D&D 5E Do you still roll a saving throw if you are immune to what you are saving against?

[Stalker0]

Seems pretty clear to me. A save is required. For speed of play a DM might wave it if it did not impact play, but since it will impact play it must be made.

However reading saying throws, there is no requirement to make the save. The spell says you CAN make a save, not that you must.

Combine that with the clause under saving throws in general that says saves are only used when there is the risk of harm, it seems very reasonable that no save would be made in this case

 

[Stalker0]

So the crux of the debate comes down to…there is NO technical definition of immunity, nothing actually defined in the book.

So there is no truly RAW answer.

We have reasonable interpretations on both sides, so it comes down to the DM and how they want it to go.

 

[Blue]

However reading saying throws, there is no requirement to make the save. The spell says you CAN make a save, not that you must.

We know that's false - JC has come out that there is no intentional failing of saving throws, so saving throws can't be optional.

Combine that with the clause under saving throws in general that says saves are only used when there is the risk of harm, it seems very reasonable that no save would be made in this case

This might be very telling. Where in the PHB is it?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I can't think of a possible rationale to disallow it other than petty mean-spiritedness. Immunity doesn't have to mean that you can't even perceive an effect. This is not an example of a player abusing unintended synergies.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

There's no need to roll if the outcome is uncertain. In this situation the outcome is in doubt; the warlock might be able to use her cool ability, or she might not, all depending on how the dice tumbles.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The question essentially is does she still get to throw the dice ?

That's not even the most important question. The real question the player is asking is "Can I use beguiling twist?"

There is no reason to roll the saving throw. The character is immune. It's a waste of time. But does that mean they can't use beguiling twist?

If "immunity" is thought of (as some have suggested) as automatically succeeding on all saving throws (and taking no damage) from sources that you are immune to... then yes, you can use beguiling twist.

You don't need to roll the save. You just need to succeed on it. And you did.

This confusion comes from the word "make" that we like to use (as in "make a saving throw". It simultaneously means "do it (roll)" and "succeed at it".

But you can succeed at it without rolling it, as the case is here.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This is why the wording WotC uses can lead to such cases.

Better wording (IMO) would be "resist" the effect, either through immunity or a successful save.

And why even use the phrase "make a saving throw" as opposed to "roll a saving throw" since you are rolling?

 

[aco175]

Nobody brought up the new rules with 1 being auto fail and 20 being auto success. Not sure how this interacts.

Being no chance for failure, I would say no roll. Having no roll should mean it does not affect you at all. I do not think I would allow the benefit of making a save since you do not have to make one.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That's not even the most important question. The real question the player is asking is "Can I use beguiling twist?"

There is no reason to roll the saving throw. The character is immune. It's a waste of time. But does that mean they can't use beguiling twist?

If "immunity" is thought of (as some have suggested) as automatically succeeding on all saving throws (and taking no damage) from sources that you are immune to... then yes, you can use beguiling twist.

You don't need to roll the save. You just need to succeed on it. And you did.

This confusion comes from the word "make" that we like to use (as in "make a saving throw". It simultaneously means "do it (roll)" and "succeed at it".

But you can succeed at it without rolling it, as the case is here.

Yes. You can choose whatever interpretation you like. So the question (again) is: why would the DM want to disallow this use of beguiling twist? It's not like it lets them do something they couldn't do anyway, or that the thing they are doing is so overpowered it must be tightly constrained. It just changes it from being a high probability thing (save with advantage) to guaranteed (immunity a.k.a. automatic save).

Parsing the language to disallow it seems, to me, like a jerk rules lawyer thing to do.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Parsing the language to disallow it seems, to me, like a jerk rules lawyer thing to do.

It definitely seems like that when the DM, in order to disallow it, would have to make being immune somehow worse (tactically, in this instance) than being regular vulnerable.