Can you intentionally fail a saving throw?

[johnlocke90]

I haven't found any rules on this.

[ProfPotts]

See the Magic section of the core rule book, page 217 under 'Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw'.

[Whale_Cancer]

Quote:

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.

[Stockvillain]

I don't have the rules onhand, but yes, you can voluntarily fail a save. You can also voluntarily deactivate your SR, too.

[Nicos]

johnlocke90 wrote:

I haven't found any rules on this.

yes. with the exception of a supertitious barbarian.

[johnlocke90]

Thanks, this provides a good way for my antipaladin to spread disease.

[Malag]

You are pretty much doing it every time you drink potion.

[David Haller]

Note that this applies to spell effects.

You can't (necessarily) voluntarily fail a save versus, say, a creature's (ex) abilities (like poison).

[Whale_Cancer]

David Haller wrote:

Note that this applies to spell effects.

You can't (necessarily) voluntarily fail a save versus, say, a creature's (ex) abilities (like poison).

Heh, I haven't found anything that contradicts what you have said. Thus, you can't choose to not jump out of the way of a reflex saving throw based trap? That's messed up.

I would allow PCs to fail any saving throw they wanted to (I know you could do this in 3.5, since this was the method you used to take drugs from the Book of Vile Darkness). But it appears this would be a house rule (again, only from my 4 or 5 minutes search).

Edit: Anyone know if there is a way to exclude monsters and spells when searching the PRD?

[Kimera757]

In my Pathfinder campaign, our cleric cast Silence on a PC (a rogue, or possibly monk), who then grabbed onto an enemy spellcaster. Silence doesn't even have the harmless descriptor. Of course you can choose not to save.

David Haller wrote:

Note that this applies to spell effects.

You can't (necessarily) voluntarily fail a save versus, say, a creature's (ex) abilities (like poison).

I think you could, if the example of Cleopatra is a guide. (She allegedly committed suicide by letting a snake bite her. If she had rolled a natural 20, it would have been awkward. Although she could just let it keep biting her. D&D snakes don't run out of venom.)

Then again, Mithridates tried to do the same thing, with manufactured poison... and failed. (He allegedly made himself resistant to poison by subjecting himself to smaller doses, growing over time. I don't think that works in real life though.)

Now, if you're being Dominated... I figure you might get another save versus Domination, and if you fail that then can't save against another effect, which means you get a save anyway (even if it happens to be a weaker save for you). Maybe. Certainly not RAW.