Unconscious Saves: The Official Word

[AuraSeer]

A new copy of the FAQ is out, and among its other rulings, it says you can attempt Reflex saves while helpless. Since you can't move you have an effective Dexterity of 0, giving you a stat modifier of -5 (instead of whatever you had before), but you still get to try the roll.

The rationale is that a Reflex save is not entirely dependent on moving. It has something to do with luck, and miraculous coincidence, and the same Dude Factor that lets heroic PCs stay alive after getting shot eleven times with a heavy crossbow.

We seem to have had a lot of previous threads on this subject, with nothing really getting resolved. What do you all think about the official ruling?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

That's how I've always done it -- you're never denied a save (you might be denied evasion, but not a save).

 

[Hypersmurf]

He hasn't addressed the issue of "As with a Reflex save for any creature, you must have room to move in order to use Evasion."

Which is the key point in the argument.

Aargh!

I also note that he seems to be in the "Harm can't kill even on a failed save" camp.

-Hyp.

 

[Taren Seeker]

Anyone notice that his cowering point seems to imply now that being flatfooted, climbing or balancing would cost you your Dex to ref saves?

Aargh indeed.

 

[James McMurray]

a) he has never seen that section of the rules
b) he doesn't feel its valid
or c) he thinks it means something other than what it says.

Your guess is as good as mine as to which of those it is.

Harm: You mean there is a camp out there that thinks a spell designed to almost, but not quite, kill someone should be able to kill them, but only if they are really powerful (i.e. have enough levels that they can take 50 damage)? That just strikes me as silly. Sure, it might be valid from a strict interpretation fo the rules, but its obviously not the intent of the spell.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Harm: You mean there is a camp out there that thinks a spell designed to almost, but not quite, kill someone should be able to kill them, but only if they are really powerful (i.e. have enough levels that they can take 50 damage)? That just strikes me as silly. Sure, it might be valid from a strict interpretation fo the rules, but its obviously not the intent of the spell.

No, I mean there's a camp out there that notices that "it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1" appears in a sentence that begins "If the target successfully saves".

If the target doesn't successfully save, then, that note is inapplicable, and if they have 45 hit points and they take 150 damage, they die.

If they successfully save, and they have 45 hit points and take 75 damage, "it cannot reduce the target's hit points to less than 1", and they don't die.

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

Ah, those folks are also silly.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Anyone notice that his cowering point seems to imply now that being flatfooted, climbing or balancing would cost you your Dex to ref saves?

No, it doesn't, and he actually might have a point.

Flat-footed, blinded, grappling, and stunned all state that you lose your Dex bonus to AC (if any).

Cowering states that you lose your Dex bonus (if any).

Cowering doesn't explicitly limit the Dex bonus you lose to just AC.

Now, one might argue that since it says "You take a -2 penalty to AC and lose your Dex bonus" that the "to AC" is implicit, in which case you can ignore what the FAQ says about Cowering affecting Reflex saves.

But even if you agree with the FAQ, it can't be extended to cover Flat-Footed etc, because the wording is different.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ah, those folks are also silly.

Because they read what the spell says?

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

Precisely. The Harm spell has never been able to kill, poor wording in an attempt at a fi for the spell should not be construed to change the way it has worked for 4 editions and suddenly allow it to kill people.