Critical hits with energy drain give 2x neg levs?

[zyzzyr]

thanks!

Yup, there it is under Energy Drain in the MM. I couldn't find it in the SRD, but oh well =)

jw

 

[zyzzyr]

By the way

If anyone can find it in the SRD, I'd much appreciate. I couldn't. I can't imagine why it wouldn't be in there. Doesn't that seem odd?

zyzzyr

 

[zyzzyr]

Anyone ... ?

Anyone able to find this in the SRD? It would be greatly appreciated.

cheers

zyzzyr

 

[kreynolds]

Anyone able to find this in the SRD?

It's not in there. It's in the books. It's also not strange...at least, no more so than the fact that the Energy Drain entry in the SRD is incorrect in the first place.

Need some help figuring this out...

1) The description for the condition "Energy Drained" mentions nothing about losing 5 hit points for every negative level you sustain.

That's because you don't.

2) In the DMG, the special ability Energy Drain mentions losing 5 hit points for every negative level.

That's an error.

3) In the PH, the Enervation spell mentions nothing about losing 5 hit points for every negative level.

That's because you don't.

Which one is correct?

See previous answers.

When a target is struck by a Enervation or Energy Drain spell, do they lose 5 hit points for each negative level sustained?

No.

What about a target struck by a creature with the Energy Drain ability?

Also no.

Skip Williams
RPG R&D

 

[zyzzyr]

Hi kreynolds

Thanks for the reply

I'm left, though, with the question: which is right? The SRD, or the guide? (by right, I mean which is "official"?)

thanks

zyzzyr

 

[IceBear]

As far as I know the books (+ errata) are "official" for D&D. I think the released portions of the SRD are "official" for the OGL (which is not the same thing as D&D).

IceBear

 

[zyzzyr]

Hi IceBear,

Wow, that seems odd. Then d20/OGL and D&D actually have different *rules*? So a wight from SSS does not do double energy drain on a crit? I realize that SSS can add this in as "new content" but it seems to me that it should be the default ...

zyzzyr

 

[IceBear]

Hehehe, well, I don't think it's intentional, but that's what has happened. Just look at the Star Wars, CoC, etc books. Some of the "core" rules (not class rules) are different than D&D rules and the SRD. Hell, the d20 Modern SRD actually lists the natural 1/20 Saving Throw rules while no where in the D&D rules (other than the FAQ) is such a thing mentioned.

As far as I'm concerned not everyone is aware of the SRD, so when it comes to D&D it's the books + errata that's offical.

With respect to the SRD, I do believe there are some legal mumbo-jumbo on there that states that the SRD is OGL compliant. The problem is, there are mistakes in the SRD that haven't been corrected. Thus, if the SRD is OGL compliant, then it seems we have the possibility that the D&D books and the OGL rules are different

Anyway, here's how I look at it. If I were somewhere without Internet connection and I wanted to play D&D what would I be using? The books.

IceBear

 

[kreynolds]

I'm left, though, with the question: which is right? The SRD, or the guide? (by right, I mean which is "official"?)

In this case? Neither is right, both are official, but the SRD is the red-headed step-child when it comes to updates. WotC is more concerned about being legally compliant (hence the removal of Melf's from the Acid Arrow spell, etc) than they are about correcting the blunders in the SRD.

Personally, I go with the books + errata and ignore the SRD all together. The only thing I use the SRD for is for a quick reference to things like spell durations, but most of the time I end up just double-checking in the books anyway.

 

[zyzzyr]

IceBear said:

Anyway, here's how I look at it. If I were somewhere without Internet connection and I wanted to play D&D what would I be using? The books.

I agree - but what if you're a d20 publisher/author?

You're stuck with the SRD ...

zyzzyr