Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[Mechalich]

Scenario C: No one casts dominate person on unconscious targets while there are conscious targets. Seriously. Not one person has ever done that in the entire history of the universe. And the only reason someone will ever do that is out of a childish need to prove the preceding sentence wrong.

In combat, sure, but out of combat, that totally doesn't apply. The idea that someone who fell asleep suddenly fails all saves is a significant thing.

[MGuy]

Cast Sleep. Cast Fireball on sleeping target. Do they get a save?

[DSMatticus]

If you believe that that statement applies only to choosing targets as part of aiming a spell (as that is the section it appears in), then the table is unchanged. If you believe that that's a broad declaration about how spells interact with unconscious characters, then the table looks like this:

That's a hundred times more ridiculous than arguing that rules about saving throws were hidden in the targeting section, which is already a stretch in and of itself.

If you really want, you can argue that the "unconscious creatures are automatically considered always" text refers only to targeting (since it occurs only in the targeting subsection and isn't repeated elsewhere), but that means dying characters are going to resist attempts to stabilize them.

Maglag, shut the fuck up. Please just shut the fuck up. The next time you feel the need to "correct" me, just assume you're about to fuck up spectacularly. Something about me clearly turns you into a drooling moron. I can only assume it's how handsome and smart and totally awesome I am, but nonetheless you will spare us both a lot of mild annoyance if you accept this strange limitation and shut the fuck up.

Now, the only question left is how many times I'll have to say this before you even bother to read it.

[Username17]

The whole "unconscious creatures count as willing" is a subset of the spells that specifically can only target "willing creatures", like teleport. It's only to be applied to that kind of spells, and no others. Otherwise it would be written in some place before.

The statement that unconscious creatures are willing nevertheless exists, and it exists in the same section as the bit about willing creatures not rolling saves. Further, it mentions that unconscious creatures are willing before it tells you that willing creatures don't roll saves. If it mentioned that unconscious creatures were willing in the saving throw subsection, that would be redundant information.

Since your entire argument for harmless spells defaulting to being unresisted is that the book can't have redundant information in it, it's very weird that your entire argument against the completely undeniable piece of text that says that unconscious creatures are considered willing is that it wasn't restated redundantly several times in the chapter. It's almost like you're using motivated reasoning to support what you want the rules to say and don't have a consistent logical paradigm.

Unconscious creatures being targeted by spells is super obscure. Why the fuck do you think the rules would have reminder text in subsection after subsection rather than just stating a rule early in the section and have it continue to apply?

-Username17

[spongeknight]

Man this is a stupid argument. Your DM is going to allow you to accept the cure light wounds and save against the finger of death while you're unconscious without even spending the time to look up these rules that we still can't even agree on. That's just what is going to happen, unless your DM is a giant asshole or something.

For the record, the rules do force you to save from a cure light wounds while dying, as shitty as that is. Because the "key word" in the second instance is not "willingly," it's "forgo." See:

"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. "

Is saying you can declare willingness as not an action, but

"A creature can voluntarily forgo a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality."

is saying that you can take the not action of forgoing your save if you desire. These are not the same thing. Declaring yourself a willing target is not the same thing as forgoing your save willingly- the first is a requirement to be targeted at all by spells that only target willing creatures, and the second allows you to not roll a saving throw against an effect that is not targeting a willing creature. By definition you cannot do both at once because the same spell will never fit both criteria.

[ishy]

Lets put aside the baseless assertion that being unconscious means you take the action to voluntarily lower your saving throw for this piece here. Tell me what part of my logic you disagree with.

The game has actions that take no time. They're called free actions, and can sometimes be taken when it's not your turn. The game does not call this a free action. It's not an action at all. Determining whether or not you want to make saving throw is just part of the process of making a saving throw. No action is required. By comparison, lowering your spell resistance is an action, and it is explicitly described as such in the very same section.

This is wrong. Free actions take very small amount of time (not no time) and can't be taken off turn (unless there is a specific exception, like with talking). And free actions are still actions. But to determine whether or not you take a saving throw would most likely be a non-action (which is still an action under the d&d / pathfinder rules)

"Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow."

The rules state that against harmful spells you can take the action to voluntarily forgo a saving throw. Obviously you can't make that decision or decide on that action when you're unconscious.

The word "harmful" does not appear anywhere in the rule we are discussing. The full rule is "A creature can voluntarily forgo a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality."

You're mistaken. The rules for saving throws mention harmful twice. Once in the general description of saving throws and once in the description of the harmless tag. This allows me to clearly state the procedure for harmful spells. If you don't understand that, please take some English lessons, because I don't want to teach you how to read English.

The rules also state that you don't get a saving throw against harmless spells, but you can decide to take one anyway: "(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires." Obviously, you can't make that conscious decision when you're unconscious.

That is absolutely not how English or logic works. The rules state that if you decide to you may attempt a saving throw, and you have inferred from this that if you did not decide to you may not. This is called denying the antecedent. It's an inference you've projected into the rules because a strictly literal reading is redundant with existing rules - but sometimes the rules genuinely do present redundant information either because oops or for the purposes of clarification.

I really don't want to be this pedantic, but you're forcing me here. Actually it is how logic works. If you're reading it in the way you're reading it, then the text is wrong. Since your reading, that you get a saving throw but you can forgo one voluntarily, leads to the act of desiring a saving throw being irrelevant to whether you get a saving throw or not, the statement: you can attempt a saving throw if you desire it, is wrong.

If you believe that that statement applies only to choosing targets as part of aiming a spell (as that is the section it appears in), then the table is unchanged. If you believe that that's a broad declaration about how spells interact with unconscious characters, then the table looks like this:

Actually no. Since there is no rule text that states being willing means you forgo your saving throw. It only states that voluntarily forgoing your saving throw means you willingly accept the spells results.

[momothefiddler]

I really don't want to be this pedantic, but you're forcing me here. Actually it is how logic works. If you're reading it in the way you're reading it, then the text is wrong. Since your reading, that you get a saving throw but you can forgo one voluntarily, leads to the act of desiring a saving throw being irrelevant to whether you get a saving throw or not, the statement: you can attempt a saving throw if you desire it, is wrong.

Oh, please. If you don't want to be pedantic, acknowledge that "You may have a cupcake if you like" in no way forbids someone from having a cupcake they don't want; it merely assumes that's an unlikely result.
If you do want to be pedantic, A→B returns true regardless of the truth value of A if B is true. "IF you desire it THEN you can attempt a saving throw" is in no way contradicted by "You can always attempt a saving throw" - in fact, the latter makes the former true. That is how logic works.

[ishy]

Oh, please. If you don't want to be pedantic, acknowledge that "You may have a cupcake if you like" in no way forbids someone from having a cupcake they don't want; it merely assumes that's an unlikely result.

The point is that you may have a cupcake if you like is not the same thing as you get a cupcake but you can get rid of it if you don't want it.

[Username17]

Oh, please. If you don't want to be pedantic, acknowledge that "You may have a cupcake if you like" in no way forbids someone from having a cupcake they don't want; it merely assumes that's an unlikely result.

The point is that you may have a cupcake if you like is not the same thing as you get a cupcake but you can get rid of it if you don't want it.

But it is entirely consistent with you get a cupcake and can get rid of it if you don't want. So if that had been established as the rule already, there would be no change.

The thing where you fail at rules comprehension is that you still haven't found a rule anywhere where it says that the normal rules of not rolling a save iff you are willing to not roll a save aren't in effect. The thing where you fail at logic is the part where you are repeatedly presenting propositional fallacies as if they were compelling arguments after people have called you on your bullshit. Affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent are things. They are very base, very obvious fallacies, and you keep presenting and re-presenting them as if they were solid arguments. They are not. They are structurally incorrect forms of thought.

-Username17

[momothefiddler]

Anyway, I admit to being rather confused by the fallback position of "You can't make decisions when you're unconscious." It depends on a level of distinction between player decision and character decision that doesn't seem to me to be supported at, well, any point in the rules. The very fact that the line says the creature may forego its saving throw rather than allowing the creature to specifically resist the spell or its player to forego the saving throw already calls this sort of reasoning into question, but the tone of the entire ruleset makes it clear that nobody gives a fuck. "You can't choose whether to make that roll when you're unconscious" is the sort of perspective-juggling bullshit I'd expect from Harry Potter and the Natural 20, not something that is in any way supported by the same book that brings us these:

"For example, as a halfling rogue, Lidda can add a second class later on (becoming a multiclass character) without worrying about an XP penalty, because rogue is favored class for halflings." p11
"Her maximum rank for a class skill at 1st level is 4, so she could, for example, divvy up her 20 points among five class skills with 4 ranks each." p23
"For your character to climb the wall, you must get a result of 15 or better on a Climb check." p63
"For example, at 3rd level, Krusk, the half-orc barbarian, could spend 1 skill point on the Ride skill (gaining his first rank in Ride) and select the Mounted Combat feat at the same time." p87
"Choose an alignment for your character, using his or her race and class as a guide." p103
"You begin with a random number of gold pieces that is determined by your character’s class, and you decide how to spend it" p111
And almost certainly a lot more; I just got bored of picking a quote from each chapter.

If you think the authors of this book had any consistent level of distinction between player choice and character choice, you are wrong.

[DSMatticus]

Irrelevant "ishy is still wrong about things" bullshit spoilered.

This is wrong. Free actions take very small amount of time (not no time) and can't be taken off turn (unless there is a specific exception, like with talking). And free actions are still actions. But to determine whether or not you take a saving throw would most likely be a non-action (which is still an action under the d&d / pathfinder rules)

1) That sentence about how "free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort" is fucking meaningless. We are having a mechanical discussion, and mechanically the game measures time in rounds and the actions you can take in a given round, and the only limit on free actions (unless the specific free action you're taking is limited) is "until your DM tells you to stop because he's arbitrarily decided he doesn't like what you're doing." The game doesn't measure effort at all. Yes, in terms of realizarm talking takes realizarm time, and that is represented by a limit on the amount of talking you can use a free action to do, but the free action itself does not consume any actual fucking mechanical resources whatsoever, time or otherwise, and the only limit is the patience of the people you are at the table with.

2) "and can't be taken off turn (unless there is a specific exception, like with talking)" That is literally what I just fucking said, you dumbass. Why the fuck do I end up arguing with illiterates who can't be assed to read my posts? What did I do to deserve this? How do I make it stop?

3) No, a not-an-action is not an action. It's right there in the name. I know they are described under the section "Action Types," but if you scroll up to the top of that section it provides you with a list of the six action types. Spoiler: it's standard, move, full-round, swift, immediate, free. Not-an-action does not appear on the list of actions, because it turns out not-actions aren't actually actions. They are things you do as part of other actions, or just things you do in general when the rules prompt you to, or whatever. Exactly like I said. In fact, all of this is exactly like I said. God fucking damnit. Why do you assholes do this to me. If you don't understand what's happening in a conversation, don't post!

You're mistaken. The rules for saving throws mention harmful twice. Once in the general description of saving throws and once in the description of the harmless tag. This allows me to clearly state the procedure for harmful spells. If you don't understand that, please take some English lessons, because I don't want to teach you how to read English.

A creature can voluntarily forgo a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.

The rules state that against harmful spells you can take the action to voluntarily forgo a saving throw.

The rule you are summarizing does not include the word harmful. Your summary includes the word harmful. You have introduced a word ("harmful") into the text of the rule which reduces its scope (as written, it would apply to harmless spells unless superseded by more specific rules text; as you've rewritten it, it would never apply to harmless spells even in the absence of more specific rules text). You can't fucking just add words to the rules that you think support your position. The problem here is not that I'm having trouble reading the rules; it's that you're scribbling over them in crayon and trying to pass it off as authentic.

You appear to be trying to argue that because the section opens with "usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw," each individual subsection applies only to harmful spells. At which point I will remind you that (harmless) is one of the subsections, so how the fuck is that supposed to work? But honestly, it gets even worse than that, because if you assume that each individual subsection applies only to harmful spells then you can't resolve saving throws against harmless spells at all, because these are the subsections which tell you what "fortitude negates" even does to begin with. The entire section clearly applies to all spells, because if not then harmless spells are just one big error 404 rules not found. And if you're going to then admit that those subsections apply to harmless spells because they have to, well, then so does the one we're arguing about it, doesn't it?

I really don't want to be this pedantic, but you're forcing me here. Actually it is how logic works. If you're reading it in the way you're reading it, then the text is wrong. Since your reading, that you get a saving throw but you can forgo one voluntarily, leads to the act of desiring a saving throw being irrelevant to whether you get a saving throw or not, the statement: you can attempt a saving throw if you desire it, is wrong.

The point is that you may have a cupcake if you like is not the same thing as you get a cupcake but you can get rid of it if you don't want it.

Are you seriously arguing that I'm wrong using some absurd two-step model in which characters can "get" saving throws without "attempting" them? That's stupid and pointless. Also, wrong. Forgo means "to decline," not "to discard." You don't get a saving throw and then toss it away; you refuse it in the first place. This weird semantic-slash-pointless-complexity-for-complexity's-sake argument needs to die in a fire before it even begins.

There is no situation on either on the tables I put forward as plausible that has a character who desires a saving throw and is unable to take one.

[tussock]

Tussock, that's so retarded that I honestly can't tell if you're making fun of ishy or actually stupid. Whether or not the default condition was that harmful spells allowed saves, that wouldn't affect the specific case of any actual spell in the book that tells you whether there is a save or not.

We're discussing what the (harmless) function call actually means, right?

Because the rules say we get saves against harmful spells, and that (harmless) aka not-harmful spells are tagged with saves so we can make them anyway for whatever reason.

You said there was no rule to say (harmless) spells don't require a save, but there is, because the rules say that saving throws are made against harmful spells, and specifies that (harmless) spells are not harmful spells.

The only question at issue is whether being unconscious, and thus considered "willing" makes you considered "willing" to get fucked in the ass by a random stranger. That's it. The basic assumption of whether spells have saves isn't meaningful in the slightest.

What you mean to say is if a person is considered a willing target are they also voluntarily foregoing their saving throw to willingly accept the result of the spell, even though spell targeting and saving throws are different things. Obviously not, duh.

....

But you did also ask if there was a rule that said (harmless) spells don't get saves, to which I asked where's the rule that I get a save for (harmless) spells without wanting one? They have save types and results listed if I want to make one, perhaps for the case where that spell is for some reason harmful (as detailed in Cure Light Wounds, for instance), but where's the rule that says I make a save against Cure Light Wounds as a normal PC, if for instance I don't know or trust or even see the caster?

Real characters don't know if spells are harmful or not before they make their save, it's explicit in the rules that targets do not know what they've been hit with, other than that making a save means they felt a hostile force and resisted it (because you only get saves against harmful spells, duh). You don't get to choose based on the spell, that's just not what's happening, there's zero support for that in the rules.

[maglag]

The whole "unconscious creatures count as willing" is a subset of the spells that specifically can only target "willing creatures", like teleport. It's only to be applied to that kind of spells, and no others. Otherwise it would be written in some place before.

The statement that unconscious creatures are willing nevertheless exists, and it exists in the same section as the bit about willing creatures not rolling saves. Further, it mentions that unconscious creatures are willing before it tells you that willing creatures don't roll saves. If it mentioned that unconscious creatures were willing in the saving throw subsection, that would be redundant information.

Except the text never says that willing creatures don't roll saves.

What the text says is:
"A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality. "

And speaking of spell resistance:
"The terms "object" and "harmless" mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws. A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by a spell noted as harmless."

Basically the "willingly/voluntarily" in the save sections only refers to the act of decision. It's not the same as "willing target".

Since otherwise, spells like Nightmare, Dawn and Dream Casting wouldn't make much sense. Heck, even dead creatures get saving throws.

Now the rules could've been written better. But your position is that a bunch of core spells are wrong, offering saves where there shouldn't be any, while my position is that "willing target" and "willingly make a decision" are not the same thing, in particular when they appear in different sections. And then spells like Nightmare make more sense.

A more obnoxious example would be "caster level" that means different things in 3.5 rules depending on where it appears. Sometimes it means your wizard/cleric level, other time it just means the number you add to your spell resistance checks and spell effects, and sometimes they're the same and other times they are not.

Since your entire argument for harmless spells defaulting to being unresisted is that the book can't have redundant information in it, it's very weird that your entire argument against the completely undeniable piece of text that says that unconscious creatures are considered willing is that it wasn't restated redundantly several times in the chapter. It's almost like you're using motivated reasoning to support what you want the rules to say and don't have a consistent logical paradigm.

I don't recall ever supporting the "harmless spells default to being unresisted". My point always was that unconscious creatures still get to decide to try to save or not, regardless of the spell being harmless or not. They'll only count as a "willing target" for spells that specifically care about that distinction, like teleport.

Unconscious creatures being targeted by spells is super obscure. Why the fuck do you think the rules would have reminder text in subsection after subsection rather than just stating a rule early in the section and have it continue to apply?

-Username17

Unconscious creatures are actually only mentioned once in the whole spell details section, and that is on the targeting section. Where is this "reminder text in subsection after subsection" you speak of?

[Korwin]

Tussock, that's so retarded that I honestly can't tell if you're making fun of ishy or actually stupid. Whether or not the default condition was that harmful spells allowed saves, that wouldn't affect the specific case of any actual spell in the book that tells you whether there is a save or not.

We're discussing what the (harmless) function call actually means, right?

Are we? In this rules discussion, it means nothing.

Because the rules say we get saves against harmful spells, and that (harmless) aka not-harmful spells are tagged with saves so we can make them anyway for whatever reason.

Wrong, you get an saving throw, if the spell has an entry, that says you get an saving throw.
You can choose to not save against an spell with an saving throw. Regardless if they are harmless or not.

If you are unconcious, you autmatically fail your save, as if you where willing.

[Slade]

Since otherwise, spells like Nightmare, Dawn and Dream Casting wouldn't make much sense. Heck, even dead creatures get saving throws.

Now the rules could've been written better. But your position is that a bunch of core spells are wrong, offering saves where there shouldn't be any, while my position is that "willing target" and "willingly make a decision" are not the same thing, in particular when they appear in different sections. And then spells like Nightmare make more sense.

Well, to be fair, dead people get all status effects removed (like being unconscious) so being dead is better than being unconscious. Although, dead people do seem to be paralyzed.

[DSMatticus]

My point always was that unconscious creatures still get to decide to try to save or not

... I do not think you understand how this situation plays out even under normal conditions.

Characters do not automatically identify spells as they are cast. Characters do not automatically identify spells when they are the targets of those spells. Characters cannot automatically distinguish between harmless spells and non-harmless ones. Identifying a spell requires a successful spellcraft check, and in order to attempt that check a character must be able to see the spell as it is being cast. Characters who have been knocked the fuck out cannot do that. Characters who have been knocked the fuck out cannot even see who is casting a spell on them. So while the idea of unconscious characters making decisions is kind of absurd to begin with, even if it worked the way you think it does those decisions would be completely blind. "Something happened to you. It allows a saving throw. Do you take it?"

[SlyJohnny]

Christ.

Look, the rules on this are vaguely written, particularly when subject to autism-level literal interpretation, so stop quibbling over wording that doesn't mean anything and make a sensible guess. You guys are the kind of people that try to drown dying PC's back up to 0 hp.

[Kaelik]

Christ.

Look, the rules on this are vaguely written, particularly when subject to autism-level literal interpretation, so stop quibbling over wording that doesn't mean anything and make a sensible guess. You guys are the kind of people that try to drown dying PC's back up to 0 hp.

Stupid tone trolls who whine about how we shouldn't discuss what the rules are because Good DMs (TM) just ignore the rules anyway, while at the time ignoring all the arguments for what good rules would be that have accompanied arguments about what the rules are. That's totally new, and we don't already have two or three of those.

[rasmuswagner]

Christ.

Look, the rules on this are vaguely written, particularly when subject to autism-level literal interpretation, so stop quibbling over wording that doesn't mean anything and make a sensible guess. You guys are the kind of people that try to drown dying PC's back up to 0 hp.

Stupid tone trolls who whine about how we shouldn't discuss what the rules are because Good DMs (TM) just ignore the rules anyway, while at the time ignoring all the arguments for what good rules would be that have accompanied arguments about what the rules are. That's totally new, and we don't already have two or three of those.

Fuck you sperglord, "Assumes standards of precision not in evidence" is a perfectly valid objection.

[Kaelik]

Christ.

Look, the rules on this are vaguely written, particularly when subject to autism-level literal interpretation, so stop quibbling over wording that doesn't mean anything and make a sensible guess. You guys are the kind of people that try to drown dying PC's back up to 0 hp.

Stupid tone trolls who whine about how we shouldn't discuss what the rules are because Good DMs (TM) just ignore the rules anyway, while at the time ignoring all the arguments for what good rules would be that have accompanied arguments about what the rules are. That's totally new, and we don't already have two or three of those.

Fuck you sperglord, "Assumes standards of precision not in evidence" is a perfectly valid objection.

Did you by chance, read his entire post? Specifically the sentence after the first one? (Not counting "Christ.") It should have been clear what specifically I was addressing.

But I'm glad you and Sly are working to bring the number of autism accusations up to the standards set by Roy before his banning. I would hate to live in a world where the most common insult wasn't that people are too literal and/or not good at social cues.

Why, without you, people might spend time insulting people for being wrong, and how boring would that be.

[rasmuswagner]

Stupid tone trolls who whine about how we shouldn't discuss what the rules are because Good DMs (TM) just ignore the rules anyway, while at the time ignoring all the arguments for what good rules would be that have accompanied arguments about what the rules are. That's totally new, and we don't already have two or three of those.

Fuck you sperglord, "Assumes standards of precision not in evidence" is a perfectly valid objection.

Did you by chance, read his entire post? Specifically the sentence after the first one? (Not counting "Christ.") It should have been clear what specifically I was addressing.

But I'm glad you and Sly are working to bring the number of autism accusations up to the standards set by Roy before his banning. I would hate to live in a world where the most common insult wasn't that people are too literal and/or not good at social cues.

Why, without you, people might spend time insulting people for being wrong, and how boring would that be.

Fine, I'll call you "insane" instead, you delicate wrinkly ballsack. Because expecting better than lawyer/programmer grade precision from a bunch of English Majors selected by personal relations to crank out Extruded Fantasy Product leaves you predictably disappointed, yet you've been at it for over a decade.

[phlapjackage]

I was wondering when the assholes were going to show up in this thread to tell everyone to stop having WrongBadFun. Classic "things I don't like are stupid" mentality.

Christ.

Look, the rules on this are vaguely written, particularly when subject to autism-level literal interpretation, so stop quibbling over wording that doesn't mean anything and make a sensible guess. You guys are the kind of people that try to drown dying PC's back up to 0 hp.

Fuck you. I'm enjoying reading this thread. If you're not enjoying it, it costs you nothing to just go away instead of trying to shit on it and the people who are enjoying it.

Because expecting better than lawyer/programmer grade precision from a bunch of English Majors selected by personal relations to crank out Extruded Fantasy Product leaves you predictably disappointed, yet you've been at it for over a decade.

You could see this whole thing as an exercise for laywers/programmers to hone skills needed in the real world. I bet there are some of those professions here right now, possibly posting in this very thread...

Anywho, back to lurking...

[GâtFromKI]

Rules are poorly written, so instead of writing "an unconscious creature can be targeted by willing-only-spells", they wrote "is automatically willing".

See right here is your error in reasoning. You are admitting that the rules do not say what you are claiming that they mean.

Look, it will be very hard for me to produce a convincing argument in English; but the fact I have difficulties to argue in English doesn't mean I don't comprehend it (I've read mathematical paper which are more complicated than D&D).

I'll try anyway: I read the rules as a technical paper more than a text in plain English.

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.

Here, "willing" is used as a technical term instead of its normal meaning. The sentence "unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing" should convince you about that; if you use "willing" with its normal meaning, and have any non-bullshit ethic or morale (excluding edge-cases you may have in medicine), you should do the contrary: you automatically consider unconscious creatures as non-willing.

So "willing" here is a technical tag the creature may or may not have. The rules give two way for gaining the tag: declaring yourself as willing (while being conscious), or being unconscious. Having this tag doesn't mean in any way you're actually willing.

Now, we go to the saving throw section:

Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.

The problem here is that it doesn't use the same game term; the text doesn't talk about "willing target", it is about "willingly accept a spell's result".

Therefore, does a creature with the tag "willing" tag automatically "willingly accept a spell's result"? The rules don't say anything. You may consider the word "willingly" is used as an "adverbisation" of the game term "willing" and therefore refer to the game term; or you may consider that "willingly" is here used with its normal English meaning, so a creature may have the "willing" tag while not "willingly accept a spell's result".

Both interpretations produce stupid results in one way or another. Being able to resist to everything, except spells, is as stupid as being willing while not willingly accepting the spell's result.


I'm with Tussock because the rules don't say anything, and his explanation is based on AD&D2 (a sleeping creature explicitly had a save against Fireball). Rules from AD&D2 aren't relevant in D&D3, I agree - but those are the rules the authors had in their memories when they were writing D&D3: when a rule is missing, there is a good probability that the author though it was self-evident because "it was that way since forever". You already know such "missing rules" are common in D&D4 and D&D5, but it happens sometime in D&D3 as well.

And I agree with him about the effect of the [harmless] tag, not because the rules are clear, but because that's how every fucking MC rule the game. Every MC will allow a sleeping creature to save against flesh to stone, but not against CLW. If you ask him why, he will think about it and then say clw is [harmless] and flesh to stone isn't. So there's a vaguely written rule, and everyone in a real game interpret it the same way: this interpretation becomes the effective rule, and you have use it in any game or other players will think you're retarded.

Your argument is circular, that the rules mean what you want them to mean, and that the very real evidence against your position is merely bad writing.

Well, it is also a possibility.

[Kaelik]

Because expecting better than lawyer/programmer grade precision from a bunch of English Majors selected by personal relations to crank out Extruded Fantasy Product leaves you predictably disappointed, yet you've been at it for over a decade.

Once again, no one is doing that. And you are deluded.

[rasmuswagner]

Because expecting better than lawyer/programmer grade precision from a bunch of English Majors selected by personal relations to crank out Extruded Fantasy Product leaves you predictably disappointed, yet you've been at it for over a decade.

Once again, no one is doing that. And you are deluded.

Clearly, the last few pages of people trying to make the holy text clearly state what everybody already knows and failing have slipped your notice.