| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question: Is an unconscious creature automatically considered willing? I'm the GM and ... not sure how to rule this one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Dale -- only for willing spells.
Actual text in question:
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 Target line of the spell description includes “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.
So spells that require a willing target then unconscious targets are automatically willing (say a teleport spell). Harmless spells allow a save if one is desired, while any other spell with a save throw doesn't get these benefits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question: Is an unconscious creature automatically considered willing? I'm the GM and ... not sure how to rule this one.
Wow, that could be taken the wrong way...
;)| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Question: Is an unconscious creature automatically considered willing?
Cannot... resist... obvious... joke.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...and now for a useful answer:
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 Target line of the spell description includes “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.
Appreciated all. Thank you.
Just to further clarify:
A creature can voluntarily forgo a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.
Unconscious characters are automatically willing. Willing characters accept a spell's result.
I do not consider "Some spells restrict you to willing targets only" to bind to "Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing." Rather, I view it as an introduction to the willing rules and not binding.
Just to further clarify:
Unconscious characters are automatically willing. Willing characters accept a spell's result.
A creature can voluntarily forgo a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.
Um no.
Willing only applies to spells that have the 'willing targets only' line. Which something like fireball is completely lacking. A creature can voluntarily give up a save throw -- but doesn't mean they must.
|
Just to further clarify:
A creature can voluntarily forgo a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.Unconscious characters are automatically willing. Willing characters accept a spell's result.
I do not consider "Some spells restrict you to willing targets only" to bind to "Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing." Rather, I view it as an introduction to the willing rules and not binding.
Note that spell resistance, while a special quality to resist the magic, requires an action to suppress. Since an unconscious person cannot take actions, they cannot suppress the SR.
I edited my post above after you quote it. I also FAQd the original post, since it's not as clear as we both assumed.
Or maybe one of us is taking crazy pills. My soda water did taste a little funky today...
Of course it's bonded -- look at the paragraph again:
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.
The only thing the text is referring to is spells that only allow willing targets:
It states that:
1. Such spells exist.
2. You can declare yourself willing at any time.
3. Unconscious Creatures are always willing.
It doesn't say this applies to all spells, only spells with targets, and of that subset only those that only allow willing targets.
Teleport is a prime example as is Telepathic bond.
I don't doubt there are more but notice that both spells don't allow save throws. Raise dead doesn't but I'm not sure how that would apply -- if you are dead you aren't unconscious are you? I mean you're dead, but you have to be willing to come back so, on that one YMMV.
Just my thoughts though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also FAQd the original post, since it's not as clear as we both assumed.
There is an unconscious Drow.
I cast Dimension Door and touch him to bring him with me. DDoor only works on Willing creatures, and because the Drow is unconscious, he's Willing. There is no save, and SR does not apply (because the Drow is not an object).
I cast Dominate Person and I roll to bypass his SR. Success! Now he rolls a Will save, natural 20, boo! No effect.
I cast Cure Light Wounds which has a Will save for half. It's harmless, so the Drow will voluntarily forgo a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result, he does so. However, he can't lower his SR, so I must make an SR check to cure him. I overcome his SR, and there is no Will save, so he gets some HP back.
My reading is that Unconscious Creatures are always willing is a global statement. If that is the case, then this line means that all unconscious creatures take the spell's result:
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 can suppress this quality.
If the first sentence is binding, then this interpretation would be wrong.
There are weird cases either way it's ruled.
Cheapy biggest flaw I see with that position in and of itself:
voluntary isn't mandatory -- which you are now making it.
My reading is that Unconscious Creatures are always willing is a global statement.
If the spell does not restrict you to willing targets only, then the rest of that paragraph is irrelevant.
The text in "Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw" is the English use of the word willing, not the game-mechanics condition of permitting a [willing-only] spell to effect you.
You do not automatically fail all saves while unconscious, or else there would be no point to the Fortitude save after a coup-de-gras (which can only be performed on someone who is helpless).
Yea, I'm probably wrong on this one.
Well there goes my plan to cast Bestow Curse on everyone in my morally ambiguous party to ensure they don't hurt me. :(
At least I quoted the right text?
|
|
Some spells are labeled "Willing Only". For these spells the target must be willing (an unwilling target automatically resists with no save required). An unconscious person is considered willing.
Other spells are not labeled "Willing Only". These spells do not require that the target be willing, but a target can forgo their saving throw if they wish. This choice does not require consciousness.
Note the big difference: A Willing Only spell doesn't actually have a save, so the "voluntarily give up a saving throw" rule is irrelevant. Other spells operate as normal, regardless of your conscious/unconscious state, including the ability to give up your chance to save.
Yea, I'm probably wrong on this one.
Well there goes my plan to cast Bestow Curse on everyone in my morally ambiguous party to ensure they don't hurt me. :(
At least I quoted the right text?
Hey you had a coherent argument so that's a plus, and it's one I've seen before (and think I may have started on the wrong side of at one point too).
Mr.Spalding is correct. There was a big debate about it a while back. I will try to find the thread and the post where a consensus was reached.
The strange thing is that I looked this up when looking up that Bestow Curse plan, since I wasn't sure. And I somehow concluded that they'd automatically fail.
I also find it weird that you can reflex your way out of a fireball.
Or Aqueous Orb. Or Stone Call.
While asleep.
"You got lucky" only goes so far.
Well how often are you fireballing people in their sleep? Realize that evasion doesn't help if you are helpless or unconscious.
Besides you can avoid poison while asleep, and detect thoughts.
Also for further thought:
Unconscious creatures are knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having negative hit points (but not more than the creature's Constitution score), or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.
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 get 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 his 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.
Also when helpless you don't get evasion either.
So you do get the save... without your normal dex bonus and a -5 penalty instead and without evasion if you have it.
The strange thing is that I looked this up when looking up that Bestow Curse plan, since I wasn't sure. And I somehow concluded that they'd automatically fail.
I also find it weird that you can reflex your way out of a fireball.
Or Aqueous Orb. Or Stone Call.
While asleep.
"You got lucky" only goes so far.
I remember the first time I brought that up. People were like WTF. I think the idea is to always give the character a chance to survive even if it is a very small chance. Another example is that surviving a coup de grace requires a fort save of 10+damage dealt, which often means a nat 20. Realistically if I roll up one you while you are sleep....
|
|
The strange thing is that I looked this up when looking up that Bestow Curse plan, since I wasn't sure. And I somehow concluded that they'd automatically fail.
I also find it weird that you can reflex your way out of a fireball.
Or Aqueous Orb. Or Stone Call.
While asleep.
"You got lucky" only goes so far.
You get a save at Dex 0 with no evasion or similar abilities. It's there to represent sheer dumb luck. Most 20th level characters would have somewhere around a 6-7, and that's IF they have a +5 resistance bonus.
You get a save at Dex 0 with no evasion or similar abilities. It's there to represent sheer dumb luck. Most 20th level characters would have somewhere around a 6-7, and that's IF they have a +5 resistance bonus.The strange thing is that I looked this up when looking up that Bestow Curse plan, since I wasn't sure. And I somehow concluded that they'd automatically fail.
I also find it weird that you can reflex your way out of a fireball.
Or Aqueous Orb. Or Stone Call.
While asleep.
"You got lucky" only goes so far.
Seems reasonable.
The basic idea is a world in which the drow have been exiling pretty much everybody considered too weak to thrive in their society. This includes almost all good or neutral aligned drow. However, over time (as in, several centuries) these exiles have been grouping together and forming their own society. They've also been having children, like any community tends to enjoy doing. The combination of an influx of exiles and sexual population growth has made this non-evil drow society large enough that it's now considered a threat to traditional drow.
I really want to whip this community out in a campaign. However, this brings up a question. Does having so many good and neutral drow in one setting pretty much erode what the drow are supposed to be? If I introduce it into a campaign, will the majority of players get mad at me for screwing with drow society?
I've already gotten into deep s$$# for screwing with orc society by making orcs aligned along the same lines as humans. My players were pissed. Am I likely to get a similar reaction for messing with the drow? Or will the story of a war between drow who wish to cast off the brutality, misery, and paranoia of their past society and traditionalists who want to continue a society where only the strong survive actually be somewhat interesting?
Some players want their monsters in black and while. It makes it easy to tell the bad guys from the good guys. I like to stay with the norm for the most part, but have the occasional good/neutral drow or orc. I also like the occasional evil gold dragon.
If you rock the boat have a good reason for it. I would write how the drow came about into the campaign setting, and change it from anything that might make them evil.
Well that's weird.
The basic idea is a world in which the drow have been exiling pretty much everybody considered too weak to thrive in their society. This includes almost all good or neutral aligned drow. However, over time (as in, several centuries) these exiles have been grouping together and forming their own society. They've also been having children, like any community tends to enjoy doing. The combination of an influx of exiles and sexual population growth has made this non-evil drow society large enough that it's now considered a threat to traditional drow.
I really want to whip this community out in a campaign. However, this brings up a question. Does having so many good and neutral drow in one setting pretty much erode what the drow are supposed to be? If I introduce it into a campaign, will the majority of players get mad at me for screwing with drow society?
I've already gotten into deep s$$# for screwing with orc society by making orcs aligned along the same lines as humans. My players were pissed. Am I likely to get a similar reaction for messing with the drow? Or will the story of a war between drow who wish to cast off the brutality, misery, and paranoia of their past society and traditionalists who want to continue a society where only the strong survive actually be somewhat interesting?
Some players want their monsters in black and while. It makes it easy to tell the bad guys from the good guys. I like to stay with the norm for the most part, but have the occasional good/neutral drow or orc. I also like the occasional evil gold dragon.
If you rock the boat have a good reason for it. I would write how the drow came about into the campaign setting, and change it from anything that might make them evil.
Cross posting, ugh.
Note that spell resistance, while a special quality to resist the magic, requires an action to suppress. Since an unconscious person cannot take actions, they cannot suppress the SR.
There was a thread a while back in which one of the game developers stated, rather directly, that, that was NOT their intent and that it was something that was going to be changed in the game.
I think the thread was about barbarians and how the Superstitious rage power often got them killed (since they could not be easily healed from unconsciousness).
I'll link to it if I find it again.
|
|
Note that spell resistance, while a special quality to resist the magic, requires an action to suppress. Since an unconscious person cannot take actions, they cannot suppress the SR.There was a thread a while back in which one of the game developers stated, rather directly, that, that was NOT their intent and that it was something that was going to be changed in the game.
I think the thread was about barbarians and how the Superstitious rage power often got them killed (since they could not be easily healed from unconsciousness).
I'll link to it if I find it again.
What the heck does superstitious have to do with spell resistance?
Also, you are not required to try to resist the spell unless you are raging, and if you're unconscious you're not raging (barring a particular feat that I forget the name of). And even if you did, you could (at worst) halve the amount of healing, which still stabilizes you.
Note that spell resistance, while a special quality to resist the magic, requires an action to suppress. Since an unconscious person cannot take actions, they cannot suppress the SR.There was a thread a while back in which one of the game developers stated, rather directly, that, that was NOT their intent and that it was something that was going to be changed in the game.
I think the thread was about barbarians and how the Superstitious rage power often got them killed (since they could not be easily healed from unconsciousness).
I'll link to it if I find it again.
What the heck does superstitious have to do with spell resistance?
Also, you are not required to try to resist the spell unless you are raging, and if you're unconscious you're not raging (barring a particular feat that I forget the name of). And even if you did, you could (at worst) halve the amount of healing, which still stabilizes you.
Sorry, I guess I was misremembering what the rage power did. I was under the impression that it gave the barbarian spell resistance.
Superstitious requires you to save against all spells -- including healing spells, and harmless magic. You can never be a willing target while raging -- and that means no teleport escape for you.
Also, you are not required to try to resist the spell unless you are raging, and if you're unconscious you're not raging (barring a particular feat that I forget the name of).
It can only be relevant with the feat. Otherwise barbarians don't become unconsicious, they die as their raging stops.
But a Superstitious Barb with Raging Vitality will have a negative hitpoint, unconscious raging window to get cured and healed enough to survive coming out of rage. Makes Raging Vitality even better!
|
|
It can only be relevant with the feat. Otherwise barbarians don't become unconsicious, they die as their raging stops.
Also, you are not required to try to resist the spell unless you are raging, and if you're unconscious you're not raging (barring a particular feat that I forget the name of).
Not (completely) true. An Urban Barbarian might be raging for dexterity instead of constitution and thus not lose HP when knocked out. Also, lower level barbarians don't *necessarily* die instantly if they get knocked out while in rage.
But then I'm just splitting hairs. By about 5th level a barbarian will almost certainly be dead if they get knocked out (barring Raging Vitality).
Not (completely) true. An Urban Barbarian might be raging for dexterity instead of constitution and thus not lose HP when knocked out. Also, lower level barbarians don't *necessarily* die instantly if they get knocked out while in rage.But then I'm just splitting hairs. By about 5th level a barbarian will almost certainly be dead if they get knocked out (barring Raging Vitality).
Raging for dexterity?! What kind of rogue are you describing...?
|
|
Raging for dexterity?! What kind of rogue are you describing...?
Not (completely) true. An Urban Barbarian might be raging for dexterity instead of constitution and thus not lose HP when knocked out. Also, lower level barbarians don't *necessarily* die instantly if they get knocked out while in rage.But then I'm just splitting hairs. By about 5th level a barbarian will almost certainly be dead if they get knocked out (barring Raging Vitality).
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/archetypes/paizo---b arbarian-archetypes/urban-barbarian
Straight out of Ultimate Combat. A funny archetype, I know, but I'm actually using it with a dervish barbarian character I'm playing right now. (Rogue 2/Barb 2/Monk [Martial Artist] 1/Barb for the rest). Not much for offense, but defensively impossible.
In our last session he (at level 5) prepared the "Total Defense" action for when someone attacked him (he saw an ambush coming) and was able to successfully avoid 4 human bane arrows shot by favored-enemy-human rangers (and he's human). He does not wear armor or use a shield.
Offensively, however... he does 1d6+7 damage. Good if he were first level, but he's not. Doesn't even qualify for power attack :(
