Never miss vs evasion. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Never miss vs evasion. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
BruceLeeroy
03-16-08, 08:50 AM Does a "never miss" trap that allows a reflex save for half still deal no damage to a character who has evasion (assuming the successful save on their part)?

For instance, a falling ceiling in a sealed off room.
Zarith
03-16-08, 09:37 AM Common sense (and your DM may say) says "No", however...

The rules say "Yes". Evasion doesn't say "some attacks", simply "an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save". There was a clarification on this somewhere (in the Sage Advice column, I think) though I can't find it at the moment.

From the SRD -

Evasion (Ex)
At 2nd level and higher, a rogue can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless rogue does not gain the benefit of evasion.
StevenO
03-16-08, 02:24 PM By the RAW they'd take no damage with a successful use of Evasion. If it is possible for a character to avoid some of the damage then Evasion makes it possible to avoid all the damage.
Merestil Haye
03-16-08, 03:51 PM Does a "never miss" trap that allows a reflex save for half still deal no damage to a character who has evasion (assuming the successful save on their part)?

For instance, a falling ceiling in a sealed off room.If the trap is a "never miss" trap, it will not allow any save whatsoever.

If the trap specifies that it allows a Reflex save for ½ damage, it isn't a "never miss" trap in the first place, and yes in those circumstances Evasion will apply.
BruceLeeroy
03-16-08, 05:26 PM If the trap is a "never miss" trap, it will not allow any save whatsoever.

If the trap specifies that it allows a Reflex save for ½ damage, it isn't a "never miss" trap in the first place, and yes in those circumstances Evasion will apply.

Except that in this particular case, in the Tomb of Horrors module, it does specify never miss, and it does specify a save for half damage. It's a frickin' ceiling falling, I'm not sure why there is a save to begin with.

I am already quite familiar with evasion, yet it would seem to me that this is a case of specific vs general. Now, it doesn't say explicitly that "never miss" means even in the case of evasion, but then, "never" is a pretty strong word.

Personally, I feel that evasion wouldn't apply.
StevenO
03-16-08, 06:08 PM If you want to screw over the rogue and none of the players have Mettle (the FOR/WILL version of Evasion) switch the save from REF to FOR. Instead of being able to dodge out of the way you are just tough enough to take it. Note that this unfortunately make the trap much weaker against the characters who already get the most hp.
Zarith
03-16-08, 06:21 PM Yeah, I know what you're talking about...

"Built-to-Collapse Ceiling"
"never miss (but DC 23 Reflex for half damage)"

An awkward combination of words, but I would say it's not unreasonable that evasion would allow you to quickly find a space where you take no damage. A collapsing tunnel roof doesn't bring to mind a solid slab of stone allowing no escape dropping on your head. You may find a safe haven within a collapsing "roughly worked" stone corridor.

I would play it as is, allowing the reflex save and allow evasion to apply normally.
Khadmus
03-16-08, 07:32 PM You can say an argument is irrefutable, but if there are flaws...
You can say a trap is never miss, but if there is a reflex save...
Merestil Haye
03-16-08, 07:45 PM Except that in this particular case, in the Tomb of Horrors module, it does specify never miss, and it does specify a save for half damage. It's a frickin' ceiling falling, I'm not sure why there is a save to begin with.I repeat : if it allows a save (or an attack roll), it cannot be "never miss."

A "never miss" trap allows no save of any kind, and allows no attack roll - since a natural 20 on a save always succeeds and a natural 1 on an attack roll always misses, neither situation which incorporates either can be "never miss." It's like the irresistible force and the immovable object - if either exist, the universe cannot contain the other.

I am already quite familiar with evasion, yet it would seem to me that this is a case of specific vs general. Now, it doesn't say explicitly that "never miss" means even in the case of evasion, but then, "never" is a pretty strong word.

Personally, I feel that evasion wouldn't apply.Evasion applies, because the trap allows a Reflex save for ½. If you want it to not apply, remove the save or render the creature helpless (in which case he loses the benefits of Evasion).
calronmoonflower
03-16-08, 09:01 PM Think of it this way. He got hit, but was lucky enough that it did no damage.
Finarin Panjoro
03-17-08, 01:05 PM Or maybe he was fast and smart enough to dive right next to the fighter's helmet which was strong enough to stop the crushing ceiling a fraction of an inch above him. Everyone else wasn't fast enough and took varying degrees of damage when the ceiling slammed into them.
Someone
03-17-08, 01:35 PM Does the particular trap reset? Otherwise I could see it as the ceiling coming down in a jumble of blocks, sand, dust, bits of timber, and so forth, rather than a single solid slab going splat. Such an irregular volume would make sense for a Ref save, and an evasive character could simply end up covered in dust and dirt, with no real injury.
mvincent
03-17-08, 04:04 PM I repeat : if it allows a save (or an attack roll), it cannot be "never miss."... and even if it could, "Never Miss" says nothing about affecting evasion.
weasel0
03-17-08, 09:00 PM It's like the irresistible force and the immovable object - if either exist, the universe cannot contain the other.

Not true. The force would gravitate towards the object.
If the force was also an immovable object, then it would be true.

If the force were truly negated, there would be no effect between the two. So as long as there is an interaction between them, both can exist. But only if there is only one immovable object. If more than one object exists then it becomes impossible to also have a so described force.

It's like a magnet and a refridgerator-bolted down, under a fifty-ton boulder. The fridge won't ever move, but the magnet(being our force), will instead move to the fridge(our object). If this was false, either the fridge would move to the magnet, or neither would move.

And if you say make the magnet bigger, the magnet itself would then become an immovable object and an irrisistable force at the same time.
Merestil Haye
03-18-08, 08:47 AM Not true. Sorry, but it is.

If the object was truly immovable, then no force could move it. Therefore the object has resisted all forces, so there can be no "irresistible" force.

Similarly if there is a force that cannot be resisted it will move all objects, so there is no "immovable" object.

Both cannot exist in the same universe. You can call them what you want, but they cannot both exist.

The problem with the OPs description is that he's specifying two similarly incompatible things : (a) that the trap is a "never-miss" trap, and (b) that the victim can make a save. And since there is a rule that 5% of all saving throws automatically succeed, a trap that allows a saving throw (or attack roll) of any kind cannot be a "never-miss" trap, no matter what label the writer saw fit to apply to the trap.

This issue probably arises because in 1e days it really was a "never-miss" trap, and the label has carried over.
runestar
03-18-08, 08:57 AM In that case, it seems more like a case of inaccurate labeling, rather than any problem with the rules.:)
StevenO
03-18-08, 01:37 PM Inaccurate labels and using the ideas evoked from a word (say cleave with the feat of that same name) are cause for many problems. It shouldn't matter what you call something as long as the mechanics alone are understood and followed.

If a DM want to mess with the players a little they can often mess things up by using "common" names instead of game defined ones. A town complaining about a vile wizard living in the hills can set the PCs up for a surprise when that "wizard" is really a cleric or druid instead of a patsy wizard.
Mock26
03-20-08, 03:31 AM Step 1. Ignore the RAW. In fact, take the RAW, shove it inside a portable hole and then toss it into a bag of holding (being sure to be more than ten feet away when you do!)

Ste 2. Put on your thinking cap, use some common sense, and invoke Rule 0 to give the result you think would occur in the specific situation.

So, if it was a 20' x 20' sealed room and the ceiling caved in and you were allowing a Reflex save for half damage then you can either allow the evasion for no damage, ignore evasion, or compromise and allow evasion for 1/4 damage. It all boils down to your intentions with the trap. If you think taking damage is crucial to the adventure, mood, story, campaign, and/or whatever else, then ignore evasion and assign damage. If the damage isn't all that important then allow evasion to work. Just remember that the rules are merely here to guide you along. They are not here to dictate your game.
Cranewings
03-27-08, 12:57 AM I think the save makes sense. Stuff won't fall from the same spot twice, so wait for it to fall, then step on the rubble. It is hard, but it could work.

If the rogue is really sweet, he could pull him self upon the rubble as it is falling and climb it like on the Sega game Shinobi 3...
runestar
03-27-08, 08:05 AM Step 1. Ignore the RAW. In fact, take the RAW, shove it inside a portable hole and then toss it into a bag of holding (being sure to be more than ten feet away when you do!)

Ste 2. Put on your thinking cap, use some common sense, and invoke Rule 0 to give the result you think would occur in the specific situation.

Just bear in mind that common sense is not always as "common" as some might like.;)

In a setting where PCs can balance on air, squeeze right through a wall of force or just vanish right in front of you as normal skill checks, it is clear that dnd mechanics/psychics can be quite different from real life. They are well capable of superhuman feats which would be plain-impossible by today's standards.

Plus, just because we cannot envision a rogue somehow managing to elude a falling ceiling trap does not necessarily mean that it is impossible. It could also imply that perhaps we just cannot visualize how it can be done, but it is certainly possible somehow.

It is in this case that I would advise you to do the opposite thing and ignore common sense in favour of RAW, pure and simple, because that is exactly what the game was designed in mind with.:)
Empirate
04-03-08, 07:01 AM Guys, guys, guys, you're missing the point of what "never misses" means. It simply means the trap doesn't use an attack roll to affect its target(s). Instead, it uses a reflex save for half damage.
Just like a Fireball never misses, but allows a reflex save for half damage. However, the Rogue's and Monk's Evasion class feature is a specific exception from this rule.

Imagine it this way: There's a statement "you'll take damage regardless of whether you make your reflex save; your save only determines how much damage you end up with". And there's a statement saying "If [a Rogue with Evasion] makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage".
Note the bolded "normally" that implies which one of the two statements is to be taken as the general, and which one is to taken as the specific that defeats the general.
Merestil Haye
04-03-08, 07:35 AM Guys, guys, guys, you're missing the point of what "never misses" means. It simply means the trap doesn't use an attack roll to affect its target(s). Instead, it uses a reflex save for half damage.No, that is not correct.

"Never miss" means there is no way to avoid taking the full effect. No attack roll, no saving throw, nothing.

DMG page 70 :When the entire dungeon wall moves to crush you, your quick reflexes won't help, since the trap can't possibly miss. A trap with this feature has neither an attack roll nor a saving throw to avoid, but it does have an onset delay (see below). Most traps involving liquid or gas are of the never miss variety.(Bolding mine).

That's the DMG definition of a never-miss trap. If your trap requires an attack roll to take effect or allows a saving throw to evade, it is not "never miss."
kamronshepard
04-03-08, 02:50 PM I would recommend removing the saving throw. RAW contradict themselves in this situation.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BruceLeeroy 03-16-08, 08:50 AM	Does a "never miss" trap that allows a reflex save for half still deal no damage to a character who has evasion (assuming the successful save on their part)? For instance, a falling ceiling in a sealed off room.
Zarith 03-16-08, 09:37 AM	Common sense (and your DM may say) says "No", however... The rules say "Yes". Evasion doesn't say "some attacks", simply "an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save". There was a clarification on this somewhere (in the Sage Advice column, I think) though I can't find it at the moment. From the SRD - Evasion (Ex) At 2nd level and higher, a rogue can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless rogue does not gain the benefit of evasion.
StevenO 03-16-08, 02:24 PM	By the RAW they'd take no damage with a successful use of Evasion. If it is possible for a character to avoid some of the damage then Evasion makes it possible to avoid all the damage.
Merestil Haye 03-16-08, 03:51 PM	Does a "never miss" trap that allows a reflex save for half still deal no damage to a character who has evasion (assuming the successful save on their part)? For instance, a falling ceiling in a sealed off room.If the trap is a "never miss" trap, it will not allow any save whatsoever. If the trap specifies that it allows a Reflex save for ½ damage, it isn't a "never miss" trap in the first place, and yes in those circumstances Evasion will apply.
BruceLeeroy 03-16-08, 05:26 PM	If the trap is a "never miss" trap, it will not allow any save whatsoever. If the trap specifies that it allows a Reflex save for ½ damage, it isn't a "never miss" trap in the first place, and yes in those circumstances Evasion will apply. Except that in this particular case, in the Tomb of Horrors module, it does specify never miss, and it does specify a save for half damage. It's a frickin' ceiling falling, I'm not sure why there is a save to begin with. I am already quite familiar with evasion, yet it would seem to me that this is a case of specific vs general. Now, it doesn't say explicitly that "never miss" means even in the case of evasion, but then, "never" is a pretty strong word. Personally, I feel that evasion wouldn't apply.
StevenO 03-16-08, 06:08 PM	If you want to screw over the rogue and none of the players have Mettle (the FOR/WILL version of Evasion) switch the save from REF to FOR. Instead of being able to dodge out of the way you are just tough enough to take it. Note that this unfortunately make the trap much weaker against the characters who already get the most hp.
Zarith 03-16-08, 06:21 PM	Yeah, I know what you're talking about... "Built-to-Collapse Ceiling" "never miss (but DC 23 Reflex for half damage)" An awkward combination of words, but I would say it's not unreasonable that evasion would allow you to quickly find a space where you take no damage. A collapsing tunnel roof doesn't bring to mind a solid slab of stone allowing no escape dropping on your head. You may find a safe haven within a collapsing "roughly worked" stone corridor. I would play it as is, allowing the reflex save and allow evasion to apply normally.
Khadmus 03-16-08, 07:32 PM	You can say an argument is irrefutable, but if there are flaws... You can say a trap is never miss, but if there is a reflex save...
Merestil Haye 03-16-08, 07:45 PM	Except that in this particular case, in the Tomb of Horrors module, it does specify never miss, and it does specify a save for half damage. It's a frickin' ceiling falling, I'm not sure why there is a save to begin with.I repeat : if it allows a save (or an attack roll), it cannot be "never miss." A "never miss" trap allows no save of any kind, and allows no attack roll - since a natural 20 on a save always succeeds and a natural 1 on an attack roll always misses, neither situation which incorporates either can be "never miss." It's like the irresistible force and the immovable object - if either exist, the universe cannot contain the other. I am already quite familiar with evasion, yet it would seem to me that this is a case of specific vs general. Now, it doesn't say explicitly that "never miss" means even in the case of evasion, but then, "never" is a pretty strong word. Personally, I feel that evasion wouldn't apply.Evasion applies, because the trap allows a Reflex save for ½. If you want it to not apply, remove the save or render the creature helpless (in which case he loses the benefits of Evasion).
calronmoonflower 03-16-08, 09:01 PM	Think of it this way. He got hit, but was lucky enough that it did no damage.
Finarin Panjoro 03-17-08, 01:05 PM	Or maybe he was fast and smart enough to dive right next to the fighter's helmet which was strong enough to stop the crushing ceiling a fraction of an inch above him. Everyone else wasn't fast enough and took varying degrees of damage when the ceiling slammed into them.
Someone 03-17-08, 01:35 PM	Does the particular trap reset? Otherwise I could see it as the ceiling coming down in a jumble of blocks, sand, dust, bits of timber, and so forth, rather than a single solid slab going splat. Such an irregular volume would make sense for a Ref save, and an evasive character could simply end up covered in dust and dirt, with no real injury.
mvincent 03-17-08, 04:04 PM	I repeat : if it allows a save (or an attack roll), it cannot be "never miss."... and even if it could, "Never Miss" says nothing about affecting evasion.
weasel0 03-17-08, 09:00 PM	It's like the irresistible force and the immovable object - if either exist, the universe cannot contain the other. Not true. The force would gravitate towards the object. If the force was also an immovable object, then it would be true. If the force were truly negated, there would be no effect between the two. So as long as there is an interaction between them, both can exist. But only if there is only one immovable object. If more than one object exists then it becomes impossible to also have a so described force. It's like a magnet and a refridgerator-bolted down, under a fifty-ton boulder. The fridge won't ever move, but the magnet(being our force), will instead move to the fridge(our object). If this was false, either the fridge would move to the magnet, or neither would move. And if you say make the magnet bigger, the magnet itself would then become an immovable object and an irrisistable force at the same time.
Merestil Haye 03-18-08, 08:47 AM	Not true. Sorry, but it is. If the object was truly immovable, then no force could move it. Therefore the object has resisted all forces, so there can be no "irresistible" force. Similarly if there is a force that cannot be resisted it will move all objects, so there is no "immovable" object. Both cannot exist in the same universe. You can call them what you want, but they cannot both exist. The problem with the OPs description is that he's specifying two similarly incompatible things : (a) that the trap is a "never-miss" trap, and (b) that the victim can make a save. And since there is a rule that 5% of all saving throws automatically succeed, a trap that allows a saving throw (or attack roll) of any kind cannot be a "never-miss" trap, no matter what label the writer saw fit to apply to the trap. This issue probably arises because in 1e days it really was a "never-miss" trap, and the label has carried over.
runestar 03-18-08, 08:57 AM	In that case, it seems more like a case of inaccurate labeling, rather than any problem with the rules.:)
StevenO 03-18-08, 01:37 PM	Inaccurate labels and using the ideas evoked from a word (say cleave with the feat of that same name) are cause for many problems. It shouldn't matter what you call something as long as the mechanics alone are understood and followed. If a DM want to mess with the players a little they can often mess things up by using "common" names instead of game defined ones. A town complaining about a vile wizard living in the hills can set the PCs up for a surprise when that "wizard" is really a cleric or druid instead of a patsy wizard.
Mock26 03-20-08, 03:31 AM	Step 1. Ignore the RAW. In fact, take the RAW, shove it inside a portable hole and then toss it into a bag of holding (being sure to be more than ten feet away when you do!) Ste 2. Put on your thinking cap, use some common sense, and invoke Rule 0 to give the result you think would occur in the specific situation. So, if it was a 20' x 20' sealed room and the ceiling caved in and you were allowing a Reflex save for half damage then you can either allow the evasion for no damage, ignore evasion, or compromise and allow evasion for 1/4 damage. It all boils down to your intentions with the trap. If you think taking damage is crucial to the adventure, mood, story, campaign, and/or whatever else, then ignore evasion and assign damage. If the damage isn't all that important then allow evasion to work. Just remember that the rules are merely here to guide you along. They are not here to dictate your game.
Cranewings 03-27-08, 12:57 AM	I think the save makes sense. Stuff won't fall from the same spot twice, so wait for it to fall, then step on the rubble. It is hard, but it could work. If the rogue is really sweet, he could pull him self upon the rubble as it is falling and climb it like on the Sega game Shinobi 3...
runestar 03-27-08, 08:05 AM	Step 1. Ignore the RAW. In fact, take the RAW, shove it inside a portable hole and then toss it into a bag of holding (being sure to be more than ten feet away when you do!) Ste 2. Put on your thinking cap, use some common sense, and invoke Rule 0 to give the result you think would occur in the specific situation. Just bear in mind that common sense is not always as "common" as some might like.;) In a setting where PCs can balance on air, squeeze right through a wall of force or just vanish right in front of you as normal skill checks, it is clear that dnd mechanics/psychics can be quite different from real life. They are well capable of superhuman feats which would be plain-impossible by today's standards. Plus, just because we cannot envision a rogue somehow managing to elude a falling ceiling trap does not necessarily mean that it is impossible. It could also imply that perhaps we just cannot visualize how it can be done, but it is certainly possible somehow. It is in this case that I would advise you to do the opposite thing and ignore common sense in favour of RAW, pure and simple, because that is exactly what the game was designed in mind with.:)
Empirate 04-03-08, 07:01 AM	Guys, guys, guys, you're missing the point of what "never misses" means. It simply means the trap doesn't use an attack roll to affect its target(s). Instead, it uses a reflex save for half damage. Just like a Fireball never misses, but allows a reflex save for half damage. However, the Rogue's and Monk's Evasion class feature is a specific exception from this rule. Imagine it this way: There's a statement "you'll take damage regardless of whether you make your reflex save; your save only determines how much damage you end up with". And there's a statement saying "If [a Rogue with Evasion] makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage". Note the bolded "normally" that implies which one of the two statements is to be taken as the general, and which one is to taken as the specific that defeats the general.
Merestil Haye 04-03-08, 07:35 AM	Guys, guys, guys, you're missing the point of what "never misses" means. It simply means the trap doesn't use an attack roll to affect its target(s). Instead, it uses a reflex save for half damage.No, that is not correct. "Never miss" means there is no way to avoid taking the full effect. No attack roll, no saving throw, nothing. DMG page 70 :When the entire dungeon wall moves to crush you, your quick reflexes won't help, since the trap can't possibly miss. A trap with this feature has neither an attack roll nor a saving throw to avoid, but it does have an onset delay (see below). Most traps involving liquid or gas are of the never miss variety.(Bolding mine). That's the DMG definition of a never-miss trap. If your trap requires an attack roll to take effect or allows a saving throw to evade, it is not "never miss."
kamronshepard 04-03-08, 02:50 PM	I would recommend removing the saving throw. RAW contradict themselves in this situation.