Unconscious = "willing"?

[Dingleberry]

I appreciate all the feedback. Sounds like it's safe to say the rules are not clear. FYI, I'm the DM in this case, so my decision will control - I'd just like to make it an educated one (skewed in favor of the my prepared plotline, of course).

In case this thread has any more legs, I'll add a nit to clarify and/or complicate the matter: there is presumably a difference between being "willing" and voluntarily giving up a Will save, otherwise spells like teleport would have a Will save rather than a "willing creatures" target with a save of "None".

Of course, plane shift has both: "creature touched, or up to eight willing creatures" and "Will negates".

Discuss. (Or tell me to go pound sand.)

 

[Number47]

I think I would lower a Will save for unconscious, but certainly allow it (if the creature would want to resist). An unconscious person has their Dex treated as zero. Would it be harsh to lower an unconscious person's Wis to zero? Disclude normal Wis modifier, if positive?

Edit: Of course, if unconscious means you can get a Will save, you can never teleport an unconscious enemy.

 

[Xarlen]

I miss the ol' 2e spell Teleport Other. I like the idea of using Teleport on an opponent. For those who'd say it's just save or die, well... So's Polymorph. Mind you, I believe the spell was 7th level.

 

[Stalker0]

Question: Do people know what spells being cast on them when its cast, or do you need spellcraft for that.

If you need spellcraft, then I'd rule it would be very difficult to have an unconscious victim not save on a CLW and save on a teleport.

 

[Crothian]

No, willing target can only be made when the target is conscience and thinking.

 

[Oni]

A person doesn't automatically know what is being cast. Does the spell automatically determine whether a person would be willing or not? Do you have to ask them before hand to get their consent? What about creatures that are aware, but you cannot communicate effectively with?

 

[hong]

I wonder if anyone else looked at the thread title and started thinking of Rohypnol.


Hong "never used it, honest, swear to gawd" Ooi

 

[Deadguy]

A person doesn't automatically know what is being cast. Does the spell automatically determine whether a person would be willing or not? Do you have to ask them before hand to get their consent? What about creatures that are aware, but you cannot communicate effectively with?

Personally, Oni, I would say yes, that consent must be express. The spell doesn't 'determine' whether someone is willing or not. It's rather a matter of whether the spell encounters any resistance or not. So, in strictness, providing that healing in combat ought to involve the cleric telling the fighter "get ready I'm going to heal you now". The fighter doesn't have to say anything, just 'relax' and let the magic do its thing (i.e. tell the DM that he's not resisting the spell)! of course, we usually shortcircuit this by assuming that the PCs, as a party, acquiesce to their friends and allies casting spells on them. But strictly we ought not to.

As for those beings that you can't effectively communicate with - well you are out of luck. Perhaps show-and-tell might work!

 

[0-hr]

If a paralyzed person does not get a Reflex save, then I'm not giving an unconsious one a Will save (or a dead one a Fortitude save ).

 

[Pielorinho]

Probably I'll handle it in my game, when it comes up, by adding the words "or unconscious" to any target of "willing creature." Thus it'll target any willing or unconscious creature. This causes the fewest problems, IMO -- and I like the idea of knocking someone out and kidnapping them.

Daniel