I was having a discussion with my group the other day, and one of our players mentioned he hates saving throws. I'm not saying I agree, or even knew what to say to him, but his argument was this:
1) Two of the three saving throws are redundant skills. Reflex is the same as Acrobatics, and Fort is the same as Endurance. (Willpower is the obvious exception.)
2) Saving throws take the "roll" away from casters. His opinion is that part of the fun of playing melee is rolling to see if you hit. Spells, on the other hand, shift the roll to the defender. While that can be fun too, it makes being a caster fundamentally less active in play. He would rather have a static value to roll spell hit against.
What do you guys think?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was having a discussion with my group the other day, and one of our players mentioned he hates saving throws.
What do you guys think?
I don't mind saving throws as a concept, but I admit I would prefer a formula where spells/poison/fear was causing something, then if you fail your save you get something worse.
In short, I don't like the "save negate" mechanics.
'findel
In short, I don't like the "save negate" mechanics.
Ah, that was one of his other beefs as well. I forgot. Thanks :)
Saving throws being fundementally different from attacks is what makes it feel different playing a wizard over a fighter. If it all worked the same, it would reduce the options of gameplay style in the game (one of the factors I don't like playing other game systems outside of Pathfinder).
All-or-nothing spell checks and rock-paper-scissor attack/defense process that high level magic seems to focus on are another form of gameplay style that "mixes things up".
.
That being said, there's rules for flipping who rolls for what. You can have it so the player make all the rolls (attack and defense).
Switch which one is 10 + modifiers vs d20 + modifiers. Note that when you flip it though, you it should be 11 + modifiers, because the average roll of a d20 is 10.5, so the "roller" typically has a slight advantage (a half point higher). So when reversing saving throws, this means the stat should change to 11 + saving throw bonus against the caster's d20 roll (spell DC mods), returning the "half point higher" towards the person trying to save against the spell.
Coming from 2E, I absolutley LOVE the save system in Pathfinder... The whole, 'resist/dodge/Take it like a man' different 'effects' of saving throws are SOOOOO much cooler then they were in 2E.
That said... I have noticed that it Pathfinder.. we Roll them A LOT!!!!
MOST of them seem to be Fort saves, and my Rogue fails nearly ALL of them....
So while I LIKE the system... maybe there's too much of it.
In regards to reversing the saving throws, it seems like a good idea till players are struck by a spell like hold person without getting a roll to defend or worse being disintegrated
The saves do not just reflect acrobatics and endurance skills perse, luck is generally considered to be a large factor in it
Eh.. it's no different from a melee attack the player can't do anything to defend against.
You could have all the rolls happen on the Player's end. The monsters would all have static scores for everything (players even roll defense rolls when the monsters attack).
It puts all the luck in the players hands. If you are a fudging DM, that can cause you problems (or be a great way to wean yourself off fudging.. actually, it might be more like going cold turkey).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like? I was married to one. But I failed her, and it broke my heart (something that could have been avoided had I succeeded).
She's not with me any more. And even though I don't want to, I sometimes miss her.
1) Two of the three saving throws are redundant skills. Reflex is the same as Acrobatics, and Fort is the same as Endurance. (Willpower is the obvious exception.)
There is no Endurance skill in Pathfinder.
Acrobatics is similar, I'll give you that, but it's not quite the same. Skills generally make you accomplish something (even if that something is getting through an enemy's threatened space without him getting to hit you), while saves are made to avoid something.
The way the game is made, they need to be separate. Skills work differently from saving throws, you progress differently, the saving throws are usually different, and so on.
2) Saving throws take the "roll" away from casters. His opinion is that part of the fun of playing melee is rolling to see if you hit. Spells, on the other hand, shift the roll to the defender. While that can be fun too, it makes being a caster fundamentally less active in play. He would rather have a static value to roll spell hit against.What do you guys think?
It's true that with spells that allow saves (as opposed to those who require an attack roll), the target gets to roll. That works two ways, though: When the player is the target, he now gets to roll a save.
Plus, spells often target large amounts of enemies, and this way, they all get to do their own saving instead of the caster having to roll lots of spell attack rolls.
But if it bothers you too much, just flip it. Subtract 10 from each DC to get the "attack roll" (+d20), and add 10 to the save bonuses to get the "defences".
Try it out and see if you like it.
And maybe they do find that it's not so nice after all to be dominated without being able to do anything (sure, they have a defence against it, but that's a passive thing. Fate is no longer in their hands)
you say that part of the fun of being melee is to roll ...
as a melee you don't give lots of saving throws to others, but you probably get a lot of spells against you.
So you roll about as often.
However I do understand that it's weird that some rolls are made by the defender and some by the agressor, and it would probably more "smooth" to change that, but it's no big deal.
Saving throws aren't the most elegant way to do what they are supposed to, but there is no obvious better choice for me.
|
I was having a discussion with my group the other day, and one of our players mentioned he hates saving throws. I'm not saying I agree, or even knew what to say to him, but his argument was this:
1) Two of the three saving throws are redundant skills. Reflex is the same as Acrobatics, and Fort is the same as Endurance. (Willpower is the obvious exception.)
2) Saving throws take the "roll" away from casters. His opinion is that part of the fun of playing melee is rolling to see if you hit. Spells, on the other hand, shift the roll to the defender. While that can be fun too, it makes being a caster fundamentally less active in play. He would rather have a static value to roll spell hit against.
What do you guys think?
1) Not really. Acrobatics is a skill, something which you (player/character) willingly develop to a desidered degree putting points in it each level. Reflex is something inherently tied to the class (and obviously level), so there's less control over it.
Endurance skill? Not in PF.2) Understandable, but not really a bothersome matter, IMO. The feeling of being "less active" is there, but as there are means of making the defender roll against a higher DC (not really equiparable to the modifiers of an attacking roll, but they do are in the rules) the sides are simply switched.
Moreover there are spells which require active rolls from the caster (touch AC mostly), and the overall effectiveness of the save-or-die spells has changed a lot in PF, so a succesfull roll from the defender does not negate the spell effect as often as a failed attack roll negates direct damage.
It can be switched around if you like it, as a couple of people has suggested.
The main advantage that I see inn having active Saving Throw, is that they are more often subject to bonusses (such as bravery and racial modifiers) which apply to some rolls but not all.
I expect that it makes it easier to have only one roll which you need to calculate the result for. Save DCs are almost always fixed. Turning it around, you would have a situation where need to calculate spell attack roll X+d20, and Save DC+situational bonus depending on the attack/spell type.
It might be a minor problem, but nonetheless one that might slow the game down unneccesarily.
I apologize for the Endurance snafu, apparently we've been playing our house rules for so long we've confused them for core. :) That certainly does change things a bit, and I will bring that up next time we play.
@Remco: we don't play with save-or-die effects, those spells have less severe consequences in our game. Point taken though.
@Harald: are you of the opinion that current saving throws slow the game, or that having a static defense to roll spell hit against would slow the game? I'm not clear on which you meant.
Thanks for the comments. :)
2) Saving throws take the "roll" away from casters. His opinion is that part of the fun of playing melee is rolling to see if you hit. Spells, on the other hand, shift the roll to the defender. While that can be fun too, it makes being a caster fundamentally less active in play. He would rather have a static value to roll spell hit against.
Yeah, changing them from saving throws to defenses is one of the few things I like about 4e. Probabilities are the same but the system is more uniform
Yeah, changing them from saving throws to defenses is one of the few things I like about 4e. Probabilities are the same but the system is more uniform
I wasn't aware of this, having never seen a 4e rulebook.
How did they do it -- one static spell resist stat like AC? And skills for whatever doesn't apply?
@TriOmegaZero
Adding only 10 will give a slight shift in power from the defender to the attacker, compared to how it is now. Giving the defender 11 + saving throw bonus would be the equivocal transition to keep balance exactly the same.
.
Regarding Acrobatics/Endurance vs Reflex/Fortitude, etc.
I get the impression that Skills are more of a "proactive" thing, whereas Saves are more of a "reactive" thing.
You put ranks into a skill to be able to perform specific things related to the skill, and to respond to situations with that skill.
It's possible to be completely untrained and inept at a skill at higher levels. Having higher levels and more ranks/training in a skill means you can perform more complex/difficult actions, and easier actions have no chance of failure.
You automatically get ability in saves because you are learning how to react to the dangers of adventuring. It's more level-dependent, rather than DC dependent. Having a higher bonus is an automatic reaction to higher level effects being faced. Having a high bonus against a low save DC means you are up against something that is not normally level appropriate.
Basically, the reasons for having each of these things is completely different.
If you moved all saving throws into a skill, it would make people too good at saving against things that their class training doesn't reflect (the only real difference is the +3 class bonus and perhaps not focusing on a stat as much).
It also means that not putting ranks into it would be near suicide, so it's not a "skill tax", a concept that designers try to avoid in "optional" things like skills and feats.
Regarding Acrobatics/Endurance vs Reflex/Fortitude, etc.
I get the impression that Skills are more of a "proactive" thing, whereas Saves are more of a "reactive" thing.
You put ranks into a skill to be able to perform specific things related to the skill, and to respond to situations with that skill.
It's possible to be completely untrained and inept at a skill at higher levels. Having higher levels and more ranks/training in a skill means you can perform more complex/difficult actions, and easier actions have no chance of failure.You automatically get ability in saves because you are learning how to react to the dangers of adventuring. It's more level-dependent, rather than DC dependent. Having a higher bonus is an automatic reaction to higher level effects being faced. Having a high bonus against a low save DC means you are up against something that is not normally level appropriate.
Basically, the reasons for having each of these things is completely different.
If you moved all saving throws into a skill, it would make people too good at saving against things that their class training doesn't reflect (the only real difference is the +3 class bonus and perhaps not focusing on a stat as much).
It also means that not putting ranks into it would be near suicide, so it's not a "skill tax", a concept that designers try to avoid in "optional" things like skills and feats.
You mean like how PF took Concentration out of the skill list and made it part of the caster. They want to prevent people from being accidentally gimped because of inexperience or a bad decision.
So a level 20 wizard with a reflex saving throw has d20 +6, where a wizard who would have to make an acrobatics check might have d20 +0.
Does 4e have an answer to this, since they have the static magic defense?
Yeah, changing them from saving throws to defenses is one of the few things I like about 4e. Probabilities are the same but the system is more uniformI wasn't aware of this, having never seen a 4e rulebook.
How did they do it -- one static spell resist stat like AC? And skills for whatever doesn't apply?
4e characters (PC and NPC) have 4 defenses:
-Armor Class-Fortitude Defense
-Reflex Defense
-Will Defense
All four are static defenses; the attacker rolls against them. Certain attacks roll against certain defenses. It is very much the same as 3.5/PF. Melee opposes AC. Hold person oppose Will defense. Fireball opposes Reflex defense. Etc.
While there are many, many things I enjoy about Pathfinder, I hate saving throws. I prefer the 4E mechanic of Reflex, Fortitude, and Will operating as defenses just like Armor Class. I find that cuts down on a whole lot of die rolling.
I also like the "flex stat" mechanic in 4E for those defenses. For example, Fortitude can be keyed off Con or Str, Reflex can be keyed off Dex or Int, and Will can be tied to Wis or Cha.
Thanks for the clarifications on 4e.
What actions do people think *ought* to be rolled by the players, and what doesn't matter who rolls?
With the caveat: I would prefer a single roll per action. I don't care for opposed rolls.
melee attack
spell attack
environmental attack
dragonfire (magic or natural)
others?
*skill rolls are not changing, they will be actively rolled by players
I dislike the idea of tying Saves into Skills (sic, Replacing Saves w/ Skills) as it then makes certain skills *MUSTMUSTMUST* have. If you rolled Acrobatics for REF saves, *every* PC will feel the need to take Acrobatics. Or would you play a PC that had a -8 to 'REF' Saves? (as a skill, Acrobatics takes Armor check penalties...)
If it's a "my effect, my rolls" issue, just flip the rules and roll against a target's defense (derived from their Core Rules REF save)
Either way, it's your game, and you all will figure out the way you prefer to play :)
GNOME
|
I was thinking you could just make stat rolls, basically taking the stats out of spell casting, for purposes of saves, and just making characters have to roll with their stat modifier. The other idea I had would be to remove the spell level and have it be stat vs stat.
The biggest problem with the first one is that it becomes too easy to make the saves in many cases, first level spells are almost always going to fail if they have saves, but this is only a little different from normal, but then higher level spells also suffer from this. Maybe make it so the DC is 10+ (spell levelX1.5), rounding up?
The biggest problem with the second way is it makes stats too important, which they are really important as is.
I generally prefer the saving throw compared to the attack roll vs static defense. When the PCs are the targets and they roll a save, they get to make use of re-roll powers/feats (I still like the 3.5 luck feats) and action points based on what they perceive their die roll to be. It becomes part of a rational strategy.
If we were to go to them having static defenses, they'd have to choose to force me to re-roll or add 1d6 to their defense (with an action point) with my attack roll sight unseen. I don't think that works as well as a game mechanic, frankly. It makes the use of the re-rolls/action points far more of a lucky guess than a strategy of good play.
One alternative, I suppose, would be for me to use the saving throw mechanic with them but translate all opponent saves into static defenses. Basically, this means putting a huge amount of the die rolling mechanics in the players' hands. I'm not sure I want to go that route though.
|
I like the idea of using a Players Roll Everything system, with players making traditional saving throws for their characters, and making a "spell attack" roll when casting at NPCs. I'm thinking about using that system for my next campaign - If I never have to roll 30 individual saves for a horde of orcs again, I'll die happy.
But you know what I don't like about saving throws? Reflex Saves. Fort Saves and Will Saves I have no problem with, but Reflex Saves make no sense to me. Here's why:
There are three PCs. Two Fighters and a Rogue, all 3rd level. All of them are naked. That's right, NAKED. 100% in the raw. It was a crazy night, you had to be there. They are standing in a 100" diameter round room with a smooth marble floor and no obstructions, obstacles or objects to hide behind. Completely featureless. Each character is exactly 20" from each other character, in a straight line, with the Rogue in the center.
A 5th level wizard is flying above them. He casts Fireball. He centers the fireball on the rogue, which means he just barely catches the two fighters on the very edges of the spell. Everyone makes a saving throw, all three saves are successful.
The fighters each take 1/2 damage. The Rogue takes none.
How? HOW???? HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN? The rogue doesn't move at all, he has nothing to hide behind, and he's in the middle of a burning inferno that reaches out for twenty feet in every direction he can move. Plus he's naked.
Does he fold time and space and slip into a temporary pocket universe? Because no amount of ducking, dodging or moving inside his 5" x 5" space is going to get him out of the way of all that fire. Yet that's exactly what happens.
I think Evasion is broken. Not in a "It makes the rogue too powerful" sense, but in a "I go insane trying to figure out how that happened" sense.
I also think that making a successful reflex save should grant an immediate move action (up to the radius of the spell) and leave the character prone. Because if a Reflex save is defined as diving for cover, then dangit, there should be some freaking diving involved. And that goes double for Evasion.
|
|
A fireball does not fill every square completely full of flame. No more than a grenade fills the blast radius completely with shrapnel. Evasion is just a representation of the action hero getting caught in an explosion and coming out with merely cosmetic singe marks.
Granting move actions on successful saves will lead to the party wizard using his fireballs to boost his allies movement speeds. As long as you're okay with this, go for it.
|
|
A fireball does not fill every square completely full of flame. No more than a grenade fills the blast radius completely with shrapnel. Evasion is just a representation of the action hero getting caught in an explosion and coming out with merely cosmetic singe marks.
Granting move actions on successful saves will lead to the party wizard using his fireballs to boost his allies movement speeds. As long as you're okay with this, go for it.
Not if I determine direction of movement with a scatter template it won't!
And I don't buy your explanation. Maybe if the rogue was on the edge of the fireball, sure. But at it's center? No way.
You don't believe that fireball does not fill the entire area?
It's nothing but flame. You've never run your hand through a flame without being burnt? The flames of a fireball only last six seconds at most.
Even less they are instantaneous. :D
But you know what I don't like about saving throws? Reflex Saves. Fort Saves and Will Saves I have no problem with, but Reflex Saves make no sense to me. Here's why:
(snip)
The fighters each take 1/2 damage. The Rogue takes none.
How? HOW???? HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN? The rogue doesn't move at all, he has nothing to hide behind, and he's in the middle of a burning inferno that reaches out for twenty feet in every direction he can move. Plus he's naked.
I'm seeing the problem the other way around.
If you felt the PCs had no chance to evade the flames or protect themselves in any ways that could vouch for the reduced effect of a successful save; why did you allow a saving throw in the first place?
But you know what I don't like about saving throws? Reflex Saves. Fort Saves and Will Saves I have no problem with, but Reflex Saves make no sense to me. Here's why:
(snip)
The fighters each take 1/2 damage. The Rogue takes none.
How? HOW???? HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN? The rogue doesn't move at all, he has nothing to hide behind, and he's in the middle of a burning inferno that reaches out for twenty feet in every direction he can move. Plus he's naked.
He's a most extraordinary gentlemen.
|
|
I'm seeing the problem the other way around.
If you felt the PCs had no chance to evade the flames or protect themselves in any ways that could vouch for the reduced effect of a successful save; why did you allow a saving throw in the first place?
Short answer: Because I like to keep players, and arbitrarily removing their class abilities is not an effective strategy for doing that.
As a GM I can obviously work around rules that don't make a lick of sense, but as a person paying for the rules system, I'd rather they just make sense in the first place. I don't like dissociative mechanics (one of the reasons I disliked a lot of later WOTC and 4E so much), and Reflex saves are high on that list.
If a Reflex save is a mechanic to represent the ability to dodge out of the way of an area of effect attack, then by god, it should actually involve dodging out of the way. That's just common sense.
You don't believe that fireball does not fill the entire area?
It's nothing but flame. You've never run your hand through a flame without being burnt? The flames of a fireball only last six seconds at most.
You didn't really just equate a forty foot sphere of fire with a candle flame, did you? I mean, because that would be kind of silly, don't you think? But a candle flame is the only kind of flame I've ever seen anyone pass their hand through, and their hand spent significantly less than six seconds in contact with the flame. Less than one second, generally.
Try this: Have you ever passed your hand through the center of bonfire without being burnt? Of course not. Because that would be impossible.
Have you ever passed your hand through the center of bonfire without being burnt?
Yes. But it helps to be fast, drunk, and stupid...
So, you roll a 20 on your Fireball. The party's out of luck. You roll a 1, they're fine. You roll a 14, you probably get most of them.
Individual rolls make things more interesting for the group. Sometimes the cleric will survive and the rogue will mess up, sometimes the whole party makes it except one person or vice versa.
VX gas gives you a fortitude save but an alchemist is outright immune -- nothing is immune to VX gas in real life but in the game the alchemist is. Undead are immune to mind affecting abilities even though intelligent undea plainly have a mind
Either complain about all of it or none of it.
If only I had time to get to every complaint.
I dislike the idea of tying Saves into Skills...as it then makes certain skills *MUSTMUSTMUST* have.
It's not on the table for that very reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Either complain about all of it or none of it.Make me?
Seriously, what kind of demand is that? Get real.
The same kind as complaining about evasion -- especially complaining about evasion in a game where one can be immune to VX gas.
Get real? ABOUT A GAME? A game of make believe? Honestly?
|
|
You didn't really just equate a forty foot sphere of fire with a candle flame, did you? I mean, because that would be kind of silly, don't you think? But a candle flame is the only kind of flame I've ever seen anyone pass their hand through, and their hand spent significantly less than six seconds in contact with the flame. Less than one second, generally.
Try this: Have you ever passed your hand through the center of bonfire without being burnt? Of course not. Because that would be impossible.
Being that the bonfire is usually too big for me to reach the center of it without standing in the fire, no.
However, as a previous poster mentioned, Fireball is an instantaneous spell. Therefore, the fire does not last more than that second, which you admit you can avoid burning yourself on in real life. It's not a bonfire. It's a widespread candleflame.
Were you not the one that pointed out the game world does not have physics, only metaphysics? The metaphysics of the world state a character with Evasion can avoid harm from an inferno blast no matter the circumstances of that inferno. Fire does not harm characters in the same way it harms real people. Why are you trying to justify it with real physics? Either accept it, or change it. Like some really wise people said, it's just a show, you should really just relax.
A fireball is not an explosion. It has no force behind it: "The explosion creates almost no pressure."
A fireball isn't napalm, or even a blowtorch. It's about as hot as your bonfire example: "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."
Note also that despite all this heat (with no pressure), it lasts only an instant. This is why it doesn't "blow things up", but rather just sets combustibles on fire at best.
The very fact that it allows a Reflex save at all means that a person can avoid the main damaging effects of a fireball. Hide your face or turn away from the point of explosion. Cover exposed parts of your body, or parts that would hinder you if burned severely (eyes/face, fingers, etc).
Ever get burned from boiling water? If you know something that can do that was about to come at you, you'd cover your "important bits" automatically. A commoner who gets blasted full in the face with the spell (failed reflex and low hitpoints) would be out of the fight, on the ground falling unconscious from the pain.
Evasion is listed as an Extraordinary ability. This is on par with a Monk running as fast as a cheetah, gaining immunity to disease or poison, a Druid being an animal whisperer, or a Ranger being able to disappear in front of your eyes without magic of any kind.
Extraordinary are things that aren't supposed to be realistic, and instead are more focused on being cinematic.
I have no problem with a Rogue taking zero damage from a fireball.
Ninjas don't need umbrellas. They dodge the raindrops.
To be fair, I could understand a Fireball-type spell that caused physical (bludgeoning?) and fire damage, that had no save, and caused a bull rush effect against anyone in the area (pushing away from the center of the explosion).
This would be a much higher level spell than a normal Fireball though.
I like the 4E system a little bit better than the saves in pathfinder, though I think in 4E the defenses are often too close to each other due to the mechanic as where in pathfinder there are more definite strengths and weaknesses in the defenses.
In 4E AC is almost always the strongest defense and the others are the softer targets. I don't think it should be like that. Also the 4E mechanic can lead all attacks to feeling a bit generic but I think that is a problem with how they use the mechanic rather than the mechanic itself.
When I run 4E and make my own monsters I tend to change the stats a fair bit, giving critters more drastic shifts in defenses, lowering HP, and upping damage. It has a much better feel much of the time. Too many 4E monsters feel "brick like" rather than "pointy".
I like to have brinks, points, flats... lots of different feeling enemies.
I like the 4E system a little bit better than the saves in pathfinder, though I think in 4E the defenses are often too close to each other due to the mechanic as where in pathfinder there are more definite strengths and weaknesses in the defenses.
Are they too similar because of the "stat sharing" mechanic?
In 4E AC is almost always the strongest defense and the others are the softer targets. I don't think it should be like that. Also the 4E mechanic can lead all attacks to feeling a bit generic but I think that is a problem with how they use the mechanic rather than the mechanic itself.
Is the generic feeling derived from making attack rolls for spells, or the closeness in value of the defenses?
What do you guys think?
Honestly, I wish there was a system to incorporate both. In 4th ed, a new mechanic was added: passive skills. Perception and Insight IIRC. Skills that are constantly used, but not always focused on.
I think saves/defences should work in a similar fashion. Active and passive. If you're aware of the incoming spell/effect/attack, then IMO you should have a better chance of avoiding/enduring/resisting. If you're not aware, then the attacker should have an advantage.
The current system leans towards an active defence as you have to actively roll. For passive saves, just add 10 to your saves and that's it. Think of it like "taking 10."
Yes, there's about a teaspoon more work involved, but it adds depth to the game in both mechanics and imersion.
-Kurocyn
|
|
The same kind as complaining about evasion -- especially complaining about evasion in a game where one can be immune to VX gas.Either complain about all of it or none of it.Make me?
Seriously, what kind of demand is that? Get real.
I don't think there is VX gas is Pathfinder, so there's that. Then there's the difference between me complaining about a rule I don't like and you telling me that I'm not allowed to complain about rules I don't like unless I complain about everything you think is wrong with the game, even if I think your complaints are baseless.
You are essentially telling me to shut up. You don't have that right. You're being rude. Stop doing that.
Get real? ABOUT A GAME? A game of make believe? Honestly?
Do you even understand where you are? Yes, I am complaining about a rule/mechanic in a game. A game of make-believe. On a gaming forum. It's totally surreal, isn't it? I mean, it's only like...what the forum is for.
Were you not the one that pointed out the game world does not have physics, only metaphysics? The metaphysics of the world state a character with Evasion can avoid harm from an inferno blast no matter the circumstances of that inferno.
If its a metaphysical effect, then it should be a Supernatural ability, and not an Extraordinary ability. Extraordinary abilities are, by definition, not magical effects. Look, evasion specifically states that the rogue avoids damage by "great agility," and agility is not metaphysical. The description of Reflex says that Ref Saves "test your ability to dodge area attacks and unexpected situations."
Digressing into discussions about Fireball in particular just get away from the point: I'm just saying, if a reflex save models dodging an area effect, then it should do that. And it currently doesn't. And that bugs me.
A successful Reflex save should move the character 5' and leave them prone as they duck and cover, and Evasion should move the character to a space just outside the AOE. That would actually model dodging an area of effect through an act of (possibly great) agility.
|
|
I don't mind saving throws as a concept, but I admit I would prefer a formula where spells/poison/fear was causing something, then if you fail your save you get something worse.
In short, I don't like the "save negate" mechanics.
Mutants & Masterminds has 'staged' effects, where failing a save vs. fear leads to shaken, and failing by five leads to panicked.
I love that idea.
Fail your save vs. fear, you're shaken. Fail by five, you're panicked.
Fail a save vs. blindness, you're dazzled*. Fail by five, blinded.
Fail a save vs. nausea, you're sickened. By five nauseated.
*Well, something better than dazzled, 'cause dazzled sucks. -2 to attacks and a 20% miss chance, as if all targets had partial concealment, would be a better 'half-strength blindness.'
I kind of like how 4e streamlined the saving throws as well.
I don't really care which way the streamlining goes, target makes save or attacker makes check to overcome 'Will AC,' but I like the consistency, of not having different spells requiring attack rolls (scorching rays), others using saving throws (fireball) and many having to *also* deal with spell resistance (or energy resistance, or arbitrary immunities that affect entire schools of magic, like enchantment and necromancy).
I'm a consistency freak, and if every spell used the same sort of mechanics, and we never again had something as terrible as phantasmal killer, with anywhere from three to six possible ways it could utterly fail, I'd be happy.
|
|
A successful Reflex save should move the character 5' and leave them prone as they duck and cover, and Evasion should move the character to a space just outside the AOE. That would actually model dodging an area of effect through an act of (possibly great) agility.
Indeed, if you think something cannot be dodged completely, why are you allowing a Reflex save in the first place?
I disagree with your premise, but being that I'm not sure I understand how you are using the word 'metaphysical' in this case I won't try to argue the point. Because I certainly think an ability to avoid an explosion without a scratch is metaphysical.
Fast Movement is certainly metaphysical. As is Rage, and many other Ex abilities. Why not Evasion?