Ye Grande Olde Argument: Saving Throw Negated


Rules Questions


2 people marked this as a favorite.

With great respect, I humbly ask this forum for their views on an old disagreement, volleyed about both playfully and angrily through a few iterations of the game system. I am specifically not presenting our sides, just stating the question as plainly and clearly as possible.

Is there any 'Condition' or situation that NEGATES {disallows} a saving throw for any reason? {RAW and/or RAI, with or without special attention to Reflex saves}

With many Thanks,

Ezh


No. You always get a save. Many conditions (unconscious, for example) take away your ability to move, but that reduces your Dex to 0, giving you an effective -5 to your Reflex save, not invalidating your ability to make them. Reflex saves are part luck and resilience as well, not strictly physically avoiding something.

Some smart asses are going to say that being dead negates saves because you count as an object, but considering "dead" a condition is obnoxious to begin with.

Edit: I'm sure there's some special ability somewhere or special clause in a spell that removes a save, but those are extremely specific and I'm speaking in general terms here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

One condition springs to mind:

Dead. You are now an untended object. Untended objects do not get saving throws.

Other than that, nope. Even being petrified doesn't prevent Ref saves by RAW.

Edit: written while the implication that it is a smart ass answer was being posted. Dead is in the condition summary as a condition, therefore it is a condition. What's smart assed about that?


Saving throws always have an element of luck to them. Even if it doesn't seem to make sense for someone to avoid something, they can get lucky. They are Big Damn Heroes after all.

There aren't really any conditions that would force you to be unable to make a saving throw. The closest there is (other than dead) is that creatures immune to critical hits don't need to make a Fortitude save when they're helpless and being coup de graced.

Some thoughts on the topic by Mr. James:

Quote:
Yeah; you still get Reflex saves pretty much always. Even if you're tied up and staked to the ground you'd get a Reflex save. The GM is perfectly within his rights to assign some significant penalties to the save in situations like this, of course, and lots of pre-existing conditions and situations like that have Reflex save penalties built in. But there's not really any condition or situation that automatically denies a Reflex save. Denying that would be weird, like saying "this attack is SO accurate that it never misses, or SO deadly that it automatically reduces you to negative hit points." Allowing a Reflex save is part of how the game keeps things balanced and fun.


From the Magic chapter...

Quote:
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 other reference to willing targets (other than spells that require it) is about voluntarily giving up a saving throw. It's not entirely clear, but I think there's some argument to be made that an unconscious creature may forfeit their saving throws. (Though you can also argue that this only makes sense for Reflex and Will saves... Unconscious or not, your body is still going to do it's thing against poisons and other things that require Fortitude saves.)

Liberty's Edge

ZZTRaider wrote:

From the Magic chapter...

Quote:
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 other reference to willing targets (other than spells that require it) is about voluntarily giving up a saving throw. It's not entirely clear, but I think there's some argument to be made that an unconscious creature may forfeit their saving throws. (Though you can also argue that this only makes sense for Reflex and Will saves... Unconscious or not, your body is still going to do it's thing against poisons and other things that require Fortitude saves.)

I think this only applies to spells for which "willing" and "unwilling" make a difference. Teleport would be an example of this. You could teleport with an unconscious body and they wouldn't get a save due to being willing, but you couldn't fireball that body and deny their save because fireball doesn't care about willingness.

The list of spells for which "willing" and "unwilling" matters isn't particularly huge and (IIRC) mostly consists of teleportation. I think Rage is on that list too, though.


i would think that if you can trick someone into drinking a potion of cause x wounds, they wouldn't get a save. that follows the rules that state you are allowed to voluntarily fail a save if you want to, and successfully bluffing someone to do so would fall into those circumstances.

although that really doesn't count as not getting a save at all.

i also believe in tricks like casting silence on a coin, then slipping that coin onto a person with a sleight of hand check, to bypass their save.

Liberty's Edge

asthyril wrote:

i would think that if you can trick someone into drinking a potion of cause x wounds, they wouldn't get a save. that follows the rules that state you are allowed to voluntarily fail a save if you want to, and successfully bluffing someone to do so would fall into those circumstances.

although that really doesn't count as not getting a save at all.

i also believe in tricks like casting silence on a coin, then slipping that coin onto a person with a sleight of hand check, to bypass their save.

I forget where, but it was stated that before making a will save you know if the save has the "harmless" descriptor. This means you'd know that it wasn't the cure potion they said it was and try to save. That said, you'd still take damage.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Regarding the willing target issue, the entire paragraph as a whole is required:

Aiming a Spell - Target or Targets wrote:
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 is clear to me that this caveat regarding unconscious targets only applies to spells that specify "one willing creature touched" or some such in the Target line of the spell. If that is not present, then the creature is allowed a save should the player choose to make one and the effect allows it (otherwise harmless spells, such as the cure wounds line, just became sucky).


You don't get a save against an illusion when faced with proof it's an illusion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CRB, p. 419 wrote:


Covered pits are much more dangerous. They can be
detected with a DC 20 Perception check, but only if the
character is taking the time to carefully examine the area
before walking across it. A character who fails to detect a
covered pit is still entitled to a DC 20 Reflex save to avoid
falling into it. If she was running or moving recklessly
at the time, however, she gets no saving throw and falls
automatically.

Thread status: Won.


Thank you all for your views, especially to Cheapy for the quote from the esteemed Mr. James, as well as to Troubleshooter; indeed, you win.

Ezh

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Ye Grande Olde Argument: Saving Throw Negated All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.