Magic and the willing

[virgil]

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.

I read this text and initially assumed that to mean the unconscious will forgo any save from a spell inflicted upon them, am I correct for assuming such? And if so, what are the possible repercussions of this facet of the game?

[ubernoob]

Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing

C'mon, you've got to point out that! Saps mean rape doesn't exist in D&D.

[Kaelik]

Well I would say any mind altering spells and body switching stuff falls in the: messed up because of that rule area.

I mean, it's fun to Mindrape things, but really you can just gate them in and Mindrape them.

So pretty much, D&D is so borked as is, that the ability to make anyone willing doesn't matter, since you can already do that.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

One of the more interesting applications I've seen is that it means that you can totally knock someone out in their sleep and Teleport/DD away with them.

[Surgo]

To answer the original question: yes, you are totally correct in assuming such.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

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.

I read this text and initially assumed that to mean the unconscious will forgo any save from a spell inflicted upon them, am I correct for assuming such? And if so, what are the possible repercussions of this facet of the game?

No you are not correct for assuming such. You forgot to note the Some in the first line.

This is how it works: Some spells only allow you to target willing creatures. The Animal Shapes or Plane Shift spells are examples. The reason for this is because they don't want you to use these spells as attack spells (no plane shifting 8 unwilling targets for Plane Shift). These spells are meant for utility, and therefore only can affect willing targets. The quoted passage merely means that you are by default assumed to be willing for these types of spells while asleep.

With other spells, you are assumed to be fighting them off, and are automatically given a saving throw. Charm Person is an example. You automatically get a saving throw while awake, and while asleep. Although you can choose to forego a saving throw while awake, you cannot choose to forego the save while asleep.

The trouble arises in that "willing" is a game term not defined clearly. You have to look in the target line of the spell. Although you can voluntarily fail a saving throw vs a harmful spell (like a Charm Person spell), that is not the same thing as being a "willing" target as defined by the game.

[Crissa]

Sphere, I don't think that it's poorly defined, as you just said it's in the first line of the spell. "Willing Target" is therefore different than "Forgoing a save."

Perhaps poorly chosen words, but they do have a definite different meaning.

Maybe we should choose a different term for 'willing target.' Unresisting? No, hmm... Unworried?

-Crissa

[JonSetanta]

So, what's the fix?

Allow saving throws all the time?

I'm willing to make that a universal rule in an RPG; the Where's My Save rule.
No one can affect another player in some way without an opposed roll, even if one side (attacker or defender) automatically or optionally Takes Ten on their roll.
In other words no magic or effect would ever simply target someone and occur if they didn't want it to. At least there would be a chance to say "no", hopefully within the RNG.

Magic Missile, I'm looking at you.

[Surgo]

Personally I have no problem with helpless creatures getting no saves. The rules are more likely come down on the side of Sphere unless there's something I'm missing, but I could easily see a valid argument either way.

[virgil]

RaW-wise, I think Sphere's on more solid footing. I can see the argument where you do change it though, since you pretty much get to automatically kill anyone that's unconscious with a CdG; except for the precision-immune types, but I don't think they can go unconscious.

[Username17]

Sphere's reading requires us to believe that being a willing target is somehow different from being a target who willingly accepts a spell, which is patently ridiculous.

It's on page 177 of the PHB under "voluntarily giving up a saving throw." If you're willing, you don't make a save and your SR does not apply. So that means that your SR does not apply and you can be charmed seven ways to sunday if you happen to be unconscious.

This is then specifically withdrawn on the very same page, where it says that creatures with SR need to spend a standard action dropping it in order for it to be bypassed even by spells that are harmless. So um... that's a vague point. But the point where a sleeping giant doesn't get a save against charm monster is pretty cut and dried.

-Username17

[virgil]

Could that not be due to an unclear use of the language, seeing as "willing target" can be a different designation from "giving up a saving throw" as far as actions go?

And there remains the curiosity of the consequences in a setting where something like this is taken into account, where sleeping targets auto-fail all saves against spells.

[RandomCasualty2]

And there remains the curiosity of the consequences in a setting where something like this is taken into account, where sleeping targets auto-fail all saves against spells.

Really the consequences aren't so bad, at least no worse than they'd be if they got saves.

All giving them saves does is possibly force you to use a few more slots to charm monster the creature.

Really, the goal would be more to balance out charm monster better instead of trying to give unconscious creatures saves.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Sphere's reading requires us to believe that being a willing target is somehow different from being a target who willingly accepts a spell, which is patently ridiculous.

It is actually not. There are definite differences as defined by different spells. Look at the Animal Shapes and Charm Person spells. In the target line of Animal Shapes it states "Up to one willing creature per level, all within 30 ft. of each other." This means you are only able to target willing creatures, you cannot even attempt to cast this spell on an unwilling creature. That is why there is no saving throw.

Charm Person is different. The target line of the spell states "One humanoid creature." This means you can target willing or unwilling creatures, and by default they get a saving throw (Will negates in Saving Throw line).

The main difference between being a willing target of an Animal Shapes or Charm Person is not in the recipient. It is in the spell description of who can be targeted.

---

On page 175 of the Phb, under the heading Aiming a Spell, there is a subheading Target or Targets. Under that subheading is the passage that virgileso originally quoted. It states: "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."

Now there are two interpretations:

My interpretation: Under the heading of "Aiming a Spell", and under the further subheading of "Target or Targets", it states that "Some spells restrict you to willing targets only." You can then look in various spell descriptions to confirm this. Some spells do in fact restrict you to willing targets (Animal Shapes, Plane Shift, etc). The passage continues "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)." This sentence modifies the first sentence about willing targets. The third sentence also modifies the first two sentences, and continues under the headings of "Aiming a spell" and "Target or Targets." The third sentence means that of spells that have the word "Willing" in their target line affect unconscious creatures automatically.

Franks interpretation: A willing target is a willing target, done. From here I am unsure which incorrect path Frank is on. I see two possibilities. The first is that he denies the existence of spells which only target willing creatures. This is provably false, see the various spells in the Phb (Animal Shapes, etc).

Frank's other possible mistake is more subtle. The first two sentences "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)." describe spells such as Animal Shapes. For Frank's interpretation to be correct you have to assume the following:
1. The first sentence describes a specific subset of spells with "willing" in the target line.
2. The second sentence describes and modifies a specific subset of spells with "willing" in the target line (declaring yourself at any time).
3. The third sentence uses the word "willing" but does not describe the exact same subset of spells described in the first two sentences which also use the word "willing". The word "willing" described in the third sentence is also different from the "willing" in the actual spell descriptions the first two sentences are talking about. Instead, this third sentence "willing" describes all the spells in the game, and the fact that it is placed as if to modify the first two sentences has no bearing whatsoever. Additionally, the fact that it uses the same terminology as the first two sentences has no bearing whatsoever.

---

It should be obvious which interpretation seems more reasonable. If you care about designer intent, my interpretation also appears to be the stronger one. For example, it is a common Rpg trope to have the players travel with an exceedingly powerful creature from time to time. You don't want the level 9 Wizard to automatically Baleful Polymorph the CR 17 Frost Giant Jarl simply because they took a nap together.

This makes spells even better than a melee attack on a Coup de Grace vs unconscious creatures. The Frost Giant Jarl has a +25 to his Fort save. This change means that instead of only failing the Wizard's spell on a 1, he automatically fails it. Vs foes not vulnerable to crits (CDG), this changes the game even more.

[virgil]

I don't really see how spells are better than melee attacks on CdG. If you're capable of doing 9 damage with a scythe, before the crit, that Jarl is dead anyway. Creatures immune to crits are all creatures that don't sleep, to my knowledge, and thus aren't vulnerable to this tactic.

It does remind me of the general danger of sleep in D&D. It's hard to justify why they don't just die from a knife to the throat, if you ever have a character that actually tries to strike while they sleep.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Some nigh-irrefutable evidence:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/nightmare.htm

Nightmare
Illusion (Phantasm) [Mind-Affecting, Evil]
Level: Brd 5, Sor/Wiz 5
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Range: Unlimited
Target: One living creature
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes

You send a hideous and unsettling phantasmal vision to a specific creature that you name or otherwise specifically designate.

The nightmare prevents restful sleep and causes 1d10 points of damage. The nightmare leaves the subject fatigued and unable to regain arcane spells for the next 24 hours.

Knowledge Will Save Modifier
You must have some sort of connection to a creature you have no knowledge of.

None1 +10
Secondhand (you have heard of the subject) +5
Firsthand (you have met the subject) +0
Familiar (you know the subject well) -5
Connection Will Save Modifier
Likeness or picture -2
Possession or garment -4
Body part, lock of hair, bit of nail, etc. -10
The difficulty of the save depends on how well you know the subject and what sort of physical connection (if any) you have to that creature.

Dispel evil cast on the subject while you are casting the spell dispels the nightmare and causes you to be stunned for 10 minutes per caster level of the dispel evil.

If the recipient is awake when the spell begins, you can choose to cease casting (ending the spell) or to enter a trance until the recipient goes to sleep, whereupon you become alert again and complete the casting. If you are disturbed during the trance, you must succeed on a Concentration check as if you were in the midst of casting a spell or the spell ends.

If you choose to enter a trance, you are not aware of your surroundings or the activities around you while in the trance.

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

Creatures who don’t sleep (such as elves, but not half-elves) or dream are immune to this spell.

So here we have a spell which only functions on unconscious creatures, and it grants a saving throw. Not only that, there is a specific table for what modifies the will save.

So what is your contention here Frank?:
1. Do you argue that this spell has no saving throw because the target is unconscious? Even though there is a detailed and specific table for what modifies the will save?
2. Or do you argue that this is an example of the specific (the spell) overriding the general rule of no saves for unconscious foes? In this case you are arguing that a spell specifically designed for targeting unconscious foes grants a save, while all other spells do not.

Either way is not convincing.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

I don't really see how spells are better than melee attacks on CdG.

There are tons of reasons why you might want to subdue a foe and not kill them. For all these purposes, spells are better. There are also situations where you couldn't effectively get a melee attack off, but you could get into spell range (be it close, medium, or long).

If you're capable of doing 9 damage with a scythe, before the crit, that Jarl is dead anyway. Creatures immune to crits are all creatures that don't sleep, to my knowledge, and thus aren't vulnerable to this tactic.

Not true. There are many (more than a dozen?) ways to become immune to critical hits, and still be a creature type that needs sleep.

[Username17]

Dude, you are way over thinking this.

Taking a non-action to declare yourself willing for a specific spell makes you willing (p. 177).
Being unconscious makes you willing (p. 175).
Being willing allows you to be targeted by spells that only target willing creatures (p. 175).
Being willing skips your saving throw and special magical resistances (p. 177).

That's all extremely simple. The weird part, where lots of parts of the book are contradictory, is something that you cannot logically produce results from. Hell, the very same Nightmare that you quoted notes that while you are defenseless you automatically fail saving throws. I straight up don't know whether being counted as willing bypasses SR, since it says both yes and no on the same page (177). But being willing skips your saving throw, that's real clear. And being unconscious makes you willing, that's equally clear.

-Username17

[Crissa]

I think you're confusing willing target vs avoiding target and bypassing save vs needing a save.

They're different parts of the spell. Just like you can't cast a touch spell without touching someone doesn't mean they don't get a save because you've touched them.

-Crissa

[JonSetanta]

Taking a non-action to declare yourself willing for a specific spell makes you willing (p. 177).
Being unconscious makes you willing (p. 175).
Being willing allows you to be targeted by spells that only target willing creatures (p. 175).
Being willing skips your saving throw and special magical resistances (p. 177).

That's all extremely simple. The weird part, where lots of parts of the book are contradictory, is something that you cannot logically produce results from. Hell, the very same Nightmare that you quoted notes that while you are defenseless you automatically fail saving throws. I straight up don't know whether being counted as willing bypasses SR, since it says both yes and no on the same page (177). But being willing skips your saving throw, that's real clear. And being unconscious makes you willing, that's equally clear.

-Username17

What was that thing K said (says?), the exception does not make the rule?
It applies here.
Frank : 1
Sphere : 0

It is indeed more simple than it appears. Citing specific spells won't change the overarching mechanic that being unconscious renders you effectively rapebait to everything.

Also, Nightmare can affect waking opponents (they get Will save) and sleeping (no save).
The target is "One living creature", not "One living unconscious creature".

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Frank, I notice you didn't make counterarguments against any of my factual statements. You just listed this, and took a specific sentence out of context:

Taking a non-action to declare yourself willing for a specific spell makes you willing (p. 177).
Being unconscious makes you willing (p. 175).
Being willing allows you to be targeted by spells that only target willing creatures (p. 175).
Being willing skips your saving throw and special magical resistances (p. 177).

Emphasis mine. This is false when you try to shoehorn it to apply to all spells. Being unconscious makes you willing only for spells which 'restrict you to willing targets only'. See page 175.

The weird part, where lots of parts of the book are contradictory, is something that you cannot logically produce results from. Hell, the very same Nightmare that you quoted notes that while you are defenseless you automatically fail saving throws.

In other words, any evidence that supports my claim is something "you cannot logically produce results from." You are arguing that when my interpretation is not contradicted, it is false. But when your interpretation is contradicted, it is true.

Concerning the caster of the Nightmare spell: I notice you ignored the terminology to suit your argument. If being unconscious made you fail all spell saving throws, then they could simply have said "You are considered unconscious" or something similar. Instead, they specifically call out that you are in a special magical trace which grants you concentration checks, and wakes you up at a specific time to complete the spell. In addition, this special magical trance makes you totally defenseless.

---

Being willing skips your saving throw and special magical resistances (p. 177).

You are being misleading here. Note that on page 177 it states "A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result." Emphasis mine.

So you are in fact arguing that people get saving throws while unconscious for: Supernatural abilities, physical attacks (CdG), nonmagical special weapons (alchemical attacks), Extraordinary attacks, and natural attacks; including but not limited to: Breath weapons, Death attacks, disease, Fear effects, Ability Drain, Energy Drain, Gazes, Poisons, Psionics, Rays, and Sonic attacks.

You are then arguing that spells, and only spells automatically bypass all saving throws only while the target is unconscious. The ridiculousness of that is astounding.

[Username17]

Emphasis mine. This is false when you try to shoehorn it to apply to all spells. Being unconscious makes you willing only for spells which 'restrict you to willing targets only'. See page 175.

I've seen that page. I'm reading it right now. It doesn't say "unconscious creatures are considered willing for the purposes of these spells." It just says that unconscious creatures are considered willing. Period. No qualifiers.

You are seriously making this way more complex than it is. There is no distinction in the rules between being willing "for the purposes of bypassing saving throws" and being willing "for the purposes of spell targeting" there's just a state where you're willing. And if you're willing, for any reason, then all the things that trigger off that trigger. You don't get a save and you are a valid target for spells that require willing targets.

The whole basis of your entire argument - that there is a massive multi-layered dependency in which a single spell can treat a character as willing or unwilling on different lines of its spell description - is horse shit. There is flatly no such distinction in the rules or in play, and your entire argument is nonsense.

You can make all the logical arguments you want, but you're starting with the false and completely unsupportable premise that the state of being "willing" described on page 175 and 177 are different states that don't interact in any way. It's the same damn word, and it's in the same rules section. It's not a different state, and there is no language in the book that indicates that it is.

-Username17

[SphereOfFeetMan]

I've seen that page. I'm reading it right now. It doesn't say "unconscious creatures are considered willing for the purposes of these spells." It just says that unconscious creatures are considered willing. Period. No qualifiers.

The third sentence is continuing to describe the subset of spells described in the first two sentences. The qualifiers are directly preceding the sentence in the previous two sentences.

The whole basis of your entire argument - that there is a massive multi-layered dependency in which a single spell can treat a character as willing or unwilling on different lines of its spell description - is horse shit. There is flatly no such distinction in the rules or in play, and your entire argument is nonsense.

You have just inferred that a subset of spells do not exist, when they are proven to exist. Look at the Animal Shapes spell. It exists. There is nothing you can say that removes that fact. In the target line of the spell it states "Up to one willing creature per level, all within 30 ft. of each other."

There is flatly and explicitly a distinction in the rules. It is on page 175: "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."

The willingness is in the target line of spell descriptions. Just as it is described in the Spells section of the Phb, under the "Aiming a spell," and "Target or Targets" subsections. These ideas are directly related, that is why they are described under the same headings.

You can make all the logical arguments you want, but you're starting with the false and completely unsupportable premise that the state of being "willing" described on page 175 and 177 are different states that don't interact in any way.

Your entire argument is based upon a superfluous adverb used once in a phrase to modify the word 'accept.' Your interpretation ignores the context of the relevant quotes. Your interpretation denies the existence of spells that exist. Your interpretation is contradicted in places like the the Nightmare spell. Your interpretation states that spells and only spells give no saving throws for unconscious creatures, while everything else in the game does. Your interpretation breaks believability and verisimilitude. You are arguing that a high CR sleeping giant automatically fails the save vs the Poison spell, but gets a save vs every other poison attack in the game. In short, your interpretation requires compromising many rules, and creates many nonsensical situations.

My interpretation fits everything, except for possibly one word which could be argued either way. If you don't allow yourself to get hung up on the wrong interpretation of that single unnecessary adverb, my interpretation is congruent with every other rule in the game.

[Username17]

You have just inferred that a subset of spells do not exist, when they are proven to exist. Look at the Animal Shapes spell. It exists. There is nothing you can say that removes that fact. In the target line of the spell it states "Up to one willing creature per level, all within 30 ft. of each other."

I'm sure you think you have a point here, but you don't.

Yes, spells that only allow you to target willing creatures exist. However, that does not mean that the state of being "willing for the purposes of spells that only target willing creatures" is a different state from being "willing" at any other time and for any other purpose. Being willing is a state. Amongst the many things it does, it is a bare requirement for targeting with spells and effects that require a willing state for a potential target. But the fact that being willing fulfills that requirement in no way prevents it from triggering any other rule or effect that cares if a creature is willing.

You can't be willing and unwilling. And the fact that some effects explicitly talk about you being willing in one or more specific contexts in no way eliminates the willing state for the purposes of other effects that care.

-Username17

[SphereOfFeetMan]

You can't be willing and unwilling. And the fact that some effects explicitly talk about you being willing in one or more specific contexts in no way eliminates the willing state for the purposes of other effects that care.

You are not willing while unconscious. You are only considered willing for the purposes of the specific subset of spells mentioned. Nothing else. The quote on page 177 is not relevant.

A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result.

Emphasis mine. A creature cannot voluntarily do anything while unconscious. Therefore that passage is not relevant to unconscious creatures.