I'm currently playing a wyrmling copper dragon in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft.
I'm looking for some rules clarification.
The Coper Dragon has a slow breath, It has a Fortitude negates save.
Undead (and Constructs) are immune to effects that require a fortitude save that do not affect objects.
The Slow spell requires a will save and would normally work on Undead (and constructs who aren't immune to magic, etc). Are they immune to the Copper Dragon's breath weapon?
I'm very tempted to say yes they are, but want some more opinions.
-c
Does it require a Fortitude save? Yes.
Does it work on objects? No.
Undead and constructs are immune.
I'm confused by this one too. In some entries constructs are given a con stat, as are undead. furthermore clearly undead are subject to certain poisons, for instance acid is properly speaking a chemical poison that reacts against any matter, while garlic acts as a poison to vampires.
I'm confused by this one too. In some entries constructs are given a con stat, as are undead. furthermore clearly undead are subject to certain poisons, for instance acid is properly speaking a chemical poison that reacts against any matter, while garlic acts as a poison to vampires.
No, one of the defining points of both constructs and undead is their lack of a Constitution score. The only exception are warforged and their ilk, which are "living constructs" (and, IMHO, stupid). They are exempt from the normal rules.
Further, this seems like a good time for me to bring back my soap box and state that D&D is not a reality simulation by any stretch of the imagination and doesn't give a rat's rear about physics, chemistry, economics, or anything of the sort. "Real world" rules don't apply. Garlic is not a poison to vampires; it simply repels them. Call it a curse of the gods (not something explainable by science) or just "magic" in general (also inexplicable by science, by definition), or whatever you want. But it's not a poison. If it were a poison, the MM would say so.
Additionally, acid in D&D is not acid as in the "real world." It's actually an energy type, amazingly enough, which immediately throws out any option for physics to bear on the matter significantly. If physics held sway, fire protection would block most electricity damage as well. It doesn't.
This is going to come off sounding harsh, but here it is:
Science has no place in D&D!
Or rather, so as not to offend the scientists on these boards (again), one must be aware that attempts to introduce science into D&D will not mesh at all with the game rules and, more importantly, balance. Further, it is likely an exercise in absolute futility to try and deduce some non-Newtonian physics from D&D since the game will immediately break said system with the release of the next splatbook which, like every other 3.x D&D book before it, was formulated on principles of game balance, "fun," and ease of play. Science doesn't even factor into the equation except when it absolutely has to, and then only to the barest extent possible (see the Sage's answer to how far one falls in a round).
Sorry for going on a tangental rant. It's a big issue for me and I hope I haven't offened Mr. Fish.
The answer remains: Does it allow a Fortitude save? Yes.
Does slow work on objects? No.
Then undead and constructs are immune.
|
... one must be aware that attempts to introduce science into D&D will not mesh at all with the game rules and, more importantly, balance.
Science is not a body of knowledge, it is a set of methods. Much of the body of scientifically obtained knowledge about our world is inapplicable to D&D; that says nothing about whether science is applicable. In point of fact, our regular rules-spelunking expeditions regularly descend into the scientific method.
That said, in D&D acid and cold are energy types. This is not hypothesis or theory, it is a defined fact of the scientific model of the game, and any valid model of the internals of the game upon which extensions of that model are based must proceed with that understanding.
It's not so much a matter of offense as wondering how the rules work. In any case you're quite right, it is unscientific since for instance certain undead are immune to electricity but not to fire. D&D has always had this sense of arbitrary rules. I've sometimes wondered why in some particular cases.
I'm currently playing a wyrmling copper dragon in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft.
I'm looking for some rules clarification.
The Coper Dragon has a slow breath, It has a Fortitude negates save.
Undead (and Constructs) are immune to effects that require a fortitude save that do not affect objects.
The Slow spell requires a will save and would normally work on Undead (and constructs who aren't immune to magic, etc). Are they immune to the Copper Dragon's breath weapon?
I'm very tempted to say yes they are, but want some more opinions.
-c
I can see your issue - for some unfathomable reason the Dragons Breath does not seem to require the same sort of save as the Spell.
I'd still say that the Undead are immune - when push comes to shove we are talking about a fort save and Undead are immune to stuff with Fort Saves.
... one must be aware that attempts to introduce science into D&D will not mesh at all with the game rules and, more importantly, balance.Science is not a body of knowledge, it is a set of methods. Much of the body of scientifically obtained knowledge about our world is inapplicable to D&D; that says nothing about whether science is applicable. In point of fact, our regular rules-spelunking expeditions regularly descend into the scientific method.
That said, in D&D acid and cold are energy types. This is not hypothesis or theory, it is a defined fact of the scientific model of the game, and any valid model of the internals of the game upon which extensions of that model are based must proceed with that understanding.
This is true, but it is a well accepted turn of phrase in our culture (English speaking America) to refer collectively to the products of the scientific method as "science." But now we descend into semantics.