3
\$\begingroup\$

Some PCs are fighting other mind-controlled PCs. The wizard casts mage's disjunction to end the mind control effect. This works, but, in addition to doing that, the spell says that

each permanent magic item must make a successful Will save or be turned into a normal item for the duration of this spell [i.e. 1 min./level]. An item in a creature’s possession uses its own Will save bonus or its possessor’s Will save bonus, whichever is higher. If an item’s saving throw results in a natural 1 on the die, the item is destroyed instead of being suppressed.

With this in mind, can a creature that's attending a magic item voluntarily give up the magic item's saving throw against the disjunction so that the magic item is automatically suppressed for some minutes? Or must the magic item always attempt the saving throw—in such cases, always risking its existence to avoid a few minutes of inactivity? Or is there another option?

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Similar question for D&D 3.5e is here. \$\endgroup\$ Mar 31, 2021 at 16:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ Still difficult to parse, but I think it is good enough to reopen. \$\endgroup\$
    – Akixkisu
    Apr 3, 2021 at 14:28
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ So, just to clarify, the point of this is that you want to avoid the 1-in-20 risk of the item being destroyed as a result of rolling a natural 1 on the saving throw, and you'd prefer to instead accept a 100% certainty of the item becoming temporarily non-magical in exchange? \$\endgroup\$ Apr 3, 2021 at 19:20
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Ilmari Karone: exactly. In the real situation the PC forego the saving throw for a personal choice but the caster mage asks for saving throw for the attended objects. So here the question. \$\endgroup\$
    – alemayo
    Apr 6, 2021 at 7:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ At the end of all I think that: When someone uses the Disjunction spell, attended magic objects cannot "choose" if rolling or not. They must roll Saving Throw. \$\endgroup\$
    – alemayo
    Apr 7, 2021 at 14:15

1 Answer 1

1
\$\begingroup\$

From the rules

A creature can voluntarily forgo a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result

In other words, an item cannot. If you feel beneficial, you can rule that means the item's own saving throw applies, and not the higher of item and creature. The narrative would be that the creature gives up attending the magic item, leaving it to its own devices. Under no circumstance does it seem reasonable that the magic item's saving throw would be dropped.

Edit: In addition, note that the spell description says

An item in a creature’s possession uses its own Will save bonus or its possessor’s Will save bonus, whichever is higher.

implying that it is the item, not the creature making the save throw.

Outside of the rules, I can see the logic is the bearer 'protecting' the magic item, and conveying a better bonus. I fail to see the logic in the bearer somehow coaxing a magic item to lower its bonus. How would my dumb-as-a-brick barbarian manage to do that?

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ That line from the rules could also be taken to indicate that a creature could forgo a saving throw made for an item. \$\endgroup\$
    – Gloweye
    Aug 22, 2021 at 15:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .