D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Rhakshasa scoop [Possibly spoiler for players]

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The DR is 15/good and piercing, right? That is, a good slashing weapon and a non-good piercing weapon still get affected by the DR. That means that unless your archer is totin' around a good bow or good arrows, he's going to have to overcome a DR of 15.

Well, a 2nd-level spell is supposed to fix the "good" aspect...

 

[Sejs]

under 3.0, magic weapon cast by a cleric makes the weapon to be considdered 'blessed'

*shrug*

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Well, a 2nd-level spell is supposed to fix the "good" aspect...

Sure, but a first level spell does in the old-style Rakshasa, and much more firmly.

Henry was complaining that he didn't see the point in raising the CR -- I think it's pretty clear that the DR/special vulnerability change, at least, constitutes a big bonus for the 3.5 Rakshasa.

Here's the breakdown:

Old-style Rakshasa:

• Has DR that's likely to be penetrable by the party (it's CR 9 w/ 20/+3 DR. A 9th level Wiz, Sorc, or Cleric has GMW that gives a +3 enhancement bonus. I think it's probably reasonable to assume that a couple of the fighter-types, at least, have a +3 weapon at that level, then, but even if they don't, GMW is a backup).
  
• Has a special vulnerability that can be triggered by a low-level spell, meaning instant death.

New-style Rakshasa:

• Has DR that's likely NOT penetrable by anyone on a permenant basis, though the party can likely cast a spell that penetrates it -- for (maybe) one of the party-member's main weapons, and a couple of people's back-up weapons.
  
• No special vulnerabilities.

It seems to me that the Rakshasa has gone from being likely to have no particular (physical) defenses against a party that doesn't have a cleric buff, and insta-killed against a party that does have a cleric buff, to likely to have a strong defense against a party that doesn't have a cleric buff, and having weak defeneses against a party that does have a cleric buff.

That just seems like a big upgrade in power, to me.

 

[Celtavian]

re

If it makes any difference to anybody, I am a Hindu born in India and raised on stories of gods and rakshasas.

Despite reading many, many entertaining tales on the subject I cannot recall a time where a "blessed crossbow bolt" was used to slay a rakshasa.

In fact, in the time that these legends were penned, bolts let alone the mechanical crossbow were not available in India. Rakshasa's being slain by conventional arrows were, however, far more common.

So, in a nutshell, I am not "offended" that WotC decided to go wtih 10/good and piercing.

Thanks for the clarification gfunk. You have made this change palatable for me.