Talk:Spell Dampening (3.5e Creature Ability)
Ratings
|
Ghostwheel likes this article and rated it 3 of 4. |
|---|---|
| I like this much better than standard Spell Resistance, since the all-or-nothing mechanic is boring and not fun.
The only thing that stops this from being favored is that it has relatively little effect against spells that do not rely on caster level for their effectiveness in an actual combat. |
|
Luigifan18 favors this article and rated it 4 of 4! |
|---|---|
| I love this, if only because it makes spellcasters cry. It's like magical damage reduction, which is a really cool concept. |
|
|
Undead Knave likes this article and rated it 3 of 4. |
|---|---|
| This looks fun. I'd like to use this sometime. |
|
|
Franken Kesey favors this article and rated it 4 of 4! |
|---|---|
| A massive improvement over spell resistance. And easier to rank with. |
Spell Dampening and Spell Resistance
Does this ability also lower the attacker's caster level with regards to checks made to overcome spell resistance? --Sulacu (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- A good question, I suppose it depends on if SR or SD comes first. Hmmm, I'm torn, but for now the tentative errata will be SR comes first, then SD. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Containment and Interactions
I assume that this is intended to reduce caster level only for the purpose of determining the effects on the creature with SD, yes? Because as written, it "reduces the caster level of the incoming spell" without qualification, meaning that, to use the first example, every creature hit by the fireball takes only 5d6.
Also, this can get crazy when combined with SR. Of course a well-designed creature probably isn't going to have both this and SR, but a PC can achieve it easily enough with spells. I don't know whether saying that it does not apply to rolls against SR is a good, bad, or indifferent idea, but it's something you might consider. --DanielDraco (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- To the first point, yes. Is there a particular part where it is unclear? I'm not reading it.
- Now that I am off work, I can give it proper thought and confirm that it should be done SR check first, then SD check, to avoid having the SD reduce CL to the point of negation (which isn't the point, it's a technically weaker but more reliable form of ablating the danger from spells). Having both is helpful, of course, in the same sense a miss chance and high AC is useful. Lemme find where you're getting the first interpretation, and I'll also edit in a clarification on the order of events too. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- (EDIT: NM, I see what you meant. Changed and fixed, and clarified too.) -- Eiji-kun (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- What do you think of giving a DC penalty on top of the CL penalty? I think that could fit well for spells that give SR, but don't actually deal damage (like Slow, for instance). --Ghostwheel (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Caster level very frequently determines the durations of spells like that. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not that it matters; being paralyzed for "only" 8 rounds instead of 13 won't make you be any less dead. --Ghostwheel (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
