evasion and pocketed friends - what would you do?

[Elrik_DarkFury]

Was the rogues "pocket" even slightly damaged by the spell?

Propably no, because he evaded the thing,so why should the tiny druid inside the pocket be damaged?

I know,i know, i've read all these about items carried and druids carried but it seems more logical.The rogue evaded(the fire did not touch him) so the druid in the rogue's pocket is fine.

Again ,if the opposite happened, i would rule the druid has to suffer the whole effect.

It is up to the Dm's call however and you can't do something to change that. (or maybe you can...DMs although having the powers of a god still need some extra cash )

__________________
The Wizard

 

[KarinsDad]

What difference does it make if he is a creature not an object?

I was involved in this event - 'the robin' was totally in the pocket - it did not have any view, provide any assistance, have any spells running. It was going to be sent back when the coast was clear with instructions from the Rogue in how to find him. Therefore, he was technically an object in his pocket - not hanging out on the edge.

No, the druid was technically a creature in his pocket. The rules do not apply the same to creatures and objects. Strange, but true.

Is your argument that a pocket provides total cover?

If the rogue jumped into a lake, would a pocket prevent the pocketed druid from getting wet? If not, then he isn't in Total Cover from a Spread Effect.

A familiar carrier is typically used to carry a familiar with total cover to protect versus spells. This was not used in this case.

I have even had a DM rule that a backpack was not total cover for a familiar.

What if the creature was sitting in his closed mouth, would that have made any difference?

It depends on the DM. I would rule that a closed mouth is total cover. Another DM might not.

 

[KarinsDad]

Another note on this.

This might be a situation where a Reflex bonus should have been given, either the normal bonus of +2, or a greater one as per:

"Varying Degrees of Cover: In some cases, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively)."

 

[sumi]

No, the druid was technically a creature in his pocket. The rules do not apply the same to creatures and objects. Strange, but true.

Is your argument that a pocket provides total cover?

If the rogue jumped into a lake, would a pocket prevent the pocketed druid from getting wet? If not, then he isn't in Total Cover from a Spread Effect.

A familiar carrier is typically used to carry a familiar with total cover to protect versus spells. This was not used in this case.

I have even had a DM rule that a backpack was not total cover for a familiar.



It depends on the DM. I would rule that a closed mouth is total cover. Another DM might not.

Then you miss the point - the Rogue is avoiding the fireball or in your example the lake. He is, therefore, trying to avoid being wet.

If your DM rules that a backpack is not providing total protection then he should be a real pedant and make sure that a rogue, in this case, saves for all his clothes and equipment seperately when a fireball goes off. It is the only sensible way.

That is why the ruling of my DM is equally stupid. You cannot crisp the contents of the pocket without the pocket itself being subjected to the attack.
The pocket in this case, the thief, avoided the attack, therefore the contents should not be attacked.
If the pocket fails, the thief, then the object or creature in the pocket should be subjected to the attack. That is plain common sense, not a arbitrary rule that someone decided to put in with no real thought, as they were trying to distinguish between object and character.

The game may be fantasy but it should be played with some common sense.

 

[KarinsDad]

Then you miss the point - the Rogue is avoiding the fireball or in your example the lake. He is, therefore, trying to avoid being wet.

Of course he is, but Evasion is NOT a feat that is shared.

If your DM rules that a backpack is not providing total protection then he should be a real pedant and make sure that a rogue, in this case, saves for all his clothes and equipment seperately when a fireball goes off. It is the only sensible way.

That is why the ruling of my DM is equally stupid. You cannot crisp the contents of the pocket without the pocket itself being subjected to the attack.
The pocket in this case, the thief, avoided the attack, therefore the contents should not be attacked.
If the pocket fails, the thief, then the object or creature in the pocket should be subjected to the attack. That is plain common sense, not a arbitrary rule that someone decided to put in with no real thought, as they were trying to distinguish between object and character.

You are confusing rules and rule preferences (or house rules).

It might be preferable for the rule to work as you want it to.

But, that is not the rule and this is the rules forum.

The game may be fantasy but it should be played with some common sense.

No problem.

Let's convince Plane Sailing to play via common sense instead of the rules.

So, every time your PCs get hit with a fireball, all of the equipment on all of the PCs must make a save against magical fire because the rule that objects do not need to save unless the character dies is nonsensical.

In fact, when the Rogue Evades, he most likely put some of his equipment between himself and the blast (a common sense explantion for avoiding damage completely), hence, some of his equipment should be a penalty to the save.

I'm sure that PS would be willing to make that accomodation for you.


Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

PS. For all we know in this example, the Rogue evaded BECAUSE he put the pocketed Druid between himself and the fireball. From the dice rolls, it looks that way.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The RAW says option (b).

IMHO the better ruling would be (a) in this case. There is a big difference to my mind between carried in a pocket or taking a ride. Someone carried in a pocket would be presumed to have very limited ability to take actions. If you become a sprite, hang out in the Rogue backpack, and fling Fireballs, then you make your own saves.

 

[Hawken]

I would have to go with the druid not being harmed, and this is even supported by the rules.

If the rogue jumped into a lake, would a pocket prevent the pocketed druid from getting wet? If not, then he isn't in Total Cover from a Spread Effect.

If the Rogue jumped into the lake he wouldn't be trying to evade the water. That is similar in supposing that the Rogue jumped into the fireball blast, not trying to avoid it. The Rogue evaded the fire, which means his clothing and items evaded the fire. For the fire to have burned the druid, means the Rogue's clothing (and pocket, specifically), would have to have been damaged. They weren't, as defined by a successful reflex saving throw.

As for the argument about creature/object. The druid's body in the pocket is still an object, only the fact that he/she is alive makes it a creature, but the body is still an object and one that is carried inside a container (object) on the Rogue's person. If the druid was dead, the body would not have had to make a saving throw against the fire. Why should it have to just because it had a heartbeat? It was still contained (complete cover) by the pocket. Now if the Rogue were carrying a full-sized druid in his arms, of course, both would have to make a save and that is likely what the rules meant when interpreting the difference between an object and a creature.

If you want to talk about rules, then consider page 152 of the 3.5 PHB where it talks about varying degrees of cover. Peering around a corner or through an arrow slit, as examples given in the book, results in the person getting Improved Evasion. Complete cover (inside the pocket of a Rogue that Evaded a fireball) should qualify as such improved cover and then some!

And on page 176, an otherwise solid barrier (which a closed pocket of a successfully Evasive Rogue would be) needs a hole in it 1 square foot or larger otherwise the barrier blocks the spell's line of effect. I don't think the pocket opening on that Rogue was 1 square foot or larger. So, no line of effect to the druid, no saving throw required.

Evasion is NOT a feat that is shared.

Evasion is not even a feat. And it is "shared" when considering all of the Rogue's belongings. If the Rogue is not damaged, then none of his belongings would be. Contents of containers aren't damaged until the container is destroyed, and since the pocket took no damage from the fireball, you couldn't justify the contents taking damage. Even then, take note of that Improved Evasion point above for superior cover. Even failing the save, the druid still should have taken only half damage--which would mean no mass damage save and a still living druid. Maybe if its not too late, the druid could "wake up" and resume travelling with the group.

In fact, when the Rogue Evades, he most likely put some of his equipment between himself and the blast (a common sense explantion for avoiding damage completely), hence, some of his equipment should be a penalty to the save.

Says who? That is just your assumption/explanation. Ask anyone else you know and they'll all give you varying descriptions of Evasion, and I doubt any of them will involve throwing the character's gear between them and the danger. The specific definition is using "great agility" to avoid certain spells and effects. I didn't see "put as much of your gear between you and the danger and hope for the best" in that description.

Like I said, if its not too late, maybe the druid can wake up after only suffering half damage even if the DM insists on requiring a save despite common sense, physics and (most importantly ) the rules stating that it is not. Maybe the druid was just frightened of the thought of being roasted alive in the Rogue's pocket and fainted 'dead' away.

 

[RedShirtNo5]

I agree with others that RAW says (b).

It's a wierd situation. Personally, I would let the druid's player choose, before any rolls are made, to either share the rogue's saving throw result (including evasion effect), or make their own save. If they choose to make their own save, they have a cover bonus but a circumstance penalty for limited maneuverability.

-RedShirt

 

[KarinsDad]

As for the argument about creature/object. The druid's body in the pocket is still an object, only the fact that he/she is alive makes it a creature, but the body is still an object and one that is carried inside a container (object) on the Rogue's person. If the druid was dead, the body would not have had to make a saving throw against the fire. Why should it have to just because it had a heartbeat?

Because it then becomes an object. The different rules for objects and creatures are so that you do not have to make dozens of saving throws each time a fireball comes at you. They are strange, but they are there for a reason.

And, if the druid in the pocket was targeted by Charm Person (say you had a way to see him), you would not be ruling that he was an object.

If you want to talk about rules, then consider page 152 of the 3.5 PHB where it talks about varying degrees of cover. Peering around a corner or through an arrow slit, as examples given in the book, results in the person getting Improved Evasion. Complete cover (inside the pocket of a Rogue that Evaded a fireball) should qualify as such improved cover and then some!

And on page 176, an otherwise solid barrier (which a closed pocket of a successfully Evasive Rogue would be) needs a hole in it 1 square foot or larger otherwise the barrier blocks the spell's line of effect. I don't think the pocket opening on that Rogue was 1 square foot or larger. So, no line of effect to the druid, no saving throw required.

A pocket may be solid, but it is not a barrier against fire.

A person wearing head to foot clothing will not be protected by a Fireball spell because he is completely covered in clothing.


Your "rules arguments" do not make sense according to the rules.

 

[reanjr]

OK, here is the situation. The rogue is scouting and the druid is wildshaped into a tiny animal and going along in one of his pockets. The rogue sets off a fireball trap - makes his save and evades all damage.

Does the druid

a) ignore all damage because he was in the pocket of the rogue who evaded

b) make a saving throw as normal because he is just another entity in the spread radius

c) something else

?

Thank you for giving me yet another example of why improved evasion should state that the DM should make a final decision on whether or not evasion is possible in the given situation.

IMO, he's free and clear.

On top of that, I'd say due to the rules saying that equipment can not be damaged unless a save is failed, I'd say as long as ANYONE carrying a creature in their pocket and making a Reflex save should negate the effect on the passenger.