Relfex saves and size

[Vaxalon]

Posited: Size penalties should apply to reflex saves.

Discuss.

 

[DarkJester]

Should be house rules.

I don't think they should. A creature with 20 foot x 20 foot facing only has to take a step to be out of the complete area of effect of a fireball. Also, bigger creatures already have an effective penatly to reflex saves, the bigger you are the less dex you have.

 

[Nail]

Posited: Size penalties should apply to reflex saves.

Discuss.

Although a bigger creature makes for an easier target, a bigger creature can move further with each movement or "stride". It's reasonable to see these two factors as roughly equivalent. Therefore, size should not affect reflex saves.

..That, and it's in the rules. (This is the "rules" forum, after all. The house rules forum might be a better location for this thread.)

 

[mkletch]

But for a large, huge, etc. creature, a 5' step is still a 5' step. I plan on implementing size penalties to Ref saves in my next campaign, but also giving the opposite as a bonus to Fort saves.

Certainly a house rule, though.

-Fletch!

 

[Caliban]

Posited: Size penalties should apply to reflex saves.

Discuss.

They already are, indirectly. If you increase a creatures size using the rules in the MM, it get's a penalty to the Dex score, which lowers it's reflex save.

Same thing with Fort saves. Increasing a creatures size increases it's Con, which increases it's Fort save.

What you are proposing would be a double jeopardy situation: penalizing the twice for the same thing.

 

[kreynolds]

Caliban's right. A human that becomes Huge suffers a -4 to Dex, so the size penalty is already there. Granted, he also gains a +16 to Strength and a +8 Constitution, so that offsets it rather well, but hey...

Some monsters get really ugly when they get big.

 

[Mahali]

But for a large, huge, etc. creature, a 5' step is still a 5' step. I plan on implementing size penalties to Ref saves in my next campaign, but also giving the opposite as a bonus to Fort saves.

Certainly a house rule, though.

-Fletch!

Now take your 5x10 or 10x20 creature move it its 5' step and rotate 90'. Now tell me thats only 5'. Acording to the rules that back half moved 20' in a 5' step.

If you have a 5x30 worm type it just makes it even seem more wrong.

 

[kreynolds]

Now take your 5x10 or 10x20 creature move it its 5' step and rotate 90'. Now tell me thats only 5'. Acording to the rules that back half moved 20' in a 5' step.

The "back half" only exhists because of the grid and flanking purposes, otherwise it is ignored, as there is no facing, thus there really is no "back half".

 

[Nail]

The "back half" only exhists because of the grid and flanking purposes, otherwise it is ignored, as there is no facing, thus there really is no "back half".

Except with dragons.

And, to be precise, facing has little to do with how much a figure moves. Regardless if it's th' front or back, one part of that 10' by 20' creature just moved a heck of a lot more than 5'. Mahali has a good point.

 

[IceBear]

If you don't like a universal 5ft step, you could change it to something else. Just be prepared for large creatures with reach becoming a lot more powerful.

IceBear