Take the 2-minute tour ×
Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This question deals explicitly in how the mechanics of Pathfinder functions and not in how I should resolve this at the table; in Pathfinder, if a character is immune to an effect and then targeted by an ability that both permits a save and afflicts that effect, do they still roll a saving throw? For example, if a character immune to Paralysis is targeted by Hold Person, or if a red dragon is targeted by a fireball, are saving throws still 'supposed' to be rolled?

share|improve this question
1  
Is there some underlying question, like "what if there is an additional effect on a failed save against a spell?". The way the question is now, it doesn't really matter if there is or not. Either you don't do it, you pass it or you fail it but ignore the results, with the same consequences. –  Zachiel Dec 25 '13 at 21:53
    
It's relevant to some designing I'm doing/been doing for Dreamscarred Press; the question I asked is the one I need answered. I can parse if/thens for RAW. –  Lord_Gareth Dec 25 '13 at 21:58
    
Is there something that triggers off of rolling that would make a difference? –  SevenSidedDie Dec 25 '13 at 22:08
    
Off of failing in my case, yes. –  Lord_Gareth Dec 25 '13 at 22:15
add comment

5 Answers

up vote 6 down vote accepted

No Order of Operations Exists...

These are rules you'll have write. It's unfortunate in d20 that there's no quantified step-by-step order for combat and applying effects a la most trading card games. Were there, we could just say, "Immunity applies during step X, Damage Resolution, after Saving Throws but before Inflicting Effects," or whatever.

...But If You Want My Opinion

Yes, if only so the creature can choose to give up that saving throw.

Immunity shouldn't remove options everyone already has that aren't part of being immune. As everyone has the option of giving up a saving throw before knowing an effect's effect, immunity shouldn't change that.

Therefore when a creature is subject to an effect that requires a saving throw, the creature can choose to either make the saving throw or voluntarily give up (i.e. fail) that saving throw. Then the DM determines if the creature's immune to the effect.

Thus, unless the creature already knows an effect won't affect it (via a successful Spellcraft check, a successful Knowledge check that's revealed the opposition's abilities, or prior experience), the creature attempts the saving throw despite realizing an instant later that it possesses immunity to the effect.

That's because Pathfinder (and its antecedents) is a dangerous place, and what individuals can do varies wildly. A creature is safer if it always attempts saving throws versus affects, even if it thinks it might be immune to such effects because there's usually a random component to identifying effects, and being dumb gets it killed. Even a red dragon--who's immune to fire--will still make a saving throw versus the spell fireball [evoc] (Pathfinder Role-playing Game Core Rules 283) because there's no way to anticipate how a particular caster's fireball is going to differ from any other caster's fireball.

If immunity is checked first there's no opportunity to voluntarily give up the saving throw, and that opportunity should exist even if the creature's immune if for no other reason than to let the DM, when describing the spell's effect, tell the players that the creature appears to give up its saving throw, acting all awesome because the creature suspects he's immune.

If a Precedent's Absolutely Necessary

When spells are printed, they're printed with a Saving Throw first and the Spell Resistance after, so absent another order, those are checked in that order. Linking spell resistance to spell immunity is easy, but making the jump from spell immunity to immunity is harder, but, hey, the words are there.

share|improve this answer
1  
In the absence of any explicit rules, this seems most sensible to me. –  KRyan Dec 26 '13 at 16:29
    
@KRyan In the absence of any explicit rules, I'd use the same rule that is used for extra effect on critical hits on immune creatures, whichever it was. –  Zachiel Dec 26 '13 at 18:42
add comment

There is no precedent in the rules for it to matter, so I doubt any rule addresses it. You are using a new mechanic, so create rules for it. Even if there is some RAW that defines the general case, people probably don't know it, since this is super obscure. So just give a specific rule in the effect for what you want to happen in this case, and also in the case of waived saving throws, e.g. for (harmless) spells. Don't rely on obscure RAW here, that will lead to very different results for different tables, even before anyone intentionally houserules anything.

share|improve this answer
2  
Isn't that what I said and you complained about? –  mxyzplk Dec 28 '13 at 15:46
1  
@mxyzplk Your basis for your answer was that “no, there is no saving throw because no one actually rolls the dice in that situation,” which is irrelevant. I make no attempt to answer “yes” or “no.” –  KRyan Dec 28 '13 at 17:31
    
Actually, there is a precedent. Starsoul Bloodline Arcana: "Whenever you cast an evocation spell, targets that fail their saves are dazzled by tiny sparkling starlights for 1 round per level of the spell." If throwing a Fireball on a target immune to fire, can they be dazzled? –  Scrollmaster Mar 22 at 17:30
    
Additionally, the SRD Immunity entry reads: "A creature that is immune does not suffer from these effects, or any secondary effects that are triggered due to an immune effect." Hell if I know what it means though. –  Scrollmaster Mar 22 at 18:15
    
@Scrollmaster Precedent doesn’t matter, since Starsoul Bloodline Arcana is a specific case with a specific rule that doesn’t apply generally. That rule could even be an exception. On the other hand, the second rule you point out, I think, could be argued either way, so I stand by my position that it doesn’t matter what the rule is or isn’t, it’s too obscure to be relied on. –  KRyan Mar 22 at 19:26
add comment

There's nothing saying you can't, but it's not likely to make a difference.

Saving Throws

Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect.

It's analogous to “(harmless)”, in my opinion.

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

share|improve this answer
    
But does waiving a saving throw count the same as failing one? –  KRyan Dec 26 '13 at 14:39
    
The end result is the game. It's more of a philosophical question whether you can fail something you didn't attempt. –  okeefe Dec 26 '13 at 15:12
1  
It’s not the same for Lord_Gareth; see the comments. –  KRyan Dec 26 '13 at 15:23
2  
It's the same as far as the saving throw is concerned with respect to the triggering effect. If there's some other rule that keys off of saving throw failure, then that rule may have problems. –  okeefe Dec 26 '13 at 15:34
1  
That still does not answer the question. You waive a saving throw: does that mean you failed it, or that there never was a saving throw? The distinction is relevant to the question, and you have not addressed it, and therefore have not actually answered the question or even attempted to do so. –  KRyan Dec 29 '13 at 15:47
show 3 more comments

So the answer is "no," no one in reality bothers to roll saves to things they are immune to and the rules are silent on the subject. If you are writing some mechanic that expects them to even recognize its lack in gameplay, it needs to be super explicit and will suffer from the fact that it relies on an operation that flies in the face of common use, whether a tortured reading of RAW justifies it or not.

share|improve this answer
add comment

As an addendum to other answers, I would like to offer some help on the issues you mentioned in the comments. There is at least a couple precedents for what you are trying to do. The Starsoul bloodline's arcana reads:

Bloodline Arcana: Whenever you cast an evocation spell, targets that fail their saves are dazzled by tiny sparkling starlights for 1 round per level of the spell.

If a Starsoul sorcerer throws a Fireball at a Red Dragon, does the dragon have to roll to avoid being dazzled? Jinxed spell is another example.

As it turns out, we can find an answer under the entry for Immunity (emphasis mine):

A creature with immunities takes no damage from listed sources. Immunities can also apply to afflictions, conditions, spells (based on school, level, or save type), and other effects. A creature that is immune does not suffer from these effects, or any secondary effects that are triggered due to an immune effect.

Despite not being the clearest formulation ever, this seems to show that a creature does not suffer from secondary effects triggered by an effect it is immune to, no matter if it succeeds on its save or not.

Back to our example, a Red Dragon receiving a Fireball from a Starsoul sorcerer would not be Dazzled. In fact, the Red Dragon cannot be affected by any secondary effect triggered by a Fireball or any other fire effect.

share|improve this answer
    
While this answer is accurate, the secondary information isn't necessarily helpful to me; the ability in question triggers when its user fails a saving throw. –  Lord_Gareth Mar 23 at 22:44
1  
@Lord_Gareth That's my point, the ability cannot be triggered by an effect the user is immune to. Effects the user is immune to cannot trigger secondary effects, no matter the source. –  Scrollmaster Mar 23 at 23:19
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.