Taking Actions to make Saving Throws, or: Reality vs. RAW

[Trit One-Ear]

Afternoon, Gents and Ladytypes,

Lately in combat my players have been trying to get more creative (something I love) which has led to some conflict between common sense about reality, and rule balance.

The best and most recent example was a few sessions ago, in which the players encountered crossbowmen able to pin them to the floor (effectively immobilizing them). This became an issue twice:

1. Another monster in that fight pushed a pinned character back. The rules for Immobilized state you can still be moved through forced movement so I allowed t. However, how can I then justify the player then still being stuck to the ground by the same bolt?

2. A pinned player wanted to take an cation to try and remove a bolt. This bothered me immensely because, yes, in all reality you should be ale to try and remove a bolt from your cloak or foot. But I was worried about opening that door, allowing actions to be spent to make saves against other effects. The players came away from that saying "Eh, it's a simplified rules system." which bothers me. I don't want to play a simplified rules system. I want to play a story.

The Question: Would allowing players to take actions (standard/move) to try and remove crossbow bolts, undo snares, fan out flames, clear sand from their eyes etc. be unbalanced? I would have to include GM discretion here (no, you can't still the poison in your veins by focusing really hard), but my main concern is reducing the impact certain save-ends conditions will have vs others. Also, how do you think it would impact classes like the Warden or Leaders who have extra powers that allow extra saving throws?

Thoughts, comments, jokes? All welcome!

Trit

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Afternoon, Gents and Ladytypes,

Lately in combat my players have been trying to get more creative (something I love) which has led to some conflict between common sense about reality, and rule balance.

The best and most recent example was a few sessions ago, in which the players encountered crossbowmen able to pin them to the floor (effectively immobilizing them). This became an issue twice:

1. Another monster in that fight pushed a pinned character back. The rules for Immobilized state you can still be moved through forced movement so I allowed t. However, how can I then justify the player then still being stuck to the ground by the same bolt?

The crossbow bolt should have restrained the PC instead. (It's harder to aim and dodge when stuck to the floor, so it would make sense.) However I suspect the monster just didn't have that rule.

2. A pinned player wanted to take an cation to try and remove a bolt. This bothered me immensely because, yes, in all reality you should be ale to try and remove a bolt from your cloak or foot.

If the crossbow attack had said ... "and the target is restrained (escape DC X)" that would work just fine. I sometimes use such attacks, but rarely, as I find my players don't like giving up actions like that. But it seems like it would work for your group.

The Question: Would allowing players to take actions (standard/move) to try and remove crossbow bolts, undo snares, fan out flames, clear sand from their eyes etc. be unbalanced?

The first two examples seem like there should be be escape checks involved, with other PCs being able to make those escape checks for the victim.

D20 Modern has a weird rule system where you can apparently put out a fire twice (once with a bonus) if you "stop, drop and roll". Makes sense if you got hit by a flamethrower, less sense if a psyker is using spontaneous combustion on you.

Also, how do you think it would impact classes like the Warden or Leaders who have extra powers that allow extra saving throws?

It would make them weaker, but maybe only a little bit. I think saves and the immobilized condition (rather than restrained) get overused sometimes for things like Evard's Black Tentacles or Thuban's (?) Tentacles, perhaps because it's difficult to pick out an escape DC for such conditions. Also, in my last session, I found some PCs (like the high-Strength cleric) usually failed their checks due to not having the Athletics skilled trained and wearing heavy armor and having a shield on top of that).

 

[Ferghis]

1. Another monster in that fight pushed a pinned character back. The rules for Immobilized state you can still be moved through forced movement so I allowed t. However, how can I then justify the player then still being stuck to the ground by the same bolt?

If you really want to stick with this, you could say that the bolt had twisted a bunch of fabric around it, and that the fabric was still all twisted up in the bolt, even though the bolt was no longer embedded in anything.

If a player tells you it would normally take very little to unravel that kind of issue, explain that their character is in the middle of combat, and most of their focus is dedicated to not having their body strewn across the landscape. HP only help your character as long as you are actively engaged in combat. If the players don't understand, ask them to pull the back of their shirt over their head, and them make them hold something in each hand (such as a sword and a shield, or anything at all, really). Now ask them to take care of the shirt while not being hit by others.

2. A pinned player wanted to take an cation to try and remove a bolt. This bothered me immensely because, yes, in all reality you should be ale to try and remove a bolt from your cloak or foot. But I was worried about opening that door, allowing actions to be spent to make saves against other effects. The players came away from that saying "Eh, it's a simplified rules system." which bothers me. I don't want to play a simplified rules system. I want to play a story.

The Question: Would allowing players to take actions (standard/move) to try and remove crossbow bolts, undo snares, fan out flames, clear sand from their eyes etc. be unbalanced? I would have to include GM discretion here (no, you can't still the poison in your veins by focusing really hard), but my main concern is reducing the impact certain save-ends conditions will have vs others. Also, how do you think it would impact classes like the Warden or Leaders who have extra powers that allow extra saving throws?

A successful standard action Heal check can grant a saving throw. Based on that alone, it seems reasonable to grant a saving throw for any other successful standard action relevant skill check. Athletics or acrobatics would work well here. In no way would this break the game, as long as the skills were relevant to the fluff of the effect. Standard actions are very valuable in 4e. Spending one on something should (at least potentially) get you a nice results.

The DC for making a heal check to grant someone ELSE a save is 15. I would make the DC of making a random skill check to help yourself around 20. Perhaps use 10+enemy level as a broad guideline. But that maybe just me.

 

[Storminator]

I've allowed actions to grant saving throws, and in one case simply negate a condition without a roll (stop ongoing fire by jumping into a pool). It hasn't proven to be a problem. A standard action is a pretty steep price to pay for getting a save. It's pretty close to trading the condition in for Dazed, which is often a poor trade.

PS

 

[Dragonblade]

Afternoon, Gents and Ladytypes,

Lately in combat my players have been trying to get more creative (something I love) which has led to some conflict between common sense about reality, and rule balance.

The best and most recent example was a few sessions ago, in which the players encountered crossbowmen able to pin them to the floor (effectively immobilizing them). This became an issue twice:

1. Another monster in that fight pushed a pinned character back. The rules for Immobilized state you can still be moved through forced movement so I allowed t. However, how can I then justify the player then still being stuck to the ground by the same bolt?

2. A pinned player wanted to take an cation to try and remove a bolt. This bothered me immensely because, yes, in all reality you should be ale to try and remove a bolt from your cloak or foot. But I was worried about opening that door, allowing actions to be spent to make saves against other effects. The players came away from that saying "Eh, it's a simplified rules system." which bothers me. I don't want to play a simplified rules system. I want to play a story.

The Question: Would allowing players to take actions (standard/move) to try and remove crossbow bolts, undo snares, fan out flames, clear sand from their eyes etc. be unbalanced? I would have to include GM discretion here (no, you can't still the poison in your veins by focusing really hard), but my main concern is reducing the impact certain save-ends conditions will have vs others. Also, how do you think it would impact classes like the Warden or Leaders who have extra powers that allow extra saving throws?

Thoughts, comments, jokes? All welcome!

Trit

Its ok to make common sense ad hoc rulings that go against the letter of the rules. Just explain to your players that the rules provide the baseline, but that you will occasionally allow common sense to override the rules. I just state that it will always be situational and case specific, repeating the same tactics may not work every time.

So for number 1, if it was established that being immobilized was specifically caused by getting pinned to ground via crossbow bolts, then yes I would rules that being slid, pushed, or pulled would unpin you and thus you would no longer be immobilized. However, if the immobilization had an ongoing damage rider with it, then that would still be in effect, and so on.

As for number 2, I would absolutely allow a Standard action to pull out the bolt. It really does make sense all around, from both a narrative, simulation, and even a gamist standpoint. Using a standard action is still like losing most of your turn from an action economy perspective which is perfectly in line with a save ends effect. It also rewards creative and out of the box thinking by your players.

 

[LostSoul]

Its ok to make common sense ad hoc rulings that go against the letter of the rules.

I'm not sure it is against the letter of the rules. The PCs want to attempt an action the rules don't cover... so you turn to page 42 of the DMG and see what that says.

Cast the action as a check seems appropriate.

I wouldn't have NPCs/monsters do this very often, though - not unless it really follows from their place in the world (their fluff or colour).

 

[jeffh]

Bear in mind that in giving you a saving throw, such things are already assuming you are making reasonable efforts to undo the effect in some way. If you're taking ongoing fire damage, for example, you get a save because you're assumed to be actively trying to put yourself out. The same is true of nearly any such situation, though granted, that is one of the easier cases to explain succinctly. The fact that it doesn't cost you an action or need to be specifically invoked doesn't mean you're standing around picking your nose, it happens because you're just that awesome.

I'd only give extra ones for doing something really extraordinary that you not only wouldn't, but couldn't do under normal circumstances.

 

[S'mon]

I had one PC on fire and another threw water over him; I gave +4 to the save for the fire to go out.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

I would let him escape that as a move action. The point of the immobilised condition is to cost a move action so the player feels like he is interacting with the story and the DM still gets his opportunity cost.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I would try to allow something like this as much as possible.