|
As I understand it, a creature may choose to take a saving throw on a helpful spell if they desire (CRB 216). What I'm not sure about is if the creature is unconscious at the time, and whether the entire spell would be resisted or only half.
I recently ran a game in which the players had reduced to negative hitpoints an NPC, then they stabilized her, bound her, and cast CLW on her, which brought her back up to conscious in order to interrogate her.
Could this NPC have resisted the healing and chosen to die? (In the stat block, it reads as though that's something she's likely to have done.)
|
|
Stabilize, the spell, is Will negates, so, yes, she could have attempted to not get stabilized by spell.
Stabilize, the Heal check, would not be able to be negated in that fashion.
Binding someone unconscious cannot be opposed.
CLW, again, has a Will half, although that is usually reserved for undead to resist the damage done, not living resisting the healing done.
CLW, again, has a Will half, although that is usually reserved for undead to resist the damage done, not living resisting the healing done.
Or Superstitious barbarians.
I think the actual question being asked is "can someone save against a (harmless) spell while unconscious?". Since the spell is not normally saved against, it seems like something that would require a conscious decision, thus difficult to justify while unconscious. I don't know of a rules source though.
You cannot make a WIL save while unconscious.
When you are 'willing', that is not the same as voluntarily giving up your saving throw. Willing creatures are automatically affected by harmless creatures without a save. Unconscious creatures are willing.
So you can heal them up. No problem!
However, when you cast a non-harmless spell on an unconscious creature, whether they are willing or not doesn't matter. They're in no state to voluntarily give up their saving throw.
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.
However, voluntarily giving up the saving throw is another matter entirely. For example, unconscious creatures still get reflex 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.However, voluntarily giving up the saving throw is another matter entirely. For example, unconscious creatures still get reflex saves.
This passage is interesting, but also problematic as it specifically calls out spells that require a willing target.
Also, Shiroi, that's either brilliant or terrifying as far as Dominate strategies go, although I don't think I'd allow it in my game. I'm sure it's house rule territory, but I don't think I'd let a spell function that generally requires communication when the target is in no state to be communicated with.
I came here to say what The Archive did.
Per the rules, an unconcious creature is automatically considered willing for spells that require it. Hamrless spell typically fall into the category.
So an unconscious creature can be healed, because the rules were purposefully set up to allow it to happen.
According to WotC and Paizo, all creatures are willing when they're unconscious.
An unconscious creature does not get a choice. He is assumed to be automatically willing if the spell has the "harmless" tag.
Unconscious raging superstitious barbarians (possible via a feat) would be an example for someone still having to save vs cure spells.
An unconscious creature does not get a choice. He is assumed to be automatically willing if the spell has the "harmless" tag.Again, no, willingness has nothing to do with the harmless tag and everything to do with spells that specifically say something about willing. Here's the part that talks about it:
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.
Let me put it this way since you misunderstood me. Unconscious creatures do not get to choose to autofail because they do not get a choice.
edit: I do see that I flubbed the first explanation
|
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.
No relation with being willing, so being unconscious isn't relevant.
Your subconscious, willingness to live, or some other thing in you don't want the spell and you want to save against it? You can roll a saving throw.It can sound strange that there aren't penalties on saving throw when unconscious, but it would make will based ST much more dangerous. When asleep we have worse ST already as often we remove some of our gear, getting a "asleep penalty" to the save would be too much.
On the other hand the save isn't mandatory, it say "a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires". A unconscious creature still keep his/its normal desires.
"if it desires." This phrase corresponds pretty closely to being willing (or since we are talking about making a saving throw, it actually corresponds to not being willing.)
Harmless doesn't use the same descriptor (willing) but it does use the same meaning. Most of the rule books really aren't written like law contracts with every term being rigorously defined and only defined terms being used. There is indeed some of that. We have some terms of art (like harmless for example) with some definitions, but that isn't the extent of the rules and not using a defined term doesn't necessarily indicate that meaning shouldn't translate.
If you desire to make a saving throw against a harmless spell then you aren't willing to accept that spell effects.
Another way of looking at it would be the your body/mind/soul will automatically try to to resist a harmful spell (spells with saves that are not harmless) but you have to desire (i.e. exercise will) to resist something that isn't harmful to you (and may well be beneficial). This requires conscious effort and thought.
Saying that 'willing' and 'desires' have no relationship and should be looked at as completely isolated game terms divorced of their everyday meaning makes no sense to me.