I'm looking for my respected board members' opinions on a new house rule for evasion that I am thinking about instituting.
My problem with evasion as it stands is that the rogue (for example) can stand right in the middle of a fireball's blast and take no damage. This seems a bit silly to me.
What I would like to do is add a rule that if said rogue uses evasion he would, as an immediate, free action that provokes no attacks of opportunity, move to the closest square that takes him out of the fireball's blast area.
To me this makes evasion more realistic and makes the character decide between using evasion and possibly giving up his tactical positioning, or taking the damage (still allowing a save for half damage) and retaining his position.
I've run the idea by my players and they like it, so I'd like some feedback from all of you as to any possible problems you could see with it.
In situations where evading the blast is impossible (fireball in a small room, etc.) I would use my discretion as to how exactly the evasion ability would work - maybe a jump above the area of effect or using cover, etc.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Makes a lot of sense. I like it as it stands, but make sure you put a limit on the distance the character can move (maybe the distance they can run in 1 round?, maybe 1/2 that because they don't really have a "full round" to run...). In my group, our DM rules that, for example, if a fireball goes off in an enclosed space like a small room or a tunnel, evasion simply doesn't work... but I like your idea of using either cover or movement. If the room has the doors closed or nothing to use as cover however, I would have to say that you're basically screwed...
*extra: wouldn't that be a nasty trap? a fireball going off in a small room as soon as the door was closed?
Your house rule is a good idea, in concept. But consider the following:
Most dungeon "rooms" are smaller than the total size of an AOE, will this render evasion useless as a primary rogue defensive ability?
Intelligent application of AOEs could allow the rogue to move further than he should. Consider a use magic device followed by a move action, or even having the mage fireball the rogue along.
Ultimately, does this house rule break the Usually Chain of Realism: Realism Usually requires more rules, which Usually makes the game more complex, which Usually makes the game take longer, which Usually makes game less fun. If it breaks the chain for your group, all well and good.
Finally, consider the following. Evasion can not be used while helpless, but even a helpless character (sleeping, unconcious, hold person even) gets a reflex save (at a Dex of 0, mind you). This represents the fact that your average magical effect (say fireball) is not a nuke with perfectly symetrical and filled blast radius; it is a chaotic torrent of flame and fire, played upon by dozens of random elements. Otherwise, there would be no dice rolled for damage, or for saves for that matter. A saving throw represents a combination of natural ability, training, luck, and divine favor. This is why higher level adventurers get such good saves, because the gods themselves start taking active roles in "nudging" the characters towards whatever mysterious purposes they have.
Just something to consider. From personal experience in my own game, and two others, your houserule has been tried, tested, and found to not break the Usually chain, and was summarily dumped, in favor of more descriptive explanations of the reason why the rogue made the particular evade. But thats our group; yours may have different results.
but even a helpless character (sleeping, unconcious, hold person even) gets a reflex save (at a Dex of 0, mind you).
Really!?! Where is this stated? My group has always played where helpless = no save = full damage/ effect...
(Sorry, don't mean to threadjack, but am REALLY curious...)
You bring up some excellent points, Black Bard.
As far as an AOE in a room too small, that would come down to my judgement as to how the rogue evades. Cover, dodging behind a door, etc. or of course if none of those options are available simply stating that evasion cannot be used under the circumstances and giving the rogue the normal save for half damage.
As for a fellow mage using fireballs to freely blast the rogue along, this to me is defenitely meta-game thinking and is not allowed in my group. Barring exceptional circumstances, blasting a fellow party member with a fireball is an evil act. Just because the rogue has evasion does not make it right. After all, I have a pretty good chance to dodge a baseball thrown at my head, but that doesn't mean I would willingly allow people to throw baseballs at my head. I would say the characters feel the same way.
As far as adding more rules to cover this house rule, I don't see where that would be a concern. I realize I have a pretty open-minded view of the game rules, and not everyone does, but I would not feel the need to add pages of rules to cover how this house rule would work in every conceivable situation. This is what DM's are for, I would govern this rule with my judgement and common sense, and a healthy dose of the benefit of the doubt for the player involved. I can see how this might drive some players nuts not having it spelled out, but it doesn't seem to bother my group. After all, what in life is?
And thanks for the movement rate limitation suggestion, Fyraxis, I like it and will defenitely incorporate that.
Thanks again for the input.
A strict reading of the core rules will show that while you have a host of limitations, it never explicitly says that you can't make saves while helpless. You can suffer extreme penalties, and loose access to some class or racial abilities (evasion), but nothing in the game rules can deny you the ability to make a save; consider it your PC's first amendment right, the right to free saves.
However, if you want solid rulings on the matter, download the latest edition of the FAQ from the Official D&D website. Its in the combat section, round about page 44.
A strict reading of the core rules will show that while you have a host of limitations, it never explicitly says that you can't make saves while helpless. You can suffer extreme penalties, and loose access to some class or racial abilities (evasion), but nothing in the game rules can deny you the ability to make a save; consider it your PC's first amendment right, the right to free saves.
However, if you want solid rulings on the matter, download the latest edition of the FAQ from the Official D&D website. Its in the combat section, round about page 44.
Thanks for the info. And now, back to your regularly scheduled thread...
It sounds from your postings that your group likes the "realism" of dodging out of the way of the blast. Cool, they want to roleplay a desperate dash from the blast. Love it.
One suggestion would be to have the rouge make a random roll to determin what direction he took in his mad dash for safety. Ex. using the 1d8 chart for grenade effects and then eliminating the non viable routes (like into the wall next to you). This once again adds to the "realism" of the split second decision to roll "that way!" to escape the immediate threat.
Just my two coppers,
-Roth
|
One suggestion would be to have the rouge
Rogue not rouge.
My ex-DM did this house rule. I was the only person it affected as the party rogue. This coupled with a few other houserules that seemed to hobble every class except arcane casters was why I quit this group. My character was exposed to DM whim too many times and it seemed like if he wanted to inject drama he would rule in favor of "sorry, nothing to hide behind". You will be pulling a lot of power from players with this feat. A better way to do it is to totally remove it and replace it with something of equal power.I am biased in this discussion because I absolutely LOATH this houserule and it ruined a game for me. I had tried to discuss it with the DM and got a "These are the Houserules, they are not subject to change" lecture. Houserules generally suck IMO. DMs are not game designers and need to carefully approach changes in the rules due to balance issues. Most don't. If you are an exception then great, but I felt I needed to let you know my feelings on this situation.
FH
I'm with FH on this one.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I'm with FH on this one.
Ditto.
In Races of the Dragon, there is an optional substitution level for kobold rogues that gives them an ability called 'Skittering Evasion' or something like that. Whenever they succeed at a Reflex save against an area effect, they get the OPTION of moving up to their speed in any direction. I thought that this was fitting to the jumpy, cowardly kobolds but again, its an OPTION granted specifically by a special racial ability (sort of). Forcing it on ALL characters with Evasion is just silly.
Look at it this way: The rogue saves against a fireball but the nearest escape route is off the side of a cliff. Oops. Goodbye, rogue! You're basically giving every spellcaster the Explosive Spell feat (Complete Arcane) for free against characters with Evasion. You should not penalize a character for succeeding on a save... EVER.
Your house rule has more balance and realism to it, but in my personal case, I wouldn't change it just for the sake of how ammusing it is.
I always like to see evasion as less of the rogue getting out of the way, but rather, just shifting position enough to somehow evade the fireball.
It looks cooler that way, but is much less realistic.
(As was said in Order of the Stick, "Evasion!")
(Fans will get the reference without me having to explain the situation that the quote applies to. ;) )
I wouldn't do it, there's more to dodging than running, and more to being nimble than land speed.
I see the evasion ability as more of a jump > prone > roll > flip up > jump all in a few seconds avoiding the most intense parts of the heat, his clothes might catch a little flame, but patting down and rolling around would put that out.
Creative Director
|
I'd leave evasion as it is; making it harder to use only punishes characters who rely on it to survive. It's easier (and better for the game) to assume that effects like fireball don't actually fill their area of effect 100%. A rogue evades the fireball without leaving its area of effect by droping low, ducking behind another character, or whatever.
Just like it's best to not worry why a 15 points of damage from a sword can instantly kill a 1st level character but barely hurts a 20th level character (even though the damage is the same in both cases), it's best not to worry about exactly how a character evades an area effect attack. Just let him do what it is his class does.
I thought that this was fitting to the jumpy, cowardly kobolds...
In DDO, you will learn a new hate for the kobolds, as they dance, skitter, jump and spin out of your way.
And throw alchemist's fire at you.
As the shamans laugh at you from a distance as they magic missle and acid splash and make you fear them. (And lightning bolt and obscuring mist at higher levels.)
And the traps...ye gods the traps...
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Evasion, to me, is not all that unrealistic (except in extreme circumstances).
In the description of fireball, it states that there is no explosive force, only a wash of fire that blankets an area. It's not napalm or anything, so it won't stick to anything and keep burning (unless the object is already quite flammable) so a simple wool cloak is enough to stop the roll of flames. The rogue simply flips the cloak up over his face and lets himself fall on his back. The flames roll over his cloak, singeing the cloak ever-so-slightly and making him sweat, but not really hurting him in any way.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Rogue not rouge.
My ex-DM did this house rule. I was the only person it affected as the party rogue. This coupled with a few other houserules that seemed to hobble every class except arcane casters was why I quit this group. My character was exposed to DM whim too many times and it seemed like if he wanted to inject drama he would rule in favor of "sorry, nothing to hide behind". You will be pulling a lot of power from players with this feat. A better way to do it is to totally remove it and replace it with something of equal power.
I am biased in this discussion because I absolutely LOATH this houserule and it ruined a game for me. I had tried to discuss it with the DM and got a "These are the Houserules, they are not subject to change" lecture. Houserules generally suck IMO. DMs are not game designers and need to carefully approach changes in the rules due to balance issues. Most don't. If you are an exception then great, but I felt I needed to let you know my feelings on this situation.FH
Let me add to the chorus of agreements with our wise (albeit, false) healer. If the physics of Evasion are an issue, you might consider tailoring reality even more to fit the game effect rather than vice versa. Maybe in addition to contorting into weird positions the rogue also mumbles a few minor arcane phrases - just enough to help redirect the effect around his body. Maybe spells have "holes" in them due to the way the arcane energies are woven together and the rogue manages to fit into such holes.
If this board had a sig function, mine would say "It's a game, not a reality simulation." There's nothing that irritates me more as a player then when game abilities get neutered due to the DM's own narrow interpretation of "reality."
|
If this board had a sig function, mine would say "It's a game, not a reality simulation." There's nothing that irritates me more as a player then when game abilities get neutered due to the DM's own narrow interpretation of "reality."
That's definitely something upon which we both can agree.
I've had a GM go on and on about 'reality' and what doesn't fit their perception of it. It is especially irksome when their 'expertise' comes from a damn movie. "A shotgun can blow apart chains at a distance... didn't you see Terminator 2?" Challenging these self-styled experts usually results in you not being invited back for the next game.
Your opinions are duly noted! Thank you all for your responses to my post, this is exactly the type of feedback I was hoping for.
My purpose for this rule was not to make the game more realistic - it is a game after all - but simply to make the game a bit more dynamic. I'm big into the mini's and setups for the dungeons, and I thought that this rule would make combat a little more interesting for all involved.
I didn't see this as penalizing the players so much - after all they get a choice as to take the move action or not - and it also applies to the bad guys.
I am also coming at this from the perspective of high level characters who's reflex saves are very high compared to the save DC's for equivalent level mage spells. I will defenitely have to do some research into how this would affect lower level characters (we're currently 19th level and about to face Dragotha in the AOW).
I will certainly admit I have a hard time with the standard evasion explanation that a rogue just jumps or flips or covers to avoid the AOE. I can see this for something like a blade barrier, but an instanttaneous effect like a fireball - I just cannot see how a rogue has time to find a "dead spot" in the AOE to take cover in.
However you all have certainly given me some arguements to mull over and I will certainly do that before officially incorporating this rule.
Thanks again all!
I always felt evasion was more instinctual, more of body memory induced by training to avoid dangers, rather than a precise mental calculation "ok, I need to go here, then here."
I agree, which in my view would be why the rogue ducks, dodges, or tumbles out of the spell's AOE. How else would evasion plausibly work?
I agree, which in my view would be why the rogue ducks, dodges, or tumbles out of the spell's AOE. How else would evasion plausibly work?
I've always thought of evasion as as much a kind of magical luck (or eldritch, spiritual, or elemental) as type of movement. Or depending on the type of character - a type of mystical toughness/resistance - as well as sort of super duper dodge like ability. Or some combination of all three. I am kind of the opinion that magical luck and resistance make more sense than just ducking really fast.
My two coppers.
On behalf of Rogues everywhere I beseech you not to do this. We are low on HP so evasion is one of the few ways for us to evade dying every time a spellcaster casts a spell that would deal massive damage. It might be more realistic but it would just make the rogue's life harder (prbably shorter too) and on the whole not as enjoyable. Those are my two coppers.
I really don't understand why people want to explain Evasion with magic. If it is, then it doesn't work in an antimagic field. Try this: "Somehow, with a flurry of movement, you escape unharmed." Like darkvision and uncanny dodge (and the improved version thereof), this is one of those things probably best left unexplained (although there is conjecture on these boards that darkvision uses radio waves, but this has no effect on game mechanics and is little more than a musing).
Think of the action movie scene, where the explosion is right behind the hero, who turns, covers himself, takes a few frantic steps (but not more than a five-foot space's worth!), and then ducks. The fire rushes by, singing his back, but he gets up, more or less unharmed, and goes on.
I also support bending the descriptions of reality to the rules, not vice vers, which oddly enough, also puts me in agreement with Sebastian. This is getting wierd....
I really don't understand why people want to explain Evasion with magic.
Well - because it makes more sense - flurry your hands and dance around all you want - a fireball is going to cook you, a hand grenade is going to make you a stew. Evasion is a different kind of luck/magic/divine favor that works in anti magic areas.
Makes sense to me - has more logic - don't like it fine - the request was made for an alrenative description - don't like it don't use it.
|
|
I agree, which in my view would be why the rogue ducks, dodges, or tumbles out of the spell's AOE. How else would evasion plausibly work?
Or as an immediate action flips his coat/cloak/arms over his exposed parts to allow the flames to wash over him harmlessly if his reflexes are fast enough (hence the reflex save+evasion for no damage). Moving, tumbling and dodging is too much to allow for an immediate action and seems too far fetched compared to the wash of flames being deflected from harming him.
My opinion, but you asked for it.FH