Can you choose to critically fail a saving throw?
I know you can choose to fail in first edition pathfinder, and it makes sense to choose not to resist an effect, but I can't find where the rule is.
There is no rule on it. Probably to avoid weird interactions and abuse with critical failures. Stuff like
"I know critically failing a Save against this effect would be REALLY bad but a regular Failure would still suck, be be tolerable. So I'll forego rolling at all and just take a Failure."
I'm of the same opinion of humblegamer, but can't find where it says so in rules.
There is no rule on it. Probably to avoid weird interactions and abuse with critical failures. Stuff like
"I know critically failing a Save against this effect would be REALLY bad but a regular Failure would still suck, be be tolerable. So I'll forego rolling at all and just take a Failure."
And Blave, I wasn't suggesting you could take a failure to avoid a critical failure, I was suggesting you could take a critical failure. (The worst possible option)
Side question: Are there rules that say you can purposely get hit by an attack, resulting in a hit or critical hit against you?
Not that I want to play some kind of masochist or something, just curious.
And Blave, I wasn't suggesting you could take a failure to avoid a critical failure, I was suggesting you could take a critical failure. (The worst possible option)
Looks like I misread your post because I missed a word. And that word was critical(ly). (pun intended)
But still, there's no rule that says you can volundatry fail a save, critically or not.
I think you can, or else the entire drug system wouldn't work at all the more you proceed with leveling.
Interestingly in the chapter on drugs there is mentioned that you can voluntarily fail a save:
A character can voluntarily fail their initial save against a drug, but for each dose they consume, they must attempt a saving throw against addiction, a disease that represents cravings and withdrawal.
There you can choose to normally fail the save. That would be a special rule even if you could always choose to critically fail a save.
Other instances that mention voluntarily failing a save/check can be found in the spells House of Imaginary Walls and Litany of Self-Interest. Since both have no crit fail entry it's unclear if they state a special rule or just a reminder that you can fail your save. :)
I'd say you can choose to crit fail a check but not to normally fail one without a special rule (as there is for drugs).
But still, there's no rule that says you can volundatry fail a save, critically or not.
So no way to deliberately fail a save and no way to deliberately be hit by an attack either?
Does this mean, for example, if you were to re-enact obi-wan's sacrifice in pathfinder 2e then it's possible Darth Vader would flail wildly, missing repeatedly?
Because that's a happy thought.
Other instances that mention voluntarily failing a save/check can be found in the spells House of Imaginary Walls and Litany of Self-Interest. Since both have no crit fail entry it's unclear if they state a special rule or just a reminder that you can fail your save. :)
I'd say you can choose to crit fail a check but not to normally fail one without a special rule (as there is for drugs).
That's a logical conclusion, but this kind of thing really should be made clear in the rules somewhere. Maybe they didn't feel they had to as it was already spelled out in the previous edition that you could, but it was my understanding that pathfinder 2e was supposed to be a standalone thing, from a rules perspective anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was surprised to find out that being stunned still let you make reflex saves. So even saying I won't dodge/move you'd have to make a save.
I was surprised to find out that being stunned still let you make reflex saves. So even saying I won't dodge/move you'd have to make a save.
Well stunned doesn't mean completely paralyzed from the neck down, it just means you are stunned. So that's probably not the best argument for or against anything.
All we have for choosing to fail/get hit is common sense, the choice established in the previous edition, and possibly a couple of niche cases in spells, whereas all we have against is that it's not written down (Yet).
It's a shame it isn't clarified in the rules, but this is the kind of thing that's overlooked until it comes up, so maybe they forgot it or maybe they wanted it left to the GM? Seems like an odd thing to leave to the GM but who knows, paizo works in mysterious ways.
I'll just take comfort in the thought of Vader wailing about nerfing Jedi AC while Obi-wan checks his watch. (Until pathfinder people let us know otherwise)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for many other cases, rules cover the most common situation (you want to avoid the bad things happening to you).
Saying that you can't do otherwise is silly sometimes; it's just that you have to rule the exception yourself.
I was surprised to find out that being stunned still let you make reflex saves. So even saying I won't dodge/move you'd have to make a save.Well stunned doesn't mean completely paralyzed from the neck down, it just means you are stunned. So that's probably not the best argument for or against anything.
All we have for choosing to fail/get hit is common sense, the choice established in the previous edition, and possibly a couple of niche cases in spells, whereas all we have against is that it's not written down (Yet).
It's a shame it isn't clarified in the rules, but this is the kind of thing that's overlooked until it comes up, so maybe they forgot it or maybe they wanted it left to the GM? Seems like an odd thing to leave to the GM but who knows, paizo works in mysterious ways.
I'll just take comfort in the thought of Vader wailing about nerfing Jedi AC while Obi-wan checks his watch. (Until pathfinder people let us know otherwise)
yeah but stunned does say you can't act until your turn.
Reflex save say thisReflex saving throws measure how well you can respond quickly to a situation and how gracefully you can avoid effects that have been thrown at you. They use your Dexterity modifier and are calculated as shown in the formula below.
being stunned you shouldn't be able to react at all. That's why reactions are turned off.
The rules do say that GMs can adjust DCs depending on difficulty so maybe it's more within the rules for players to ask for harder saves but not auto failing them.
I suppose you could make yourself flat-footed, maybe even Bon Mot yourself. :) But AC is so abstract it's hard to let somebody hitting you when you're wearing plate armor. Sure, they touch you, but does it qualify as a hit that penetrates your defenses?
Think of a child "hitting" an adult or a normal person punch a superhero.
Maybe if one turned it around and said "I hit his sword with my face" or something similar. Yet these are defenses that work when one's asleep, so turning them off seems impossible. Again, maybe taking actions against yourself might work, yet these wouldn't be so passive or reactive.
And as noted, many spells let you fail or if cast by an ally let you choose which degree of success you want, but they explicitly say so.
Just dawned on me you wouldn't want to be able to turn off defenses because enchantments are a thing so they could command you (in game world phrasing) to critically fail your save to something worse!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
being stunned you shouldn't be able to react at all. That's why reactions are turned off.
Reactions and actions are things that require a certain amount of skill, competence, readiness or training to pull off though, most are reserved for feats that you have to be experienced enough to know (levels, classes, skills etc), not the same as choosing to twist out of the way as a reflex save.
Stunned just means you're stunned by something, and can't act as effectively (represented as lost actions) not that you can't do anything at all.
Let's say you are crossing the street without looking, suddenly a very loud truck horn goes off and you are stunned. Now depending on your real life reflex save, you might still be able to lurch out of the way to avoid being hit by said truck, but in game terms you wouldnt have your wits about you enough to react by kicking it as it sped past you.
Equating being stunned with choosing to deliberately step out in front of a bus isnt the best example.
In any case the pathfinder people likely would rule that you can choose to forgo leaping out of the way if your characters intention is to get hit, as established by the written rule of the previous edition. I think we're all just remarking on how odd it is that it's not (yet) been written one way or the other in this edition considering it's supposed to be a standalone product in terms of rules.
If you could voluntarily fail a saving throw then there's nothing preventing you from making the saving throw text of No Cause for Alarm completely pointless.
IMO unless something says you can voluntarily fail (or crit fail) then you can't
That's an interesting case. Well found! Does that mean using that as a precedent and applying it to my stepping out in front of a bus example, trying to "end oneself" would result in you involuntarily jumping out of the way every single time?
If so that's comically brilliant and stupid at the same time and I love how ridiculous it is.
Edit:
Oh wait you're wrong, no cause for alarm compares your check against their DC, it doesn't actually have them make a saving throw, that's an important difference that was probably made specifically so they couldn't voluntarily fail their save.
Humblegamer beat my edit by a minute, but yeah, no cause for alarm seems to be written in a way that avoids them making a save, instead using their will DC. The only reason I can think for them writing it that way is if that was an important distinction to make because of a reason such as being able to choose to forgo saves like the last edition.
So no slapstick trying to step into traffic while your legs have other ideas as per the bus example.
I hope they get around to writing the rules like they did for the last edition! If only to prevent people siding against common sense. I'd hate to get a GM that was like that.
The fireball example is a little less like the others, in that a reflex save (generally with a comparatively lower modifier) is rolled even for inanimate objects when your wizard tries to blast a hazard apart. And bulwark is a bonus to reflex saves that has nothing to do with getting out of the way. So you could logically conclude that lowering your save bonus should be the best you can do, instead of choosing to fail or crit fail, if you try to go by what's logically consistent, instead of what's in the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fireball example is a little less like the others, in that a reflex save (generally with a comparatively lower modifier) is rolled even for inanimate objects when your wizard tries to blast a hazard apart. And bulwark is a bonus to reflex saves that has nothing to do with getting out of the way. So you could logically conclude that lowering your save bonus should be the best you can do, instead of choosing to fail or crit fail, if you try to go by what's logically consistent, instead of what's in the rules.
Perhaps, but I'd expect a pretty MASSIVE penalty if my character deliberately tries to jump in the way of something that requires a reflex save, at which point the difference between auto failing and having a big penalty is trivial. Even so, taking away the players choice for how to react to things by forcing them to dodge is fairly petty and goes against common sense, so it'd make more sense to simply let a character trying to step out Infront of a bus (or fireball) do so and suffer the consequences for it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You absolutely cannot choose NOT to roll a Saving Throw under any circumstances other than those defined in the specific rules that govern the spell/effect/ability that triggers said Saving Throw.
As others have mentioned there are some spells that permit this along with the drug/addiction rules. This is absolute rock-solid proof that BECAUSE it spells out this is possible for these effects that you cannot normally do this.
That said, it's much more reasonable to talk to your GM and ask about perhaps a kind of "situational penalty" that might be appropriate for a character who actually wants to fail a Saving Throw for one reason or another, something in the range of -2 or maybe even a -5 if they're feeling generous.
|
I was wondering about intentionally failing saves too. But I was thinking about using Gravity Well to force move the party away from something bad. Not resisting the spell to facilitate the movement seems reasonable for the PCs, but I don't see the rules to back that up.
This is a bit different than No Cause For Alarm in that with that check, the conflict is with the fear affect, not really the player. Sure, it is using the player's Will DC, but the player most likely isn't willfully feared. In the case of Gravity Well, there is nothing being imposed on the PC other than the normal forces of gravity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People arguing for the idea that you can't choose to fail a saving throw baffle me. The idea that a character trying to end themselves by stepping into harm's way can't because they are forced to dodge every time as if in a comedy routine is hilarious though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People arguing for the idea that you can't choose to fail a saving throw baffle me. The idea that a character trying to end themselves by stepping into harm's way can't because they are forced to dodge every time is hilarious.
This is the Rules Sub-Section. We don't discuss how we WANT things to work, we talk about the rules as they're presented and the rules do not have a carte-blanche rule to permit someone to "not roll" or to voluntarily choose to take the "worst" result.
I think most of us are coming at it from that perspective rather than trying to assert how things SHOULD be or how we would run it at our own tables.
A failed Saving Throw is also not represented by "stepping into harm's way" so much as they are unconscious and automatic reactions that your body/mind makes without LITERALLY any thought or mental input into the task. This is more like saying "Oh yeah, I could totally just stand there and face the fireball without flinching, eyes open and smiling"...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People arguing for the idea that you can't choose to fail a saving throw baffle me. The idea that a character trying to end themselves by stepping into harm's way can't because they are forced to dodge every time as if in a comedy routine is hilarious though.
I think this question kind of needs to decide what it is.
Is it a Rules Question, asking if the rules allow voluntary save failure?
Then the answer is no, outside of specific exceptions. Very short, not very interesting.
Is it an intent question, asking WHY characters that don't intend to dodge things still have reflex saves?
The best indications we have of how reflex saves work in this system, from unconscious people and inanimate objects still getting them, is that the save is not entirely about dodging, and part if this needs to be narrated as the random factors of the effects being saved against. Otherwise the edge case of "I don't want to dodge the fireball" is only a splinter of what won't make sense.
Is it an Advice question of "How should I run someone trying to throw themselves in front of a bus?"
In that case, the answer probably isn't "use the moving traffic environmental hazard with all of its normal rules" any more than the answer would be "make attack rolls against yourself and deal damage by normal Strike mechanics until it's done" for a knife-based suicide attempt that would be better resolved narratively because hp are weird.
People arguing for the idea that you can't choose to fail a saving throw baffle me. The idea that a character trying to end themselves by stepping into harm's way can't because they are forced to dodge every time is hilarious.This is the Rules Sub-Section. We don't discuss how we WANT things to work, we talk about the rules as they're presented and the rules do not have a carte-blanche rule to permit someone to "not roll" or to voluntarily choose to take the "worst" result.
I think most of us are coming at it from that perspective rather than trying to assert how things SHOULD be or how we would run it at our own tables.
I think it's important to consider RAI as well as RAW, to consider what makes sense and to acknowledge that the design team think (or at least used to think) that being able to choose to fail a saving throw was perfectly acceptable as it was even written into the rules for first edition. The fact that effects like no cause for alarm being deliberately written to not use saves and instead have alternate wording when a fail would be more beneficial than a pass may well lean towards this idea too.
Arbitrarily limiting player freedom and the possibilities of what can occur in the game when the rules do not say to do so somewhat flies in the face of the point of these games, especially when doing so goes against common sense.
I can only hope that this issue is cleared up by Devs or something, because clearly people have quite polarised opinions about it and that's not good for the game. Everyone likes to have a good firm footing when it comes to rules (especially when it comes to forcing players to do things like make saving throws when they'd prefer to not resist), and this is not the case in this instance.
|
|
A failed Saving Throw is also not represented by "stepping into harm's way" so much as they are unconscious and automatic reactions that your body/mind makes without LITERALLY any thought or mental input into the task. This is more like saying "Oh yeah, I could totally just stand there and face the fireball without flinching, eyes open and smiling"...
I agree that many saves are without conscious thought. But when the friendly spell caster says "Hey, I'm about to do <X> to you", then it isn't 100% instinct. I'm asking for RAW/RAI, not what makes sense, so I'm afraid that that the PCs have no agency to accept the magic.
I did like how 1e required a save for all magic, but everyone intentionally failed saves coming from the healer. That had a certain elegance.
A lot of the counterexamples like stepping in front of a bus require an action on the part of the creature. Of course you can take actions to hurt yourself, but saving throws regard a whole set of abstract concepts beyond that, including being blessed by deities, protected by magical runes, legend in the making, and so forth. Saves are also generally responses based on one's inherent nature (maybe even "essence", "soul", or whatever woo fits), not conscious choices, not even reactions.
(I'm reminded of Pratchett (maybe?) where the sleeping heroic barbarian catches the knife aimed at his throat, then wakes up AFTER that.)
So that's why their needs to be a clause to fail one.
And if one wanted to Ready an Action to ruin their roll...sure?
But other than Reflex (or insulting oneself with Bon Mot), I don't see how Superman can choose to make himself vulnerable to this next explosion.
|
Would be really cool for a Dhampir Cleric with the Undeath Domain's touch of undeath.This won't work.
Negative Healing says
A creature with negative healing draws health from negative energy rather than positive energy. It is damaged by positive damage and is not healed by positive healing effects. It does not take negative damage, and it is healed by negative effects that heal undead.If you suffer damage from a negative effect which doesn't heal ( Like eclipse burst, enervation or grim tendrils ) you don't get healed from the effect, though you won't suffer any damage from anything with the negative trait.
Thanks. That keeps tripping me up.
Now I'm actually glad I lost that charity auction for Unconventional Faith.
A lot of the counterexamples like stepping in front of a bus require an action on the part of the creature. Of course you can take actions to hurt yourself, but saving throws regard a whole set of abstract concepts beyond that, including being blessed by deities, protected by magical runes, legend in the making, and so forth. Saves are also generally responses based on one's inherent nature (maybe even "essence", "soul", or whatever woo fits), not conscious choices, not even reactions.
(I'm reminded of Pratchett (maybe?) where the sleeping heroic barbarian catches the knife aimed at his throat, then wakes up AFTER that.)So that's why their needs to be a clause to fail one.
And if one wanted to Ready an Action to ruin their roll...sure?
But other than Reflex (or insulting oneself with Bon Mot), I don't see how Superman can choose to make himself vulnerable to this next explosion.
That's fair, I don't agree entirely, but you're right that it only makes sense for some saves. Fortitude saves against poison for example, you shouldn't get a choice, your insides do their thing regardless of what you want. But reflex saves more often than not should be dependant on your decisions, if you know an effect is coming.
The gravity well situation someone gave is a fantastic example, where if your allies are aware and prepared they should not be forced to resist against their will and it makes little sense to impose such a limitation.
Dougseay's observation of the previous edition's elegance regarding saves is something a wholeheartedly agree with though, so unless the RAW specifically contradicts it or a Dev jumps in to say otherwise, I'm going to assume the designers still believe choosing to fail saves is logical and possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While obviously you should run your game the way that works best for your group, that standard makes no sense.
Why would the rules be written to say "you can't fail a save voluntarily"? If failing saves voluntarily is not an option, there's no reason for the saving throw rules to introduce the concept. If the intent us that you can, they would say that.
You usually write what IS part of the system. You don't write what ISN'T part of the system but was in a different one.
|
Copied from a discord post I made:
When I GM, the only things I allow to auto fail saves are objects when in an AoE like fireball. Not crit fail, just normal fail. I would never allow a player to voluntarily fail against a harmful effect, even if an ally were casting it.
Fort saves are basically your immune system and physical strength, not really things you can control.
Will is your mind, usually the deepest parts like your subconscious fighting back against the illusions you're being tricked into seeing, r compulsions to do things you wouldn't normally do.
Reflex is again your subconscious reacting to danger, so it's a bit of both mind and body. If someone threw an item at your head your instinct is to dodge, but even if you knew they were throwing it you would still instinctively try to do something to stop it from hitting you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While obviously you should run your game the way that works best for your group, that standard makes no sense.
Why would the rules be written to say "you can't fail a save voluntarily"? If failing saves voluntarily is not an option, there's no reason for the saving throw rules to introduce the concept. If the intent us that you can, they would say that.
You usually write what IS part of the system. You don't write what ISN'T part of the system but was in a different one.
The rules also don't mention that dwarves have bones, but that doesn't mean you should assume they don't just because it isnt in the rules. As wonderful as the image of jelly puddles with beards is, a certain amount of the game is common sense. Restricting a players ability to choose to not avoid something because you decided that the rules should say "you are forced to make saving throws, even against your will" is an odd choice, but as I say, unless a Dev voices an opinion this subject will continue to polarised people.
The more restrictive opinions could be right, or they could not be. I don't know.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
STs are not "dodging" at all, period and full stop. Dodging would be a Reaction you use after performing the Ready Action in order to move from your space when you are the target of an attack, spell, or effect.
Nobody is having anything taken away from them, quit being melodramatic, we're talking about what the rules actually say.
If you like we can all flag this as being in the wrong forum area so that it might be discussed in a different area where you could go on and define your own house-rules to permit this and discuss balancing that against the dozens of potential exploits this would invariably open up, just let us know...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems now that people are calling eachother melodramatic that somewhat proves the point that the subject is polarising people. Though I'd advise you calm down a little and avoid doing so as it sullies the discussion.
What we have established is that there is no solid rule specifying either way, yet each opinion has good reason for viewing their viewpoint as correct, both using slightly different interpretations of saves and inferring information from different abilities to back up their claims (no cause for alarm/drugs/specific spells etc).
As I say, The more restrictive opinions could be right, or they could not be. I don't know.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lack of a rule explaining that you can not do something does not give you license to do it. If the rules don't say you CAN do something, you most likely can't do it. The rules aren't "vague", they are explicitly leaving out things that will break the game.
If they had an exhaustive list of all the things you can't do, the CRB would likely be 10x longer.
Lack of a rule explaining that you can not do something does not give you license to do it. If the rules don't say you CAN do something, you most likely can't do it. The rules aren't "vague", they are explicitly leaving out things that will break the game.
If they had an exhaustive list of all the things you can't do, the CRB would likely be 10x longer.
Agreed, let's hope its omission was down to oversight though and saves eventually get similar wording to first edition. I would be very interested to know how choosing to critically fail your own saving throws would break the game too.
Do you know the rules for AC and choosing to be hit by the way? For example a high level monk choosing to be struck down (to become more powerful than you can possibly imagine)?
Retributive Pain (Advanced Pain Domain Focus Spell) would be one instance I can think of where somebody might want to critically fail a save. Not the target of that spell, but the caster if hit by another spell to trigger Retributive Pain (if they had the hit point & healing cushion to accept that much damage).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apart from specific self destructive scenarios, I still fail to understand why anybody would take a failure ( or a critical failure ) forgoing a check.
I remember that Patrick Rothfuss' character Viari in the Acquisitions Incorporated wanted to fail a charm effect because that was in character for his PC.
To answer the OP, I don't think there are rules in 2E for critically failing a save like there were in 1E. These situations are better adjudicated by a GM than a rulebook anyway.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you choose to critically fail a saving throw?
Is there some specific spell or effect you are wanting to fail against or just a general question? Too often posters try to "trick" people into making a general ruling about something only to use it as a "gotcha" against their GM.
My general response to a question like this is, if you are trying to exploit a loophole or some ambiguity in the rules, I wouldn't allow it. If however, it is just a really unusual situation or combination of circumstances where doing something unexpected or even against the standard rules would lead to a cool experience, I am more likely to allow it.
I know that doesn't exactly answer the question, but sometimes more context is needed to properly weigh in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with TwilightKnight.
The fact that there isn't a rule about it (nowhere it is said that "You can't choose to fail your saving throw") is probably because you can't have one that makes sense in all possible cases. Ruling that you can't fail resisting a force trying to move you is silly; ruling that you can decide to let that poison affect you also is.
Thus, you have to evaluate and decide.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TwilightKnight gives a pretty good summary
A) The rules don't specify it is allowed
B) There are specific spells that allow a failure - setting a precedent that it should be specified (House of Imaginary Walls and
The critical failure condition opens it up to shenanigan's. In 99% of cases the failure will be negative - but I GMed long enough for players to find the remaining edge cases where they get a benefit.
Critical failure seems to mainly increase the time of an effect as well as the severity.
This can be turned into an advantage if you cast spells that push away - to get you further out of harms way.
Assume Pushing Gust - can I - as target chose to be pushed away 10 feet if that is beneficial. But then - how can I decide failure - but not critical failure?
An interesting one is scrying. On a critical failure the Eye moves with the target. Cast it on a familiar and instruct it to crit fail - so you can see what is happening around it. A simple fail would be useless as far as I can tell.
Another interesting example: Wind Wall. An enemy casts it to avoid you fleeing. He has AoO. Can you trigger a crit fail to get away without provoking?
A lot of durations go from 1 min to 1 hour on crit fail. If I want to fail - why not get the longer duration?
Another interesting one:
Dran Life allows you to shift HP from one target to another. On a crit fail you gain double.
One last bit: what about confusion? If I'm confused, then I might want to crit fail on a friendly, harmless spell that shuts me down for the duration.