The point to this is to think aloud what I feel I already know and round table it to those collective wise sages Ive come to know and converse with.
IMC I have (ayear plus ago) started it up with a conversion to 3.5e since a majority of my players were comfortable with that version ( I know Iknow blasphemy Lanthorn ) Being an ole white box, 1e and 2e guy My Vampires have always required magical items to cause them harm ( Referencing, 1eDMGp213 bottom of chart, MMp99, just to base reference).
So if I interpret correctly now, somewhere during the course of 2e to 3.5, vampires (and I assume other nasties) got downgraded?
In 3.5 seems there is no longer that requirement, and to ad further to what seems like a softening of the monster set, even if the monster does still possess (Boggle to use the 3.5 MM2 p16 example) a magical item requirement to cause "full damage" we now have damage reduction for those "poor PCs" that don't own magic items so they can do damage too?? REALLY??? Somebody please tell me it aint so....
It seems hollywood has influenced this
My vampires do not twinkle it the sunlight!!!!!
If it is so, has anyone a cross index of monster changes through the editions, and more importantly the "WHY" for such a change.
The 2nd edition DMG had an optional rule in place for the level or hit die of a creature to compensate for the lack of a magical weapon. The higher the hit die or level of a creature, the higher their bonus or plus was to compensate for the lack of having a magical weapon. So you had ratings which equaled from +1 all the way up to a +5. 3rd edition sort to minimize the need for a magical weapon. Damage reduction makes a difference. In case you have a large party and a DM like myself who thinks magical items are special and no easy to come by. Then DR really works well. However, you could always keep magic as a necessity, though one who uses a blessed weapon, exposes the vampire to garlic, or uses fire can overcome the magic requirement to harm them. If you have something that is easy to acquire, that can over come the need for a magical item, then DR is really not necessary. You can keep it as a way to weaken the creature and make it slightly vulnerable.
I made a creature that one needed magic though fire and alcohol could also weaken the creature. Problem was the creature was transparent so it was hard to find. Alcohol slowed it down and if the liquid was colored it would show a faint color difference on the creature. While fire would cause it to suffer damage. This worked well and made the scene seem much more dire then what it actually was. All of my players were on edge as they did not know the creatures weakness. Only one PC was not disabled and she accidentally dropped a torch and found that the creature passed around it and not over it like it did everything else.
Argon, thanks for the response. and do recall that option though IMC never embraced it. As you have stated, magical items should be rare and wondrous, and they are so because of situations such as these where they are applied to a foe that can only be defeated so. NOT (IMO) slowly bludgeoned to death by PCs that dont have the right tool for the job. Seems this is another case for softening of the root guidelines because they were too "difficult".
I have further researched and found this here as well. Which kinda explains Skip and companys reasoning as they converted 3e to 3.5e, though would love to hear feed back from him, Eric Mona, or even Gary on their thoughts around Damage Reduction. Might have to make it a point to drop in Thursday evening and chat on it.
DLG having never played 3ed or higher (from what I have heard I have been spared) with regards to your Vampire I would allow players to be able injure them but not to actually be able to kill them (maybe send them in to torpor or even into gaseous form for the Vampire to flee) To truly kill the creature they would need magic or some hard to come by holy item (examples only)
The piece Argon mentioned about in the DMG I was under the impression it was for creatures to injure other creatures and not player characters. If this is the case then it would almost devalue magic items.
Thinking about DR in later editions if the creature in earlier editions needed a magical item to hit them and you wanted to keep this special defence, then you could grant the creature permanent HP equal to their DR level unless injured by a magical item. This would stop your party simply battering to death what in previous editions would have been a challenging encounter.
Rockhaven, I agree, however, upon discovering this, my concern is a bit more broad brush. Meaning, how many other monster types have also been diluted?
And seems that, if suspicions are confirmed, what you suggest would mean re-writing the Monster Manuel, not an enviable task.
Or
the unenviable task of monitoring the damage causes into three (or more) categories,
Lethal- damage that meets the criteria in this case silver AND magic
Kinda-leathal??? Damage that meets some condition, but not all (silver OR magic in this case)
Semi-lethal??? damage that does NOT meet the criteria but with DR causes damage anyway
Non-lethal
Makes my head shake
Yo Admin guys .. Insert Hand to face Emoticon here
Wow! Since when did a wooden stake become a "magical" item?
A broken broom handle -- a.k.a. "spear" -- can kill a Vampire. "Regular" spear? Just break off the metal head. Bo staff? Sharpen the end.
And a "holy wafer" -- which ANY cleric can make "on the spot" -- placed in the mouth of a Vampire will keep it "comatose" for only the gods know how long. Carry the Vampire to where you can obtain help to completely destroy it.
Both methods are a bit of a challenge, sure . . . but completely doable.
Wow! Since when did a wooden stake become a "magical" item?
A broken broom handle -- a.k.a. "spear" -- can kill a Vampire. "Regular" spear? Just break off the metal head. Bo staff? Sharpen the end.
And a "holy wafer" -- which ANY cleric can make "on the spot" -- placed in the mouth of a Vampire will keep it "comatose" for only the gods know how long. Carry the Vampire to where you can obtain help to completely destroy it.
Both methods are a bit of a challenge, sure . . . but completely doable.
Am I missing something here?
LOL no oh learned Sage, but those are alternate methods in this case immersion in running water and sunlight also come to mind.... My concern is more around DR and what seems a "softening of the monsters" allowing ill prepared PCs to still cause harm to creatures that should be a challenge.
I am trying to better understand the reasoning for such a "rule" from its inception... hence is why I listed thread here instead of strictly by edition.
This happened to a lot of monsters in the transition from 1E/2E to 3E and later including vampires along with IIRC demons, daemons, demodands, devils and other evil outsiders as well as constructs like iron golems. The principal reason as I recall was game balance so that PCs who happened to not bring along or have the appropriate magic/silver/cold iron weapon still had a chance to defeat such creatures. Having played and DM'd 1E and 2E games where none of the party or perhaps just the fighter who grabbed a magical sword in the last dungeon could hit a creature, I personally was glad to see the change.
In both 3E and 4E, vampires can still be destroyed or seriously hampered by direct sunlight and are vulnerable to the likes of holy water but the battles where only two of a party of six can damage a creature went away. Whilst this might not be for all, particularly if you want your monsters as "historically" accurate as possible, for my part I think this was a change for the better.
Being an ole white box, 1e and 2e guy My Vampires have always required magical items to cause them harm . . . In 3.5 seems there is no longer that requirement . . . My concern is more around DR and what seems a "softening of the monsters" allowing ill prepared PCs to still cause harm to creatures that should be a challenge.
Okay, I see "where you're going" with you inquiry.
I've never really agreed with this premise, and that's all it is . . . a premise. I always have a "touch" of the Real World in my game.
Vampires are not Ghosts, weapons do not pass through them. Their bodies are real and physical. Why would you think that a sword -- any sword -- couldn't severe a Vampire's hand? Or head? The problem is that the Vampire can reattach these body parts, given time to do so. I suggest not "hacking it up and walking away."
Because if any part of the Vampire is returned to its coffin, it will regenerate. The dirt from its grave grants it such restorative powers. So mundane weapons cannot kill a Vampire, they cannot permanently destroy the creature . . . but they can do it harm. A Vampire is not possessed of Superman's invulnerability.
Your Fighter's strength of 22 and +3 sword mean absolutely nothing. He's facing a Vampire!
What's your Fighter's Will Save?
This is the Ph.D. thing again . . . what experience does your player/s have with Vampires? So . . . how do they "know" not to look into its eyes while fighting it? Looking into your opponents eyes is the most natural thing in the world, ask any fighter. It takes conscious effort not to do so.
So I ask again, what is your Thief's Will Save? Your Cleric's Will Save?
And your Cleric cannot help the Thief. No, you see, your Cleric is too busy defending himself against his former friend . . . the mesmerized Fighter.
Having never been able to get beyond 2E myself *Lanthorn and the crowd go wild* I have always kept the magic/special characteristic required rule in place. However, I have run a few "lower magic" campaigns and let players roll to attack adversaries that required magic to hit (or something beyond normal weapons) but the caveat being they just couldn't destroy the creature and the creature might heal extra fast.
Vampires, you know them, you want to stake them but your party doesn't have any magic items (or they don't have enough pluses) to "hit". No worries, allow them to attack and cause damage, at some point, if they are winning, the vampire will shapechange or go gaseous and get away. If they're very clever and it's a fight to the death. They can damage the vampire into a state of torpor that lasts for 1 turn. After that the vampire can come act once again but maybe at 50% HP.
Other options I've used are silver weapons (pretty easy to get if they prepare), blessed regular weapons, holy symbols, dipped in garlic oil, etc.
IMC I have (ayear plus ago) started it up with a conversion to 3.5e since a majority of my players were comfortable with that version ( I know Iknow blasphemy Lanthorn )
And STILL I continue to reply to you...
Rockhaven wrote:
DLG having never played 3ed or higher (from what I have heard I have been spared)...
Count me in on that.
Elliva wrote:
Having never been able to get beyond 2E myself *Lanthorn and the crowd go wild*
Indeed!
I encourage any one of you, if you haven't already, to peruse Van Richten's Guide to Vampires. Good sourceguide.
The principal reason as I recall was game balance so that PCs who happened to not bring along or have the appropriate magic/silver/cold iron weapon still had a chance to defeat such creatures
I've seen it referred to as "golf club syndrome" or something similar, as in the PCs carry around a golf club bag full of different weapons to deal with various situations.
Three silver weapons: blunt, piercing, and slashing.
Three cold iron weapons.
Four blessed weapons: the above and a crossbow bolt for rakshasas.
Three magic weapons.
...and so on.
It would get even worse somewhere like Ravenloft, where a particular undead or lycanthrope might be vulnerable to gold, obsidian, coral, or some other material tied to their origin.
There is a solution for that, it being three words.
ITEM SAVING THROWS
Any DM who doesn't know what that means, or how it works, bad DM! Bad! Let's just say that we have never, ever, had "golf club syndrome" in any of our campaigns. Ever. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
My Vampires have always required magical items to cause them harm ( Referencing, 1eDMGp213 bottom of chart, MMp99, just to base reference).
So if I interpret correctly now, somewhere during the course of 2e to 3.5, vampires (and I assume other nasties) got downgraded?
In 3.5 seems there is no longer that requirement, and to ad further to what seems like a softening of the monster set, even if the monster does still possess (Boggle to use the 3.5 MM2 p16 example) a magical item requirement to cause "full damage" we now have damage reduction for those "poor PCs" that don't own magic items so they can do damage too?? REALLY??? Somebody please tell me it aint so....
My reading is that the vampire, if anything, actually got tougher. In order to do full damage, you need a silver magic weapon -- not just any magic weapon. Not silver, or not magic, and yeah - you can still do damage - but the vampire ignores 10 hit points of it right off the top. You can nickle and dime it to ...well, not death, but gaseous form...but it's still healing 5 hp per round.
At 0 hp the vampire automatically escapes in gaseous form - and it takes no damage in gaseous form. It regains 1 hit point in 1 hour, and 5hp/round thereafter - which means a vampire with 100 hit points would be back to full strength in just under an hour and a half.
The principal reason as I recall was game balance so that PCs who happened to not bring along or have the appropriate magic/silver/cold iron weapon still had a chance to defeat such creatures
I've seen it referred to as "golf club syndrome" or something similar, as in the PCs carry around a golf club bag full of different weapons to deal with various situations.
Three silver weapons: blunt, piercing, and slashing.
Three cold iron weapons.
Four blessed weapons: the above and a crossbow bolt for rakshasas.
Three magic weapons.
...and so on.
It would get even worse somewhere like Ravenloft, where a particular undead or lycanthrope might be vulnerable to gold, obsidian, coral, or some other material tied to their origin.
Cebrion wrote:
There is a solution for that, it being three words.
ITEM SAVING THROWS
Any DM who doesn't know what that means, or how it works, bad DM! Bad! Let's just say that we have never, ever, had "golf club syndrome" in any of our campaigns. Ever.
I read Armitage's post differently, Cebrion. I read it as saying that 3.x edition tried to solve the 'golf club syndrome' problem of needing a dozen different weapons just in case you run into any one of a dozen different situations requiring one. Now, you can still damage any creature with a small selection of weapons, but you may not be able to do too terribly much damage to them without the right combination of weapon attributes.
I read Armitage's post differently, Cebrion. I read it as saying that 3.x edition tried to solve the 'golf club syndrome' problem of needing a dozen different weapons just in case you run into any one of a dozen different situations requiring one. Now, you can still damage any creature with a small selection of weapons, but you may not be able to do too terribly much damage to them without the right combination of weapon attributes.
SirXaris
I read it the same way and that is, I think what the designers were trying to change. Equally, at lower levels where 'golf club syndrome' is not an option, I've seen combats where only the one fighter with the magic sword and the spellcasters can damage such creatures. After a few attempts to realise they were useless, the rest of the party ends up pretty much hanging around until the battle is done. That's no fun for anyone.
That is still an issue in 3.5E. Somebody needs to create some sort of "weapon attunement" spell that temporarily alters a weapon's qualities to be perfectly useful against certain creatures.
Nellisr is right in that a character needs a magical and silvered weapon to bypass a vampire's damage reduction, and few to no characters will be carrying those, so characters better hope they are doing way more than 10 points of damage per attack. The 3.5 vampire also uses d12's for its hit dice, and adds its Charisma modifier instead of constitution modifier for extra hit points. the worst nightmare might very well be facing off against a vampire Monk. 3.5E vampires are potentially way more brutal than those in any other edition. Sekatha and Strahd? Wusses! _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Unless I missed this earlier in the discussion. I have always played DR as it can be negated by using the type of weapon after the slash. For instance DR 5/silver meant that the monster ignored the first 5 pointts of damage unless they were hit by a silver weapon.
Unless I missed this earlier in the discussion. I have always played DR as it can be negated by using the type of weapon after the slash. For instance DR 5/silver meant that the monster ignored the first 5 pointts of damage unless they were hit by a silver weapon.
Yes, that is true. However, vampires have Damage Reduction 10/magic and silver, not magic or silver. If it were magic or silver, then either type of weapon would bypass the vampire's damage reduction. The word "and" makes all the difference in determining how tough vampires truly are. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Yes, that is true. However, vampires have Damage Reduction 10/magic and silver, not magic or silver. If it were magic or silver, then either type of weapon would bypass the vampire's damage reduction. The word "and" makes all the difference in determining how tough vampires truly are.
Note also, that a +3 or better magical weapon counts as silver when bypassing damage reduction (Pathfinder Core Rulebook, p. 562). So, a +3 or greater magical weapon can bypass a vampire's DR whether it is a silver weapon or not. If the magical weapon is only +1 or +2, it must also be silver in order to bypass the vampire's DR.
Yes, but that doesn't impact 3.5E. Pathfinder makes few key changes to many things based on 20/20 hindsight, and they made improvements while still maintaining the efficacy of things, at least most of the time. Good to know about that though, as I am running a Pathhawk/Greyfinder campaign now, and haven't had cause to look that up yet. The WotC D&D Glossary for 3.5E. located HERE, does give a bit more clarification on damage reduction than the 3.5E core rulebooks do. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
I have further researched and found this here as well. Which kinda explains Skip and companys reasoning as they converted 3e to 3.5e, though would love to hear feed back from him, Eric Mona, or even Gary on their thoughts around Damage Reduction. Might have to make it a point to drop in Thursday evening and chat on it.
As does this, which goes into what was changed for 3.5e
the issue, no, too strong a word, the concern is how broad brush is the "change"? I just happened apon it with a Player / DM general discussion.
I get that the designers wanted to correct werewolfs being eaten by dragons and going unskathed because their teeth aren't silver, but OMG have we developed into a community of players that COMMON SENSE has to be DEFINED by a "RULE"??? It makes me want to create a new skill Knowledge: Common Sense (just being sarcastic)
Not to mention the probability that some PC somewhere complained .."Oh thats not fair!!!! I can't even do damage to the creature with out a magic weapon"?? eh, well depends on that creature, but maybe NO, you can't... do your research, know your opponents, or better yet KNOW WHEN TO RUN when you don't. (Even Gandalf knew when his party's skills were no match for a foe)
Live, learn, and come back better equiped.
Granted, a DM has the obligation and responsibility to insure that he/she doesn't TPK the party with their design. IE no magic weapons possessed by 3-5 lvl party, exits are trapped and sealed as the vampire awakes from his coffin. Yea abit more than challenging. Could they "stake to the heart", yea, maybe, but in all likelyhood it will spell the end for several PCs. Collectively, All DMS go through this "knifes edge" design challenge vs TPK.
To me DR just dulls the knife and creates more "options for PC" and more for the DM to keep up with. but such is 3.5
I, based on the community collective and my own researches, will allow the migrations, just trying to determine what the total damage will be. Had thoughts of sorting original monster types pre 3.5 and grandfathering, but what a monumental PitA that would be.
And lastly, as I have conveyed repeatedly to my players, the MMs are just templates, not FACTS, there may still be a Vlad out there somewhere that is immune to DR *Edit*"ruling" in all its forms (meaning no damage not reduced)*Edit*, so better come packing MAGIC SILVER.
And lastly, as I have conveyed repeatedly to my players, the MMs are just templates, not FACTS, there may still be a Vlad out there somewhere that is immune to DR *Edit*"ruling" in all its forms (meaning no damage not reduced)*Edit*, so better come packing MAGIC SILVER.
MEAAHHAAAAAHAAAHAAAA
That would be DR 10/-
Means that there is nothing that will bypass the 10 points of damage reduction this creature possesses.
Means that there is nothing that will bypass the 10 points of damage reduction this creature possesses.
SirXaris
nope.. I was implying DR-/- as in nothing to damage reduce since NOTHING will damage but the defined type .. in this case a magical silver weapon.
Though your interpetation would fit for those Vamps between the norm and the Vald ..heheh
3.5.DLGe
"normal" vampire DR10/silver and magic
"lesser"vamp (maybe minion?) haha DR10/silver or magic
"Greater" Vamp DR10/-
Vlad or Drelnza, maybe immune normal damage DR/magic and Silver and prayers ehhehehehe ah the good ole days of carnage
DLG, I'm not sure I follow the last part of your post.
Are you saying that super-vampires, like Vlad or Drelnza, should have DR infinite/-? In other words, they are completely immune to weapon damage of any quality?
In that case, I would suggest maybe DR 20/epic (= +6 or better magical weapon) as a more reasonable approach.
DLG, I'm not sure I follow the last part of your post.
Are you saying that super-vampires, like Vlad or Drelnza, should have DR infinite/-? In other words, they are completely immune to weapon damage of any quality?
In that case, I would suggest maybe DR 20/epic (= +6 or better magical weapon) as a more reasonable approach.
SirXaris
LOL my friend as Lanthorn would say, you have 3.5 on the brain.... lol
I was being a bit satiricly facetious suggesting that some creatures may return to their 1e/2e roots. (where they would, depending on the creature of course, have those possible immunities)
Though yours, is the more where the road meets the rubber, as to how to manage it in a 3.5e world.. and for that I give thanks my friend.
Regardless of whether the simple idea that vampires can be hurt by massive damage in 3.5E, vampires are so utterly more dangerous that ever before. They have Skills, access to Feats, better chances to hit due to the 3.5E Strength ratings, and have comparatively more hit points due to d12 HD and Charisma bonuses which act as Constitution bonuses for h.p., and they can regenerate 5 hit points per round. That more than mitigates the fact that anybody with the incorrect weapon teeing off on them will really only be scratching them, with any secondary attacks against the vampire being made at a cumulative -5 penalty (because that is how multiple attacks from level advancement works in 3.5E). So the vampire is less likely to even be hit by attacks beyond the first. The whole 3.5 system needs to be taken into account before judging just one aspect of it and "going off the deep end".
Trust me. What you will have to be careful of in converting any special vampires over to 3.5E is keeping your vampires from the TPK. I ran Strahd using 3 .5E rules, and let's just say that Strahd 1E/2E is the kobold to Strahd 3.5E's ogre. The PCs got ripped a new one by him, and took him down only by using spells, getting lucky, and having a rare sun sword (which turned out to be a major factor). Even worse than Strahd would be Sekatha. Fortunately my players killed him off in 2E form (where he was very dangerous) before we switched to 3.5E rules (where he would be so powerful that I would have to bump up the PC levels by 2 or so before they could take him on and have a chance of surviving). _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
with any secondary attacks against the vampire being made at a cumulative -5 penalty (because that is how multiple attacks from level advancement works in 3.5E).
Are you saying that the DR is cumulative or that there is an addition of -5 for the second attack? Meaning -10+-5=-15 I don't see this in the DR guidelines.
Cebrion wrote:
So the vampire is less likely to even be hit by attacks beyond the first. The whole 3.5 system needs to be taken into account before judging just one aspect of it and "going off the deep end".
Point Taken, and that is true.
Lastly vamps was just the first monster class I actually noticed a change in the requirements to hit. Seems most creatures just got an add of the DR to their repore.
with any secondary attacks against the vampire being made at a cumulative -5 penalty (because that is how multiple attacks from level advancement works in 3.5E).
Are you saying that the DR is cumulative or that there is an addition of -5 for the second attack? Meaning -10+-5=-15 I don't see this in the DR guidelines.
The cumulative -5 penalty applies to each Attack (To Hit) roll a PC makes in a round after the first. It has nothing to do with the creature's DR.
Right. 1e and 2e are the era of multiple attacks hitting at the same chance. 3.5E is not. At least the initial attacks usually have a better chance to hit than they did before, but AC doesn't go up accordingly to help out. Now, exactly who does that benefit- the ones who are hitting for damage, or the ones who are doing damage and sucking life levels?
Oh, I also wrote up a certain female vampire of the Greyhawk persuasion a while back. Throwing a 3.5 version of her at the suggested character numbers/levels would be, to put it bluntly, criminal. Her stats are Str: 22, Dex: 22, Int: 17, Wis: 16, Cha: 22, and she has 13d12 + 65 h.p. Her A.C. is also 8 better and she has 12 Feats (don't forget about those Monstrous "undead only" Feats in the Libris Mortis!). Of course most things in 3.5E are far nastier than they are in 1E/2E, including the PCs to some degree, but I still wouldn't recommend letting any character of less than 8th level go through the adventure featuring her (and things are looking pretty grim for even 8th level characters).
I do believe that is the hint of a smile forming on her lips as she drops down in the midst of the PCs with closed fist raised menacingly. Here comes the Whirlwind Attack at + AWESOME!!! to hit! Now, let's see how many characters lost hit points and levels from a single dice roll.
I simply urge caution. Before you throw a 3.5E Vampire at the PCs, let alone one like her, you'd best test play one just to see how nasty they really are in 3.5E. "DR/Magic and Silver" plus "Regeneration 5" is really, really good. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Fri May 03, 2013 3:21 pm; edited 3 times in total
I do believe that is the hint of a smile forming on her lips as she drops down in the midst of the PCs with closed fist raised menacingly. Here comes the Whirlwind Attack at + AWESOME!!! to hit! Now, let's see how many characters lost hit points and levels from a single dice roll.
Since the Whirlwind Attack wouldn't happen until the round after she dropped into their midst, they might get some hits in first.
Whirlwind Attack requires a full attack action, so the only movement you can make that round is a 5-foot step.
Of course. The first round she will "only" swat you once with her death blade and punch you once with her fist. Then things get much uglier. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
) Being an ole white box, 1e and 2e guy My Vampires have always required magical items to cause them harm ( Referencing, 1eDMGp213 bottom of chart, MMp99, just to base reference).
Let's just say that we have never, ever, had "golf club syndrome" in any of our campaigns. Ever. 
Though your interpetation would fit for those Vamps between the norm and the Vald ..heheh