Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Can a character make a saving throw when unconscious?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
April 19, 2005 2:35:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Can a character make a saving throw when unconscious?
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 2:35:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Tristan" <miraumar@korinth.com> wrote in
news:D 434up$dd7@dispatch.concentric.net:

> Can a character make a saving throw when unconscious?

Fort yes you can.

Will yes, though it depends on the cause and result though.

Reflex no you cannot.
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 7:15:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Tristan wrote:
> Can a character make a saving throw when unconscious?
>
>
Sure, why not? Helpless characters are allowed to make Reflex saves
while unconscious, though their DEX is treated as if it were 0 and thus
their DEX mod is treated as -5.
Related resources
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 10:08:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <d434up$dd7@dispatch.concentric.net>, miraumar@korinth.com
wrote:

>Can a character make a saving throw when unconscious?

Yes, but Reflex saves have very substantial penalties.

--
======================================================================
ISLAM: Winning the hearts and minds of the world, one bomb at a time.
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 1:31:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 19 Apr 2005 10:35:05 EDT, "Tristan" <miraumar@korinth.com> scribed into
the ether:

>Can a character make a saving throw when unconscious?

Fortitude Yes.
Reflex No.

Will...depends. Hard to roll a will save against an illusion when you
aren't aware enough to perceive it.
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 1:31:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I suppose it would depend on the save. If someone were trying to gain
control of your mind while you were unconscious, I would think that a
will save would be appropriate. On the other hand, a will save would be
irrelevant against just about any illusion (but not most phantasms)
because you would be unable to percieve it. Similarly, a save vs. a
sleep spell would be similarly irrelevant, as you're already quite
unconscious thank you very much. Ultimately, it would be on a case by
case basis.

Matt Frisch wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2005 10:35:05 EDT, "Tristan" <miraumar@korinth.com> scribed into
> the ether:
>
>
>>Can a character make a saving throw when unconscious?
>
>
> Fortitude Yes.
> Reflex No.
>
> Will...depends. Hard to roll a will save against an illusion when you
> aren't aware enough to perceive it.
>
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 1:31:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2005 10:35:05 EDT, "Tristan" <miraumar@korinth.com> scribed into
> the ether:
>
>
>>Can a character make a saving throw when unconscious?
>
>
> Fortitude Yes.
> Reflex No.
>
> Will...depends. Hard to roll a will save against an illusion when you
> aren't aware enough to perceive it.
>

Not true. You CAN make a Reflex save while unconscious, though you do so
at a penalty. See the FAQ:

"Exactly when can a character make a Reflex saving
throw? The saving throw section on the Player’s Handbook
says Reflex saves depend on a character’s ability to dodge
out of the way. Does that mean you can’t make Reflex saves
if you can’t move?"

A character can attempt a Reflex save anytime she is
subjected to an effect that allows a Reflex save. A Reflex save
usually involves some dodging, but a Reflex save is not
completely dependent on a character’s ability to move around.
It also can depend on luck, variations in the effect that makes
the save necessary in the first place, and a host of other
miraculous factors that keep heroic characters in the D&D
game from meeting an untimely fate.
In most cases, you make Reflex saves normally, no matter
how bad your circumstances are, but there are a few conditions
that interfere with Reflex saves:
• If you’ve suffered Dexterity damage or Dexterity
drain, you must use your current, lower Dexterity
modifier for your Reflex saves.
• If you’re cowering, you lose your Dexterity bonus (if
any). The maximum Dexterity bonus you can have
while cowering is +0, and that affects your Reflex
saves accordingly.
• If you’re dead, you become an object. Unattended
objects can’t make saving throws.
• If you’re entangled, your effective Dexterity score
drops by –4, and you must use your lower Dexterity
modifier for Reflex saves.
• If you’re exhausted, your effective Strength and
Dexterity scores drop by –6, and you must use your
lower Dexterity modifier for Reflex saves.
• If you’re fatigued, your effective Strength and
Dexterity scores drop by –2, and you must use your
lower Dexterity modifier for Reflex saves.
• If you’re frightened or panicked, you have a –2
penalty on all saving throws, including Reflex saving
throws.
• 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.
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 12:33:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Tristan" <miraumar@korinth.com> wrote in message
news:D 434up$dd7@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Can a character make a saving throw when unconscious?
>
>

Certainly; there are spells that only work on unconscious people,
such as Nightmare.

Geoff.
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 8:46:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

freakybaby wrote:
> "Tristan" <miraumar@korinth.com> wrote in
> news:D 434up$dd7@dispatch.concentric.net:
>
>>Can a character make a saving throw when unconscious?
>
> Fort yes you can.
>
> Will yes, though it depends on the cause and result though.

You won't understand language dependant stuff, and alot of mental
effects won't do anything to someone who's unconcious even if you fail.
As long as you're alive you're a valid target for mind-affecting spells,
AFAICT.

> Reflex no you cannot.

Dude, that's silly, even unattended magic items get reflex saves,
like helpless people they just have a -5 Dex mod.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 8:46:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:46:07 +1200, tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz> scribed
into the ether:

>freakybaby wrote:
>> "Tristan" <miraumar@korinth.com> wrote in
>> news:D 434up$dd7@dispatch.concentric.net:

>> Reflex no you cannot.
>
> Dude, that's silly, even unattended magic items get reflex saves,
>like helpless people they just have a -5 Dex mod.

I can see giving a magic item a save...since they (generally) aren't
capable of movement at all, having them be auto-destroyed by a reflex
inducing effect would make for a short supply of magic items in the world.

But living beings getting them? Fie on that. I don't buy the extraordinary
circumstances and positioning bit. If you are incapable of any movement,
you cannot reflex yourself.
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 8:46:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote in news:4265deda@clear.net.nz:


>> Reflex no you cannot.
>
> Dude, that's silly, even unattended magic items get reflex saves,
> like helpless people they just have a -5 Dex mod.

People and creatures are not magic items.
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 8:46:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch hastily scrawled:
>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:46:07 +1200, tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz> scribed
>into the ether:
>
>>freakybaby wrote:
>>> "Tristan" <miraumar@korinth.com> wrote in
>>> news:D 434up$dd7@dispatch.concentric.net:
>
>>> Reflex no you cannot.
>>
>> Dude, that's silly, even unattended magic items get reflex saves,
>>like helpless people they just have a -5 Dex mod.
>
>I can see giving a magic item a save...since they (generally) aren't
>capable of movement at all, having them be auto-destroyed by a reflex
>inducing effect would make for a short supply of magic items in the world.
>
>But living beings getting them? Fie on that. I don't buy the extraordinary
>circumstances and positioning bit. If you are incapable of any movement,
>you cannot reflex yourself.

There are existing penalties that cover "incapable of any movement".
RTFM already.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 8:46:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, freakybaby hastily scrawled:
>tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote in news:4265deda@clear.net.nz:
>
>
>>> Reflex no you cannot.
>>
>> Dude, that's silly, even unattended magic items get reflex saves,
>> like helpless people they just have a -5 Dex mod.
>
>People and creatures are not magic items.

Non sequitur. RTFM.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 8:46:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:46:07 +1200, tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz> scribed
> into the ether:
>
>
>>freakybaby wrote:
>>
>>>"Tristan" <miraumar@korinth.com> wrote in
>>>news:D 434up$dd7@dispatch.concentric.net:
>
>
>>>Reflex no you cannot.
>>
>> Dude, that's silly, even unattended magic items get reflex saves,
>>like helpless people they just have a -5 Dex mod.
>
>
> I can see giving a magic item a save...since they (generally) aren't
> capable of movement at all, having them be auto-destroyed by a reflex
> inducing effect would make for a short supply of magic items in the world.
>
> But living beings getting them? Fie on that. I don't buy the extraordinary
> circumstances and positioning bit. If you are incapable of any movement,
> you cannot reflex yourself.

So you'd disallow Will saves to someone already under a mind-influencing
effect?
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 10:55:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Some Guy" <someguy@thedoor.gov> wrote in message
news:uqf9e.56156$lz2.37405@fed1read07...
> Tristan wrote:
> > Can a character make a saving throw when unconscious?
> >
> Sure, why not? Helpless characters are allowed to make Reflex saves
> while unconscious,

Prove it.

-Michael
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 10:55:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "Some Guy" <someguy@thedoor.gov> wrote in message
> news:uqf9e.56156$lz2.37405@fed1read07...
>
>>Tristan wrote:
>>
>>>Can a character make a saving throw when unconscious?
>>>
>>
>>Sure, why not? Helpless characters are allowed to make Reflex saves
>>while unconscious,
>
>
> Prove it.
>
> -Michael
>
>

From page 23 of the current FAQ:

"• 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."
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 11:03:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"tussock" <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:4265deda@clear.net.nz...
> Dude, that's silly, even unattended magic items get reflex saves,
> like helpless people they just have a -5 Dex mod.

No, they don't. Magic items have one saving number for all their saves,
and they are not modified by stats of any kind (see rules on "nonability"
scores). When someone is holding them, either their net save bonus or the
item's is used, whichever is better. Stat bonuses don't figure in.

-Michael
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 2:14:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Tristan wrote:
> Can a character make a saving throw when unconscious?

Yes. Note that your Dexterity is effectively 0 while helpless, and that
some effects are useless against unconscious creatures (see thread for
details).

Also note that several official D&D products assume that you can affect
unconscious creatures with spells that only permit willing subjects. For
example, you can't normally affect a foe with a /teleport/ spell, which
targets "You and touched objects or other touched willing creatures,"
but you can teleport an unconscious foe. I'm not sure whether that's
book-legal, or if it's a misinterpretation based on the idea that
unconscious creatures are "objects."
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 6:10:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Bradd W. Szonye hastily scrawled:
>Tristan wrote:
>> Can a character make a saving throw when unconscious?
>
>Yes. Note that your Dexterity is effectively 0 while helpless, and that
>some effects are useless against unconscious creatures (see thread for
>details).
>
>Also note that several official D&D products assume that you can affect
>unconscious creatures with spells that only permit willing subjects. For
>example, you can't normally affect a foe with a /teleport/ spell, which
>targets "You and touched objects or other touched willing creatures,"
>but you can teleport an unconscious foe. I'm not sure whether that's
>book-legal, or if it's a misinterpretation based on the idea that
>unconscious creatures are "objects."

Unconscious creatures are not objects, creatures don't become objects
until they die. This seems to be one of those metagame things. You
should be able to allow the trusted party wizard to teleport you out
of danger if you're unconscious, but the game can't assume you're
"willing" to endure the effects of any spell cast on you when
unconscious.


Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 7:44:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:29:32 -0700, Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> scribed
into the ether:

>Matt Frisch wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:46:07 +1200, tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz> scribed
>> into the ether:
>>>freakybaby wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Tristan" <miraumar@korinth.com> wrote in
>>>>news:D 434up$dd7@dispatch.concentric.net:
>>
>>
>>>>Reflex no you cannot.
>>>
>>> Dude, that's silly, even unattended magic items get reflex saves,
>>>like helpless people they just have a -5 Dex mod.
>>
>>
>> I can see giving a magic item a save...since they (generally) aren't
>> capable of movement at all, having them be auto-destroyed by a reflex
>> inducing effect would make for a short supply of magic items in the world.
>>
>> But living beings getting them? Fie on that. I don't buy the extraordinary
>> circumstances and positioning bit. If you are incapable of any movement,
>> you cannot reflex yourself.
>
>So you'd disallow Will saves to someone already under a mind-influencing
>effect?

Would depend a lot on what the effects in question were (the current
influence effect, and the new one to be saved against), but as a general
statement: I'd allow it. Being under someone else's control doesn't mean
you lack the ability to defend against something else.
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 7:44:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:29:32 -0700, Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> scribed
> into the ether:
>
>
>>Matt Frisch wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:46:07 +1200, tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz> scribed
>>>into the ether:
>>>
>>>>freakybaby wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Tristan" <miraumar@korinth.com> wrote in
>>>>>news:D 434up$dd7@dispatch.concentric.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Reflex no you cannot.
>>>>
>>>> Dude, that's silly, even unattended magic items get reflex saves,
>>>>like helpless people they just have a -5 Dex mod.
>>>
>>>
>>>I can see giving a magic item a save...since they (generally) aren't
>>>capable of movement at all, having them be auto-destroyed by a reflex
>>>inducing effect would make for a short supply of magic items in the world.
>>>
>>>But living beings getting them? Fie on that. I don't buy the extraordinary
>>>circumstances and positioning bit. If you are incapable of any movement,
>>>you cannot reflex yourself.
>>
>>So you'd disallow Will saves to someone already under a mind-influencing
>>effect?
>
>
> Would depend a lot on what the effects in question were (the current
> influence effect, and the new one to be saved against), but as a general
> statement: I'd allow it. Being under someone else's control doesn't mean
> you lack the ability to defend against something else.
>

But that's what your position suggests. If Mongo the sorcerer has already
cast "Charm ..." on your character, and he says it's a good idea to just not
fight the effect of the next spell, by your lights your character shouldn't
have a chane to resist. If you are incapable of fighting off his Will, how
can you make another Will save?

That's why it's better to let characters make their saves, even if they
have to
do it at a penalty. Especially in a heroic fantasy game, you're
following the
game's assumptions more closely.
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 12:39:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:55:35 -0700, Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> scribed
into the ether:

>Matt Frisch wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:29:32 -0700, Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> scribed
>> into the ether:
>>
>>>Matt Frisch wrote:
>>>>I can see giving a magic item a save...since they (generally) aren't
>>>>capable of movement at all, having them be auto-destroyed by a reflex
>>>>inducing effect would make for a short supply of magic items in the world.
>>>>
>>>>But living beings getting them? Fie on that. I don't buy the extraordinary
>>>>circumstances and positioning bit. If you are incapable of any movement,
>>>>you cannot reflex yourself.
>>>
>>>So you'd disallow Will saves to someone already under a mind-influencing
>>>effect?
>>
>>
>> Would depend a lot on what the effects in question were (the current
>> influence effect, and the new one to be saved against), but as a general
>> statement: I'd allow it. Being under someone else's control doesn't mean
>> you lack the ability to defend against something else.
>>
>
>But that's what your position suggests.

I'm not sure how, since my position is on helpless reflex saves, and
doesn't relate to will saves at all.

> If Mongo the sorcerer has already
>cast "Charm ..." on your character, and he says it's a good idea to just not
>fight the effect of the next spell, by your lights your character shouldn't
>have a chane to resist. If you are incapable of fighting off his Will, how
>can you make another Will save?

A fallacious example...the simple order of "don't try to resist this next
spell" would compel a save against the charm itself, since it is an order
to act against interest. You do not surrender your free will while charmed.

Even when Dominated, victims are under no obligation to fulfill such
insanely stupid requests.

If you are under the influence of something that truely and utterly
cripples your mind to the same degree that laying on the floor unconcious
cripples your movement, then no, you would not get a will save. Of course,
in that situation, there wouldn't be *be* a will to save, so I'd rule that
the spell had no possibility of working. You can't charm monster on a black
pudding, after all. It has nothing *to* charm.

>That's why it's better to let characters make their saves, even if they
>have to do it at a penalty.

So, then you'd support requiring someone performing a coup-de-grace to make
a to-hit roll against the target, but with the target's AC reduced a bit?
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 2:20:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch hastily scrawled:
>
>I am however, not wrong.

Your complete refusal to support your position with logic is duly
noted.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 7:55:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:4267102b.56814326@news.telusplanet.net...
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:16:49 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
> >> Because the fighter's "luck" is also represented by his greater number
> >> of hit points?
> >
> > No, that's his toughness and training.
>
> How does his training help with soaking up that fireball while lying
> paralysed on the ground?

Which is why I think such situations should be treated as coups.

-Michael
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 11:00:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Also note that several official D&D products assume that you can affect
> unconscious creatures with spells that only permit willing subjects. For
> example, you can't normally affect a foe with a /teleport/ spell, which
> targets "You and touched objects or other touched willing creatures,"
> but you can teleport an unconscious foe. I'm not sure whether that's
> book-legal, or if it's a misinterpretation based on the idea that
> unconscious creatures are "objects."

That's probably an extension of healing the unconcious; if they
weren't willing they'd get a save. It's silly though, as that's taken
from being able to automatically fail any will save you want to, that's
what (harmless) entries represent.
That line of reasoning leads to unconcious characters either
resisting or auto-failing /every/ spell. Perhaps best not to think about it.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 11:28:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Some Guy wrote:
>> A rogue doesn't have MORE "lucky factors," just different ones.

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> No. *More*. The Rogue has a good reflex save, the fighter does not.

The fighter has more hit points; the rogue does not.

> If we are to justify an immobilized character making a REFLEX saving
> throw with the use of *environmental* explanations, then the game
> mechanics directly produce the result that the environment of a rogue
> is somehow "luckier" than the environment of a fighter.

How can you claim that the rogue is necessarily "luckier"? Because of
the difference in hit points, the fighter may outlast the rogue even
given the difference in Reflex saves.

> That's absurd. The good save is there to represent something the rogue
> *does* better than the fighter.

You also claim that the fighter's greater hit points represent something
the fighter does better than the rogue, yet the fighter keeps his hit
point advantage while unconscious. (In case you're thinking of using the
coup de grace rules in a counter-argument, keep in mind that coups only
work with a melee weapons.)
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 11:29:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
> news:4267102b.56814326@news.telusplanet.net...
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:16:49 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>> >> Because the fighter's "luck" is also represented by his greater number
>> >> of hit points?
>> >
>> > No, that's his toughness and training.
>>
>> How does his training help with soaking up that fireball while lying
>> paralysed on the ground?
>
> Which is why I think such situations should be treated as coups.

But they aren't. Coups are with melee weapons only (which, according to
the D&D glossary, means manufactured, hand-held weapons).
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 12:54:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:55:15 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

>"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:4267102b.56814326@news.telusplanet.net...
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:16:49 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>> >> Because the fighter's "luck" is also represented by his greater number
>> >> of hit points?
>> >
>> > No, that's his toughness and training.
>>
>> How does his training help with soaking up that fireball while lying
>> paralysed on the ground?
>
> Which is why I think such situations should be treated as coups.

But not every character within the radius of a fireball would
automatically die. Some of them would just happen to be on the
fringes of the effect and just end up scorched, and some would have
low lying obstacles that would give them some cover.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 9:53:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:smrf61tv0jogak24t21bs3hiql6hlg5a0i@4ax.com...
> That would be his toughness. You also come from the false assumption that
a
> fireball unsaved would automatically be fatal.

A *dagger* kills someone instantly if they can't avoid the damage.

-Michael
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 10:00:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd6fvm0.uf5.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Some Guy wrote:
> >> A rogue doesn't have MORE "lucky factors," just different ones.
>
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > No. *More*. The Rogue has a good reflex save, the fighter does not.
>
> The fighter has more hit points; the rogue does not.

The fighter's higher hit dice scale are not representative of his
*luck*. Or do you wish to contend that this is the basis of ranger,
barbarian, paladin, and fighter Hd size? All those years, imagining that
their larger ability to withstand punishment and keep going were part of
warrior training, discarded in a moment of EPIC STUPIDITY because it lets
Bradd disagree with MSB?

> > If we are to justify an immobilized character making a REFLEX saving
> > throw with the use of *environmental* explanations, then the game
> > mechanics directly produce the result that the environment of a rogue
> > is somehow "luckier" than the environment of a fighter.
>
> How can you claim that the rogue is necessarily "luckier"? Because of
> the difference in hit points, the fighter may outlast the rogue even
> given the difference in Reflex saves.

Fallacy. Try again. We are describing success at reflex saving throws,
which the FAQ has apparently decided can represent lucky environmental
effects that intervene more on behalf of paralyzed Rogues, *regardless* of
the damage roll or its comparison to the hero's current hit points.

> > That's absurd. The good save is there to represent something the rogue
> > *does* better than the fighter.
>
> You also claim that the fighter's greater hit points represent something
> the fighter does better than the rogue, yet the fighter keeps his hit
> point advantage while unconscious.

Unless he's subjected to a lethal attack, of course.

> (In case you're thinking of using the
> coup de grace rules in a counter-argument, keep in mind that coups only
> work with a melee weapons.)

Wrong. RTFM some time.
Further, the existence of the "if you can't protect yourself then you
risk instant death even if your hit points aren't defeated" mechanic says
rather a lot about the proper fate of the Fireballed.

-Michael
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 10:02:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:4267b97e.100168171@news.telusplanet.net...
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:55:15 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
> >> How does his training help with soaking up that fireball while lying
> >> paralysed on the ground?
> >
> > Which is why I think such situations should be treated as coups.
>
> But not every character within the radius of a fireball would
> automatically die. Some of them would just happen to be on the
> fringes of the effect and just end up scorched, and some would have
> low lying obstacles that would give them some cover.

There is no rule for "fringes". There is only in, or not in. Low lying
obstacles do not provide cover against a spread.

Thankyou for your contribution. It's a shame it was devoid of
information.

-Michael
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 10:37:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 06:02:13 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

>"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:4267b97e.100168171@news.telusplanet.net...
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:55:15 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>> >> How does his training help with soaking up that fireball while lying
>> >> paralysed on the ground?
>> >
>> > Which is why I think such situations should be treated as coups.
>>
>> But not every character within the radius of a fireball would
>> automatically die. Some of them would just happen to be on the
>> fringes of the effect and just end up scorched, and some would have
>> low lying obstacles that would give them some cover.
>
> There is no rule for "fringes".

Yes there is. How do you suppose a reflex save for half damage works
in the first place?
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 10:37:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in
news:4268421e.135149015@news.telusplanet.net:

> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 06:02:13 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
> <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>>news:4267b97e.100168171@news.telusplanet.net...
>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:55:15 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>>> >> How does his training help with soaking up that fireball while
>>> >> lying paralysed on the ground?
>>> >
>>> > Which is why I think such situations should be treated as
>>> > coups.
>>>
>>> But not every character within the radius of a fireball would
>>> automatically die. Some of them would just happen to be on the
>>> fringes of the effect and just end up scorched, and some would have
>>> low lying obstacles that would give them some cover.
>>
>> There is no rule for "fringes".
>
> Yes there is. How do you suppose a reflex save for half damage works
> in the first place?

So, wait, I think I get it. The reflex save for an unconscious character
represents his ability to have retroactively keeled over in a relatively
safe location!
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 10:37:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Chipacabra <chipb@efn.org> wrote in news:Xns96401812AA5Dchipbefnorg@
216.196.97.131:


> So, wait, I think I get it. The reflex save for an unconscious character
> represents his ability to have retroactively keeled over in a relatively
> safe location!

You know, for all I said it tongue-in-cheek, this explanation is probably
better than the 'luckiness' explanation the sage sites. And since I'm
inclined to allow the save for pure gamism reasons (Instant unavoidable
death is never fun), it's probably the silly unrealistic justification I'll
go with, when the preferred method of 'ignore the question' stops working.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 11:12:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:4268421e.135149015@news.telusplanet.net...
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 06:02:13 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
> >> But not every character within the radius of a fireball would
> >> automatically die. Some of them would just happen to be on the
> >> fringes of the effect and just end up scorched, and some would have
> >> low lying obstacles that would give them some cover.
> >
> > There is no rule for "fringes".
>
> Yes there is. How do you suppose a reflex save for half damage works
> in the first place?

It sure as hell doesn't work the way you describe it, given that people
in the center of the spread are just as able to save for half.
Go on. Quote the rules.

-Michael
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 11:33:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> writes:

> Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>> news:4267102b.56814326@news.telusplanet.net...
>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:16:49 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>>> >> Because the fighter's "luck" is also represented by his greater number
>>> >> of hit points?
>>> >
>>> > No, that's his toughness and training.
>>>
>>> How does his training help with soaking up that fireball while lying
>>> paralysed on the ground?
>>
>> Which is why I think such situations should be treated as coups.
>
> But they aren't. Coups are with melee weapons only (which, according to
> the D&D glossary, means manufactured, hand-held weapons).

But that wasn't what Michael said. He said that in his opinion they
*should* be treated as coups (implying that he deplores the current
rules that don't).

Really Bradd, I value your postings a lot, but your vendetta with
Michael begins to take on ludicrous properties.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 12:09:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Chipacabra wrote:
> Chipacabra <chipb@efn.org> wrote in news:Xns96401812AA5Dchipbefnorg@
> 216.196.97.131:
>
>
>
>>So, wait, I think I get it. The reflex save for an unconscious character
>>represents his ability to have retroactively keeled over in a relatively
>>safe location!
>
>
> You know, for all I said it tongue-in-cheek, this explanation is probably
> better than the 'luckiness' explanation the sage sites. And since I'm
> inclined to allow the save for pure gamism reasons (Instant unavoidable
> death is never fun), it's probably the silly unrealistic justification I'll
> go with, when the preferred method of 'ignore the question' stops working.

Sounds good to me. :-D

-Tialan
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 1:31:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:29:05 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com>
scribed into the ether:

>Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>> news:4267102b.56814326@news.telusplanet.net...
>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:16:49 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>>> >> Because the fighter's "luck" is also represented by his greater number
>>> >> of hit points?
>>> >
>>> > No, that's his toughness and training.
>>>
>>> How does his training help with soaking up that fireball while lying
>>> paralysed on the ground?
>>
>> Which is why I think such situations should be treated as coups.
>
>But they aren't. Coups are with melee weapons only (which, according to
>the D&D glossary, means manufactured, hand-held weapons).

You are incorrect sir. Coups can be performed with ranged weapons.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 1:35:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 05:53:46 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:smrf61tv0jogak24t21bs3hiql6hlg5a0i@4ax.com...
>> That would be his toughness. You also come from the false assumption that
>a
>> fireball unsaved would automatically be fatal.
>
> A *dagger* kills someone instantly if they can't avoid the damage.

Correction, a dagger *CAN* kill someone instantly. Stab someone in the
foot, and it doesn't matter how mobile they are or are not, they aren't
going to be instantly killed.

I have no problem with a fireball not automatically inflicting fatal damage
on someone who is immobile (he could be in a fetal position, and thus only
a small portion of his surface area is exposed to the blast, resulting in
moderate but not lethal burns), but I'm sure as hell not allowing them a
save.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 2:17:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd6fvo1.uf5.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > Which is why I think such situations should be treated as coups.
>
> But they aren't. Coups are with melee weapons only

No, you can use bows and crossbows if adjacent to your target.

> (which, according to
> the D&D glossary, means manufactured, hand-held weapons).

Yes but a creature with natural weapons is considered armed [with a melee
weapon].
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 6:39:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Michael Scott Brown hastily scrawled:
>"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:4267b97e.100168171@news.telusplanet.net...
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:55:15 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>> >> How does his training help with soaking up that fireball while lying
>> >> paralysed on the ground?
>> >
>> > Which is why I think such situations should be treated as coups.
>>
>> But not every character within the radius of a fireball would
>> automatically die. Some of them would just happen to be on the
>> fringes of the effect and just end up scorched, and some would have
>> low lying obstacles that would give them some cover.
>
> There is no rule for "fringes".

Of course there is, it's called the Reflex save.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 6:39:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch hastily scrawled:
>Which obviously demonstrates that the rules are wrong.

*sigh*



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
April 22, 2005 8:05:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Alien mind control rays made Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> write:
> The boulder still inflicts random damage to the unconcious
> character...vagarities of body position, orientation, equipment worn can
> deflect the boulder from instakilling our character as it certainly would
> if this were a real life situation. No first level character will survive,
> but higher level ones stand an excellent chance.

why? are higher level characters prone to falling unconscious in
more damage-resistant orientations?

--
\^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/&gt;
\ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// \ X-Windows: More than enough rope
// \_\ -- Dude from DPAK
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 8:05:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

drow wrote:
> Alien mind control rays made Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> write:
>
>>The boulder still inflicts random damage to the unconcious
>>character...vagarities of body position, orientation, equipment worn can
>>deflect the boulder from instakilling our character as it certainly would
>>if this were a real life situation. No first level character will survive,
>>but higher level ones stand an excellent chance.
>
>
> why? are higher level characters prone to falling unconscious in
> more damage-resistant orientations?

They are more prone to do so if you buy into a muscle memory training
theory. Training muscle memory is one of those things that makes the
saying "I could do that in my sleep" appropriate, and, in many cases,
accurate. It's possible that in the course of gaining all those levels,
the reflexes the character has developed for diving for cover and
reducing painful impacts from falling and so forth have become part of
that muscle memory. It's not a conscious effort, but a reflex. Hence
the name of the save. :-)

Muscle memory is important for combat. It makes sure you always swing
that sword the way you are supposed to without making you waste time
thinking about it. It makes sure you can reflexively dodge away from
your opponent faster than the speed of thought. It makes sure you can
jump into the appropriate stance before you even realize you're in
danger. And so on.

A large part of combat training involves learning to act with minimal
conscious effort. The little motions are habit. The fighter have to
worry about the larger strategy.

Anyway, I think that's an interesting way of thinking about it.

Of course, in the context of the boulder situation, I'm still not sure
how even that abstraction would work. Really, it's probably closer to
one of those "Traps with an Attack Roll" situations, anyway. The whole
situation is more dependent on the boulder's aim being accurate an not
thrown off by weird external factors anyway.

-Tialan
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 8:05:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Tialan wrote:
> drow wrote:
>
>> Alien mind control rays made Matt Frisch
>> <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> write:
>>
>>> The boulder still inflicts random damage to the unconcious
>>> character...vagarities of body position, orientation, equipment worn can
>>> deflect the boulder from instakilling our character as it certainly
>>> would
>>> if this were a real life situation. No first level character will
>>> survive,
>>> but higher level ones stand an excellent chance.
>>
>>
>>
>> why? are higher level characters prone to falling unconscious in
>> more damage-resistant orientations?
>
>
> They are more prone to do so if you buy into a muscle memory training
> theory. Training muscle memory is one of those things that makes the
> saying "I could do that in my sleep" appropriate, and, in many cases,
> accurate. It's possible that in the course of gaining all those levels,
> the reflexes the character has developed for diving for cover and
> reducing painful impacts from falling and so forth have become part of
> that muscle memory. It's not a conscious effort, but a reflex. Hence
> the name of the save. :-)
>
> Muscle memory is important for combat. It makes sure you always swing
> that sword the way you are supposed to without making you waste time
> thinking about it. It makes sure you can reflexively dodge away from
> your opponent faster than the speed of thought. It makes sure you can
> jump into the appropriate stance before you even realize you're in
> danger. And so on.
>
> A large part of combat training involves learning to act with minimal
> conscious effort. The little motions are habit. The fighter have to
> worry about the larger strategy.
>
> Anyway, I think that's an interesting way of thinking about it.
>
> Of course, in the context of the boulder situation, I'm still not sure
> how even that abstraction would work. Really, it's probably closer to
> one of those "Traps with an Attack Roll" situations, anyway. The whole
> situation is more dependent on the boulder's aim being accurate an not
> thrown off by weird external factors anyway.
>
> -Tialan

Just one more argument I thought of for the "Muscle Memory" theory.

Think about the things you do on a regular basis that require muscle
memory. I'm no adventurer, but I use muscle memory all the time. Here
are a few places I use it:

* Playing Piano
* Singing
* Canoing
* Riding my Bike
* Typing Messages to Newsgroups :-)
* Playing Video Games

There are definitely more areas I use it, but those are the items that
sprang to mind most readily.

Anyway, all those items require a multitude of tiny movements and body
adjustments. I didn't know many of the proper motions without some form
of training. As I started out, those tasks were tedious because I had
to take time to think about each and every small movement. But with a
lot of practice and repetition, I can do all those things with barely a
thought. The only thought I need is the one that initiates the action.
i.e. The thought "Play 'Music of the Night'" is enough. I don't have
to remember that I'm hitting an F followed by an A-flat, followed by an
E-flat, etc. I've played the song often enough that I just do it.

So I play piano often. I've had lots of practice and repetition.
Likewise, an adventurer would have had enough practice and repetition in
diving for cover, that I think he would develop some level of muscle
memory. What his muscle memory cannot account for is reflected in the
penalties to the save.

-Tialan
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 8:09:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 02:08:51 -0500, Chipacabra <chipb@efn.org> wrote:

>rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in
>news:4268421e.135149015@news.telusplanet.net:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 06:02:13 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>> <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>>>news:4267b97e.100168171@news.telusplanet.net...
>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:55:15 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>>>> >> How does his training help with soaking up that fireball while
>>>> >> lying paralysed on the ground?
>>>> >
>>>> > Which is why I think such situations should be treated as
>>>> > coups.
>>>>
>>>> But not every character within the radius of a fireball would
>>>> automatically die. Some of them would just happen to be on the
>>>> fringes of the effect and just end up scorched, and some would have
>>>> low lying obstacles that would give them some cover.
>>>
>>> There is no rule for "fringes".
>>
>> Yes there is. How do you suppose a reflex save for half damage works
>> in the first place?
>
>So, wait, I think I get it. The reflex save for an unconscious character
>represents his ability to have retroactively keeled over in a relatively
>safe location!

Yes, except the word "retroactive" is redundant.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 8:11:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:33:35 GMT, Matt Frisch
<matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:

>>You also come from the false assumption that a
>>>fireball unsaved would automatically be fatal.
>>>
>>
>>If I thought that an unsaved fireball was automatically fatal, why
>>would I bring up the subject of a fighter's hit points?
>
>Because you imply that they shouldn't count.

Except I implied no such thing.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 8:47:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 07:12:31 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

>"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:4268421e.135149015@news.telusplanet.net...
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 06:02:13 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>> >> But not every character within the radius of a fireball would
>> >> automatically die. Some of them would just happen to be on the
>> >> fringes of the effect and just end up scorched, and some would have
>> >> low lying obstacles that would give them some cover.
>> >
>> > There is no rule for "fringes".
>>
>> Yes there is. How do you suppose a reflex save for half damage works
>> in the first place?
>
> It sure as hell doesn't work the way you describe it, given that people
>in the center of the spread are just as able to save for half.

Oh come on, this is D&D we are talking about. If you want crunchiness
instead of abstraction, pick another game. The people in the center
of the effect (assuming you use a map at all, which I don't) who save
have somehow managed to find a little cover, even it's a member of the
group who didn't save.

> Go on. Quote the rules.

You've already rejected the rules. Go on, quote a rule that says you
can't make a reflex save while unconscious.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 9:12:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

This "muscle memory" bullshit falls apart rather rapidly when the
paralyzed individual is placed in a non-fetal position by an enemy.

-Michael
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 9:23:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 17:12:35 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> This "muscle memory" bullshit falls apart rather rapidly when the
>paralyzed individual is placed in a non-fetal position by an enemy.

At that point you are talking coup. That doesn't mean that every
paralysed person who is in the range of a damage effect should die.
    • 1 / 19
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!