"Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

[Gwendol]

If you have a weapon in either hand, per the SRD: "you can strike with either weapon first". There is nothing in the rules that says you can't switch weapons on your subsequent attacks.

Technically, Keld has no RAW support for this interpretation on switching primaries, but you are equally unsupported when you insist that you can't switch in the middle of the round. Most of the game designers (including Skip Williams) and nearly everyone else on the planet assumes that you can switch primaries between iterative attacks.

Strangely enough, Skip Williams doesn't mention that in his treatise on two weapon fighting (From Rules of the Game: Two handed fighting part 1)

Off Hand, Off-Hand Weapon: When attacking with two weapons, the character must designate one of his hands as his off hand; the weapon held in that hand is treated as his off-hand weapon. The game rules don’t really care about whether you’re right-handed or left-handed, and it’s even OK to change your off hand designation from one round to the next.

I've bolded the relevant part. He doesn't say "between iterative attacks".

Furthermore, he clarifies how to go about two weapon fighting with a little more clarity than in the SRD:

When fighting with two weapons, you gain one extra attack with your off-hand weapon when you use the full attack action. If you have a high base attack bonus, you gain iterative attacks only with your primary weapon.

So no, you can't switch between a glaive and armor spikes at will without incuring two-weapon fighting penalties as long as you don't take the extra attack, because they have to all be made with the primary hand weapon. Only extra attacks are made with the off-hand. You do still threaten adjacent squares though and can make AoO's into those (without TWF penalties, if made with the off-hand weapon however you still take the -4 to attack and deal half your strength bonus damage.).

On the other rules:
(1): Yes
(2): Yes
(3): Yes
(4): Yes
(5): Yes
(6): Yes
(7): Conditional yes. According to Rules of the Game: All about mounts, any front leg natural weapon attack will do:

Trample: This feat keeps your opponent from simply stepping aside to avoid you and your mount when you make a mounted overrun (see the notes on mounted overruns in Part Three). In addition, if your foe is knocked down in the overrun, your mount can make a free hoof attack. According to the D&D FAQ, a mount that lacks hooves can instead make an attack with any natural weapon it has on its front feet.

(8): Abstain
(10): Yes, and this also means a barbarian cannot pounce while mounted.
(11): Yes, under the current dysfunctional rules, this is a sensible approach.
(13): Yes
(14): No, there is always a primary hand and an off-hand (though hand in this context is a label as it includes armor spikes, and natural attacks for example). One is however free to designates which is the primary hand, and may switch from one round to the next (see above).
(15): Yes, there is nothing to suggest otherwise
(16): Yes
(17): Yes
(18): Yes
(19): Pending. I don't understand the issue
(20): No, this is actually spelled out clearly: the shield can be used to make off-hand attacks. If used simply as a blunt object, take the penalty for improvised weapon and move on.
(21): Yes
(22): Abstain
(23): Yes
(24): Abstain
(25): Yes
(26): Abstain
(27): Yes
(28): No, it may allow goliath barbarians to become hulking hurlers on mountain rage alone.
(29): Abstain
(30): Abstain
(31): Yes
(32): Yes, any specific action can only trigger AoO once in a round (from each threatening enemy)
(33): Yes, WIS to AC cannot be doubled, unless specified that way.
(34): Yes

[Taelas]

Strangely enough, Skip Williams doesn't mention that in his treatise on two weapon fighting (From Rules of the Game: Two handed fighting part 1)



I've bolded the relevant part. He doesn't say "between iterative attacks".

Furthermore, he clarifies how to go about two weapon fighting with a little more clarity than in the SRD:

So no, you can't switch between a glaive and armor spikes at will without incuring two-weapon fighting penalties as long as you don't take the extra attack, because they have to all be made with the primary hand weapon. Only extra attacks are made with the off-hand. You do still threaten adjacent squares though and can make AoO's into those (without TWF penalties, if made with the off-hand weapon however you still take the -4 to attack and deal half your strength bonus damage.).

Skip is talking of using the TWF rules, which is something you do to get extra attacks. You do not use the TWF rules otherwise. If you have a glaive, and you have two attacks, nothing in the rules prevent you from using your first attack to attack an opponent within reach with the glaive, then use your iterative attack to an adjacent foe with an unarmed strike, or an armor spike, or even the glaive shaft as an improvised club.

If you want to get an extra attack to do it, you use the TWF rules. Otherwise, you do not.

[Darrin]

The best "common sense" way to fill the 'gap' is to apply the rules uniformly across all hand-based weapons. You can make a slam attack with a claw attack, so what makes a dagger attack different than a claw attack?

The issue isn't dagger/claw, it's greatsword/claw. In general, creatures with claws don't get slam attacks because they already have claws at the end of their arms.

And as an example of RAW, read the vampire template's entry in the monster manual. Explicitly calls out that the slam attack may be used as a secondary natural attack with a manufactured weapon(which includes 2-handed weapons)(And humorously, doesn't add it to any of the sample stat-blocks as a secondary attack during a full-attack, even when the primary-manufactured weapon was 1-handed).

Actually, the vampire description doesn't include two-handed weapons, it just says "weapon". The template says:

"If armed with a weapon, it usually uses the weapon as its primary attack along with a slam or other natural weapon as a natural secondary attack."

Woodling has the same wording. I can only assume the designers were thinking that a one-handed weapon would be the default if not specified otherwise. The actual stat block mentions a spiked chain, which is a two-handed weapon, and this supports my proposed wording.

Vampire is a bit of an oddity, however, in that it can be applied to a creature with claws, and it also gets a slam attack. Generally, creatures with claws can't have slam attacks because they already have claws at the end of their arms. However, the vampire's slam is the primary way it delivers it's energy drain attack, and the template can't tell beforehand what kind of natural attacks the base creature has before the template was applied, so it has to keep that slam attack no matter what for energy drain to work like it's supposed to. But there's another quirk in that size only determines the damage of the slam... if applied to a large-sized creature, shouldn't it by RAW get two slam attacks, one for each arm?

But I'm being way too pedantic when I'd much rather agree with you: your argument that a medium-or-smaller creature with a slam attack should retain it regardless of whether one or both arms is occupied is a perfectly acceptable way to close the gap. It doesn't quite make sense from the standpoint of larger humanoids having to make their slam attacks with their arms, but it's less complicated than what I proposed, which may be a good thing. I'd be more than willing to support that position if the majority felt that was the best solution.

[Gwendol]

No he doesn't, he talks about fighting with a weapon in each hand (which also covers part of double weapon fighting, shield bashing, etc):

Using a weapon in each hand.

This option requires you to use two weapons, both of which you can wield in one hand (but read on). It's usually best to use a light weapon in your off hand, but not necessary. You can use an unarmed strike as either your primary or secondary weapon.

When fighting with two weapons, you gain one extra attack with your off-hand weapon when you use the full attack action. If you have a high base attack bonus, you gain iterative attacks only with your primary weapon.

When using a weapon in each hand, you usually can't use a shield, which hurts your Armor Class. In addition, you take an attack penalty on attacks you make with your primary hand and (generally) a bigger attack penalty for your off hand. The exact penalties depend on what feats you have and which two weapons you're using; see page 160 in the Player's Handbook. Parts Two and Three also examine two-weapon fighting in detail.

This is from the first part in the series. I recommend reading through all three to understand where I am coming from on this topic.

[Taelas]

Darrin: you can't really use the stat block. They are too often filled with errors to justify basing a ruling on them without being backed up by additional evidence.

For instance, the "elite vampire" is using a +2 keen kama--a one-handed weapon--yet still does not use a slam attack as a secondary natural attack, despite this being permitted (even considering it is using flurry of blows). It's just poorly written.

The Full Attack entry says "weapon", not "one-handed weapon". While it could be in error, the statement is perfectly clear. A two-handed weapon is a weapon every bit as much as a one-handed weapon is.

No he doesn't, he talks about fighting with a weapon in each hand (which also covers part of double weapon fighting, shield bashing, etc):



This is from the first part in the series. I recommend reading through all three to understand where I am coming from on this topic.

...

He uses the Two-Weapon Fighting rules. That is what that entire series is about. There is not a single time where he describes a situation in which he does not utilize the extra attack granted by using the TWF rules, because that is what he is talking about.

You are not, not, not required to use the TWF rules to get an extra attack simply because you have a weapon in each hand.

Characters are allowed to switch between weapons while making a full attack. Period. If they can draw weapons as a free action, as per Quick Draw, they can attack, drop a weapon, draw another, attack, and repeat until they run out of attacks and/or weapons. If they are wielding two weapons, but do not use the TWF rules to get an extra attack, nothing prevents them from attacking with one weapon then the other. The rules do not address it outside of a monk's flurry of blows (where it is described that a monk can use any special monk weapons they wield interchangeably, as they desire).

And if they are not using their off-hand to wield the second weapon (such as an unarmed strike, the hilt or shaft of a two-handed weapon as an improvised club, a double weapon, or an armor spike), then they do not take off-hand penalties.

[Godskook]

The issue isn't dagger/claw, it's greatsword/claw. In general, creatures with claws don't get slam attacks because they already have claws at the end of their arms.

A warforged Totemist can use 2 claws and 2 slams without any hindrance. A vampiric lizardfolk can use 2 claws and a slam too. I'm sure I can come up with other examples of claw + slam.

And as related to slam attacks, I fail to see a functional difference between claw/claw and greatsword.

Actually, the vampire description doesn't include two-handed weapons, it just says "weapon". The template says:

Please tell that you think "two-handed weapons" are included in the term "weapon", cause if you don't, I'm not having that conversation.

Vampire is a bit of an oddity, however, in that it can be applied to a creature with claws, and it also gets a slam attack. Generally, creatures with claws can't have slam attacks because they already have claws at the end of their arms. However, the vampire's slam is the primary way it delivers it's energy drain attack, and the template can't tell beforehand what kind of natural attacks the base creature has before the template was applied, so it has to keep that slam attack no matter what for energy drain to work like it's supposed to. But there's another quirk in that size only determines the damage of the slam... if applied to a large-sized creature, shouldn't it by RAW get two slam attacks, one for each arm?

1.The statement "Generally, creatures with claws don't have slam attacks because...." is fine, but using 'can't' there is inaccurate.

2.I know of nothing in RAW that says a creature with slam attack(s) must have exactly(or minimally) 2 if large-sized. Source?
(The section I found is a typical maximum(the word 'generally' is used), and is easily proven to be contrary to how monsters are actually written by examining that section's statement concerning the number of allowed bite attacks and then looking at the Chimera's entry)

[Gwendol]

Yes, absolutely yes. But not if you use both hands to attack. Then you need to consider the TWF rules, because you are making attacks with both primary and off hand. Not once in this series, nor in the rules is it mentioned that you may attack with primary and off-hand without any penalties.
Regardless, I've casted my vote on the topic. I'm sure I'll be in minority, which is ok.

[Taelas]

Yes, absolutely yes. But not if you use both hands to attack. Then you need to consider the TWF rules, because you are making attacks with both primary and off hand. Not once in this series, nor in the rules is it mentioned that you may attack with primary and off-hand without any penalties.

Yes, it is.

If you attack with a weapon in your off hand, you take a -4 penalty to your attack and you only deal ½ Str damage. Page 311, Player's Handbook, under the definition of "off hand".

No where in the books is it said that you must use the TWF rules because you are wielding a weapon in each hand. That is absurd. It describes the method clearly: While wielding a weapon in each hand, you may make an extra attack as an off hand attack. Doing so is very difficult, and you take the TWF penalties it describes.

There is absolutely no difference between using Quick Draw to draw a dagger, throw it, then draw a second dagger, then throw it, than there is between using a sword in your right hand then a sword in your left hand (or a glaive then a second legally wielded weapon). You are wielding both weapons, and as long as you keep in mind the off hand penalty (which is not removed by having the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, as the penalty it removes is only removed while using TWF), attacking with either one is perfectly legal.

[Gwendol]

Again, I would like to direct you to Skip's article, part one:

Off Hand, Off-Hand Weapon: When attacking with two weapons, the character must designate one of his hands as his off hand; the weapon held in that hand is treated as his off-hand weapon. The game rules don’t really care about whether you’re right-handed or left-handed, and it’s even OK to change your off hand designation from one round to the next.

Attacks with the off hand take a -4 penalty on the attack roll (see page 311 in the Player's Handbook) and only half the character’s Strength bonus (rounded down) applies to damage from the attack. Fighting with a weapon in each hand brings even bigger penalties.
When a character fights with a weapon in each hand, the weapon held in the off hand is called the off-hand weapon.

The first paragraph we both agree on, as on the first sentence of the second paragraph. My contention comes from the second sentence (bolded). There is no mention of getting extra attacks here, just fighting with a weapon in each hand.

[Taelas]

Again, I would like to direct you to Skip's article, part one:


The first paragraph we both agree on, as on the first sentence of the second paragraph. My contention comes from the second sentence (bolded). There is no mention of getting extra attacks here, just fighting with a weapon in each hand.

Because he didn't consider a situation in which you would fight with two weapons without getting the extra attack (such as the very sensible secondary weapon combined with a reach weapon).

Skip isn't a source on rules, which he would have to be for the quote to mean what you are saying it does, as those rules do not exist anywhere. What he describes is using two weapons to get an extra attack. He is attempting to clarify how the Two-Weapon Fighting rules work, nothing more.

[Gwendol]

That's ok, I understand your point.

[TypoNinja]

I'm thinking more in terms of bad guys taking out (or taking over) PCs who have been knocked unconscious, while the rest of the party is still up.




Page 175 PHB, under Aiming a Spell, subsection "Target or Targets"

"Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target can be done any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralysed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing."

Here, in the SRD:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverv...argetorTargets

Well that's in the targeting section. The dividing line here seems obvious. Considered willing for the purposes of targeting only. The character is a valid target, but that's all it says. SR and saves apply normally since nothing about the unconscious conditions mentions losing saves. Remember "considered willing" and "willing" are different states. The rule sets are littered with examples of 'As X but not actually X'

Even the context of the entry seems to indicate its talking about targeting a spell only and not any other aspect.

[Taelas]

Well that's in the targeting section. The dividing line here seems obvious. Considered willing for the purposes of targeting only. The character is a valid target, but that's all it says. SR and saves apply normally since nothing about the unconscious conditions mentions losing saves. Remember "considered willing" and "willing" are different states. The rule sets are littered with examples of 'As X but not actually X'

Even the context of the entry seems to indicate its talking about targeting a spell only and not any other aspect.

As I pointed out earlier, this is not the correct interpretation. You are now forced to make a save every time someone uses a beneficial spell which has a (harmless) save--like the entire cure line of spells. An unconscious character cannot take actions, so if he is not considered willing, he cannot forego a save.

If you cannot see how ridiculous requiring characters to make saves for receiving healing is, then you must have a very odd view of the game.

[Lapak]

As I pointed out earlier, this is not the correct interpretation. You are now forced to make a save every time someone uses a beneficial spell which has a (harmless) save--like the entire cure line of spells. An unconscious character cannot take actions, so if he is not considered willing, he cannot forego a save.

If you cannot see how ridiculous requiring characters to make saves for receiving healing is, then you must have a very odd view of the game.

Problematic, absolutely; ridiculous, no. It's entirely reasonable that a body or mind accustomed to throwing off magical effects would continue to do so while unconscious, even to its own detriment.

I'm pretty sure I've seen things along that lines in fiction, actually, where someone's innate defenses prevented them from being helped.

[Taelas]

Problematic, absolutely; ridiculous, no. It's entirely reasonable that a body or mind accustomed to throwing off magical effects would continue to do so while unconscious, even to its own detriment.

I'm pretty sure I've seen things along that lines in fiction, actually, where someone's innate defenses prevented them from being helped.

Yes, ridiculous. It is ridiculous to expect the players to have to make a saving throw against a beneficial effect that can save their lives simply because they are unconscious, especially when that is not spelled out clearly in the rules. The situation occurs far too often in regular play to not be made clear.

Unconscious characters are considered willing.

[Siosilvar]

Figure I should come back to the thread and voice my opinion on the 20 or so rules that got added. If it's not in the list, I've already said something about it.

Comments

Please remove me from the approval list for 26; it'll require an exhaustive search of the books for me to make an informed opinion.
21 has some strange things going on with wording. They can't be applied but they are eligible for the discount? What?

Approve

14
16
17: This appears to have been an oversight in the SRD.
18 is part of how I run natural weapons in my own games.
20
21; although I allow spell-storing ammunition (at full price, not discounted) in my own games, it's easier to wrap one's head around the rules if it's not allowed.
22
23
25
31
34 satisfies my requirements quite nicely.

Disapprove

24 eventually leads to a wasted feat for meldshapers, and cuts some neat options out of the game for non-meldshapers.
32; I'm okay with each attack in a full attack provoking, which is how I read the rules as they stand.

Neutral/Abstain/No Further Comment

2
11
19 is also part of how I run natural weapons in my games like 18 is, but I think it stretches into houserule territory a little too far.
26
30; I'm not quite sure whether or not the Lightning Maces trick is a nice thing or an overpowered thing, so I reserve the right to make up my mind later.
33; On the one hand it closes system abuse, but double-dipping a modifier is fairly reasonable for lower modifiers and create a vulnerability to stat drain, so I'm not sure.

---

1Now, as for the ongoing discussion about 15 (if anyone's forgotten, I'm in favor of keeping "willing" and "forgo saving throw" seperate):

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

I read that quote to mean that not making a saving throw is the default for a (harmless) spell. For other spells, you have to specifically choose to give up your save, but for (harmless) spells, you have to specifically choose to make a save if you want to.

[TypoNinja]

As I pointed out earlier, this is not the correct interpretation. You are now forced to make a save every time someone uses a beneficial spell which has a (harmless) save--like the entire cure line of spells. An unconscious character cannot take actions, so if he is not considered willing, he cannot forego a save.

If you cannot see how ridiculous requiring characters to make saves for receiving healing is, then you must have a very odd view of the game.

Nothing you've stated here is correct.

In no way does saying unconscious means "Willing for the purposes of targeting only" require saves for anything else. In fact it's specifically not dealing with saves at all. Only target. The whole point is that this narrows down the problem to only targeting, there by not having to worry about if it breaks other portions of the mechanics.

Deciding to resist or not is not an action, and can be done even when its not your turn, remember 'act' and 'action' in D&D have specific connotations. Deciding to allow a spell or not is not even an immediate action, in fact I'd go so far as to say its practically an OOC decision, since you simply declare your self willing or not as part of adjudicating the spell effects.

I agree requiring will saves (that fail no less) to get healing is silly, but no where did I imply such should be done. I said that an unconscious character is considered willing, for the purposes of target selection only, and after being determined a valid target the character may decide to resist or not as normal. So a downed PC would be healed with no will save required, and still be entitled to a will save if somebody tried to dominate them or some such shenanigans.

[Malachei]

So by your logic, if you're unconscious and don't forego your saving throw, you now have to roll saves against heal, since you can't make the decision to voluntarily give it up.

This is wrong. See below.

As I pointed out earlier, this is not the correct interpretation. You are now forced to make a save every time someone uses a beneficial spell which has a (harmless) save--like the entire cure line of spells. An unconscious character cannot take actions, so if he is not considered willing, he cannot forego a save.

If you cannot see how ridiculous requiring characters to make saves for receiving healing is, then you must have a very odd view of the game.

This is wrong. See below.

Yes, ridiculous. It is ridiculous to expect the players to have to make a saving throw against a beneficial effect that can save their lives simply because they are unconscious, especially when that is not spelled out clearly in the rules. The situation occurs far too often in regular play to not be made clear.

Unconscious characters are considered willing.

You are wrong, and I've posted this before (see post #171 in this thread):

SRD:

(harmless)

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

=> For harmless spells, you are always considered to forgo a save unless you specifically state otherwise.

=> You can cure unconscious creatures just fine.


IMO outrageously posting, stating others' view is "ridiculous" or "odd" while ignoring contrary evidence that has been posted before it is a bad habit.

[hamishspence]

Yes, ridiculous. It is ridiculous to expect the players to have to make a saving throw against a beneficial effect that can save their lives simply because they are unconscious, especially when that is not spelled out clearly in the rules. The situation occurs far too often in regular play to not be made clear.

Unconscious characters are considered willing.

given that "asleep" is not explicitly defined as including the "unconscious" trait- why (in-universe reason) would it possible to use all those spells on unconscious creatures and they don't get a save, when sleeping creatures would?

Why does an unconscious monster instantly get taken out when hit by various Save or Lose spells when a sleeping monster doesn't?

Are you going with "Knocking someone unconscious shatters their mental and physical defenses vs spells"?

[Thomasinx]

given that "asleep" is not explicitly defined as including the "unconscious" trait- why (in-universe reason) would it possible to use all those spells on unconscious creatures and they don't get a save, when sleeping creatures would?

Why does an unconscious monster instantly get taken out when hit by various Save or Lose spells when a sleeping monster doesn't?

Are you going with "Knocking someone unconscious shatters their mental and physical defenses vs spells"?

In this case it would be more reasonable to consider 'sleeping' as including the 'unconscious' trait. Since you're almost certainly unconscious when sleeping... Although, this wouldn't come up very often, since the listen check to wake up due to someone spellcasting isn't especially difficult.

And basically yes. If you are knocked unconscious, you no longer have any mental defenses vs spells. You become 'willing' according to RAW. You are no longer able to mentally fight off any spell that might effect you. Overall, this is beneficial, as it means that it is unnecessary to make saves against spells that will help you.

[Malachei]

[QUOTE=Thomasinx;13128356]In this case it would be more reasonable to consider 'sleeping' as including the 'unconscious' trait. Since you're almost certainly unconscious when sleeping... Although, this wouldn't come up very often, since the listen check to wake up due to someone spellcasting isn't especially difficult.

Sleeping is part of the helpless condition, as is unconscious.

And basically yes. If you are knocked unconscious, you no longer have any mental defenses vs spells. You become 'willing' according to RAW. You are no longer able to mentally fight off any spell that might effect you. Overall, this is beneficial, as it means that it is unnecessary to make saves against spells that will help you.

Wrong, see the above, extensive discussion, which quotes RAW. And healing and other harmless spells which help you pose no problem.

[Thomasinx]

Sleeping is part of the helpless condition, as is unconscious.

Wrong, see the above, extensive discussion, which quotes RAW. And healing and other harmless spells which help you pose no problem.

I was part of the above discussion (I left because I was getting tired of repeating myself). I was the one quoting RAW. Do I need to go get the pieces from the SRD again?

I honestly don't know why you're working so hard to come up with a ridiculously complicated system of when people are willing and unwilling, and how unconscious players are automatically aware of whether or not the caster has their best interests at heart. The SRD states quite clearly "Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing".

If you're unconscious, you are helpless, and completely at the caster's mercy. Any caster worth his salt can simply inflict a bit of wisdom damage to screw up your will save, so there's no possible exploit even if you didnt automatically fail.

[Malachei]

I was part of the above discussion (I left because I was getting tired of repeating myself). I was the one quoting RAW. Do I need to go get the pieces from the SRD again?

I honestly don't know why you're working so hard to come up with a ridiculously complicated system of when people are willing and unwilling, and how unconscious players are automatically aware of whether or not the caster has their best interests at heart. The SRD states quite clearly "Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing".

If you're unconscious, you are helpless, and completely at the caster's mercy. Any caster worth his salt can simply inflict a bit of wisdom damage to screw up your will save, so there's no possible exploit even if you didnt automatically fail.

Because it can help reduce PC deaths. And it has almost no disadvantages, except making mindrape cheese harder to carry out.

And please cite rules text correctly and in context. You are referring to a paragraph, and you are taking a sentence out of context:

The exact quote is:

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

This is given in one paragraph. Game designers do use punctuation. Should they never stop a sentence to protect from others using their sentences out of context?

Let me give you an example:

Some effects, notably clouds and fogs, spread out from a point of origin, which must be a grid intersection. The effect can extend around corners and into areas that you can’t see. Figure distance by actual distance traveled, taking into account turns the spell effect takes. When determining distance for spread effects, count around walls, not through them. As with movement, do not trace diagonals across corners. You must designate the point of origin for such an effect, but you need not have line of effect (see below) to all portions of the effect.

Now do you think all spells that have an effect "extend around corners and into areas you can't see?" Or does this apply to "some effects, notably (...)" as given in the paragraph's introduction?

Because that is what happens when you take a sentence from a paragraph and use it out of context.

Oh, and this thread is actually for RAI rules suggestions. I think, if you wish to continue, we should take this discussion out of here. Perhaps you'd like to open a new topic.

[Thomasinx]

Because it can help reduce PC deaths. And it has almost no disadvantages, except making mindrape cheese harder to carry out.

And please cite rules text correctly and in context. You are referring to a paragraph, and you are taking a sentence out of context:

Wow, next time address what I actually say, instead of what I quote.

Since you want to resort to ad-hominems and just to attack my method of quoting SRD, lets look at more of the thing i was quoting from.

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

Now, please tell me why, for purely targeting purposes there is a difference between paralyzed and unconscious. Both are helpless, and are unable to avoid dodging. The only difference is that in one situation the target is conscious and able to mentally fight off whatever is being done to him, and in the other situation unconscious and unable to mentally defend himself.

There is no 'cheese' here. Any cheese is fully doable whether the fail is automatic or not. If you want to homebrew something, do it. But don't try to claim that unconscious doesn't mean willing, when the rules clearly state otherwise.

[Malachei]

Please tell my why, purely for targeting purposes (...)

No problem:

Because it is mentioned in the section for targeting spells.
Because it is mentioned in a paragraph that states a special case ("Some spells...")
Because it is not mentioned in the unconscious condition entry
Because the unconscious condition entry works like helpless (it is even linked in the SRD)

Oh, and this thread is actually for RAI rules suggestions and voting on them. Let us not destroy the OP's intent by moving this into another direction. I think, if you wish to continue, we should take this discussion out of here. Perhaps you'd like to open a new topic. I'll gladly repeat my points there.

[Taelas]

Saving throws are always voluntary. The (harmless) descriptor is only there to save time, so you don't have to ask the warrior if he voluntarily drops his saving throw to accept the healer's cure spell.

If the warrior is ever subject to a spell from a party he distrusts, he needs to make the choice whether to resist the spell or not; the choice isn't made for him simply because the spell is beneficial. He has to make a conscious choice between choosing whether to let the spell effect him or not, precisely the same as with every other spell. The descriptor is simply assuming you make the choice to let it affect you, while still reminding you that you can attempt one if you want.

When you are unconscious, you cannot make the choice. Either the spell affects you as if you are willing, or it forces a saving throw as if you are unwilling. You can't have it both ways.

Objects only get saving throws when they are attended, or if they are magical. For the vast majority of situations, objects do not get saving throws.

[Malachei]

Saving throws are always voluntary. The (harmless) descriptor is only there to save time, so you don't have to ask the warrior if he voluntarily drops his saving throw to accept the healer's cure spell.

This is not correct. That is your personal point of view. Otherwise, please point me to the rules section that says "the (harmless) descriptor is only there to save time".

The rules state that...

... the default rule for a (harmless) spell is that you are not taking a save. You explicitly state if you want to.

.... the default rule for other spells is that you are taking a save. You explicitly state if you want not to.

And again, to you, as well: If you feel you want to discuss this more elaborately, please open a new thread. I feel this discussion is bringing this topic away from its purpose and from the OP's intent, i.e. voting on RAI rules suggestions.

[Amphetryon]

... the default rule for a (harmless) spell is that you are not taking a save. You explicitly state if you want to.

.... the default rule for other spells is that you are taking a save. You explicitly state if you want not to.

This would seem to indicate pretty clearly that you can voluntarily not take a save, since you're explicitly given the option to state whether you are, or aren't, depending on the expected effect of the spell.

[Taelas]

This is not correct. That is your personal point of view. Otherwise, please point me to the rules section that says "the (harmless) descriptor is only there to save time".

The rules state that...

... the default rule for a (harmless) spell is that you are not taking a save. You explicitly state if you want to.

.... the default rule for other spells is that you are taking a save. You explicitly state if you want not to.

And again, to you, as well: If you feel you want to discuss this more elaborately, please open a new thread. I feel this discussion is bringing this topic away from its purpose and from the OP's intent, i.e. voting on RAI rules suggestions.

...

It is the same thing. There is zero actual difference between the two situations. You choose whether you make a saving throw or not. That's it. That's the end of the rule. It is precisely the same whether the spell is (harmless) or not. It doesn't matter whether you choose to make a save or you choose not to make a save. In both cases, you are making a choice, you are just looking at it from two different perspectives. You are claiming there's a difference between whether a glass is half full or half empty. You are just describing the exact same thing twice.

One assumes you choose to make a save. One assumes you choose not to. That is the only difference. In both cases, you. have. the. choice. When you can't make the choice, you either always have the save, or you never have the save. You cannot have it both ways.

Also, replying to an argument then saying, "Stop arguing this here!" is utterly hypocritical.

[Talakeal]

This is not correct. That is your personal point of view. Otherwise, please point me to the rules section that says "the (harmless) descriptor is only there to save time".

The rules state that...

... the default rule for a (harmless) spell is that you are not taking a save. You explicitly state if you want to.

.... the default rule for other spells is that you are taking a save. You explicitly state if you want not to.

And again, to you, as well: If you feel you want to discuss this more elaborately, please open a new thread. I feel this discussion is bringing this topic away from its purpose and from the OP's intent, i.e. voting on RAI rules suggestions.

I just read the relevant sections in the PHB, and as far as I can tell this is absolutely correct.

Some spells can only target willing creatures. An unconscious creature is automatically willing.

A character targeted by a spell, by default, gets a saving throw. This applies to objects and immobilized or sleeping characters. A character can consciously not take a save, just like they can consciously lower spell resistance or immunity.

Harmless spells by default do not allow a save. A character who is actively resisting a harmless spell for whatever reason can consciously decide to make a saving throw.

This works fine according to game rules and game fluff. It is not unbalanced. It is also the most direct reading of the rules imo.

There is no need to clarify these rules, they are already plenty clear, again imo. It looks like the people who are saying "unconscious = mind raped" are really stretching the rules, taking what is written in some sections and applying it out of context to completely different sections of the book, and going out of their way to get an advantage or to defend an opinion they heard someone else state as fact.

Again, I don't mean to sound arrogant or authoritative, this is just my direct reading based on what I could find about unconsciousness, saves, spells, and targets in the PHB and DMG. If I am missing some source please give me the page number and I will look at it and revise my statement.