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

[billd91]

That defintion fails though against fire immune creatures and spells like fireball

Well, you could be pedantic about the terms used.

Or you could make the realization that successfully saving means successfully resisting the effect to the best of the target's ability to do so. Being immune would also count as successfully resisting the effect to the best of the target's ability, though a save was not technically necessary.

I'd allow the character to use the beguiling twist in those circumstances.

 

[Charlaquin]

I wouldn’t ask the player to roll a die to save against an effect they’re immune to. I also wouldn’t prevent the player from using Beguiling Twist because they’re immune to being frightened. That would just be silly.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'd allow the save throw. It's more fun.

 

[Oofta]

No, not if you strictly follow the rules. From the PHB Using Ability Scores/Saving Throws
"You don’t normally decide to make a saving throw; you are forced to make one because your character or monster is at risk of harm."

You aren't at risk of harm if you're immune therefore you can't decide to make one in order to trigger anything else. No risk of harm, no save. Whether you actually run it that way or not is, of course, up to the DM.

 

[DEFCON 1]

To me, this is another situation where game mechanics are causing issues to story and I'd rule based upon what makes most sense from the story's perspective.

The story is this character has an ability to potentially cause a beguiling twist to a target. They know they can accomplish this thing... this beguiling twist. It is one of their abilities, right there on their sheet. It is something they can do in the fiction.

However, the way the game mechanics have been designed, there's in theory no way they can use this ability-- immunity to frightened condition means no saving throw... no saving throw means no way to trigger the reaction for beguiling twist. Game mechanics are prohibiting the use of an ability they should be able to use for no other reason than just the way the game rules are getting combined together. That's a fault in the game rules, not a fault in the character. And thus I won't punish the character because the game rules are causing a problem. I'll adjust the game rules.

So for me... this is where story trumps mechanics and I do what I think makes most sense story-first. To me, the character has a chance to cause a beguiling twist as a reaction when they are exposed to something that could cause fright. To achieve this using the mechanics... I would let them make the saving throw roll just to discover the number that pops up, and whether that number is high enough to cause the reaction of the beguiling twist. But regardless of what number rolled... the character will never be frightened because they are immune to the frightened condition. Doesn't matter what the saving throw was, they are immune to frightened. But the roll at least gives us an indication of when the character can use the ability as listed.

That's how I'd rule it.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Immune simply means you take no damage or are unaffected by a particular attack. It says nothing about removing the obligation to make a saving throw, nor do spells/effects say "make a saving throw unless immune."

Common sense would say there's no point in rolling a saving throw if the target cannot be affected, but there are instances where a saving throw might be warranted:

(1) Collateral effect as described by the OP
(2) It isn't obvious whether the creature saved against the effect or is immune, so the DM describes the immunity as if the target saved

 

[BookTenTiger]

It's more fun for the player to make the roll, so make the roll.

 

[Umbran]

That defintion fails though against fire immune creatures and spells like fireball

This is not a game in which following absolute logic is a great tool.

But, even given that, I'm not sure why this fails. We assume the immune creature makes the save. The spell says the creature takes half damage. But being immune means that they cannot take fire damage, so they take none.

What's the problem?

When a creature that is immune to an effect, say, heals as much damage as they would have taken, there's a hitch, I suppose.

But frankly, most people can run entire campaigns in which whether an immune creature make the save or not will never come up. It is a tiny edge case, so I'm more than willing to deal with them as they come up, rather than worry over whether the exact wording of a definition covers all cases.

 

[Blue]

This doesn't fall under the DM calling for a roll because there is uncertainty. This is the mechanics of the spell or effect calling for the target to make a save. Immunity does not say anything about not needing to make a save. So we have the rules directly saying a save should be made, and no rules directly saying a save should not be made.

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.

 

[Stalker0]

Well, you could be pedantic about the terms used.

Or you could make the realization that successfully saving means successfully resisting the effect to the best of the target's ability to do so. Being immune would also count as successfully resisting the effect to the best of the target's ability, though a save was not technically necessary.

I'd allow the character to use the beguiling twist in those circumstances.

There’s nothing pedantic about providing a counter example when someone is trying to apply a text description to something it’s not directly supposed to. That’s how debates occur. There is no obvious line of text to tell us, so we have to figure it out with example and counter example.