|
| 26 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rule bending thread has highlighted two question about the ring of evasion:
1) The ring say:
"This ring continually grants the wearer the ability to avoid damage as if she had evasion. Whenever she makes a Reflex saving throw to determine whether she takes half damage, a successful save results in no damage."
I think this mean that the ring give you the evasion ability with all the limits of that ability (armor limits [but see 2) below]), other people feel that the first phrase mean little and is fluff and the ring give you the ability of avoiding damage on a reflex save regardless of your armor.
2) the second question is: if the ring give the equivalent of the evasion ability, what version of evasion we should use?
The rogue ability (limited to light armor)
The ranger ability (limited to medium armor)
The animal companion version (no armor limit but they can use barding)
The eidolon version (AFAIK, with the appropriate feats and shape an eidolon can wear armor).
Please FAQ.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It clearly states that a successful save means no damage. It does not include any restrictions. All instances of evasion with restrictions list those restrictions. Does that cover it?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
There is a strong possibility yu are right Ashiel. I simply would like a dev ruling. It seem a perfect candidate for a FAQ. If you are right a FAQ will resolve the problem once and for all (without the need for a errata for the book.
If my doubt is valid a errata to the ring would be a good idea.
We could add Ughbashpoint too:
Anotehr reason to assume that a ring of evasion allows you to use it in HEAVY armor.
Tower Shield Specialist Archetype:
Tower Shield Evasion (Ex): At 16th level, while using a tower shield, the tower shield specialist gains evasion, as the rogue class ability.Unless you would restrict them to doing this while wearing light armor and a tower shield.
As written the ability is identical to the rogue evasion ability, with all the limits. Probably that is an oversight and the ability is meant to work with medium and heavy armor too. It seem a good candidate for an errata excising the "as the rogue class ability" part.
The rule bending thread has highlighted two question about the ring of evasion:
1) The ring say:
"This ring continually grants the wearer the ability to avoid damage as if she had evasion. Whenever she makes a Reflex saving throw to determine whether she takes half damage, a successful save results in no damage."I think this mean that the ring give you the evasion ability with all the limits of that ability (armor limits [but see 2) below]), other people feel that the first phrase mean little and is fluff and the ring give you the ability of avoiding damage on a reflex save regardless of your armor.
2) the second question is: if the ring give the equivalent of the evasion ability, what version of evasion we should use?
The rogue ability (limited to light armor)
The ranger ability (limited to medium armor)
The animal companion version (no armor limit but they can use barding)
The eidolon version (AFAIK, with the appropriate feats and shape an eidolon can wear armor).Please FAQ.
If there was a restriction as to the character receiving evasion, the ring would specifically state it.
However, the RAW says that it just grants evasion, not the restrictions that would come with it in the cases of the other characters.
While it is a good idea to ask if there should be any restrictions, unless it is refuted in an Errata/FAQ, the RAW suggests that any character wearing it receives the Evasion class feature with no restrictions applied whatsoever.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would also point out that the ring doesn't say the wearer "acts as if she had evasion", it says "avoids damage as if she had evasion". That is, the clause "as if she had evasion" is modifying the phrase "avoids damage", not "acts" or "functions" or any other broad statement of functionality.
The only thing being compared to evasion is the avoidance of damage.
The wearer doesn't even gain the class ability, they just avoid damage in that manner.
I would also point out that the ring doesn't say the wearer "acts as if she had evasion", it says "avoids damage as if she had evasion". That is, the clause "as if she had evasion" is modifying the phrase "avoids damage", not "acts" or "functions" or any other broad statement of functionality.
The only thing being compared to evasion is the avoidance of damage.
The wearer doesn't even gain the class ability, they just avoid damage in that manner.
Good catch, I didn't notice that. I just noticed that it doesn't list any specific restrictions that would deny the bearer its benefits, meaning that any implication for it granting restrictions aren't there, so saying that there are hidden restrictions or anything like that doesn't make sense.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So when the ring says "acts as if she had evasion"
Except it doesn't say "acts as if she had evasion". You even quoted me pointing that out.
So given that you not only just misquoted it, but that you misquoted it in a particular way that you were just cautioned against, forgive me if I don't give much weight to your grammatical analysis.
It hasn't been. Take that for what you will.
Paizo's message board FAQ system leaves much to be desired.
Sometimes the DEVs mark a FAQ request as "Already answered in the FAQ" because it is, actually, answered in the FAQ. Other times, they just mark it that way to cross it off their list, usually because it is answered adequately in the forum thread that requested the FAQ - in other words, they probably thought the answer was right here so they marked the thread "Already answered in the FAQ" which takes this request out of their FAQ inbox for good.
I think they should have "No answer needed" or "Read this thread for the correct answer" or some such things, that also take the FAQ out of the inbox, but this way they don't leave us all confused and scratching our heads while we scour through the FAQ looking for something the DEVs say is there when it really isn't there.
Short answer - they dodged the question, probably because they found it unworthy of an answer, and then mis-marked this thread so the FAQ request would go away.
Yes, it is. The designers answer FAQs when they have the time, but they have very busy schedules trying to make all that awesome content we consume. While some ask for FAQs, others ask for more modules, adventure paths, rules supplements, card games, board games, miniatures, comics, and so on.
While marking it as answered appears somewhat irresponsible, it was probably a limitation of their ability to clear the queue without actually addressing the post. If you want the question answered, you'll have to make a new post for FAQ; if you want people to see it, it might need to be in a new thread.
I do think the question is worthy of answering, or perhaps errata, as when the Ring of Evasion was created the only classes that granted evasion had the restriction to light or no armor.
Rules bloat should not broaden a magic item's abilities. In this case, it probably should have been revised when the Ranger got evasion.
It's a 25,000 gp magic item that makes no mention of any restrictions of its use. I don't think there should be any.
"Evasion" doesn't have the restriction that one must be wearing light or medium or no or whatever armor. Classes that grant the ability say that it can only be used in certain circumstances, restricting that class's ability to benefit from evasion. Either language like "this functions like the [rogue]'s class ability" or "this only functions when the character is wearing [type] of armor" would need to be there for any restriction to be in place.
For instance, Monk's Robe specifically says the Robe's AC bonus functions "just like the Monk's AC bonus". So, it makes sense that the light or no armor restriction carries over. The Ring of Evasion doesn't have any similar language, so I don't think the presumption should be that the restriction was intended to be there.
If I recall correctly in 3.x it actually granted you the class ablity and was allowed to stack with class that add the ablity granting them improved evasion. I don't think that is possiable any more, but it is not restricted by armor, save vs all or none. is what it does.
Was that maybe 3.0? The d20SRD has the same language:
Evasion
This ring continually grants the wearer the ability to avoid damage as if she had evasion. Whenever she makes a Reflex saving throw to determine whether she takes half damage, a successful save results in no damage.
The ring's text is unchanged from 3.5, a time when evasion only ever worked one way, and wasn't class-specific; Evasion was a light or no armor thing (note that it works in light armor for monks, even though most other abilities require them to wear no armor). If the ring was carte blanche to take no damage on a save, it wouldn't bother mentioning a specific ability that worked one way in all three classes that possessed it.
That, plus the idea that a magic item that replicates a class feature shouldn't be better than the class feature, suggests to me that the item should function in light armor only, or at least be clarified via FAQ or errata.
The entry for evasion for Druids' animal companions didn't change from 3.5 to PF, either. Neither of them mention armor restrictions.
To me, it's like a Ranger's combat style. TWF doesn't require a character to be wearing no or light or medium armor to function. Similarly, that a 4th level Duelist must use a light or one-handed weapon to actually gain the benefits of Combat Reflexes doesn't mean that Combat Reflexes requires one to use a light or one-handed weapon.
I understand where the argument comes from, saying that the Ring of Evasion should be restricted to some armor restrictions. But for me that raises a few questions: 1. Which version of evasion is it intended to emulate? The PF Ranger version which allows medium armor or the PF Rogue version which only allows light armor or the PF animal companion version which has no restriction on armor/barding? More importantly, how is this apparent from the rules, since the magic item entry makes no mention of any such restriction? And why didn't they include any of the restriction language if that was the intent, since every other time (save the Animal Companion entry) they do, and for a similar class-ability granting item (Monk's Robe/Belt) they mentioned the class feature it was intended to emulate?
Or, should we assume that "Evasion", in and of itself, contains no restrictions? Meaning that "Evasion" is a separate ability that allows Reflex save for no damage when ordinarily it would be half, but that certain classes which are granted that ability might have their access to it restricted by class-specific language, like Rangers with their combat styles or Barbarians with their fast movement or Monks with their AC bonus.
What happens when a Guide (Ranger archetype that replaces evasion) buys a Ring of Evasion - should that character's Ring provide the Ranger version of the benefit or the Rogue version of the benefit?
I belive it was a FAQ,in boards and issuse of dragon mag. I remember it was brought up with question of uncanny dodge and improved evasion stacking from muliable classes. Maybe it was 3.0 my 3.5/3.0 days are kind of blured together. I did not start playing 3.x until the epic level book came out and 3.5 was out months after.
It's not really important now, but you are mistaken. It's an old confusion.
Uncanny Dodge from multiple classes stacks to Improved Uncanny Dodge (and has since 3.0). Evasion from multiple classes does not stack to Improved Evasion (and never has, outside of house rules).
It was an easy mistake that had a lot of focus, because both abilities were fairly new (outside of 1st edition monk), and three out of 11 base classes and two out of about 10 prestige classes had at least one of the abilities, and the stacking language was present for each instance of Uncanny Dodge.
The entry for evasion for Druids' animal companions didn't change from 3.5 to PF, either. Neither of them mention armor restrictions.
Animal companions in full plate was probably not foremost in the 3.5 designers minds when they changed animal companions to acquire HD (and thus new feats for armor proficiency) as the druid leveled.
Or, should we assume...
No, it would be better to have it explained for each use of the ability, since it is no longer standardized as it once was.
This is basically what I was going to say, but you are correct, Fret, in that it obscures the rules enough where an FAQ would be appreciated. Ideally, Evasion would be a standardized Universal Monster Rule, then a given class or item could just reference it (and modify as necessary).The entry for evasion for Druids' animal companions didn't change from 3.5 to PF, either. Neither of them mention armor restrictions.Animal companions in full plate was probably not foremost in the 3.5 designers minds when they changed animal companions to acquire HD (and thus new feats for armor proficiency) as the druid leveled.
Undoubtedly referring to Animal Companion features isn't really the best source for PC features, so I'm not really trying to rest my hat on it.
A FAQ or clarification would certainly be helpful. I think the easiest solution is, as you mentioned, something along the lines of: Evasion = [this], with no restrictions.
Then, references to it from class abilities etc. can include the "but only when wearing [type] of armor". Absent some other kind of directive, that's how I've interpreted it.
FAQ'ing wilder79's post above. Even if it gets "No Response Needed", that would be more telling than the previous response (due to the improvements in the FAQ system).
Ha! Wow. Screwed up the quote tree pretty royally up there ...