Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Losing your Saving Throw
29 views
Skip to first unread message
Harold Groot
May 12, 2013, 6:45:24 AM5/12/13
to
Not failing to make a Saving Throw - but not getting a Save at all
even when you would normally have one. That's what I'm talking about.
How many ways can you think (in 3.5) that a person can actually lose
the ability to try to make a Save?
even when you would normally have one. That's what I'm talking about.
How many ways can you think (in 3.5) that a person can actually lose
the ability to try to make a Save?
Tetsubo
May 12, 2013, 11:29:49 AM5/12/13
to
control via spell or psionics?
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Jim Davies
May 12, 2013, 4:36:36 PM5/12/13
to
On the grave of que...@infionline.net (Harold Groot) is inscribed:
Depends on the save. IIRC you don't get a Reflex save if you can't
move, but I assume you get a Fort or Will.
As it's possible to voluntarily fail a save, I guess you could say
that being Dominated or possessed might qualify. But that's not really
the same as not getting one in the first place.
There may be situations where some entity gets a save where another
wouldn't (so polymorph would deny that save), but I can't find any.
--
Jim
http://www.aaargh.org
move, but I assume you get a Fort or Will.
As it's possible to voluntarily fail a save, I guess you could say
that being Dominated or possessed might qualify. But that's not really
the same as not getting one in the first place.
There may be situations where some entity gets a save where another
wouldn't (so polymorph would deny that save), but I can't find any.
--
Jim
http://www.aaargh.org
Harold Groot
May 12, 2013, 4:50:32 PM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 11:29:49 -0400, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>On 5/12/2013 6:45 AM, Harold Groot wrote:
>> Not failing to make a Saving Throw - but not getting a Save at all
>> even when you would normally have one. That's what I'm talking about.
>>
>> How many ways can you think (in 3.5) that a person can actually lose
>> the ability to try to make a Save?
> Does a target lose a save automatically while under some sort of
>control via spell or psionics?
Not automatically, as far as I'm aware. If a DOMINATED person is
ordered to deliberately forego his saving throw, OK, he'll
deliberately forego it. He had one, but gave it up.
I was thinking more along these lines: In BLADE BARRIER, if the spell
is created in a square where someone is standing, they would normally
get a Reflex Save. But unlike most spells with Reflex Saves, this
spell gives a specific mechanism. It says you can avoid the barrier,
ending up on the side of your choice. In other words, you have to
MOVE. So if you are COMPLETELY UNABLE TO MOVE (Paralyzed, under a HOLD
PERSON spell, etc.) you shouldn't get a saving throw at all. It's a
closer call if you are grappled (since you can wriggle around a bit),
but I'd say that if you can't move the grapple (i.e. moving both you
and your opponent by winning an opposed grapple roll) you also
wouldn't get a saving throw. Of course, if your opponent WANTS to
avoid the BLADE BARRIER this shouldn't be a problem - but if the
opponent would rather have you BOTH take the damage and wants to hold
you there, you have to move him involuntarily or you don't get the
Reflex Save.
Similarly, if you have been Petrified you become a non-sentient lump
of stone. You wouldn't get a Will Saving Throw against anything
dealing with the mind. (Of course, you also wouldn't be a legitimate
TARGET for most things dealing with the mind.) Trying to cast CHARM
PERSON on a lump of stone is futile. And a Reflex Save would be pretty
much out of the picture too. You can't TRY to avoid anything, nor
could you move if you were somehow made aware of the situation. (For
the latter case, maybe having someone cast STONE TELL on a Petrified
person would make the stone somewhat aware - a rock under STONE TELL
has to be aware of the questions being asked, and it also is aware
enough of its surroundings to be able to say what is behind it and so
on. But I don't think "your" mind would be there. Your Petrified body
would answer as any regular piece of rock would answer.
Of course, in 3.5E a SPEAK WITH DEAD doesn't contact the soul of the
departed. Instead, you speak to the remaining physical body that has
witnessed various things. It's basically SPEAK WITH CORPSE, doing the
same thing on flesh that STONE TELL does on rock. So maybe using STONE
TELL on a Petrified Person would give the same result. Maybe the lump
of stone could tell you about what it had witnessed back when it was
flesh. I'd think a regular metamorphic rock could tell you what it had
been witnessed before the transformation from, say, shale to slate.
But that's still going from one type of rock to another. For flesh
that had turned to stone, the answer is not so clear as to what the
final form could say about the earlier form had witnessed. But I
digress....
So - how many other ways might there be to lose a Saving Throw?
wrote:
>On 5/12/2013 6:45 AM, Harold Groot wrote:
>> Not failing to make a Saving Throw - but not getting a Save at all
>> even when you would normally have one. That's what I'm talking about.
>>
>> How many ways can you think (in 3.5) that a person can actually lose
>> the ability to try to make a Save?
> Does a target lose a save automatically while under some sort of
>control via spell or psionics?
ordered to deliberately forego his saving throw, OK, he'll
deliberately forego it. He had one, but gave it up.
I was thinking more along these lines: In BLADE BARRIER, if the spell
is created in a square where someone is standing, they would normally
get a Reflex Save. But unlike most spells with Reflex Saves, this
spell gives a specific mechanism. It says you can avoid the barrier,
ending up on the side of your choice. In other words, you have to
MOVE. So if you are COMPLETELY UNABLE TO MOVE (Paralyzed, under a HOLD
PERSON spell, etc.) you shouldn't get a saving throw at all. It's a
closer call if you are grappled (since you can wriggle around a bit),
but I'd say that if you can't move the grapple (i.e. moving both you
and your opponent by winning an opposed grapple roll) you also
wouldn't get a saving throw. Of course, if your opponent WANTS to
avoid the BLADE BARRIER this shouldn't be a problem - but if the
opponent would rather have you BOTH take the damage and wants to hold
you there, you have to move him involuntarily or you don't get the
Reflex Save.
Similarly, if you have been Petrified you become a non-sentient lump
of stone. You wouldn't get a Will Saving Throw against anything
dealing with the mind. (Of course, you also wouldn't be a legitimate
TARGET for most things dealing with the mind.) Trying to cast CHARM
PERSON on a lump of stone is futile. And a Reflex Save would be pretty
much out of the picture too. You can't TRY to avoid anything, nor
could you move if you were somehow made aware of the situation. (For
the latter case, maybe having someone cast STONE TELL on a Petrified
person would make the stone somewhat aware - a rock under STONE TELL
has to be aware of the questions being asked, and it also is aware
enough of its surroundings to be able to say what is behind it and so
on. But I don't think "your" mind would be there. Your Petrified body
would answer as any regular piece of rock would answer.
Of course, in 3.5E a SPEAK WITH DEAD doesn't contact the soul of the
departed. Instead, you speak to the remaining physical body that has
witnessed various things. It's basically SPEAK WITH CORPSE, doing the
same thing on flesh that STONE TELL does on rock. So maybe using STONE
TELL on a Petrified Person would give the same result. Maybe the lump
of stone could tell you about what it had witnessed back when it was
flesh. I'd think a regular metamorphic rock could tell you what it had
been witnessed before the transformation from, say, shale to slate.
But that's still going from one type of rock to another. For flesh
that had turned to stone, the answer is not so clear as to what the
final form could say about the earlier form had witnessed. But I
digress....
So - how many other ways might there be to lose a Saving Throw?
WDS906 (less the 906)
May 13, 2013, 9:30:37 AM5/13/13
to
On 5/12/2013 5:45 AM, Harold Groot wrote:
> How many ways can you think (in 3.5) that a person can actually lose
> the ability to try to make a Save?
If you are unconscious do you get a reflex save?
> How many ways can you think (in 3.5) that a person can actually lose
> the ability to try to make a Save?
Ubiquitous
May 13, 2013, 12:46:40 PM5/13/13
to
place?
--
"Re-electing Obama is like backing The Titanic up and hitting the
iceberg a second time."
Ubiquitous
May 13, 2013, 1:27:12 PM5/13/13
to
que...@infionline.net wrote:
>Not failing to make a Saving Throw - but not getting a Save at all
>even when you would normally have one. That's what I'm talking about.
>
>How many ways can you think (in 3.5) that a person can actually lose
>the ability to try to make a Save?
also recall reading a note that stated you have an effective DEX of zero
for calculating penalties.
I think there's a version of Bestow Curse that makes you fail all your
saves and I know Ottiluke's Silly Dance negates your ability to make
saves, unless it's been nerfed.
Ubiquitous
May 13, 2013, 1:31:14 PM5/13/13
to
Jim Davies
May 13, 2013, 4:59:19 PM5/13/13
to
On the grave of Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> is inscribed:
>
>que...@infionline.net wrote:
>
>>Not failing to make a Saving Throw - but not getting a Save at all
>>even when you would normally have one. That's what I'm talking about.
>>
>>How many ways can you think (in 3.5) that a person can actually lose
>>the ability to try to make a Save?
>
>The only one I can possibily think of is immobility for reflex, but I
>also recall reading a note that stated you have an effective DEX of zero
>for calculating penalties.
>
>I think there's a version of Bestow Curse that makes you fail all your
>saves and I know Ottiluke's Silly Dance negates your ability to make
>saves, unless it's been nerfed.
It's been nerfed. Now just -10 to reflex; will and fort are
unaffected.
--
Jim
http://www.aaargh.org
>
>que...@infionline.net wrote:
>
>>Not failing to make a Saving Throw - but not getting a Save at all
>>even when you would normally have one. That's what I'm talking about.
>>
>>How many ways can you think (in 3.5) that a person can actually lose
>>the ability to try to make a Save?
>
>The only one I can possibily think of is immobility for reflex, but I
>also recall reading a note that stated you have an effective DEX of zero
>for calculating penalties.
>
>I think there's a version of Bestow Curse that makes you fail all your
>saves and I know Ottiluke's Silly Dance negates your ability to make
>saves, unless it's been nerfed.
unaffected.
--
Jim
http://www.aaargh.org
Loren Pechtel
May 13, 2013, 9:03:04 PM5/13/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 20:50:32 GMT, que...@infionline.net (Harold
Groot) wrote:
>same thing on flesh that STONE TELL does on rock. So maybe using STONE
>TELL on a Petrified Person would give the same result. Maybe the lump
>of stone could tell you about what it had witnessed back when it was
>flesh. I'd think a regular metamorphic rock could tell you what it had
>been witnessed before the transformation from, say, shale to slate.
>But that's still going from one type of rock to another. For flesh
>that had turned to stone, the answer is not so clear as to what the
>final form could say about the earlier form had witnessed. But I
>digress....
I would be inclined to give the stone the knowledge the person had
Groot) wrote:
>same thing on flesh that STONE TELL does on rock. So maybe using STONE
>TELL on a Petrified Person would give the same result. Maybe the lump
>of stone could tell you about what it had witnessed back when it was
>flesh. I'd think a regular metamorphic rock could tell you what it had
>been witnessed before the transformation from, say, shale to slate.
>But that's still going from one type of rock to another. For flesh
>that had turned to stone, the answer is not so clear as to what the
>final form could say about the earlier form had witnessed. But I
>digress....
when they were stoned. It would be quite a puzzle for the PCs, also.
Jim Davies
May 13, 2013, 4:59:19 PM5/13/13
to
>que...@infionline.net wrote:
>
>>Not failing to make a Saving Throw - but not getting a Save at all
>>even when you would normally have one. That's what I'm talking about.
>>
>>How many ways can you think (in 3.5) that a person can actually lose
>>the ability to try to make a Save?
>
>The only one I can possibily think of is immobility for reflex, but I
>also recall reading a note that stated you have an effective DEX of zero
>for calculating penalties.
>
>I think there's a version of Bestow Curse that makes you fail all your
>saves and I know Ottiluke's Silly Dance negates your ability to make
>saves, unless it's been nerfed.
>
>>Not failing to make a Saving Throw - but not getting a Save at all
>>even when you would normally have one. That's what I'm talking about.
>>
>>How many ways can you think (in 3.5) that a person can actually lose
>>the ability to try to make a Save?
>
>The only one I can possibily think of is immobility for reflex, but I
>also recall reading a note that stated you have an effective DEX of zero
>for calculating penalties.
>
>I think there's a version of Bestow Curse that makes you fail all your
>saves and I know Ottiluke's Silly Dance negates your ability to make
>saves, unless it's been nerfed.
Ubiquitous
May 14, 2013, 8:13:46 PM5/14/13
to
Jim Davies
May 14, 2013, 8:22:10 PM5/14/13
to
On the grave of Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> is inscribed:
>j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>>On the grave of Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> is inscribed:
>>>que...@infionline.net wrote:
>
>>>I think there's a version of Bestow Curse that makes you fail all your
>>>saves and I know Ottiluke's Silly Dance negates your ability to make
>>>saves, unless it's been nerfed.
>>
>>It's been nerfed. Now just -10 to reflex; will and fort are
>>unaffected.
[OK, that's odd. Ubi's post appeared twice, and my reply appears twice
>j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>>On the grave of Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> is inscribed:
>>>que...@infionline.net wrote:
>
>>>I think there's a version of Bestow Curse that makes you fail all your
>>>saves and I know Ottiluke's Silly Dance negates your ability to make
>>>saves, unless it's been nerfed.
>>
>>It's been nerfed. Now just -10 to reflex; will and fort are
>>unaffected.
too, following each post.]
>Is that significant or just a nuisence at that level?
and Fort. And as you have to touch the target in the first place, it's
unlikely to help all that much. Perhaps more significant is that the
target can't do anything for 1d4+1 rounds. But there are easier ways
to achieve that.
Irresistible Dance
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 6, Sor/Wiz 8
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Living creature touched
Duration: 1d4+1 rounds
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
The subject feels an undeniable urge to dance and begins doing so,
complete with foot shuffling and tapping. The spell effect makes it
impossible for the subject to do anything other than caper and prance
in place. The effect imposes a -4 penalty to Armor Class and a -10
penalty on Reflex saves, and it negates any AC bonus granted by a
shield the target holds. The dancing subject provokes attacks of
opportunity each round on its turn.
In PF it's even worse: a Will save reduces the duration to 1 round.
--
Jim
http://www.aaargh.org
Harold Groot
May 15, 2013, 4:37:54 AM5/15/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 21:36:36 +0100, Jim Davies
<j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
>On the grave of que...@infionline.net (Harold Groot) is inscribed:
>
>>Not failing to make a Saving Throw - but not getting a Save at all
>>even when you would normally have one. That's what I'm talking about.
>>How many ways can you think (in 3.5) that a person can actually lose
>>the ability to try to make a Save?
>Depends on the save. IIRC you don't get a Reflex save if you can't
>move, but I assume you get a Fort or Will.
>Jim
<j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
>On the grave of que...@infionline.net (Harold Groot) is inscribed:
>
>>Not failing to make a Saving Throw - but not getting a Save at all
>>even when you would normally have one. That's what I'm talking about.
>>How many ways can you think (in 3.5) that a person can actually lose
>>the ability to try to make a Save?
>Depends on the save. IIRC you don't get a Reflex save if you can't
>move, but I assume you get a Fort or Will.
I had thought that there was some such rule about Reflex Saves - but I
haven't been able to find it actually spelled out that way in 3.5E.
Do you have a cite for that, or might that just have been something
needing a DM judgement call?
Ubiquitous
May 15, 2013, 4:58:37 AM5/15/13
to
j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>On the grave of Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> is inscribed:
>>j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>>>On the grave of Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> is inscribed:
>>>>que...@infionline.net wrote:
>>>>I think there's a version of Bestow Curse that makes you fail all your
>>>>saves and I know Ottiluke's Silly Dance negates your ability to make
>>>>saves, unless it's been nerfed.
>>>
>>>It's been nerfed. Now just -10 to reflex; will and fort are
>>>unaffected.
>>
>On the grave of Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> is inscribed:
>>j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>>>On the grave of Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> is inscribed:
>>>>que...@infionline.net wrote:
>>>>I think there's a version of Bestow Curse that makes you fail all your
>>>>saves and I know Ottiluke's Silly Dance negates your ability to make
>>>>saves, unless it's been nerfed.
>>>
>>>It's been nerfed. Now just -10 to reflex; will and fort are
>>>unaffected.
>>
>>Is that significant or just a nuisence at that level?
>
>Pretty minor, really. Reflex doesn't really kill anything, unlike Will
>and Fort. And as you have to touch the target in the first place, it's
>unlikely to help all that much. Perhaps more significant is that the
>target can't do anything for 1d4+1 rounds. But there are easier ways
>to achieve that.
Wow, they really did nerf that spell!
>
>Pretty minor, really. Reflex doesn't really kill anything, unlike Will
>and Fort. And as you have to touch the target in the first place, it's
>unlikely to help all that much. Perhaps more significant is that the
>target can't do anything for 1d4+1 rounds. But there are easier ways
>to achieve that.
Harold Groot
May 15, 2013, 6:26:02 AM5/15/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:46:40 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
wrote:
>que...@infionline.net wrote:
>
>>Not failing to make a Saving Throw - but not getting a Save at all
>>even when you would normally have one. That's what I'm talking about.
>>
>>How many ways can you think (in 3.5) that a person can actually lose
>>the ability to try to make a Save?
>
>Are you including cases where there is no saving throw in the first
>place?
No. If there was no save in the first place, there's no way for you
to have a saving throw taken away from you.
wrote:
>que...@infionline.net wrote:
>
>>Not failing to make a Saving Throw - but not getting a Save at all
>>even when you would normally have one. That's what I'm talking about.
>>
>>How many ways can you think (in 3.5) that a person can actually lose
>>the ability to try to make a Save?
>
>Are you including cases where there is no saving throw in the first
>place?
to have a saving throw taken away from you.
Jim Davies
May 15, 2013, 7:32:00 PM5/15/13
to
On the grave of que...@infionline.net (Harold Groot) is inscribed:
>On Sun, 12 May 2013 21:36:36 +0100, Jim Davies
><j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
>
>>On the grave of que...@infionline.net (Harold Groot) is inscribed:
>>
>>>Not failing to make a Saving Throw - but not getting a Save at all
>>>even when you would normally have one. That's what I'm talking about.
>>>How many ways can you think (in 3.5) that a person can actually lose
>>>the ability to try to make a Save?
>
>>Depends on the save. IIRC you don't get a Reflex save if you can't
>>move, but I assume you get a Fort or Will.
>>Jim
>
>I had thought that there was some such rule about Reflex Saves - but I
>haven't been able to find it actually spelled out that way in 3.5E.
>Do you have a cite for that, or might that just have been something
>needing a DM judgement call?
I can't find it either. One might argue that as an unattended item
>On Sun, 12 May 2013 21:36:36 +0100, Jim Davies
><j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
>
>>On the grave of que...@infionline.net (Harold Groot) is inscribed:
>>
>>>Not failing to make a Saving Throw - but not getting a Save at all
>>>even when you would normally have one. That's what I'm talking about.
>>>How many ways can you think (in 3.5) that a person can actually lose
>>>the ability to try to make a Save?
>
>>Depends on the save. IIRC you don't get a Reflex save if you can't
>>move, but I assume you get a Fort or Will.
>>Jim
>
>I had thought that there was some such rule about Reflex Saves - but I
>haven't been able to find it actually spelled out that way in 3.5E.
>Do you have a cite for that, or might that just have been something
>needing a DM judgement call?
gets a save (Natural 20), an immobile creature should get at least
that.
--
Jim
http://www.aaargh.org
tussock
May 16, 2013, 1:31:10 AM5/16/13
to
Harold Groot wrote:
> Jim Davies wrote:
say helpless characters get no Ref saves. The /description/ text for Ref
saves states they're about dodging things, but unattented magical items
still get Ref saves, and /Evasion/ specifically doesn't work for Helpless
people, so that's not really true from a _rules_ perspective.
There's a mention for attacks (ranged and melee) that *AC* is treated as
if you had 0 Dex when helpless, but it doesn't mention Ref saves, nor is
your Dex reduced to 0 for any other purpose BTB.
Lots of people make house rules to get the game matching the fluff
though, and be consistent about how the game does things. So Helpless people
having no Ref saves is something that's been coming up here for 12 and half
years, all because of that little bit of fluff text.
> Reflex: These saves test your ability to dodge area attacks.
But not really, they're just a save, and you just get them. Unless
you're dead, because (on-topic!) unattented non-magic objects get no saving
throws at all.
--
tussock
> Jim Davies wrote:
>> Harold Groot wrote:
>>
>>> Not failing to make a Saving Throw - but not getting a Save at all
>>> even when you would normally have one. That's what I'm talking about.
>>> How many ways can you think (in 3.5) that a person can actually lose
>>> the ability to try to make a Save?
>
>> Depends on the save. IIRC you don't get a Reflex save if you can't
>> move, but I assume you get a Fort or Will.
>
>>
>>> Not failing to make a Saving Throw - but not getting a Save at all
>>> even when you would normally have one. That's what I'm talking about.
>>> How many ways can you think (in 3.5) that a person can actually lose
>>> the ability to try to make a Save?
>
>> Depends on the save. IIRC you don't get a Reflex save if you can't
>> move, but I assume you get a Fort or Will.
>
> I had thought that there was some such rule about Reflex Saves - but I
> haven't been able to find it actually spelled out that way in 3.5E.
> Do you have a cite for that, or might that just have been something
> needing a DM judgement call?
The rule is you generally get a save, and there's /no/ specific rule to
> haven't been able to find it actually spelled out that way in 3.5E.
> Do you have a cite for that, or might that just have been something
> needing a DM judgement call?
say helpless characters get no Ref saves. The /description/ text for Ref
saves states they're about dodging things, but unattented magical items
still get Ref saves, and /Evasion/ specifically doesn't work for Helpless
people, so that's not really true from a _rules_ perspective.
There's a mention for attacks (ranged and melee) that *AC* is treated as
if you had 0 Dex when helpless, but it doesn't mention Ref saves, nor is
your Dex reduced to 0 for any other purpose BTB.
Lots of people make house rules to get the game matching the fluff
though, and be consistent about how the game does things. So Helpless people
having no Ref saves is something that's been coming up here for 12 and half
years, all because of that little bit of fluff text.
> Reflex: These saves test your ability to dodge area attacks.
But not really, they're just a save, and you just get them. Unless
you're dead, because (on-topic!) unattented non-magic objects get no saving
throws at all.
--
tussock
Harold Groot
May 16, 2013, 4:14:07 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:31:10 +1200, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz>
wrote:
> tussock
"You just get them." Well, there is the Ring Of Lightning Flashes (MIC
p.125), which says that the targets in the area of effect (everyone
within 5 feet of you, excluding yourself) lose their saves if they are
in physical contact with you ("grappling, engulfing, swallowing, or
the like"). But it's not absolutely clear here as to the reason they
don't get a save. Certainly all those examples of physical contact
would make dodging an area attack more difficult (or even impossible).
Yet this may be more akin to simultaneously having an Area Of Effect
AND a Touch attack. There are many examples of spells that require a
Touch attack to hit, but IF you hit with the Touch attack there is no
saving throw. But offhand, I can't think of any other situation where
an attack is considered both an Area attack AND a Touch attack.
wrote:
"You just get them." Well, there is the Ring Of Lightning Flashes (MIC
p.125), which says that the targets in the area of effect (everyone
within 5 feet of you, excluding yourself) lose their saves if they are
in physical contact with you ("grappling, engulfing, swallowing, or
the like"). But it's not absolutely clear here as to the reason they
don't get a save. Certainly all those examples of physical contact
would make dodging an area attack more difficult (or even impossible).
Yet this may be more akin to simultaneously having an Area Of Effect
AND a Touch attack. There are many examples of spells that require a
Touch attack to hit, but IF you hit with the Touch attack there is no
saving throw. But offhand, I can't think of any other situation where
an attack is considered both an Area attack AND a Touch attack.
tussock
May 18, 2013, 8:07:03 AM5/18/13
to
Harold Groot wrote:
<snip>
as either "Targets:", "Effect:", or "Area:", which gets messy when they
combine them.
Sleep's an Area: targets creatures within the area.
MM's a Targets: up to 5 creatures within 15' of each other.
They needed an Effect: ray strikes all creatures in an area. 4e uses it
all the time with something like 3 square blast, Dex vs Ref: they just have
touch attacks that scale with level like everything else does.
--
tussock
<snip>
> But offhand, I can't think of any other situation where an attack is
> considered both an Area attack AND a Touch attack.
No, not for 3e. Spells share a common entry for that in their database,
> considered both an Area attack AND a Touch attack.
as either "Targets:", "Effect:", or "Area:", which gets messy when they
combine them.
Sleep's an Area: targets creatures within the area.
MM's a Targets: up to 5 creatures within 15' of each other.
They needed an Effect: ray strikes all creatures in an area. 4e uses it
all the time with something like 3 square blast, Dex vs Ref: they just have
touch attacks that scale with level like everything else does.
--
tussock
0 new messages