Archives of Nethys
|
...
Let me quote the rule, from the Core Rulebook magic chapter, section "Aiming a Spell" (emphasis mine):
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.
The rule in question only applies to spells that specifically call out "willing creatures" as their target(s). Dimension door is such a spell, for example. You cannot teleport someone against their will. There is no need for a saving throw, it just does not work. This can be important if your party wants to flee a battle in this way, for example, and you have a raging superstitious barbarian, who can never be a willing target of a spell while raging. If you are unconscious, however, you count as willing and can be teleported.
To reiterate again: the PF1 principle "unconscious equals willing" has nothing at all to do with...
On the other hand, this also means that if a mook drops the party barbarian, the main baddy caster can use D-Door on himself and the barbarian to easily take him prisoner, since there is no way for the barbarian to know who is casting a spell on him.
I have not actually ever have that situation come up, but that is a possibility.
The barbarian can't resist being picked up and dragged wherever the baddy wants, either.
This really is the simplest solution. That way, if the specific word "willing" is the thing that causes problems in people's minds, you keep the game the same while simply changing the approach.I'm with the poster earlier [sorry, not gonna look up who it was.]
Rip 'willing' out of all spells and replace with saving throws. Clearly emphasize [I'm pretty sure it's somewhere in the rules but cannot recall where] that anyone can deliberately fail a saving throw.
Purely restorative effects automatically overcome the saving throws of the unconscious [their bodies don't resist that which they cannot sense any danger from.] Any other magic used on the unconscious forces an unconscious save [at the appropriate penalty if Reflex or Will]
Or put a 'Veto' keyword where you would have the saving throw, and explain that this kind of spells can always be resisted unless the character is (helpless/unconscious/dying/dead...).
This way, you can remove all the 'willing' words in the spell description and just say 'the target'.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For reference purposes, the following spells came up when I searched for "willing creature" in the Archives of Nethys:
Animal Shapes, Astral Projection, Astral Projection, Lesser, Aura Alteration, Bard's Escape, Bloody Arrows, Carry Companion, Catatonia, Codespeak, Conditional Favor, Contingent Action, Coordinated Effort, Enemy Insight, False Belief, Fins to Feet, Getaway, Ghost Brand, Grand Destiny, Guardian Armor, Levitate, Litany of Escape, Lucky Number, Marid's Mastery, Marionette Possession, Metabolic Molting, Mindlocked Messenger, Nauseating Trail, Phase Step, Polymorph, Scent Trail, Sequester, Sequester Thoughts, Serren's Swift Girding, Shroud of Innocuity, Spirit Bonds, Surface Excursion, Telekinetic Charge, Telepathic Bond, Transfer Familiar
And the following spells came up when I searched for "willing creatures":
Astral Projection, Ceremony, Dimension Door, Dimensional Bounce, Etherealness, Fool's Teleport, Interplanetary Teleport, Janni's Jaunt, Linked Legacy, Plane Shift, Telepathic Bond, Teleport, Teleport, Greater, Transport via Plants, Treacherous Teleport, Word of Recall
It would probably be a good idea to prune the resulting list down to spells that actually require the active cooperation of the target of the spell. Other spells could allow for saves whose modifiers might be penalized via the standard rules if the target is unconscious, with or without the "harmless" designation as appropriate.
To my mind 'active cooperation' (or perhaps 'active resistance' would be better) implies the target has to be conscious. Should unconscious creatures get a will save at all?
Heal spells can be delivered by touch and then don't have a will save.
I'm infering this from the fact that single target undead don't get a will save as well the 'to hit'.
Rather, the worry about the current wording is the suggestion that unconscious subjects are always willing, or consenting. And the reason that's disturbing is because it suggests that, prima facie, things done to those subjects aren't morally wrong. After all, the subject was willing/consenting to have those things done to them!It's that implicature -- an implicature about what's morally permissible -- that's disturbing. Not the suggestion or acknowledgement that bad things can happen to people who are unconscious.
And again, I’m not talking about changing the wording.
I’m talking about the designers stated desire to change how the rules work so that players can always consent, because being non consenting is linked to trauma that we can’t remind players of.
If that is your goal, then the proposed minor rule change does not, and cannot, achieve that goal.
There are other things in the game that explicitly remove consent, and they will remind people of their trauma directly.
|
I don't think the rules should change at all.
It doesn't make any sense for an unconscious character to be willing to be teleported by his friends, but unwilling to be teleported by his enemies. He's unconscious, and can't make a conscious decision.
If you really want this in the rules, then the devs need to provide some in-universe reason that defines actions in sensible ways. It will be quite a bit of rules, but it can get what the devs seem to talk about wanting without special casing PCs, or otherwise allowing for an unconscious person to somehow not be unwilling in some cases, but not others.
I think that there is certainly an argument for me the player not consenting to what you the player are doing to my PC. But I feel my PC has no right to choose whether the spell works or not. If you try and polymorph my PC into a goat while I am asleep, I will not consent and I find that you are being disruptive as I am not here to pvp other players. If the big bad is trying to cast polymorph on me after he knocked me out, then I don't think I should be able to not consent and have it not work andy more than I could not consent and have him not stab me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that there is certainly an argument for me the player not consenting to what you the player are doing to my PC. But I feel my PC has no right to choose whether the spell works or not. If you try and polymorph my PC into a goat while I am asleep, I will not consent and I find that you are being disruptive as I am not here to pvp other players. If the big bad is trying to cast polymorph on me after he knocked me out, then I don't think I should be able to not consent and have it not work andy more than I could not consent and have him not stab me.I don't think the rules should change at all.
It doesn't make any sense for an unconscious character to be willing to be teleported by his friends, but unwilling to be teleported by his enemies. He's unconscious, and can't make a conscious decision.
If you really want this in the rules, then the devs need to provide some in-universe reason that defines actions in sensible ways. It will be quite a bit of rules, but it can get what the devs seem to talk about wanting without special casing PCs, or otherwise allowing for an unconscious person to somehow not be unwilling in some cases, but not others.
But now you’re talking about metagame issues and the social contract surrounding the game.
Does anyone believe the rules need to change to state that “melee attacks against other PCs automaticallly miss” so that the rules prevent PvP and the hurt feelings that can ensue are prevented?
I figure an unconcious character should not get to choose if they are "willing" or "unwilling" for the purposes of target selection, but that also goes for saves.
An unconcious character has no idea of what is going on around them and no way to know who or what is casting something on them, therefore, for me, it should be one of two options:
1) Unconcious characters resist everything. The body/soul/what have you has no idea who is doing what where or how, so it tries to prevent everything it can instinctually. They must save against any and all spells that require saving throws, and never count as "willing" targets. -> This is my preferred option.
2) Unconcious characters resist nothing. The unconcious body has absolutely no clue about anything and thus can't resist. You automatically fail any and all saving throws you're required to make and are always "willing" if spells require willing targets.
Option 1) is preferred to me because I assume you'd instinctually reject outside forces you have no knowledge of, but I can see it going either way.
I still think unconcious/immobilised characters should automatically fail reflex saves. That they don't was always strange to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your body can tell the difference between "I pour poison down your throat while you are unconscious" and "I pour nutritious broth down your throat while unconscious" (one results in a fort save, one doesn't) then I have no problem with your pre-rational mind being able to differentiate between harmful and non-harmful effects and make a will save for the former and not the latter.
So I'm just going to ask the player if they want to make a save, or make a choice for an NPC, if this comes up. I have no problem with unconscious people making fort or will saves, but reflex is pushing it (though in a particularly farcical game, I would allow "Weekend at Bernies" style shenanigans, I guess.)
No matter what the rule is, I'm going to play it this way anyway.
A 3rd possibility is that an unconscious character resists only effects not designated as "harmless". Since that tag already exists, there must exist some distinguishing factor between harmless and non-harmless spells that causes one type but not the other to trigger automatic resistance by default.
If your body can tell the difference between "I pour poison down your throat while you are unconscious" and "I pour nutritious broth down your throat while unconscious" (one results in a fort save, one doesn't) then I have no problem with your pre-rational mind being able to differentiate between harmful and non-harmful effects and make a will save for the former and not the latter.
So I'm just going to ask the player if they want to make a save, or make a choice for an NPC, if this comes up. I have no problem with unconscious people making fort or will saves, but reflex is pushing it (though in a particularly farcical game, I would allow "Weekend at Bernies" style shenanigans, I guess.)
No matter what the rule is, I'm going to play it this way anyway.
That's why I specified saves, however. The broth, in the gaming sense, doesn't require a save. Much like you can't resist a geas/quest if someone has you unconcious for ten minutes, you can't resist broth either. No save means nothing to resist.
But do note you could resist a potion of cure light wounds. You just choose not to, as a player. That's what I'm referring to. Your body doesn't actually know it's not harmful, you must conciously choose to fail a Will save to get the full effect of cure light wounds, for example.
The game already assumes you save against everything that allows a save. It just allows you to willingly fail a saving throw at any moment, for those spells/effects that are beneficial. I'd remove that choice for unconcious characters, much like how it is removed for a raging barbarian with the Superstition rage power.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Willing for a subset of abilities is not willing for all purposes.
This is an unpopular opinion, but it is possible to read far too much into things. There needs to be a balance and it is not always right to amend otherwise innocent wording for some who takes a reading out of context.
Just an idea that is not fully formed and that would require a change in the lore...
Say everyone has a sentient (not sapient) soul. When the sapient soul is incapacitated, the sentient soul takes over and can do whatever you want it to do. Try to make saves or whatever.
Seems like an awfully big departure from lore for relatively little payoff...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think unconscious creatures should just automatically fail Reflex saving throws. You can’t dodge or get out of the way.
(But not critically fail.)
I don’t think Fortitude or Reflex saving throws should be affected by mental state. You can fight off poison just as well while sleep, and your unconscious mind can fight off mental attack.
I think unconscious creatures should just automatically fail Reflex saving throws. You can’t dodge or get out of the way.
(But not critically fail.)I don’t think Fortitude or Reflex saving throws should be affected by mental state. You can fight off poison just as well while sleep, and your unconscious mind can fight off mental attack.
This is what I should have said. :)
I view critically failing a Reflex save as you try to dodge out of the way, but misjudge it and actually expose yourself in a more vulnerable way. Like trying to dodge a punch but you actually swing your face right into the oncoming fist.
Meanwhile, someone unconscious is just lying there like a rock so can't make a mistake like that. There's no way they can dodge, so they autofail, but neither can they screw up, so they can't critfail.
In the universe where you automatically fail reflex saves (but not critical fail), can you opt to auto-fail (but not critically fail) while awake too? You could easily be in a case where failing is fine, but a critical fail is not.
I imagine that since, for non damage dealing effects, 2e Critical Fails seem to be the same result as a fail in the current system, and 2e Fails are more of a partial effect, I imagine that, assuming the "you can choose to fail a save" rule carries across, if you choose to fail, you'll be choosing to take a critical fail (although if in 2e you don't auto critical fail on rolling a 1, and just auto fail instead (assuming the calculated result doesn't mean a critical fail), perhaps the "choose to fail a save" rule will become "choose to treat the save like you had rolled a 1" instead)
Willing for a subset of abilities is not willing for all purposes.
This is an unpopular opinion, but it is possible to read far too much into things. There needs to be a balance and it is not always right to amend otherwise innocent wording for some who takes a reading out of context.
Completely agreed.
About reflex saves, I think that a character shouldn't be able to do defend herself better when unconscious than when she is awake.
So, critcal fails all the way. After all, you are auto-hit in melee and can be coup-de-graced too: a spell should hit you at full strength.