|
5 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2008 - 8:31AM
#101
|
|
|
...But if your post is something like Elven_Swordsmen's, which is like "dude, it's just an abstraction" but "you can rationalize it like...", then you are mixing up apples and oranges.
I know it's a little late in coming, but this last bit you posted makes me think you may have missed the point amongst all my babbling (which I admit I do rather frequently). I'm not saying "D&D is an abstraction, but here's how you rationalize it..." I'm saying that because D&D rules are an abstraction, it's kinda pointless to look for negative explanations (negative and positive rights is the closest analogy I can think of right now). Because the rules were not intended to be logically exhaustive in their reasoning (since the devs took an expressly more gamist approach to 4e), you'll never get an answer for "why not Wisdom or Strength or..." etc. Therefore, your only options for arriving at any measure of satisfaction with the rules are to either a) change them or b) come up with a positive explanation of why Intelligence does contribute to reflexes rather than why the others do not. So I wasn't showing you apples and oranges; I was outlining the problem and positing a solution. I'd say take it or leave it but you seem to already have left it.
I can understand the desire for definitive logical reasoning (I've been a competitive debater for seven years) but if you start asking why other stats don't contribute to reflexes, then by your own creed you'll have to ask all the other questions: why can't Int help Initiative, how can I run out of the capacity to be healed, why can I only multiclass into one class, how can my action be to give someone else an action when they've already acted on their turn?...ad infinitum. The answer to any of those questions will invariably be "because the rules are balanced as written and those items would either have broken the game or frankly weren't considered." Therefore, again, the way to approach rules designed in this way I think is to come up with the simplest explanation possible for how the rule does make some realistic sense. Trying to get answers for all the why nots will be tantamount to banging your head against a wall. For me that activity happens to be stress relieving, but I'd be inclined to say I'm an anomaly.
Cheers
Kyle
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2008 - 10:01AM
#102
|
Date Joined:
Sep 10, 2005
|
I fully agree with all those posts. Personally, for my wizard PC, I'd take DaidojiTaidoru's supernatural aura idea. For all other classes, I'd try really, really hard to suspend my disbelief of any irrationalities that come up and/or try one of those suggested houserules.
If a DM feels particularily capricious, then he/she could throw out a surprise house-rule every once in a while. If a PC succeeds on a Int-based Reflex save, but would fail if it was a Dex-based Reflex, then that's one of those times that Intelligence makes a difference. The DM can ask the PC to justify how reasoning power would be used to avoid the effect. If the player can explain the use of some handy strategy or nearby cover, his PC is safe. But that should be reserved for the rare case that the DM feels a potential negative modifier is justified or just to keep the players on their toes  Luckily for everyone, I'm not a DM
Should same said DM require that characters with Dex based reflex defense justify their being missed if they are part of an area effect (that can't really be dodged, it fills the area? Or a reflex attack that happens while their flanked in melee? DM to player ... explain to me how you were able to notice that ray coming while you were surrounded by kobolds and up to your whatevers in spear points. You avoided the dragon's breath by ducking behind what exactly in this featureless room?
It's just an exercise in silliness to require that a player justify the rules. Beyond that, its is a punishment to less creative less clever players who might not be able to brainstorm an appropriate resonse under pressure.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2008 - 10:21AM
#103
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2007
|
Life is a punishment to less creative people. They get to deal with it. And really, you would think that people would have to leave the blast area, so int is totally reasonable. You can dodge a fireball without moving by the default rules.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2008 - 1:15PM
#104
|
|
|
Well, it could just be me, but the simplest solution I'd allow as a DM would be to let the player choose either one stat or the other to modify the appropriate defense score. Once they make the choice, however, that is what it remains. After all, it's not very true to their character concept if they choose the low dex to modify their reflex score, and then when they actually are in danger, say "Oh, no, I'm using my Int for this one." :P
Just my 2 coppers.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 06, 2008 - 5:18AM
#105
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2006
|
:p
Those are actually the rules.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 06, 2008 - 1:46PM
#106
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2003
|
:p
Those are actually the rules.
Exactly. There's no rule, as far as I'm aware of, that you have to pick your highest score. The default assumption is just that most people will pick their high score, naturally, but I don't think you HAVE to.
Not that most people would deliberately gimp their character, but I can't see how it's actually against the rules.
In other words, if you want a crappy reflex defense, go ahead and base it on your 8 DEX instead of your 20 INT. It's okay. Really.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 06, 2008 - 2:45PM
#107
|
Date Joined:
Jun 14, 2006
|
The clumsy guy in a story never actually gets hit by things because they're clumsy. Sure they run into stuff anyone would have seen, or trip over their own feet, but when the projectiles start flying, certain death looms, and bad guys are intent on ending their life, they seem to have some miraculous ability to avoid getting hurt.
Inspector Gadget, Mr. Magoo, Mihoshi, Jar Jar Binks, etc.
So the bumbling genius that has a very high reflex defense makes perfect sense in this case.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 06, 2008 - 3:15PM
#108
|
Date Joined:
Jun 11, 2007
|
if you want to play a flawed character, it shouldn't be that hard to implement the flaw mechanics from 3.5 UA.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 06, 2008 - 6:13PM
#109
|
Date Joined:
Jun 30, 2003
|
I believe the term the OP needs to consider is "Intuitive Reflexes," that pretty much sums up why Int can be used for reflex saves.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 06, 2008 - 8:05PM
#110
|
Date Joined:
Jul 24, 2004
|
if you want to play a flawed character, it shouldn't be that hard to implement the flaw mechanics from 3.5 UA.
Except that the characters created this way were anything but flawed. Because the drawbacks typically had nothing to do with their core strengths, but the feats did, they often ended up being much stronger than were the flaw system not used.
|
|
|
