Talk:Damage Susceptibility (3.5e Creature Ability)

Ratings

	Jota favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	This allows creatures to be differentiated for their weaknesses, rather than solely for their strengths. There's many implementations of the latter to go around, but not so many of the former. This is cleverly done, and the game could use more mechanisms akin to it.

	Tarkisflux likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	+1 to what Jota said. Additional ways to differentiate foes and new things that you can apply to them (or have applied to you) are welcome in my game. The cap is a bit weird, especially in light of the authors intended limits, but not weird enough for me to not be for it in general.

DS Appears In...

It's not in a feat yet, but it is in a spell: Hinder (3.5e Spell). - Tarkisflux ^Talk 06:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This would be nice for Flaws. Be Well 20:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Question

Why cap it? --Ghostwheel 00:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably because it is a silly image if it wasn't. Say a dragon has DS/wood for some reason. As allergic as he is to wood, a toothpick is still a toothpick, still dealing piddly damage because its a tiny weak thing. He's more worried about the Tree Lance that can take advantage of his DS/wood to the fullest. -- Eiji-kun 00:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'd go more for the gamism on this one, rather than simulationism; having to remember when to just double the damage and just add it on top can be a pain. It would also potentially make specific weapons that creatures are vulnerable to better, rather than just using the usual one you always carry with you. --Ghostwheel 00:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see many cases where it wouldn't be just a direct addition to the damage. If the DS is higher than the attack, the attack is too weak to matter (I can't imagine DS going about 10 outside of epic levels). The idea that a toothpick does huge damage because you are vulnerable to wood is silly. Basically, I cannot see this being too big of an issue on the table. --Havvy 23:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's take a better example, since dragons aren't vulnerable to wood; let's say you've got a level 4 sorcerer who has scorching ray and magic missile as his primary damage spells, and he's fighting a fire elemental (DS 10 vs. Cold, Fire Resist 10 for this example). Scorching ray won't deal any damage (4 on average), but if it was straight additional damage, the sorcerer could use a Ray of Cold to good effect (11.5 damage), rather than having to rely just on their magic missile (7 damage). I think that's a better example, and demonstrates a situation where you make lower-level abilities worth it, because you know something's weakness. --Ghostwheel 00:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ghost makes a good argument, since those sorts of behaviors are ones I want to encourage. And if you plan on having it capped at 10 pre epic (which makes sense for physical but not magic given equivalent energy resistances and relative attack exposure between types per round) it's not going to be adding significant piles of damage anyway. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 04:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

So... since it doesn't look like this is going to change, do you mind if I make a variant of this, Havvy? (Giving you proper credit, ofc.) --Ghostwheel 17:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Assuming you've done more math than I have, I went and removed the line from the rule. --Havvy 04:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)