Unconcious = Willing?

[Hypersmurf]

Actually in regards to saving throws, it has been stated directly in the FAQ:

Yes, but I disagree with it

-Hyp.

 

[Dracorat]

I am surprised honestly. You must be one of the most legalistic people on these boards.

But then, if I can disagree in the whole swift actions debate I guess I should expect you to have your own quirks here and there =P =)

 

[KarinsDad]

I agree with Hyp about everything except the Reflex saves. That is an inference he is making from Evasion, not a rule.


Bottom line, unconscious creatures only autofail saves versus spells that are Saving Throw: Willing or Harmless or None. Otherwise, they have to get a save (even a Reflex save) since foregoing a save is a conscious decision.

(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.

Deciding to attempt a save against a harmless spell is a conscious decision. Harmless spells otherwise imply that no save is normally made.


The important thing to remember is:

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,

The unconscious willing statement is in a section on aiming a spell and a paragraph specifically discussing willing spells.

It is not in the normal saving throw area. It has nothing to do with any spells except Willing target spells.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I am surprised honestly. You must be one of the most legalistic people on these boards.

When it comes to the rules, certainly. If I feel that the FAQ is incorrect on a rules issue, I don't feel constrained by it.

-Hyp.

 

[boolean]

Regarding fireball in particular, and Reflex saves in general, I hold that an unconscious creature cannot make them; an unconscious creature is helpless, with an effective Dex of 0, and is therefore considered paralyzed, and cannot move.

So unattended magical items automatically fail Reflex saves at your table?

 

[Hypersmurf]

So unattended magical items automatically fail Reflex saves at your table?

An unattended magical item is not 'any creature', so the Evasion quote is inapplicable.

An unattended intelligent magical item is a creature, so they fail.

-Hyp.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

[Orc dating 101]The unconscious are always willing[/Orc dating 101]

Ah, I see someone already went there. Saves me the work.

Remember, people, we're talking about D&D here. The "unconscious = willing" line won't hold in any court on earth.

 

[Vrecknidj]

I seem to recall a 1e description of someone chained to a rock still getting a save, despite the utter improbability of there baing any reason for the save. And, if I recall, the argument given was that a successful save indicated that something happened to protect the character and that it was, in effect, the DM's job to explain what that something was (i.e. story-telling still matters).

So, in that sense, a sleeping person still gets a Reflex save against a fireball, even a person sleeping in a very tight space.

Dave

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I seem to recall a 1e description of someone chained to a rock still getting a save, despite the utter improbability of there baing any reason for the save. And, if I recall, the argument given was that a successful save indicated that something happened to protect the character and that it was, in effect, the DM's job to explain what that something was (i.e. story-telling still matters).

So, in that sense, a sleeping person still gets a Reflex save against a fireball, even a person sleeping in a very tight space.

Dave

That stretches it too much for me. In my opinion, the DMs explanation should go like this: "You were chained to that rock and fireballed right in the face, no way in all the hells were you going to avoid that. Sorry, life's hard, but luckily for you that's not your problem any more."

I'd give someone a -20 on his ref save, since this is practically impossible, but that's it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

That stretches it too much for me. In my opinion, the DMs explanation should go like this: "You were chained to that rock and fireballed right in the face, no way in all the hells were you going to avoid that. Sorry, life's hard, but luckily for you that's not your problem any more."

"As with a Reflex save for any creature, a character must have room to move in order to evade. A bound character or one squeezing through an area cannot use evasion."

Does a creature chained to a rock have 'room to move'? The second sentence suggests that a 'bound character' is an example of a character who cannot use Evasion... as with a Reflex save for any creature.

While I admit that my 'sleeping' ruling requires some debatable interpretation of 'room to move', I don't think there's anything ambiguous about a bound character - per this paragraph, a character chained to a rock cannot make a Reflex save.

-Hyp.