Reflex saves when Stunned?!?

[hong]

Why would I change my mechanic just because the person is helpless. If I had a trap that said Reflex Save or be crushed under a 2 ton rock, and the evil priest held Lidda and then pushed her into the trap, I've now got to use an attack roll.

It clearly states that in MM that you must have at least a DEX of 1 to make Reflex saves, and when you are helpless you have a DEX of 0.

It clearly states in the MM that a creature with _no Dex score_ fails all Ref saves. The MM says nothing about creatures that have a Dex score of 0. In the absence of any specific instructions regarding 0 Dex, it's reasonable to apply the same rules as would be the case in any other situation, and that is the character still gets a Ref save

Look at it this way: 3E has gone to great lengths to cut down on insta-kill situations, compared to how it used to be. What you're suggesting would, for all intents and purposes, be an insta-kill situation. This does not seem to be in keeping with the spirit of the game.

 

[IceBear]

double post

 

[IceBear]

Well, I think your reasoning would lead to situations that COMPLETELY break the suspension of disbelief that 3E should have.

Also, I think 3E has introduced MORE insta-kill situations than in past versions.

I think it only logical to equate NO Dex score with a Dex of 0 in the game. In fact, objects that aren't held by a player are treated as having a Dex of 0 (even though we know they don't have ANY Dex score).

IceBear

 

[hong]

Well, I think your reasoning would lead to situations that COMPLETELY break the suspension of disbelief that 3E should have.

I've been living with 10th level characters throwing themselves off cliffs and walking away, for years. I think can handle a simple paralytic Ref save.

Also, I think 3E has introduced MORE insta-kill situations than in past versions.

Name three.

 

[IceBear]

Name 3 less? We have the same number of spells as before that cause insta-death, and perhaps more with the splatbooks (look at the Miasma thread). Then with the way some spells are delievered (like harm) they are easier to hurt/kill someone with.

Honestly, objects, which don't have ability scores, have a Dex of 0 when it comes to attacking them, and they can't make a Reflex save. I think a PC with 0 dex is in the same boat.

Sure, if they have some sort of magical item of protection, I might allow that to function, but a completely stripped paralyzed person is the same as an object when it comes to reflex saves, in my opinion. I'd allow them to make Fortitude and Will saves. And, most of the insta-death spells require one of those two.

If you can CdG (which is a insta-death method added in 3E)someone who is held, being unable to make a Reflex save is the least of their worries.

IceBear

PS - If you've been allowing PCs to intentionally through themselves off 100 foot cliffs for years, then you should use the death due to massive damage rules more often.

 

[hong]

Name 3 less? We have the same number of spells as before that cause insta-death, and perhaps more with the splatbooks (look at the Miasma thread). Then with the way some spells are delievered (like harm) they are easier to hurt/kill someone with.

Note also how poisons now deal ability score damage, instead of killing outright, and aging attacks have been deleted entirely. In general, 3E tends to avoid absolutes to a greater degree than previous editions, and I see this as a Good Thing.

Honestly, objects, which don't have ability scores, have a Dex of 0 when it comes to attacking them, and they can't make a Reflex save. I think a PC with 0 dex is in the same boat.

Nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying that it's possible to go either way, depending on how "realistic" you want your game to be. Myself, I consider any game beyond about 5th level or so as no longer being "realistic".

If you can CdG (which is a insta-death method added in 3E)someone who is held, being unable to make a Reflex save is the least of their worries.

CdG is most certainly not insta-kill (although it's very dangerous). You get a Fort save to avoid dying; and it's quite possible to make that save, if you're tough and facing weak enemies.

PS - If you've been allowing PCs to intentionally through themselves off 100 foot cliffs for years, then you should use the death due to massive damage rules more often.

Most characters who throw themselves off cliffs expecting to hit the bottom (fighter types, usually) will easily make the DC 15 Fort save. And besides, the massive damage rule is silly, IMO. A character who has 100 hp, and loses 50 of them, still has 50 hp left. He's scratched. He's in no danger of dying, regardless of how he lost those 50 points. The whole point of D&D hit points is that they're ablative, and give players a way of better judging their remaining capacity for combat. There's no reason to introduce a rule that breaks the ablative assumption; if you really want mile-high falls to kill people, have falls do Con damage instead of hp damage.

 

[Christian]

Name 3 less? We have the same number of spells as before that cause insta-death, and perhaps more with the splatbooks (look at the Miasma thread). Then with the way some spells are delievered (like harm) they are easier to hurt/kill someone with.

... If you can CdG (which is a insta-death method added in 3E)someone who is held, being unable to make a Reflex save is the least of their worries.

You can't be serious?! Harm works the same way in 3rd Edition that it did in 1st and 2nd. That's one of the biggest problems with 3rd Edition, actually-the reluctance on the part of the designers to eliminate some of the dumber things from older editions.

Coup de grace is *not* a new thing. I don't know about 2nd Edition (I didn't play it much), but in 1st Edition you could automatically slay one helpless opponent per round. (!!!) Kobold, 25th level fighter, whatever-no damage, no save, just automatic death. That, combined with the fact that sleep had no saving throw (!) and lasted for eight hours with virtually no chance of being awakened by anything(!!!), is why the members of one of my old gaming groups always referred to sleep as 'the 1st level Death Spell'.

It is much harder to slay someone in 3rd Edition-they virtually always have some chance to evade the attack ...

BTW-if you've never seen it, check out Gary Gygax's little rant on this subject in the 1st Edition DMG. He quite eloquently defended the principle that a character should always get some kind of chance to evade death ... [Sigh] Had he only implemented that principle more consistently.

 

[IceBear]

1) Most of the other insta-death things that you mention also allowed a Save, so I don't know why you don't call CdG insta-kill It's much the same as Power Word Kill, expect even then a held person could save. There is very rarely something that will kill you outright without a Save.

2) If a PC in my game ever INTENTIONLY threw themselves off a 100 ft cliff they'd die or suffer lots of broken bones - DMing licence.

3) You can use whatever ruling that you want, but if three rogues were sleeping around their campfire and a PC wizard cast a silent fireball at them and they all made their save I'd like to hear you explain to him how he failed to do ANY damage to them and yet they are only NOW awake and the next round they have to get out of their sleeping bags before they can attack.

Anyway, I started off my first post by stating that there are many many examples of lack of realism, but this is one I can control.

IceBear

 

[hong]

3) You can use whatever ruling that you want, but if three rogues were sleeping around their campfire and a PC wizard cast a silent fireball at them and they all made their save I'd like to hear you explain to him how he failed to do ANY damage to them and yet they are only NOW awake and the next round they have to get out of their sleeping bags before they can attack.

The sleeping bags are now charred cinders, but they took the brunt of the flames, and the preternatural reflexes of the rogues, functioning on a subconscious level, allowed them to avoid the remainder of the damage.

Anyway, I started off my first post by stating that there are many many examples of lack of realism, but this is one I can control.

You can control it the other way too, by simply not putting yourself in the situation where you're hurling fireballs at helpless/unconscious targets. If something in the rules has the potential to harm suspension of disbelief, it would be silly to continue to throw up situations where the offending rules apply. In the case above, for instance, instead of fireball, I would have the rogues CdG'd by other rogues.

 

[IceBear]

I give up - rather than use the rule logically you'd change how events unfold rather than use the rule because you know it isn't logical.

IceBear