Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[Username17]

But, for example, you're unconscious and someone casts Dominate Person or Bestow Curse on you? You still get a save.

You actually don't. Such spells essentially coup de grace sleeping people.

You would still get saves against non-spell effects. While you're unconscious you can save against a coup de grace or a poison. Because being willing or not only counts for spell effects.

-Username17

[ScottS]

...Nightmare, Frank?

[virgil]

Feels like we've been down this road before...

[Kaelik]

3.5: "You are defenseless, both physically and mentally, while in the trance. (You always fail any saving throw, for example.)"

Pathfinder: "You are defenseless, both physically and mentally, while in the trance. (You always fail Reflex and Will saving throws, for example.)"

Who on earth is making these changes and thinks they are good changes to make?

[ScottS]

Someone mulling to himself "why would 'metabolism' require conscious effort?" and slipping that bit in (without necessarily ensuring that consistent changes were also made throughout the rest of the document). Multiply that by forty years and you have D&D.

[ishy]

You actually don't. Such spells essentially coup de grace sleeping people.

You would still get saves against non-spell effects. While you're unconscious you can save against a coup de grace or a poison. Because being willing or not only counts for spell effects.

-Username17

Do correct me if I'm wrong here, but If I understand you correctly, you're saying that because the aiming a spell rule text about spell targets states that unconscious people are willing, that applies to everything in the rulebook that uses the word willing?
Even if it is on different pages and talking about different things in different sections?

So it applies to things like:
[*]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.
[*]Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
[*]Messenger: This includes horse-riding messengers and runners. Those willing to carry a message to a place they were going anyway may ask for only half the indicated amount.
[*]Donkey or Mule: Donkeys and mules are stolid in the face of danger, hardy, surefooted, and capable of carrying heavy loads over vast distances. Unlike a horse, a donkey or a mule is willing (though not eager) to enter dungeons and other strange or threatening places.

So while you probably can't act while unconscious, an unconscious paladin might be willing to commit an evil act but still can't actually commit one. But it does mean you can make people unconscious so you can have them deliver a message for you for half the price?
And knock your horse unconscious so it will be willing to enter dungeons?

[Grek]

If a paladin successfully commits an evil act while unconscious, that's probably a code of conduct violation. If a messenger is unconscious but is going somewhere anyway, and you can still communicate with them, they will probably agree to deliver it half price. If your horse is unconscious, you can drag it into the dungeon.

[ishy]

And if someone has this item:

The beacon of true faith is destroyed if its bearer turns against the worship of his deity to willingly embrace an opposite alignment.

They automatically switch to the opposite alignment and the item is destroyed if they become unconscious?

[Grek]

Just because they're willing doesn't mean it'll happen. I'm Willing, for example, to have Cure Light Wounds cast on me pretty much whenever. But does that mean me wanting the be healed is going to raise my hitpoints? No, that's stupid.

It just means that if you stick a Helm of Opposite Alignment on the wearer's head while they're KO'd, the beacon explodes, no save.

[ishy]

Just because they're willing doesn't mean it'll happen. I'm Willing, for example, to have Cure Light Wounds cast on me pretty much whenever. But does that mean me wanting the be healed is going to raise my hitpoints? No, that's stupid.

It just means that if you stick a Helm of Opposite Alignment on the wearer's head while they're KO'd, the beacon explodes, no save.

So what you're saying is, you're willing to forgo your saving throw, but you don't automatically do it?

[momothefiddler]

I can't say I understand why this is being treated as so clear-cut, especially from Frank's side. I suppose you've all been thinking about this for longer than I have.

I'm not certain what the argument is for unconscious creatures autofailing all saves. Is it really just "A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result." (PHB 177) + "Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing [targets for a spell]" (PHB 175) or is there more to it that I'm missing? Because while that by itself is enough for me to shrug and accept that ruling from an MC, it hardly seems unequivocal - I would also accept a ruling from an MC who claimed that "willingly accept" is just natural language rather than a reference to the game mechanical "willing target" or who argued that p177 allowed a creature to forego their throw to declare themselves willing, rather than claiming all willing creatures are foregoing their saves, etc.

That said, it's very clear to me that reading the (harmless) tag as having any mechanical effect is wishful thinking and that all spells work the same on unconscious targets, whatever that way is. It's also very clear to me that the conscious fighter is entitled to saves against even (harmless) spells, and that attempting to trick someone into foregoing their save against a charm under the guise of a cure is a completely valid tactic.

[tussock]

It comes from 1st edition AD&D, where saves were supposed to represent diving out of the way (rogues), or curling up just right, or being awesome (fighters had that), or having your god mystically step in (clerics) or some unmentioned knowledge of magic to think your way out of it (mage) and save you.

The examples given include: if you're tied to giant rock with no place to hide, and a dragon breathes on you, well if there's no room to duck, and no little crevice to hide in, I guess your successful save indicated you broke free of the bonds just in time. Basically, that the game world adjusts itself sufficiently to respect your saving throw, but the DM should apply bonuses or penalties to make various things more likely to happen. Such as having a body of water to duck under vs a fireball should pretty much just automatically save, and also reduce damage further.

In 2nd edition, with saves still flavoured about raising your shield or diving to the ground, but tailoring the explanation to suit the circumstance (rather than tailoring the circumstances to suit the save) with only minor adjustments to success chances. There's no general rule for failing saves while asleep, but various special case rules snuck through from 1st edition. 2e added the ability to voluntarily fail your save (by specific statement while aware of the casting), and stated it should be gained against opponents by trickery. No mechanics for that, but whatever, there it is.

"Harmless" spells in 1st and 2nd edition all just had Saving Throw: None. Giving Zombies a save vs Cure Light Wounds isn't even a thing. Quite how you trick people into getting Dominated is rather unclear, but it sure doesn't happen when you're unconscious.


3rd edition tried to make all that shit fit a tidy and consistent set of function calls, where you get saves vs most spells but don't get saves against (harmless) ones because that's stupid, and notes are made about spells that are only (harmless) to some targets.

It included the 2nd edition bit about wilfully forgoing your saving throws against bad spells, and extended it to wilfully gaining a save vs the new (harmless) spells (so that those all have to note a saving throw type that you won't use). Penalties are all explicitly stated, so there's no real wiggle room left for adjusting to circumstances unless those are one of the defined set of penalties. So unconscious people are Dex 0 and usually Prone and otherwise save as normal, but if you're inside a sealed 5' iron cube with a Fireball you still get Improved Evasion (which annoys people who remember 1st edition at all, but is true).


There's the note about how some spells that can only target willing creatures can also target unconscious ones, and that confuses people who've known a lot of different rule sets over the years. Including for instance that line in 3.5 Dream (and now Pathfinder Dream) that's unchanged since printed, probably in an old 1e Dragon, where spells had special case results rather than referring you back to any general rule, and sleeping people got arbitrarily large penalties to their saves, or none at all at the DM's discretion.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

There is a vigilante talent called Comfort to the Lonely that gives you rerolls if you have sex with a willing partner. As someone on 4chan pointed out unconscious Characters are always considered to be willing. And there is a Magical Girl template for vigilante. Yeah, I'm thinking that they didn't think that through...

[Rawbeard]

where did you find that?

[Axebird]

It's a social talent from Inner Sea Intrigue.

Once per day when you bone a willing partner for an hour you get a pool of rerolls equal to the higher of you or your partner's Charisma bonus, and you can use them as an immediate action to reroll Charisma skill checks or Will saves.

[Mask_De_H]

There is a vigilante talent called Comfort to the Lonely that gives you rerolls if you have sex with a willing partner. As someone on 4chan pointed out unconscious Characters are always considered to be willing. And there is a Magical Girl template for vigilante. Yeah, I'm thinking that they didn't think that through...

Over/under on the number of hentai comics based on that exact plot is a dozen.

[Username17]

Do correct me if I'm wrong here, but If I understand you correctly, you're saying that because the aiming a spell rule text about spell targets states that unconscious people are willing, that applies to everything in the rulebook that uses the word willing?

It says unconscious people are willing in reference to spell targeting. Then, every other part of spell targeting that gives a shit whether people are willing is also going to treat them as. That is the beginning and end of it. You sputtering about how the book doesn't constantly remind you that unconscious creatures are willing for purposes of spell targeting is just you being an asshole. Once you have a standing rule, you keep applying it. How is this so fucking hard to understand?

Yes, you can cast enlarge person on your unconscious Fighter before they get woken up by the Cleric. No, they wouldn't have to make a save, because that would be stupid. And you are stupid for suggesting it, because you have no evidence at all. You're literally just saying "Sure, it says they count as willing, but it doesn't say they keep counting as willing when checking the very next part of the spell casting checklist." That's dumb as fuck.

-Username17

[ishy]

It says unconscious people are willing in reference to spell targeting. Then, every other part of spell targeting that gives a shit whether people are willing is also going to treat them as. That is the beginning and end of it. You sputtering about how the book doesn't constantly remind you that unconscious creatures are willing for purposes of spell targeting is just you being an asshole. Once you have a standing rule, you keep applying it. How is this so fucking hard to understand?

Yes, you can cast enlarge person on your unconscious Fighter before they get woken up by the Cleric. No, they wouldn't have to make a save, because that would be stupid. And you are stupid for suggesting it, because you have no evidence at all. You're literally just saying "Sure, it says they count as willing, but it doesn't say they keep counting as willing when checking the very next part of the spell casting checklist." That's dumb as fuck.

-Username17

Hey now, don't be a lying pos. I definitely agree that unconscious people are willing for spell targeting. Saving throws only come into play when people are successfully targeted by a spell. Saving throws != spell targeting. That is obvious.
So I'm trying to figure out if your argument is:
A) Unconscious people are willing is only talking about spell targeting, thus does not apply to saving throws
B) Unconscious people are willing for everything ever and can voluntarily do non-actions like forgoing a saving throw, switching alignment etc.
C) Unconscious people are willing only for the things FrankT likes
D) Unconscious people are willing only for specific things based on no rules in the book.

[Username17]

The entire idea that unconscious people would be considered willing and then unwilling to the same spell is an extraordinary claim. You would have to find a rule somewhere to support that. It would be very weird if that was true, and you cannot make that claim without evidence. For spellcasting purposes, an unconscious creature is considered willing. The end. Any effects of the spell that matter or care whether a creature is or is not willing default to "is" when a creature is unconscious. The end.

Now, if you think it works any other way, find a quote that fucking supports that. Find a rule in the book that says there is even a single part of spellcasting that considers unconscious creatures unwilling. You have to do at least that much before your claim that the rule "unconscious creatures are considered willing" has any exceptions at all could be considered rather than mocked.

-Username17

[ishy]

The entire idea that unconscious people would be considered willing and then unwilling to the same spell is an extraordinary claim. You would have to find a rule somewhere to support that. It would be very weird if that was true, and you cannot make that claim without evidence. For spellcasting purposes, an unconscious creature is considered willing. The end. Any effects of the spell that matter or care whether a creature is or is not willing default to "is" when a creature is unconscious. The end.

Now, if you think it works any other way, find a quote that fucking supports that. Find a rule in the book that says there is even a single part of spellcasting that considers unconscious creatures unwilling. You have to do at least that much before your claim that the rule "unconscious creatures are considered willing" has any exceptions at all could be considered rather than mocked.

-Username17

So you want me to disproof, by quoting the rules, an assertion with no rules support? I can give you some examples, but not a direct rule quote, since there usually are no direct rules for disproving things that are not in the rules.
Here is one example:

Sleepwalk[/url]]School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level inquisitor 4, witch 4

Casting Time 1 round

Components V, S, M (a sprig of belladonna worth 100 gp)

Range touch

Target unconscious creature touched

Duration 1 hour/level (D)

Saving Throw Will negates; see text; Spell Resistance yes

You compel an unconscious or sleeping creature to rise and move in a half-awake state. The target creature staggers about if led or guided, but remains helpless for all other purposes. The subject moves at half speed and is limited to a single move action each round. It is not capable of moving at a higher rate of speed or taking actions other than movement except by magical assistance, and automatically fails any Dexterity- or Strength-based skill checks. If the creature takes any damage while sleepwalking it must make a new saving throw or the spell ends and the creature awakes (if it has more than 0 hit points). When the spell ends or is dismissed, the target remains unconscious and must be awoken normally. While sleepwalk allows an unconscious creature to move, it does not awaken the creature, nor does it stabilize or otherwise heal them. A disabled creature that moves about while under the effects of this spell does not start dying again as a result of this movement.

Here is a challenge for you, disproof that falling unconscious does not make you willing and thus switch alignment.

[Username17]

So you want me to disproof, by quoting the rules, an assertion with no rules support?

The rules already establish that the creature who is unconscious counts as willing, by stating:

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.

Now it states that in the sub-heading for "aiming a spell." But you would have to have extraordinary evidence that this text does not also apply to other instances of the word "willing" within the same superheading, which is "spells."

I'm not pulling the "unconscious creatures are willing" bit out of my ass. It's in the rules. And it's literally in the same section as the one about willing creatures forgoing saves. I'm not asking you to prove a negative to some assertion with no basis. I'm making the entirely uncontroversial statement that two rules in the same section that use the same keyword are actually referencing the same keyword. You are the one who is claiming that the same word ("willing" in this case) is intended to refer to different game mechanically distinct states within the same chapter. That is the extraordinary claim.

Here is a challenge for you, disproof that falling unconscious does not make you willing and thus switch alignment.

This is a gibberish claim. Being "willing" does not make you switch alignments. Switching alignments happens when you are "desirous" and "freely choose" to do so. Whether you have the "willing" tag or not has no specific effect on alignment changing. It won't even let people switch your alignment with atonement, since again the willing tag is insufficient to provoke an alignment change.

As for sleepwalk, I don't feel compelled to offer any explanation for that spell at all. It's an obscure and incredibly badly written spell from a sourcebook even the game designers have not read. Apparently when you take damage you make a saving throw and you wake up and stop being a puppet if you fail? WTF? Apparently that spell was written on opposite day, I have no idea what the author thought saving throws were even for, let alone how they thought they worked.

But all of this is simply grasping at straws on your part. No one thinks an unconscious Fighter makes a save against enlarge person, so even if you found something in the rules that is actually weird because unconscious creatures are considered willing for purposes of spells, that wouldn't be a compelling argument. That would just be one of the many things in D&D that happens to be weird. There's a fucking word in the fucking spells section and you are claiming that it has different meaning in the same block of text with no offered evidence. Put up some evidence or shut the fuck up.

-Username17

[momothefiddler]

Okay, how about this:

Under "Spell Descriptions", the term "willing" shows up 6 times

Some touch spells, such as teleport and water walk, allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch as many willing targets as you can reach as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. PHB175

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. PHB175

A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic (for example, an elf’s resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality. PHB177

What would you say to the argument that "willing" isn't a tag or otherwise a mechanical term; that it's being used naturally? I can see some basis behind this, especially the fact that the last instance there has it as an adverb on "accept" - "and willingly accept a spell's result" is hardly how you'd want that to be written if it was a tag. Perhaps "A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw to declare itself willing" or "[...] to become a willing target" or similar.

Under this argument, conflating "automatically considered willing" with "willingly accept" is like claiming the MC's pronouncement "The guards are stunned at the sheer audacity of your claim" means they've all dropped their weapons and are vulnerable to sneak attacks.

(Even if it is a tag, I think there's merit to the argument that the causality is backwards - it doesn't say "A willing creature voluntarily foregoes its saving throw". Foregoing save -> "willing" tag, not necessarily the opposite.
That one seems a bit of a stretch, though, especially given the number of spells that only target willing creatures and don't allow a save.)

[Username17]

What would you say to the argument that "willing" isn't a tag or otherwise a mechanical term; that it's being used naturally?

If Willing is not a tag and simply used as the natural English term, and willingly accept to forgo a save isn't part of being a willing target - then we're back at unconscious creatures making saving throws against cure light wounds. Because the rule ishy is claiming that exists that lets people forgo their saves to harmless spells while unconscious is also not a real thing.

The fact that you don't make saves against healing spells and buffs while unconscious is actually the single most important consequence of unconscious creatures being willing. Without the inheritance from spell aiming to spell saves, that wouldn't be true.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

It's important to note that the decision to voluntarily forgo a saving throw is a conscious decision being made in-character with in-character information. People who are knocked the fuck out cannot make that decision. They cannot even perceive what is happening around them in order to help them make the decision. It is also important to note that the harmless tag has no mechanical interaction with the unconscious condition. Nor should there be one, because I'm sure there are absolutely situations in which a "harmless" spell could harm an unconscious character, defeating the purpose of any mechanical interaction in the first place. It's there to inform you, the player, that the spell is not one that should be resisted even if it technically could be. As a result, one of the following two things is true:

1) Unconscious characters always forgo their saving throws (because they are considered willing).

2) Unconscious characters never forgo their saving throws (because the decision to forgo defaults to no).

Dying characters are either going to always resist cure light wounds or always accept charm monster. The same mechanic governs both situations, and it doesn't leave you with any other option. 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.

[momothefiddler]

The fact that you don't make saves against healing spells and buffs while unconscious is actually the single most important consequence of unconscious creatures being willing. Without the inheritance from spell aiming to spell saves, that wouldn't be true.

It is also important to note that the harmless tag has no mechanical interaction with the unconscious condition.

Dying characters are either going to always resist cure light wounds or always accept charm monster. The same mechanic governs both situations, and it doesn't leave you with any other option.

And like I mentioned in my earlier post, I fully accept this. And I can definitely see how unconscious creatures never saving makes for a better game than unconscious creatures always saving, if only because the PCs are going to spend more time unconscious. I acknowledge that there's a reason that's been the way it's been run in every game of D&D I've ever played and will be in every game of D&D I ever run (barring a game where the point is wacky RAW hijinks, I guess). All I'm saying is that I don't think it's unequivocally what the rules say.