Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[violence in the media]

I feel that I have to interject at this point that, supported by the rules or not (most likely not), we've mostly played that unconscious targets don't roll saves period. If an unconscious creature gets hit with a fireball, it has to rely on the roll of the damage dice and any fire or spell resistance it may have to save it. If someone pours poison in their ear, they just have to hope to be immune to it or mighty enough to ride out the effects.

[Kaelik]

I feel that I have to interject at this point that, supported by the rules or not (most likely not), we've mostly played that unconscious targets don't roll saves period. If an unconscious creature gets hit with a fireball, it has to rely on the roll of the damage dice and any fire or spell resistance it may have to save it. If someone pours poison in their ear, they just have to hope to be immune to it or mighty enough to ride out the effects.

BUT HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE WHEN WE KEEP BEING TOLD THAT EVERYONE GIVES UNCONSCIOUS CHARACTERS SAVES? ARE YOU SAYING THAT THEIR IDEA OF WHAT "EVERYONE" BELIEVES IS INFLUENCED BY THEIR OWN PREFERENCES? FUCK YOU, LIAR. OBVIOUSLY CONCEPTIONS OF WHAT "EVERYONE" WOULD DO ARE ALWAYS 100% PERFECT!

[erik]

A couple weeks ago in a 3e game a NPC gave us a scroll to teleport a monster back to the NPC for study and our expectation (as we discussed how the heck we'd make sure it failed the save) was that we will have to beat it unconscious first so it would fail its save. Funny that this discussion spawned just after that.

[Username17]

I think it is obvious that the people raging like toddlers that people would have a discussion about what the rules for when you do and do not get saves are and should be because this discussion has caused them to notice that their own position is stupid and wrong. Presumably the idea of how saves should work is fundamentally inconsistent - that it's simply not logically possible for it to be right. But it's also possible that they had one of the internally consistent but stupid ideas that have dire consequences in some edge case that they ignored or hadn't noticed until attention was called to them in this thread.

Creatures getting no saves while unconscious because they are willing is obviously the best answer. From a textual literalism standpoint it is best because it requires inventing no rules and requires ignoring no rules. The mouth breathers claiming that harmless spells give a different burden of choice for rolling saves have to invent a rule that says that because nothing to that effect is actually written anywhere.

But it's also way better from a utilitarian standpoint. Spells defaulting to being saved against would fuck players who wanted to heal fallen comrades. Making the choice of whether to save or not a disociated metagame choice based on out of character information would make the game retarded and also ruin player driven capers with no benefit.

Not allowing saves to the fallen helps players, becaue the players are the only people who cast spells on unconscious targets both for weal and for woe.

My position is the correct position in every way it is possible for a position to be correct. And the people who argue other positions on this thread can be rated on the chucklefuck scale from one to chucklefuck. The only real reason for anyone to be mad that this conversation happened is the horrible realization that they personally are like a 3.7 aggregate chucklefuck.

-Username17

[virgil]

Kind of playing devil's advocate here. From the SRD, under Saving Throws

Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect.

Bolded for emphasis. It doesn't actually say anything regarding when you make a saving throw against harmless spells.

[souran]

I feel that I have to interject at this point that, supported by the rules or not (most likely not), we've mostly played that unconscious targets don't roll saves period. If an unconscious creature gets hit with a fireball, it has to rely on the roll of the damage dice and any fire or spell resistance it may have to save it. If someone pours poison in their ear, they just have to hope to be immune to it or mighty enough to ride out the effects.

Without wading to deep into this battle, I think you are wrong by the rules in regards to poison, or at least its fairly clear that the authors assume that unconscious characters gets saves for primary/secondary poison effects. Several of the poisons (drow poison) have effects that render you unconsious yet they also still seem to be set up for you to make primary/secondary saves as though that happens at a time interval indicated and regardless of your physical state (except for dead).

I don't think that there are any diseases that render you unconscious in addition to their stat damage, but it does make it substantially more difficult to get over a disease because you must be awake at the exact same moment every day that you were first infected or you automatically fail your save and have to start the process of getting better over again. I do think its kind of funny that it implies that "bed rest" is a death sentence.

Poison and disease are badly written (even PFSRD says so!) and the way they work really has nothing to do with the way spells work. However, similarly, I can't find any rules that say a person can choose to fail a poison or disease save. So I think that Hamlet's dad gets a save for the poison in the ear, sleeping or no.

[Username17]

Kind of playing devil's advocate here. From the SRD, under Saving Throws

Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect.

Bolded for emphasis. It doesn't actually say anything regarding when you make a saving throw against harmless spells.

That text literally doesn't mean anything and the bolded word means even less. Harmful is not a tag that any spell has, and can't even be defined as spells that are not harmless. Lots of spells aren't harmless and don't allow saves. Hell, there are spells that harm people and don't allow saves. Starting with magic missile and just going from there.

That sentence has been quoted repeatedly, but it doesn't convey any information even if you thought it was a rule. It isn't a rule, it's an introduction to saving throws as a concept, no actual procedure is described. It doesn't include or exclude anything. Quoting it does nothing.

-Username17

[virgil]

But you seem to be fine equating"willing target" as identical to"voluntarily forego AND willingly accept".

[tussock]

Creatures getting no saves while unconscious because they are willing is obviously the best answer. From a textual literalism standpoint it is best because it requires inventing no rules and requires ignoring no rules. The mouth breathers claiming that harmless spells give a different burden of choice for rolling saves have to invent a rule that says that because nothing to that effect is actually written anywhere.

It requires ignoring that harmful spells get saves and (harmless) spells are not-harmful but you can make a save anyway if you chose to do so. You're just strait-up rejecting that bit because it disagrees with you. Confirmation bias caution, sir.

But it's also way better from a utilitarian standpoint. Spells defaulting to being saved against would fuck players who wanted to heal fallen comrades. Making the choice of whether to save or not a disociated metagame choice based on out of character information would make the game retarded and also ruin player driven capers with no benefit.

The associated game-world aspect of the mechanic is that your body and mind inherently reject hostile forces, that's what it explicitly says your feel when you succeed at a saving throw with no physical symptoms, you feel a hostile force that you have beaten back. Like your immune system tries to kill destructive stomach bacteria but not symbiotic stomach bacteria, only more immediately and hand-wavy. (harmless) spells have nothing for your luckery or heroic nature or divine blessing or secret wards to actually defend you from, so they don't. SO MUCH IN-GAME STORY HAPPENING.

Not allowing saves to the fallen helps players, becaue the players are the only people who cast spells on unconscious targets both for weal and for woe.

Rubbish, like an NPC couldn't automatically make perma-puppets of sleeping PCs, except you wouldn't do that because you're not a dickhead, and coincidentally the rules also don't allow it. If only the designers had made all strictly beneficent spells (harmless), like they did, so you could help the sleeping and unconscious but they'd still get their saves against being a meat puppet or becoming unable to be resurrected by various means.

[Zaranthan]

It requires ignoring that harmful spells get saves and (harmless) spells are not-harmful but you can make a save anyway if you chose to do so.

Jesus tapdancing christ, tussock. I know Butters has been your avatar for half of forever, but you're really living up to it now. The phrase "harmful spells" doesn't mean anything. Nor does the descriptor "not-harmful". You made those up and repeating them over and over doesn't make you right.

I get that you're trying to make a category for "spells that don't have the (harmless) descriptor", and that might be a useful thing to have in certain conversations, but that doesn't mean the rules have anything to say about your category.

[MGuy]

Is that butters? I assume it was a custom South Park style character job, like the character creator from Stick of Truth. In either case, I'm not sure why people keep bringing up the harmless descriptor when people have repeatedly pointed out that it doesn't mean anything. I've always assumed that the rules said that unconscious people can't make saves and I do believe this discussion right here is the only time I've seen anyone trying to argue otherwise. I don't see anyone making a really credible argument to the contrary.

[virgil]

I don't see anyone making a really credible argument to the contrary.

Nightmare certainly calls it to question. If you ever hear of a creature w/awesome saves, then you auto-scry against it as soon as it sleeps unless it has specialized wards.

Side question: where in the rules does it say you can ever suppress your spell resistance against a spell that isn't designated harmless?

[erik]

A creature can voluntarily lower its spell resistance. Doing so is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Once a creature lowers its resistance, it remains down until the creature’s next turn. At the beginning of the creature’s next turn, the creature’s spell resistance automatically returns unless the creature intentionally keeps it down (also a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity).

A creature’s spell resistance never interferes with its own spells, items, or abilities.

I wondered about Nightmare for sleeping critters failing saves but figured it was a special case where specific text overrides a general rule. Edit: oops hit submit too soon. Scrying is a good counter to sleep auto fails saves. There may be some FAQ about evasion working when sleeping too (and it only functions on successful saves).

[Username17]

But you seem to be fine equating"willing target" as identical to"voluntarily forego AND willingly accept".

The sentence in question doesn't even use the word target, it just says "willing." If you're going to make a textual literalism argument you have to stop adding words and phrases that the rules do not say. The willing argument would be weaker if the word willing was in any way qualified, but it is not.

Similarly, that sentence about harmful spells would stronger if it said something specific about saving throw procedure, but it doesn't. And the sentence about harmless spells would be stronger if it actually said a null choice defaulted to no save - but again it does not.

The rule is "Unconscious creatures are considered willing" and that is it. Adding caveats to that doesn't make your argument stronger, it makes you a liar.

-Username17

[spongeknight]

Side question: where in the rules does it say you can ever suppress your spell resistance against a spell that isn't designated harmless?

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. In such a case,
you do not need to make the caster level check described above.

Derp edit- it only says harmless as far as I can find, so I don't think you actually can lower your spell resistance against harmful spells. So I guess that's one thing the harmless tag actually does.

Wow, second edit, for I am the Master of Derp and the King of Herp. The spell resistance entry in the SRD actually does contradict the Player's Handbook with a slightly different rule for spell resistance:

A creature can voluntarily lower its spell resistance. Doing so is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Once a creature lowers its resistance, it remains down until the creature’s next turn. At the beginning of the creature’s next turn, the creature’s spell resistance automatically returns unless the creature intentionally keeps it down (also a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity).

[Grek]

Those rules don't contradict each other? Regardless of whether a spell is or is not harmless, a character with spell resistance must voluntarily lower their resistance as a standard action if they want the spell not be affected by spell resistance.

[phlapjackage]

I don't see anything in the above quoted rules about being unconscious and spell resistance - only that it's a standard action to voluntarily lower resistance. So unconscious characters always get spell resistance, no matter the spell ?

[Grek]

Unconscious characters cannot take a standard action to lower their spell resistance. Thus, their spell resistance does not get lowered.

[Covent]

Someone on the Paizo forums just said "We shouldn't have mechanical optimization threads, because that can lead to seeing the caster martial disparity at a table."

Makes me want to scream.

Let's not talk about something and maybe it will just go away is so fucking stupid I do not even know what to say...

[maglag]

Creatures getting no saves while unconscious because they are willing is obviously the best answer. From a textual literalism standpoint it is best because it requires inventing no rules and requires ignoring no rules.

It requires ignoring multiple rules because there are still several spells that specifically only work against unconscious creatures while allowing saves.

And then the moment the party ever goes to sleep they die no-save-allowed because scry-and-die isn't restricted to PCs. At minimum breathing arcanists become unplayable because Nightmare royally screws them over.

[tussock]

It requires ignoring that harmful spells get saves and (harmless) spells are not-harmful but you can make a save anyway if you chose to do so.

Jesus tapdancing christ, tussock. I know Butters has been your avatar for half of forever, but you're really living up to it now. The phrase "harmful spells" doesn't mean anything. Nor does the descriptor "not-harmful". You made those up and repeating them over and over doesn't make you right.

COMBAT BASICS: SAVING THROWS (PHB p135)
"When you are subject to an unusual or magical attack, you generally get a saving throw to negate or reduce its effect."

COMBAT: SAVING THROWS (PHB p136)
"Generally, when you are subject to an unusual or magical attack, you get a saving throw to avoid or reduce the effect."

MAGIC: SPECIAL SPELL EFFECTS (PHB p171)
Attacks: "All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks."

MAGIC: SAVING THROWS (PHB p176)
"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."

"(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires."

Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack."

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

MAGIC: PREPARING WIZARD SPELLS (p178)
Preparation Environment: "Exposure to inclement weather prevents the necessary concentration, as does any injury or failed saving throw the character may experience while studying."

SPELLS (p216)
Cure Light Wounds, Mass.
"Saving Throw: Will half (harmless) or Will half"
"Like other cure spells, mass cure light wounds deals damage to any undead in its area rather than curing them. Each affected undead may attempt a Will save for half damage."

I get that you're trying to make a category for "spells that don't have the (harmless) descriptor", and that might be a useful thing to have in certain conversations, but that doesn't mean the rules have anything to say about your category.

But they do, everything the rules say about saving throws indicates they are for harmful, hostile, damaging, disruptive, attacks, and that (harmless) spells do not fit that description, explicitly, but you can make a save against them if you want to, in the same way you can choose to not make a save against harmful spells.

[Mask_De_H]

Someone on the Paizo forums just said "We shouldn't have mechanical optimization threads, because that can lead to seeing the caster martial disparity at a table."

Makes me want to scream.

Let's not talk about something and maybe it will just go away is so fucking stupid I do not even know what to say...

What's really stupid is that you keep going there and telling us about it like we give a damn.

[Kaelik]

Someone on the Paizo forums just said "We shouldn't have mechanical optimization threads, because that can lead to seeing the caster martial disparity at a table."

Makes me want to scream.

Let's not talk about something and maybe it will just go away is so fucking stupid I do not even know what to say...

What's really stupid is that you keep going there and telling us about it like we give a damn.

Dude... some people like to vent. If he wants to shit talk dumb things people say about D&D, where the fuck else is he going to do it?

[Mask_De_H]

I hear Twitter is nice this time of year: more people to vent at, more eyes to see you vent.

E: I mean, it's less dumb than this spell target thing, but that's like saying a gutshot is less bad than a headshot. You're still getting fucking shot.

[Kaelik]

I hear Twitter is nice this time of year: more people to vent at, more eyes to see you vent.

E: I mean, it's less dumb than this spell target thing, but that's like saying a gutshot is less bad than a headshot. You're still getting fucking shot.

None of whom would have even the faintest clue of the context he was talking about...