Saves End w No Action?

[Fallen Seraph]

Oh please, McClane would so be a pirate.

This also reminds me of the ultimate internet-busting question my friend and I made up:

Who would win?

A Alien-Pirate-Piloting a Gundam (my side) or A Predator-Ninja-Piloting a Evangelion (his side)

 

[Baka no Hentai]

Now, I like the new save rules, BUT am I not seeing something.

Someone catches on fire. They get a save AFTER their actions...so they keep on fighting and casting spells and practically act as if they weren't on fire AND they STILL get a save, right?

I can kinda live with that. I mean, the fire just goes out.

Now if I were on fire I would drop and roll or TRY and put it some way. This is what a player did in our game. Gave up actions to do this. I granted an immediate save (but he would have got another straight after his actions). If effect I would have given him 2 saves, BUT he didn't need them.

So someone that does something about the condition (under the rules I have seen so far) is worse off than someone that continues to take actions normally??? I mean, aren't there penalties for 'being on fire'?

Should you get a save if you ignore the condition?

Surely I am missing something?

To be honest, in a situation like that if a Player is willing to spend a full round of actions (standard + move) to put out the fire, I would give him an automatic success to his save. The same would go for any status effect that could be removed in some reasonable way.

If the player wants to continue taking other actions (such as fighting or running away) he/she is at the mercy of the saving throw rolls.

 

[DevoutlyApathetic]

You can make a Heal check to give someone a save. I've also been assuming that 'taking appropriate action' would give you a save (with some appropriate modifier).

For example, if set on fire and you jump into a lake, the appropriate modifier can go ahead and be 'automatic'

With the save system it has another term for that: +9.

 

[Voss]

Just ask yourself, "What Would John McClane Do?" (WWJMcCD)

Are you trying to drive me away from 4e? Because bad action movies with excessive explosions does exactly that.

 

[keterys]

With the save system it has another term for that: +9.

One of the DDM monsters gives you a -5 penalty to saves (until you do something)... so maybe

I had been typing that, then changed it to automatic.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Are you trying to drive me away from 4e? Because bad action movies with excessive explosions does exactly that.

To be more specific, that's John McClane in Die Hard (good action movie with excessive explosions), not in Die Hard 2 (bad action movie with excessive explosions).

-Hyp.

 

[Hussar]

Are you trying to drive me away from 4e? Because bad action movies with excessive explosions does exactly that.

Replace John M with an action movie character that you like and carry on with the analogy. Try not to over think it too much.

Heck, I watched Stardust yesterday. At the end, the prince (Septus?) gets set on fire by Michelle Pfiffer and just carries on, slapping at his arms as he moves forward.

It might help to think that set on fire =/= immolation. It could very well be some flames on your arms and back as well.

 

[Lurker37]

Are we talking whole body engulfed in flesh-melting flames (in which case I'd hope the condition would explicitly mention that it prevents you from fighting) or a couple of small fires on the surface of your armor which (while hot and distracting) are something you might choose to ignore because whatever did that is still trying to kill you?

So if a character is hit with flask of oil and a thrown torch (in that order) but can still keep fighting, then I interpret that as the oil only splashed on their armour, not on their face. ( If they'd just been dipped in oil, on the other hand... )

I only see a problem if we have a power that is described as completely engulfing a target in persistent flames (as opposed to briefly doing so then going out, leaving a few spot fires behind), but the effect does not state that it prevents the target from fighting on as normal. Even then, that's not a problem with the save mechanic - it's a problem with the mechanics of that power.

 

[Surgoshan]

Are you trying to drive me away from 4e? Because bad action movies with excessive explosions does exactly that.

Hey, now, Die Hard only has ONE explosion.

No, wait, two.

Okay, three.

Still, they're not excessive. The first one demonstrate... the first TWO demonstrate (Okay, there were four. Sue me. But only two big ones.) that the bad guys are Evil (hurt cops, then KILL them). The second one demonstrates that McClane can play rough. The last one is meant to be clever, but doesn't really work. Although it does rid the movie of some very smarmy FBI guys.

I haven't watched Die Harder or With a Vengeance in a long time, so I don't know how many explosions there are. And I haven't seen Live Free or Die Hard yet, sad to say.

Anyway, the point stands that the PC is meant to be a hero. He's larger than life and twice as stinky. He eats lightning and poos ice cream. He wrestles rivers and makes the world shake when he farts. A little fire is a distraction, not a life-threatening event.

 

[Ahglock]

Just ask yourself, "What Would John McClane Do?" (WWJMcCD)

If the answer is "Roll around on the floor like a sissy" then you just go ahead and roll around on the floor like a sissy. However, I don't think John McClane is a sissy. I'm pretty sure he'd suck it up and throw a pseudogerman off a building.

Fantasy heroes aren't normal people.

Chances are he'd stop drop and roll and AH(Action hero)luck would kick in and he'd have some cover while doing so, then he would get up really mad and kick booty. John McClane actually reacts to pain unlike what you'd see in earlier action flicks.