Does "Rogue Space" Exist in Pathfinder?

[Talakeal]

So I was playing PF last night and the DM refused to let a player who was in a fully enclosed space make a reflex save to avoid an area attack.

I said something along the lines of "Oh, hey, I use the same house rule."

The DM got testy and replied "Its not a house rule. If you read the rules carefully you would see that you aren't allowed to make a reflex save if there isn't room to dodge into."

I looked in the core book and couldn't see anything to that effect, either in the Saving Throw rules or in the Evasion ability, but my mastery of PF is somewhat limited. So tell me, is this just my DM being overly defensive or did they finally get rid of the nonsensical ability for characters (particularly those with Evasion) to ignore area effects without actually leaving the area?

[Milo v3]

It still exists, and I am personally happy for it. Without it, reflex saves would be near worthless since most of the time you make them your completely immersed in an area affect, the only way to "dodge" would be to move from the area, which you cannot do.

[ericgrau]

The closest I've found is an example that uses the rule of common sense (assuming PF copied this part of the SRD):
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/traps.htm#neverMiss
If there is no place to dodge to then a trap can never miss. The same logic could be applied to an area attack. You could consider the crushing dungeon wall to be an area attack. But note that this logic assumes that the area attack fills the entire area simultaneously. If a fireball fwooshes unevenly then you can argue that it could be dodged piece by piece. A reflex save could also mitigate the damage in ways such as turning your back and crouching, or turning sideways for less area hit and covering your face. So half damage may still be possible. Not that evasion is an Ex so it should be able to do things that are mundane but possibly beyond the capabilities of normal people. Like a Matrix fireball dodge.

[Sith_Happens]

So I was playing PF last night and the DM refused to let a player who was in a fully enclosed space make a reflex save to avoid an area attack.

I said something along the lines of "Oh, hey, I use the same house rule."

The DM got testy and replied "Its not a house rule. If you read the rules carefully you would see that you aren't allowed to make a reflex save if there isn't room to dodge into."

Is this the same DM that categorically refuses to acknowledge any of his house rules as such (in which case there's your answer) or did you finally GTFO from that group?

[Yuki Akuma]

For some reason, a lot of DMs think "houserule" is a dirty word.

[ericgrau]

For some reason, a lot of DMs think "houserule" is a dirty word.

"Oh, hey I use the same houserule" implies a lot of people don't by default and that could be offensive to say what you are doing is not normal. Vs. "Ya I play by common sense too" would imply a lot of people do use it. Both statements are technically true but with different additional meanings behind them.

Or the DM may be using a common sense interpretation of the more detailed fluff rules surrounding reflex saves and thus he says the rules agree with him. And it could also make him offended that you say "house rule" instead of "interpretation" or "fact" (in his eyes).

[Psyren]

Is this the same DM that categorically refuses to acknowledge any of his house rules as such (in which case there's your answer) or did you finally GTFO from that group?

I think you knew the answer to this before you even posted it :smalltongue:

[Abithrios]

It is a house rule, and one that many people around here disagree with.

One thing to keep in mind is that taking half damage from a fireball in the middle of a field does not move a character twenty feet to the edge of the affected area, which suggests that the default defense against such an attack is some kind of "shelter in place" or "find a hole" method. Rogues are better at such techniques, so when they succeed, they succeed better. Taking no damage instead of half is merely an abstraction of that, and perhaps the easiest way to do so at a table. I think hit points are a bigger abstraction, anyway, just one more people are willing to accept without questioning.

[Psyren]

Just show him this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0848.html)

[Urpriest]

Since the character wasn't actually in a completely enclosed space, the point is moot. Unless helpless characters can make Reflex saves.

[(Un)Inspired]

For some reason, a lot of DMs think "houserule" is a dirty word.

It is dirty.

That's what makes them extra hot.

[Curmudgeon]

It is dirty.

That's what makes them extra hot.
So Monks being made proficient with unarmed strikes gets your fires lit? :smalltongue:

[Milo v3]

So Monks being made proficient with unarmed strikes gets your fires lit? :smalltongue:

This is PF, monks having unarmed proficiency is RAW.

[Curmudgeon]

This is PF, monks having unarmed proficiency is RAW.
So then only Pathfinder house rules are dirty/hot?

[Milo v3]

So then only Pathfinder house rules are dirty/hot?

More just saying monks have unarmed proficiency isn't a houserule for the purposes of this thread.

[(Un)Inspired]

So Monks being made proficient with unarmed strikes gets your fires lit? :smalltongue:

You know it.

Called shot rules and Truenamer fixes are basically like 90's soft jazz for me

[Sith_Happens]

"Ya I play by common sense too"

Because the ability to run 50 feet in a literal instant, but only when something's exploding and only if you end in the same place you started, makes so much more sense.:smalltongue:

[Chronos]

Roguespace has never been necessary.

Does anyone remember Doom II? There was one level, called "Barrels of Fun", where you start off surrounded by exploding barrels. If any barrel explodes, the rest will too in a chain reaction, and if you don't start it, soon enough a monster will. The barrels are arranged so that every point on the map you could possibly reach before they explode is covered by a lethal amount of explosion damage.

It is, of course, possible to survive this level, and even to do so without taking damage. The trick is that the barrels don't all explode at once. If you start by wiggling a bit to the rear as you blow up the barrels in front of you, and then wiggle a bit forward as the explosion front moves around behind you a second or two later, you'll be unscathed. And as it happens, the necessary amount of wiggle for this is less than five feet.

There you go, improved evasion. For game rules, it counts as "all at once" (because it's within the span of a round) and "no movement" (because it's within the area of a single space), but that doesn't mean no duration at all, or no movement at all.

[ericgrau]

That works too. Normally the best you can do on a passed reflex save is minimize the damage: shield yourself, crouch, turn, whatever. And then you take half. Evasion lets you do what is impossible for a normal person and actually dodge the blasts. Plural. The fireball doesn't fill the entire area at the speed of light, but comes in gouts. And you don't jump outside of the radius, that would take too long. You twist, shift, back bend, find a gap in the explosion, etc. until you avoid it entirely. In all this the position of your feet doesn't change much, if at all.

[Prime32]

Because the ability to run 50 feet in a literal instant, but only when something's exploding and only if you end in the same place you started, makes so much more sense.:smalltongue:You're not moving out of the radius of the effect. You're shielding yourself against it, or turning so that less of you is struck by it head-on, or moving through gaps or weaker areas in the effect (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F7hzFIWGJs).

Even unconscious creatures and inanimate magic items are entitled to Reflex saves, they're just bad at them.

[137beth]

Yea, it's a house rule in pathfinder. A common house rule, but still a house rule.
There are a handful of DMs out there who hate the idea that their house rules aren't universally recognized by all groups everywhere.

[Renen]

I also see it not as doging the effect, but say... you curl up in a ball, cover your face, and turn away from the epicenter.
Sure, the fireball blistered your whole back, but you took WAAAY less damage than the wizard that was too slow, and just stood there looking at the pretty fireball.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Or so you think. In reality, the wizard was immune to fire :smallbiggrin:

[Talakeal]

Yes, its the same DM. While most of the stuff he says is pure baloney, he does occasionally know what he is talking about, so I thought I would ask here to check.


The whole "instantly moving 50 feet" thing is a bit of a stretch. Keep in mind that the turn based system is an abstraction, so it isn't just "instant" movement, it is the character seeing the attack coming and immediately moving while the attack is prepared, fired, closes, and then expands. Also, you can have them move into cover (or simply duck / hide behind their shield) rather than actually out of the area. I have never had a situation come up where there was an AOE that was too big too escape and didn't have any cover to hide behind.

As for realism, it is my understanding that grenades are frequently used to flush people out of cover rather than kill them IRL, so I don't think people moving to avoid explosions is terribly unrealistic.

[Renen]

Oh! Oh! I know! It gives you the time to throw the party fighter ONTO the fireball, to mitigate the damage.

[Sith_Happens]

Yes, its the same DM. While most of the stuff he says is pure baloney, he does occasionally know what he is talking about, so I thought I would ask here to check.

Even a stopped clock is right twice per day, doesn't mean you have to ask a forum whether you're right about something not being one of those times.:smalltongue:

[Talakeal]

Even a stopped clock is right twice per day, doesn't mean you have to ask a forum whether you're right about something not being one of those times.:smalltongue:

No, I don't "have to", and usually I don't. But in this case I actually wanted it to be true so I was hoping someone could show me the new rules if it was.

A character's ability to avoid attacks in impossible manners is one of the key pieces of rhetoric that is tossed around in a lot threads discussing the theme and the tone of the game so if it existed I would find the ability to reference such a rule to be quite handy.

[ShurikVch]

As for realism, it is my understanding that grenades are frequently used to flush people out of cover rather than kill them IRL, so I don't think people moving to avoid explosions is terribly unrealistic.It's depend on grenade:
Fragmentation grenades can be divided into two main types, defensive and offensive, where the former are designed to be used from a position of cover, (e.g. in a slit trench or behind a suitable wall,) and have an effective radius greater than the distance it can be thrown, while the latter are for assaulting troops and have a smaller effective fragmentation radius.

Modern fragmentation grenades such as the United States M67 grenade have a wounding radius of 15 m (49 ft) – half that of older style grenades, which can still be encountered – and can be thrown about 40 m (130 ft). Fragments may travel more than 200 m (660 ft)
Link. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_grenade#Fragmentation)

[SangoProduction]

Oh! Oh! I know! It gives you the time to throw the party fighter ONTO the fireball, to mitigate the damage.

Do you mind if I quote this out of context, and put it in my signature?

[Renen]

Sure :smallcool:

[Anlashok]

There's something sort of surreal about complaining about the unrealisticness of someone avoiding being harmed by an explosion in an enclosed space but completely accepting without a second glance that said explosion was created by another person wiggling his fingers, speaking gibberish and throwing bat poop.

[Talakeal]

There's something sort of surreal about complaining about the unrealisticness of someone avoiding being harmed by an explosion in an enclosed space but completely accepting without a second glance that said explosion was created by another person wiggling his fingers, speaking gibberish and throwing bat poop.

The "BUT DRAGONS!" fallacy once again rears its ugly head :smallsmile:

[Extra Anchovies]

The "BUT DRAGONS!" fallacy once again rears its ugly head :smallsmile:

How is that fallacious? Expecting realism from everyone is not something you should do in fantasy roleplaying. Sure, rogues aren't spellcasters, but expecting realism from only nonmagical characters is the Guy at the Gym school of thinking.

[Keltest]

How is that fallacious? Expecting realism from everyone is not something you should do in fantasy roleplaying. Sure, rogues aren't spellcasters, but expecting realism from only nonmagical characters is the Guy at the Gym school of thinking.

The fallacy is that all breaks from reality should be treated equally in terms of acceptance and skepticism. Just because we accept dragons does not mean we have to accept rogues phasing through fireballs.

[Anlashok]

The fallacy is that all breaks from reality should be treated equally in terms of acceptance and skepticism. Just because we accept dragons does not mean we have to accept rogues phasing through fireballs.

That's not a fallacy though. That's just me remarking on interesting instances of cognitive dissonance.

[Necroticplague]

Evasion is an Extraordinary ability. Extraordinary abilities explicitely state
Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.
So the fact is might not be physically possible has exactly zero relevance. As far as the rules care, you can simply be flexing hard enough to resist the fireball, and reflex save is just seeing if you can do it in time.

[Sith_Happens]

As far as the rules care, you can simply be flexing hard enough to resist the fireball, and reflex save is just seeing if you can do it in time.

*begins brainstorming Strength-based Rogue builds*

[Sacrieur]

I DM'd a game a few sessions back where a rogue took no damage from a point blank fireball. I think I described it as the rogue doing some weird acrobatics that minimized the damage.

[Turion]

Evasion is an Extraordinary ability. Extraordinary abilities explicitely state
So the fact is might not be physically possible has exactly zero relevance. As far as the rules care, you can simply be flexing hard enough to resist the fireball, and reflex save is just seeing if you can do it in time.

That's the D&D 3.5 definition. Pathfinder changed what (Ex) means:

Extraordinary Abilities (Ex): Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical. They are, however, not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training. Effects or areas that suppress or negate magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities.
Source: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html

[Eldonauran]

So the fact is might not be physically possible has exactly zero relevance. As far as the rules care, you can simply be flexing hard enough to resist the fireball, and reflex save is just seeing if you can do it in time.

Exactly. As far as I am concerned as a GM/DM, unless the character is helpless (or the equivalent) their abilities are going to work as written. I don't care if the rogue is trapped inside a 40ft diameter sphere of force when the fireball goes off in the center; they get to use their evasion ability.

However, should they be stuck in a 5ft sphere with a fireball about to go off... Well, they aren't going to get off unscathed easily. Instead of saying "No, you can't dodge this," I'll use my Rule 0 powers to increase the DC a bit to realistically challenge their new predicament (while allowing their trap sense to kick in, cause it is obviously a trap :smallbiggrin: ).

As a player, I absolutely HATE when I don't get to use my hard earned abilities and that gets reflected in my style of running a game.

[Lord_Gareth]

That's the D&D 3.5 definition. Pathfinder changed what (Ex) means:

Source: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html

.....

Why, Paizo?

[Abithrios]

.....

Why, Paizo?

I guess you could fix that in Path of War 3: Good God Where Is This War.

[Psyren]

That's the D&D 3.5 definition. Pathfinder changed what (Ex) means:

Source: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html

It seems to have left out the "laws of physics" line, though that in itself doesn't prevent any of the Ex abilities from 3.5 since the broad "they are not just something anyone can do" line remains.


I guess you could fix that in Path of War 3: Good God Where Is This War.

What iiiiiiiis it good for!

[Renen]

Or its sequel:
Path of war 4: Fight hard or die to a wizard

[Doc_Maynot]

You know it.

Called shot rules and Truenamer fixes are basically like 90's soft jazz for me

Actually... Pathfinder has those too. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/variants/calledShots.html)

[Dusk Eclipse]

Those aren't half bad actually, and they even give an use for the Regenerate spell :smalltongue:

[Doc_Maynot]

Yeah, I personally expand upon them a smidgeon and let one trigger a debilitating blow on a target in place of a Coup de Grace.

[BowStreetRunner]

There's something sort of surreal about complaining about the unrealisticness of someone avoiding being harmed by an explosion in an enclosed space but completely accepting without a second glance that said explosion was created by another person wiggling his fingers, speaking gibberish and throwing bat poop.

You totally just described what happens during an average episode of MacGyver.

[Talakeal]

Note that the description of Evasion is simply "able to avoid magical or unusual attacks with great agility". This implies that they are using their agility to avoid the attack rather than standing in place and magically taking no damage.


Also, does anyone have a formal definition for the "guy at the gym fallacy?" Does it mean a mundane should be able to do things that an ordinary person couldn't do, or does it mean that mundane characters should be able to do things that are physically impossible?

For example, a human killing a giant dragon would be something no ordinary man could do, but it is still possible. On the other hand, clapping your hands together hard enough that the shockwave would kill a dragon is an impossibility.

I have no problem with the first category. I don't have any problem with the secondary category either so long as the game mentions that it is breaking with reality rather than slipping something inexplicable into an otherwise mundane ability and not giving into any thought as to how or why it works.

[Extra Anchovies]

Note that the description of Evasion is simply "able to avoid magical or unusual attacks with great agility". This implies that they are using their agility to avoid the attack rather than standing in place and magically taking no damage.

That's the thing - a character with evasion isn't standing in place. Sure, they don't move out of a 5 foot square area, but they move within that area and position themselves in a way that best protects themselves from the attack.


Also, does anyone have a formal definition for the "guy at the gym fallacy?" Does it mean a mundane should be able to do things that an ordinary person couldn't do, or does it mean that mundane characters should be able to do things that are physically impossible?

The "fallacy" is generally construed as "the strongest/fastest/most agile guy at the gym I go to wouldn't be able to do this, so a character in a fantasy roleplaying game shouldn't be able to do this without magic". Also, I don't really think that it's a fallacy; the logic is sound, but it's not logic that should be applied to fantasy roleplaying games.

[Karnith]

Also, does anyone have a formal definition for the "guy at the gym fallacy?" Does it mean a mundane should be able to do things that an ordinary person couldn't do, or does it mean that mundane characters should be able to do things that are physically impossible?
Well, here's the codifying thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?303089-The-Guy-at-the-Gym-Fallacy) we had a while ago, though obviously the idea's been around for a while, and it's generally closer to the latter - if a real-world human being can't do it, then mundanes can't do it.

It's also not strictly a fallacy, as it hinges on a difference of opinion (albeit a game-ruining one for some people) rather than an error in formal logic.

[Abithrios]

Note that the description of Evasion is simply "able to avoid magical or unusual attacks with great agility". This implies that they are using their agility to avoid the attack rather than standing in place and magically taking no damage.


Also, does anyone have a formal definition for the "guy at the gym fallacy?" Does it mean a mundane should be able to do things that an ordinary person couldn't do, or does it mean that mundane characters should be able to do things that are physically impossible?

For example, a human killing a giant dragon would be something no ordinary man could do, but it is still possible. On the other hand, clapping your hands together hard enough that the shockwave would kill a dragon is an impossibility.

I have no problem with the first category. I don't have any problem with the secondary category either so long as the game mentions that it is breaking with reality rather than slipping something inexplicable into an otherwise mundane ability and not giving into any thought as to how or why it works.

To put it as simply as possible, looking at real world people (e.g. that guy you see with the big muscles at the gym) is not a reliable way of determining whether your dnd character should be able to do something. Both 3.5 and pathfinder are tuned to assume heroic fantasy, and real world people are not capable of keeping up with that.

Also, such thinking tends to unbalance the game, as the most powerful tricks (spells) tend to get a free pass, while the weakest options (such as rogues) tend to get nerfed.

Even Paizo admitted that core rogue was underperforming.

Edit: I guess two people beat me to the punch...

[Sith_Happens]

Also, does anyone have a formal definition for the "guy at the gym fallacy?" Does it mean a mundane should be able to do things that an ordinary person couldn't do, or does it mean that mundane characters should be able to do things that are physically impossible?

The latter. The "fallacy" (which it technically isn't, but in practice it might as well be) is the idea that the things a non-magical character can do should be limited to "things someone could do in real life, but more so," and conversely the assertion that any character who does something outside that conceptual space must be magical whether the ability says it's magical or not.

[ShaneMRoth]

There's something sort of surreal about complaining about the unrealisticness of someone avoiding being harmed by an explosion in an enclosed space but completely accepting without a second glance that said explosion was created by another person wiggling his fingers, speaking gibberish and throwing bat poop.

Willing Suspension of Disbelief (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief) from TV Tropes


An author's work, in other words, does not have to be realistic, only believable and internally consistent (see Magic A Is Magic A). When the author pushes an audience beyond what they're willing to accept, the work fails in the eyes of that particular audience.

[AzraelX]

There's something sort of surreal about complaining about the unrealisticness of someone avoiding being harmed by an explosion in an enclosed space but completely accepting without a second glance that said explosion was created by another person wiggling his fingers, speaking gibberish and throwing bat poop.
Summed up my thoughts perfectly.

If you're going to start house ruling to make martial classes even worse than they already are (you're nerfing rogues? Really?), based on what you think you could personally do in real life (because we have a lot of real life data to compare when determining the exact mechanics of spontaneous magical explosions, which I'm sure someone will argue must naturally be identical to mundane explosions in every way besides their unexplainable creation), and ignoring the fact that people actually have survived explosions in real life unharmed (even survived being in an exploding crashing airplane, oh my), then you have a lot of stuff left to nerf, because almost everything that PC classes can do is more extreme and skillful and extraordinary than what you're personally capable of doing yourself.

If something has a reflex save, that's informing you that it doesn't fill in 100% of all space in the area, and thus can be dodged and otherwise potentially avoided. Drop a rogue into lava and they're not getting a reflex save. A reflex save means that if you have good enough reflexes, it's possible to avoid the damage.

If you don't like it, it seems much much easier to just use spells that can't be avoided. You can tell what those ones are because they don't offer a reflex save.

On a side note, maybe a more ideal house rule for you would be to rename "Reflex" to "Luck". Then you can imagine it's pseudo-magical, and no one needs to be upset that there are fictional characters more physically skilled than themselves.

[erok0809]

Myself, I will let a character with evasion use it unless they are in a situation where they are not allowed a reflex save due to being helpless. Even if they're in a 5 foot cube of stone with a delayed blast fireball at their feet.
If they make the save, they actually do slip into a pocket dimension for a split second, just long enough to not get hurt. It's an ability that's embedded in their nervous system and muscles, but their body only used it in situations of danger where they can use their reflexes, and sometimes they just simply aren't fast enough, which is what happens if they fail their save. If they fail but take half damage with improved evasion, then they got in, but weren't quite phased out of the original plane yet and took a bit of damage. Rogues should have nice things, and it also makes the setting more fantastical for mundanes, which I like.

[Kazyan]

There's something sort of surreal about complaining about the unrealisticness of someone avoiding being harmed by an explosion in an enclosed space but completely accepting without a second glance that said explosion was created by another person wiggling his fingers, speaking gibberish and throwing bat poop.

Just because there are breaks from reality in a setting does not mean the suddenly every break has to be tolerated; otherwise you could describe pretty much anything and then whinge about "but wizards". Fictional universes, if they don't follow reality perfectly, still have to adhere to their own sets of rules, or they're just bad writing. Not realistic? That's nice, but you're not in "reality" anymore. If I'm in Germany, and I break what is usually an American law without anyone batting an eye, I'd be laughed out of the room if I tried to point to that as a reason why I could totally break a law that was shared by both countries.

Magic is justified by the rules of the fictional universe, the basic assumptions of D&D, and how the Player's Handbook basically describes how D&D is supposed to work. Stuff like this is putting RAW on a pedestal, not even attempting to lampshade how it doesn't make sense; it's merely saying that you should be able to because of reasons.

And before anyone goes off about how mundanes can't have nice things, I'm showing favoritism towards casters, or a misuse of that Guy at the Gym fallacy, let me just say that I wish the spellcasting system did not exist, so as to stop the interminable Wizard worshipping, from the Psalm of Color Spray to the Book of Why If You Don't Automatically Win Then You're Playing Wizard Wrong And your Opinion can Be Discarded. I'm totally aware of the mechanics and balance issues and RAW and blah, blah, blah. But the fluff argument of "magic, therefore literally anything" needs to be thrown out.

[AzraelX]

-snip-
That'd all be great if this thread wasn't about using house rules to make the game less realistic and less balanced. There's literally no upside to nerfing rogues. If I throw a water balloon at you in real life, it's possible for you to get less wet (and avoid wetness completely) by having good reflexes, because that's what a reflex save means: this specific spell effect does not plaster the affected area 100% evenly, and someone with good reflexes can reduce or negate the damage from it.

Not everything gives a reflex save. Only the things that are avoidable.

"Reflex saves" are how this quality is abstracted. If you can't handle reality being abstracted into dice rolls, you shouldn't be playing a d20 game.

[Stegyre]

Not everything gives a reflex save. Only the things that are avoidable.

"Reflex saves" are how this quality is abstracted.
I just wanted to say I find this an excellent explanation for the rule: concise and on-point. With permission, I would probably like to steal it for my own rules work.

[Psyren]

Not everything gives a reflex save. Only the things that are avoidable.

"Reflex saves" are how this quality is abstracted. If you can't handle reality being abstracted into dice rolls, you shouldn't be playing a d20 game.

This is the best explanation I've seen. If it's truly not avoidable then it wouldn't allow a reflex save (e.g. Ice Storm.) If it allows one, the onus is on you to fluff it appropriately to make it dodgeable.

[Karnith]

This is the best explanation I've seen. If it's truly not avoidable then it wouldn't allow a reflex save (e.g. Ice Storm.) If it allows one, the onus is on you to fluff it appropriately to make it dodgeable.
And since Evasion is a class of ability that is explicitly allowed to break the laws of physics (in 3.5, at least), coming up with a way to make it work can be fun on its own!

[Talakeal]

That'd all be great if this thread wasn't about using house rules to make the game less realistic and less balanced. There's literally no upside to nerfing rogues. If I throw a water balloon at you in real life, it's possible for you to get less wet (and avoid wetness completely) by having good reflexes, because that's what a reflex save means: this specific spell effect does not plaster the affected area 100% evenly, and someone with good reflexes can reduce or negate the damage from it.

Not everything gives a reflex save. Only the things that are avoidable.

"Reflex saves" are how this quality is abstracted. If you can't handle reality being abstracted into dice rolls, you shouldn't be playing a d20 game.

I am not talking about removing or nerfing evasion in normal cases. I am only talking about situations where there is literally no place to go. Your water balloon analogy is inaccurate, a closer example would be crawling up a narrow pipe when someone opens up a floodgate further up the pipe and fills the pipe completely full of water and you hoping to remain in the pipe yet dodge the water and not get wet.

This isn't something that comes up often, if ever, in game, and I personally buff rogues and nerf casters in other ways, so assuming this rule alone makes the game less fair is kind of unfounded. Heck, the DM I am playing under has banned almost all direct damage spells, including fireball, which more than makes up for the inability to save against AOEs in extremely unusual edge cases.



This is the best explanation I've seen. If it's truly not avoidable then it wouldn't allow a reflex save (e.g. Ice Storm.) If it allows one, the onus is on you to fluff it appropriately to make it dodgeable.

Its not only the effect though, but also the situation. Dodging something is much easier in an open field than when you are hanging upside down in a cage wearing a straightjacket.

[Sith_Happens]

Its not only the effect though, but also the situation. Dodging something is much easier in an open field than when you are hanging upside down in a cage wearing a straightjacket.

And in-game that's modeled by being upside down in a straight jacket massively penalizing your Dexterity. The cage doesn't really do anything though unless it's small enough that you're considered squeezing.

[Stegyre]

Its not only the effect though, but also the situation. Dodging something is much easier in an open field than when you are hanging upside down in a cage wearing a straightjacket.
No. If that were the case, the rules would state as much: "Ref half, unless . . ."

If it allows a reflex save, it is avoidable, by definition, as it were.

The Rules Compendium provides this additional comment: "You can make a Reflex save whenever one is called for, but your Dexterity or whether you can apply its modifier might be altered by the situation." (RC at 113)

A constrained environment, or another condition, might deprive a character of some (or all) of his Dex mod, maybe even treat him as having a Dex of 0 (-5) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#helpless). He still gets a Ref save, although it's probably a bit harder to pass, now.

It is not necessarily the character, him- (or her-) self doing anything at all: the Ref save is an attribute of the effect the character is saving against: the fireball does not, in fact, fill its entire AoE, for example.

[Psyren]

Its not only the effect though, but also the situation. Dodging something is much easier in an open field than when you are hanging upside down in a cage wearing a straightjacket.

There's a rule for that, it's called being Helpless - which does shut off evasion.

[AzraelX]

I just wanted to say I find this an excellent explanation for the rule: concise and on-point. With permission, I would probably like to steal it for my own rules work.
Feel free :smallsmile:

[TheIronGolem]

There's a rule for that, it's called being Helpless - which does shut off evasion.

More accurately, it shuts off Reflex saves entirely. And that highlights the problem with this houserule - it denies Evasion on the basis that there's nowhere to "evade" to, while ignoring the fact that regular non-Evasion saves are in that same boat. If the effect in question really is unavoidable, then Reflex saves shouldn't be allowed. If they are allowed, then the effect is avoidable, and Evasion users are just better at that so they shouldn't be treated like they're not.

Talakeal, you're arguing in favor of a rule that nerfs Evasion in the name of logic and realism, but is itself logically inconsistent and unrealistic. It makes no sense to say that Reflex saves are OK, but Evasion isn't.

[Talakeal]

Mostly what I am saying is that being "helpless" is not an absolute. By RAW you are either Helpless against everything or nothing, which I don't like.


For example, if I am standing in the bottom of a 10' diameter shaft with a rounded bottom and someone tosses rocks at me I can dodge them normally, but if someone rolls a 10' diameter spherical boulder down the shaft I am going to be helpless against.

Likewise if I am in an inescapable cage with a 10' diameter and someone shoots an arrow at me I can dodge it, but if the entire cage is dunked into a pool of Acid I am SoL.

The trap rules actually back this view up, but for someone reason don't extend to traps which have a character performing an action as a component.


No. If that were the case, the rules would state as much: "Ref half, unless . . ."

If it allows a reflex save, it is avoidable, by definition, as it were.

The Rules Compendium provides this additional comment: "You can make a Reflex save whenever one is called for, but your Dexterity or whether you can apply its modifier might be altered by the situation." (RC at 113)

A constrained environment, or another condition, might deprive a character of some (or all) of his Dex mod, maybe even treat him as having a Dex of 0 (-5) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#helpless). He still gets a Ref save, although it's probably a bit harder to pass, now.

It is not necessarily the character, him- (or her-) self doing anything at all: the Ref save is an attribute of the effect the character is saving against: the fireball does not, in fact, fill its entire AoE, for example.

I think everyone in this thread is in agreement that this is how RAW functions. I am merely stating that in a situation where I feel the RAW doesn't make sense I will tweak RAW slightly. And I believe I am within my RAW rights to do so going by chapter 1 of the DMG.



If the effect in question really is unavoidable, then Reflex saves shouldn't be allowed. If they are allowed, then the effect is avoidable, and Evasion users are just better at that so they shouldn't be treated like they're not.

Agreed 100%. This is exactly what I am saying.




Talakeal, you're arguing in favor of a rule that nerfs Evasion in the name of logic and realism, but is itself logically inconsistent and unrealistic. It makes no sense to say that Reflex saves are OK, but Evasion isn't.

Which is, ironically, exactly how the written rules work in regards to being Helpless. You cannot use Evasion, but you can make Reflex saves normally.




It is not necessarily the character, him- (or her-) self doing anything at all: the Ref save is an attribute of the effect the character is saving against: the fireball does not, in fact, fill its entire AoE, for example.

Is this actually ever stated to be the case? Do the rules distinguish between homogenous and heterogeneous AOEs?

[Psyren]

Which is, ironically, exactly how the written rules work in regards to being Helpless. You cannot use Evasion, but you can make Reflex saves normally.

But you're treated as 0 Dex, which is going to cancel out a big chunk of them.

Remember too that hit points are an abstraction - even when you totally bomb a save, some of that lost total was represented by you partially avoiding X in a limited way.


Is this actually ever stated to be the case? Can, for example, inanimate objects make Reflex saves? Do the rules distinguish between homogenous and heterogeneous AOEs?

The homogenous ones are the ones that don't allow a reflex save at all is what we're saying. Thus they are truly impossible to evade.

[Talakeal]

So I found the rules for inanimate objects. So immobile characters and magic items still get to make reflex saves, but ordinary objects do not. That is... strange to say the least.

How would one describe say, a Wall of Iron, being dropped on top of a sleeping man and a unattended magical amulet that both make their saves?




Remember too that hit points are an abstraction - even when you totally bomb a save, some of that lost total was represented by you partially avoiding X in a limited way.



I agree. In my mind this is represented by the damage roll.

[marphod]

How would one describe say, a Wall of Iron, being dropped on top of a sleeping man and a unattended magical amulet that both make their saves?

The amulet is easy -- either the wall of iron wasn't perfectly smooth, or the ground under it wasn't perfectly smooth, or the ground was soft, but regardless of how it happened, the amulet ended up in a pocket of space between the wall and the ground.

Works with a person too, albeit less plausibly.

Although, with respect to a unconscious person (or a rogue in a space so confined that they are treated as having dex 0) -- they are already considered helpless. Unconscious is helpless. Dex 0 is Paralyzed and helpless. So no evasion.

As long as the confinement is anything less than effectively reducing to Dex 0, evasion can work. 0 Dex, and no evasion even if you can make the reflex save.

[Sith_Happens]

How would one describe say, a Wall of Iron, being dropped on top of a sleeping man and a unattended magical amulet that both make their saves?

Wall of Iron is a special case in that making your save does move you:


Creatures with room to flee the falling wall may do so by making successful Reflex saves.

In the case of the sleeping man this could go one of two ways:

1. He has an incredibly fortuitous bout of sleepwalking.

2. He waives his saving throw by virtue of his effective decision to not go anywhere.

The amulet neither gets a save in the first place nor takes any damage because the spell doesn't affect objects and only says that creatures take damage (to the dysfunction thread!).

[SangoProduction]

You can think of most of the abstractions in the game as "luck." You made your save vs Disintegration, but still took damage? No, you didn't lose an arm, you just spent 8 of your 9 lives.
The cage gets dumped in acid? Well, luckily, the cage had a weak spot exposed by the acid, allowing you to slip out before you were immersed, or you are able to stick to the top of the cage until it sank.
You saved against deadly poison? The dosage just so happened to be diluted or wasn't entirely injected, giving your body a chance to remove the toxin.
A ball of acid sprays in your face? You duck, and you are relatively unharmed, avoiding the majority of the blast. Maybe you were hit a bit, but your favor with the luck gods has not worn through (ie. you took no HP damage, or as I rename it, when I dm: Luck Point damage).

Evasion can be thought of being particularly favored by Karma or what have you, as well as a good sense of where and when to move.

[Talakeal]

You can think of most of the abstractions in the game as "luck." You made your save vs Disintegration, but still took damage? No, you didn't lose an arm, you just spent 8 of your 9 lives.
The cage gets dumped in acid? Well, luckily, the cage had a weak spot exposed by the acid, allowing you to slip out before you were immersed, or you are able to stick to the top of the cage until it sank.
You saved against deadly poison? The dosage just so happened to be diluted or wasn't entirely injected, giving your body a chance to remove the toxin.
A ball of acid sprays in your face? You duck, and you are relatively unharmed, avoiding the majority of the blast. Maybe you were hit a bit, but your favor with the luck gods has not worn through (ie. you took no HP damage, or as I rename it, when I dm: Luck Point damage).

Evasion can be thought of being particularly favored by Karma or what have you, as well as a good sense of where and when to move.

I have no problem with this, if you run your game like that cool for you. Let me ask though, do you actually let natural consequences flow from your descriptions? Like would the guy who found a weak spot in the cage escape after a successful reflex save or would you force them back into the cage after the hazard had passed, because RAW doesn't allow evasion to move your character or escape from anything.

Likewise a lot of people prefer a higher power narrative and use RAW abstractions to justify giving their character all sorts of super powers, saying that high HP gives them Wolverine's toughness and healing ability or that Evading out of sealed container gives them Shadowcat's phasing powers.

[SangoProduction]

I have no problem with this, if you run your game like that cool for you. Let me ask though, do you actually let natural consequences flow from your descriptions? Like would the guy who found a weak spot in the cage escape after a successful reflex save or would you force them back into the cage after the hazard had passed, because RAW doesn't allow evasion to move your character or escape from anything.

Likewise a lot of people prefer a higher power narrative and use RAW abstractions to justify giving their character all sorts of super powers, saying that high HP gives them Wolverine's toughness and healing ability or that Evading out of sealed container gives them Shadowcat's phasing powers.

Typically yes. I afford them the free opportunity to make an escape artist check. I didn't mention that, did I? lol. A similar situation only happened once before, with my games. It meant something happened that would allow it to not damage them...although I think they chose to fluff it as it floating for a bit, rather than trying to saying he found an opening.

It's ultimately up to you to fluff the crunch how you want to make sense. No need to get hostile.

For me, high HP is an amalgamation of luck, endurance, and pain tolerance, among other things, turning deadly hits (an uber charger barbarian or disintegration) into a credit of luck - it was a near miss, or a deep gash.

If others say it means that they somehow are surviving the full brunt of an attack, but it's simply not doing much to them, let them.

[ekarney]

I assumed the no space to evade into clause meant things like confined spaces that limit your movement and attacking capability.
Because I mean, I was working something out for a campaign I'm DMing (I'm running a surrealist horror campaign, and was wondering how scary a 5x5 tunnel is) and so I measured out a 5ftx5ft space which is a lot bigger than it feels in game. I found that I had much more room than I thought the characters did.

And most area affects rely on the 10x10 area, or 10ft radius or similar right? Not a 10x10x10? Meaning that's still 16^3ft of space to occupy while that fire ball spends 0.02 seconds exploding in your square right?

[Talakeal]

Typically yes. I afford them the free opportunity to make an escape artist check. I didn't mention that, did I? lol. A similar situation only happened once before, with my games. It meant something happened that would allow it to not damage them...although I think they chose to fluff it as it floating for a bit, rather than trying to saying he found an opening.

It's ultimately up to you to fluff the crunch how you want to make sense. No need to get hostile.

For me, high HP is an amalgamation of luck, endurance, and pain tolerance, among other things, turning deadly hits (an uber charger barbarian or disintegration) into a credit of luck - it was a near miss, or a deep gash.

If others say it means that they somehow are surviving the full brunt of an attack, but it's simply not doing much to them, let them.

Cool. That is pretty much how I see it as well.


Generally if someone is in a situation where a reflex save makes no sense but they succeed anyway I let them use any other abilities they have as an immediate action for the purposes of escaping, for example a strength check to burst the bars of a cage or an escape artist check to slip through them, or even casting dimension door to teleport to safety.

[Milo v3]

From my childhood of watching power rangers, I have learnt that the only thing you need to do to take no damage from an explosion is to turn away from it and start slowly walking. Maybe that's what evasion is.

[Psyren]

From my childhood of watching power rangers, I have learnt that the only thing you need to do to take no damage from an explosion is to turn away from it and start slowly walking. Maybe that's what evasion is.

Bruce Willis must have a few monk levels then...