Post/Author/DateTime	Post
nameneeded 03-04-08, 10:41 PM	I know that a person can willingly "fail" a save. I am also sure that under the right circumstances a person can manipulate a person to willingly fail a save. (Bluff: "I'm gonna cast clw on you." *casts ilw*) But here's the situation. Target has Improved Blink on. Has been using it to avoid damaging attacks/ spells. If he were to be attacked by a spell like fireball that, thanks to a feat (Transdimensional Spell I think, no books here) will affect him but he is unaware of the metamagic should he still get a reflex save? Are people ALWAYS entitled to a save? DO flat footed/ surprised people get reflex saves? (I think they do) Any tricks to (aside form the bluff/ charm thing) to have saves waived?
Salla 03-04-08, 10:52 PM	In general, unless a target voluntarily chooses not to save (such as when tricked into recieving a harmful spell thinking it's beneficial), he gets a save.
groveborn 03-04-08, 11:14 PM	The rules do not allow for a situation where one does not get a save. That being said, it's fairly unlikely that a bound and paralyzed individual will some how leap away from a fireball. WARNING - NON RAW MATERIAL - Since you can willingly fail any save, and unconscious individuals are considered willing (for certain things), perhaps that can be extended to saves. Consider that a petrified creature is considered unconscious, not dead. This would mean that it is entitled to every save allowed to a breathing (or unliving) creature. I think this is extremely wonky, and simply isn't realistic. I'd allow for helpless creatures to be exempted from saves, when the situation calls for it. THIS IS NOT RAW.
Malek2991 03-04-08, 11:17 PM	The target would still get a save. The only reason the target would not get a save is if it was a willing target. Remember unconsious (but not sleeping, held, etc...) creatures are always considered willing.
Part-Human2 03-05-08, 12:32 AM	This is only 1 rule/instance that denies a saving throw that I know of. SNATCH [GENERAL] Prerequisite: Size Huge or larger. Benefits: The creature can choose to start a grapple when it hits with a claw or bite attack, as though it had the improved grab special attack. If the creature gets a hold on a creature three or more sizes smaller, it squeezes each round for automatic bite or claw damage. A snatched opponent held in the creature’s mouth is not allowed a Reflex save against the creature’s breath weapon, if it has one. ...
groveborn 03-05-08, 02:07 AM	The target would still get a save. The only reason the target would not get a save is if it was a willing target. Remember unconsious (but not sleeping, held, etc...) creatures are always considered willing. To my knowledge this is only for spells that specify willing targets, such as Dimension Door.
Vegepygmy 03-05-08, 10:50 AM	The only reason the target would not get a save is if it was a willing target.Groveborn is correct. Just because you are a willing target, that doesn't mean you are denied a saving throw. Sounds weird, but it's true.
McPoyo 03-05-08, 11:06 AM	Creatures that are unaware never get reflex saves (unconscious, invisible, flat-footed, etc). You always get a fort save, afaik. Will saves you only get if you aren't willing. Unconscious classifies as willing only for transportational stuff.
Nephlite 03-05-08, 11:12 AM	Creatures that are unaware never get reflex saves (unconscious, invisible, flat-footed, etc). You always get a fort save, afaik. Will saves you only get if you aren't willing. Unconscious classifies as willing only for transportational stuff. Um, are these your houserules,. You always get a reflex save unless specially it lists a exception.: Snatch list a exception. Even when blind, asleep, and tied up at the same time: You still get a reflex save (with a big penalty due to being tied up, but you could maybe do it still). All it would do is deny evasion.
McPoyo 03-05-08, 02:10 PM	See, I would have swore there was a line somewhere saying when you were denied your Dex to AC you couldn't make Reflex saves, but I'll be damned if I can find it now. Must have been an unconscious houserule. My apologies on that one. I personally fail to see how you can make a reflex save when you are bound or asleep but seeing as how I can't find a reference to support that now, I'm going to have to assume I've been constantly houseruling that for years, as has other DMs I've played under. A potentially interesting development for abuse...*wheels start turning in head* The others still stand, however.
nameneeded 03-05-08, 02:18 PM	Let me put it this way..... If I cast fireball at a person who believes he is current immune to fireball (spell item etc) and thus decides to stand there and take (as they believe they are immune) are they still entitled to a reflex save when it suddenly turns out they will be affected? (spell expired, item was a fake etc)
Damned slayer 03-05-08, 02:33 PM	Let me put it this way..... If I cast fireball at a person who believes he is current immune to fireball (spell item etc) and thus decides to stand there and take (as they believe they are immune) are they still entitled to a reflex save when it suddenly turns out they will be affected? (spell expired, item was a fake etc) No he willingly failed it to look "cool" the problem is that reflex save means you duck or get out of the way or whatever but otherwise the exact manoeuvrer doesn't take any time and as no repercussion that is how it can be abuse As per no reflex save someone sleeping is helpless and you don't get a save if your helpless so someone immobilized/paralysed doesn't get a save same goes for someone lying on the floor because he's bellow 0hp or whatever
Shaggy_Shaggs 03-05-08, 02:34 PM	Let me put it this way..... If I cast fireball at a person who believes he is current immune to fireball (spell item etc) and thus decides to stand there and take (as they believe they are immune) are they still entitled to a reflex save when it suddenly turns out they will be affected? (spell expired, item was a fake etc) Example not applicable. You don't need to ready an action to make a save, and that's what you're implying here. The decision to "stand there and take" it, ie willingly fail the save, doesn't come up until the need for the saving throw is at hand. By that point it's going to be obvious something's up. DM: As the fireball bead detonates, your twitch reflex throws you to safety as you feel the sudden swell of heat. The enemy has found a way past your defenses! PC: Nah I resist the reflex, that's gotta be just gas. Stupid.
CryoSilver 03-05-08, 02:43 PM	It says nowhere in the description of the Helpless condition that there are no saves allowed. A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (-5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks gets no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets. As a full-round action, an enemy can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless foe. An enemy can also use a bow or crossbow, provided he is adjacent to the target. The attacker automatically hits and scores a critical hit. (A rogue also gets her sneak attack damage bonus against a helpless foe when delivering a coup de grace.) If the defender survives, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity. Creatures that are immune to critical hits do not take critical damage, nor do they need to make Fortitude saves to avoid being killed by a coup de grace. It DOES say the helpless character is treated as having a Dex of 0, which means he'd take a -5 penalty on any Reflex saves, though.
Damned slayer 03-05-08, 02:48 PM	It says nowhere in the description of the Helpless condition that there are no saves allowed. It DOES say the helpless character is treated as having a Dex of 0, which means he'd take a -5 penalty on any Reflex saves, though. WHAT???? geese I don't know what reflex saves stand anymore lol you can't move and still can make it Sry mage i just rolled at the right time while sleeping so I only get half damage. Or I deflected the fireball with the power of my mind to only get half damage (tho I'm still using reflexes) because I'm held with hold person I know you quoted but that is purely illogical otherwise I totally misconceived what a reflex save was
McPoyo 03-05-08, 03:02 PM	See why I stated what I did above? I'll have to check my 3.0 PHB when I get home and see if it used to be located there. This is going to bother me until I find out why I thought the technicality of the rules supported my thought.
kalstrand 03-05-08, 04:33 PM	WHAT???? geese I don't know what reflex saves stand anymore lol you can't move and still can make it Sry mage i just rolled at the right time while sleeping so I only get half damage. Or I deflected the fireball with the power of my mind to only get half damage (tho I'm still using reflexes) because I'm held with hold person I know you quoted but that is purely illogical otherwise I totally misconceived what a reflex save was Perhaps the individual was in a cool spot in the fireball or perhaps their clothing/armor happened to shed the worst of the heat. There could be many explanations.
McPoyo 03-05-08, 04:45 PM	Perhaps the individual was in a cool spot in the fireball or perhaps their clothing/armor happened to shed the worst of the heat. There could be many explanations. Considering a Fireball isn't an explosive blast, but rather a spontaneous flashfire that appears in the designated area (not a blast effect, which is why it goes around pillars and the like), I doubt that would happen effectively with a "cool spot". Your fireballs may vary from mine, however. Flavor is mutable and all. However, that doesn't explain how a "Reflex" save would account for that, especially considering the description in the back of the PHB states a Reflex save represents agility or reaction time.
ArcTan 03-05-08, 04:58 PM	The rules do not allow for a situation where one does not get a save. That being said, it's fairly unlikely that a bound and paralyzed individual will some how leap away from a fireball. You can't "leap away" from fireballs anyway -- it makes no sense that even a high-Reflex Rogue with Improved Evasion is somehow jumping 30 feet through the air over a fireball, especially if the fireball is in an enclosed space where there's no room to do so. Reflex saves really just have to be handwaved as "luck" that gets *modified* by your ability to move around -- i.e. if you succeed on your save you just happened to be behind some debris or something that protected you, and the higher your modifier the higher the chance that you could move to such a piece of debris. Since you can willingly fail any save, and unconscious individuals are considered willing (for certain things), perhaps that can be extended to saves. Consider that a petrified creature is considered unconscious, not dead. This would mean that it is entitled to every save allowed to a breathing (or unliving) creature. I think this is extremely wonky, and simply isn't realistic. I'd allow for helpless creatures to be exempted from saves, when the situation calls for it. THIS IS NOT RAW. It's also a bad idea, for game balance purposes. The whole point of intermediate states like "unconscious" or "petrified" or "helpless" or "paralyzed" coming between you and death is that they make it possible for a character to avoid death. If paralyzed creatures *auto-fail* all Reflex saves, you might as well just say they're dead anyway and have that be the end of it. Certainly I don't think it makes sense to have a petrified creature, say, auto-fail all Will saves. This just means that you now have a one-two-punch by which you can dominate any low-Fort high-Will character.
ArcTan 03-05-08, 05:02 PM	Keep in mind that *all* saves, not just Reflex saves, have to be assumed to be more "luck" than you actually doing something to protect yourself. It is not actually biologically possible, for instance, for you to be so "tough" that you "fight off" being poisoned. We talk about it like that all the time, but it's not how it actually works -- poison is a chemical that has an effect on the chemicals in your body and it either works or it doesn't. The only way to explain a character rolling a 20 against deadly poison gas is that he was somehow *lucky* -- that the toxin in the gas had decayed or that the wind blew it away from him. The Fort save just means that how tough he is *modified* that chance -- that his liver is able to deal with a slightly higher or lower concentration of the gas. But that quantity itself is not variable, and the d20 roll has to represent the other completely fortuitous circumstances that lead to the amount of gas entering his lungs to be not-quite-sufficient to kill him -- which is completely independent of anything he has control over, like the ludicrous idea of an otherwise bad liver "rising to the challenge".
ArcTan 03-05-08, 05:06 PM	Creatures that are unaware never get reflex saves (unconscious, invisible, flat-footed, etc). You always get a fort save, afaik. Will saves you only get if you aren't willing. Unconscious classifies as willing only for transportational stuff. Untrue, untrue, and untrue. All creatures who *have* a Dexterity score get Reflex saves. It is true that creatures who lack Dexterity at all (i.e. have it listed as "--" on their sheet) also completely lack Reflex saves, but this is not the case if you do have a Dex score and it just happens to be damaged/drained down to 0 at the moment. Keep in mind that *magic items* always get Fort, Will and Reflex saves when it's relevant. That's right, a +1 battleaxe lying on the ground gets a Reflex save to avoid being damaged by a fireball. *All* saves can *always* be refused if the target chooses to refuse them. A character can choose to fail a Reflex, Will, or Fortitude save. Yes, you can drink a vial of poison and "decide to be poisoned". Doesn't make perfect sense, but it makes the game easier. Finally, "willing" has nothing to do with choosing to fail a Will save. Completely different concepts. There is a whole class of spells -- not just teleportation spells -- that say they only work on "willing" creatures. That's what "unconscious = willing" applies to -- nothing else. The two ideas are entirely separate -- an unconscious creature makes his full Will save against attack spells like phantasmal killer, whereas a fully conscious creature who simply doesn't want to go with me when I use greater teleport can *never* be forced to do so even if his base Will save is -2.
Shaggy_Shaggs 03-05-08, 05:08 PM	the ludicrous idea of an otherwise bad liver "rising to the challenge".Ludicrous it may be, but it makes me want to play a skulking cyst monk/drunken master. :P
McPoyo 03-05-08, 05:13 PM	Untrue, untrue, and untrue. All creatures who *have* a Dexterity score get Reflex saves. It is true that creatures who lack Dexterity at all (i.e. have it listed as "--" on their sheet) also completely lack Reflex saves, but this is not the case if you do have a Dex score and it just happens to be damaged/drained down to 0 at the moment. Keep in mind that *magic items* always get Fort, Will and Reflex saves when it's relevant. That's right, a +1 battleaxe lying on the ground gets a Reflex save to avoid being damaged by a fireball. *All* saves can *always* be refused if the target chooses to refuse them. A character can choose to fail a Reflex, Will, or Fortitude save. Yes, you can drink a vial of poison and "decide to be poisoned". Doesn't make perfect sense, but it makes the game easier. Finally, "willing" has nothing to do with choosing to fail a Will save. Completely different concepts. There is a whole class of spells -- not just teleportation spells -- that say they only work on "willing" creatures. That's what "unconscious = willing" applies to -- nothing else. The two ideas are entirely separate -- an unconscious creature makes his full Will save against attack spells like phantasmal killer, whereas a fully conscious creature who simply doesn't want to go with me when I use greater teleport can *never* be forced to do so even if his base Will save is -2. I'd like to point out my response to the Reflex thing two replies after I first made it. I'd also like to point out the intent behind answering the question was whether or not anything negated your chance to have a particular save, in the case of the Fort ones, no effect I know of prevents you from having the chance to make one. Whether you forgo having a save is not the same thing as not getting one. Finally, the Unconscious/willing thing wasn't whether you got one, but whether you were considered willing or not as to if you had to make the save. I never once stated will saves were autofailed when unconscious, merely that you weren't prevented from being transported while unconscious by nature of not being Willing.
Merestil Haye 03-05-08, 05:39 PM	A general principle of the game is that a creature who is allowed a benefit by some effect gets it under all circumstances not specifically excluded by the source of the the effect, unless it is explicitly removed by a condition or effect. Nothing in the rules say that if someone is helpless that they cannot make Reflex saves, therefore they can. You also need to bear in mind that a helpless creature has an effective dexterity of 0 while unconscious, and therefore has a Dex modifier of -5. Consequently, any creature with a Dex of 2 or higher is going to be making that save at a penalty. (The exact penalty depends on the creature's Dex modifier. A character with 20 Dex has a -10 penalty to the save, for example.) Additionally, although they can make reflex saves, creatures with the Evasion class ability cannot use it while helpless - because the class ability says so. (The Ring of Evasion says no such thing... so I guess you can magically Evade. But then that thing comes with a high price tag so it had better be powerful.
mvincent 03-05-08, 06:02 PM	I don't know what reflex saves stand anymore lolFrom the 3.5 FAQ (if desired): "A character can attempt a Reflex save anytime she is subjected to an effect that allows a Reflex save. A Reflex save usually involves some dodging, but a Reflex save does not depend completely on a character’s ability to move around. It also can depend on luck, variations in the effect that makes the save necessary in the first place, and a host of other miraculous factors that keep heroic characters in the D&D game from meeting an untimely fate" ... "If you’re helpless, your Dexterity score is effectively 0. You still can make Reflex saves, but your Dexterity modifier is –5. You’re helpless whenever you are paralyzed, unconscious, or asleep."
dndfencer 03-05-08, 06:14 PM	It seems to me that if someone has a trans dimensional spell cast at them when they aren't expecting it that they should get a penalty to the reflex save if they are acting as if getting hit by a spell is not a possibility. Thus, a creature that is blinking and charging straight towards the spellcasters would get a penalty to any ref saves from trans dimensional spells because they don't expect it at all. On the other hand, a creature that is blinking but still acting cautiously should not get a penalty because while the spell would take them by surprise it would not do so extraordinarily. As for the question about duping someone into accepting a baleful spell I would say that it depends on how magic works. Obviously if the person that is possibly being duped is a spell caster they would be entitled to a spellcraft check, if they chose to make one at the very least, and regular characters would of course be entitled to a sense motive check. Personally, I would, at the very least, allow the character being duped an int check as well as a sense motive to figure out that the spell is baleful but most likely I wouldn't allow a spellcaster to get away with it simply because they're all ready powerful enough.
Roelandt 03-05-08, 09:12 PM	Someone made a comment earlier and was confirmed by someone else in error regarding Willingly failing a save. VOLUNTARILY FAILING A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a consequence. -Rule Compendium page 112
ArcTan 03-06-08, 01:10 AM	It seems to me that if someone has a trans dimensional spell cast at them when they aren't expecting it that they should get a penalty to the reflex save if they are acting as if getting hit by a spell is not a possibility. Thus, a creature that is blinking and charging straight towards the spellcasters would get a penalty to any ref saves from trans dimensional spells because they don't expect it at all. On the other hand, a creature that is blinking but still acting cautiously should not get a penalty because while the spell would take them by surprise it would not do so extraordinarily. There is no such distinction made between "acting cautiously" and "not acting cautiously" in the rules, nor do I see why there should be one (because it just means that PCs will constantly at all times declare their characters are "acting cautiously").
Solaria 03-07-08, 02:47 AM	You can't "leap away" from fireballs anyway -- it makes no sense that even a high-Reflex Rogue with Improved Evasion is somehow jumping 30 feet through the air over a fireball, especially if the fireball is in an enclosed space where there's no room to do so. Reflex saves really just have to be handwaved as "luck" that gets *modified* by your ability to move around -- i.e. if you succeed on your save you just happened to be behind some debris or something that protected you, and the higher your modifier the higher the chance that you could move to such a piece of debris. It's also a bad idea, for game balance purposes. The whole point of intermediate states like "unconscious" or "petrified" or "helpless" or "paralyzed" coming between you and death is that they make it possible for a character to avoid death. If paralyzed creatures *auto-fail* all Reflex saves, you might as well just say they're dead anyway and have that be the end of it. Certainly I don't think it makes sense to have a petrified creature, say, auto-fail all Will saves. This just means that you now have a one-two-punch by which you can dominate any low-Fort high-Will character. Well, the fireball is a flash fire, so I guess it races through the area of effect. The rogue times his dodge, and leaps from in front of the roiling flames to just behind them :bounce: The paralyzed creature is basically dead if someone can come perform a coup de grace on him. It seems to me that you should blow your saves, too, but the designers think otherwise. Not the first time they have written rules to work the way they want them to, rather than the way they should.
Solaria 03-07-08, 02:52 AM	From the 3.5 FAQ (if desired): "A character can attempt a Reflex save anytime she is subjected to an effect that allows a Reflex save. A Reflex save usually involves some dodging, but a Reflex save does not depend completely on a character’s ability to move around. It also can depend on luck, variations in the effect that makes the save necessary in the first place, and a host of other miraculous factors that keep heroic characters in the D&D game from meeting an untimely fate" ... "If you’re helpless, your Dexterity score is effectively 0. You still can make Reflex saves, but your Dexterity modifier is –5. You’re helpless whenever you are paralyzed, unconscious, or asleep." Sooo, if you're tied up by headhunters who are roasting you over a bonfire, you get a saving throw?
Merestil Haye 03-07-08, 04:43 AM	Sooo, if you're tied up by headhunters who are roasting you over a bonfire, you get a saving throw?Only if being tied up over a fire grants a saving throw. What says that you get one?
MnemonicSV 03-07-08, 04:44 AM	Well... there are still some rare situations in which you are not entitled to a Reflex save (beyond the grapple/breath-weapon example above). Generally they are the most extreme scenarios in which you have no choice but to take full damage. The most obvious example is the Crushing Room trap. It doesn't matter how you move or adjust... there are simply some things you cannot physically avoid... even through luck or chance. In such a trap, you don't even get a save. If the walls weren't surrounding you, you would get the Reflex save as normal... But sometimes the circumstances are simply too extreme to ignore. Ultimately (as it is often said) it comes down to the DM to decide when an effect is completely unavoidable or not. And when such questions do arise the DM should always err on the side of allowing the Reflex save. ----- All that being said, logic leads us to some strange conclusions. Since a bound, blind, deaf, paralysed (yada yada) character is still technically allowed a Reflex save, and the base reflex save is dependant on level, inevitably we must come to one (and only one) logical conclusion: ALL CHARACTER'S BASE REFLEX SAVES ARE BASED ENTIRELY ON LUCK.* And... well... I just don't accept that conclusion. I can't. Even in a fantasy setting! I refuse to believe that a bound, naked, paralysed, and blind level 20 character is just "monumentally luckier" than a bound, naked, paralysed, and blind level 1 character. I have to believe that the base Reflex save progression has at least something to do with actual reflexes! Even though RAW directs us to the contrary. Situations like that should be Dexterity checks at best (despite the fact that at DEX 0 such checks would be completely redundant). Like bare Strength checks, there are some situations where skill and/or level just shouldn't count. I'll understand if most people disagree with me on this. This thread just really got me thinking, and I needed to get all that out of my head. :) (*Excluding deus ex machina situations.)
Shaggy_Shaggs 03-07-08, 06:12 AM	The level 20 bound/blinded/whatever guy isn't monumentally luckier than the level 1, he's just more important. Level 1 dies, yay, atmospheric action. Level 20 dies, movie's ruined, everyone walks out of the theatre.
Weab 03-07-08, 11:01 AM	Personally I always thought of reflex saves as a combination of things. The rogue whirls around, swirling his cloak in front of his face to avoid the worst part of the burns... (evasion, no damage) The barbarian ducks suddenly as a lightning bolt flies through where his head would have been, burning a line down his back instead of straight into his eyes (made save, half damage) The fighter, bound hand and foot, laughs in the face of his opponent as the cone of cold washes over him, his armor bearing the brunt of it as he twists in his bonds, luckily moving his body to avoid the worst. (made save, half damage) that sort of thing!
Part-Human2 03-08-08, 12:35 AM	Well, let see what adds to a Reflex save. unamed bonus by Leveling up (the Base Refl Save) is a matter of training/skill(?) Dexterity Bonus is a bonus from agility Resistance bonus is magical Luck bunus is usually also a magical bonus When you deny a Reflex save you also deny the Luck and Resistance bonuses. A Crushing Room trap falls under the "Never Miss" category of traps. Never Miss: When the entire dungeon wall moves to crush you, your quick reflexes won’t help, since the wall can’t possibly miss. A trap with this feature has neither an attack bonus 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. It never misses. It never allowed any save so is it really denying a Reflex save any more that it is denying you an AC or a Fortitude save?
ArcTan 03-08-08, 06:14 AM	All that being said, logic leads us to some strange conclusions. Since a bound, blind, deaf, paralysed (yada yada) character is still technically allowed a Reflex save, and the base reflex save is dependant on level, inevitably we must come to one (and only one) logical conclusion: ALL CHARACTER'S BASE REFLEX SAVES ARE BASED ENTIRELY ON LUCK.* And... well... I just don't accept that conclusion. I can't. Even in a fantasy setting! I refuse to believe that a bound, naked, paralysed, and blind level 20 character is just "monumentally luckier" than a bound, naked, paralysed, and blind level 1 character. I have to believe that the base Reflex save progression has at least something to do with actual reflexes! Even though RAW directs us to the contrary. It's not really that much more bizarre than the fact that a high-level Barbarian's throat is basically impossible to slit while he's unconscious (i.e. a level 1 character trying to make a Coup de Grace check with a mundane dagger will never generate DCs that are too high for him to easily make with his Fort saving throw).
ArcTan 03-08-08, 06:16 AM	Well, let see what adds to a Reflex save. unamed bonus by Leveling up (the Base Refl Save) is a matter of training/skill(?) Since you get base save progressions from HD as well as class levels, and you get progressions from *any* class levels (a bad Reflex save progression is still a save progression, and Commoner 5s or Aristocrat 10s still get them), I would call it "cosmic importance" more than "skill", per se, though skill is probably part of it. High-HD characters are more important to the universe than low-HD characters and therefore the laws of physics bend around them. It even says so in Tome of Magic.
MnemonicSV 03-08-08, 04:58 PM	It never misses. It never allowed any save so is it really denying a Reflex save any more that it is denying you an AC or a Fortitude save? Well... the point was that if the falling block wasn't "inescapable" it would most certainly be a Reflex save. A Will save certainly wouldn't apply, and a Fortitude save is an equally tough sell. It affects an area and doesn't specifically target anyone, so an attack roll is also inappropriate. In practical effect, a Crushing Room trap is a a Reflex save you automatically fail. Were it not for skill checks and special abilities that allow you to do so, one could even say that even falling damage would be a Reflex save for half damage (no, I'm not promoting that... this is just theoretical. Don't go and quote me on this and then start flaming me). But again, you could say it is a Reflex save you always fail. Since you get base save progressions from HD as well as class levels, and you get progressions from *any* class levels (a bad Reflex save progression is still a save progression, and Commoner 5s or Aristocrat 10s still get them), I would call it "cosmic importance" more than "skill", per se, though skill is probably part of it. High-HD characters are more important to the universe than low-HD characters and therefore the laws of physics bend around them. It even says so in Tome of Magic. Well that's exactly it really. Once you strip away all the bonuses that the character actually has anything to do with, it's just a measure of what HD the character is. For Reflex saves it's just seems a little more unreasonable I suppose. For Will saves, one could still argue that the subconscious mind (over levels of training) is sufficient to contribute, even when the character is incapacitated. For Fortitude saves, one could argue that the character's health (over levels of training) still plays a vital factor in that save, even when incapacitiated. Reflex though? It just gets a little more incomprehensible that training plays any factor when incapacitated.
Merestil Haye 03-08-08, 05:08 PM	Well... the point was that if the falling block wasn't "inescapable" it would most certainly be a Reflex save. A Will save certainly wouldn't apply, and a Fortitude save is an equally tough sell. It affects an area and doesn't specifically target anyone, so an attack roll is also inappropriate. In practical effect, a Crushing Room trap is a a Reflex save you automatically fail.No, it is not. It can not be any such thing. It is impossible for you to have zero chance to fail a saving throw. Because of this rule (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow).Autom atic Failures and Successes A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure, and the spell may cause damage to exposed items (see Items Surviving after a Saving Throw, below). A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success.If you are allowed a save, you always have a 5% chance of success. Therefore a crushing room trap does not allow a saving throw of any kind once you are in it. You might be allowed one not to fall into the room if the entry is through a pit trap, but that's a different issue. Once you are in the trap there is no saving throw, least of all one you "automatically fail."
ArcTan 03-08-08, 08:10 PM	Well... the point was that if the falling block wasn't "inescapable" it would most certainly be a Reflex save. A Will save certainly wouldn't apply, and a Fortitude save is an equally tough sell. It affects an area and doesn't specifically target anyone, so an attack roll is also inappropriate. In practical effect, a Crushing Room trap is a a Reflex save you automatically fail. No, it isn't. For one thing, a Crushing Room that isn't a Crushing Room -- say, if instead it's only a falling ceiling tile -- is an *attack roll* against your *AC*, not a Reflex save. (It really burns me up that the DMG spells this out and people keep ignoring it. Falling boulders, falling ceiling tiles, collapsing walls, etc. -- they're all *attack rolls*, not Reflex saves. For one thing, wearing armor does in fact protect you from falling objects. Why do you think people wear hard hats?) For another, let's not talk about "practically" anything. There's no "auto-failed save" here. There's no save -- or attack roll -- at all. A Reflex save only *happens* if the effect is one that it would be possible to avoid through movement. If it isn't, there is no Reflex save, period. Were it not for skill checks and special abilities that allow you to do so, one could even say that even falling damage would be a Reflex save for half damage (no, I'm not promoting that... this is just theoretical. Don't go and quote me on this and then start flaming me). But again, you could say it is a Reflex save you always fail. You could also say that it's an attack roll that always hits. That would actually be more accurate. Well that's exactly it really. Once you strip away all the bonuses that the character actually has anything to do with, it's just a measure of what HD the character is. For Reflex saves it's just seems a little more unreasonable I suppose. For Will saves, one could still argue that the subconscious mind (over levels of training) is sufficient to contribute, even when the character is incapacitated. For Fortitude saves, one could argue that the character's health (over levels of training) still plays a vital factor in that save, even when incapacitiated. Reflex though? It just gets a little more incomprehensible that training plays any factor when incapacitated. HD isn't always "training" -- monsters gain racial HD just for getting older, for instance -- and the idea that you can be "trained" to have an inhumanly powerful immune system or an unslittable throat is pretty silly. The best way is to make it abstract -- HD is a measure of your cosmic importance to the universe, and therefore of your total luck -- and roll with it.
Nathreet 03-08-08, 10:29 PM	1. You can willingly fail a save. 2. If you are helpless you do not get a save. That is all.
MnemonicSV 03-08-08, 10:48 PM	A 10 ft square block that falls into a space is not an attack roll. The block is not targeting you. It is targeting the space. It cannot miss the space. When it lands it will completely fill the space you are occupying. A Reflex save might be allowed for you to generally avoid the space it is landing in, as you put it, you could "avoid it through movement." (If you are prevented from leaving the space... by lets say, walls... it may be justifed as "inescapable.") A 10 ft square block is not going to "mystically displace itself" if it cannot hit your AC while you are standing in that space. It is simply not targeting your AC at all. It will fill the space.. your only choice is to not be in that space. There is a huge difference between any old falling object and the above example. Falling objects? Sure.. attack roll.. I agree 100%. A stone block completely filling your space? You could rule it is an attack that always hits... but be prepared to tick off all your players if they are only 5 ft from an open space and you denied them any chance of avoiding damage (ie: Reflex save). A DM who denies a save there is just being mean. Actually, if you pay close attention to the text formatting of the all trap descriptions, you can see that information about them is noted in a very specific order. Traps that normally require an attack roll state the attack bonus immediately before the damage description (and omit a save DC). Traps which normally allow a saving throw state the save DC after the damage description and number of targets (and omit the attack bonus). Traps which normally require an attack roll instead state "no attack roll necessary" if it automatically hits. Traps which normally require a saving throw instead state "never miss" if it automatically hits. The Crushing Room trap omits the attack bonus description, and states "never miss." It is a direct implication of save-type trap, not an attack bonus trap. A Crushing Wall trap on the other hand is the opposite. It would typically be an attack bonus trap, but it automatically hits. For another, let's not talk about "practically" anything. There's no "auto-failed save" here. There's no save -- or attack roll -- at all. A Reflex save only *happens* if the effect is one that it would be possible to avoid through movement. If it isn't, there is no Reflex save, period. HD isn't always "training" -- monsters gain racial HD just for getting older, for instance -- and the idea that you can be "trained" to have an inhumanly powerful immune system or an unslittable throat is pretty silly. The best way is to make it abstract -- HD is a measure of your cosmic importance to the universe, and therefore of your total luck -- and roll with it. Actually... these are contradictory statements. The first says that you need movement to even attempt at a Reflex save. The second says that HD (and therefore, your Reflex bonus progression which is based upon that) is an abstract system that measures your "cosmic importance," which directly implies that it has nothing to do with movement really at all. Perhaps I have misinterpreted your intention. My apologies if that is the case. No, it is not. It can not be any such thing. It is impossible for you to have zero chance to fail a saving throw. Because of this rule (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow). :sigh: I have obviously not properly communicated my point. So I'll try again: I am not saying that a crushing room trap is a save you automatically fail. I am saying that it is very much like a save you cannot fail in all practical effect. Yeah, that's right, there's that annoying word again: Practically. I am well aware that a save is not applicable at all in such a trap. I do read the books I own. It was a purely demonstrative example used to illustrate the fact that there is a precedent for "inescapable" situations for which a reflex saving throw may normally be allowed. I'm not saying such situations are common by any stretch... just that they are possible. And that a Reflex saving throw would be allowed in many situations, were it not for the extenuating circumstances. Perhaps merely my parlance on this issue is simply too non-RAW for you guys. ----- Good grief... have we all actually become so rules-lawyerish that we are forbidden in this forum from discussing the fundamental design concepts that may have been laid down before the rules were put to text? Are we no longer allowed to think outside the box for a moment? Does theory have no place in this forum anymore? I suppose I'm just pitching concepts to the wrong crowd. Let me repeat... ONCE AGAIN... that all this is theory! I have not once in this thread proposed that any of this is RAW. In fact, I have even mentioned the theoretical nature they entail. So please stop making implications that I am making erroneous assertions here. I may question the nature of the rules... but I have not gone so far as to make any untrue statements. Theories are not statements of truth.
groveborn 03-08-08, 11:48 PM	1. You can willingly fail a save. 2. If you are helpless you do not get a save. That is all. Feel free to quote your source for 2. The fact is, when a save is allowed, you always get it, circumstances ignored.
ArcTan 03-09-08, 08:49 PM	1. You can willingly fail a save. 2. If you are helpless you do not get a save. That is all. 2 is not true. The rules specifically say it isn't. Helpless creatures simply make Reflex saves as though they had 0 Dex (with a -5 penalty off the base save).
ArcTan 03-09-08, 08:59 PM	A 10 ft square block that falls into a space is not an attack roll. The block is not targeting you. It is targeting the space. It cannot miss the space. When it lands it will completely fill the space you are occupying. A Reflex save might be allowed for you to generally avoid the space it is landing in, as you put it, you could "avoid it through movement." (If you are prevented from leaving the space... by lets say, walls... it may be justifed as "inescapable.") A 10 ft square block is not going to "mystically displace itself" if it cannot hit your AC while you are standing in that space. It is simply not targeting your AC at all. It will fill the space.. your only choice is to not be in that space. Um, no. This is no more true than saying that an arrow that's aimed perfectly and precisely at where you're standing "must" hit you. AC only makes sense if it assumes that you can and do try to dodge attacks -- that's why AC includes a Dex bonus to AC and a Dodge bonus to AC. If Reflex saves were for *everything* you could "avoid through movement", nearly everything would be a Reflex save. But this isn't a matter of opinion, here. This is the DMG. Go through the DMG and find me one -- ONE -- "falling object" trap that uses a Reflex save rather than an attack roll. There isn't one. There is a huge difference between any old falling object and the above example. Falling objects? Sure.. attack roll.. I agree 100%. A stone block completely filling your space? You could rule it is an attack that always hits... but be prepared to tick off all your players if they are only 5 ft from an open space and you denied them any chance of avoiding damage (ie: Reflex save). A DM who denies a save there is just being mean. I wouldn't deny them a Reflex save. I would make an attack roll against their AC. That way I wouldn't be screwing *anyone* over, rather than simply not screwing over the Evasion Rogue with light armor but totally screwing over the heavy-armor Fighter, even though ARMOR PROTECTS YOU FROM FALLING STONE BLOCKS. Actually, if you pay close attention to the text formatting of the all trap descriptions, you can see that information about them is noted in a very specific order. Traps that normally require an attack roll state the attack bonus immediately before the damage description (and omit a save DC). Traps which normally allow a saving throw state the save DC after the damage description and number of targets (and omit the attack bonus). Traps which normally require an attack roll instead state "no attack roll necessary" if it automatically hits. Traps which normally require a saving throw instead state "never miss" if it automatically hits. The Crushing Room trap omits the attack bonus description, and states "never miss." It is a direct implication of save-type trap, not an attack bonus trap. Er... no. This is just WotC being inconsistent. In the actual description of "never miss" it simply says "never miss" refers to traps that don't grant either an attack roll or a saving throw. It draws no distinction between the two. Can you honestly make a coherent argument that a "Flooding Room" trap is a trap that *would* be an attack roll, but somehow the flooding water here has lost the ability it would normally have to "miss"? Come on. A Crushing Wall trap on the other hand is the opposite. It would typically be an attack bonus trap, but it automatically hits. Look, I don't even need to really argue here. I can just give you an example: Spiked Blocks from Ceiling CR 6; mechanical; location trigger; repair reset; Atk +20 melee (6d6, spikes); multiple targets (all targets in a 10-ft.-by-10-ft. area); Search DC 24; Disable Device DC 20. Market Price: 21,600 gp. Look at that. It's a 10-by-10 block that comes down and hits everything in a 10-by-10 area. And it's a +20 *attack roll*, not a Reflex save. Actually... these are contradictory statements. The first says that you need movement to even attempt at a Reflex save. The second says that HD (and therefore, your Reflex bonus progression which is based upon that) is an abstract system that measures your "cosmic importance," which directly implies that it has nothing to do with movement really at all. Perhaps I have misinterpreted your intention. My apologies if that is the case. You get a Reflex save if it *would* be possible to avoid the trap through movement, whether you can actually move or not. If you make the save while helpless or immobile, then you make the save through luck rather than conscious movement (i.e. rather than you ducking the fireball, the fireball misses you -- rather than you jumping away from the gaping pit, you're caught on a protrusion). It was a purely demonstrative example used to illustrate the fact that there is a precedent for "inescapable" situations for which a reflex saving throw may normally be allowed. I'm not saying such situations are common by any stretch... just that they are possible. And that a Reflex saving throw would be allowed in many situations, were it not for the extenuating circumstances. Perhaps merely my parlance on this issue is simply too non-RAW for you guys. It's more about the fact that as a matter of game balance, you either let them have a save or you don't. Turning a situation where you get a saving throw into a "never miss" situation just because a character is helpless is unfair and unbalancing from a rules perspective -- it turns many situations into a simple one-two punch. Good grief... have we all actually become so rules-lawyerish that we are forbidden in this forum from discussing the fundamental design concepts that may have been laid down before the rules were put to text? Are we no longer allowed to think outside the box for a moment? Does theory have no place in this forum anymore? I suppose I'm just pitching concepts to the wrong crowd. "Theory" is kind of meaningless. There are a million and one ways that might make sense to describe a situation. The priority for making a game is game balance, not "realism".
MnemonicSV 03-10-08, 03:06 AM	Er... no. This is just WotC being inconsistent. In the actual description of "never miss" it simply says "never miss" refers to traps that don't grant either an attack roll or a saving throw. It draws no distinction between the two. Can you honestly make a coherent argument that a "Flooding Room" trap is a trap that *would* be an attack roll, but somehow the flooding water here has lost the ability it would normally have to "miss"? Come on. The water trap most certainly would not be an attack roll (following the train of thought I stated earlier). That's why it says "never miss" not "no attack roll required." Water filling from your ankles cannot be an attack roll obviously. Therefore, no, I cannot make a coherent argument that a flooding room would be an attack roll, because that was simply an argument I would never make. If you review my stance from my previous post, you will note that my stance does not support that even remotely. However, we can probably both agree that the "flooding room" really is an entirely different classification of trap since it uses it's own mechanics for surviving it, notably the rules for drowning. If it were some other inherently dangerous liquid (like acid), and the trap were not otherwise inescapable I would perhaps allow a reflex save to avoid some of the damage (climbing to higher ground, standing on your toes or on some equipment, yada yada). But again, that's theory. But about WOTC being inconsistent... "Come on" indeed. Pretty convenient that the formatting is formulaic in all trap descriptions in the DMG. Yet it is an "inconsistency" specifically where it doesn't happen to support your theory. How very convenient indeed. BTW... text trumps table. Even then, the fact that the table does not note a price modifier for "no attack roll necessary" is hardly justification that there is no distinction between the two. It is no justification of any kind. Look at that. It's a 10-by-10 block that comes down and hits everything in a 10-by-10 area. And it's a +20 *attack roll*, not a Reflex save. Um, no. A large number of spiked blocks falling from the ceiling simply is not, by definition, a large 10 ft square block filling the space. Re-read the title of the trap. A better trap for your argument would have been the "falling block" trap. But even then, it's just a block, not the entire ceiling. The attack roll entry suggests that it still leaves room for movement and escape: It does not leave you no room to move or entirely fill your space. It's more about the fact that as a matter of game balance, you either let them have a save or you don't. Turning a situation where you get a saving throw into a "never miss" situation just because a character is helpless is unfair and unbalancing from a rules perspective -- it turns many situations into a simple one-two punch. I agree with this completely. Which is why any responsible DM should tread with extreme caution when determining whether or not a trap should be deemed as inescapable. I would imagine that such situations would only occur in the rarest of instances, or in high level campaigns. However, to be clear, I have never stated that just because a character is "helpless" that any situation he's in should become "never miss." Perhaps you've confused some of my posts with those of others in this regard, which is understandable given the length this thread is becoming. Do I find it unlikely that a helpless character could possibly succeed at a reflex save? I certainly do. Have I ever stated "all helpless characters automatically fail their Reflex saves?" No, I have not. On the other side of the issue, I also find it unlikely that a running character who is unaware of a pit is not entitled to a Reflex save at all. I find that situation "not inescapable" even though the rules say otherwise. Personally, I would still allow a save even thought the rules say "no," based on the theory that he could reflexively catch himself on the other side of the pit. However, I suppose, to you, that theory is equally "meaningless..." "Theory" is kind of meaningless. There are a million and one ways that might make sense to describe a situation. The priority for making a game is game balance, not "realism". Theory is never meaningless. It gives DMs the tools they need to interpolate and extrapolate for situations which the rules simply do not cover. And if this forum is any measurement of that fact, there is quite a bit that is not covered by the rules. Heck... some of the Sage's advice is based upon theory. If people want to play a game without theory, they play something more linear... like a video game. Not D&D. It's a part of what makes this game great. In the strictest sense, the entire d20 system is a theory on simplification of real-life, and on the interaction of "magic" with the real world. However, you will be hard-pressed to find anyone on these forums who feels that the d20 theory is "meaningless" to the game. Besides, the priority of making a game is not game balance. It's "fun." Game balance comes a close second though. Believe it or not, sometimes inescapable situations can make the game more fun, because without risk (even the ultimate risk) there is little real value in the reward.
MnemonicSV 03-10-08, 03:34 AM	Hmmm... now that I take a step back and look over this thread, I get the feeling that continuing to post here will be irrelevant, because: A) I feel I have clearly presented my point of view of "situations when you may not be entitled to a saving throw." It is now up to others to read or ignore that view. B) I feel that expressing my thoughts further on this subject will just be a re-explaination of theories already thoroughly presented and discussed. C) I feel that my continued participation in this otherwise interesting thread subject will only serve to "hijack it." I have no desire to stand on a soapbox, or drone on and on without end about my theory's validity. I will continue to observe this thread however for the length of it's life, as I still find this subject interesting, with many conflicting points of view. As my final post in this thread, I merely suggest that everyone keep an open mind... and not fall into any "pitfalls" this subject may entail (pun intended).