Evasion in an explosion


Rules Questions

51 to 84 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

When no justification is possible, no justification is needed. There is, literally, no way a GM can justify denying a character a class feature simply based on "I hoped the attack would kill you all". Nothing he says, at that point, can excuse his actions so why bother asking what his excuse is? No one is talking about frivolous things like leaving the game because they didn't succeed at a dice roll. We're talking about leaving the game because the GM failed spectacularly at his only job. It can be reasonably expected for it to happen again so pre-emptive action should be taken. If your designated driver is drunk, you do not ride with him and you do not select him again as your designated driver. That's simple common sense.


The "time to find a new group" thing is the repeated attempts by the GM to kill everyone and responding to player success with even harsher penalties. That's not really sustainable.

The Exchange

seebs wrote:
The "time to find a new group" thing is the repeated attempts by the GM to kill everyone and responding to player success with even harsher penalties...

We're assuming, of course, that you're playing Pathfinder, not Paranoia. In which case 'repeated attempts by the GM to kill everyone and responding to player success with even harsher penalties' calls for everybody, GM and player alike, to high-five each other.


Kazaan wrote:
When no justification is possible, no justification is needed. There is, literally, no way a GM can justify denying a character a class feature simply based on "I hoped the attack would kill you all". Nothing he says, at that point, can excuse his actions so why bother asking what his excuse is? No one is talking about frivolous things like leaving the game because they didn't succeed at a dice roll. We're talking about leaving the game because the GM failed spectacularly at his only job. It can be reasonably expected for it to happen again so pre-emptive action should be taken. If your designated driver is drunk, you do not ride with him and you do not select him again as your designated driver. That's simple common sense.

I don't think justification is the issue here. While in most cases, this sort of blow-up happens with non-RAW disputes; which makes sense, given the amount of corner cases being discussed on these forums with them mostly pertaining to in-game situations, versus a hypothetical RAW analysis, it's still not an excuse to at least give the person the time of day to talk about the game, where it's going, why it took the trajectory it took, etc. And there's no progress (if any) to be made when everybody is heated up and running on fumes due to a disagreement.

Maybe the GM doesn't even realize his mistake (which happens), and sometimes it takes more than just a player saying "Yup, that's not how it works." I know I've had difficulty convincing my GM to run AoOs at the start of each creature's respective turn, instead of at the start of the combat round, and it took more than me simply stating the factors, common sense, and balance issues to convey the message proper and make the GM realize the mistake; it took the other players looking it up and taking my side for it to take effect.

Even now, I'm stuck trying to convince my GM that standing up from a Prone position does not involve moving any distance, and my fellow players disagree with me strongly for some odd reason...

But it's important to note that my experiences involving rules disputes as RAW versus how we actually run it are generally ambiguous or corner-case scenarios, and in most cases either one could be plausible; it's just a matter of debate and providing evidence of intent by authors or current, unambiguous rule precedents. In this case, it's simply cut and dry; the discussion is about Evasion and its effects on damage, which the book clearly states, so the answer and concept is obvious. However, it's not an excuse to simply denounce somebody when it may (or may not be) an honest mistake, or a miscommunication with the rules set, and doing so can (and most likely will) make you look like the bad guy instead of the victim in any given situation. It's the same way that our country offers a fair trial, even if we know that the defendant is guilty, with irrefutable evidence to back up the claim.


What do you mean "at the start of each creature's turn"? AoOs happen when they are provoked, immediately.


The only way for evasion to be removed is to remove the save entirely. No save, no evasion is possible.

But there are very few, if any, effects have no save like that just because you are in the middle of them. It would have to be something extremely catastrophic and the GM would have to know it would automatically kill the character.


How it works?
Like this, and this and maybe like this.

But remember, dont look back.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
seebs wrote:
What do you mean "at the start of each creature's turn"? AoOs happen when they are provoked, immediately.

If I read it right it's that your number of AoOs resets at the start of your turn (which is correct), not at the start of each round (which is what the GM thinks).


Chemlak wrote:
seebs wrote:
What do you mean "at the start of each creature's turn"? AoOs happen when they are provoked, immediately.
If I read it right it's that your number of AoOs resets at the start of your turn (which is correct), not at the start of each round (which is what the GM thinks).

Correct.

@Shadowkras: Although an explosion of doom and sadness into the void from a Balor and typical bonfires or everyday mechanical problems don't equate, Plus, those visual examples break the rule of being within your own square while getting out of the flame unscathed.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Even now, I'm stuck trying to convince my GM that standing up from a Prone position does not involve moving any distance, and my fellow players disagree with me...

Do you mean like you tried to stand up and then take a 5-foot step and they yelled "NO YOU HAVE ALREADY MOVED" or something similar? Because that is the only situation I can think of where what you said would be relevant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LukeOakwood wrote:
I know the DM is always right

This is one of the wrongest statements that has ever been uttered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LukeOakwood wrote:
The thing is I think he was trying to kill all of us because when the vamp survived he got angry and started talking about how he had hoped he killed all of us because he thought it would be funny.

Holy crap.

BAIL OUT.


Zhayne wrote:
LukeOakwood wrote:
I know the DM is always right
This is one of the wrongest statements that has ever been uttered.

As a player who GMs more often than not, this. When I make a mistake I want to know about it. Don't just pretend that because I said it I was right.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LukeOakwood wrote:
he is always planning to ruin campaigns somehow and it has gotten to the point we only invite him if we need him,

You NEVER need this guy. Absolutely never.


Zhayne wrote:
LukeOakwood wrote:
The thing is I think he was trying to kill all of us because when the vamp survived he got angry and started talking about how he had hoped he killed all of us because he thought it would be funny.

Holy crap.

BAIL OUT.

I don't think there's anything wrong with wishing for spilled PC blood as a DM; I say this as someone currently running Slumbering Tsar. The issue is changing the rules on the fly and trying to set up un-winnable encounters. Yeah, that's just being a dick and a poor DM.


Aratrok wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
LukeOakwood wrote:
I know the DM is always right
This is one of the wrongest statements that has ever been uttered.
As a player who GMs more often than not, this. When I make a mistake I want to know about it. Don't just pretend that because I said it I was right.

100% agree. It seems the "DM is always right" concept is something that has lost a logical meaning; yes, a DM is allowed to make house rules. That does not mean that doing so is always the correct call, nor does it make the DM's word on RAW correct by default.


About the AoOs: Ahh, I see. I thought you were talking about accumulating provocations and then resolving them on your turn or at the top of the round.

Sczarni

I would state that I have just "perused" a module called 'the witchwar legacy' and one of the traps states

Spoiler:
"Geyser CR 15
XP 51,200
Effect 20d6 points of fire damage per round (Reflex DC 25 half,
though evasion will only quarter the damage rather than avoid
it entirely on a successful save) ..."

Note, it doesn't mention improved evasion... so in theory that would still make it so you took no damage (to an honest GM). But even in a high level module where you are standing IN the trap, it still allows for less damage than you took.


For those saying that we never NEED the guy. I will say that I understand how you feel about it, however let me state this. The group I am in is in a small town and we are a very small group. At times the people who usually show up have things they need to do and it ends up being three of four of us who originally started playing showing up, the toxic player is the fourth guy. During these times we like to get our original group together and just setting up something quick and fun. Ever since the toxic player began being toxic I have been the only one who seems to think it best to stop inviting him, the rest think that since he was there in the beginning he has a right to always be part of those games at least, I have tried warning the others but my words fall on deaf ears. So I have resigned myself with just dealing with the situation by trying to be as helpful as I can be. in an effort to cancel his toxic play style. Now you will probably tell me to quit my group but this would leave me with the only option of joining an online group. I have tried this before and just couldn't play the game this way as I find I prefer knowing who I am playing with. There is another smaller group I learned about in my town but I have, instead of joining them, constantly invited them to join us sometimes, in return I play a few games with just them, and this has reduced the number of times we have these original group games thus reducing how many times I have to deal with the toxic player. Thank you for your advice though and I will definitely see about finding another group when I move later this summer.


blahpers wrote:
Gendo wrote:
I have always hand;ed evasion that if an explosion is centered on you, or you are adjacent to the epicenter of the explosion, evasion gets overcome. But, that's a houserule.
...Why?

Because monks and rogues are overpowered.


LukeOakwood wrote:
For those saying that we never NEED the guy.

Better to play no PF than bad PF.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Axl wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Gendo wrote:
I have always hand;ed evasion that if an explosion is centered on you, or you are adjacent to the epicenter of the explosion, evasion gets overcome. But, that's a houserule.
...Why?

Because monks and rogues are overpowered.

I think this is the first time I've ever seen anyone state that Rogues are anything other than useless on these boards (I happen to disagree with that assertion though).

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Evasion is pretty straight forward. Now if the DM would have said take a -2 to your reflex roll because I was standing next to the explosion I would have been ok with that.

I didn't see the language written in the PF rules, but I could have swore that in either 3.0 or 3.5 rules, that evasion stated that it could be used if the PC with the ability had some place to evade to. I took that to mean as long as the PC wasn't trapped in a 5ft by 5ft hole 10 feet deep, then evasion always worked. But regardless it sounds like you had plenty of area to evade the explosion.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krith wrote:
Axl wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Gendo wrote:
I have always hand;ed evasion that if an explosion is centered on you, or you are adjacent to the epicenter of the explosion, evasion gets overcome. But, that's a houserule.
...Why?

Because monks and rogues are overpowered.

I think this is the first time I've ever seen anyone state that Rogues are anything other than useless on these boards (I happen to disagree with that assertion though).

Krith rolls Sense Motive to detect sarcasm.: 1d20 - 2 ⇒ (19) - 2 = 17

Shame it was DC 18.


I can confirm that wouldn't be my first failed Sense Motive roll...kind of upset my wisdom is so low as to provide the -2 though :(


Or the circumstance penality for internet not providing sarcasim's voice tone was that big


Zwordsman wrote:
Or the circumstance penality for internet not providing sarcasim's voice tone was that big

Only marginally related:

The tone of voice is only important if you're used to relying on it. With practice you can spot sarcasm in text quite well, and even with voice, deadpan sarcasm requires the same tricks to spot.


haha. Well I can't at all.

Even in real life, I have a hard time grasphing sarcasm. A lot of is word choice and dialect. That can be different from different areas, the sarcasm voice is surprisingly close to the same in a lot of places and languages

Random Lingustic info :D

One day hopefully there will be a sarcasm font XD I would love that.


I'm autistic, so I mostly don't really hear tone, so I've spent a lot of time learning to analyze words. There's a lot of cues that people tend to use when being sarcastic even if they're writing text.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I've decided to give the OP the following advice.

have your character go insane and try to kill everyone as sneakily as possible.


seebs wrote:
I'm autistic, so I mostly don't really hear tone, so I've spent a lot of time learning to analyze words. There's a lot of cues that people tend to use when being sarcastic even if they're writing text.

Actually almost all forms of emotion come off quite well in text.

Though anger, upset, and busy all have irritatingly similar patterns making them difficult to distinguish.

Sczarni

Krith wrote:
Axl wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Gendo wrote:
I have always hand;ed evasion that if an explosion is centered on you, or you are adjacent to the epicenter of the explosion, evasion gets overcome. But, that's a houserule.
...Why?

Because monks and rogues are overpowered.

I think this is the first time I've ever seen anyone state that Rogues are anything other than useless on these boards (I happen to disagree with that assertion though).

You've never read any of my posts either then, I presume. Love the Rogue! <3 <3 <3 Hate when their Feats (read: "abilities that are SUPPOSED TO BREAK THE RULES") get overthrown by GM Fiat of "reality." Read the description of what a Feat is... they are supposed to allow the breaking of physical rules folks. NO REASON to deny evasion/improved evasion simply because you have a hard on for a Rogue who can make a roll. You wouldn't take over/kill a Mage character who made his Wil save, would you?

"I don't want you to do a great cleave because nobody could possibly hit that many people in a 6 second time period..." Same thing. Why even have the feats at all?

Sczarni

seebs wrote:
I'm autistic, so I mostly don't really hear tone, so I've spent a lot of time learning to analyze words. There's a lot of cues that people tend to use when being sarcastic even if they're writing text.

Oh. Are there?

Spoiler:
(sorry seebs, couldn't help myself... 9:14 AM EST and I got 2 hours sleep yesterday (after 4 the day before that) so I am little giddy/loopy)

It's actually a pretty good example. And I thought the "Because monks and rogues are overpowered" thing came across very clearly as a satirical remark, for the record.

51 to 84 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Evasion in an explosion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.