Quote Originally Posted by Duke of Urrel View Post
I don't doubt the phrase "See text" at all, and I didn't mean to disparage or dismiss the main text of the Cure Light Wounds spell by calling it "descriptive." I hope I take this text as seriously as you do. However, I doubt that anything in the main text itself makes clear that no creature gets a saving throw against the Cure Light Wounds spell except for Undead. Indeed, the phrase "Will half" in the spell's Saving Throw line seems to indicate that every creature gets a Will save against it. Only the parenthetical word "(harmless)" in the Saving Throw line explicitly rules out this interpretation. (And it does so before the reader's eyes even reach the clause "see text.")
It would indicate that all creatures have the save, but the the text says otherwise says otherwise, whether harmless is there or not. I don't think there's any meaningful argument against the idea that only undead get the save, even if the harmless weren't there.

As I said, there are many spells with the word "(harmless)" in the Saving Throw line and (significantly, I believe) also in the Spell Resistance line. My proposal is based upon the notion that there is a reason for this. This, I believe, is that saving throws are not voluntary options that creatures can take even while they're unconscious, but in fact involuntary events that happen by default, unless a creature consciously chooses otherwise.
There is a reason those words are there, but it's not the reason you state. The spell necessarily tells the creature in question that the spell in question is harmless, such that they can choose to allow it to pass through saves, and that's pretty much it in its entirety.

You and Chronikoce seem to believe, to the contrary, that saving throws are always voluntary options, even for unconscious creatures, simply because they don't count as actions. That's okay, but that's not what I choose to believe about nonactions and unconsciousness. I believe that while you are unconscious, you either make saving throws by default or don't make them by default, but you cannot change the default. You can change the default only while you are conscious.
The issue is that the helpless text is fundamentally incapable of changing the default of SR. SR can't just be flicked back and forth like a switch. It requires a concerted effort on the part of the creature.

This is how I choose to read all spells with the "(harmless)" indicator, and there are many of them. The Protection from Energy is another example. Here, there is nothing in the spell's main text that indicates that the spell's target makes no saving throw by default. Only the parenthetical word "(harmless)" in the spell's Saving Throw indicates this. Again, others may choose to say that even an unconscious creature who receives the Protection from Energy spell can unconsciously choose not to make a Fortitude save against it, but that's not how I choose to interpret the rules. I choose to say that the parenthetical word "(harmless)" in the spell's Saving Throw line is what makes the difference here. Since the Protection from Energy spell is of this "(harmless)" kind, it does not, by default, trigger any saving throw from the affected creature.
It's very much possible that the unconscious creature just saves against the protection from energy. Or perhaps they don't, because the spell tells the creature's unconscious mind to not save. It doesn't really matter as applies to SR. The spell can tell the target to lower SR all it wants, but there still need be that additional effort.


I agree that I haven't proved anything, but I think I have provided some good circumstantial evidence for my point of view.
Not really. Best case scenario, there's a specific that overrides a general. Worst case scenario, the specific and general are perfectly aligned. There's no real support for an error. Errors tend to require a higher form of evidence than anything that you've provided. Think along the lines of monks lacking proficiency with unarmed strikes, or those weapons with a misprinted subscript for an absurd damage total (I think the scorpion kama is the usual example).




It's not clear to me what is specific here and what is general. Spells that are both actually and explicitly identified as "(harmless)" are a specific category of spells that allow saving throws. According to what I call rule A, spells of this kind make an exception to the general rule of saving throws, which is that if a spell allows a saving throw, then every creature affected by that spell makes one by default (and by necessity if the creature is unconscious and cannot forfeit its saving throw voluntarily). If rule C is changed according to my proposal, it becomes a general rule that explicitly refers back to, and therefore effectively contains, a specific rule, namely rule A.
It is very clear what is specific and what is general. The rules state that SR and saves work the same way with regards to helpless. The rules then say that SR works a certain way, possibly the same and possibly different, with regards to a particular function of helpless. The latter is specific to the former's general.