New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 69
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by danielxcutter View Post
    Unfortunately the newer(and therefore default) version doesn’t let you select sonic.

    Man, psionic blasting is so much less of a hassle, now that I think of it.
    Imho warlocks shine here the most. Untyped damage by default. Add acid essence in chases where the target has SR and you are done. Life can be simple or complicated.. your choice ;)

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Titan in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Gruftzwerg View Post
    Imho warlocks shine here the most. Untyped damage by default. Add acid essence in chases where the target has SR and you are done. Life can be simple or complicated.. your choice ;)
    Warlocks also have lower burst damage and can’t do nearly as well if the target resists acid and also has SR.
    Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal) Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squire Doodad View Post
    I could write a lengthy explanation, but honestly just what danielxcutter said.
    Extended sig here.

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by danielxcutter View Post
    Warlocks also have lower burst damage and can’t do nearly as well if the target resists acid and also has SR.
    Add hellfire ontop of the acid blast for those rare chases. Warlocks still have the most simple solutions imho.

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by danielxcutter View Post
    Unfortunately the newer(and therefore default) version doesn’t let you select sonic.

    Man, psionic blasting is so much less of a hassle, now that I think of it.
    Read it again, nothing actually prevents you from selecting sonic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gruftzwerg View Post
    Add hellfire ontop of the acid blast for those rare chases. Warlocks still have the most simple solutions imho.
    Brimstone blast lets you do the 2d6 immediately as under the catching on fire rules.

    Chausable + brimstone + hellfire + level 20 =19d6 the first round

    Add in empower and maximize SLA, sudden empower, a warlock's scepter, mortalbane, and gloves of eldritch admixture and you do a lot of damage.

    If acid immunity is a problem, there's always penetrating blast. Arcane mastery along with caster level boosts can get you through anything CR appropriate.
    Last edited by Darg; 2021-02-24 at 10:01 AM.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Titan in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    Read it again, nothing actually prevents you from selecting sonic.
    Choose one type of energy (acid, cold, electricity, or fire). You can then modify any spell with an energy descriptor to use the chosen type of energy instead. An energy substituted spell uses a spell slot of the spell's normal level. The spell's descriptor changes to the new energy type—for example, a fireball composed of cold energy is an evocation [cold] spell.
    Oh, and reprinted versions take priority over the original.
    Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal) Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squire Doodad View Post
    I could write a lengthy explanation, but honestly just what danielxcutter said.
    Extended sig here.

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    Brimstone blast lets you do the 2d6 immediately as under the catching on fire rules.

    Chausable + brimstone + hellfire + level 20 =19d6 the first round

    Add in empower and maximize SLA, sudden empower, a warlock's scepter, mortalbane, and gloves of eldritch admixture and you do a lot of damage.
    I did mention the acid because of the SR example.

    And if you want to stack d6's, Glaivelock is the way to go. (see build in my signature)
    @lvl 20: 170d6 (dmg of 10 touch attacks in total)
    @lvl 21: 340d6 (dmg of 20 touch attacks in total)

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by danielxcutter View Post
    Oh, and reprinted versions take priority over the original.
    I don't see anything excluding sonic though? Unless you are talking about the parenthetical. In which case making the assumption that the exclusion of sonic has any bearing on the rules is giving the parenthetical authority beyond it's scope. A parenthetical is only a reference apart from the text. It doesn’t say "excluding sonic" and therefore doesn't have any authority to exclude sonic from selection.

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2012

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    I don't see anything excluding sonic though? Unless you are talking about the parenthetical. In which case making the assumption that the exclusion of sonic has any bearing on the rules is giving the parenthetical authority beyond it's scope. A parenthetical is only a reference apart from the text. It doesn’t say "excluding sonic" and therefore doesn't have any authority to exclude sonic from selection.
    The parenthetical also doesn't list force, nor does the feat specifically say that you can't select force as an energy type. Do you suggest that energy substitution (force) is a legal and valid choice as well?
    "Technically correct" is the best kind of correct.

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    I don't see anything excluding sonic though? Unless you are talking about the parenthetical. In which case making the assumption that the exclusion of sonic has any bearing on the rules is giving the parenthetical authority beyond it's scope. A parenthetical is only a reference apart from the text. It doesn’t say "excluding sonic" and therefore doesn't have any authority to exclude sonic from selection.
    The problem is that the things in the parentheses aren't presented as possible examples (no indicator like "e.g."). As such the information has to be treated as a finite list (excluding sonic.. sadly).

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Titan in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    If someone says they have vanilla and strawberry ice cream, you wouldn't automatically assume they have mint chocolate chip just because they didn't explicitly say no.

    Plus, it's not like acid's that commonly resisted anyways.
    Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal) Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squire Doodad View Post
    I could write a lengthy explanation, but honestly just what danielxcutter said.
    Extended sig here.

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaern View Post
    The parenthetical also doesn't list force, nor does the feat specifically say that you can't select force as an energy type. Do you suggest that energy substitution (force) is a legal and valid choice as well?
    Force isn't an energy damage type:

    Quote Originally Posted by Energy Damage
    Damage caused by one of five types of energy (not counting positive and negative energy): acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic.
    You only have the 5 types to choose from.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gruftzwerg View Post
    The problem is that the things in the parentheses aren't presented as possible examples (no indicator like "e.g."). As such the information has to be treated as a finite list (excluding sonic.. sadly).
    Except that extremely limits the scope of a lot of things. An example of this would be snap kick. You would only ever be able to use it with an attack action, full attack, or strike maneuver. If we are being extremely literal, there is no such thing as a standard attack and therefore the feat could only work on full attacks or strike maneuvers. This is not how the feat was written and the parenthetical even implies this isn't the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by danielxcutter View Post
    If someone says they have vanilla and strawberry ice cream, you wouldn't automatically assume they have mint chocolate chip just because they didn't explicitly say no.

    Plus, it's not like acid's that commonly resisted anyways.
    A more appropriate analogy would be you being given a menu with 5 drink options and the waitstaff comes up to you and says "do you want milk, coke, beer, or coffee?" No one says you can't order the 5th option of coconut water.
    Last edited by Darg; 2021-02-24 at 01:25 PM.

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    Except that extremely limits the scope of a lot of things. An example of this would be snap kick. You would only ever be able to use it with an attack action, full attack, or strike maneuver. If we are being extremely literal, there is no such thing as a standard attack and therefore the feat could only work on full attacks or strike maneuvers. This is not how the feat was written and the parenthetical even implies this isn't the case.
    Snap Kick is not the same situation as in Energy Substitution:
    Quote Originally Posted by Snap Kick
    (including a standard attack, full attack, or even a strike maneuver)
    "Including" is an indicator that "examples" are given and that these examples don't cover all situations.
    Whereas energy substitution lists finite "options", since it lacks any indicators that would suggest otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Energy Substitution
    Choose one type of energy (acid, cold, electricity, or fire)

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Batcathat's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2019

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    Except that extremely limits the scope of a lot of things. An example of this would be snap kick. You would only ever be able to use it with an attack action, full attack, or strike maneuver. If we are being extremely literal, there is no such thing as a standard attack and therefore the feat could only work on full attacks or strike maneuvers. This is not how the feat was written and the parenthetical even implies this isn't the case.
    So your argument is that after writing four of the five possible options, the writer go tired and decided not to write the fifth or what? If there were like ten types and they only included four I could sort of see your point (even if the fact that they didn't write "for example" or "etc." would still make me question it) but as it is, it just seems like a very odd choice from the writer.

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Troacctid's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    California
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    MIC's version also explicitly has only four types.

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Gruftzwerg View Post
    Snap Kick is not the same situation as in Energy Substitution:

    "Including" is an indicator that "examples" are given and that these examples don't cover all situations.
    Whereas energy substitution lists finite "options", since it lacks any indicators that would suggest otherwise.
    Are you 100% sure that is the only way to read it? Inclusion can also be read as including those mentioned but excluding other options. This is especially the case when used as a parenthetical. A parenthetical as a tool of language is already capable of being the provision of examples itself without the addition of language to express that intent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcathat View Post
    So your argument is that after writing four of the five possible options, the writer go tired and decided not to write the fifth or what? If there were like ten types and they only included four I could sort of see your point (even if the fact that they didn't write "for example" or "etc." would still make me question it) but as it is, it just seems like a very odd choice from the writer.
    It might well be the intent, but syntax dictates that excluding sonic as an energy type is beyond the scope of a parenthetical without a direct statement. There is no rule that declares parentheticals are a declaration of rules beyond their role of reference.
    Last edited by Darg; 2021-02-24 at 07:22 PM.

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Dec 2019

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    Are you 100% sure that is the only way to read it? Inclusion can also be read as including those mentioned but excluding other options. This is especially the case when used as a parenthetical. A parenthetical as a tool of language is already capable of being the provision of examples itself without the addition of language to express that intent.

    It might well be the intent, but syntax dictates that excluding sonic as an energy type is beyond the scope of a parenthetical without a direct statement. There is no rule that declares parentheticals are a declaration of rules beyond their role of reference.
    Parentheticals are not 100% proof that the options are confined to those listed in parentheticals, but in D&D (or in any rule or law) they are usually used this way. And this is not a RAW vs RAI issue it's a semantic argument for one or other option as RAW.

    On the other hand starting the list with "including" is a 100% proof that if sentence is well-formed than options are not limited to those in the list, because if they are "including" is superfluous and may be misleading. There is no way that any referee or judge or anyone else charged with interpretation of any rules will allow the argument that because the option is not listed in the list started with "including" it cannot be included there (a particular option may fall the criteria of inclusion, but it's not a general rule that list prefaced by "including" is exhaustive).

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Remuko's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    it doesnt say you can choose sonic so you cant. period. thats how D&D rules work. it doesnt explicitly say you can, so you cant.

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Thurbane's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Male

    Exclamation Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    The difference in wording from the 3.0 version of the feat to the 3.5 update really doesn't leave much wiggle room, at least IMHO.

    Quote Originally Posted by 3.0
    Benefit
    You choose one type of energy: acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic. When employing a spell with the acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic designator, you can modify the spell to use your chosen type of energy instead. The altered spell uses a spell slot of the spell’s normal level.

    The altered spell works normally in all respects except the type of damage dealt.
    Quote Originally Posted by 3.5
    Benefit
    Choose one type of energy (acid, cold, electricity, or fire). You can then modify any spell with an energy descriptor to use the chosen type of energy instead. An energy substituted spell uses a spell slot of the spell's normal level. The spell's descriptor changes to the new energy type—for example, a fireball composed of cold energy is an evocation [cold] spell.
    Any reading to the contrary is extreme rules lawyering, and I don't know a single table where it would fly.

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint-Just View Post
    Parentheticals are not 100% proof that the options are confined to those listed in parentheticals, but in D&D (or in any rule or law) they are usually used this way. And this is not a RAW vs RAI issue it's a semantic argument for one or other option as RAW.

    On the other hand starting the list with "including" is a 100% proof that if sentence is well-formed than options are not limited to those in the list, because if they are "including" is superfluous and may be misleading. There is no way that any referee or judge or anyone else charged with interpretation of any rules will allow the argument that because the option is not listed in the list started with "including" it cannot be included there (a particular option may fall the criteria of inclusion, but it's not a general rule that list prefaced by "including" is exhaustive).
    Parentheticals are used to list, but in no way are they used to limit something expressly permitted by the sentence. Choose one type of energy out of five (acid, cold, electricity, or fire). Doesn't make sense right? The only difference is that energy type is already defined and it's unnecessary to reiterate that there are 5; unless there was an errata somewhere that removed sonic from being an energy type.

    Quote Originally Posted by Remuko View Post
    it doesnt say you can choose sonic so you cant. period. thats how D&D rules work. it doesnt explicitly say you can, so you cant.
    That's the issue, it does. Right there in the first sentence: "Choose one type of energy." When did sonic lose being an energy type?
    Last edited by Darg; 2021-02-25 at 12:52 AM.

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint-Just View Post
    Parentheticals are not 100% proof that the options are confined to those listed in parentheticals, but in D&D (or in any rule or law) they are usually used this way. And this is not a RAW vs RAI issue it's a semantic argument for one or other option as RAW.

    On the other hand starting the list with "including" is a 100% proof that if sentence is well-formed than options are not limited to those in the list, because if they are "including" is superfluous and may be misleading. There is no way that any referee or judge or anyone else charged with interpretation of any rules will allow the argument that because the option is not listed in the list started with "including" it cannot be included there (a particular option may fall the criteria of inclusion, but it's not a general rule that list prefaced by "including" is exhaustive).
    ^This. Rules and laws all follow specific syntax and formatting rules. Unless you have an indicator (e.g. "including"/"e.g."/"..." ...) you have to assume that a list is finite. The use or absence of keywords or symbols is important. The definition of specific keywords and a Rule Hierarchy (aka Primary Source Rule) are always present where there are rules, laws and that kind of stuff. Imho the so called unwritten rules of rules xD (that is imho the reason why the Primary Source Rule wasn't included in the core books. People that are used to these rule/law mechanics get so used to em that they always expect them as a given (known by the audience). But the regular guy has problems to read and understand laws, because he lacks the knowledge/training about these things. This is the reason why I like to advise everybody to get used to these kind of things. These aren't just tools to solve your D&D 3.5 problems. They also help and aid you in real life.

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Gruftzwerg View Post
    ^This. Rules and laws all follow specific syntax and formatting rules. Unless you have an indicator (e.g. "including"/"e.g."/"..." ...) you have to assume that a list is finite.
    I don't know how you equate one with the other. Rules and Laws follow different syntax and formatting based on the entity creating them. They are not some universal rule. Why do I have to assume rules for something else have to apply for this when the "general rule" of using parentheses for lists means I don't have to assume that the list is exhaustive. Proper general use would dictate they use an indicator in either case. Normal use in the D&D 3.5 architecture would dictate that all items be presented when there is a lack of indication to be an exhaustive list. As far as I know, energy types is the only time D&D 3.5 does not provide all possible items in a parenthetical list without an indicator. By precedent set by listings in parentheses, the list must be exhaustive; however, to do so would would require making sonic not an energy type. Simple parentheticals have no authority to do this.

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    I don't know how you equate one with the other. Rules and Laws follow different syntax and formatting based on the entity creating them. They are not some universal rule. Why do I have to assume rules for something else have to apply for this when the "general rule" of using parentheses for lists means I don't have to assume that the list is exhaustive. Proper general use would dictate they use an indicator in either case. Normal use in the D&D 3.5 architecture would dictate that all items be presented when there is a lack of indication to be an exhaustive list. As far as I know, energy types is the only time D&D 3.5 does not provide all possible items in a parenthetical list without an indicator. By precedent set by listings in parentheses, the list must be exhaustive; however, to do so would would require making sonic not an energy type. Simple parentheticals have no authority to do this.
    1. Rules and Laws always make use of keywords that you define (specific) in the first place or fall back to the "general" definition in the used language.

    2. They also use Rule/Law Hierarchies based on the primary source rule.

    a) Topic Precedence
    e.g. Weapons: First you have "real weapon" and laws to restrict their use, then you have specific situations like a murder chase where the definition of "weapon" gets expanded for that niche. E.g. You wont get any problems with weapon possession laws just because your bottle broke at home and could be considered a weapon in a murder chase. The laws for murder and how it redefines weapons don't become general laws/rules, they are just specific exceptions for its niche.

    b) Book Precedence
    Book here can be exchanged by rule/law sets if you want to have a more generic name. In real life we have different type of law sets. e.g. National Laws from a country or International Human rights. Most countries have set their laws below the International Human Rights. As such they always take precedence despite what national laws say (in those countries that have agreed to this concept).
    Even within a single country you can have different rule/law books/set for citizens and economy as simple example.

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Batcathat's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2019

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    I don't know how you equate one with the other. Rules and Laws follow different syntax and formatting based on the entity creating them. They are not some universal rule. Why do I have to assume rules for something else have to apply for this when the "general rule" of using parentheses for lists means I don't have to assume that the list is exhaustive. Proper general use would dictate they use an indicator in either case. Normal use in the D&D 3.5 architecture would dictate that all items be presented when there is a lack of indication to be an exhaustive list. As far as I know, energy types is the only time D&D 3.5 does not provide all possible items in a parenthetical list without an indicator. By precedent set by listings in parentheses, the list must be exhaustive; however, to do so would would require making sonic not an energy type. Simple parentheticals have no authority to do this.
    I'm not sure if you're arguing that RAW can support your interpretation or if you really believe it's the intended meaning. If it's the former... maybe, I guess? Though I don't see a lot of GMs accepting it, if it's the latter, I still think it's extremely unlikely that someone intending to include all five types write four of them and then stops. Especially since, as been pointed out, the 3.0. version specifically included sonic and the 3.5. version specifically don't.

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcathat View Post
    I'm not sure if you're arguing that RAW can support your interpretation or if you really believe it's the intended meaning. If it's the former... maybe, I guess? Though I don't see a lot of GMs accepting it, if it's the latter, I still think it's extremely unlikely that someone intending to include all five types write four of them and then stops. Especially since, as been pointed out, the 3.0. version specifically included sonic and the 3.5. version specifically don't.
    The proper sentence reads: "Choose one type of energy." Use of sonic is expressly permitted by this statement. If they wanted to limit the energy types through listing, they could have simply kept the colon instead of wasting ink using the closing parenthesis.

    I don't really see why your DMs wouldn't accept it. Everyone here on these forums are saying that evocation is the weakest of all the spell schools and yet it's apparently unacceptable to read the sentence as it was written.

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Batcathat's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2019

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    The proper sentence reads: "Choose one type of energy." Use of sonic is expressly permitted by this statement. If they wanted to limit the energy types through listing, they could have simply kept the colon instead of wasting ink using the closing parenthesis.
    Yes, I suppose that would have made it clearer but I think the fact that they specifically mention four energy types and not the fifth (which, again, was specifically mentioned in an earlier edition) is a pretty good sign that the fifth is intentionally excluded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    I don't really see why your DMs wouldn't accept it. Everyone here on these forums are saying that evocation is the weakest of all the spell schools and yet it's apparently unacceptable to read the sentence as it was written.
    Personally, I prefer RAI to RAW and for the aforementioned reasons I'm leaning strongly towards sonic being left out on purpose. I find someone misusing parenthesis far more likely than someone listing examples but stopping after four of five (and not using "ex." or "etc." or something like that).

    That said, I'd be open to an argument of "Hey, evocation isn't that strong anyway so can't you let me substitute sonic energy?" but I don't think that's how it was intended.

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Titan in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Personally, I would be fine with someone asking "hey, can I just use it to select sonic?", but I wouldn't assume that to be the default.

    Also considering Born of Three Thunders is a thing...
    Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal) Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squire Doodad View Post
    I could write a lengthy explanation, but honestly just what danielxcutter said.
    Extended sig here.

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2012

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    I don't really see why your DMs wouldn't accept it. Everyone here on these forums are saying that evocation is the weakest of all the spell schools and yet it's apparently unacceptable to read the sentence as it was written.
    It's because sonic is a particularly strong energy type due to natural resistances to it being so rare. It was likely removed when converted from 3.0 to 3.5 because the developers were trying to make the game a bit more balanced and decided that making sonic damage a bit more difficult to build around was a good way to do that. You'll probably notice looking through sonic spells that they tend to have fixed damage, smaller damage dice, or scale at a slower rate than comparable spells that deal other types of damage.
    Whether or not sonic is technically still rules legal, a DM may still decide not to allow it, and would have reason and decent contextual evidence for doing so.
    "Technically correct" is the best kind of correct.

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Titan in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    And if you really want a rarely-resisted energy type, there's always acid.
    Cool elan Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Ao3 FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal) Campaign still going on, but journal discontinued until further notice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squire Doodad View Post
    I could write a lengthy explanation, but honestly just what danielxcutter said.
    Extended sig here.

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2012

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by danielxcutter View Post
    And if you really want a rarely-resisted energy type, there's always acid.
    Acid resistance may not be especially common, but it's practically everywhere when compared to sonic. Especially among outsiders from strongly aligned planes... Devils and demons all have acid resist 10 as common traits unless otherwise specified. The celestial, half-celestial, and half-fiend templates all gain acid resist 10. Angels are fully immune to acid.
    And if we take a closer look at a few of those groups of creatures...
    Angels are immune to acid and cold, plus resistant to fire and electricty.
    The half-fiend template grants resistance to acid, cold, fire, and electricity.
    Demons are resistant to acid, cold, and fire, and immune to electricity.

    By comparison, after thoroughly combing through every monster entry on the SRD, there are exactly 3 individual creatures (avoral, formian, and leonal) with resistance to sonic and 0 with immunity. There as many categories of creatures available on the SRD with combined resistances and/or immunities to all four other energy types simultaneously as there are individual creatures with resistance to sonic.

    Just a bit of extra perspective as to why sonic may have been excluded from the most recent iteration of energy substitution or why a DM might decide to rule against allowing it :p
    Last edited by Vaern; 2021-02-25 at 04:45 PM.
    "Technically correct" is the best kind of correct.

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    JNAProductions's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Avatar By Astral Seal!

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    By the reading that allows Sonic, wouldn't it also allow Positive and Negative energy to be selected? They are, indisputably, energy damage (it's in the name!) but I don't think letting you turn Fireball into Healball would fly at any table.
    I have a LOT of Homebrew!

    Spoiler: Former Avatars
    Show
    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
    Show

    Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
    Show

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •