Greater Constrict - can or must roll for fortitude

[Skygjel]

Hi,

Lately I had discussion within my group about wording used in greater constrict.
Some atempt to interpret this description as "If I don't roll for fortitude, I don't fall unconscious" while for some it wouldn't make sense as you basicly can choose to ignore greater in constrict. I'd like to know if this is correct interpretation or it is "you don't need to roll, you can just fail". Is there anyway to reach developers to get clarifications?

Greater Constrict
The monster deals the listed amount of damage to any number of creatures grabbed or restrained by it. Each of those creatures can attempt a basic Fortitude save with the listed DC. A creature that fails this save falls unconscious, and a creature that succeeds is then temporarily immune to falling unconscious from Greater Constrict for 1 minute.

[Finoan]

Run it the way that actually makes sense for a combat ability used against an opponent.

Ask those players arguing that they can forgo their Fortitude save and therefore suffer no effects if they also think it is fair if that same idea is applied to the PC's abilities. An enemy simply doesn't roll a save against Thrash and so therefore doesn't take any damage.

'Technically correct' only goes so far.

[TheFinish]

Your group is wrong here. "Can attempt a saving throw" does not mean you can choose not to try the save to be immune to the effect. It means instead of just going unconcious automatically, you're allowed to try to resist the effect.

It's the same wording you'll find in a lot of spells. At most, like you say, you could assume it means you can choose to fail and just go unconcious, but it definitely does not allow you to just ignore the effect by refusing to roll the save.

[Claxon]

I would agree (with your players) that the wording is---suboptimal, but agree with the others saying that the correct interpretation of the ability doesn't mean they get to ignore the negative effective of Greater Constrict, rather they have an opportunity to resist falling unconscious and choosing not to attempt the save simply means you fall unconscious.

[NorrKnekten]

Considering that alot of the "can attempt a saving throw" phrasing seems to stem from very early releases in PF2e's history, its possible the writers used phrasing from 1E. Where rolling was optional but if you elected not to roll you accept the detrimental outcome.

PRPG Core Rulebook pg. 216 wrote:

Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect. The saving throw entry in a spell description defines which type of saving throw the spell allows and describes how saving throws against the spell work.

PRPG Core Rulebook pg. 216 wrote:

Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result.

It's worth noting that in 2e, voluntarily failing or foregoing a saving throw is not allowed by default and is only really suggested as a houserule against certain effects if you are a willing creature.

[Tridus]

Sure, they can attempt it. They can also not attempt it, in which case they automatically fail. "I don't feel like resisting Constrict therefore I'm immune" has no basis in the rules.

PF2 is not written like a technical manual, and sometimes odd verbiage exists. That isn't a case where you should allow a rules lawyer to try and argue their way into a nonsensical outcome when the intent is obvious: they get a basic save against the effect with some extra results on failure/success. This pattern exists all over the game.

[SuperParkourio]

"Can make a save" usually isn't sufficient to render a save optional in this system. It would have to be something like "If the target of containment is unwilling, the effects depend on the target's Reflex save" or the like.

The Gliminal guidance offers a way to submit to hostile effects like Greater Constrict, but that entails lowering your degree of success, not skipping the save.