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

[hong]

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?

Basically it seems they don't want combat results to depend so heavily on a single die roll. An empowered fireball is often effectively an insta-kill spell when cast on cold creatures, if it does double damage on a failed save.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Actually, it depends upon the creature. I remember trying to hit an ice paraelemental with my wizard's flaming sphere at one point in time. Because of its dex, it could roll a 3 and still save negating the spell. In the same way, the new rule really helps when you hit the fire giant monk with a cone of cold.

Essentially the -10 to saves means that NPCs with the subtype can't get evasion, crank their saves and not worry about ever taking any damage. It's also significant because, even without evasion, subtype creatures that made their save take half damage under the current rules. That's a mixed bag for spells with saves. If you had a really good DC that they usually missed anyway, it makes no difference; otherwise it will still often amount to double damage (failing to save and taking full damage rather than saving and taking half).

Spells like Otiluke's Freezing Sphere (no save for the ray version), Fire Shield, and Wall of Fire will remain extremely deadly against creatures with the opposite subtype.

 

[Steverooo]

Re: D&D Vampires

I've never ever liked the D&D vampire's energy drain ability. It doesn't mesh with any vampires I've ever come actross in literature or film. They use their 'slam' ability (basically, they punch you) and you lose levels? Where does this come from? I can see the vampie's bite doing this, but a punch? Maybe for weird exotic vampires, but D&D vampires are clearly modeled on the classic Bram Stoker gothic style vampire. If you now get two saves to prevent losing two levels when a monster punches you, then I say more power to these new rules.

Agreed. It always seemed stranger to me, too! In 1e AD&D, all undead had a connection with the life-draining Negative Material Plane, and that's where it came from. Many objected that Vamps shouldn't do this, and EGG did a letter response or Up on a Soapbox in which he said (paraphrased) "This isn't the movie/TV Vampire, this is the D&D Vampire." I never bought it, either.

 

[Marshall]

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

The difference between 35 and 70 damage isnt enough?
As it is, Using cold against a fire-type is almost an insta-kill. With the new rules a Fireball has the same damage potential against everyone its just more likely to do full damage against cold-types.

The double damage rule is now the exception, that allows Flaming/Frost weapons to have additional effect.