Elrik_DarkFury
First Post
So, PS, what was your final decision/ruling?I am still curious to see what happened.
__________________
The Wizard
__________________
The Wizard
evasion and pocketed friends - what would you do?
- Thread starter Plane Sailing
- Start date
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Well, I've not come to a final decision because the discussion is still ongoing. I've been told that the druid player is actually quite happy with his replacement cleric character, so the point may be moot.
My personal feeling is that it has resurrected my dislike for the standard 3e ruling that items only have to save if their owner rolls a 1 on his save, and I'd love to reinstate the old "saves for everything" that used to go on in previous editions. In fact I'd be quite reasonable about it - saves required for items under the "massive damage" rule (if the owner takes 50+ damage in one magical attack the items have to save too). Some items would be identified as particularly vulnerable and would have massive damage thresholds of 25 (cloth and paper vs fire, glass and crystal vs sonic, possibly metal vs cold).
As to this situation my gut feeling is that the appropriate thing to do within the rules and avoiding strange future possibilities is this:
If someone is in someone elses pocket (etc) they must make their own ST but are treated as if having improved cover i.e. +4 to save and no damage if they succeed.
That seems fair and balanced, and I'm happy with it in terms of rules. I understand that their is a logic argument for saying that the rogue and everything with him avoids harm, but I also believe there is a logic argument for allowing active parries and for a dozen other things that are not part of the D&D rules.
Cheers
My personal feeling is that it has resurrected my dislike for the standard 3e ruling that items only have to save if their owner rolls a 1 on his save, and I'd love to reinstate the old "saves for everything" that used to go on in previous editions. In fact I'd be quite reasonable about it - saves required for items under the "massive damage" rule (if the owner takes 50+ damage in one magical attack the items have to save too). Some items would be identified as particularly vulnerable and would have massive damage thresholds of 25 (cloth and paper vs fire, glass and crystal vs sonic, possibly metal vs cold).
As to this situation my gut feeling is that the appropriate thing to do within the rules and avoiding strange future possibilities is this:
If someone is in someone elses pocket (etc) they must make their own ST but are treated as if having improved cover i.e. +4 to save and no damage if they succeed.
That seems fair and balanced, and I'm happy with it in terms of rules. I understand that their is a logic argument for saying that the rogue and everything with him avoids harm, but I also believe there is a logic argument for allowing active parries and for a dozen other things that are not part of the D&D rules.
Cheers
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
It is a perfectly reasonable position to take Plane Sailing. Very logical.
But I do not think I would ever craft an expensive item in your campaign that was not mithral or admanatine. I am not going to burn a feat, xp, and gold for items that can be taken away so easily.
My personal POV is that failing a save against a big Fireball is its own reward. It is no fun to have to walk through a character sheet and tell the player which items his now dead PC is losing, even if it is realistic in the extreme.
But I do not think I would ever craft an expensive item in your campaign that was not mithral or admanatine. I am not going to burn a feat, xp, and gold for items that can be taken away so easily.
My personal POV is that failing a save against a big Fireball is its own reward. It is no fun to have to walk through a character sheet and tell the player which items his now dead PC is losing, even if it is realistic in the extreme.
Last edited:
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
In fact, this approach
works fine for the existing situation too... the rogue has to undertake very dramatic manouvering in order to evade the fireball, in the process the carried druid has to make a reflex save (including the +4 cover bonus) to avoid being thrown clear of the rogue. If the druid makes the save he takes no damage (obviously stayed in the rogues pocket), if the druid fails the save he was thrown from the rogue and caught in the fireball (normal fireball damage).
works fine for the existing situation too... the rogue has to undertake very dramatic manouvering in order to evade the fireball, in the process the carried druid has to make a reflex save (including the +4 cover bonus) to avoid being thrown clear of the rogue. If the druid makes the save he takes no damage (obviously stayed in the rogues pocket), if the druid fails the save he was thrown from the rogue and caught in the fireball (normal fireball damage).
robberbaron
First Post
Reading this thread it seems that the majority of posters (i.e., those who do not hold The Rules as immutable and irrefutable) go with the druid being OK. Cool, as that is my viewpoint as well.
In "the old days", your items had to make saves if you failed yours. As far as I am concerned, that still holds true now.
The point is a little moot, however, as the only member of our party that could shrink to pocket-sized is now a briquette and his player has accepted this fate with good grace. Amazing for a teenager!
IMO The Rules should always be interpreted using Common Sense; I don't think there is a gamer who agrees with EVERY rule in the Core Books (even those of you who thought option b) above was correct.
).
In "the old days", your items had to make saves if you failed yours. As far as I am concerned, that still holds true now.
The point is a little moot, however, as the only member of our party that could shrink to pocket-sized is now a briquette and his player has accepted this fate with good grace. Amazing for a teenager!
IMO The Rules should always be interpreted using Common Sense; I don't think there is a gamer who agrees with EVERY rule in the Core Books (even those of you who thought option b) above was correct.
).The druid, while in the pocket, was effectively an object on the Rogue's body. No different than if it were a gold piece, an emerald or anything else the Rogue in question might have had in there.
Even if someone had x-ray vision and cast a Charm Person at the druid, the spell would still not work. You still have to have a line of effect. Line of sight is one thing, line of effect is another. It'd be no different than targeting the druid with Magic Missile even if you could see him. No line of effect to the target.
It didn't have to be. The pocket was never exposed to the fire (ala Evasion). The pocket never took damage from the fire. So its ridiculous that any of the pocket's contents would take damage from the fire.
Perhaps. But in this case, the fire never touched the clothing in question to begin with. So, your point here is irrelevant. And since there is no "microwave fireball" (there's an idea!), containers still have to be destroyed before contents can be damaged, even if the container is made of cloth or leather.
Did the rules tell you it didn't make sense to them?
Seriously, from the perspective of the druid (wild shaped in a pocket), the druid would have a degree of cover similar to looking out of an arrow slit (if the druid was looking out of the pocket when the fireball went off), or complete cover if he was tucked inside. As such, it meets the criteria offered for the improved cover and about the line of effect. There was no line of effect from the fireball to the druid, so he shouldn't have had to save. And even saving, he still should have been given the Improved Evasion for having improved cover (the druid had layers of cloth, possibly armor (worn by the rogue) and the Rogue himself as cover) between the druid and the explosion. Even though the druid is now dead and the player has a new character, it was still a bad call by Plane Sailing. I'm not saying I don't make mistakes or bad calls, or anyone else does or doesn't, just that this one was. If you want to go with logic or physics, there is no way the druid (in the pocket on the rogue who was untouched by the fire) would have been damaged. If you want to go by rules, the druid had improved cover (being inside the pocket of a rogue who successfully Evaded the fire) and as such should have benefited from Improved Evasion and taken only 1/2 damage from the fireball that somehow managed to burn him but not the pocket he was in or the rogue wearing the clothing that the pocket was a part of.
Plane Sailing, if you're going to implement that rule (you might not have to, your players may not put themselves into that same situation anymore after this), then maybe you could give the subject of that rule the benefit of improved evasion as the PHB suggests. And maybe take into consideration line of effect or area of effect--the contents (druid) of the container (pocket) and the container itself were not even exposed to the danger (fireball) because of the rogue's evasion. If it was someone else without evasion, yeah, make a save required because even on a successful save the person with the pocket would still take some damage--and the pocket (and likely the contents of the pocket) would have been at least exposed to the fire.
azmodean
First Post
Just to specifically address the "this situation gives you as much protection as being completely wrapped in a sheet" argument. You're close, but here's the full argument.
This situation (tiny PC in pocket of a rogue who saved against a fireball) offers the same protection as being wrapped in a sheet that is magically enchanted to move itself and its contents away from magical attacks.
I wouldn't mind having one of those sheets for my PC
This situation (tiny PC in pocket of a rogue who saved against a fireball) offers the same protection as being wrapped in a sheet that is magically enchanted to move itself and its contents away from magical attacks.
I wouldn't mind having one of those sheets for my PC
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Krinkle said:
Now see, I find that much more entertaining than the 3e method where if you roll a 1 on your save you might lose a single item. Unbalanced to leave the PCs without items? Trust your DM to plant brand new ones in the treasure!
