You don't save to avoid the hit, you save to not take damage. Getting hit, and not taking damage does not seem realistic, but the game avoid realism for purposes of balance. An example is that a paralyzed person can still make a reflex save. In short everyone still has to make a save even if the primary target took no damage.
As for SR I would say that if the primary target has SR that it can stop the spell, but I don't know if it is supported by the rule.
IIRC, you roll SR for each individual target, but it does not stop the spell if you fail the Spell Penetration roll for any (including the primary target).
A good rule of thumb is to just compare to a lower level spell. Higher level spells should always have the same or better chance of having an effect when compared to lower level spells of similar effect. Chain lightning is weird, but it makes more sense if you think of it like a standard AOE spell. Just because one person in the fireball AOE made the save or has spell resistance doesn't mean that no one in the area got hit, Chain Lightning works the same way, the only difference is in how the caster chooses targets.
You don't save to avoid the hit, you save to not take damage. Getting hit, and not taking damage does not seem realistic, but the game avoid realism for purposes of balance. An example is that a paralyzed person can still make a reflex save. In short everyone still has to make a save even if the primary target took no damage.
As for SR I would say that if the primary target has SR that it can stop the spell, but I don't know if it is supported by the rule.
Where does it say that paralysed creatures can make reflex saves? Its says they are helpless and are considered to have strength and dexterity scores of zero but can take purely mental actions.
I've never allowed helpless or paralysed characters in my games make reflex saves, do you have a quote of RAW that would allow them too? It may save some deaths.
You don't save to avoid the hit, you save to not take damage. Getting hit, and not taking damage does not seem realistic, but the game avoid realism for purposes of balance. An example is that a paralyzed person can still make a reflex save. In short everyone still has to make a save even if the primary target took no damage.
As for SR I would say that if the primary target has SR that it can stop the spell, but I don't know if it is supported by the rule.
Where does it say that paralysed creatures can make reflex saves? Its says they are helpless and are considered to have strength and dexterity scores of zero but can take purely mental actions.
I've never allowed helpless or paralysed characters in my games make reflex saves, do you have a quote of RAW that would allow them too? It may save some deaths.
Nothing in the helpless condition says that you automatically fail reflex saves. By the RAW, you can make reflex saves while helpless, although you are at a heavy penalty due to the 0 dexterity.
|
You don't save to avoid the hit, you save to not take damage. Getting hit, and not taking damage does not seem realistic, but the game avoid realism for purposes of balance. An example is that a paralyzed person can still make a reflex save. In short everyone still has to make a save even if the primary target took no damage.
As for SR I would say that if the primary target has SR that it can stop the spell, but I don't know if it is supported by the rule.
Where does it say that paralysed creatures can make reflex saves? Its says they are helpless and are considered to have strength and dexterity scores of zero but can take purely mental actions.
I've never allowed helpless or paralysed characters in my games make reflex saves, do you have a quote of RAW that would allow them too? It may save some deaths.
I think reflex is supposed to also partly represent luck. Note that evasion and such do not apply when unconscious, but I have seen it stated many times that you are meant to receive a reflex save when unconscious or otherwise unable to respond.
If you received no save when you are unconscious there would be no point in saying "A helpless rogue does not gain the benefit of evasion." as a reflex save wouldn't have occurred to apply the ability to.
You don't save to avoid the hit, you save to not take damage. Getting hit, and not taking damage does not seem realistic, but the game avoid realism for purposes of balance. An example is that a paralyzed person can still make a reflex save. In short everyone still has to make a save even if the primary target took no damage.
As for SR I would say that if the primary target has SR that it can stop the spell, but I don't know if it is supported by the rule.
Where does it say that paralysed creatures can make reflex saves? Its says they are helpless and are considered to have strength and dexterity scores of zero but can take purely mental actions.
I've never allowed helpless or paralysed characters in my games make reflex saves, do you have a quote of RAW that would allow them too? It may save some deaths.
I am still surprised this keeps coming up.
Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier).
1. Saves do not take actions.
2. In order for you to not be able to make a save there would need to be a specific rule saying so.3. What would be the point of noting that your modifier is -5 if it had no effect on the reflex save.
4. Saves also represent luck. The game is not a simulation. It is arbitrary.
edit:
If you’re helpless, your Dexterity score is effectively 0. You still can make Reflex saves, but your Dexterity modifier is –5. You’re helpless whenever you are paralyzed, unconscious, or asleep.
There has been no change in wording between 3.5 and PF to suggest a rules change, and since the PF devs also worked on 3.5 I am sure they are aware of the rule. Same words=same results.
There has been no change in wording between 3.5 and PF to suggest a rules change, and since the PF devs also worked on 3.5 I am sure they are aware of the rule. Same words=same results.
Except the judicial legislations the 3.5 FAQ pulled out of it's rump are not rules in the first place and do not apply to PF in the second place.
There has been no change in wording between 3.5 and PF to suggest a rules change, and since the PF devs also worked on 3.5 I am sure they are aware of the rule. Same words=same results.Except the judicial legislations the 3.5 FAQ pulled out of it's rump are not rules in the first place and do not apply to PF in the second place.
1.The game is backwards compatible. In order to be so most rulings must be the same.
2. If the same wording is used in both systems then the meaning has to be the same for he purpose of point 1, unless a dev decides to change it.You can't really have a backwards compatible system as complicated as PF/3.5 where the exact same words don't mean the same things. Other wise it is not really backwards compatible.
Imagine:
Poster 1:I wanted to play Age of Worms with my PF group, but my GM says that I don't get to do ___.
Poster 2:The rule in question was copied and pasted from 3.5 to PF, of course it works the same way.
Poster 3:Your GM is right. Those words which are exactly the same don't really mean the same thing. That was just a trap to get you to buy PF stuff.
edit:The 3.5 FAQ's are explanations of rules, just like Pathfinder's
are. I do admit they should have been errata'd at times, but so should vital strike for PF.
It's a 6th level spell. Why nerf it?
1. Primary target with evasion who successfully saves: Primary target evades, secondary targets roll saves against -2 DC to reduce damage.
2. Primary target without evasion who successfully saves: Primary target takes half damage, secondary targets roll saves against -2 DC to reduce damage.
3. Primary target with SR. If caster level check fails, the spell fizzles against the primary, secondary targets roll saves against -2 DC to reduce damage.
Spell resistance applies if the spell is targeted at the creature. Some individually targeted spells can be directed at several creatures simultaneously. In such cases, a creature's spell resistance applies only to the portion of the spell actually targeted at that creature. If several different resistant creatures are subjected to such a spell, each checks its spell resistance separately.
Spell resistance prevents a spell or a spell-like ability from affecting or harming the resistant creature, but it never removes a magical effect from another creature or negates a spell's effect on another creature.
I would do SR individually. I think that is closer to RAI anyway.
Agreed with wraithstrike.
