Café de Nuit

Has anybody out there put thought into the ghoul's paralysis attack?

"Those hit by a ghoul's bite or claw attack must succeed at a Fortitude save (DC 14) or be paralysed for 1d6+2 minutes."

This sounds rather absolute to me. Given an attack on a character's exposed flesh, yes. But with an armoured individual I think this attack should be effectively neutralised unless the attack was made against an exposed (unarmoured) area. And even then that should constitute some sort of attack penalty to the ghoul(kin).

I'm not looking to take away the challenge in dealing with these creatures, in fact, in Ravenloft I'm prone to adjusting the ghoul's minimum HD to 3 and the ghast's to 6 (my protagonists average 13th level) but I can't help but add that bit of realism to my game.

Has anybody else addressed this matter in their games (or in theory)?

Thoughts?

P.S.: I also understand that a 'hit' in game terms is often described as damage made to the character that bypassed their armour, but when calculating impact damage, fatigue (not neccessarily subdual), and the like...

You're right that the ghoul has to touch unarmored flesh (in a way). That's why it is not a touch attack. The ghoul needs to bypass armor with its claws.
On the other hand, hitting on clothes shouldn't protect a character... It is a supernatural ability, not a paralyzing poison.

And another thing In 3.5 edition the paralysis has gone down to a few rounds instead of minutes. That way a character that loses the save isn't out for the fight while he remains in mortal danger.

I just run it as a psycological attack.

The horror of a rotting undead creature getting close enough that you can smell years of digesting corpses on its breath as it atempts to rip strips of bloody flesh from your body is enough to make even the most hardened aventurere freaze up and be unable to move.

You can deal with it as you want Jasper . . . but that would be a will save

alhoon wrote:You're right that the ghoul has to touch unarmored flesh (in a way). That's why it is not a touch attack. The ghoul needs to bypass armor with its claws.
On the other hand, hitting on clothes shouldn't protect a character... It is a supernatural ability, not a paralyzing poison.

And another thing In 3.5 edition the paralysis has gone down to a few rounds instead of minutes. That way a character that loses the save isn't out for the fight while he remains in mortal danger.

The key is that it's a regualr attack roll. And if it hits and deals damage then that implies that the attacker has found a chink in the armour and connected with flesh (or just pierced the armour that is there...)

If it was a touch attack, I would be inclined to agree, however, that armourerd should offer some protection (maybe the easiest way to address the issue = just give a character a save bonus depending on the armour worn. Say a flat +2, or else, maybe a +1 for light armour, +2 for medium and +3 for heavy... for example?)

IF it was a touch attack it would be enough to touch the armor, I can't see why armor should give a save...

Also we seem to agree that the answer is in the regular attack roll.

alhoon wrote:IF it was a touch attack it would be enough to touch the armor, I can't see why armor should give a save...

Also we seem to agree that the answer is in the regular attack roll.

I was just assuming that the touch attack needed to touch bare flesh to succeed, as opposed to armour. (which I realise is not the case and that the 3.5e rules are written otherwise, but still.) That's really the only reason I could think of... but personally, I think it's fine just as it is... I was sort of throwing ideas down in the hopes that smarter people than me could make something of 'em!