DwD Studios
Reactions <==> free actions
Thu, 04/03/2014 - 8:49pm | 
mitchw
I have heard that some BB GMs play where every time you roll the dice, it is counted as an action...
Aren't there times when a reaction could be used at the full level no matter if you have taken other actions?
For example, an attack is going to hit you so you roll to dodge. Say you fail and the attack hits, you take damage and (for this example) you are poisoned. So you need to roll a STR or WIL resistance check to see if the poison takes effect. Do you roll that at a -20 for having taken the dodge?
I would say no, the poison resistance roll should not be reduced just because you have already acted this turn.
What else could be classified as a reaction that ignores any multi action penalty?
| 
Tags: 
BareBones Fantasy RPG is not associated with Skaldcrow Games' Bare Bones Multiverse, despite similar names. Check out Glenn's products by clicking here.
....been at work for 14 hours....lets see if I can answer intelligently.....
For example, an attack is going to hit you so you roll to dodge. Say you fail and the attack hits, you take damage and (for this example) you are poisoned. So you need to roll a STR or WIL resistance check to see if the poison takes effect. Do you roll that at a -20 for having taken the dodge?
The hit does damage and poison; you resist all with a single resistance check. If you fail, you are poisoned. If the duration is continuous, you are poisoned on your next turn and can make a resistance check to stave it off (counts as an action). This Q&A might help
Multi-action: resisting ongoing effects
The rules say that if you are resisting an ongoing effect, if you fail your roll you can try again on your next turn.
So you cannot take multiple action penalties to try and resist ongoing effects again in the same turn. Is that correct?
Correct, according to the rule as written.
In my games, any time you roll the dice it is an action with the following exceptions:
Remember that resistance checks are actions, and typically carry a multi-action penalty if they are not the only actions your character attempts in a turn.
I know where you are coming from mitchw as that was my first gut reaction to, from the old DND Saving throw days. However after thinking about it I would rule that any resistance check is indeed handled as larry posts above. Just because the character does not have to actively do something does not mean it is not an action. Personally I see it as "strain", having trouble focusing etc.
I just think that poison already has a specific determent so making the resisting of a poison an action is double jeopardy.
No harm, no foul, of course... I would play it either way as a player.
My comment got munched from last night, I'll try to remember what I wanted to say....
You'll find that as players skill scores go up they'll obviously be able to do a lot more on their turn. One of my players typically takes 3-4 swings with a battle axe on this turn, he's rank 2. IMO, GMs control the battlefield by having characters make a resistance check, to keep their multi-action penalty high.
I would never call for a resistance check. If the blade strikes and does damage, the poison should be considered entered. If the player did not offer a resistance check against the blade strike, then they are poisoned.
To resist the effects with an action, they have to know there are effects. If they know the dagger is poisoned, they are likely to make the resistance check. If they do not know it is poisoned, how can they know they have to make a resistance check? That would be "special knowledge". So if they make a resistance check, it's because they want to avoid a normal strike. So if I want to keep it secret that a blade is poisoned, I'm not going to ask for a resistance check until its effects show up, and even then I'm not going to specify a "poison resistance check". The player has to figure it out on their own, by the presence of the effect and the effect described, just as the character would have to.
Then the player has to decide whether they're going to perform a resistance check vs. poison, vs. necrotic effects, vs. magic or vs. some other source, based on the perceived symptoms, and they have to provide a source for that resistance, not just "I perform a poison resistance check". My question is, "how"?
Natural resistance against a poison I would rule as a non-action check and they only get one, with applicable racial and other bonuses. (To keep it secret, if it is still secret, I would have a random player roll two ten-sided dice against the character's applicable score, written in my notes, at the end of the turn.) If they pull out a vial of poison resistance, they get to roll again with applicable racial and other bonuses.
A resistance against a noticed condition, on the other hand, like being dazed, I count as an action.