Post/Author/DateTime	Post
savant_warlord13 07-21-06, 04:00 PM	As a DM, I am considering changing evasion and improved evasion for certain area effects so that if you make your save, you take 10% damage instead of half. Are there any consequences I haven't thought of? Is this unbalanced?
ddlover155 07-21-06, 04:16 PM	:eek: of course its fair! your the DM.do whatever you think is fair and fun.Thats what D&D is all about!
Nom 07-21-06, 11:42 PM	Uh, with evasion you take no damage on a successful save, and normal damage on a failed save. With improved evasion, you take half damage (rather than normal) on a failed save. Do you perhaps mean 10% rather than none on a successful save. It seems like a rather pointless change. Rather than the heroic and cinematic "no (significant) damage", you take a little bit. Just adds more bookwork for no appreciable benefit that I can see.
I_Strahd 07-22-06, 02:46 AM	i like the idea. the fact that someone could take no damage from a fire ball (that is centered on them) is not right. if i had anything too say about it, it would be, (a full move action. and if the character already moved. then the player would lose the next round of action.). if that seems too much so be it. that fact that some ranger could go up and hit a dragon and then leap from a fire exposion in the same round is not quite the real. only my opinion.
rogue_lettuce 07-22-06, 07:20 AM	Are you saying that rather than taking no damage, you take 10% on a passed (improved) evasion save, or that rather than taking half damage, you take 10% on a failed improved evasion save? The first nerfs evasion badly, IMO. The latter overpowers improved evasion badly, IMO. Just keep it as it is, there's NO need to make any changes, and they don't even make any sense. And why only certain area affects? What ones?
VrecknidjX 07-22-06, 09:02 AM	I'd leave it alone. Rogues, in general, are not walking fonts of hit points and the whole system tends to keep them alive long enough to be useful. Dave