Question regarding Evasion

[Aleolus]

OK, this question came up with the Monk's Evasion class ability. In the 3.5 PHB, it is listed as follows.

Evasion:A monk of 2nd level or higher can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save (such as a red dragon's breath weapon or a Fireball), she instead takes no damage.

Now, our debate is, I have a monk with a magic item, the Starmantle Cloak. Now, the text for Starmantle Cloak is that if you are attacked by a nonmagical weapon, you take no damage and the weapon is destroyed. If attacked by a magical weapon, you get a DC 15 Reflex save for half. Does the Monk's Evasion and Improved Evasion apply to the save granted by the cloak? I say it does, he says Evasion only applies to magic attacks.

 

[phindar]

Now, the text for Starmantle Cloak is that if you are attacked by a nonmagical weapon, you take no damage and the weapon is destroyed. If attacked by a magical weapon, you get a DC 15 Reflex save for half. Does the Monk's Evasion and Improved Evasion apply to the save granted by the cloak? I say it does, he says Evasion only applies to magic attacks.

I agree with you, but Evasion just seems like one of those abilities that a certain subset of GM's like to nerf right out of the gate. (I know one who has removed it entirely, pretty much after his first reading.)

 

[Tiberius]

I wouldn't allow you to use Evasion with that magic item. Given Monk saves, a DC 15 is trivial to hit. At that point, you're immune to normal weapons, magic weapons the majority of the time, and Reflex-save spells most of the time (to say nothing of the various {save} Negates spells). That's just silly.

Where's the cloak from? Maybe there's some verbage in the item text that mentions the interaction of these abiltiies?

 

[Aleolus]

Book of Exalted Deeds. And I quote.

Starmantle Cloak: This draping black cloak turns into a sparkling mantle of tiny, cascading stars when worn. The cloak sheds light as a torch, renders the wearer impervious to nonmagical weapon attacks, and transforms any nonmagical weapon or missile that strikes the wearer harmlessly to light, destroying it. Contact with a Starmantle does not destroy magic weapons or missiles, But the Starmantle's wearer entitled to a DC 15 Reflex save each time he is struck by such a weapon, success indicates that the wearer takes only half damage from the attack.
Moderate Abjuration; CL 11th; Craft Wonderous Item; Starmantle; Price 132,000 GP; Weight 1 lb

BOED, page 116.

 

[Deset Gled]

The text you quoted has the answer. Evasion works "against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save". Magic has nothing to do with it.

But noting that, its worth pointing out that the cloak is a horribly designed item. First, we already have a mechanic for shrugging off damage from non-magical attacks. It's called Damage Reduction. Second, making this an absolute protection is ridiculous. I have a mental image of a Colossus picking up an enormous boulder, using it to smash a castle housing someone wearing the cloak, and then watching the boulder disapear because it's not magically enchanted. Third, adding a reflex save to every attack is bad game design; the extra roll every time someone attacks you with a mundane arrow will just slow down play. Fourth, making the save a fixed number that doesn't take into account the skill of the person attacking you is just plain stupid. So an epic archer with a magic bow and +10 arrow has the same change of hitting you as a level 1 commoner with a +1 arrow, based on your ability to dodge it? Finally, making that number so ridiculously low that anyone with a decent build can make it 95% of the time by the time they can afford the item was rather poor planning.

My only conclusion can be that this item was designed by a large number of monkey's sitting behind typewriters, and that your DM should simply ban it, or rewrite it from the ground up.

 

[darthkilmor]

My only conclusion can be that this item was designed by a large number of monkey's sitting behind typewriters, and that your DM should simply ban it, or rewrite it from the ground up.

I agree, by the letter of the rules evasion should apply. I would simply ban the item in question if I was the DM (as its written). Its artifact-level in its ability to avoid dmg, it doesn't scale at all for the different types of attacks you're subject to, its just, gah, I would never allow that item in any game of mine(unless it was a cheez-the-DM kind of game).

Rewritten, I could get behind something like, grants DR 10 / Magic, 3 times per day can reflex save DC = damage dealt from next attack, to take half damage.

 

[mvincent]

I agree, by the letter of the rules evasion should apply. I would simply ban the item in question if I was the DM (as its written). Its artifact-level in its ability to avoid dmg

I agree that's it's completely imbalanced (whether you have evasion or not, really). Still, for 132k gp, it practically is an artifact. Just sunder the thing.

Also, PC's should be about 17th level before they consider buying it, and by then I know of worse cheese. Besides, fantasy literature is full of (rare) things that are absolutely powerful (as opposed to many little things which merely give you a bonus)... I almost wish that was the norm.

 

[Aleolus]

The text you quoted has the answer. Evasion works "against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save". Magic has nothing to do with it.

But noting that, its worth pointing out that the cloak is a horribly designed item. First, we already have a mechanic for shrugging off damage from non-magical attacks. It's called Damage Reduction. Second, making this an absolute protection is ridiculous. I have a mental image of a Colossus picking up an enormous boulder, using it to smash a castle housing someone wearing the cloak, and then watching the boulder disapear because it's not magically enchanted. Third, adding a reflex save to every attack is bad game design; the extra roll every time someone attacks you with a mundane arrow will just slow down play. Fourth, making the save a fixed number that doesn't take into account the skill of the person attacking you is just plain stupid. So an epic archer with a magic bow and +10 arrow has the same change of hitting you as a level 1 commoner with a +1 arrow, based on your ability to dodge it? Finally, making that number so ridiculously low that anyone with a decent build can make it 95% of the time by the time they can afford the item was rather poor planning.

My only conclusion can be that this item was designed by a large number of monkey's sitting behind typewriters, and that your DM should simply ban it, or rewrite it from the ground up.

Oh, it's a broken item, but it works pretty well. It was just badly worded.

My friend argues that, since it's the item, not the attack that is granting the saving throw, it would not work.

 

[DungeonMaester]

My friend argues that, since it's the item, not the attack that is granting the saving throw, it would not work.

I am Aleolus' friend who argued this. Because the reflex comes from the source of the cloak and not from the attack that would allow the save for half that evasions will not effect it. This is because as evasion states if the attack would allow a save for half...

The attack does not allow a save for half
The item does
Evasion does not apply

---Rusty

 

[mvincent]

the reflex comes from the source of the cloak and not from the attack that would allow the save for half that evasions will not effect it. This is because as evasion states if the attack would allow a save for half...

The attack does not allow a save for half
The item does
Evasion does not apply

Well, if you're the DM here you can pretty much nerf it anyway you desire (with or without a reason)... I don't think anyone is going to challenge it. If you want a RAW justification, this comes close (but still seems a bit off). The damage (and the save, technically) is still from the attack.

I believe the catch is in the wording of "against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save". One could argue that weapon attacks don't normally deal half damage on a successful save