D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5e] New rules from Savage Species

[Sir Draconion]

just looking through some of the energy draining monsters in MM2, and they too have fort save drain effects(I.E. effigy, jahi, gravecrawler) some are level drain but others are abilities
if my memory serves me right for the shadows str drain no save
vampires lvl drain no save

but in the MM2 it looks like you gat asvae vs these effects now
wheres the rule update for this or are these draining effects a monster by monster basis?

 

[Quasqueton]

8) Fire and Cold subtypes now provide immunity to the given type and a -10 penalty on saves against the opposed element. If there is no save allowed, take double damage.

Why is it stated this way? Why not just simply "takes double the damage result"?

I'm just wondering. It just seems it would be easier to remember and adjudicate.

The 10d6 fireball[/u] does 35 damage x2 on a failed save or 17 damage x2 on a passed save.

Anyone know a reason for the more complicated rule?

Quasqueton

 

[Merlion]

I dont think that was a word for word reprint from the book. thats my guess.

 

[shilsen]

Why is it stated this way? Why not just simply "takes double the damage result"?

I'm just wondering. It just seems it would be easier to remember and adjudicate.

The 10d6 fireball[/u] does 35 damage x2 on a failed save or 17 damage x2 on a passed save.

Anyone know a reason for the more complicated rule?

Quasqueton

Maybe someone got tired of huge fire elementals rolling over to a couple of cone of colds? I'd think the new system is easier to remember and adjudicate. Except for spells that allow no save (not the most common type), this version means there's no multiplying or anything. Just roll the save and apply the modifier. No harder than elves getting +2 on saves vs. enchantmentments.

 

[Emerald]

Re: Re: Re: [3.5e] New rules from Savage Species

OOPS! edit: This is MerakSpielman on his wife's account.

Interestingly, it means Alchemy is now a class skill for everyone....

I think this is a good thing. I mean, despite its semi-mystical nature IRL, alchemy is not arcane or magically-related in any way in D&D. Sure, it lets you ID potions, but the guesswork surrounding an unidentified potion was never essential to the flavor or fun of my campaigns or any others I've seen.

Alchemy is just a way to create saleable items - generally of minor power. It should not be treated any differently than Craft: Weaponsmith or Craft: Bookbinding.

 

[Draco Argentum]

Possibles?

Change: Massive damage by size varient becomes core.

Evidence: pg10 Second colum under "Fast Healing and Regeneration" bracketed text.

Analysis: If it were still a varient it probably wouldn't have been mentioned at all.

Change: Turning grants will saves.

Evidence: pg 63 Last paragraph of Awaken Undead.

Analysis: This could be a reference to the control undead spell rather than the clerical power.

Change: Rewording of undead traits.

Evidence: pg 71 Last paragraph of Undead Mask

Analysis: The removeal of the phrase "not subject to" could be a typo as it is still used in the rest of the book. It would remove a nagging question if it is happening though.

 

[hong]

Why is it stated this way? Why not just simply "takes double the damage result"?

I'm just wondering. It just seems it would be easier to remember and adjudicate.

The 10d6 fireball[/u] does 35 damage x2 on a failed save or 17 damage x2 on a passed save.

Anyone know a reason for the more complicated rule?

Hint: a doubly empowered fireball from a minmaxed wizard can really ruin a frost giant's day, even an advanced one.

 

[Gez]

Why is it stated this way? Why not just simply "takes double the damage result"?

I'm just wondering. It just seems it would be easier to remember and adjudicate.

The 10d6 fireball does 35 damage x2 on a failed save or 17 damage x2 on a passed save.

Anyone know a reason for the more complicated rule?

Quasqueton

The way I read the new rule, the 10d6 fireball will deal on average 17 damage on a successful save and 35 damage otherwise. But the creature with the (cold) subtype will have lots of trouble succeeding at the save. But if you take a spell that deals fire damage without allowing saves (I don't know, Fiery Magic Missile or Power Word, Burn), well, the damage it would deal would be doubled.

 

[Cyraneth]

Why is it stated this way? Why not just simply "takes double the damage result"?

I'm just wondering. It just seems it would be easier to remember and adjudicate.

The 10d6 fireball does 35 damage x2 on a failed save or 17 damage x2 on a passed save.

Anyone know a reason for the more complicated rule?

Quasqueton

I guess they wanted to change it as some obscure cold, fire, or similar spell does not inflict damage, but instead has some other effect... Like, doesn't Otiluke's freezing sphere have something like Reflex negates? I don't have my books with me (again...!), so I might be wrong...?

- Cyraneth

 

[Quasqueton]

Maybe someone got tired of huge fire elementals rolling over to a couple of cone of colds?

As SS: the fire elemental takes 35 damage or 17 damage; probably 35. As 'my way': the fire elemental takes 70 damage or 35 damage. 'My way' works better for this concern.

Hint: a doubly empowered fireball from a minmaxed wizard can really ruin a frost giant's day, even an advanced one.

This fireball does 70/35 damage. As SS: the frost giant takes 70 or 35; probably 70. As 'My way': the frost giant takes 140 or 70. 'My way' is worse on the giant in this concept.

But if you take a spell that deals fire damage without allowing saves (I don't know, Fiery Magic Missile or Power Word, Burn), well, the damage it would deal would be doubled.

Both the SS way and 'my way' work the same here -- double damage.

I guess they wanted to change it as some obscure cold, fire, or similar spell does not inflict damage, but instead has some other effect... Like, doesn't Otiluke's freezing sphere have something like Reflex negates? I don't have my books with me (again...!), so I might be wrong...?

Maybe this is the reason?


Actually, 'my way' is more in line with how the older editions did it, and half way how 3.0 does it now. That's what made me wonder. The new way in SS is a change from the standard. Usually I can see the reasoning behind the rules changes, but this one is just going over my head, I guess.

I just think saying "double damage" is simpler than saying "-10 on saves, or if no save then double damage". Actually, the new way is less damaging; maybe the designers didn't want elemental spells/effects to do more damage. They just wanted them to do full damage. Maybe I've just answered my own question?

Quasqueton