For Nail: Does no Dex bonus mean automatic failure on reflex saves?

[LuYangShih]

For shame, Nail. Reversing your position like that. I clearly remember you siding with Wulf Ratbane when the same argument occured about the ruling made by Dinkledog that Reflex saves don't apply when grappled.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I think that you either get a Reflex Save + Evasion or Neither.

Yup. The conditions that deny Evasion deny a Reflex Save.

I've always considered those conditions to include "helpless", since it doesn't matter how much free space you have... if you're helpless, that free space isn't "room to move", since you can't move at all...

-Hyp.

 

[scholz]

Yup. The conditions that deny Evasion deny a Reflex Save.
I've always considered those conditions to include "helpless", since it doesn't matter how much free space you have... if you're helpless, that free space isn't "room to move", since you can't move at all...
-Hyp.

I asked this question of Sage Advice, but the pressing concerns of Oozemasters and Epic Black Guards seem to occupy mssr Williams more than such mundane questions.

I am ambivalent. On one hand it seems odd that Reflex would be the only save the could be voided (Fort and Will always apply), I can imagine a lot of problems with people getting zapped by such spells or effect (DMs may feel compelled to roll behind the screen if you know what I mean).
And, yet you can't dodge the reasoning behind the no move, no save argument. I think being held, helpless, flat-footed, grappled and a dozen other conditions beg for an official answer.

One suggestion I have seen is to grant the save, but deny the dex bonus. That seems a reasonable solution if entirely ad hoc.



-Steve

 

[Hypersmurf]

One suggestion I have seen is to grant the save, but deny the dex bonus.

... or, in the case of a Helpless creature, apply the -5 penalty for 0 effective Dex.

But I can only point again to the clause Artoomis quoted...

"As with a Reflex Save for any creature..."

-Hyp.

 

[niteshade6]

Well it's always fine by the letter of the rules to apply circumstance modifiers to saves in situations like this. Ultimately it becomes a matter of DM opinion. A DM who chooses to do this is technicaly following the rules just as well as one who doesn't.

Personaly I think a circumstance penalty to reflex saves while being grappled in reasonable.

 

[marshaldwm]

I am ambivalent. On one hand it seems odd that Reflex would be the only save the could be voided (Fort and Will always apply), I can imagine a lot of problems with people getting zapped by such spells or effect (DMs may feel compelled to roll behind the screen if you know what I mean).
And, yet you can't dodge the reasoning behind the no move, no save argument. I think being held, helpless, flat-footed, grappled and a dozen other conditions beg for an official answer.

One suggestion I have seen is to grant the save, but deny the dex bonus. That seems a reasonable solution if entirely ad hoc.

I too, am uncomfortable about denying a save. Denying evasion or other special saves, yes, but the base save, no.

I see the saves as the luck of the heroes. If the asassin attacks a sleeping warrior with death attack, I would definitely give a save. How does he avoid it? Luck.

Same with reflex save. Even if he does nothing perhaps luck means he just plain catches a weak spot in the spell.

Of course I cannot back this up with rules, but it seems to me the intent of the game.

 

[Artoomis]

I too, am uncomfortable about denying a save. Denying evasion or other special saves, yes, but the base save, no.

I see the saves as the luck of the heroes. If the asassin attacks a sleeping warrior with death attack, I would definitely give a save. How does he avoid it? Luck.

Same with reflex save. Even if he does nothing perhaps luck means he just plain catches a weak spot in the spell.

Of course I cannot back this up with rules, but it seems to me the intent of the game.

I can't say I'd have a problem with a game run that way, but it's not the rules.

 

[FrankTrollman]

To add fuel to an argument that has been raging for years:

Nightmare[/i]] You are defenseless, both physically and mentally, while in this trance. (You always fail any saving throw, for example.)

That text, in the Nightmare spell made it to 3.5. It is the only statement I am aware of which actually explicitly says that any form of defenselessness renders one incapable of making saving throws.

I don't know how one becomes mentally defenseless normally, but evidentally it is enough to make you automatically fail Willpower, and even Fortitude saves.

-Frank

 

[Geoff Watson]

"As with a Reflex Save for any creature..."

I don't like the way they wrote this.
Since it never mentions it under the rules for saving throws, or Reflex saves in particular, I think the author of the Evasion rules made a mistake there.

Geoff.

 

[Norfleet]

I too, am uncomfortable about denying a save. Denying evasion or other special saves, yes, but the base save, no.

I see the saves as the luck of the heroes. If the asassin attacks a sleeping warrior with death attack, I would definitely give a save. How does he avoid it? Luck.

Same with reflex save. Even if he does nothing perhaps luck means he just plain catches a weak spot in the spell.

Yes, but when an assassin attacks a sleeping warrior with a death attack, that's a Fort save. A fort save requires absolutely no reaction from the person attempting the save: A character can resist poison, disease, and trauma just as well, if not better, while asleep, as he can while awake and able to move about. Furthermore, the warrior is ASLEEP, which means the assassin can perform a CDG+Sneak Attack+Death Attack: The hapless, unfortunate warrior must make a save vs. the Death Attack, then a save vs. the massively-sneakattack-enhanced CDG should he survive the death attack. He's toast, period. One of those ubermunch megafortitude characters would be hard-pressed to make a DC40+ CDG fort save. But anyway, characters make or fail fort saves on account of being tough. It requires no activity to attempt.

A reflex save, on the other hand, requires that the character be able to react to something, and that the reaction must be meaningful and able to somehow reduce or eliminate the effect that is being saved against. A pit trap may have a reflex save to avoid falling in, but a rogue who is tied up, knocked out, and dropped onto the pit trap can't possibly avoid this, even with all of his trapsense, dexterity, and general roguely reflexes: He can't react or otherwise do anything about it.

The interesting incongruity is that a character can be deprived of a dexterity bonus against a physical attack, yet still retain it against, say, a fireball under those same conditions. The rules really don't say very much about this, although I'd certainly deny the option of adding dexterity bonusses to a reflex save under conditions which would also deny dexterity to AC.

The other wiggy thing about reflex saves is that a reflex save is very frequently something which seems like it would require some sort of ACTION to attempt, yet there appears to be no cost or side effect associated with reasonable courses of action: A character who makes a reflex save vs. a fireball, for instance, would likely hit the deck, yet is not required to expend any action to get up afterwards.

The other interesting thing is that a reflex save is a REFLEX save, and by nature, would seem to be primarily involuntary, yet characters are able to suppress a reflex save without any knowledge of the need to do so.

In short, reflex saves are the odd-man-out when it comes to saving throws. While Fort and Will saves require no concious effort or action on the part of the person making the save, a Reflex save definitely requires that the person attempting it *DO* something. If that person can't do that something, for whatever reason, then perhaps he should not be allowed to make a reflex save.