PDA

View Full Version : A somewhat complex question



enderrocksonall
2007-06-29, 02:47 AM
New wizards learn the idea behind area affect spells like fireball.

In the campaign I am running, the wizard just recieved the spell fireball, and was really itching to use the thing. So I threw the party at a couple of Tendriculus plants. One of them grabbed the were-tiger rogue and started grappling him. The wizard, seeing the perfect opportunity to save his budy and use his brand spankin new spell at the same time, lobs his sudden maximized fireball.

Normally a mid-level rogue is in no danger when in the midst of a fireball right? But when grappled, we decided that the whole loss of dex bonus applies to his reflex save as well.

So now we have a dilemma. The rogue was in hybrid form and got dropped to -5, which means the rogue is unconcious. But the rules state that an unconcious lycanthrope reverts to their human form on their following turn. Along with the human form comes the reduction in Con, meaning the loss of the hp boost from the transformation.

So while he would normally have 5 rounds of stabilize rolls before he had to get a heal, he now has less than one. In fact only one other party member had an action before the rogue's turn was up.

The funny part is that if he hadn't been in hybrid form, he would never have survived the blast, but if he had been in human form, he would have had those 5 rounds to try to stabilize.

So here are the questions:
1. In a grapple does the loss of a dex bonus apply to your reflex save as well as your AC?
2. If unconcious, does the transformation from hybrid to human kill the lycanthrope?
3. would a swallowed character be damaged by a fireball that struck the monster that had swallowed them?
4. If they are damaged by it, are they subject to a saving throw and evasion?

Jasdoif
2007-06-29, 03:02 AM
1. In a grapple does the loss of a dex bonus apply to your reflex save as well as your AC?No. Very few things affect your Reflex save, as mentioned in the FAQ:
Exactly when can a character make a Reflex saving throw? The saving throw section on the Player’s Handbook says Reflex saves depend on a character’s ability to dodge out of the way. Does that mean you can’t make Reflex saves if you can’t move?

A character can attempt a Reflex save anytime she is subjected to an effect that allows a Reflex save. A Reflex save usually involves some dodging, but a Reflex save does not depend completely on a character’s ability to move around. It also can depend on luck, variations in the effect that makes the save necessary in the first place, and a host of other miraculous factors that keep heroic characters in the D&D game from meeting an untimely fate.

In most cases, you make Reflex saves normally, no matter how bad your circumstances are, but a few conditions interfere with Reflex saves:
If you’ve suffered Dexterity damage or Dexterity drain, you must use your current, lower Dexterity modifier for your Reflex saves.
If you’re cowering, you lose your Dexterity bonus (if any). The maximum Dexterity bonus you can have while cowering is +0, and that affects your Reflex saves accordingly.
If you’re dead, you become an object. Unattended objects can’t make saving throws.
If you’re entangled, your effective Dexterity score drops by –4, and you must use your lower Dexterity modifier for Reflex saves.
If you’re exhausted, your effective Strength and Dexterity scores drop by –6, and you must use your lower Dexterity modifier for Reflex saves.
If you’re fatigued, your effective Strength and Dexterity scores drop by –2, and you must use your lower Dexterity modifier for Reflex saves.
If you’re frightened or panicked, you have a –2 penalty on all saving throws, including Reflex saving throws.
If you’re helpless, your Dexterity score is effectively 0. You still can make Reflex saves, but your Dexterity modifier is –5. You’re helpless whenever you are paralyzed, unconscious, or asleep.


2. If unconcious, does the transformation from hybrid to human kill the lycanthrope?Where in the rules does it say that they revert form if unconscious? I don't see it....But if the transformation drops the hit points below -10 from the changing Constitution modifier, yes, you're dead.


3. would a swallowed character be damaged by a fireball that struck the monster that had swallowed them?I would say no. The character has total cover in all directions: the body of the monster that swallowed it. There's no way for the fireball's spread to get past it to affect the swallowed character.


4. If they are damaged by it, are they subject to a saving throw and evasion?If somehow this happened, they would indeed get a reflex save and be allowed to use evasion. Swallow Whole says the swallowed creature is considered grappled (while the creature that swallowed them is not), and grappling does not interfere with Reflex saves (see #1)

Iku Rex
2007-06-29, 03:19 AM
On preview I see Jasdoif has already posted the correct answers.

I'll just add that lycanthropes have the same amount of hit points regardless of form, so even if they did revert when unconscious (which they don't) it wouldn't matter.

enderrocksonall
2007-06-29, 03:29 AM
We assumed that since a slain lyco reverts that an unconcious one would do the same.

So why does a Barb gain temperary hp from raging while a lyco does not?

That doesn't make any sense. Both are as a result of an increased Con modifier.

Jasdoif
2007-06-29, 03:32 AM
I'll just add that lycanthropes have the same amount of hit points regardless of form, so even if they did revert when unconscious (which they don't) it wouldn't matter.While this is generally correct for alternate form, the lycanthrope template specifically says that you determine total hit points based on the Constitution modifier of the form in question.

Yes, I know the examples listed don't adhere to this. But text trumps table.

Callix
2007-06-29, 03:43 AM
If there's a Con increase, there are additional hit points. However, the grapple does not affect the reflex saves, and a swallowed creature is protected from a fireball by line of effect unless it was fired down the swallower's throat. So the rogue is not at -5 HP anyway.

Iku Rex
2007-06-29, 03:53 AM
While this is generally correct for alternate form, the lycanthrope template specifically says that you determine total hit points based on the Constitution modifier of the form in question.Here's what the text says (MM 75):


Hit Dice and Hit Points: Same as the base creature plus those
of the base animal. To calculate total hit points, apply Constitution
modifiers according to the score the lycanthrope has in each form.
For example, a human commoner with a Constitution score of 11
as a human and a Constitution score of 15 as a wolf has 1d4 plus
2d8+4 hit points.
(You've no doubt read the SRD, which leaves out the clarifying example.)

Jasdoif
2007-06-29, 03:57 AM
Hmm, now that makes sense. OK, I stand corrected.

Could they have possibly explained that (without resorting to example) any worse? :smallyuk:

enderrocksonall
2007-06-29, 04:14 AM
so this means that the minute he contracts the disease he gains hp? And the change in Con is only going to affect his skills and saves?

banjo1985
2007-06-29, 04:25 AM
Yeah unfortuanately it doesn't make the best logical sense, butit's what the rules say. However if you don't like it come up with your own system, I have many complaints with how D&D works, and I make up my own ways of doing things that are more to my loking. You just have to make sure the players are clear about this when they start the campaign.

Rad
2007-06-29, 04:56 AM
so this means that the minute he contracts the disease he gains hp? And the change in Con is only going to affect his skills and saves?
The minute he contracts the disease he gains a lot of stuff, including HP.

nagora
2007-06-29, 04:56 AM
No. Very few things affect your Reflex save, as mentioned in the FAQ:


A great example of where the DM is right and the rules are wrong. Clearly getting a Dex bonus on a saving throw while grappled by rope-monsters is ridiculous. I would allow a saving throw, but no way would I allow a dexterity bonus in that circumstance.

Iku Rex
2007-06-29, 05:05 AM
Clearly getting a Dex bonus on a saving throw while grappled by rope-monsters is ridiculous. Why?

filler

nagora
2007-06-29, 05:17 AM
Why?

filler

Because the concept of dexterity is based on: 1) the ability to make fine movements with one's hands which is not relevant here, and 2) the ability to react quickly and take evasive actions. But since the character was bound there's no possibility to do this either. So no Dex bonus, just plain luck - a straight roll. If you wanted to give the character a bonus to their saving throw then you might use Str instead in this case.

One of the many problems with 3rd Edition is how easy it is to make saves ("Normally a mid-level rogue is in no danger when in the midst of a fireball right?"); I personally would have removed saves for things like this from the game entirely since they undermine and contradict the idea of hit points. Saving throws were a carry over into D&D from wargaming but they've never really made much sense except for things like Charm or poisons.

Any rule that allows characters to casually fireball an area where another is grappled without even having to think about whether it's a bad idea is a bad rule. This is also true of high-level characters falling huge distances, for example. When the rules say something stupid should happen, the DM's job is to step in and say "Actually, no, that's silly. You've just fried your friend."

Fenix_of_Doom
2007-06-29, 05:23 AM
So why does a Barb gain temperary hp from raging while a lyco does not?

That doesn't make any sense. Both are as a result of an increased Con modifier.

As far as I know the Barb doesn't gain any temp hit points* from rage and as soon as the rage ends he loses the extra hit points from the con increase.

*defined as hp that is always lost first and goes beyond you normal hp.

nagora
2007-06-29, 05:35 AM
Compromise position: Roll the damage for the monster first. If the Tendriculos plant is killed, allow the full Dex bonus when rolling for the thief's (sorry, "rouge") save; otherwise no Dex bonus.

The essential issue here is that if the "rouge" is still bound in the same place after the fireball then how could Dexterity possibly have helped him escape damage from a huge (ie, bigger than most people's houses) ball of fire? If the monster is dead and he miraculously rolls out from some corner somewhere with a couple of scorced tendrils hanging from his arms then at least you have an argument that he got away before being burned (though why he wasn't damaged by the fire that killed the thing he was tied to is rather hard to see).

Iku Rex
2007-06-29, 06:03 AM
But since the character was bound there's no possibility to do this either. Since the character got an unmodified reflex save you're clearly wrong. Grappled characters are not "bound". If they were they'd be "helpless" (defined game term) and thus have Dex 0 and be unable to use evasion.

You want to change the rules based on your idea of what's really going on. What you should be doing is changing your idea of what's really going on based on the rules. It saves a lot of work.

banjo1985
2007-06-29, 06:10 AM
I would disagree, when the rules don't accurately reflect what's really happening then a comprimise should be reached where a more sensible decision is reached. A grappled character in no way has the ability to dodge and weave to the extent that they would if they weren't grappled, indeed they are almost "helpless". By all menas they should have a saving throw but giving them the full bonus as if they were walking calmly down the street doesn't do much to maintain believability. Taking a -4 to dex for the role would make the save harder but would still give the rogue a better chance of avoiding a hit than another character, showing its better agility even when struggling in a grapple.

nagora
2007-06-29, 06:27 AM
Since the character got an unmodified reflex save you're clearly wrong. Grappled characters are not "bound".

Grappled by tendrils seems pretty bound to me.


If they were they'd be "helpless"

Why? If I bind your hands are you helpless?


You want to change the rules based on your idea of what's really going on. What you should be doing is changing your idea of what's really going on based on the rules. It saves a lot of work.

The rules are badly written and in this case produce a counter intuitive situation where someone tied up with tendrils can use dexterity to avoid a 40 foot wide fireball without moving from where he is. That's not going to happen.

It's no work to just say "make an unmodified save", which is the correct response to the situation.

3.5th edition was written by three people (Nobody, Nobody & Mr. Ars Magica) with no real claim to authority on the subject of AD&D and the quality of the rules as written shows it. DMs should have no qualms whatsoever in overrulling them when they think something's wrong.

Iku Rex
2007-06-29, 06:36 AM
I would disagree, when the rules don't accurately reflect what's really happening then a comprimise should be reached where a more sensible decision is reached. The point was that the rules do accurately reflect what's happening. It can't be otherwise, because "what's happening" is defined by the rules.

A grappled character may not have the same ability to "dodge and weave" as a non-grappled character, so that must mean that dodging a fireball requires quick movement of a type that's not restricted by a grapple, or at least that the grappling character can use the grapple to lower damage.

(For example, you could call it a -4 penalty for restricted movement and a +4 bonus for having a big, soggy monster to shield you from the damage.)

The Prince of Cats
2007-06-29, 06:45 AM
. . .

allow the full Dex bonus when rolling for the thief's (sorry, "rouge") save; otherwise no Dex bonus.

The essential issue here is that if the "rouge" is still bound

. . .
People like you make me (sic)...

Alveanerle
2007-06-29, 06:46 AM
...indeed they are almost "helpless".

Umm, that would be what "pinned" is for. A regular grapple = far from helpless. Grappling = some hold is established.
Youre' grappling when youre dancing with your oppo... err partner.
You're grappling when you're holdding your opponent by the ear.
You're grappling when you're holding your opponent by the wrist.
You're grappling when he holds you by the sleeve of your cloth.

If you want a roper or whatnot to hold the character so tight so he looses his movement flexibility and reflexes - make him attampt a pin after a grapple.

banjo1985
2007-06-29, 06:48 AM
[QUOTE=Iku Rex;2807409]The point was that the rules do accurately reflect what's happening. It can't be otherwise, because "what's happening" is defined by the rules. [QUOTE]

Is this the ideal way to think in terms of roleplaying? What's happening is defined by the actions of the GM and characters, the rules serve as a structure around which indefinite actions are resolved, such as whether you hit something or how likely you are to dodge an attack. The rules aren't there to restrict, they're a structure, and a pretty loose one at that.

As for being protected by the monsters tendrils, well it's a fireball, so now they're superhot tendrils clutching at the character, thus adding to the pain at least as much as the protection they give.

edit - oops quote didn't work, my bad

Iku Rex
2007-06-29, 06:51 AM
Grappled by tendrils seems pretty bound to me.That's nice, but it's actually no different from any other grapple. If you want to describe it so that the character is helpless you need to change the monster's ability.

Why? If I bind your hands are you helpless?"Bound" in this context means more than just tied up hands.

Helpless

A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (-5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks gets no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.

As a full-round action, an enemy can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless foe. An enemy can also use a bow or crossbow, provided he is adjacent to the target. The attacker automatically hits and scores a critical hit. (A rogue also gets her sneak attack damage bonus against a helpless foe when delivering a coup de grace.) If the defender survives, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die.

Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity.

Creatures that are immune to critical hits do not take critical damage, nor do they need to make Fortitude saves to avoid being killed by a coup de grace.

Evasion (Ex)

At 2nd level or higher if a monk makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if a monk is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless monk does not gain the benefit of evasion.


The rules are badly written and in this case produce a counter intuitive situation where someone tied up with tendrils can use dexterity to avoid a 40 foot wide fireball without moving from where he is. That's not going to happen.You never "move from [the square] where you are" when dodging a fireball. Nor do you lose an action, become vulnerable to attack (AoO), go prone or have your attacks interrupted. If your idea of what a fireball is and how it's avoided contradicts this, then you're not picturing a DnD fireball.

nagora
2007-06-29, 07:04 AM
You never "move from [the square] where you are" when dodging a fireball. Nor do you lose an action, become vulnerable to attack (AoO), go prone or have your attacks interrupted. If your idea of what a fireball is and how it's avoided contradicts this, then you're not picturing a DnD fireball.

Quoting another badly written rule doesn't help your case any.

It's conversations like this that really make me wonder why anyone plays 3rd edition. It seems to constantly battle with the DM's ability to paint a believable world. 1st edition seems superior in every way.

Iku Rex
2007-06-29, 07:06 AM
The point was that the rules do accurately reflect what's happening. It can't be otherwise, because "what's happening" is defined by the rules.
Is this the ideal way to think in terms of roleplaying? What's happening is defined by the actions of the GM and characters, the rules serve as a structure around which indefinite actions are resolved, such as whether you hit something or how likely you are to dodge an attack. The rules aren't there to restrict, they're a structure, and a pretty loose one at that.Yours and nagoras point has been that the rules don't reflect "what's really happening". The assumption is that "what's really happening" is an objective, universally shared part of DnD. If you really meant "what's really happening in my campaign after I changed how reflex saves work" then that's another matter entirely. But that's not how it's presented.

As for being protected by the monsters tendrils, well it's a fireball, so now they're superhot tendrils clutching at the character, thus adding to the pain at least as much as the protection they give.My suggestion for an in-game justification is not contradicted by any rule. Your objection on the other hand is clearly absurd, as fireballs don't turn limbs "superhot".

Alveanerle
2007-06-29, 07:12 AM
In other words - being grappled by tentacles is far from being bound by them.
For that you need to be pinned too.

And, unless tentacles are flammable or metallic, i see no reason why they should be super-hot. Thermal conductivity of organic mass is not great enough for them to superheat from a brief exposure to flames.

banjo1985
2007-06-29, 07:14 AM
My suggestion for an in-game justification is not contradicted by any rule. Your objection on the other hand is clearly absurd, as fireballs don't turn limbs "superhot".

Oookay so a huge ball of flame wouldn't warm you up the teensiest little bit? :smalltongue:

As far as arguing rules goes I'm a long way out of my depth, I'm just putting across that a rule I believe to be counterproductive in this situation maybe just should be ignored or changed to suit the play. As far as rules go I am in no doubt that your view is correct

Iku Rex
2007-06-29, 07:14 AM
Quoting another badly written rule doesn't help your case any.Once again refusing to acknowledge that DnD fireballs don't have the effect you think they do doesn't help your case any.

You've created your own kind of fireball spell, way different from the fireball spell in the DnD game, and now you're complaining about how the DnD rules don't accurately represent how your fireball works.

draca
2007-06-29, 07:42 AM
I see a lot of good ideas here. I think the rules left a little slack for times like this, but I’ve seen rules posted here, that as written – before any decision for or against changing the rules to fit the situation – will have allowed your friend to live.

1) The hp gain looks like it’s permanent, regardless of form.

2) I realize you have a house rule where he will convert to human form when unconscious; however by the rules that’s not necessarily the case. I saw rules here quoting how a dead body is treated differently then a helpless adventurer. That holds true for most case and effects. However, refer to rule #1 he will still be at -5 if he didn’t save.

3) The rule on reflex saves states that there is - apart from dexterity and ability to tumble, wiggle or dodge - a supernatural factor in effect that makes it almost impossible to not get to make your saving throw. None of those well defined factors applied to the rogue, so the only question is what, if any, negative modifier to apply. There is no modifier stated for being grappled. There is one for being bound, and one for being entangled like the spell. Many plant creatures have an entangle special or spell-like ability, but if it was being run as a grapple, it should be run as a grapple, even when it would be advantageous to the player.

I hope that holds to all rules, and I certainly try to run things that way. If all of a sudden something may occur that doesn’t make sense, but is by the book, and it can save a player’s character I go with it. Then later, when someone’s character’s life isn’t on the line, we decide if we want to change the rules in the future. Otherwise inconsistency and making rules that “make sense” that get PCs killed can come off as the DM cheezing the rules to kill PCs on a case by case basis.

nagora
2007-06-29, 07:50 AM
Once again refusing to acknowledge that DnD fireballs don't have the effect you think they do doesn't help your case any.

This is the fireball spell that melts gold we're talking about here, isn't it? And that covers the fairly vast area of 20' radius? What else is there to say about them? It's a huge ball of fire at over 1000C, with the PC in the middle of it and unable to run away. No dex bonus; the RAW are wrong.


You've created your own kind of fireball spell, way different from the fireball spell in the DnD game, and now you're complaining about how the DnD rules don't accurately represent how your fireball works.

Rules lawyering like that would get you tossed out of most adult role-players' groups. The rules in this case are clearly and obviously wrong while the "same square" rule for reflex rolls is clearly and obviously designed for a board game rather than a role-playing game and should be deleted in toto. It's pure munchkin.

Fixer
2007-06-29, 07:54 AM
Because the concept of dexterity is based on: 1) the ability to make fine movements with one's hands which is not relevant here, and 2) the ability to react quickly and take evasive actions. But since the character was bound there's no possibility to do this either. So no Dex bonus, just plain luck - a straight roll. If you wanted to give the character a bonus to their saving throw then you might use Str instead in this case.
An unconsious, paralyzed or helpless character gets a Reflex save by RAW, so does a grappled one.

Reflex saves are, in essence, luck saves. Dextrous persons simply tend to be more lucky, I suppose.

I can understand you complaining about 3rd edition compared to 1st edition, but I would ask that you keep any elitism out of your arguments. I played 1st edition from 1980 to 1983 and a lot of 2nd edition after that. The system has improved somewhat, and in the process of improving has generated more glitches. That is the case with all complex systems.

(EDIT after reading your latest post)
You are behaving exceptionally adversarial and condescending. Please stop. Simply because you disagree does not mean everyone else must be wrong.

banjo1985
2007-06-29, 08:01 AM
I've played first edition and thought it was awful, but I agree that I don't like the rule as it is written.

I hadn't realised "entangled" was different from "grappled" which damages my argument a bit, and for that I back down reluctantly. As far as the rules go everything said is correct, however I still feel that a full and unmodified Reflex save for a grappled character is on the verge of absurd, even if they are more cunning than cunning can be! (sorry for the blackadder reference)

Tyger
2007-06-29, 08:01 AM
Have to chime in on the, yes, it may not make the most "logical sense" (but hell, neither does a Fireball in the first place) but its RAW side.

Grapple does not deny you your Dex bonus to AC (against the target you are grappling with) nor to Reflex saves. You are not pinned, immobile or helpless. You are squirming like a mofo trying to either maintain or break the grapple (or in some cases just enjoying it). You are not stuck standing perfectly still, nor are you held in place to the point where you can't move.

Feel free to houserule otherwise, but by RAW, and by general consensus, that's just the way it works. And "rules-lawyering" like that isn't rules lawyering at all... its a knowledge of what is EXPLICITLY stated in the rules. Its not twinking for some undeserved advantage. And if a DM kicks out players who actually know the rules... well, that's one game this mature, adult player doesn't want to play in.

Iku Rex
2007-06-29, 08:03 AM
This is the fireball spell that melts gold we're talking about here, isn't it? And that covers the fairly vast area of 20' radius? What else is there to say about them? It's a huge ball of fire at over 1000C, with the PC in the middle of it and unable to run away. No dex bonus; the RAW are wrong.If you can't undertand why declaring that "the RAW are wrong" is absurd when we're talking about a magical effect defined by the RAW then there's nothing more to talk about.

Fixer
2007-06-29, 08:08 AM
An easy way to justify an unmodified Reflex save during a grapple is a bit simpler.

Character gets whiff (however Reflex saves work) of an incoming fireball.
Character maneuvers so his opponent is between himself and point of explosion.
Character does not catch the brunt of the fireball because his opponent is giving him some cover, but not enough to provide 'rules defined' cover.

Raum
2007-06-29, 08:13 AM
This is the fireball spell that melts gold we're talking about here, isn't it? And that covers the fairly vast area of 20' radius? What else is there to say about them? It's a huge ball of fire at over 1000C, with the PC in the middle of it and unable to run away. No dex bonus; the RAW are wrong.If you're going to bring physics into the question, that fireball never happened to start with. Seriously. The only thing preventing a save is death, other conditions simply provide the appropriate modifier. As for the rules being "wrong" - that's laughable. It's a game published by a company, rules are "wrong" when they release errata. Before then they may have many other attributes causing you to house rule against the written rules, but not "wrong."


Rules lawyering like that would get you tossed out of most adult role-players' groups. The rules in this case are clearly and obviously wrong while the "same square" rule for reflex rolls is clearly and obviously designed for a board game rather than a role-playing game and should be deleted in toto. It's pure munchkin.Not every group expects arbitrary sections of the rules to duplicate real life physics. Not even every "adult role-players' groups."

SpikeFightwicky
2007-06-29, 08:18 AM
We assumed that since a slain lyco reverts that an unconcious one would do the same.

So why does a Barb gain temperary hp from raging while a lyco does not?

That doesn't make any sense. Both are as a result of an increased Con modifier.

To quote the SRD:


This increase in Constitution increases the barbarian’s hit points by 2 points per level, but these hit points go away at the end of the rage when his Constitution score drops back to normal. (These extra hit points are not lost first the way temporary hit points are.)

The barb is just as screwed as the lycanthrope if it's at low HP and the rage somehow ends.

I always found the reflex save rules to be a little off kilter, especially since I often play a paladin. I can't stand the smarmy special mount!!
*Paladin on mount is breathed on by a red dragon*
Player: Ok, my mount rolls its reflex..... 24.
DM: Ok, it made its save.
Player: Good stuff! It has improved evasion, so it takes no damage.
DM: Alright, it nimbly 'evades' the dragon fire. Now for your paladin.
Player: Oh yeah.... 13... Does that make it?
DM: Unfortunately not. The dragon's flames scorch you for 38 damage.
Player: Ouch... My paladin asks the horse to wipe its smug grin from its face... Wait a second, did the horse use me as a human shield to avoid the damage?

banjo1985
2007-06-29, 08:25 AM
I always found the reflex save rules to be a little off kilter, especially since I often play a paladin. I can't stand the smarmy special mount!!
*Paladin on mount is breathed on by a red dragon*
Player: Ok, my mount rolls its reflex..... 24.
DM: Ok, it made its save.
Player: Good stuff! It has improved evasion, so it takes no damage.
DM: Alright, it nimbly 'evades' the dragon fire. Now for your paladin.
Player: Oh yeah.... 13... Does that make it?
DM: Unfortunately not. The dragon's flames scorch you for 38 damage.
Player: Ouch... My paladin asks the horse to wipe its smug grin from its face... Wait a second, did the horse use me as a human shield to avoid the damage?


I love this example! Shows how the rules, even when used completely correctly reall don't do believability of teh world you've created any good.

Damn paladin mounts, always dodging damage thinking they're better than anybody else, why I oughta.....:smallwink:

nagora
2007-06-29, 11:53 AM
Feel free to houserule otherwise, but by RAW, and by general consensus, that's just the way it works. And "rules-lawyering" like that isn't rules lawyering at all... its a knowledge of what is EXPLICITLY stated in the rules. Its not twinking for some undeserved advantage. And if a DM kicks out players who actually know the rules... well, that's one game this mature, adult player doesn't want to play in.

No rules system can ever cover every situation, nor can it cover the ones it tries to perfectly; role-playing is simply too complex for that. The DM therefore has two jobs in relation to the game: make rulings for situations not covered, and over rule situations where the rules as printed don't work. This is not an inherent criticism of the rules but an inescapable consequence of the fact that we are trying to simulate an entire reality here. NO RPG CAN BE PLAYED RAW.

"Rules lawyering" is any attempt to override the DM's decisions by pointing at the rules with no consideration of whether the rules are working or not. In this case they are blatantly not and the DM made the right choice.

Things (in this discussion) were complicated by the fact that Iku Rex pointed us all at the rule


You never "move from [the square] where you are" when dodging a fireball.

This is a slightly different case in that the rule is so outrageously absurd and seems to have wandered in from another game. In my opinion that rule should be discared completely. A bad rule is a bad rule even if you paid money for it in a book.

The only reference I made to physics was when I quoted the fireball description where it says it is hot enough to melt bronze and gold etc, which is around 1000C in our world and presumably similar in D&D (or the effects would be noticed quickly).

The fact that being grappled negates your AC bonus from Dex (versus everythng other than the grappler) makes sense for the same reason that losing it for saving throws against outside fireball attacks makes sense - this is a logical contradiction in the RAW which is another reason the DM's opinion should take precedence.

And finally, The Fixer's idea about twisting around and using the monster as a shield is a fair point and what I had in mind when I suggested that Strength could be the modifier - because the description of this particular monster makes it sound very strong.

Do not attempt to usurp a DM who is making a better job of running the game than the printed rules - that's his/her job!

nagora
2007-06-29, 12:01 PM
I've played first edition and thought it was awful, but I agree that I don't like the rule as it is written.


Awful is a bit harsh but it really needed an overhaul. What it got was a mugging.

Keld Denar
2007-06-29, 01:11 PM
It states right in the discription of fireball that if it deals enough damage to overcome the barrier (in this case, the swallowing monster) then it would continue on and burn the contents (swallowed rogue). Otherwise, it would just crispify the outer monster, leaving the internal rogue basking comfortably in his leafy sauna.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireball.htm

enderrocksonall
2007-06-29, 05:32 PM
I've been seeing a lot of arguments like this going on. Where one side says that the rules trump the situation and some saying that the situation should adjust the rules.

Obviously, in the end it is up to the DM to adjudicate the argument in each situation. But I want to know what people think about this without a specific example.

If I give you guys an example, someone is going to start saying one thing and someone else will refute and it will just be another argument.

So, given a no house-rule environment, and an undefined situation, would you guys sacrifice the rules for the drama of the situation? Or would you manipulate the situation to fit the rules and then worry about drama?

It seems to me that the game shouldn't be just about hack-and -slash, but rather about the heroism(or villainy) of the main charcaters and the comraderie that developes between them throughout their numerous battles together.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-06-29, 05:38 PM
Awful is a bit harsh but it really needed an overhaul. What it got was a mugging.

No, first edition was awful. Really, truly awful. I've read the rules--there isn't a rules system. There's a whole bunch of rules that have little to do with each other, written before RPG design theory even really existed.

Sorry, but fireball is *magic*. Evasion is "extraordinary", which really means "potentially superhuman".

The rules are the rules of a game, they don't accurately simulate reality in any way. When the rules say that a character, tied up and asleep, gets a reflex save for half damage versus a fireball... that's an in-game effect. Describe it however you like, but saying that he takes full damage is also an in-game effect. He takes a certain amount of hit point damage--something, please not, that doesn't even translate directly into wounds! You can describe something in an intelligent fashion either way, so if you decide that the rogue "can't dodge" and so takes full damage, you're basically screwing the player over for no good reason...

Fax Celestis
2007-06-29, 05:42 PM
This is the fireball spell that melts gold we're talking about here, isn't it? And that covers the fairly vast area of 20' radius? What else is there to say about them? It's a huge ball of fire at over 1000C, with the PC in the middle of it and unable to run away. No dex bonus; the RAW are wrong.

Um...fireball doesn't melt gold--not to the extreme you're thinking. It sets flammable objects on fire and damages people in its radius. That's it. No temperature is given.

You're making assumptions here that don't exist.

SpiderBrigade
2007-06-29, 07:14 PM
Um...fireball doesn't melt gold--not to the extreme you're thinking. It sets flammable objects on fire and damages people in its radius. That's it. No temperature is given.

You're making assumptions here that don't exist.Well, Fax, while I also disagree with the points being made, he's actually right about that one.


The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze.

Damionte
2007-06-29, 07:25 PM
There is a pretty easy fix for this one. I mean you are the GM. You already made your ruling at the table that he's at -5. leave him at -5 and let the party go on from there.

The group should have learned the real lesson here already. don't let metagame get in the way of your character decisions in game. You all understand that it makes no sense for the wizard to cast a maximised fireball at the grappled rogue in this situation. he shoudl have waited for the rogue to get clear, or used a different spell, or not maximised it.

He should have realised the rogue would be at a dissadvantage and not able to fully dodge the effects of the spell since he was being grappled.

This is clearly a case of meta game knowledge wrongly effecting your decision making. yes the wizard may have seen the rogue get out of similar tight situations before, but he has no idea how the mechanics of evasion work. Why he would think the rogue would be able to dodge out of the way is beyond me.

Jasdoif
2007-06-29, 07:31 PM
Regardless of the rules in play, fireballing your buddy is strongly discouraged in the vast majority of situations.

And the irony in this particular situation: a tendriculos (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/tendriculos.htm)' regeneration is not bypassed by fire.

nagora
2007-06-30, 02:23 AM
Um...fireball doesn't melt gold--not to the extreme you're thinking. It sets flammable objects on fire and damages people in its radius. That's it. No temperature is given.

You're making assumptions here that don't exist.

The description specifically states that


It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze.

Which seems fair enough for a huge ball of fire.

nagora
2007-06-30, 02:26 AM
No, first edition was awful. Really, truly awful. I've read the rules--there isn't a rules system. There's a whole bunch of rules that have little to do with each other, written before RPG design theory even really existed.

Which is its strengh. 3rd edition's weakness is in trying to unify disparate situations under too few special rules. The current argument is a good example.


Sorry, but fireball is *magic*. Evasion is "extraordinary", which really means "potentially superhuman".

The rules are the rules of a game, they don't accurately simulate reality in any way.

If that's how you feel, play a board game; this is a discussion about role-playing.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-06-30, 02:33 AM
Which is its strengh. 3rd edition's weakness is in trying to unify disparate situations under too few special rules. The current argument is a good example.
No, that wasn't a strength. The system literally made no sense and wasn't good at anything. It wasn't a good game. We've learned a lot about game design since those days--3.5 isn't a shining example of it, but it's a lot better.
3.5, for the record, has tons of special rules. It also has consistent unifying mechanics.



If that's how you feel, play a board game; this is a discussion about role-playing.
That's something of a glib dismissal of a valid point.
D&D has rules, separate from the roleplaying. You don't need any rules to roleplay, and D&D's rules are somewhat arbitrary and something of a game unto themselves. Those rules are not a simulation of the world (they're neither designed for that nor good at it), they're game rules. D&D is a role-playing game, and it started as more of a game than a role-playing experience.
Like I said: HP does not translate directly into wounds. Reflex saves do not translate directly into dodging. Following the rules does not lead to any more absurdity than not following them, here.

Rad
2007-06-30, 09:24 AM
Once again refusing to acknowledge that DnD fireballs don't have the effect you think they do doesn't help your case any.

You've created your own kind of fireball spell, way different from the fireball spell in the DnD game, and now you're complaining about how the DnD rules don't accurately represent how your fireball works.

and might I add, that fireball would be more powerful than the original one since there are situations where there is no save allowed. Personally, I do not fancy reassigning all the spell levels and rebalance all the abilities that call for a reflex save, as I would have to if I changed how reflex saves work. For this reason in my games I'll keep the crappy rule. Others can make all the house rules they want but the general rules, the ones that are applied to everybody's game unless they agree differently, are the crappy ones published by the WotC.

hewhosaysfish
2007-06-30, 09:35 AM
Personally, I do not fancy reassigning all the spell levels and rebalance all the abilities that call for a reflex save, as I would have to if I changed how reflex saves work.

Forget the loss of the reflex save, what about the fact that - in order to accurately depict the effects of being in the centre of 40' wide, 1000 degree ball of flame - the fireball realistically should kill outright any living creature which isn't immune to fire. Only roll damage for creatures like zombies that can keep on going in spite of losing all their skin.

Neek
2007-06-30, 01:59 PM
I think a lot of these replies, the statements of nagora, &c., are not really addressing the actual requests. The first couple did, however.


So here are the questions:
1. In a grapple does the loss of a dex bonus apply to your reflex save as well as your AC?

As previous posts have stated, it does not. A grapple doesn't imply you can't get free, and if grappler receives a reflex save, then the grapplee deserves one too. You may, depending on the circumstance, offer to outright remove the Dex bonus or provide a modifier. But these are purely circumstantial modifications of the rules as written, which you're free to have.

In this situation, I would have the character make an escape artist check against the tendriculous's grapple, failure implying a lose of Dex bonus for the save.

Denying his Dex bonus I consider to be reasonable in this situation.


2. If unconcious, does the transformation from hybrid to human kill the lycanthrope?

I believe this has already been answered, that the new form does not have any more HP, even modified by a new Constitution score, from its original form, if this statement from the SRD is correct, Except as described elsewhere, the creature retains all other game statistics of its original form, including (but not necessarily limited to) HD, hit points, skill ranks, feats, base attack bonus, and base save bonuses..

So changing back should not kill the character as there's not a change of hitpoints (lest you have houseruled that they gain bonus hitpoints from their increased stats).


3. would a swallowed character be damaged by a fireball that struck the monster that had swallowed them?

4. If they are damaged by it, are they subject to a saving throw and evasion?

There's no set precedent about this in the rules, however, as said before, if the creature dies because of the fireball, you'd take spill-over damage. As for (4), being that you're grappled, there's nothing denying you a reflex save. I'd deny a Dex bonus, only because there's not a whole lot evading you can do in the stomach of a creature.


If that's how you feel, play a board game; this is a discussion about role-playing.

Are you sure? The OP is attempting to understand and adjunctate the rules for his own campaign, trying to understand if he ruled the mechanics of his game correctly. The topic being about a mechanics should be enough of a hint that this discussion is not about roleplaying, but about the rules in the game.

"Quoting another badly written rule doesn't help your case any."

Not really. Quoting a badly worded rule allows you to set a precedent with the decision at hand. You stated before that it's impossible to play a game by RAW alone, and it sure is, because you end up with some real silly situations (commoner railgun anyone?)--but, branding mechanics as "badly written" and using any convenience to push your "3.5 is crap! 1st edition for ever!!!" agenda's not helping the actual situation.

From what I see in the SRD (we're going back to it because it's our frame of reference.): You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point.

So, it's a roaring ball of fire that detonates at a single point. It doesn't push objects, the rapid consumption of air doesn't cause an atmospheric vacuum, nor is it a massive explosion that has concussive force behind it. So, reflex saving for half and standing in the same square is fine by the rules, provided that you can bs it (i.e., "you quickly duck yourself behind the shield, table, the soon-to-be-charred corpse of a halfling child before the searing explosive takes you"; or "you turn your back, hoping your leather backpack holds back the flame"; or "you duck to the ground as close as possible as the fire bursts overhead," ad nauseum.)

Now, you may rule otherwise; you're free to. If the character tumbled back or jumped away or behind something, then the character should not be in the same square. But that's at the discretion of DM and the situation at hand, but does not fall itself under a "badly written" rule.

brian c
2007-06-30, 02:20 PM
If that's how you feel, play a board game; this is a discussion about role-playing.

You're not discussing "role-playing", you're discussing game mechanics. Completely different. If you were discussing role-playing, you'd have a 30-page backstory explaining how your rogue trained with whatever master and learned the secrets of dodging fireballs. What you're talking about is game mechanics, and the rules are never "wrong" unless they are changed later (then the old rule is wrong) or contradict another rule (then one of them must be wrong). If you don't like what the RAW says, then you can make a houserule. However, that doesn't change the fact that, by RAW, a rogue can be in a grapple and still take no damage at all from a fireball targeting them, if they make the reflex save (which they are allowed to use their full dexterity modifier for).

Zaeron
2007-06-30, 04:32 PM
If that's how you feel, play a board game; this is a discussion about role-playing.

I just had to reply to this.

Combat in D&D is a board game, sort of. Many people play the game like that, especially in combat. That's what power gaming is usually about - 'power gamer' is just a term for someone who only cares about doing well in the board game. Many people like to roleplay and still fight well.

It's not 'one or the other', a good game has both. Epic battles where the PCs win by the skin of their teeth, and amazing stories of heroism and villainy. As a DM, your job is to make all players happy, within reason. That means more than just being a good roleplayer. It means knowing the rules of the game, too. If third edition D&D is so horrible, don't play it.

Your players, however, are playing 3.5 D&D because they like it. They know how the rules work, they probably like how the rules work, and most of them probably put at least some effort into making characters that can play the 'board game' part of D&D fairly well.

When you, as a DM, throw out rules you dislike at whim, you punish the players. Speaking for myself, at least, my least favorite games were with the DMs who would randomly make announcements such as 'you've already taken a full round action this turn, and the fireball is centered on you, so if you try to make a reflex save this round, you can't move next turn'.

Enough rulings like this, and the players no longer have any control of the combat. If what you want is to run the combats for the PCs, why not just do a storytelling style game? It's one thing to houserule out unreasonable things. It's quite another to apply absurd penalties at whim - at the very least, you should have warned the wizard 'hey, he'll take a penalty to his save', if you were going to rule it like that.

And if you insist that's metagaming, may I point out that rogues routinely perform feats of inhuman dexterity? Even a fourth or fifth level rogue can hurl himself through a room full of mindnumbingly deadly traps without a scratch, and make it look easy. Why would the wizard immediately think 'hey, the same guy who dodged a dozen whirling, poisoned scythes, tumbled off a wall, leapt a 10 foot pit full of razor spikes and then picked a lock while hanging in midair from a ledge obviously could never avoid a fireball.'

Matthew
2007-07-01, 02:14 PM
No, that wasn't a strength. The system literally made no sense and wasn't good at anything. It wasn't a good game. We've learned a lot about game design since those days--3.5 isn't a shining example of it, but it's a lot better.
3.5, for the record, has tons of special rules. It also has consistent unifying mechanics.

Whilst I don't agree with what Nagora is saying in the context it is being presented, this is an extremely subjective statement. (A)D&D was clearly a 'good game' in that it sold extremely well and was widely imitated. What you may want from any given system may not be what somebody else wants.

I find both (A)D&D 1.x and D&D 3.x to be 'good games' and wouldn't be inclined to choose one over the other in any absolute sense.

Dausuul
2007-07-01, 07:02 PM
This is the fireball spell that melts gold we're talking about here, isn't it? And that covers the fairly vast area of 20' radius? What else is there to say about them? It's a huge ball of fire at over 1000C, with the PC in the middle of it and unable to run away. No dex bonus; the RAW are wrong.

As another poster pointed out--if you can interpose your opponent's body between you and the fireball, that's more than adequate justification for taking less damage (or, for a rogue, no damage). See "Westley v. Rodent of Unusual Size." And a character with high Dex certainly ought to be better at that.

This isn't nearly as unreasonable as you're making it out to be. In fact, I'd say the grappling character has more justification for being able to make a Reflex save than one who's out in the open when the blast hits.


When you, as a DM, throw out rules you dislike at whim, you punish the players. Speaking for myself, at least, my least favorite games were with the DMs who would randomly make announcements such as 'you've already taken a full round action this turn, and the fireball is centered on you, so if you try to make a reflex save this round, you can't move next turn'.

Enough rulings like this, and the players no longer have any control of the combat. If what you want is to run the combats for the PCs, why not just do a storytelling style game? It's one thing to houserule out unreasonable things. It's quite another to apply absurd penalties at whim - at the very least, you should have warned the wizard 'hey, he'll take a penalty to his save', if you were going to rule it like that.

Amen to that. The whole point of having a rule system is so that the players and the DM are on the same page as to what outcome to expect in a given situation. Applying house rules before the start of the game is fine, so long as everyone knows what the house rules are. But when the DM decides "this one thing doesn't make sense" in the middle of combat, and yanks the rules around, it's impossible for the players to make rational decisions about what to do.

Inventing/announcing house rules in the middle of play should be done only if failing to do so will totally wreck the game. In that case, the DM should apply the house rule, but offer the players the chance to "take back" any actions they wouldn't have taken if they'd known the house rule to be in effect. Otherwise, wait until the session is over before making the change.

nagora
2007-07-16, 12:39 PM
If all of a sudden something may occur that doesn’t make sense, but is by the book, and it can save a player’s character I go with it. Then later, when someone’s character’s life isn’t on the line, we decide if we want to change the rules in the future. Otherwise inconsistency and making rules that “make sense” that get PCs killed can come off as the DM cheezing the rules to kill PCs on a case by case basis.

Well, all I can say (now that I'm back from holiday) is that if a DM gave my character a Dex bonus in that situation I would protest strongly, and I'm pretty sure all the players in our group would do so too.

Bad rules are bad rules even if they save a PC's life, and bad rules undermine the whole experience for everyone. It's no different from handing out treasure in bucketloads for killing kobolds.

Especially given that 3rd edition is just some random guys' ideas of what needed to be done to someone else's game (ie, 1st edition AD&D) to make it better, there is really no reason at all to allow obvious mistakes like this stand when you come across them. The rule is wrong.

SMDVogrin
2007-07-16, 04:44 PM
Well, all I can say (now that I'm back from holiday) is that if a DM gave my character a Dex bonus in that situation I would protest strongly, and I'm pretty sure all the players in our group would do so too.

Bad rules are bad rules even if they save a PC's life, and bad rules undermine the whole experience for everyone. It's no different from handing out treasure in bucketloads for killing kobolds.

Especially given that 3rd edition is just some random guys' ideas of what needed to be done to someone else's game (ie, 1st edition AD&D) to make it better, there is really no reason at all to allow obvious mistakes like this stand when you come across them. The rule is wrong.

Playing with house rules (which is what you're doing, even if you're not admitting it) is perfectly fine. Using those house rules as the basis of a discussion of the rules for ANOTHER GROUP, however, leads to problems. As this discussion should have demonstrated.

nagora
2007-07-16, 06:12 PM
Playing with house rules (which is what you're doing, even if you're not admitting it)

Well, I don't think I am playing with house rules. Part of the DM's job is to step in when the rules don't cover the situation well and that's just part of any role-playing game. It's not a part of board gaming, which is what I think a lot of people here want D&D to be (and the 3rd ed. combat rules encourage that), but it is an inescapable part of role-playing and its why computer RPGs still suck so badly compared to pen & paper.

In this case the rules clearly do not cover the situation in any way that helps role-playing, which is the only definition of "works" that matters in an RPG.

I'm well aware that I'm flogging a dead horse here but it is important for the players' and the DM's enjoyment that the role-playing is never held hostage to the mechanics in a way that pops the players out of their suspention of disbelief. Anything that makes the players go "what?" is a problem that the DM needs to solve.

Saving throws were one of the things that needed fixed in 1st edition (to hell with that, in fact, they should have been fixed in the original Greyhawk supplement); instead they got worse as far as I can see. It is a bad idea to compound the problem by refusing to let the DM do something about the times when they really fail badly. The original poster asked if the DM was right to overrule; he was.

Matthew
2007-07-16, 06:35 PM
Sure, but if you make a Rule that does not exist within the 'Rules of the Game' then you are making a Rule that applies particularly to your group. That is what conventionally is referred to as a House Rule. All RPGs require House Rules to some extent, but that doesn't make said House Rules the 'Rules of the Game', just the expectation of their creation.

nagora
2007-07-17, 03:33 AM
Sure, but if you make a Rule that does not exist within the 'Rules of the Game' then you are making a Rule that applies particularly to your group. That is what conventionally is referred to as a House Rule. All RPGs require House Rules to some extent, but that doesn't make said House Rules the 'Rules of the Game', just the expectation of their creation.

Yes, but the point I think is important is that "house rulings" should be a normal part of the gaming session and that the DM should not feel s/he has to back down in the face of RAW if their decision makes sense. This is especially true when there is an odd contradiction such as not being given a Dex bonus to AC when grappled but still getting it on your saving throws.

The idea that DMs that make rulings are somehow being unreasonable non-cannonical mavericks out to screw the players is a grave misunderstanding of what a good DM does and can only lead to a game where mechanics rule over everything and there is no more freedom to role-play than in a game of Space Crusade, for example.

DM rulings should happen all the time. If they are consistant and make sense then it matters not a jot whether they sometimes come into conflict with the rule book. The players are free to elect a new DM any time they like, of course. But one that sticks to the RAW all the time in every situation is not some paragon of virtue that the rest of us should strive to emulate, they are in fact simply a bad (or, at least, inexperienced) DM.

Matthew
2007-07-17, 07:19 AM
As far as I can see, everybody understands that. However, you have to be clear when you are referring to the RAW and when you are over ruling or fixing something about the RAW.

Nobody thinks that changing the rules is wrong, but for the purposes of discussion there is 'how the rules work' and 'how you alter the rules'. The two mustn't be confused.

Charity
2007-07-17, 08:07 AM
Nobody thinks that changing the rules is wrong, but for the purposes of discussion there is 'how the rules work' and 'how you alter the rules'. The two mustn't be confused.

Don't cross the streams!

Matthew
2007-07-17, 08:15 AM
"Gah, I looked directly at them!"

Premier
2007-08-07, 11:58 AM
No, first edition was awful. Really, truly awful. I've read the rules--there isn't a rules system. There's a whole bunch of rules that have little to do with each other, written before RPG design theory even really existed.

Rachel, I gotta ask: have you ever actually played first edition, or just read it? Because you know, I actually have, and I'm speaking from experience when I say that what you perceive as "bunch of rules" does not create the unsurmountable chaos you seem to imply. Sure, you roll a d20 for attacks and saving throws, and you roll d% when using thief skills. But you know what? When you look at your character sheet and it says "Open Locks - 47%", you don't start thinking "Egads, what sort of die am I supposed to roll for this? D4? D20? Maybe D100? Confound this obscurity!" It's a number like "47", and it even says "%", it's obvious without thinking that you roll percentile, and you gotta roll low, since the thief skill numbers go upwards as you gain levels.

And the "before RPG design theory" thing is a strawman. Going by your logic, chess and checkers must be also ****ty games, since they were invented before game design theory, and the stirrup must be a terribly disfunctional invention, since whoever came up with it did not possess an Engineering degree. It doesn't mean anything. Plus, the statement is not even factually true. D&D evolved from miniature wargaming, which was surrounded by a tradition of heavy theoretical rules debates about realism and practicality. Heck, wargaming was even used as official training material in the Prussian army for a period of time!

Caelestion
2007-08-08, 09:24 PM
3.5th edition was written by three people (Nobody, Nobody & Mr. Ars Magica) with no real claim to authority on the subject of AD&D and the quality of the rules as written shows it.
I'll be fascinated to learn of your writing career within the role-playing field then.