Evasion vs. naturally occuring things?


Rules Questions

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Okay, so a friend has presented the idea that if a rogue (or other class with Evasion) is hit by a naturally occuring landslide, they cannot use Evasion, since they are not being attacked...

So, is he right? If it's not a spell or attack and instead a naturally occurring landslide or such, does Evasion still apply? Seems to me it does, since you are making a Reflex save.


Evasion counts against landslides because a landslide would be parsed as an attack from the environment.

Because frankly if I can cartwheel to negate a grenade going off 5 feet from me, I'm pretty sure I can do the same for a rockslide.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And if your GM disagrees, start causing no save damage to everyone with falling objects.

"But I didn't attack them! It was gravity!"


Given that it's an iffy rules interaction...

I'd rule in the rogue's favor. Let's not be unkind to the rogue.


Evasion isn't about being attacked; it's about the Reflex save itself. If you're required to make a Reflex save, regardless of source, evasion modifies the normal binary result of full/half damage to full/no damage. Doesn't matter what causes you to roll that save, if there's damage involved (I'd hope that rockslide is capable of doing damage!), that's how it works. Maybe the rogue/ranger/whomever manages to leap right on top of the falling pile of rocks and maintains his balance like a lumberjack on a log. Fluff it as you like, but in the end, it's not a question of source, only of making that save.

Dark Archive

He's still arguing with me and using the avalanche rules to do it... it says "players in the area always take damage" therefore rogues don't get to use Evasion or Improved Evasion to avoid the damage...


That's an avalanche though. Does an avalanche allow you to roll a reflex save for half damage?

If something allows a reflex save for half, then evasion and improved evasion should, by all means, work just fine.


That is a hazard, not an attack just like yellow mold is not an attack.
Is it reasonable to allow them to use evasion? Sure, but it is not an attack.

Edit: Evasion specifically calls out attacks, not "any time you could avoid damage with a reflex save". If this is a "by the book" GM he is correct, even if I would be more lenient.


Sundakan wrote:

And if your GM disagrees, start causing no save damage to everyone with falling objects.

"But I didn't attack them! It was gravity!"

Falling objects allow a reflex save if the intended target is aware of the attack.

Dark Archive

Well, right but if you get a reflex save, you get evasion... he's saying that isn't the case... and using the avalanche rules wording to make his case.

That is, at first he was just talking about landslides, but then he started in on the rules for avalanches that say you are buried and always take damage, etc...


Yah it does seem a special circumstance, in the bury zone all take 8d6, save for half, and in the slide zone, take 3d6 or NO damage on save. It's likely meant as an affected area too large to effectively escape from, though considering making the first save in the bury zone saves you from the secondary effect as well, which also makes this different from most Evasion reflex saves, that there is a secondary effect tied in. Really since this is an Environment hazard, it's the GM's call.

Dark Archive

wraithstrike wrote:

That is a hazard, not an attack just like yellow mold is not an attack.

Is it reasonable to allow them to use evasion? Sure, but it is not an attack.

Edit: Evasion specifically calls out attacks, not "any time you could avoid damage with a reflex save". If this is a "by the book" GM he is correct, even if I would be more lenient.

That's true, he does tend to be a by the book GM, except when it goes against what he sees as common sense. Like the whole fireball in a 5x5 room argument... he doesn't think Evasion and especially not Improved Evasion should apply.

The Exchange

Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
...using the avalanche rules to do it... it says "players in the area always take damage"...

Well, I doubt it says that, unless your GM is actually dropping large rocks on the people sitting at his table. Call the police!

OK, here we go, CRB p. 429: "Characters in the bury zone always take damage from the avalanche; characters in the slide zone might be able to get out of the way..." The word always is contrasting the bury zone (full/half) with the slide zone, where anyone who makes the save negates all damage.

Evasion: "if a [character] makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, he instead takes no damage." The use of 'attack' does leave your GM's interpretation as a valid one.

I say 'valid,' not 'ideal:' the more generous interpretation is easier to keep in mind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I deleted my last post because I misread your last comment.

If he is just making rules up that is not cool at all. Any houserule need to be introduced before the start of a campaign.

The rules don't says rooms below <insert size such as 5 by 5> don't get to use evasion. The game is not a simluation. It is an abstraction.

If he wants to be realistic then he should explain why people who try to use shield against giants and other large creatures dont end up with broken arms. There is no way.

Likely response: Because the game doesnt have rules for breaking arms.

My counter: It also doesn't have a rule for evasion not working in small rooms.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

That is a hazard, not an attack just like yellow mold is not an attack.

Is it reasonable to allow them to use evasion? Sure, but it is not an attack.

Edit: Evasion specifically calls out attacks, not "any time you could avoid damage with a reflex save". If this is a "by the book" GM he is correct, even if I would be more lenient.

That's true, he does tend to be a by the book GM, except when it goes against what he sees as common sense. Like the whole fireball in a 5x5 room argument... he doesn't think Evasion and especially not Improved Evasion should apply.

The fireball entered the 5'x5' room by some way. So the rogue has some way to leave the room.

Or maybe he used his cloak to intercept the fireball bead and have it explode while he was using the cloak shadow to reduce the effect of the attack.
Or ... insert other different ways to avoid/reduce damage.

A fireball is a magical effect, evasion an Ex one, bith well outside normal people abilities. Judging how they work on the basis of our mundane experience is a bit questionable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Combat Section wrote:

Saving Throw

Generally, when you are subject to an unusual or magical attack, you get a saving throw to avoid or reduce the effect.

This hints strongly that everything that forces a save is indeed an attack.

Rogues should be wary of landslides either way, as they still bury anyone in the center without caring about reflex saves. When it became relevant in my campaign I ruled the rogue could dash to a safe spot where larger rocks would form a small chamber (no damage but still trapped), which seems to be exactly what evasion is about.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Evasion vs. naturally occuring things? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.