Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="coyote6" data-source="post: 892816" data-attributes="member: 1225">Note that another 3.5-ish source (Savage Species, IIRC) had yet another implementation of vulnerabilities. The creature took a -10 to saves against the thing they were vulnerabe to, or double damage if the effect allowed no save.Looks like maybe they changed from the -10 or x2 to the "+50%, regardless" relatively recently. I wonder why they changed. I also wonder if they specify how +50% works with "save for half" -- I'd guess that you'd treat a save as "x1/2" and follow the normal multiplication rules. Thus a creature vulnerable to fire would take 150% of rolled damage if it fails a save, and 100% damage if they make the save. But I bet a lot of people would do it 150%/75% if they don't specify . . . And that might be the intended result, anyways.Also interesting is that the +50% version has no impact on the usefulness of Evasion to vulnerable creatures, while the -10 version would make Evasion a bit less useful. Unless, of course, "no damage from save" is supposed to be figured as "x0", and then you follow the multiplication rule to get x1/2 damage. Oy. Hey, WotC, get your Sage Advice ready. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>