Post/Author/DateTime	Post
sedai 11-17-06, 08:58 AM	i think its kind a silly. an wizard throws a widened fireball in an empty field. scorching a huge area. the rogue in the middle of this big area makes his save, and has no damage... ugh. riiiiight.... i was thinking to change the rule for evasion use for area effects, like breath weapons and fireballs... dodging a lightning strike i can understand, how the hell that rogue didn't get schorched i don't. so i began thinking of a variant rule. but i know that downpowering evasion would bring great dificulties with it : wizard suddenly overpowered, nobody wanting to take rogue or monk (altough that doesn't releally make sense) i wanted to change the rule to be able to walk, before the ball hits the ground, if they walk out of the area: no damage. if they hide under a huge rock, no damage... if they hide under a small rock. )50% cover) 75% damage.. (seeing as i always keep the atleast half damage reduction) so evasion would let you make a five foot step, or 10. and improved evasion 10-30 or evasion = 1/3 your speed improved evasion = your speed. i know didn't write all this stuff clearly, and its probaly full op gramatical errors or something of the like, but i hope you understood. now my question: what are your ideas on the subject? how bad is this alternative, or how good?
calvinNhobbes 11-17-06, 02:15 PM	What makes you think a fireball or fire breath completely and perfectly fills the entire volume with fire? I think of fireballs exploding more like a firework, sending streaks of fire randomly throughout the sphere of effect. Someone freakishly quick and agile can dodge said effect.
sedai 11-17-06, 03:37 PM	true, altough there are other stuff, like things with a blast radius, the blast itself is what does the damage, and that thing goes everywhere... and my mental picture of a fireball was sort of the flame-everywhere incinerating picture you sometimes see in dragon ball z like stuff on tv :)...
Voldar_Mecorthio 11-17-06, 03:56 PM	If Fireball acts like a pyroclasm then I understand, but I agree with calvinNhobbes in that I think it's more like an explosion that can be avoided.
Thought 11-17-06, 03:58 PM	If you want to solve this "problem" I would suggest in-game occurances, rather than changing its out of game effect. That is, if an area gets totally filled with a blast radius, the rogue or whoever must be moved to just outside that radius (improved evasion allowed them to outrun the explosion, ala Return of the Jedi Death Star scene). If the characters are in a confined space, which the spell will utterly fill, then yes the character should take some damage. Basically, you are the DM. It is up to you to realistically express the player's abilities; if it can't be done, do the best you can. However, I would recommend letting the players know this before hand.
calvinNhobbes 11-17-06, 04:19 PM	If the characters are in a confined space, which the spell will utterly fill, then yes the character should take some damage. I disagree as this is blatantly disregarding a rule to make magic more "realistic". Magic and spells are not realistic. Why not change them to make the event realistic instead of changing what is real to match the imaginary spell? Basically, you are the DM. It is up to you to realistically express the player's abilities; if it can't be done, do the best you can. It is much easier to change something and imagine what happens if it is already imaginary than it is to change all the rules to model something that has no basis in reality.
SeattleLightning 11-17-06, 04:21 PM	I have no problem with the rule, as it stands in the core rule books. From what you wrote it sounds like your objection is not that Evasion/Improved Evasion are over powered, but simply that they defy your sense of logic. If that is your concern, if I had to rule, I would rule that if the rogue in question can make it outside of the AoE with his current movement, then he has the option to do so, thus avoiding the damage. But consider this, a normal character, without either ability, is able to take half damage without moving to a different square by making a reflex save. This could be something as simple as putting your arms infront of your face to keep your eyebrows from being singed. My inclination is simply to leave the rule as it stands.
calvinNhobbes 11-17-06, 04:26 PM	true, altough there are other stuff, like things with a blast radius, the blast itself is what does the damage, and that thing goes everywhere... and my mental picture of a fireball was sort of the flame-everywhere incinerating picture you sometimes see in dragon ball z like stuff on tv :)... You can visualize a fireball like that if you want, but then it doesn't make sense how you can ever avoid damage from it. If that is how a fireball really was then a fireball would not allow for a reflex save because it would be impossible to avoid. I think there SHOULD be more spells like that (especially at higher levels) that don't allow reflex saves but do less damage. Also spells do not follow physics at all. Even fireball has littel basis in physics. Read the spell description. It says it is an explosion, but then says it is an explosion that creates almost no pressure. Uh....you can't have an explosion without pressure, it's physically impossible. Magic is random and chaotic. Trying to mold reality around something that is imaginary doesn't make much sense. Instead mold the magic around reality.
sedai 11-18-06, 04:43 AM	ok, thanks for the comment all, i am now more inclined to leave it as it is.. and just give more spelldescriptions, better for the game maybe if done that way :) thanks alot.
Thought 11-20-06, 11:21 AM	I disagree as this is blatantly disregarding a rule to make magic more "realistic". Magic and spells are not realistic. Why not change them to make the event realistic instead of changing what is real to match the imaginary spell? This actually touches on an entirely different topic, but one that should guide any DM in almost any rules decision. That is the Suspension of Disbelief. In order to enjoy any story, the reader/viewer/listener must be able to suspend their disbelief, their knowledge that this isn't real, in order to connect with the themes, characters, and situations. The suspension of disbelief is the reality that one needs to maintain, not the reality of the "real world." Of course, the threshold will vary depending on the story telling skills of the DM and the nature of the players. As such, IF players find that their suspension of disbelief is challenged or broken by allowing improved evasion to utterly negate damage from an area fill spell, then it is irresponsible of the DM to not adjust the situation and rules accordingly. If possible, a basic description that doesn't alter the games rules is the best course of action. However, if that isn't possible then it is better to change the rules than for the game to become unbelievable for the players (it doesn't matter at all if magic is realistic or not in its own right; it isn't the type of realism that Suspension of Disbelief is concerned with). Do not assume that by preserving the rules for Improved Evasion you are preserving the games rules; doing so adjusts the rules for the spell itself. The entire purpose of area effect spells is that they affect an area, not just random parts of an area. Indeed, it effects the game's rules less if you merely state that Improved Evasion only negates all damage if it is feasibly possible (otherwise 1/4th damage is taken, or some such), rather than adjusting every single area effect spell. But as I said, it is about preserving the Suspension of Disbelief of the players. To a large extent, you have to know the players in order to know what they will simply find unbelievable. Adjust the rules (and this forum in entirely about adjusting the rules) according to that, not some general guideline that supposedly would work for everyone.
calvinNhobbes 11-20-06, 12:20 PM	This actually touches on an entirely different topic, but one that should guide any DM in almost any rules decision. That is the Suspension of Disbelief. In order to enjoy any story, the reader/viewer/listener must be able to suspend their disbelief, their knowledge that this isn't real, in order to connect with the themes, characters, and situations. The suspension of disbelief is the reality that one needs to maintain, not the reality of the "real world." Of course, the threshold will vary depending on the story telling skills of the DM and the nature of the players. Yes, a certain amount of suspension of disbelief is required for any fantasy setting. However, without some connection to the real world it is difficult to become involved or understand the setting. Example, almost all fantasy settings have humans. Why? Because it provides a connection to reality to base the fantastic aspects of the game on. It provides a baseline of normality. As such, IF players find that their suspension of disbelief is challenged or broken by allowing improved evasion to utterly negate damage from an area fill spell, then it is irresponsible of the DM to not adjust the situation and rules accordingly. Disagree, the DM merely needs to explain the situation within the aspect of the rules. If he cannot then he is not creative enough and should probably not DM. If possible, a basic description that doesn't alter the games rules is the best course of action. However, if that isn't possible then it is better to change the rules than for the game to become unbelievable for the players (it doesn't matter at all if magic is realistic or not in its own right; it isn't the type of realism that Suspension of Disbelief is concerned with). Disagree. The best course of action is to describe the imaginary aspects of the game in a way that fits the game rules Do not assume that by preserving the rules for Improved Evasion you are preserving the games rules; doing so adjusts the rules for the spell itself. The entire purpose of area effect spells is that they affect an area, not just random parts of an area. Indeed, it effects the game's rules less if you merely state that Improved Evasion only negates all damage if it is feasibly possible (otherwise 1/4th damage is taken, or some such), rather than adjusting every single area effect spell. This is incorrect. An area effect does NOT effect everything in the area. It has the ABILITY to do so, but it does not automatically. IF it did then no save would be allowed. But as I said, it is about preserving the Suspension of Disbelief of the players. To a large extent, you have to know the players in order to know what they will simply find unbelievable. Adjust the rules (and this forum in entirely about adjusting the rules) according to that, not some general guideline that supposedly would work for everyone. Yes you should suspend disbelief about magic and other fantastic elements of the game (ie. spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities), but extraordinary abilites have a basis in reality and therefore should be described using realism and the game rules while bending the imaginary elements (which can be adjsuted however you want to without straining since they do not exist in reality to begin with) to fit around them. This method is easier to believe and easier to employ since you do not have to waste time changing and balancing rules.
True Cavalier 11-20-06, 01:55 PM	Just my 2 cents, I'm already using a rule similar to the one suggested, though a bit more "kind" to the player with improved evasion. My group has had no trouble with it, and I like the added realism. And yes, I do expect realism even from magic. That's not a hard concept to grasp, really, and it annoys me when people go "OMG REALISM IN D&D?" News Flash: Some people just like rules that make sense. :rolleyes:
calvinNhobbes 11-20-06, 02:24 PM	And yes, I do expect realism even from magic. That's not a hard concept to grasp, really, and it annoys me when people go "OMG REALISM IN D&D?" News Flash: Some people just like rules that make sense. :rolleyes: Really? So you think it is realistic that people can dodge a lightning bolt, or even survive a direct hit from said lightning bolt? Hell, you think it is realistic that someone can shoot a lightning bolt out of their hand? Really? I shudder to think what reality you live in. :rolleyes:
True Cavalier 11-21-06, 12:57 PM	So you think it is realistic that people can dodge a lightning bolt I think that the person casting the bolt can actually miss once in a while? even survive a direct hit from said lightning bolt? People survive direct hits from lightning bolts all the time. Most that do die, it is because of cardiac arrest and not by the wounds. Others because electricity "disorients" the function of the heart. But it doesn't matter because about 75% of people struck by lightning actually survive. Hell, you think it is realistic that someone can shoot a lightning bolt out of their hand? In the Forgotten Realms it is everyday occurence, duh.
calvinNhobbes 11-21-06, 02:02 PM	I think that the person casting the bolt can actually miss once in a while? That is not the same as reflexive dodging, that is the attacker missing, that implies that you think a ranged touch attack should be used for a lightning bolt. People survive direct hits from lightning bolts all the time. Most that do die, it is because of cardiac arrest and not by the wounds. Others because electricity "disorients" the function of the heart. But it doesn't matter because about 75% of people struck by lightning actually survive. So you are saying the lightning bolt spell is not realistic and since you demand realism from your magic, I guess you should change the lightning bolt spell to a save or die spell requiring a fortitude save that should succeed ~75% of the time. Or perhaps magic does not have a basis in reality. In the Forgotten Realms it is everyday occurence, duh. Where is this Forgotten Realms? I've never heard of this country before. Could you please point it out on a map of Earth? Oh, what's that, it's an imaginary place that does not exist in the real world thereby automatically disqualifying it in a discussion on realism.
hiryuu 11-22-06, 01:59 AM	If the blast is short and to the point it's actually relatively easy. The expanding ball of fire consumes oxygen, and it's very tightly, perfectly controlled, which means it would be a very thin membrane of fire bursting outward. At the right moment, turn your back and then dive low into the membrane and come up like you're bursting out of a pool. You'll ride the concussion about a foot and have some minor scorch marks on your clothes, but you'll be otherwise okay, and the rush of air inwards after the explosion of the spell will put out any fires the fireball actually started.
runestar 11-22-06, 02:10 AM	If the rogue is wearing a cape, you can think of it as him using the cape to deflect the flames away from him.:) Sameway how the flash made those jets of flame curve round him in one episode of Justice League...:P
Tyler Do'Urden 11-22-06, 03:16 AM	i think its kind a silly.That's a phase. Lots of players/groups go through that, just like comparing max damage and trying to figure out ways to kill people with prestidigitation. This too shall pass. Evasion isn't broken, so don't fix it.
True Cavalier 11-23-06, 03:54 PM	CalvinNhobbes you make less sense with every post of yours. You say "OMG no one survives lightning" I tell you it happens, and you change the subject. You say "OMG realism in D&D? D&D isn't real so it doesn't need realism!" and I say that still the worlds of D&D are governed by SOME laws, and you insist that the D&D worlds are just fantastic? A mage casting lightning bolt is not "real", but he is real in the context of a fantasty world. A random guy dodging a blast of fire without, oh I don't know, without moving from his spot, is not even real in a fantasy world. Sure, some people argue that it IS, but you act like you cannot separate the two. But maybe in your campaigns old peasants open their mouths wide and swallow whole dragons - Realism? What realism? The game setting is not real, duh! PS If I say that... a sword cut through someone's wrist has a 50% chance of killing him - HEY, I KNOW! Why don't you turn it into death magic with 50% chance of working? :looloo:
Leress 11-23-06, 11:56 PM	I know this doesn't work for everyone but I use a simple to determine if I need to change something. Does it make the game less fun? if the answer is no, it stays. If yes then changes are in order.
calvinNhobbes 11-26-06, 11:14 PM	A mage casting lightning bolt is not "real", but he is real in the context of a fantasty world. A random guy dodging a blast of fire without, oh I don't know, without moving from his spot, is not even real in a fantasy world. This has got to be one of the most hilarious posts I have ever read. I mean really, get over yourself True Cavalier. Sure, some people argue that it IS, but you act like you cannot separate the two. But maybe in your campaigns old peasants open their mouths wide and swallow whole dragons - Realism? What realism? The game setting is not real, duh! Um....you are the moron demanding in one sentence that magic should be "realistic" and then saying it is unrealistic you can dodge a fireball. Uh.... say what? Try reading the pathetic dribble you are actually writing.
True Cavalier 11-27-06, 03:42 AM	First, This has got to be one of the most hilarious posts I have ever read. I mean really, get over yourself True Cavalier. Hilarious? You have a retarted sense of humour mon amie. Second, demanding in one sentence that magic should be "realistic" and then saying it is unrealistic you can dodge a fireball. Duh? That makes perfect sense. Or maybe you fail to understand what I am trying to say from the beginning? Which is exactly what I quoted. Lol. Third, At which point in this thread did you think it ok to call me a "moron", moron? Or are you unable to have a disagreement without taking it personally?
TheDarkLord 11-27-06, 04:06 AM	Just for the sake of argument. When my father was getting ready for our house to be built, we had some trees to chop down. We stacked the wood and branches and was going to make a bonfire out of it that night. My father had been drinking a little by the time we started the bonfire. The fire wasn't to big at first so my dad decided to throw some kerosene on it to get it going. The next thing I knew my dad was covered from about the knees up in a large flash flame. The flame resided quickly but my dad wasn't even hurt, perhaps slightly, and I do mean very slightly singed but nothing else. The gas can was empty an I think the fumes burned out during the flash flame, no explosions whatsoever. That's kinda the way I think of the Fireball spell, though he isn't a rogue, and definitely Does NOT have evasion of any kind whatsoever, he was able to come out of it undamaged. A good reflex might have been to simply close his mouth and eyes so they wouldn't be burned. To this day we are still unsure of what happened.
calvinNhobbes 11-27-06, 09:40 AM	Hilarious? You have a retarted sense of humour mon amie. Yes hilarious, and a little sad too, at how rudimentary your logic is. Duh? That makes perfect sense. Or maybe you fail to understand what I am trying to say from the beginning? Which is exactly what I quoted. Lol. The fact that you think it makes perfect sense that someone should be able to shoot a fireball out of their hand, but not make sense that someone should be able to dodge said fireball allows me to come to only one conclusion; you are not very creative, smart, or both. At which point in this thread did you think it ok to call me a "moron", moron? Or are you unable to have a disagreement without taking it personally? See above, as well as your initial insult in saying my posts make no sense, using the word "duh" to indicate I am stupid, and then using the crazy smily face to further insult. You initiated the insults first. So apparently it is you who took it personally.
True Cavalier 11-27-06, 11:14 AM	Well you just keep undermining your own intellect, or you are blind, or you are simply silly and think you can take my words as you prefer without anyone noticing The fact that you think it makes perfect sense that someone should be able to shoot a fireball out of their hand, but not make sense that someone should be able to dodge said fireball allows me to come to only one conclusion; you are not very creative, smart, or both. I said "dodge said fireball without moving". If you can't tell the difference, well, just lol, there is no point in continuing the arguement, I generally don't see the point in arguing with people with the IQ of cheese-pie.
calvinNhobbes 11-27-06, 11:40 AM	Well you just keep undermining your own intellect, or you are blind, or you are simply silly and think you can take my words as you prefer without anyone noticing. Hello kettle, you are black. I said "dodge said fireball without moving". Please quote the rules text it says dodging a fireball requires you to move. You have already made the statement that you think it makes sense to be able to miss with an imaginary lightning bolt, but for some reason you can not use the same logic to deduce you can also miss with an imaginary fireball. If you cannot see the gaping holes your argument, I cannot help you. It is obvious you are not smart enough to understand. If you can't tell the difference, well, just lol, there is no point in continuing the arguement, I generally don't see the point in arguing with people with the IQ of cheese-pie. Once again you show your immaturity with further insults. You have failed to prove your point. All you have shown is you lack creativity and intelligence. Please stop posting and save yourself further embarrassment.
Thought 11-27-06, 02:42 PM	Please quote the rules text it says dodging a fireball requires you to move. If I might be so bold, if you are going to strictly hold to the rules-as-published in the Core Books, then perhaps the House Rules forum, a forum specifically dedicated to deviating from the Core Rule Books, isn't the best place for you. You have already made the statement that you think it makes sense to be able to miss with an imaginary lightning bolt, but for some reason you can not use the same logic to deduce you can also miss with an imaginary fireball. If you cannot see the gaping holes your argument, I cannot help you. Perhaps I can help you see why these "gaping holes" aren't so gaping. A lighting bolt has a rather limited area of effect; one has to be struck by it (which is another whole can of "realism" worms). Based on fulgurite ("petrified lightning") can assume that a lightning bolt is smaller in diameter than a character's wrist. While it would be an extraordinary feat (hence, improved evasion), something so relatively small could be dodged. It isn't a matter of area, merely speed; a character wouldn't need to move out of a 5ft square box to dodge a wizard's lightning bolt. Dodging lightning in this case is a matter of twisting your body. A Fireball, on the other hand, is a bit trickier. As the spell leaves the wizard's hand, it is only the size of a Ping-Pong ball. Smaller than a lightning bolt, and thus one might imagine it is easier to dodge without moving. However, that ping pong ball can explode. For the sake of ease, let us assume that the wizard has it detonating right in the 5ft square that a character is standing in. A 20ft radius sphere is now subjected to a firestorm. Even if the character dodged the Ping-Pong ball form of the fireball, how can an area effect explosion be dodged by a twist of a body? There is no where (within that 20ft sphere) to move to that doesn't already have fire. Dodging part of the spell's effect would only move one to another "part" of the spells effect. The only plausible way that a character could avoid such an effect is to, essentially, outrun the flames. Or, to put it into game terms, dodging a lightning bolt requires so little movement (albeit, good senses and fast reflexes) that it could count as a free action. Dodging a fireball explosion, however, requires at least a move action (if not a double move). Since improved evasion occurs when the character is attacked (aka, not during the characters turn), a move equivalent action is not generally allowed. Furthermore, as long as a character can twist, a character could dodge lightning. A character has to move to dodge a fireball. If a character can't move at all (totally immobilized), then that character can't dodge a lightning bolt. If a character can't move to outside the blast radius of the fireball, a character can't dodge the fireball. It is obvious you are not smart enough to understand. In general, it is best not to challenge other people's intelligences. If you can't understand a person's argument, it might mean that their argument is gibberish. However, it also might mean that the problem lies with your own mind, not the argument. You have failed to prove your point. All you have shown is you lack creativity and intelligence. Please stop posting and save yourself further embarrassment. Actually, no. True Cavalier did prove his point (fairly well too). Besides, you are the one who lacks the creativity to imagine a world where the rulebooks aren't the end all, be all. And please, don't talk about the validity of other people's logic when you resort to logical fallacies (factual error, ad hominem attacks, false dilemma, appeal to authority, etc) BUT REGARDLESS, I believe Leress gave the best answer to the original question in the most succinct manner. Does it make the game less fun? if the answer is no, it stays. If yes then changes are in order. If, as it is present in the core rule books, Improved Evasion makes the game less fun (by challenging a player's Suspension of Disbelief), then it should (nay, must) be changed. If, however, it doesn't make the game less fun, keep it as is. As a side note, considering that this thread seems to be degrading from its original intent, perhaps it is best if everyone ceases posting, unless new arguments or perspectives can be contributed.
calvinNhobbes 11-27-06, 04:18 PM	If I might be so bold, if you are going to strictly hold to the rules-as-published in the Core Books, then perhaps the House Rules forum, a forum specifically dedicated to deviating from the Core Rule Books, isn't the best place for you. The OP came looking for a house rule because he said the RAW did not make logical sense. I gave him an example that showed the RAW did in fact logically explain the situation. True Cavalier then says the RAW are in fact illogical because they are not realistic and uses imaginary magic as the basis for his logical and realistic argument. The discussion of whether evasion needs to be house ruled for realism is the current debate and I would say quite relevant to this particalar forum. Wouldn't you argree? Or are you arguing for the sake of arguing because True Cavalier appears he needs the help? Perhaps I can help you see why these "gaping holes" aren't so gaping. A lighting bolt has a rather limited area of effect; one has to be struck by it (which is another whole can of "realism" worms). That is wrong. IF you needed to be struck by the lightnign bolt it would involve a ranged touch attack. It does not. It is an area of effect spell. Please review the relevant rules before engaging in the conversation. Your ingnorance is apparent. Based on fulgurite ("petrified lightning") can assume that a lightning bolt is smaller in diameter than a character's wrist. You can assume this, but that has no bearing at all on what magical lightning is. All we know of the lightning bolt spell is that is effects an area 5 feet wide with a magical electrical attack. Anything else is flavor. If you want to think of it that way you can. While it would be an extraordinary feat (hence, improved evasion), something so relatively small could be dodged. It isn't a matter of area, merely speed; a character wouldn't need to move out of a 5ft square box to dodge a wizard's lightning bolt. Dodging lightning in this case is a matter of twisting your body. Oh is that all. Let's put you between a couple of electrodes and see how good at dodging you are. Dodging electricity is not realistic. Dodging magical spells of any kind in a fantasy is realistic for the fantasy world. Perhaps magical spells do not mimic the real world as closely as you asume. A Fireball, on the other hand, is a bit trickier. As the spell leaves the wizard's hand, it is only the size of a Ping-Pong ball. Smaller than a lightning bolt, and thus one might imagine it is easier to dodge without moving. All this is your own flavor you have imagined and has no support by the rules descriptions of the spells. You release a powerful stroke of electrical energy that deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to each creature within its area. The area of a line is defined by the game rules as 5 feet wide. No where in the spell description does is say how wide the electrical energy is. You are assuming purely for flavor reasons based of what occurs in our own natural world where magic does NOT exist. You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. The spell description states that the fireball is actually pea sized not ping pong sized. However, that ping pong ball can explode. For the sake of ease, let us assume that the wizard has it detonating right in the 5ft square that a character is standing in. Yes it explodes. The spell description also says it detonates, and even blossoms. A 20ft radius sphere is now subjected to a firestorm. Please quote the rules text that states the 20 ft radius in subject to a firestorm. A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure. You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely. The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does. Here is the entire SRD entry for the spell description for fireball. Where does is say a firestorm forms in the entire 20 ft sphere? Is doesn't. A firework explodes, detonates, and blossums. There is nothing in the RAW that says a fireball creates a solid sphere of flames. It could explode like a grenade or firework. Even if the character dodged the Ping-Pong ball form of the fireball, how can an area effect explosion be dodged by a twist of a body? See where your argument is falling apart. The lightning bolt spell as an area effect of 5 feet wide, but you ASSUME the bolt is narrower (even though you have no proof) and can be dodged, but then you ASSUME the opposite for the fireball. The area of effect only means that everything in that area can be affected by the spell. IF a saving throw is allowed it means the spell can in someway be dodged while remaining within your starting square. Take a step back from what you think or want a fireball to be like and instead realize that perhaps you need to reevaluate your false preceptions. There is no where (within that 20ft sphere) to move to that doesn't already have fire. If that was the case then no saving throw would be allowed. This is not the case, therefore you are wrong. Dodging part of the spell's effect would only move one to another "part" of the spells effect. The only plausible way that a character could avoid such an effect is to, essentially, outrun the flames. Not if the fireball exploded like a firework or gernade, sending streams of fire radially from the point of detonation. Or, to put it into game terms, dodging a lightning bolt requires so little movement (albeit, good senses and fast reflexes) that it could count as a free action. Dodging a fireball explosion, however, requires at least a move action (if not a double move). This is wrong once again, both require a reflex save. You are just visualizing the effect of the fireball incorrectly as I have already pointed out. Since improved evasion occurs when the character is attacked (aka, not during the characters turn), a move equivalent action is not generally allowed. Furthermore, as long as a character can twist, a character could dodge lightning. A character has to move to dodge a fireball. If a character can't move at all (totally immobilized), then that character can't dodge a lightning bolt. If a character can't move to outside the blast radius of the fireball, a character can't dodge the fireball. You do realize how silly you sound trying to justify why someone should be able to dodge lightning and not fire, right? Please show me a movie of someone dodging a lightning bolt. Neither situation is realistic, why? BECAUSE it is imaginary, magical scenario that does not involve REAL lightning or fire. In general, it is best not to challenge other people's intelligences. If you can't understand a person's argument, it might mean that their argument is gibberish. However, it also might mean that the problem lies with your own mind, not the argument. True Cavalier intiated the insults using the term "duh" after his statements towards me. Actually, no. True Cavalier did prove his point (fairly well too). No he didn't, and neither did you as I have already pointed out, once again Besides, you are the one who lacks the creativity to imagine a world where the rulebooks aren't the end all. :rolleyes: Last time I checked this is a game. Anytime you want to go outside and dodge fireballs and lightning bolts, let me know. You and TC are the ones trying to say the GAME is not realistic because it allows you to dodge fireballs. You are the one restricting yourselves through a lack of creativity. The rules in this case are trying to allow maximum flexibility and you two refuse to open your fragile little minds. So sad, so very very sad.
Reversefigure4 11-27-06, 05:22 PM	If you don't like Evasion's fluff, change the fluff, not the crunch. Instead of "dodging" the fireball, the Rogue now evades by going transparent and using his inate Evady magic to allow the fire to pass around him without damage. If he's not fast enough to do it (fails the Ref save), he gets burned. Alternatively, the Rogue whips his hands around incredibly fast, putting out the fire the second it catches. Perhaps he throws his cloak over his face. Perhaps he moves like The Flash, dodging the shot and moving back to his position again before anyone can blink.
calvinNhobbes 11-27-06, 05:35 PM	As further support of my argument, please reference the meteor swarm spell. Meteor swarm is a very powerful and spectacular spell that is similar to fireball in many aspects. When you cast it, four 2-foot-diameter spheres spring from your outstretched hand and streak in straight lines to the spots you select. The meteor spheres leave a fiery trail of sparks. If you aim a sphere at a specific creature, you may make a ranged touch attack to strike the target with the meteor. Any creature struck by one of these spheres takes 2d6 points of bludgeoning damage (no save) and receives no saving throw against the sphere’s fire damage (see below). If a targeted sphere misses its target, it simply explodes at the nearest corner of the target’s space. You may aim more than one meteor at the same target. Once a sphere reaches its destination, it explodes in a 40-foot-radius spread, dealing 6d6 points of fire damage to each creature in the area. If a creature is within the area of more than one sphere, it must save separately against each. (Fire resistance applies to each sphere’s damage individually.) Note how it requires a ranged touch attack, AND if it hits does not allow a save from the explosion. If it misses then a save is allowed. Fireball does not have a ranged touch attack and therefore always allows a save. Something about how magical fire explodes allows for the possibility of it being dodged. I have proposed an explanation that works, which the OP actually accepted and moved on. What is your proof a magical fireball can't be dodged? If you don't like Evasion's fluff, change the fluff, not the crunch. Instead of "dodging" the fireball, the Rogue now evades by going transparent and using his inate Evady magic to allow the fire to pass around him without damage. If he's not fast enough to do it (fails the Ref save), he gets burned. Alternatively, the Rogue whips his hands around incredibly fast, putting out the fire the second it catches. Perhaps he throws his cloak over his face. Perhaps he moves like The Flash, dodging the shot and moving back to his position again before anyone can blink. Yes you could do this, but then you have to explain how "evady magic" is an extraordinary ability that can not be dispelled and also works in an anti-magic field.
Thought 11-27-06, 09:08 PM	The OP came looking for a house rule because he said the RAW did not make logical sense. I gave him an example that showed the RAW did in fact logically explain the situation. Good show, full credit for effort. Of course, other people pointed out that RAW did not make logical sense and thus pointed out as such appropriately and logically. Your inability to understand that valid answers can exist apart from your own is the problem, especially in a forum where such things are to be expected. Merely discarding people's arguments because they do not follow the rules in such a circumstance is rather nonsensical. True Cavalier then says the RAW are in fact illogical because they are not realistic and uses imaginary magic as the basis for his logical and realistic argument. The discussion of whether evasion needs to be house ruled for realism is the current debate and I would say quite relevant to this particalar forum. Wouldn't you argree? Or are you arguing for the sake of arguing because True Cavalier appears he needs the help? Oh there are better places to argue if arguing were the point, rather it is the preservation of a fundamental idea. As I did in my previous post, I will reference you to Leress' comment. That is the best judge of if something needs to be modified for realism. Your adherence to dogma and my appeals to reason and the real world are merely secondary, at best. That is wrong. IF you needed to be struck by the lightnign bolt it would involve a ranged touch attack. It does not. It is an area of effect spell. Please review the relevant rules before engaging in the conversation. Your ingnorance is apparent. Pish posh, the only thing that is apparent is that you can't follow the subtle nature of an argument. Notice how I give an example of an example of a lightning bolt, then an example of fireball, THEN relate those arguments to the game. When I address the game rules specifically, I try to make it clear. Since I didn't indicate as such, I was referencing the world as we know it. Thus the point isn't that lightning bolt is ranged or isn't ranged; lightning will arc to the nearest means of grounding, thus why DnD interprets it as an area effect spell. If lightning passes a character, chances are it hits that character. However, since in a given area a lightning bolt has a comparatively finite "mass" (technically no mass, being energy) and area, it can reasonably be evaded. You can assume this, but that has no bearing at all on what magical lightning is. Quite right. Of course, in a world to which we might apply reason, lightning from the sky can be expected to behave in a similar manner to lightning from a wizard's hand (else wise it wouldn't have been named after the natural event, now would it?). Oh is that all. Let's put you between a couple of electrodes and see how good at dodging you are. Dodging electricity is not realistic. Dodging magical spells of any kind in a fantasy is realistic for the fantasy world. Perhaps magical spells do not mimic the real world as closely as you asume. Again, you fail to understand subtle differences. Dodging the arcing electricity produced by two electrodes requires different sets of circumstances. Specifically, instead of dodging a single bolt of lightning, one must dodge the electrical currents multiple times as they arc back and forth. This is a perfect example of how you do not grasp logical arguments. Instead of addressing the likelihood of dodging a single bolt of lightning, you have created a strawman argument to knock down. All this is your own flavor you have imagined and has no support by the rules descriptions of the spells. Sort of. If by "my own flavor" you mean the description presented in the player's handbook, then yes. Shall I quote? ... A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointed digit and unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into... But considering that you seem to have mistaken my comments regarding Fireball for comments regarding lightning bolt (again, you fail to notice important details in a person's argument), I will let that one slide. The area of a line is defined by the game rules as 5 feet wide. No where in the spell description does is say how wide the electrical energy is. You are assuming purely for flavor reasons based of what occurs in our own natural world where magic does NOT exist. As for lightning bolt and a line, sorry. When it comes to defining the English language, I will go with Webster over Wizards, as anyone who wants to communicate in English will do. A line is a one dimensional concept; it can be five feet long, but not wide. As mentioned before, lightning tends to take the shortest route from its point of origin to a grounding object. Thus, if a lightning bolt passes near a grounding object (like a character in a square) it will bend to meet it. Fire does not behave in a similar manner. And no, I am not assuming for flavor, I am assuming for believability. Your argument that "it is magic, so it doesn't follow the laws of nature" is nothing more than DM handwaving. Yes, magic doesn't exist in the real world. Lightning does. The magic that produces lightning can't really be explained scientifically. The lightning that is produced, however, should follow those laws with which we are familiar. Please quote the rules text that states the 20 ft radius in subject to a firestorm. Details, m'boy, details. You can't expect to follow an argument if you ignore the details. Notice how I used phrases such as "for the sake of ease" and "let us assume." These are phrases that should indicate a person is not using specifics but vague estimations, since the specifics do not influence the point. And again, I must reference you to Webster if you don't understand the difference between "firestorm" and "fire storm." I suspect you think I am referencing the spell (indeed, it skipped my mind until you revealed your confusion), rather than the noun. A firestorm is merely "a raging fire of great intensity that spreads quickly." Fireball fits such a description. As for a 20ft sphere, let me reference you to the Area for Fireball; "20ft radius spread." Radius can imply either a circle or a sphere (but it must imply at least one). This is perfectly at ease with explosions, which are inherently spherical. Or, because the explosion was produced by magic, are we to assume that it too doesn't apparently adhere to any known laws of physics? It could explode like a grenade or firework. Again you miss the key elements that make some people's arguments reasonable and your arguments nonsensical. First, I am somewhat sure you do not mean as a firework explodes, but rather as a firework is set off. These are different concepts (as a firework can do both). When a firework is set off, the chemical reaction is controlled (which means it is not an explosion). This is what one might see in the sky on the 4th of July. A firework that explodes is not controlled. This is what one might see on the news on the 5th of July. The force of an exploding firework (or a grenade) expands in a spherical manner, unless outside forces have shaped the explosion (and to my knowledge no one is arguing that fireballs are really shaped explosives). The debris of such explosions might be somewhat random (everyone in the explosion's radius will be hit by the explosion, but not everyone will be hit by the debris). A fireball does not have a material container, thus it does not have debris, and thus it will explode like any other explosion, in an expanding sphere from its point of origin. See where your argument is falling apart. The lightning bolt spell as an area effect of 5 feet wide, but you ASSUME the bolt is narrower (even though you have no proof) and can be dodged, but then you ASSUME the opposite for the fireball. The area of effect only means that everything in that area can be affected by the spell. IF a saving throw is allowed it means the spell can in someway be dodged while remaining within your starting square. Take a step back from what you think or want a fireball to be like and instead realize that perhaps you need to reevaluate your false preceptions. Guess someone will have to tell Tesla that he needs to reevaluate his false perceptions. But no, my argument has not fallen apart, since as of yet you have only made two valid points: 1) you at one point responded to the original topic and 2) a fireball is pea-sized, not ping-pong sized. My proof, of which you claim I have none, is the real world. You can physically go look at what petrified lightning looks like, to get an idea of the area involved in the forces of lightning. If the physical, verifiable world is not proof, then again I must reference you to Webster so that you may find out what proof actually means. I assume a limited area effect for lightning because lightning, as found in nature, has a comparatively limited space, where as an explosion, as found in nature, has a comparatively unlimited space. That is, a lightning bolt that arcs through sphere of a 20ft radius will not hit every single thing in that radius. An explosion that reaches a 20ft radius will. These assumptions are not assumptions but expressions of those behaviors noted in nature. If you want to argue with how lightning or explosions work in the real world, that is perfectly fine. If not, then your argument needs to be why the observable world should not be duplicated, to the best of one's abilities, in an imaginary world. As mentioned, DM handwaving doesn't count. If that was the case then no saving throw would be allowed. This is not the case, therefore you are wrong. Good lord man, is it really so hard to believe that the rules expressed in the core handbooks, and as discussed in the House Rules, are not the final word in a matter?! The entire point of the argument is that the save allowed by Improved Evasion is unreasonable. Therefore, you are using circular logic to say that the save allowed by Improved Evasion is the way it is because otherwise it wouldn't allow a save. A reflex save allows a character to take half damage. Just because one can't dodge an explosion doesn't mean there isn't anything else one can do to reduce the damage from that explosion. The force created by an explosion (and in this case, also by the fire) will affect a character depending on surface area (and since you seem to have problems telling the difference, this is a real world argument, not a DnD argument at this point). A character that can protect vital body parts from a blast will receive less damage (to those body parts, at least), and a character that can reduce his or her overall surface area will also reduce the damage. For this, allow me to reference you to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People who survived (and even those who didn't) were not uniformly burned. Their skin was protected by garments that they were wearing, buildings or other objects they were behind, etc. Since something was in front of the surface area, that surface area was protected from an explosion far greater than what the rules describe fireball as having. As it relates to the game; a reflex save allows for half damage. A player asks how. You now know how. Not if the fireball exploded like a firework or gernade, sending streams of fire radially from the point of detonation. Which would be a wonderful idea, if it wasn't bunk. See above. This is wrong once again, both require a reflex save. You are just visualizing the effect of the fireball incorrectly as I have already pointed out. If you leave it at "both require reflex save" then that is just DM handwaving. But I never said one didn't require a reflex save. Perhaps if you were paying attention to the details, as you seem averse to doing, then you would notice that I didn't say anything about reflex saves there. In both situations a reflex save is required; but one situation allows for a comparatively reasonable reflex save, the other one would negate it through circumstances. You do realize how silly you sound trying to justify why someone should be able to dodge lightning and not fire, right? Please show me a movie of someone dodging a lightning bolt. Neither situation is realistic, why? BECAUSE it is imaginary, magical scenario that does not involve REAL lightning or fire. Lightning and fire/explosions are totally different forces in the world; they behave in a quantifiably different manner from each other. You are taking a single rule, Improved Evasion, and applying it to two different forces in two different circumstances that will behave in two different manners. I am taking the same rule and applying it as the situation merits, not across the board. If the game calls for apples, treat them as apple. If the game calls for oranges, treat them as oranges. Do not treat apples as oranges just because the rules only refer to fruit, and especially do not treat them the same when it unnecessarily challenges a player's suspension of disbelief. Since you seem to either not care or to have missed it, let me clarify the above point again. IF the rules, as is, challenge a player’s suspension of disbelief, THEN the rules must be changed to address the issue. If, however, the rules do not challenge that suspension, then the rules do not need to be changed. And once again, claiming that a situation behaves irrationally because it is imaginary is nothing more than DM handwaving. Believability is a key component of any game; if the rules as they exist are not realistic, and this lack of realism offends the sensibility of the players, then realism must prevail. True Cavalier intiated the insults using the term "duh" after his statements towards me. "duh" can be seen as an insult, but it can also be seen as an expression of consternation and frustration. But that really is beside the point, now isn't it. Should I also point how that by justifying your questioning of other people's intelligence you are once again falling victim to a logical fallacy? Specifically, the bandwagon approach. Of course, in the same turn, by merely commenting on this I am myself guilty of irrelevant information. Last time I checked this is a game. Anytime you want to go outside and dodge fireballs and lightning bolts, let me know. You and TC are the ones trying to say the GAME is not realistic because it allows you to dodge fireballs. You are the one restricting yourselves through a lack of creativity. The rules in this case are trying to allow maximum flexibility and you two refuse to open your fragile little minds. So sad, so very very sad. Perhaps I have misunderstood your statement, but it appears that you are claiming that creativity is a function of one's ability to suspend logic and reason in favor of the status quo. That is not creativity; creativity is taking the unreasonable (dodging lightning, avoiding fireballs, etc) and making it reasonable, making it believable. Creativity is in the interpretation, m'boy. To use a movie analogy, creativity isn't that hobbits live in the shire, it is in making hobbits living in the shire believable. It isn't in destroying the One Ring, it is in making us believe that it needs to be destroyed. Creativity isn't in saying that Improved Evasion allows one to dodge lightning, it is in making it believable to dodge lightning at all (even if believable is still improbable). And on a general note, it is actually rather possible to dodge lightning, as the very circumstances that allow for lightning to strike are readily apparent prior. One merely needs to move out of an area that is conducive to lightning prior to the completion of a circuit between the clouds and the earth. The location where lightning strikes develops over time, therefore it can be measured and avoided. The problem isn't so much dodging the lightning as being aware of the need to dodge it. On a further side note, a good game or system doesn’t have “fluff,” fluff effects the believability and as such should affect the system. Really, there doesn't seem to be anything else I can say. Leress already made the only point that truly matters, and I have already made an argument as to when and why reality aught to influence DnD rules. You have rather steadfastly held to your claim that the core DnD rules are an unchangeable as the speed of light, only more so. As you don't find my arguments to make sense (something that you will grow out of, I am sure), and I find your arguments to be overly mundane, we seem to be at an impasse.
calvinNhobbes 11-27-06, 11:41 PM	Of course, other people pointed out that RAW did not make logical sense and thus pointed out as such appropriately and logically. Once again, I have shown the RAW do make perfect sense. Just because someone says calculus does not make sense does not mean they are correct, it merely means they are incapable of understanding it. Stating the evasion ability defies realism in the context of magic is amusing to begin with, but then refusing to accept a logical explanation of why it is realistic is just being stubborn. Your inability to understand that valid answers can exist apart from your own is the problem, especially in a forum where such things are to be expected. Changing the rules is a valid answer, just a bad one if another option can be used to explain the situation without changing the rules (and in the process unbalancing the game against rogue type characters). You could also ban the fireball spell saying it is unrealistic. That is also a valid answer, but once again a poor option. Merely discarding people's arguments because they do not follow the rules in such a circumstance is rather nonsensical. Your and True Cavaliers arguments were not discarded because they did not follow the rules, they were discarded because they were proven to be suboptimal in the context of the game. Pish posh, the only thing that is apparent is that you can't follow the subtle nature of an argument. Well, apparently I can since you feel the need to debate my every point. If I did not have the ability to hold a discussion you’d have no points to counter. Notice how I give an example of an example of a lightning bolt, then an example of fireball, THEN relate those arguments to the game. You gave an example of what you ASSUMED a lightning bolt or fireball should be BASED off what they would be in our natural world. You did NOT give examples of a lightning bolt or fireball within the scope of the spell descriptions, which are not only game rules but also the basis for the physics that govern magic since that is all we have to base magic on since magic is NOT real. Of course, in a world to which we might apply reason, lightning from the sky can be expected to behave in a similar manner to lightning from a wizard's hand (else wise it wouldn't have been named after the natural event, now would it?). This is a very, very, very bad assumption and the reason your creativity has been stifled. The spell might resemble the natural event but any other similarities end there, the biggest being one is magical and subject to an anti-magic field. But considering that you seem to have mistaken my comments regarding Fireball for comments regarding lightning bolt (again, you fail to notice important details in a person's argument), I will let that one slide. I didn’t realize your reading comprehension was at an elementary level. I won’t even respond to this in further detail since anyone can read your previous post and see you jump back and forth between giving examples of both lightning bolts and fireballs and I address those in turn. Any lack of structure to my counter argument is purely a reflection of the incoherent dribble of your initial presentation. As for lightning bolt and a line, sorry. When it comes to defining the English language, I will go with Webster over Wizards, as anyone who wants to communicate in English will do. A line is a one dimensional concept; it can be five feet long, but not wide. As mentioned before, lightning tends to take the shortest route from its point of origin to a grounding object. Thus, if a lightning bolt passes near a grounding object (like a character in a square) it will bend to meet it. You obviously have a severe problem separating a game from reality. An area of effect is defined in the game. A line, as defined by the game in reference to an area of effect, is 5 feet wide. If you want to ignore the rules of the game and focus purely on reality then your argument is completely pointless since people can’t shoot lightning bolts out of their hand in real life. Are you starting to figure out why your argument is pointless and illogical? Lightning magic is NOT real lightning. PERIOD. An area of effect (line) is NOT a line as defined by geometric principles. Fire does not behave in a similar manner. And no, I am not assuming for flavor, I am assuming for believability. Your argument that "it is magic, so it doesn't follow the laws of nature" is nothing more than DM handwaving. Really? You really believe this? You are completely delusional. I had no idea you were a wizard! Hey, since you think the laws of nature allow a human being to shoot fireballs out their hands, care to share with me the mathematical equations to explain how you ignore the laws of thermodynamics. Ever heard of the laws of conservation of mass and energy? Care to explain how you create energy from nothing? I had no idea every human being in existence has the capability of making their own personal “Big Bang”!!!!!!!!!! Yes, magic doesn't exist in the real world. Lightning does. The magic that produces lightning can't really be explained scientifically. The lightning that is produced, however, should follow those laws with which we are familiar. So magical lightning doesn’t exist in the real world, but if it did it would be like real lightning. Is that what you are saying? My question is, why should it be? Not only does it not have to be, it makes more sense for it not to be. Then it is not restricted by the laws of nature. Your very insistence that magic MUST follow real world examples reinforces my belief on your lack of creativity. Details, m'boy, details. You can't expect to follow an argument if you ignore the details. Notice how I used phrases such as "for the sake of ease" and "let us assume." These are phrases that should indicate a person is not using specifics but vague estimations, since the specifics do not influence the point. So you bring vague phrases and estimations to an argument. Novice. And again, I must reference you to Webster if you don't understand the difference between "firestorm" and "fire storm." I suspect you think I am referencing the spell (indeed, it skipped my mind until you revealed your confusion), rather than the noun. A firestorm is merely "a raging fire of great intensity that spreads quickly." Fireball fits such a description. As for a 20ft sphere, let me reference you to the Area for Fireball; "20ft radius spread." Radius can imply either a circle or a sphere (but it must imply at least one). This is perfectly at ease with explosions, which are inherently spherical. Or, because the explosion was produced by magic, are we to assume that it too doesn't apparently adhere to any known laws of physics? And around the circle we go once more. You insisting magic must follow the laws of nature/physics/reality and then wondering why they don’t match the rules of a fantasy game. Once again, perhaps you need to spend some time away from D&D and learn how to separate the game from reality. Again you miss the key elements that make some people's arguments reasonable and your arguments nonsensical. No I do not, you do however. Your arguments are not reasonable. By your own acknowledgements you use vague phrases and estimations to prove your points. That is not an argument, that is gibberish. First, I am somewhat sure you do not mean as a firework explodes, but rather as a firework is set off. No I do not mean when a firework is set off, I mean when it explodes. These are different concepts (as a firework can do both). Thanks genius. (Yes, that was sarcasm, I figured this clarification was needed for you.) When a firework is set off, the chemical reaction is controlled (which means it is not an explosion). The chemical reaction is actually not controlled when a firework is set off. Any reaction that does not reach chemical equilibrium in not controlled. It becomes a chain reaction producing heat and by products (in the case of most explosives these are gases). This heat and gases can be directed to produce a thrust and propel an object like a rocket or bullet. When a firework is set off it is an explosion only directed. I have a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from MIT. I would love to debate you further on the topic of chemical reactions. The force of an exploding firework (or a grenade) expands in a spherical manner, unless outside forces have shaped the explosion (and to my knowledge no one is arguing that fireballs are really shaped explosives). Given the right archmage abilities you can in fact shape the explosion of a fireball. Explain that with your almighty laws of magical physics. In fact with the mastery of shaping ability of the archmage, you can leave an empty unaffected space right in the middle of the area of effect! Say, what? That doesn’t follow the laws of physics. Guess you must ban the archmage in your games because his abilities are “unrealistic”. LOL!!!!!! The debris of such explosions might be somewhat random (everyone in the explosion's radius will be hit by the explosion, but not everyone will be hit by the debris). A fireball does not have a material container, thus it does not have debris, and thus it will explode like any other explosion, in an expanding sphere from its point of origin. Note the following quote from the fireball spell description: “The explosion creates almost no pressure.” Care to explain how you “realistic” explosion that expands in a sphere creates no pressure? That completely breaks the laws of physics right there!!!!! Are you just really that blind, or just that stubborn to still insist magic MUST obey the laws of physics when the spell descriptions themselves give specific examples that break them. Guess someone will have to tell Tesla that he needs to reevaluate his false perceptions. I had no idea Tesla was a wizard specializing in magical electrical attacks. Oh, wait, he wasn’t. Once again, please realize D&D is not real life. Thanks. You can physically go look at what petrified lightning looks like, to get an idea of the area involved in the forces of lightning. Once again that is great, but what does that have to do with MAGICAL lightning? If the physical, verifiable world is not proof, then again I must reference you to Webster so that you may find out what proof actually means. Once again, MAGIC does not exist in the real world, and Webster is NOT a wizard. I assume a limited area effect for lightning because lightning, as found in nature, has a comparatively limited space, where as an explosion, as found in nature, has a comparatively unlimited space. But we are not talking about these natural effects, we are talking about MAGICAL effects that do not exist in the real world. Are you seeing a trend here? Please for the love of god say you do. These assumptions are not assumptions but expressions of those behaviors noted in nature. These are assumptions as soon as you use them to explain MAGIC!!!!!!!!! If you want to argue with how lightning or explosions work in the real world, that is perfectly fine. No I do not want to argue this. I have NEVER been arguing this. I have been arguing how MAGICAL lightning and fireball could work to explain the rules of the game, which are the only “laws” we have to explain the behavior of magic in a fantasy world based of the rules of the game of D&D. If not, then your argument needs to be why the observable world should not be duplicated, to the best of one's abilities, in an imaginary world. You want me to explain why I think a fantasy world with magic, wizards, dragons, etc. should not duplicate our own world? LOL!!!!!!!! Please, I hope someone else reads that statement so I am no the only one who knows how much of a bone head you are. Oh my god! LOL!!!!!!!! Good lord man, is it really so hard to believe that the rules expressed in the core handbooks, and as discussed in the House Rules, are not the final word in a matter?! The entire point of the argument is that the save allowed by Improved Evasion is unreasonable. Therefore, you are using circular logic to say that the save allowed by Improved Evasion is the way it is because otherwise it wouldn't allow a save. I use lots of houserules. I love houserules. You can use a house rules for evasion and improved evasion if you want. If doesn’t make the game more realistic, it only makes rogues less powerful. If you hate rogues for whatever reason, go ahead and nerf them. But don’t say you are doing it to make evasion realistic. Once again, the only “laws of magic” we have for a D&D based fantasy world is what is presented in the rules since MAGIC DOES NOT exist in the real world. The “laws of magic” as they exist in the GAME say it is possible to dodge a MAGICAL fireball without moving more than a couple feet. A reflex save allows a character to take half damage. Just because one can't dodge an explosion doesn't mean there isn't anything else one can do to reduce the damage from that explosion. The force created by an explosion (and in this case, also by the fire) will affect a character depending on surface area (and since you seem to have problems telling the difference, this is a real world argument, not a DnD argument at this point). A character that can protect vital body parts from a blast will receive less damage (to those body parts, at least), and a character that can reduce his or her overall surface area will also reduce the damage. So by that logic, larger targets should take more damage from an area of effect spell since they have more surface area. Do you also have smaller target take less damage since they have less surface area? As it relates to the game; a reflex save allows for half damage. A player asks how. You now know how. Uh…..have you even read the thread? Do you know what evasion even does?!?!?!? We are talking about taking ZERO damage! I feel like I’m debating a retarded wall! Which would be a wonderful idea, if it wasn't bunk. See above. You have yet to prove otherwise for a MAGICAL fireball. Only for a real fireball, which is not what the argument has ever been about? If you leave it at "both require reflex save" then that is just DM handwaving. Wow! Reflex saves are now DM hand waving. I think it’s time to take you off life support cause you are brain dead my friend. Lightning and fire/explosions are totally different forces in the world Once again, we are talking about MAGICAL lightning and fire. MAGICAL, MAGICAL, MAGICAL!!! Since you seem to either not care or to have missed it, let me clarify the above point again. IF the rules, as is, challenge a player’s suspension of disbelief, THEN the rules must be changed to address the issue. So if a player in your games doesn’t BELIEVE someone can shoot a lightning bolt, what do you do? Ban the lightning bolt spell? So since you are not intelligent enough to suspend your disbelief of what a MAGICAL fireball could be, you expect your players to not be able to use their evasion abilities. Wow, I’d love to play in your games. Thoughts: The necromancer casts wail of the banshee Player: I don’t believe a simple spell could just kill me. That doesn’t make any sense to me. I ignore it. Thoughts: Hmmm…..good point, he changes into a dragon and…. Palyer: Whoa whoa….he changes into a dragon! How? I just can’t believe someone can just change into another creature! Where does the extra mass come from? And energy? Thoughts: Ya…another good point. He slaps you. Player: Ok, that seems reasonably realistic. And once again, claiming that a situation behaves irrationally because it is imaginary is nothing more than DM handwaving. Believability is a key component of any game; if the rules as they exist are not realistic, and this lack of realism offends the sensibility of the players, then realism must prevail. Trying to explain an imaginary fantasy world without using real world physics is DM handwaving? LOL!!!!!!!! Again, I feel very, very sorry for you and your lack of creativity. You have rather steadfastly held to your claim that the core DnD rules are an unchangeable as the speed of light, only more so. I have never said this. My only argument has ever been that changing the rules to make evasion “realistic” in reference to dodging MAGICAL fireball is pointless and illogical. As you don't find my arguments to make sense (something that you will grow out of, I am sure), and I find your arguments to be overly mundane, we seem to be at an impasse. You arguments make sense for why it should not be possible to dodge a real fireball. You have done nothing to explain why it should not be possible to dodge a MAGICAL fireball. You inability to separate reality from a game is perhaps something you will grow out of yourself.
calvinNhobbes 11-28-06, 12:17 AM	Also Thoughts, since you are such a fan of Webster, try these definitions courtesy of your friend Webster. magic: the use of means believed to have supernatural power over natural forces; an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source; having seemingly supernatural qualities or powers. supernatural: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; departing from what is usual or normal esp. so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature. Looks as if Webster is on my side of the argument. :P
True Cavalier 11-28-06, 01:40 PM	Actually, your side of the arguement got lost somewhere between the insulting and the terribly long and unreadable posts, man. :P But you say magic is magic and you shouldn't question it, and the RAW is the RAW and you shouldn't question it, and so on, and I'm really done trying to argue with this close-mindedness. It's not like anyone needs your permission to post his house-rules on the house-rule forum, anyway. :cool:
calvinNhobbes 11-28-06, 01:51 PM	Actually, your side of the arguement got lost somewhere between the insulting and the terribly long and unreadable posts, man. :P Once again, you initiated the insults. But you say magic is magic and you shouldn't question it, and the RAW is the RAW and you shouldn't question it, and so on, and I'm really done trying to argue with this close-mindedness. At no point have I said that. You are wrong. I have merely said that magic is not real and should not be subject to the laws of physics/nature/reality in order to make it more realistic. I change the rules all the time, especially for magic, to make them more flavorful and consistant, not to make them more realistic in relation to our world. It's not like anyone needs your permission to post his house-rules on the house-rule forum, anyway. :cool: Never said he did. I merely persented a scenario where a house rule was not needed, and you and Thought said I was wrong. I defended my position, apparently enough to make you give up. Thank you for your concession. :D
trapspringer 11-28-06, 02:20 PM	The trick is to explain things in such a way as makes sense. It is important to bear in mind this is all happening at basically the same time. A rogue hit by a fireball who then makes his reflex save and subsequently charges the wizard can be described as flying through a gap in the flames before striking a killing blow. If she moves through to stab an orc also in the blast radius, she might have slipped over behind the orc before inserting her dagger into his spleen and using him as a human shield. If it's a trap and the rogue is standing in a forty by forty room and a fireball goes off in the area, you might describe that character as pressing herself against the wall and turning her face sideways so as to be as sparse as possible as the flames just barely miss her right ear. In any event I would describe singe marks on clothing and hair. I'd recap the action so as to make the scene flow a little more logically.I'd take liberties with my description of combat before I'd re-write an ability of one of the core classes because I didn't think it was realistic.
Keterys 12-01-06, 10:29 AM	You could also reorder the effects of improved evasion and evasion. Evasion: Take half damage from all reflex half saves on fail, quarter on succeed. Improved Evasion: None on succeed. Or go a step further: Evasion: Half damage Improved Evasion: And half of what you do take is nonlethal So, now your rogue hit with the 60 damage fireball, even on a 1, only takes 15 lethal 15 nonlethal... and on successful takes 8 lethal 7 nonlethal. Of course, it does changes things up a bit. I remember once having a monk with a helm of brilliance and going 'If 40 fireballs went off on me, I'd take like 14 damage on average' or something similar.