If you are immune to something, do you still make a saving throw?

[RigaMortus2]

Also, area affects will burn your stuff if you botch a save. [natural 1], so tryng to jump away from a fireball actual can be a hazard by the way the rules work.

Spell / magic item based protections apply to items you wear.
Being naturally immune to fire means you will be skinny dipping if you swim in lava.

True. But the question is specifically geared more towards failing a poison save. Which, I don't know of that many area effect poison spells around.

Funny though, we often igore or forget that rule when it comes to rolling a nat 1 against a fireball. Even though it adds a bit of realism, it seems like it would be more of a headache trying to figure out what got damage, what wasn't affected, etc.

 

[mvincent]

There are other feats and classes even (such as Warforged) which can get you a complete immunity to poison.

So if I am immune to poison to begin with, do I ever make the save?

Ah. Got it. I would say no. I can't imagine a warforged benefiting from poison healing, and (for instance) the Neutralize Poison spell says:
"The creature is immune to any poison it is exposed to during the duration of the spell"...
"the creature need not make any saves against poison effects"

Other examples of Immunity (like Spell Immunity) similarly imply that the creature is completely unaffected (and does not make a saving throw)

 

[Infiniti2000]

Also, area affects will burn your stuff if you botch a save. [natural 1], so tryng to jump away from a fireball actual can be a hazard by the way the rules work.

Oh yeah! That's what the other question was about.

 

[Sejs]

Alright, I'll just spit it out... I was thinking of making a Wizard (or Sorcerer) with the feats: Great Fortitude and Poison Healer. Poison Healer is a general feat from Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss. It requires a prereq of Great Fortitude and Con 13. Basically, anytime you succeed at making a saving throw against a poison effect, you get healed (I beleive it is like twice you Con bonus, or twice your character level, I forget which).

So I was thinking of making a Wizard (or Sorc) with a Tiny Viper familiar and after combat, have the viper bite me. Should I make the saving throw, I get healed up. The DC for a Tiny Viper's poison is DC 10. The problem is, a natural 1 always fails, so I need a way to be immune to the poison (which happens to be 1d6 Con damage). There are other feats and classes even (such as Warforged) which can get you a complete immunity to poison.

So if I am immune to poison to begin with, do I ever make the save? Making the save = getting healed. Failing the save = 1d6 Con damage which is what I am trying to find a way around (ie being immune to poison or Con damage).

Aha, gotcha. In that case I'd probably have to say no, doesn't fly.

How could you gain vitality from something if you can't be affected by it in the first place?

Just doesn't follow. Sorry Rig. Here with this example, immune to the bad would mean immune to the (potential) good as well.

 

[geosapient]

So I was thinking of making a Wizard (or Sorc) with a Tiny Viper familiar and after combat, have the viper bite me. Should I make the saving throw, I get healed up. The DC for a Tiny Viper's poison is DC 10. The problem is, a natural 1 always fails, so I need a way to be immune to the poison (which happens to be 1d6 Con damage). There are other feats and classes even (such as Warforged) which can get you a complete immunity to poison.

If you're willing to take a couple of class levels other than wizard or sorcerer you could look into a class from the Tome of Battle. There is a feat / boost / maneuver (can't remember which) that allows you to make a concentration check in place of a save. A 1 on that check is not considered a failure.

 

[RigaMortus2]

If you're willing to take a couple of class levels other than wizard or sorcerer you could look into a class from the Tome of Battle. There is a feat / boost / maneuver (can't remember which) that allows you to make a concentration check in place of a save. A 1 on that check is not considered a failure.

Now you are THINKING! Yes... Yes I would...
In fact, there is another feat that lets you Take 10 on Concentration checks as well. I'll have to track that one down...

 

[Sejs]

Now you are THINKING! Yes... Yes I would...
In fact, there is another feat that lets you Take 10 on Concentration checks as well. I'll have to track that one down...

Steady Concentration from Races of Stone. Requires you to have 8 ranks in Concentration to take it.

The maneuver you're looking for is from the Diamond Mind discipline, it's called Mind Over Body, and it's a 3rd level maneuver, so you'd have to be a 5th level Warblade or Swordsage to take it.

Edit/additional. Between this route and the warforged one, I'd say this would be the far more reasonable. The 'mental mastery over your body' angle fits far better than the warforged thing, which is a bit of a logical disconnect. *nod*

Besides, Diamond Mind is just plain cool.

 

[Vegepygmy]

So if I am immune to poison to begin with, do I ever make the save? Making the save = getting healed. Failing the save = 1d6 Con damage which is what I am trying to find a way around (ie being immune to poison or Con damage).

Per the rules, I think your proposed scheme would work just fine. It's totally ridiculous and broken, but that's only because Poison Healer is a ridiculous feat.

I would say no. I can't imagine a warforged benefiting from poison healing, and (for instance) the Neutralize Poison spell says:
"The creature is immune to any poison it is exposed to during the duration of the spell"...
"the creature need not make any saves against poison effects"

"Need not" isn't the same as "may not." In fact, "need not" implies that you may (but don't have to if you don't want to).

 

[Hawken]

I have to disagree with Riga's premise here. It seems to me that he is attempting to twist the words (or lack thereof) around regarding saving throws, poison and immunity to justify getting benefit from something that would have no effect (negative or positive) on him. The way he is going about it is devious as well. I don't imagine anyone here would have any problem if the premise was presented of building a character with the Poison Healer feat that had a good Fort save and a decent to damn good Con. However, as a DM, I would not allow a character like he proposes into my game or to do anything like that in one of my games. His proposal is not valid for one, nor is it based in any sort of logic or common sense, or even the 'spirit' of the feat or the definitions of the terms he is attempting to take advantage of, but instead relies on what is not said or implied in certain definitions, rather than what is said or implied.

If one is immune to something, then a saving throw is not even rolled. Saving throws are made to reduce or avoid damage or effects. If one is immune, then there is no effect to reduce or avoid, so no save is even rolled to be passed or failed. The subject of that immunity is harmless and does not affect that character. Creatures immune to fire do not make saving throws if they are hit by a fireball, so, someone immune to poison similarly would not make a saving throw against the poison.

I also agree with Vegepygmy that the Poison Healer feat is ridiculous. Great Fortitude and a Con of 13+ don't explain how being exposed to something harmful can actually heal. And with poison DCs relatively low to begin with, there's not much danger of failing them even at mid level with a weak Fort save class.

Another thing to consider is the Heal skill. Dropping ranks in that, along with a Healer's kit, and a standard action allows a Heal check in place of a saving throw. So, with enough ranks and modifiers, even a roll of a '1' will not cause the character to be affected (since we all knows that '1's on skill checks are not auto-fail like they are with saves) by the poison and poison immunity becomes an unnecessary and unneeded precaution.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I have to disagree with Riga's premise here. It seems to me that he is attempting to twist the words (or lack thereof) around regarding saving throws, poison and immunity to justify getting benefit from something that would have no effect (negative or positive) on him. The way he is going about it is devious as well. I don't imagine anyone here would have any problem if the premise was presented of building a character with the Poison Healer feat that had a good Fort save and a decent to damn good Con. However, as a DM, I would not allow a character like he proposes into my game or to do anything like that in one of my games. His proposal is not valid for one, nor is it based in any sort of logic or common sense, or even the 'spirit' of the feat or the definitions of the terms he is attempting to take advantage of, but instead relies on what is not said or implied in certain definitions, rather than what is said or implied.

You can disagree with the premise all you like, but the rules are the rules. I was not sure about the rules, which is why I asked (they don't specify either way).

If one is immune to something, then a saving throw is not even rolled.

And that is what I was trying to determine. Which is why I asked the question. Can you post any rules quotes to back up your assumption? You know, something other than "it's common sense"?

Saving throws are made to reduce or avoid damage or effects. If one is immune, then there is no effect to reduce or avoid, so no save is even rolled to be passed or failed. The subject of that immunity is harmless and does not affect that character. Creatures immune to fire do not make saving throws if they are hit by a fireball

So you are saying, if someone is immune to fire, and someone tosses a fireball at them, all of their items are protected as well? Because the only way they will be damaged is on a fail saving throw of a 1.

I also agree with Vegepygmy that the Poison Healer feat is ridiculous.

There are a lot of ridiculous feats out there. That's fine if YOU don't want to allow them. My DM (and myself when I DM) have no problem allowing this however. To each his own.

Another thing to consider is the Heal skill. Dropping ranks in that, along with a Healer's kit, and a standard action allows a Heal check in place of a saving throw. So, with enough ranks and modifiers, even a roll of a '1' will not cause the character to be affected (since we all knows that '1's on skill checks are not auto-fail like they are with saves) by the poison and poison immunity becomes an unnecessary and unneeded precaution.

Now this I did not know. Thanks for the info...

Of course, the question has become moot at this point as I found an alternate way around it thanks to geosapient's idea of taking Mind Over Body maneuver. And if it is true you can make a Heal check in place of a saving throw (I will have to look into this as I've never heard of that before) that is yet another way around it.