Why do oozes ignore normal rules?

[hong]

Oozes haven't shown up perhaps as much as they should have IMC. But when they did, I had them do repeated damage over time, like an acid arrow spell, rather than damaging items.

 

[diaglo]

I'm seriously considering house ruling this. Can someone give me a good rationale for why these inconsistent rules are in place?

same holds true for rust monsters and metal striking them.

some monsters just don't follow the rules. maybe they can't read.

 

[Schmoe]

I agree that it doesn't make much sense. I think it was poorly conceived in 3.0, and now is a holdover in 3.5. In fact, I can't think of any equipment-damaging monster abilities that aren't "save-or-destroy". I'm sure they are out there, but definitely a minority.

I house-rule all such effects to be "save or take damage." One exception to this is the rust monster, of course. I mean, come on, that's the sacred cow from which all cows spring.

 

[Thanee]

That's the privilege of a high post count.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Piratecat]

Thanks for the comments. Well, I feel a little better about changing the ooze rules. Unfortunate that this slipped through when there's no real reason for it.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I think the Babau acid ability did get converted to the more d20ish system (Reflex in BoVD, MM3.5 is damage). THe others will likely follow, either in 3.75 or 4.0.

 

[Pinotage]

I like Wormwood's house rules. This way at least it's similar to, for example, the Babau's acidic skin which also causes damage but doesn't immediatly destroy an item.

Pinotage

Edit: Whoops! Cross-posted with the same comment!

 

[Darkness]

That's the privilege of a high post count.

He's a very pleasant poster, from a moderation perspective. His ratio of possibly problematic posts would be low even for someone of, like, 1/25 his post count.

 

[diaglo]

you should just be thankful they got rid of some of the intelligence and possible psionics that some of these monsters had.