Kaouse |
For both the Barbarian and the Stalwart Defender, there is the ability called "Clear Mind" that allows them to reroll "failed" Will saves. However, the wording for this ability states that it must be used before the results are revealed.
Clear Mind (Ex)
Prerequisite: Barbarian 8Benefit: A barbarian may reroll a failed Will save. This power is used as an immediate action after the first save is attempted, but before the results are revealed by the GM. The barbarian must take the second result, even if it is worse.
Special: This power can only be used once per rage.
Clear Mind (Ex): The stalwart defender may reroll a failed Will save. This power is used as an immediate action after the first save is attempted, but before the results are revealed by the GM. The stalwart defender must take the second result, even if it is worse. This power can only be used once per defensive stance.
If it's before the results are revealed, how do you know if the save has failed? As written, it might only apply on rolls of a natural 1. Can I get some input here?
claudekennilol |
They are talking about the results of the spell. Meaning you can't decide to re roll the save after you know what the effect is.
I've never heard that interpretation before. Every time I've seen it is before the player even knows if he succeeded/failed. i.e. if the result of the roll is a success/failure.
Nevermind, I didn't read the ability well at all..
Chess Pwn |
What about a dual-cursed oracle's misfortune? Can that be used after its known if the save is failed but "before the result of the failed save is known"?
No because it's a re-roll before the results of the roll are known. The result of the roll is whether you pass or fail the save, thus once you know if you succeeded or not it's too late to make the re-roll.
Claxon |
I think the easiest way is to ignore the first sentence.
"This power is used as an immediate action after the first save is attempted, but before the results are revealed by the GM. The barbarian must take the second result, even if it is worse."
Without the first line the ability makes complete sense. It's not impossible the first line was written more as flavor text than actual rules text.
Skylancer4 |
I think the easiest way is to ignore the first sentence.
"This power is used as an immediate action after the first save is attempted, but before the results are revealed by the GM. The barbarian must take the second result, even if it is worse."
Without the first line the ability makes complete sense. It's not impossible the first line was written more as flavor text than actual rules text.
The first line keeps you from wasting it on a successful save though. Like a safety net to preserve a limited use ability. If the save is successful, you can't use the ability. If the save is failed, you can before the GM tells you the result. It makes sense in a logic scenario, because face it, there are GMs who would look at you and say "are you going to re roll?" Before telling you if you made the save or not if they didn't put that clause in.
Qaianna |
Claxon wrote:The first line keeps you from wasting it on a successful save though. Like a safety net to preserve a limited use ability. If the save is successful, you can't use the ability. If the save is failed, you can before the GM tells you the result. It makes sense in a logic scenario, because face it, there are GMs who would look at you and say "are you going to re roll?" Before telling you if you made the save or not if they didn't put that clause in.I think the easiest way is to ignore the first sentence.
"This power is used as an immediate action after the first save is attempted, but before the results are revealed by the GM. The barbarian must take the second result, even if it is worse."
Without the first line the ability makes complete sense. It's not impossible the first line was written more as flavor text than actual rules text.
Sounds right. And it still preserves some risk--you don't know what you're saving against. Although now I wonder how that'd work with Superstitious and its required saves--would you need to reroll one of those forced saves?
Claxon |
Claxon wrote:The first line keeps you from wasting it on a successful save though. Like a safety net to preserve a limited use ability. If the save is successful, you can't use the ability. If the save is failed, you can before the GM tells you the result. It makes sense in a logic scenario, because face it, there are GMs who would look at you and say "are you going to re roll?" Before telling you if you made the save or not if they didn't put that clause in.I think the easiest way is to ignore the first sentence.
"This power is used as an immediate action after the first save is attempted, but before the results are revealed by the GM. The barbarian must take the second result, even if it is worse."
Without the first line the ability makes complete sense. It's not impossible the first line was written more as flavor text than actual rules text.
Disagreed. You can see you initial die result and have a good idea of whether or not you saved. Sure, the first line theoretically keeps you from wasting the ability. However, the first line is what causes problems with the rest of the ability's rules text.
Skylancer4 |
Skylancer4 wrote:Disagreed. You can see you initial die result and have a good idea of whether or not you saved. Sure, the first line theoretically keeps you from wasting the ability. However, the first line is what causes problems with the rest of the ability's rules text.Claxon wrote:The first line keeps you from wasting it on a successful save though. Like a safety net to preserve a limited use ability. If the save is successful, you can't use the ability. If the save is failed, you can before the GM tells you the result. It makes sense in a logic scenario, because face it, there are GMs who would look at you and say "are you going to re roll?" Before telling you if you made the save or not if they didn't put that clause in.I think the easiest way is to ignore the first sentence.
"This power is used as an immediate action after the first save is attempted, but before the results are revealed by the GM. The barbarian must take the second result, even if it is worse."
Without the first line the ability makes complete sense. It's not impossible the first line was written more as flavor text than actual rules text.
Feel free to disagree, but it does do that. If you roll a 2, yeah you know you probably failed. If you roll a 12... You won't know unless combat has been going on and you've seen other saves rolled to metagame the numbers you are looking at. Chances are if someone doesn't understand or is confused by that line, they don't have a particularly solid grasp of the mechanics of the game and will be confounded by numerous other rules as well. Best to explain how and why things work so they learn.
Trekkie90909 |
Sky -- how do you explain the ability interacting with spells the results of which are already known to the player/character? I.e. baddie goes 'color spray' (to use a level inappropriate example) hitting half the party, and you see them crumple. He then turns to our character with a reroll, and goes 'color spray.' Since the character knows the spell knocks people out he can't use the re-roll? And what about casters who make their spellcraft check to identify the spell as it is being cast?
Claxon |
Feel free to disagree, but it does do that. If you roll a 2, yeah you know you probably failed. If you roll a 12... You won't know unless combat has been going on and you've seen other saves rolled to metagame the numbers you are looking at. Chances are if someone doesn't understand or is confused by that line, they don't have a particularly solid grasp of the mechanics of the game and will be confounded by numerous other rules as well. Best to explain how and why things work so they learn.
I am not confounded by the rules, but the rules of that power are internally inconsistent. Or at least ambiguous depending on the meaning of "before the results are revealed".
You can't know that you've failed and not know what the result of the roll, unless the line is about not knowing what the effect cast was. Which honestly just sounds ridiculous to me. Why would you care what the effect is, as long as you know you've failed it.
Diego Rossi |
Order of events:
- The baddie cast a spell/use a SL /SU/EX ability. The GM don't announce what it do, often done when the players don't know that the attacker can do. (He is a vampire witch, he is trying to curse our friend or to dominate it?)
- the target roll his save.
- the GM announce if the save was successful or not
- the target, on a failed roll, decide if he want to reroll or not
- then what the attack do is revealed.
That sequence respect perfectly the ability requirement.
The target know that the save was a Will save and that it was failed, he don't know what the attack do.
@Trekkie90909
To reply to your example: you know that the attacker has used color spray before and he is using some spray of light on you. But, unless the GM announce the spell name, if could easily be a Heavens oracle that was able to affect your companions thanks to its Awesome Display ability and now is casting prismatic spray on you.
A good number of GM would announce the spell name for speed of play, but when there are these abilities in the party we should keep them in consideration and avoid doing that.
@Claxon
The unrevealed result can be HP of damage, dominated or charmed or suffering from misfortune and so on.
Claxon |
In pretty much every other feat or ability that has the line "before the results are revealed" it is very clear that they are talking about knowing whether or not your save was successful.
That's why this problem arises. You have one part that says it kicks in only on a failed save, and you have another that has an established precedent of working based on not knowing whether your original roll succeeded or failed.
Skylancer4 |
Sky -- how do you explain the ability interacting with spells the results of which are already known to the player/character? I.e. baddie goes 'color spray' (to use a level inappropriate example) hitting half the party, and you see them crumple. He then turns to our character with a reroll, and goes 'color spray.' Since the character knows the spell knocks people out he can't use the re-roll? And what about casters who make their spellcraft check to identify the spell as it is being cast?
Knowing the result of a spell is mechanically different from knowing the resolution of said spell for a particular instance of the spell used on you. If a spell is cast on you, and you made your spellcraft, you know the potential outcome of the spell. When you make your saving throw, and fail the GM tells you the resulting effects. Between rolling the save and the GM telling you the effect, you have the capacity to reroll as the result of that particular casting of the spell hasn't been revealed.
Skylancer4 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skylancer4 wrote:Feel free to disagree, but it does do that. If you roll a 2, yeah you know you probably failed. If you roll a 12... You won't know unless combat has been going on and you've seen other saves rolled to metagame the numbers you are looking at. Chances are if someone doesn't understand or is confused by that line, they don't have a particularly solid grasp of the mechanics of the game and will be confounded by numerous other rules as well. Best to explain how and why things work so they learn.I am not confounded by the rules, but the rules of that power are internally inconsistent. Or at least ambiguous depending on the meaning of "before the results are revealed".
You can't know that you've failed and not know what the result of the roll, unless the line is about not knowing what the effect cast was. Which honestly just sounds ridiculous to me. Why would you care what the effect is, as long as you know you've failed it.
I guess I find it ridiculous that you find it ridiculous then. We play a game in which characters have access to abilities which interrupt the normal flow of things. Where you can as an immediate action, or free action, completely negate or alter statistics to the point where events are changed from what they would have ended up as.
A character charges an opponent, an invisible ally of the opponent takes the AoO afforded to them and trips the charging character. All the sudden the charge is ruined and doesn't happen. We never know what is going to happen until actions actually resolve because of actions that interrupt exist. There is an order to things, it is broken up for reasons, not the least of which is so things can occur mechanically in the game. If you want to ignore that, feel free, but again that is the way things are in this rule set.
Skylancer4 |
That's why this problem arises. You have one part that says it kicks in only on a failed save, and you have another that has an established precedent of working based on not knowing whether your original roll succeeded or failed.
No, it says you cannot know the result of the spell, meaning you don't get to find out what will happen then decide to use the ability after you know.
1)You get hit with a spell.
2)You make a saving throw.
A) Roll the die add number, give total to the GM.
B) GM tells you that you failed.
---UH OH DECISION TIME---
You decide to use your ability! Go to 2.
You decide not to use your ability! Go to 3.
---
OR
C) GM tells you you made it. Go to 3.
3) GM tells you the results of your saving throw.
---You are unable to use your ability as you know the result---