You can Plane Shift him to the to the Nine Hells -- but you can’t cast Bull’s Strength on an unconscious ally? He's forced to make a will save against this one, because it doesn't say "target: willing" in the entry? Well, not in my games. Bull's strength isn't a Will save, it doesn't effect the mind it effects the body. It is an oversite that it isn't mentioned but a player should be able to resist it with a fortitude save. No because fire immunity isn’t a bonus to a save Magic Resistance is always on, if a target is "willing" then they don't make a saving throw and magic resistance is ignored. Yet it says "a creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance" sleeping targets are automatically willing, yet it says here that they must "Voluntarily" lower the resistance. They can't do anything voluntarily if they are asleep. Why the contradiction. If they are willing then spell resistance drops, however to be willing to drop spell resistance then they must be conscious. The reason for the contradiction is one part of this is in a paragragh talking about benificial spells: "(harmless): The spell is ussually benificial, not harmful, but a targeted character can attempt a saving throw if it desires" If a character desires (chooses) he can make a save vs a benificial spell, this is under the same heading in which it later states that an unconscious target is automatically willing (since they cannot choose to make a save vs a benificial spell) This is not refering to "Harmful" spells at all. You must be conscious to declare to resist a benificial spell. Likewise you must "voluntarily lower the resistance" to accept a harmful spell, you can choose to be willing and make no save vs a harmful spell. You must be conscious to declare not to resist a harmful spell.
Mejdrich 10-10-07, 04:48 PM	Good lord... now you people are convincing yourself unconscious people get reflex saves?Yes they do, according to everything in the PHB, SRD and FAQ. Find any line about reflex saves or the helpless condition that indicates helpless people don't get a reflex save.... Sure. Page 8 of the PHB describes reflex saves: “Reflex saving throws, for avoiding fireballs and other attacks that you can escape by moving quickly.” - DMG p 301 “A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy.” - “A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act, such as by the hold person spell.” - Hold Person, p 241 PHB, “The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech.” Can you move "escape by moving quickly" when you are paralyzed or held? No. Right.. and in D&D rules a negative modifier is known as a "penalty" which is exactly what I stated. No, there is a difference between a “penalty” and a “modifier”. If I have an attribute of 16 and take a penalty of 5, as you said, my modifier becomes -2. Your paraphrasing was misleading. You are forgetting that D&D is also an abstract combat system. … There is no condition defined in the D&D rules that disallows your chance to make a saving throw. Well, you are forgetting that D&D is a symbolic combat system. Remember that damage to a specific area is strictly a variant on the rules, so if I stick a dagger into my eye, I am not blind, I just take some damage. In RAW, it’s possible to wield 20’ scimitar and only have a reach of 5’. If you disable your common sense, the game stops making sense. It’s funny, I brought up reflex saves in the first place to illustrate the pit-fall of lawyering the rules to heavily. The rules are there to make the setting believable and interesting. The is nothing believable about letting an unconscious or sleeping creature “escape” a fireball by “moving quickly”. Yes you can levitate him up 20', at which point he wakes up, and becomes unwilling to be levitated farther. If someone is completely helpless and not just asleep, 2d6 damage per round is hardly the worst thing you can do to him, even if you are a peasant with a stick instead of a mid-level mage. You can teleport or plane shift him, if you are going with him. You can't just send him alone because the spell specifes that the caster must accompany the willing target. Er, why have you decided the creature automatically “wakes up” at 20’? If they’re unconscious or magically asleep, they ain’t waking up. You’re half-right about teleport and plane shift, but it’s just a potent an argument if you teleport them 100 miles/caster lvl straight into the air, giving youself plenty of time to teleport safely down to the ground, or plane shift back without them. The point is that these spells can be used offensively. Bull's Strength has a saving throw entry of "Will negates (harmless)", which is defined in the rules as "The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires." Since the default position is no saving throw, the unconscious person cannot "desire" to make one. I can see how your quote may lead you to believe that these spells have a separate “default” position, but they do not. There are many examples of spells that have the (harmless) tag that can be used quite harmfully. For one example, take Water Walk, which is Will negates (harmless), which can be cast on a creature that can only breathe underwater. Not so harmless, is it? Since every example you present demonstrates ignorance of the rules and text of the spells you are citing, I think you should spend some time actually reading the rules, instead of just assuming they are wrong and trying to use "common sense" to fill in the gaps in your knowledge. This is where the conversation ends and flames begin, Matthew77. Up until now I’ve met you point for point, showed you where I disagree without degrading into ad hominem attacks. I have even pointed out places where you are factually mistaken about the rules, without making commentary on your “ignorance of the rules”. Please return the favor.
Mejdrich 10-10-07, 05:26 PM	I’m going to go in reverse order: Yet it says "a creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance" sleeping targets are automatically willing, yet it says here that they must "Voluntarily" lower the resistance. They can't do anything voluntarily if they are asleep. I can see your point, but I don’t see this as a huge stumbling block. To me it seems equally natural that sleeping/unconscious creatures have already “voluntarily” lowered their Will save in the same way as they have lowered their Reflex save. Unfortunately there isn’t much flavor text on Will saves to address the larger point. Bull's strength isn't a Will save, it doesn't effect the mind it effects the body. It is an oversite that it isn't mentioned but a player should be able to resist it with a fortitude save. Well, it is a Will save as written on page 207, but the same argument could be made with Owl’s Wisdom, Eagle’s Splendor, or Fox’s Cunning, which also, and certainly should, have a Will save, not a Fortitude. Charm Monster is an offensive spell. Please think of the difference between an offensive and a benificial spell and how these apply to save situations. Whereas a person could ussually declare to resist a benificial spell (they don't want to be healed, they don't want to be teleported, they don't want Cat's Grace, etc) they can't do that while asleep and so are automatically willing. This is really the crux of it, the idea of breaking spells apart into two categories, “beneficial” and “offensive”. My problem here is that the creature having the spells cast on them don’t know, when they are unconscious/sleeping, that there is an incoming spell, let alone if it’s helpful or harmful. So what decides? It can’t be intrinsic to the spells themselves, because whether it’s going to help or kill the target often depends on how it’s used. It can’t just be racial (merfolk automatically treat Water Walk as hostile) because there are other situationally offensive spells, like casting Hide From Undead on a necromancer or Magic Circle Against Evil against an Evil summoner. I think we are working from two different angles. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you are looking for the most non-abusive interpretation. From my point of view, saying that only “target: willing” spells are automatically giving up their saves doesn’t really get the job done, and I’ve mentioned a few examples of why. I imagine a DM could make a meta-rule that no hostile spells would be voluntarily accepted and no harmless spell denied, regardless of “willing” and “harmless” tags. In fairness, my interpretation, that unconscious creatures voluntarily accept all income spells, doesn’t do anything to stop what some people would see as abuse, either. But then, my goal is to find the most consistent, not necessarily the most friendly, way of interpreting the rules. Anyway, neither interpretation is going to break anyone's game. It's certainly not a question that deserves as much heat as some people are giving it. :rolleyes: On that note, thanks for not flaming.
Matthew77 10-10-07, 06:07 PM	This is where the conversation ends and flames begin, Matthew77. Up until now I’ve met you point for point, showed you where I disagree without degrading into ad hominem attacks. I have even pointed out places where you are factually mistaken about the rules, without making commentary on your “ignorance of the rules”. Please return the favor. I apologize for offending you. My statement was out of line. However, you just posted three spell examples that completely ignored the "Target" and "Saving throw" entries in the spell description. Usually these are more important for rules adjudication than the fluff text is. Page 8 of the PHB describes reflex saves: “Reflex saving throws, for avoiding fireballs and other attacks that you can escape by moving quickly.” This is pure fluff text. Do I fail my reflex save because I have heavy armor and only have a speed of 20'? How about if I am in a very narrow corridor or trapped in a coffin? How about if I am entangled? Grappled? Walking a tightrope? Tied to a tree? The fluff text for helpless characters might say "at an opponent's mercy" but the actual rules say I still need to make an attack roll to hit them with a longsword, and they still get a reflex save when I fireball them. Well, you are forgetting that D&D is a symbolic combat system. Remember that damage to a specific area is strictly a variant on the rules, so if I stick a dagger into my eye, I am not blind, I just take some damage. In RAW, it’s possible to wield 20’ scimitar and only have a reach of 5’. If you disable your common sense, the game stops making sense. If you would like to make house rules to make a game where people throw fireballs and summon celestial giant beetles more realistic, that's fine for your game, but these are not legitmate arguments in a discussion about the written rules of the game. It’s funny, I brought up reflex saves in the first place to illustrate the pit-fall of lawyering the rules to heavily. The rules are there to make the setting believable and interesting. The is nothing believable about letting an unconscious or sleeping creature “escape” a fireball by “moving quickly”. And you fail to address any of the many ways a reflex save can simulate other means of avoiding damage besides "moving quickly" (see my previous post about why a fireball is different from a coup de grace.) Er, why have you decided the creature automatically “wakes up” at 20’? Because being abruptly tossed into the air by magical force tends to wake people up, much like falling out of bed would. If they’re unconscious or magically asleep, they ain’t waking up. Well, sure, that's why the next line in my post dealt with him being helpless, not just normally asleep. Your habit of taking only single lines out of paragraphs is not helping our communication.... You’re half-right about teleport and plane shift, but it’s just a potent an argument if you teleport them 100 miles/caster lvl straight into the air, giving youself plenty of time to teleport safely down to the ground, or plane shift back without them. The point is that these spells can be used offensively. And non-magic users could roll helpless people off of cliffs or drown them in a bucket of water. I'm not disputing that helpless people can be killed by magic. I am stating that spells defined in the description as "harmless" or "target a willing creature" can be used on helpless targets, while they still get saving throws vs spells that are not defined by the rules as harmless. I can see how your quote may lead you to believe that these spells have a separate “default” position, but they do not. There are many examples of spells that have the (harmless) tag that can be used quite harmfully. For one example, take Water Walk, which is Will negates (harmless), which can be cast on a creature that can only breathe underwater. Not so harmless, is it? And I can use enlarge person to reduce someone's AC and make them easier to hit... "harmless", along with "helpless" are defined terms in the game rules. Sometimes they might not always mean the identical thing as the dictionary definition of the word. They are being used as game jargon, not colloquial english. You just said that something defined as harmless isn't harmless. This makes as much sense as arguing that a longsword isn't really that long because its shorter than a greatsword, thus it should use the stats for a shortsword instead. Apparently, many people have the misconception that helpless creatures do not get a reflex save. If you use only the fluff text of the game, without reading the rule text, I understand how you reach this erroneous conclusion. But, once you look at the definition of the condition "helpless" you can see that nowhere do the rules indicate automatic failure of saving throws, just as you still need to make attack rolls to hit a "helpless" creature with a melee weapon.
Mejdrich 10-11-07, 09:08 AM	Hmm. I’m going to pick up a few things you’ve said, for now, to try and focus the conversation. If I skip over something important, please feel free to hit me with it again: And non-magic users could roll helpless people off of cliffs or drown them in a bucket of water. I'm not disputing that helpless people can be killed by magic. I am stating that spells defined in the description as "harmless" or "target a willing creature" can be used on helpless targets, while they still get saving throws vs spells that are not defined by the rules as harmless. Okay, I understand the argument that spells that “target a willing creature” automatically succeed on unconscious targets (p 175), but you are also saying spells with the “harmless” descriptor also succeed. Since your fighting for strict RAW, can you point me to a quote where it explicitly says this? But just to be clear, if this is your position, do you accept that an unconscious creature can be Teleported, Polymorphed, or Plane Shifted without struggle? That an unconscious water-breathing creature can be killed (without save) by Walk on Water? However, you just posted three spell examples that completely ignored the "Target" and "Saving throw" entries in the spell description. Usually these are more important for rules adjudication than the fluff text is. How did I “completely ignore” the entries of the spell descriptions? And what spells are you talking about? This is pure fluff text. Do I fail my reflex save because I have heavy armor and only have a speed of 20'? How about if I am in a very narrow corridor or trapped in a coffin? How about if I am entangled? Grappled? Walking a tightrope? Tied to a tree? If I understand you right, you seem to be saying that saves are completely separate from the “fluff” situations that I’m saying would modify them – save are sacrosanct, you always are entitled to them, no matter what. Well, apart from the unconscious “target: willing” situation, some spells simply don’t allow saves, like Power Word spells. In any case, saves are subject to situational modifiers. With your examples: Heavy Armor has a Maximum Dexterity Bonus of usually +0 or +1, which can reduce your Reflex save and cause you to fail. Entangled still allows you to move at ½ speed but reduces your dexterity by 4, and thus your Reflex save by 2. For the others, the DMG p 34 (which references p 30) gives broad guidelines for modifying Saves in favorable or unfavorable conditions. The fluff text for helpless characters might say "at an opponent's mercy" but the actual rules say I still need to make an attack roll to hit them with a longsword, and they still get a reflex save when I fireball them. Hmm. Well, the entry on ‘helpless’ offers the coupe-de-grace, which not only does away with the attack roll on helpless creatures, it auto-crits and has a death attack. I guess this is the crux of our disagreement. If I was a DM and a player wanted to, say, cut the ring off an unconscious creature, I would not say to them, “sorry, you can either attack normally or coupe-de-grace. There is no rule that says you can cut off his finger.” In fact, if you want to go by ultra-strict RAW, the rules for attacking specific areas (DMG p 27) is strictly an optional rule, and the DM could rule that attacking the finger at all is impossible. I know that you understand what I mean, because when I offered the example of Levitating an unconscious creature, you instantly said that they would wake up after 20’. Why? What rule told you this? You were rightly trying to apply common sense. The point is that if you have RAW tunnel vision and throw out language you see as “fluff”, the game starts to break down. Certainly some rules are more concrete and some more subjective, with hit points per level on one side and a paladin’s code-of-conduct on the other, but hearing “common sense” used disdainfully, like they are dirty words, makes me cringe. In a game where myopic RAW allows clever abominations like Pun-Pun, common sense is the only thing holding our campaigns together. I apologize for offending you. My statement was out of line. I appreciate that. It’s really sad to me that guys like Ace_of_Time and PhaedrusXY seem to equate loud voices with being right. :rolleyes: Ace_of_Time even refered to me impersonally: “Maybe I’ll stop posting back to that one, it might help would help.” If I could have one request, it would be that if I was going to get flamed, they’d do me the courtesy of at least having reasonable grammar while they do it.;) Cheers.
koiulpoi 10-11-07, 11:09 AM	In a game where myopic RAW allows clever abominations like Pun-Pun, common sense is the only thing holding our campaigns together. You do realize that Pun-Pun was a purely academic excercise and that he should never be attempted or played in a real game, right? While Pun-Pun's existance may come from badly written rules, pointing that out merely shows that D&D has a bad rule system and that DMs need to fix it. That really doesn't back up your point, it simply reiterates the one you keep making on the side - that DMs make the final choice. Common sense is not common, nor, often, sensical. An appeal to it is a logical fallacy, nothing more. My "Common Sense" tells me that you accept benificial spells and reject harmful spells, even when unconcious, and that saving throws are more an aspect of "Hero's Luck" than actual skill. Your "common sense" says the oposite - that being unconcious means your mental defenses are gone. But my common sense says "If your mental defenses are gone, so is your mind, and thus you can't be charmed, domitated, or otherwise." I'm sure yours would have some funny response as well. As I hope I have shown, common sense truly solves no problems when dealing with a mixed group of people, so we must appeal instead to logic and rules. To take one of your points, yes, it would appear you could kill an unconcious water-breather by casting Water Walk, and it would have to accept it, as the nature of the spell is "Harmless". Just because the rules break down on one point doesn't mean they must be broken in all points, however, you have shown it to work differently that (or so you think) we would want it to. If you must insist on the "harmfullness" of spells not being tied to the rules on spells being harmful, just go with intent as a DM. You know the intent of every spell cast, and as such it's easy to make a decision either way.
snakeman830 10-11-07, 11:42 AM	How's about I attempt to sum this up (and have people yell at me because i didn't go their way). 1. Uncouncious = Willing. Willing =|= Voluntarily giving up saving throw. 2. Nowehere, I repeat, Nowhere, do the rules ever mention a time where a character cannot make a saving throw against an effect that he's normally allowed one. I mean, you guys are saying that it's perfectly all right for a rogue in midair (with nothing around him, I might add) to avoid all damage from a fireball, but a guy that was just knocked out next to a tree cannot possibly avoid any damage from a fireball exploding on the other side of the tree (remember that Fireball travels around corners). Something to me just isn't adding up. 3. Just because someone is uncouncious doesn't mean that they can't voluntarily fail their saving throw (the Bull's Strength example). They do get a choice regardless of if they're concious or not.
Mejdrich 10-11-07, 11:48 AM	You do realize that Pun-Pun was a purely academic excercise and that he should never be attempted or played in a real game, right? Pun-Pun is only possible when you suspend common sense and let the mechanics of the game work in game-breaking ways that they were not intended. In fact, I would put to you that the only reason you don't let Pun-Pun into your games is because of your common sense, not specific rules. I'm not using 'common sense' in a catch-all excuse not to read the rules. I'm using it to force people to examine the context the rules are written in. If you take out the context, you can justify Pun-Pun and all of the examples I've shown. Letting an unconscious creature make a reflex save is taking the rules out of context (although I know Matthew77 disagrees). Forcing a character to make an attack roll against an unconscious creature unless they aim to coupe-de-grace is taking rules out of context. Not allowing him to stab himself in the eye in taking rules out of context. The list goes on. The idea that "common sense" isn't logical is simply false. To most of us, you have to be able to move to make a reflex save. Whether you agree or not, it still logically follows from the descriptions of reflex saves on p 8 or the PHB and p 33 of the DMG, which both describe moving. It's more subtle, and takes longer to explain then repeating a few quotes over and over, but to say that makes them illogical is, to use your words, a logical fallacy. Just because the rules break down on one point doesn't mean they must be broken in all points Right, but the entire construct of "friendly" or "unfriendly" spells has, as far as you guys have shown, been essentially made up from taking a few quotes here and there, throwing them together, and declaring them to be truth. Which is ironic because that is exactly what you all are accusing me of doing. Until those of you 'saying unconscious characters always get will saves' can come up with a quite that specifically says so, you are on no more solid ground then I am, by RAW. This isn't aimed specifically at you, koiulpoi, but can y'all let up on the condescending attitude of RAW high-ground, please? I think my position is better supported by RAW, and I understand three or four of you think yours is. If you leave out the ad hominem and start explaining why, then this discussion might be useful.
koiulpoi 10-11-07, 10:07 PM	Now, I know some of you don't trust Customer Service, but they are our only real line into Wizards, so except when clearly wrong, we take what they say. I emailed them, and here's what they said: Thank you for writing in! You can make a reflex save when helpless but your dexterity score is effectively at 0, making your modifier -5 INSTEAD of what it is normally. You also can make will saves when unconscious. There is no penalty to your will save when unconscious. Certain spells or abilities might specifically state that will or reflex saves are not possible if helpless or unconscious, and those special cases supercede the normal rule.
Bauglir 10-11-07, 10:48 PM	Heavy Armor has a Maximum Dexterity Bonus of usually +0 or +1, which can reduce your Reflex save and cause you to fail. Actually, that Maximum Dexterity Bonus applies only to Armor Class, not to anything else. If you have Dex 50 and are wearing Full Plate, you still get your full Dex bonus to your saves: "This number is the maximum Dexterity bonus to AC that this type of armor allows. Heavier armors limit mobility, reducing the wearer’s ability to dodge blows. This restriction doesn’t affect any other Dexterity-related abilities." Also, I have always gone by the "Helpless Characters get Reflex saves" ruling. This is simply because bonuses take into account things other than simple dodging ability: Luck, Resistance, etc. I just treat them as having Dex 0. Besides, if you want to use logic based on fluff, you should deny Reflex saves to blinded and deafened characters, who have no way of sensing their impending death until it's upon them. I also allow Will saves when unconscious, because there are precedents that require people to make Will saves while unconscious (such as the aforementioned Nightmare), and once again, there is nothing that says you can't, while there is an implication that you can. And I don't modify their abilities, A) because Wisdom is subconscious anyway, and B) because an unconscious mind might be as difficult to mess with as a conscious one not out of willpower but out of sheer strangeness. That, and Will saves tend to result in nastier things than Reflex. Also, Willing things usually choose to fail a saving throw, but the two are not identical situations. A Willing creature is simply a creature a spell with a target involving the word "Willing" can be used on. A creature can always choose to forgo a saving throw as long as they are aware they are making it, but if you're unconscious, you can't make that choice. "Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forgo a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result." and note that the only section involving willing targets mentions nothing about saves, "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.", which leads me to believe that, in absence of being able to choose, a save must be made while unconscious. Forcing a character to make an attack roll against an unconscious creature unless they aim to coupe-de-grace is taking rules out of context. Making an attack roll against something unconscious is CLEARLY what the rules intend. There is an armor class modifier for being helpless. Since there is no reasonable difference between someone who has been bound to a post (properly, anyway), and someone who is unconscious, there's no reason to assume that that armor class modifier applies only to the first case. An unarmored person who isn't paying attention still has an AC of 10. That might not seem low enough, but the way it stands, the average person will be unable to punch another average person half the time, even if they're looking the other way. Not allowing him to stab himself in the eye in taking rules out of context. No, that's just because there are no called shot rules. Nothing taken out of context here, just taken out entirely. However, you could easily let him make an attack roll against his eye's AC (10+8 Size-5 Dex-4 Helpless+Deflection), which seems like a perfectly reasonable AC to me, as the average commoner will miss his own eye a fair bit if he tries to stab himself as quickly as he can without taking the full-round action to line the shot up. He'll hit his face, certainly, probably pretty close to the eye. But he won't hit the eye. Note that this is a total houserule, since there are still no called shots. To most of us, you have to be able to move to make a reflex save. I did skim the thread, but it seemed like most people thought otherwise.
Ace_of_time 10-12-07, 06:52 AM	(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires. Harmless, as shown above, may attempt a saving throw if it desires. If your are asleep you can't choose anything so there for always accept the spell. Which goes along with choosing to drop you defenses. You can't choose anything asleep so you always have to roll saves unless it has willing in the target entry. It might be better to choose a spell with non of these for you side of the debate.
Mejdrich 10-12-07, 10:05 AM	Alright. Enough is enough. You all are circling around me like bullies or vultures. Can y'all back off? Most of the groups I’ve ever played in haven’t given will saves to unconscious creatures (usually it doesn't come up), and clearly people in koiulpoi’s group agree, so stop acting like I’m the only one who doesn’t understand all of your enlightened opinions. :mad: I have never played in a group where they would allow a reflex save to someone tied to a tree. Every bit of descriptive text we have on reflex saves denies the possibility. Some of you are letting your judgment be hijacked by tunnel-visioned RAW. It is the job of a DM to make sense of the rules, not to distort them into game-breaking monstrosities, like not allowing a player to stab out his own eye. Note that Bauglir agreed- only a houserule allows called shots. This should give you pause. If you give Will saves to unconscious creatures, the game repercussions are messy, unthematic, and completely illogical. Not just one or two bad spells, you are forcing any downed creature to accept being polymorphed, astral projected, plane shifted, and teleported by a host of spells (yet, banishment, dismissal, baleful polymorph get a save). You are also denying unconscious allies a list of buffs that don’t happen to have a target of “willing”. And if you are about to complain that unconscious allies accept 'harmless' spells, open your books and find a quote, because the quotes I found say: "The terms “object” and “harmless” mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws. A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by a spell noted as harmless." How many of you have repeated that a creature can't voluntarily choose to lower their defense while unconscious? By your own arguments, any spell with the “harmless” tag is still resisted by unconscious allies, including Bull's Strength and more. I mean, come on, people. No one bothered to fact-check this one? There are seventeen people who have contributed to this thread. Yea, I was wrong about NPCs dying at 0 HP. I was wrong about the dex penalty from heavy armor. But this is at the center of your argument, and no one bothered to look it up. Did some of you just assume it was “common sense”? :rolleyes: For how much I've been flamed for those two words, I'd think you'd know better. I’m not saying this to make an ad hominem, it’s just being practical. I’m one guy arguing against almost all of you. I don’t have time to fact check every little thing you throw out there, and if I replied to all of you, my posts would be obscenely long and you’d accuse me of spamming. A little friendly respect would be appreciated.
Bauglir 10-12-07, 11:39 AM	"(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires." Heavy implication that attempting the saving throw is a voluntary choice, in that situation. Can't make such a choice while unconscious, so you get no saving throw. I admit that this IS stretching a little, but it's stretching for something that, in my opinion, makes sense. Your quote does seem to be at odds with this, but I think it's in error, since interpreting it that way would also mean that the save is a standard action. But an unconscious character is definitely vulnerable to, say Polymorph, as you suggested above, since they're definitely willing and there's no saving throw (not looking at it, but I'll take your word for Polymorph's description). It is the job of a DM to make sense of the rules, not to distort them into game-breaking monstrosities, like not allowing a player to stab out his own eye. Note that Bauglir agreed- only a houserule allows called shots. I do agree that there are cases when the DM has to deviate from the rules. However, that's irrelevant to this argument. Firstly, I don't think this is one of those cases (but that's also irrelevant, since it's only opinion). Secondly, claiming that the DM's intervention is necessary to make sense of a situation, while true, isn't an acceptable method of winning the argument. All we can argue pointlessly about is the rules, not how a DM should act. We, unfortunately, don't have worldwide control of all DM's. However, if all goes according to plan, come Monday...
Mejdrich 10-12-07, 12:46 PM	"(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires." Heavy implication that attempting the saving throw is a voluntary choice, in that situation. Can't make such a choice while unconscious, so you get no saving throw. I admit that this IS stretching a little, but it's stretching for something that, in my opinion, makes sense. Your quote does seem to be at odds with this, but I think it's in error, since interpreting it that way would also mean that the save is a standard action. But an unconscious character is definitely vulnerable to, say Polymorph, as you suggested above, since they're definitely willing and there's no saving throw (not looking at it, but I'll take your word for Polymorph's description). Polymorph Transmutation Level: Sor/Wiz 4 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Willing living creature touched Duration: 1 min./level (D) Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: No It is stretching, but not just a little. I have to point out that you are blatantly throwing out one part of the book that you declare to be "in error", and then quote a less explicit quote that requires relying on "implications" to make it say what you want it to. I can agree that rules aren’t perfect, but you are justifying your interpretation by saying it just “makes sense”. I have been told in this thread that any reasoning that relies on common sense isn’t a “legitmate argument in a discussion about the written rules of the game”. I don’t mean to be snide, but if I’m held up to that standard, than so should you. Either we draw off of the descriptive text or we don’t. You can’t say that ‘heavy implications’ lead you to believe unconscious allies accept harmless spells, and yet allow a paralyzed creature a reflex save despite the obvious implications of the descriptive text. You just can’t. Okay, you can, but it’s hypocritical. You are either a fanatical RAW fundamentalist or your not. I’m not, btw, and I think stripping out the descriptive context of the rules makes the rules useless. I’ve also never said this requires DM intervention at all. To me, p 175 and 177 make this issue simple and clear, and I quoted them as early as post #4. The counter argument has been that these sections have nothing to do with each other. Meanwhile, p 175 and 177 are the only two sections in the book that address ‘willful’ creatures, and the context in both cases allows allies to be able to accept spells without saves. Besides, I’ve shown at great lengths what a mess of the spell list that makes – a mess bad enough that it really would take DM intervention to fix. In any case, let me voice what your quote does not say. It does not say that unconscious creatures voluntarily lower their resistance, as p 177 says they are required to do. In other words, it doesn’t say unconscious creatures get the benefit of “harmless” spells without a save. And it in no way suggests that unconscious creatures get will saves in the first place. A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic. 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.
koiulpoi 10-12-07, 01:13 PM	Actually, going off of what custserv said, there's no penalty for making will saves while unconcious, thus you still have the choice to resist a spell or not. Thus you can voluntarially lower your resistances to various things, even if you're not conciously aware. But perhaps this point is wrong. Besides, let's be logical here. Unless you've got Spellcraft as a skill, you have no idea what kind of spell is flying towards you, and whether or not it's harmful. You have no idea whether to dodge it or prepare your mind to resist it or to just accept it. It seems that sort of thing happens automatically, and doesn't rely on your mind to do so, or your body to do so. See again my post where I recieved an email from custserv. (And, for the record, had custserv said the opposite, I'd be in here arguing the opposite).
koiulpoi 10-12-07, 01:51 PM	Actually, going off of what custserv said, there's no penalty for making will saves while unconcious, thus you still have the choice to resist a spell or not. Thus you can voluntarially lower your resistances to various things, even if you're not conciously aware. But perhaps this point is wrong. Turns out I was wrong. Information on Spell Resistance can be found on page 298 of the DMG. As listed there, lowering spell resistance is a Standard Action that takes place on your turn. Your spell resistance remains down until the beginning of your next turn, where you have the option of keeping it down as another stadnard action. These actions do not provoke attacks of oportunity. Since lowering Spell Resistance is a standard action, it cannot be done while your character is unconcious. The bit about Will Saves still stands.
Bauglir 10-12-07, 05:27 PM	But if you're correct, then choosing not to make a save against a harmless spell is a standard action, just as it's a standard action to lower spell resistance. What I'm saying is that I can't see how the sentence, ""Harmless" and "object" have the same meanings for saves as they do for spell resistance", is at all necessary, since if it's correct there's no need to include it (choosing not to make a save is a standard action, so you can never take it, because saves are always a reaction to something else, so there doesn't even need to be anything about "harmless" saves, as you can't ever choose NOT to make them), but if it's incorrect, there's no reason to include it at all.
koiulpoi 10-12-07, 06:05 PM	Lowering spell resistance and choosing not to make a save are not the same thing. One is a standard action, the other is not an action. I really don't see what you're trying to say.
Mejdrich 10-12-07, 06:52 PM	choosing not to make a save is a standard action, so you can never take it, because saves are always a reaction to something else Sure you can. SR is also “always a reaction to something else”, but the rules are right there on p 177 for how to deal with it. Lowering spell resistance and choosing not to make a save are not the same thing. One is a standard action, the other is not an action. Koiulpoi, it’s right there. The quote does not say, "One is a standard action, the other is not an action." It says that "‘harmless’ mean[s] the same thing for spell resistance as .. for saving throws." The spell resistance section clarifies what it began in the saving throws section of p 175. Besides, let's be logical here. Unless you've got Spellcraft as a skill, you have no idea what kind of spell is flying towards you, and whether or not it's harmful. Exactly. Unless your you make a spellcraft roll or the cleric yells out ‘heals!’ while casting, you have no way of knowing whether the spell coming at you is harmful or helpful. A 'harmless' tag does not mean you know if you should accept the spell or fight it with a Save. No descriptive text in any of the sections we’ve looked at supports the idea that creatures know what’s hitting them. And as long as we’re being logical, if a conscious creature can’t tell the difference, how could an unconscious creature? Of course they can’t. If there was a “harmless” component of spells that would make targets give up their saves, it would be incorporated into every damaging spell in the book. It wouldn’t just be Water Walk and Magic Circle Against Evil that would have the loop-hole, every wizard would create spells exploiting such a vulgar weakness. The benefit of unconscious creatures not getting their will saves is that it wipes out these loopholes, across the board. Teleport and Polymorph don’t suddenly become broken against unconscious creatures while other, reasonable spells are left arbitrarily in the dust. That doesn’t prove my point, but it does make the idea more credible than the alternative.
Ace_of_time 10-12-07, 08:07 PM	OK if they are asleep I understand, But why, for the love of man, would you cast polymorph on someone unconcious from damage. That would be a big mistake the the OP problem considering the thing has half it's damage is non lethal. Haven't read the rest so I'll post after I read it.
Ace_of_time 10-12-07, 08:15 PM	But if you're correct, then choosing not to make a save against a harmless spell is a standard action, just as it's a standard action to lower spell resistance. What I'm saying is that I can't see how the sentence, ""Harmless" and "object" have the same meanings for saves as they do for spell resistance", is at all necessary, since if it's correct there's no need to include it (choosing not to make a save is a standard action, so you can never take it, because saves are always a reaction to something else, so there doesn't even need to be anything about "harmless" saves, as you can't ever choose NOT to make them), but if it's incorrect, there's no reason to include it at all. This is a common mistake. You don't choose not to make the save you have to choose to make the save. Mean you have to make a choice to save. And that is the same as choosing to lower SR. Both can't be done asleep.
Ace_of_time 10-12-07, 08:33 PM	Sure you can. SR is also “always a reaction to something else”, but the rules are right there on p 177 for how to deal with it. Koiulpoi, it’s right there. The quote does not say, "One is a standard action, the other is not an action." It says that "‘harmless’ mean[s] the same thing for spell resistance as .. for saving throws." The spell resistance section clarifies what it began in the saving throws section of p 175. Exactly. Unless your you make a spellcraft roll or the cleric yells out ‘heals!’ while casting, you have no way of knowing whether the spell coming at you is harmful or helpful. A 'harmless' tag does not mean you know if you should accept the spell or fight it with a Save. No descriptive text in any of the sections we’ve looked at supports the idea that creatures know what’s hitting them. And as long as we’re being logical, if a conscious creature can’t tell the difference, how could an unconscious creature? Of course they can’t. If there was a “harmless” component of spells that would make targets give up their saves, it would be incorporated into every damaging spell in the book. It wouldn’t just be Water Walk and Magic Circle Against Evil that would have the loop-hole, every wizard would create spells exploiting such a vulgar weakness. The benefit of unconscious creatures not getting their will saves is that it wipes out these loopholes, across the board. Teleport and Polymorph don’t suddenly become broken against unconscious creatures while other, reasonable spells are left arbitrarily in the dust. That doesn’t prove my point, but it does make the idea more credible than the alternative. Tired of posting SRD so I'll just ask this time.Where are you getting that from? You auto know whether a spell is harmful or not when you are chosen as the target. Once the effect of the spell is on you, By RAW expose to the spell energy, You know if it will harm you or hurt you. Spell craft is just to tell what spell and what the effect is, meaning what the spell does, not if it is harmful or not. Please post where you got that from. Note: nobody is going to polymorph, and effectively heal, some damaged unconscious. Wouldn't that have put the monster the OP used up to full health?
Mejdrich 10-13-07, 10:03 AM	Tired of posting SRD so I'll just ask this time.Where are you getting that from? You auto know whether a spell is harmful or not when you are chosen as the target. Once the effect of the spell is on you, By RAW expose to the spell energy, You know if it will harm you or hurt you. Spell craft is just to tell what spell and what the effect is, meaning what the spell does, not if it is harmful or not. Please post where you got that from. No where does it say the target of a spell gains special knowledge of the spell coming at them. Even Spellcraft only works by interpreting verbal or somatic components. So, no, there is no warm fuzzy feeling you get when a spell with the 'harmless' flag is being shot at you. At best, you can know the name of the spell (and deduce if it's a spell you want cast on you), but even so, there is no way to know if it's being used in a helpful or harmful way. Take polymoph: how would you know (other than trusting your wizard) whether you are about to be turned into a dragon . . or a toad? You can't. “Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.” – PHB p 82, spellcraft OK if they are asleep I understand, But why, for the love of man, would you cast polymorph on someone unconcious from damage. Well, I can think of a host of abuses, but if you don’t like polymorph, the advantage of being able to Plane Shift an unconscious enemy should be obvious. Besides the utility, you aren’t addressing the contradiction in allowing polymorph, plane shift, and teleport to automatically work (without the chance for save) but do not allow baleful polymorph, banishment, or dismissal any advantage from the unconscious target. Not to mention fireballs, but that’s a separate argument. The fact that the spell list is shredded into stupidity, under your interpretation, doesn’t prove anything about unconscious creatures. The fact that you haven’t yet found a quote that says ‘unconscious creatures always get saves’ doesn’t prove it either. It should, however, inform your critical thinking when reading p 175 and 177. As I’ve said before, they are the only two paragraphs that address the issue, they are the only two paragraphs that describe what a “willing” creature is, and if that doesn’t convince you, then the pandora’s box you are about to open on your spell list should. A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic. 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.
Ace_of_time 10-13-07, 04:53 PM	No where does it say the target of a spell gains special knowledge of the spell coming at them. Even Spellcraft only works by interpreting verbal or somatic components. So, no, there is no warm fuzzy feeling you get when a spell with the 'harmless' flag is being shot at you. At best, you can know the name of the spell (and deduce if it's a spell you want cast on you), but even so, there is no way to know if it's being used in a helpful or harmful way. Take polymoph: how would you know (other than trusting your wizard) whether you are about to be turned into a dragon . . or a toad? You can't. “Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.” – PHB p 82, spellcraft Well, I can think of a host of abuses, but if you don’t like polymorph, the advantage of being able to Plane Shift an unconscious enemy should be obvious. Besides the utility, you aren’t addressing the contradiction in allowing polymorph, plane shift, and teleport to automatically work (without the chance for save) but do not allow baleful polymorph, banishment, or dismissal any advantage from the unconscious target. Not to mention fireballs, but that’s a separate argument. The fact that the spell list is shredded into stupidity, under your interpretation, doesn’t prove anything about unconscious creatures. The fact that you haven’t yet found a quote that says ‘unconscious creatures always get saves’ doesn’t prove it either. It should, however, inform your critical thinking when reading p 175 and 177. As I’ve said before, they are the only two paragraphs that address the issue, they are the only two paragraphs that describe what a “willing” creature is, and if that doesn’t convince you, then the pandora’s box you are about to open on your spell list should. I have posted it four times already. I'm not interpreting anything. It is what the the RAW says on it. Your the one taking what it says and putting the meaning you want on it. This is what you keep posting saying that if you combine it with the other post that it means all will saves. 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. Those twp quotes are not talking about the same thing. Here is the whole post from the SRD. Originally Posted by SRD Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell. 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. The Saving Throw and Spell Resistance lines are omitted from such spells. 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.Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. I bolded the whole post and underlined the part you keep referring to. There is no interpretation needed. The quote is clearly talking about "Some spells restrict you to willing targets only." and not about saving throws. To be clear the post on page 177 and 175 ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING. One is talking about forgoing a save and willing accept the spell. The other one is talking about spells that have willing targets in the target entry. Those are two different thing. There is nothing in the RAW that says you don't get saves unconscious. The only thing that connects the two post is the word willing. I could name a hundred spots in the PHB that use the same word but mean two different things. Just because both spots say willing doesn't meaning they are talking about willingly giving up your save. The rules are clear. All that this part mean, Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, Is that those creatures are auto willing for spells that need willing targets for the spell to work. That is it.
Mejdrich 10-13-07, 06:07 PM	I have posted it four times already. I'm not interpreting anything. It is what the the RAW says on it. Your the one taking what it says and putting the meaning you want on it. RAW is not a magic word that whoever claims it first "wins". My argument is based entirely on quotations from Core, which is exactly what RAW means. You interpret RAW differently. Great. Argue on the merits of your ideas. I'll put it to you this way. If you applied the level of skepticism you are showing to p 175 and 177 across the board, then you can't allow characters to stab out their own eyes. After all, called shots is not RAW. In fact, most things that characters do outside of combat are suddenly become problematic. What rule allows you to light a torch? Does my fork miss my steak 1/20th of the time? Under your thinking, these questions are all relevant. Descriptive text is valid in interpreting RAW. In my opinion, a game that only allows actions described by the most literal rules in the game is not worth playing. Giving a reflex save to a petrified creature is stupid, and clearly not within the intent of the game. Just as in reflex saves, the descriptive text of will saves is relevant: "Will saves reflect inner strength. They incorporate willpower, mental stability, the power of the mind, levelheadedness, determination, self-confidence, self-awareness, the superego, and resistance to temptation." (DMG p 33). How many of those can possibly be active while unconscious? "Self-awareness"? Please.
koiulpoi 10-13-07, 06:38 PM	If you applied the level of skepticism you are showing to p 175 and 177 across the board, then you can't allow characters to stab out their own eyes. Right. RAW makes the characters very similar to WoW characters. You can't stab your eye out in WoW as there's no rules (or implimentation) for it. Your argument falls apart as you're comparing being able to do something not described in the rules (stabbing ones eyes out) to the abilitiy to do something described within the rules (will saves). They are clearly not the same, so stop equivocating them. Giving a reflex save to a petrified creature is stupid, and clearly not within the intent of the game. Glad you know the intent of the developers. Perhaps you should email customer service and let them know they got it wrong? Maybe you should go work for them, seeing as you have a direct window into the intent of the rules of D&D. Reflex saves are more than dodging out of the way, seeing as you can (at least according to custserv) get them in situations where you cannot move. You just have an effective dexterity of zero. If you really don't like that, just imagine saving throws as "Hero's Luck". To give another point in favor of my argument, see the text on evasion for rogues. PHB page 50. A helpless Rogue does not gain the benifit of evasion. Why would that even need to be said if you didn't get a Reflex save in the situation at all? Just as in reflex saves, the descriptive text of will saves is relevant: "Will saves reflect inner strength. They incorporate willpower, mental stability, the power of the mind, levelheadedness, determination, self-confidence, self-awareness, the superego, and resistance to temptation." (DMG p 33). How many of those can possibly be active while unconscious? "Self-awareness"? Please. While unconcious you still have mental stability. You don't go crazy when unconcious - only when your Wisdom hits zero. Seeing as we don't know quite what happens to the human mind when not concious, we don't know if the rest exist - but they may, and you simply can't express them to the outside world. Take, for instance, dreaming. There's no arugment against that you're unconcious while dreaming. And yet, in my dreams at least, I have willpower, determination, self-awareness, etc etc etc. So, should only people who are mildly lucid in dreams get will saves? I for one can't see how you lose all those things just because you've gone unconcious. It also doesn't say you need all those things to get a will save. A dog has no self-awareness (arguably) but it still gets a will save, concious or no.
Mejdrich 10-14-07, 01:13 AM	The point, koiulpoi, is that ruling that unconscious creatures forfeit their will saves is more supported by RAW than stabbing out eyes. The entire base of your argument is that p 175 and 177 cannot be read together, under any circumstances. I really am baffled at the total hostility this idea has raised in some of you. You allow descriptive text to be used as RAW in other parts of your game, and the two of you have resorted to using it when it suits your purpose, but in this specific instance, you act like I’m violating some sacred belief. Since you liked it so much the first time, I’ll say it again: giving a reflex save to a petrified creature is stupid, and clearly not within the intent of the game. Anyone who reads what a reflex save is, and what petrified does, can see this. The fact that you have to bend over backward and invent ridiculous explanations, like “hero’s luck”, shows how bankrupt this position is. Your defense of will saves is even more silly: you say you should get will saves in your dreams, therefore you should get saves while asleep. Are we supposed to take this argument seriously? DMG p 33 speaks for itself, and I'll let people judge for themselves. To be honest, when the discussion gets to a point like this, I usually think it's best to bring things to a close, at least for my part. Let me sum up by saying that it is perfectly reasonable to rule that unconscious creatures don’t get will saves, as p 175 and 177 indicate, and by a common sense reading of what a will save is. You are free to disagree and play your games however you want, but I wouldn’t be a good fellow gamer if I didn’t point out that you are shredding your spell list into illogical categories that create mechanical problems that none of you have begun to address. On its own, the onslaught of contradictions, and unbelievable situations, that result from your interpretation don’t prove or disprove what RAW is. It should, however, make you think twice before dismissing my reading of p 175 and 177.
Ace_of_time 10-14-07, 03:04 AM	RAW is not a magic word that whoever claims it first "wins". My argument is based entirely on quotations from Core, which is exactly what RAW means. You interpret RAW differently. Great. Argue on the merits of your ideas. I'll put it to you this way. If you applied the level of skepticism you are showing to p 175 and 177 across the board, then you can't allow characters to stab out their own eyes. After all, called shots is not RAW. In fact, most things that characters do outside of combat are suddenly become problematic. What rule allows you to light a torch? Does my fork miss my steak 1/20th of the time? Under your thinking, these questions are all relevant. Descriptive text is valid in interpreting RAW. In my opinion, a game that only allows actions described by the most literal rules in the game is not worth playing. Giving a reflex save to a petrified creature is stupid, and clearly not within the intent of the game. Just as in reflex saves, the descriptive text of will saves is relevant: "Will saves reflect inner strength. They incorporate willpower, mental stability, the power of the mind, levelheadedness, determination, self-confidence, self-awareness, the superego, and resistance to temptation." (DMG p 33). How many of those can possibly be active while unconscious? "Self-awareness"? Please. I've already said that I'm not interpreting RAW. It clearly states what it is talking about in the quote. Your interpreting it to mean something else because of a part on a different page that has nothing to do with target entry spell that only work on willing targets. That's not my problem. All I know is what it says is not the same as what you say. All of these are still thre even when your unconcious ""Will saves reflect inner strength. They incorporate willpower, mental stability, the power of the mind, levelheadedness, determination, self-confidence, self-awareness, the superego, and resistance to temptation." (DMG p 33)." Unless you are in a comma or dead the brain doesn't stop working, they body doesn't stop fighting poisons and infections, and brain activaty is still there. I never said people who were unconcious got ref saves. I said in my game they don't because you can't move and if you can't move you don't get a ref save. But that is just a rule I use and can't find anything in 3.5 that says that. Sorry. Called shots used to be in the rules back in the days. It was a minus 4 to the roll. But WotC toke it out. Not my fault. One word does not make the rest of the quote mean what you want it to mean. The first just means that the person can chose to willingly accept a spell effect. The 2nd one means that on those certain types of spells the require a willing target in the target entry are considered willing when they are unconscious. No matter what interpretation you put on it they are never going to mean the same thing. EVER. I under stand that you think that since the first one says you can give up you save and willingly accept the spell that you think the 2nd one says that that is auto if you are unconscious. But the 2nd one is only talking about certain type of spells not all magic. You'll have to house rule it if you won't to play that way.
Ace_of_time 10-14-07, 03:17 AM	The point, koiulpoi, is that ruling that unconscious creatures forfeit their will saves is more supported by RAW than stabbing out eyes. The entire base of your argument is that p 175 and 177 cannot be read together, under any circumstances. I really am baffled at the total hostility this idea has raised in some of you. You allow descriptive text to be used as RAW in other parts of your game, and the two of you have resorted to using it when it suits your purpose, but in this specific instance, you act like I’m violating some sacred belief. Since you liked it so much the first time, I’ll say it again: giving a reflex save to a petrified creature is stupid, and clearly not within the intent of the game. Anyone who reads what a reflex save is, and what petrified does, can see this. The fact that you have to bend over backward and invent ridiculous explanations, like “hero’s luck”, shows how bankrupt this position is. Your defense of will saves is even more silly: you say you should get will saves in your dreams, therefore you should get saves while asleep. Are we supposed to take this argument seriously? DMG p 33 speaks for itself, and I'll let people judge for themselves. To be honest, when the discussion gets to a point like this, I usually think it's best to bring things to a close, at least for my part. Let me sum up by saying that it is perfectly reasonable to rule that unconscious creatures don’t get will saves, as p 175 and 177 indicate, and by a common sense reading of what a will save is. You are free to disagree and play your games however you want, but I wouldn’t be a good fellow gamer if I didn’t point out that you are shredding your spell list into illogical categories that create mechanical problems that none of you have begun to address. On its own, the onslaught of contradictions, and unbelievable situations, that result from your interpretation don’t prove or disprove what RAW is. It should, however, make you think twice before dismissing my reading of p 175 and 177. When has this happened? Please post link. There are certain things that WotC leave upto the DM. This is not one of them. Unless the spell entry says different you always get a will save. He is only saying the same others have said. There is no where in the RAW that says you don't get will saves unconscious. You can post page 175 and 177 all you want because they don't say that. 175 isn't even talkingabout saves.
Mejdrich 10-14-07, 11:10 AM	I am fast loosing interest in this discussion, Ace_of_time. You are making claims to be the sole holder of RAW, while degrading my point of view to an “interpretation”. Have you have had a transcendent experience with the godhead of D&D to justify this certainty? Although I see the rhetorical value in this kind of maneuvering, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The irony is that I’ve been quoting from the Rules-As-Written as early as post #4 while my appeals for you to show the quote that inspired your true belief has been answered only by repeated attacks on mine. When has this happened? Please post link. You just did it in your post. If descriptive text wasn’t valid for RAW, then you wouldn’t bother speculating whether the text on will saves made sense while asleep. I notice that you wisely avoided koiulpoi’s line of reasoning, that ‘it works in my dreams’. And lets not overlook the fact that on your side of the discussion, almost all of the focus has been on vetting my arguments rather than making any positive arguments for your own case. Unlike your claims to RAW, this is an inequality of substance. Even if you were persuasive in your arguments, it would in no way prove that unconscious creatures get will saves. All it would have done is show the flaws in one particular method of thinking. In any case, you haven’t even done this. Let me make an attempt to wrap this up: there are two ways of interpreting RAW on the question of will saves for unconscious creatures. One way, supported by p 175 and 177, answers the question simply. The other way requires a dismissive reading of those sections, creates a host of contradictions in the spell list, and doesn’t stack up to the descriptive text of any of the relevant rules. For me, occam’s razor makes this an easy choice. You are free to make your own judgments.
koiulpoi 10-14-07, 02:32 PM	The point, koiulpoi, is that ruling that unconscious creatures forfeit their will saves is more supported by RAW than stabbing out eyes. The entire base of your argument is that p 175 and 177 cannot be read together, under any circumstances. A not well made point on the eye stabbing, and rather unrelated to saves, so let's move on. Page 175, beginning of said paragraph: "Some spells restrict you to willing targets only." This is the subject of the paragraph. When they go on to say "Unconcious creatures are always considered willing..." they're referring to said subject of the paragraph - willing-only spells. There is no other way to interpret this, at all. This paragraph, by itself, does not refer to a creature being willing to accept all spells, only those which require the creature to be willing. Page 177: "Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result." This part happens to be under the heading of Saving Throws, unlike page 175, which was under Aiming a Spell. Seeing as this part referrs to all spells and 175 was only referring to "willing-only spells", we cannot read them together. One is referring to being able to teleport, plane shift, polymorph, and even water walk an unconcious creature, but baelful polymorph gets a save, as baelful polymorph isn't willing only. It's really very simple, and you're reading things into the rules that aren't even there. Is it the word "willingly" that's throwing you up? Take it out of the sentence and it still makes grammatical sense, just without the "willing" connection. I see no reason the game designers would connect these two unrelated examples, despite your constant insistance that they did. I really am baffled at the total hostility this idea has raised in some of you. You allow descriptive text to be used as RAW in other parts of your game, and the two of you have resorted to using it when it suits your purpose, but in this specific instance, you act like I’m violating some sacred belief. Those two sentances aren't descriptive text -they're the rules. And please, drop the hostile attitude yourself. I've tried to stay calm, but you seem to be getting angry over an internet conversation. It's really silly. Since you liked it so much the first time, I’ll say it again: giving a reflex save to a petrified creature is stupid, and clearly not within the intent of the game. Anyone who reads what a reflex save is, and what petrified does, can see this. The fact that you have to bend over backward and invent ridiculous explanations, like “hero’s luck”, shows how bankrupt this position is. Glad you think it's stupid. You've said that already, and your opinion is in mind. Here's one of my own: Your opinion is stupid. Really helped the argument along, didn't it? A reflex save is more than just dodging out of the way. It really is luck, plain and simple. You get a save, your dexterity score is just effectively zero. Meaning that if the wind blows the wrong way or the fighter happens to be more in the way, you might take half damage. Explaining it as luck is the only way to tie it back into reality (which we don't even have to do, seeing as this is D&D and we fling fireballs at dragons). So, you automatically fail your reflex saves according to your position. Do you also automatically get your equipment damaged as if you rolled a natural one? Or does your equipment get some special "magic protection" when helpless? Your defense of will saves is even more silly: you say you should get will saves in your dreams, therefore you should get saves while asleep. Are we supposed to take this argument seriously? DMG p 33 speaks for itself, and I'll let people judge for themselves. To be honest, when the discussion gets to a point like this, I usually think it's best to bring things to a close, at least for my part. I already covered your explination of page 33, you know. I made the argument that you do not lose self-actualization and willpower while dreaming, and thus you do not lose it while unconcious. Yes, you're supposed to take this seriously, as you have provided zero evidence or examples on your point as to why you would lose those qualities of your mind when unconcious. You just say "my argument speaks for itself", which, to use your own words, is a "bankrupt... position." Page 33 says "Will saves reflect inner strength." How exactly does one lose inner strength just because their mental connection with the outside world has been cut off? I'm not too happy you think the conversation should just "stop" here because our arguments are getting silly. It seems moreso that you don't like the direction it's going and want to stop when you're in what you feel is a position of power/being right. Let me sum up by saying that it is perfectly reasonable to rule that unconscious creatures don’t get will saves, as p 175 and 177 indicate, and by a common sense reading of what a will save is. You are free to disagree and play your games however you want, but I wouldn’t be a good fellow gamer if I didn’t point out that you are shredding your spell list into illogical categories that create mechanical problems that none of you have begun to address. It's not "perfectly reasonable", as I've covered above, and page 175 and 177 are not connected. Common sense has led you into reading things into the rules that aren't there. As I said before, common sense is neither common nor sensical. I do play my games how I want, and I find it funny you keep trying to bring that back up. It's a given that every game works their own way under each different DM; why do you keep trying to empower me? To get me to go away with the sudden realization that "Oh my, my games can be run how I want!"? I wouldn't even have posted on the community boards if I didn't want a discussion. I'm not "shredding my spell list into illogical categories" - some spells literally say "willing only" and some don't. These are written down in the rules very clearly and are only illogical in the situations where you make them illogical. Saying something in D&D doesn't make sense means that you can houserule it, but you're not playing by RAW then - which is what we're talking about. On its own, the onslaught of contradictions, and unbelievable situations, that result from your interpretation don’t prove or disprove what RAW is. It should, however, make you think twice before dismissing my reading of p 175 and 177. I did think twice. Several times, in fact. Why don't you take your own advice and not simply "dismiss" my own arguments?
koiulpoi 10-14-07, 02:33 PM	When has this happened? Please post link. There are certain things that WotC leave upto the DM. This is not one of them. Unless the spell entry says different you always get a will save. He is only saying the same others have said. There is no where in the RAW that says you don't get will saves unconscious. You can post page 175 and 177 all you want because they don't say that. 177 isn't even talkingabout saves. Ace_of_time, I know you're "on my side" here, but 177 is clearly talking about saving throws, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Mejdrich 10-14-07, 04:51 PM	There is a point at which conversation has reached the limits of it’s productiveness. I'm not goint to step out because I’m afraid of loosing, as you imply, but because I don’t see the benefit of debating some of these (ridiculous) points. I’m sorry if you feel I’m adopting a hostile attitude, but let me assure you the feelings is mutual. If anything, I’m simply getting impatient with you and Ace_of_time sending wave after wave critizing my arguments without any effort to make a positive argument about any position yourself, and without giving any indication you understand the points that I’ve already made. Take this example: One is referring to being able to teleport, plane shift, polymorph, and even water walk an unconcious creature, but baelful polymorph gets a save, as baelful polymorph isn't willing only. It's really very simple, and you're reading things into the rules that aren't even there. Yes, I brought up all of those spells, and I can see you produced them. But you haven’t addressed the point I was making at all. There is an inherent inconsistency in allowing teleport, plane shift, and polymorph to function as auto-successes against enemies (water walk is actually a “harmless” spell, btw) while requiring the hostile versions of these spells (baleful polymorph, dismissal, and banishment) to work at a disadvantage, against unconscious creatures. If you want to argue that unconscious creatures get will saves, you need to deal with this inconsistency. A reflex save is more than just dodging out of the way. It really is luck, plain and simple. You get a save, your dexterity score is just effectively zero. Meaning that if the wind blows the wrong way or the fighter happens to be more in the way, you might take half damage. Explaining it as luck is the only way to tie it back into reality (which we don't even have to do, seeing as this is D&D and we fling fireballs at dragons). No, koiulpoi, the quotes on reflex save are here and they say nothing of your “luck” or which way the “wind blows”. Even a dragon can’t fly out of the way of a fireball if he’s unconscious. PHB p 8 – “Reflex saving throws, for avoiding fireballs and other attacks that you can escape by moving quickly.” DMG p 33 – “Reflex: Reflex saves reflect physical (and sometimes mental) agility. They incorporate quickness, nimbleness, hand-eye coordination, overall coordination, speed, and reaction time. If it seems like something that an agile person would be good at, it’s a Reflex save.” Just as in reflex saves, the descriptive text of will saves is relevant: "Will saves reflect inner strength. They incorporate willpower, mental stability, the power of the mind, levelheadedness, determination, self-confidence, self-awareness, the superego, and resistance to temptation." (DMG p 33). How many of those can possibly be active while unconscious? "Self-awareness"? Please. … Take, for instance, dreaming. There's no arugment against that you're unconcious while dreaming. And yet, in my dreams at least, I have willpower, determination, self-awareness, etc etc etc. … It’s painful to point out that whatever you experience “in [your] dreams” has no basis on reality, much less the virtual reality of a game. I suppose I share your experience, that in my dreams, also, I have make-believe adventures all over the place. That has zero relevance to the Mind-Flayer leveling a Mind-Blast on your unconscious soon-to-be corpse. If you think you can be simultaneously self-aware and unconscious, it begs the question of whether you are comfortable with the plain meaning of those words. I’ve been writing in the hopes that we could, at some point, have agreement on some of these topics. However, in all sincerity, if we are having trouble on whether your “dreams” are pertinent, or on the plain question of whether a character “frozen in place and unable to move or act” is able to act with “quickness, nimbleness, hand-eye coordination, overall coordination, speed, and reaction time”, then I’m afraid I don’t see a meeting of the minds in our future. I do play my games how I want, and I find it funny you keep trying to bring that back up. “Your side” has told me that my “interpretation” is categorically not RAW, and then I can go make a silly house rule if I want to – a subtle way of telling me to go **** myself. In other words, I’m trying to offer you the courtesy that I’m not getting. In any case, instead of degrading into a flame war, I’d rather agree to disagree and be done with it. If you want to interpret this as a sign of surrender, that’s your prerogative. I still put to you that you haven’t actually made any substantive argument for your own interpretation and haven’t explained how you intend to deal with the scattered remains of the spell list.
koiulpoi 10-14-07, 05:17 PM	On the reflex saves, email customer service and argue it with them - I'll discuss it no more with you. Unless, of course, you can tackle my point about equipment damage. On the "inherent inconsistancy", it's not with "my position", it's with the rules themselves. Some spells require willing targets, and unconcious targets are automatically willing. Some spells are not, and those spells allow will saves, and unconcious creatures get them. That's how it's written, and that's the consequence of how the game was designed. I note that you didn't actually tackle any of my points and instead just point out an "inconsistancy" in my posistion. I wonder why exactly I wrote most of that post if you were just going to ignore it? On will saves: 1) While asleep and dreaming, I am unconcious. 2) While dreaming, I am self-aware (definition: "Aware of oneself, including one's traits, feelings, and behaviors."). 3) Therefore, I am both unconcious and self aware. Please tell me where and why this logic breaks down, other than pointing out that reality isn't D&D. Another point on will saves: 1) Internal strength is not dependant on ones conciousness. 2) Therefore, when unconcious, you still have internal strength. 3) It follows that unconcious creatures get will saves. On "sides", yes, I wholly believe that your position is backed up by the rules very, very weakly. I believe you read things into the book that aren't there and ignore the arguments you can't deal with. I've given plenty of "substance", you just decide to argue instead that my dreams aren't D&D. To give you an example of how your own position breaks down, consider the following. 1) The deep slumber spell, an Enchantment, can effect up to 10 HD of creatures and requires a will save. 2) Assume this spell is cast upon a 10th level rogue with Slippery Mind and this rogue fails his will save and falls asleep. 3) This rogue is now unconcious, being asleep. 4) By your position, the secondary will save from slippery mind would not happen, as he is now unconcious and unable to make a will save. 5) This poisition is wrong, as passive defenses do not require conciousness to work, except when indicated. To give another example: 1) When unconcious, you cannot take actions. 2) A saving throw is not an action. 3) Therefore, you can attempt a saving throw when unconcious. or 1) You do not lose special defenses or extrodanary abilities when unconcious. 2) A will save is akin to a special defense. 3) You can attempt a will save while unconcious. or 1) Your wisdom score does not go down while unconcious. 2) You can attempt listen checks at your full Wisdom modifier while sleeping. 3) Will saves are tied to Wisdom. 4) You can make will saves while unconcious. I hope I've given enough substance, at least logically, for you to at least consider.
koiulpoi 10-15-07, 11:51 AM	Here's an incredibly strong point for my position on both reflex and will saves - magic items get them. Damaging Magic Items A magic item doesn’t need to make a saving throw unless it is unattended, it is specifically targeted by the effect, or its wielder rolls a natural 1 on his save. Magic items should always get a saving throw against spells that might deal damage to them— even against attacks from which a nonmagical item would normally get no chance to save. Magic items use the same saving throw bonus for all saves, no matter what the type (Fortitude, Reflex, or Will). A magic item’s saving throw bonus equals 2 + one-half its caster level (round down). The only exceptions to this are intelligent magic items, which make Will saves based on their own Wisdom scores. Magic items, unless otherwise noted, take damage as nonmagical items of the same sort. A damaged magic item continues to function, but if it is destroyed, all its magical power is lost. Yes, that's right. A magic sword, just sitting there, gets a refelx save. It gets a will save (for will save spells that would effect objects). But let's be serious here. An unattended magic item, just sitting there, unable to move on its own, by your interpretation, does not get a reflex save. But the rules disagree. And, I find it very reasonable that, if an unattended magic item gets a reflex save, so should a helpless player. And, if something without a mind is allowed a will save, so should an unconcious player.
Ace_of_time 10-15-07, 02:15 PM	Ace_of_time, I know you're "on my side" here, but 177 is clearly talking about saving throws, so I don't know what you're talking about. Sorry my mind said push 5 but my finger pushed 7 instead and I haven't gotten on here to fix it yet . It is fixed now. thanks.
Ace_of_time 10-15-07, 02:19 PM	There is a point at which conversation has reached the limits of it’s productiveness. I'm not goint to step out because I’m afraid of loosing, as you imply, but because I don’t see the benefit of debating some of these (ridiculous) points. I’m sorry if you feel I’m adopting a hostile attitude, but let me assure you the feelings is mutual. If anything, I’m simply getting impatient with you and Ace_of_time sending wave after wave critizing my arguments without any effort to make a positive argument about any position yourself, and without giving any indication you understand the points that I’ve already made. Take this example: Yes, I brought up all of those spells, and I can see you produced them. But you haven’t addressed the point I was making at all. There is an inherent inconsistency in allowing teleport, plane shift, and polymorph to function as auto-successes against enemies (water walk is actually a “harmless” spell, btw) while requiring the hostile versions of these spells (baleful polymorph, dismissal, and banishment) to work at a disadvantage, against unconscious creatures. If you want to argue that unconscious creatures get will saves, you need to deal with this inconsistency. No, koiulpoi, the quotes on reflex save are here and they say nothing of your “luck” or which way the “wind blows”. Even a dragon can’t fly out of the way of a fireball if he’s unconscious. PHB p 8 – “Reflex saving throws, for avoiding fireballs and other attacks that you can escape by moving quickly.” DMG p 33 – “Reflex: Reflex saves reflect physical (and sometimes mental) agility. They incorporate quickness, nimbleness, hand-eye coordination, overall coordination, speed, and reaction time. If it seems like something that an agile person would be good at, it’s a Reflex save.” It’s painful to point out that whatever you experience “in [your] dreams” has no basis on reality, much less the virtual reality of a game. I suppose I share your experience, that in my dreams, also, I have make-believe adventures all over the place. That has zero relevance to the Mind-Flayer leveling a Mind-Blast on your unconscious soon-to-be corpse. If you think you can be simultaneously self-aware and unconscious, it begs the question of whether you are comfortable with the plain meaning of those words. I’ve been writing in the hopes that we could, at some point, have agreement on some of these topics. However, in all sincerity, if we are having trouble on whether your “dreams” are pertinent, or on the plain question of whether a character “frozen in place and unable to move or act” is able to act with “quickness, nimbleness, hand-eye coordination, overall coordination, speed, and reaction time”, then I’m afraid I don’t see a meeting of the minds in our future. “Your side” has told me that my “interpretation” is categorically not RAW, and then I can go make a silly house rule if I want to – a subtle way of telling me to go **** myself. In other words, I’m trying to offer you the courtesy that I’m not getting. In any case, instead of degrading into a flame war, I’d rather agree to disagree and be done with it. If you want to interpret this as a sign of surrender, that’s your prerogative. I still put to you that you haven’t actually made any substantive argument for your own interpretation and haven’t explained how you intend to deal with the scattered remains of the spell list. 1st here is me saying that I indeed do understand what you are saying. I've already said that I'm not interpreting RAW. It clearly states what it is talking about in the quote. Your interpreting it to mean something else because of a part on a different page that has nothing to do with target entry spell that only work on willing targets. That's not my problem. All I know is what it says is not the same as what you say. All of these are still thre even when your unconcious ""Will saves reflect inner strength. They incorporate willpower, mental stability, the power of the mind, levelheadedness, determination, self-confidence, self-awareness, the superego, and resistance to temptation." (DMG p 33)." Unless you are in a comma or dead the brain doesn't stop working, they body doesn't stop fighting poisons and infections, and brain activaty is still there. I never said people who were unconcious got ref saves. I said in my game they don't because you can't move and if you can't move you don't get a ref save. But that is just a rule I use and can't find anything in 3.5 that says that. Sorry. Called shots used to be in the rules back in the days. It was a minus 4 to the roll. But WotC toke it out. Not my fault. One word does not make the rest of the quote mean what you want it to mean. The first just means that the person can chose to willingly accept a spell effect. The 2nd one means that on those certain types of spells the require a willing target in the target entry are considered willing when they are unconscious. No matter what interpretation you put on it they are never going to mean the same thing. EVER. I under stand that you think that since the first one says you can give up you save and willingly accept the spell that you think the 2nd one says that that is auto if you are unconscious. But the 2nd one is only talking about certain type of spells not all magic. You'll have to house rule it if you won't to play that way. Now my point was that the rules are clear as to how it works and that if you wanted them to say that unconscious creature don't get saves you have to post where in the rules it says that. We were talking about what was in the rules. Not if the he should make a house rule on it. And that interpreting the rules is not needed because the 2 pages you are talking about are not talking about the same thing. That is my point. And is the only point I was posting on. If you want the rules to say that then you have to post where in the RAW that it specifically says unconscious creatures don't give saves. And then you keep posting 175 and 177 which none of those pages say anything about "unconscious creatures don't get saves". And you keep posting that I'm not reading them right and not interpreting them the way you do so I must be wrong. All I have said is that the don't say that and they don't mean that. That is my point. I don't need to post things to make my point. Because all I can do is post what the rules say. I can't make a person believe something they don't see themselves. I'm sorry if any of my post mad you think I was attacking you. The spell thing. The spells are already broke up into those cats. Harmless spells and spells that require willing targets work different then reg spells do so they have to put the way they work in the books. If unconscious creatures don't get saves then the people who made the rules would have put it in the books or posted it in the errata. Which hasn't happened so that means it works the same as if you were awake.
Ace_of_time 10-15-07, 02:52 PM	Nightmare Illusion (Phantasm) [Mind-Affecting, Evil] Level: Brd 5, Sor/Wiz 5 Components: V, S Casting Time: 10 minutes Range: Unlimited Target: One living creature Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Will negates; see text Spell Resistance: Yes You send a hideous and unsettling phantasmal vision to a specific creature that you name or otherwise specifically designate. The nightmare prevents restful sleep and causes 1d10 points of damage. The nightmare leaves the subject fatigued and unable to regain arcane spells for the next 24 hours. The difficulty of the save depends on how well you know the subject and what sort of physical connection (if any) you have to that creature. Knowledge Will Save Modifier None1 +10 Secondhand (you have heard of the subject) +5 Firsthand (you have met the subject) +0 Familiar (you know the subject well) –5 1 You must have some sort of connection to a creature you have no knowledge of. Connection Will Save Modifier Likeness or picture –2 Possession or garment –4 Body part, lock of hair, bit of nail, etc. –10 Dispel evil cast on the subject while you are casting the spell dispels the nightmare and causes you to be stunned for 10 minutes per caster level of the dispel evil. If the recipient is awake when the spell begins, you can choose to cease casting (ending the spell) or to enter a trance until the recipient goes to sleep, whereupon you become alert again and complete the casting. If you are disturbed during the trance, you must succeed on a Concentration check as if you were in the midst of casting a spell or the spell ends. If you choose to enter a trance, you are not aware of your surroundings or the activities around you while in the trance. You are defenseless, both physically and mentally, while in the trance. (You always fail any saving throw, for example.) Creatures who don’t sleep (such as elves, but not half-elves) or dream are immune to this spell What about this spell? If I cast this on a unconscious creature your line of thinking says they don't get a save.
koiulpoi 10-15-07, 03:23 PM	To further add to the discussion, I asked custserv one more question: Can you choose to not make a will save while unconcious? For instance, say we have an unconcious aquatic creature, for which we cast "Water Walk" on it. Since the spell is marked (harmless) and the creature is unconcious, it's automatically considered willing. But, this is clearly an offensive spell in this situation, as water walk would push it above water and kill it. Can this aquatic creature choose to resist the spell, even while unconcious? Response: This situation goes beyond the rules as printed. The Dungeon Master for your game will need to adjudicate a house rule regarding making [harmless] will saves when unconscious, especially in circumstances where the spell effect will not be harmless to the creature in question. Both sides of this argument make sense in terms of game play and in the end, your Dungeon Master will have to decided based on the flavor and fairness of the game world. So, to answer your long, long ago question of "who decides when a save can be made?", the answer is "the DM".
Ace_of_time 10-15-07, 03:42 PM	I don't think I would give them one. The spell it's self isn't really damaging they creature. Some underwater creature can breath/survive on the surface. I think the spell it's self would have to do the damage/cause the death in order to change the harmless type.