Reflex Saves

[Gaiden]

Ki Ryn

That makes a lot of sense. So then it would be fair to deny a pinned character his reflex saving throw. As far as I know the rules do not say this - ...so is that a house rule? (the allusion is inteded to be humourous )

 

[kreynolds]

So then it would be fair to deny a pinned character his reflex saving throw. As far as I know the rules do not say this

Actually, the rules do state this. You are denied your reflex save if you can't move. The pinned condition states that you are held immobile. A lax DM could interpret that in favor of the player though.

 

[Artoomis]

Actually, the rules do state this. You are denied your reflex save if you can't move. The pinned condition states that you are held immobile. A lax DM could interpret that in favor of the player though.

Not quit, but close. "As with a Reflex save for any creature, a character must have room to move in order to evade. A bound character or one in a completely restrictive area (crawling through a 2 1/2-foot-wide shaft, for example) cannot use evasion."

One might assume that being "bound" and "immobile" are not the same thing - in fact, it's pretty reasonable to assume that if the creature that's pinning you gets a Reflex save, then you do, too. You get to move during the time that he makes his save. Unless he want to voluntarily NOT make his save, just to make sure you don't get one either. I'd allow that.

 

[Caliban]

Not quit, but close. "As with a Reflex save for any creature, a character must have room to move in order to evade. A bound character or one in a completely restrictive area (crawling through a 2 1/2-foot-wide shaft, for example) cannot use evasion."

One might assume that being "bound" and "immobile" are not the same thing - in fact, it's pretty reasonable to assume that if the creature that's pinning you gets a Reflex save, then you do, too. You get to move during the time that he makes his save. Unless he want to voluntarily NOT make his save, just to make sure you don't get one either. I'd allow that.

What if his "save" is putting you between him and the brunt of the blast?

 

[kreynolds]

Unless he want to voluntarily NOT make his save, just to make sure you don't get one either. I'd allow that.

That's how I handle it, as mentioned in that nasty 5-foot square thread.

 

[kreynolds]

What if his "save" is putting you between him and the brunt of the blast?

Oh boy. Here we go again.

 

[Artoomis]

What if his "save" is putting you between him and the brunt of the blast?

That's why I'd allow the one being pinned to have a save unless the one doing the pinning chooses to forgoe his save in order to keep the one being pinned from getting a save.

Clearer?

 

[kreynolds]

That's why I'd allow the one being pinned to have a save unless the one doing the pinning chooses to forgoe his save in order to keep the one being pinned from getting a save.

Ahhh, but would the one doing the pinning get a cover bonus to his not-save because he placed his pinned target between himself and the effect?

 

[KarinsDad]

It's unfortunate when DM's start making lenient house rules just to save player's lives. It destroys the sense of accomplishement you would have had had you genuinely survivied without such "mercy".

I disagree to a certain extent. I agree with the example you were responding to, but there are other cases where I think DM adjudicating in player favor is called for.

I think some rules of the game are a little too killer, so I adjudicate that they work slightly different than some DMs think they would.

For example, last week on round one, one of the PCs was bitten by an Ice Worm (similar to a Purple Worm with Improved Grab and Swallow Whole).

I do not think that creatures should be able to bite and swallow in the same round. The wording here is unclear, but some DMs would read it as they are able to.

I, however, rule that Bite is round one, Grapple/Swallow is round two. This gives the bitten character some reasonable chance of survival. It does not guarantee that he will survive, but it gives him a chance. Just because a worm rolls a single 20 on a D20 to hit (the strength check for the grapple is a bit of a joke) should not virtually seal the doom of a PC. IMO.

In the case of our PC, he managed to get out with something like 5 hit points left. If I used Bite/Swallow in the same round, he would have died.

 

[Ristamar]

I disagree to a certain extent. I agree with the example you were responding to, but there are other cases where I think DM adjudicating in player favor is called for.

I think some rules of the game are a little too killer, so I adjudicate that they work slightly different than some DMs think they would.

For example, last week on round one, one of the PCs was bitten by an Ice Worm (similar to a Purple Worm with Improved Grab and Swallow Whole).

I do not think that creatures should be able to bite and swallow in the same round. The wording here is unclear, but some DMs would read it as they are able to.

I, however, rule that Bite is round one, Grapple/Swallow is round two. This gives the bitten character some reasonable chance of survival. It does not guarantee that he will survive, but it gives him a chance. Just because a worm rolls a single 20 on a D20 to hit (the strength check for the grapple is a bit of a joke) should not virtually seal the doom of a PC. IMO.

In the case of our PC, he managed to get out with something like 5 hit points left. If I used Bite/Swallow in the same round, he would have died.

That is the correct way to run it, AFAIK. The bite damage is automatic. The swallow is not. Gamestoppers has illustrated this in an example with a purple worm.