Asgetrion's page

Yes, I admit that my first reaction to point buy was "Oh my god these are awful," Then I had a player point out to me that he could make a combat beast just by dumping his Cha. and his Int. (his reasoning was that he never used skills anyway, and the already mentioned tendency of GMs to not enforce a "play to your character's social skills, not your own," tendencies.

To me the point-buy system feels like it punishes the player who builds a balanced character to his concept and rewards the guy who boosts the hell out STR and CON, at the expense of INT and CHA with relativly minor drawbacks at most tables. (This also works with the Wizard who builds-up INT and CON and drops STR and CHA).

I agree that it's easier to create your min-maxed dream builds with point-buy, but using a standardized amount of points ensures that you can create all sorts of characters. For example, if you wanted to create a defensive fighter (with dodge, combat expertise, and so on) but rolled 18, 12, 10, 10, 10, and 11... yeah, good luck with that. And, as others have already pointed out, point-buy is more balanced and fair to *everyone*. Even if someone dumps a 7 or 8 in two or three stats, you still have the same amount of points invested in your ability scores.

My first 3E character (an elven ranger) had 14 in his prime stat, whilst our human cleric had that as his lowest score (Int). Another time we had an elven fighter who had several 18s and 17s (legally rolled before our eyes), while others had a single 15 or 16 as their best scores. A good DM/GM might make it work, but sometimes it just feels like you're playing a henchman or a non-heroic NPC.

No, but did you like Nicomo Cosca and Black Dow?

Oh, most certainly; I liked both, but Cosca's flamboyant style appealed to me perhaps more than Dow's outright brutal nature. By the way, our library network has several copies of both novels, so I reserved them! :)

(I just hope we will eventually see another novel starring the ever lovable Sand dan Glokta...)

Dwarves for the win!

Asgetrion wrote:

Just finishing Last Argument of Kings, the final book of The First Law trilogy by Joe Abercrombie. It has been an absolutely brilliant ride, and my only regret is that I wouldn't want it to end.

But it doesn't have to! Although the characters are different, well, some of them, the story continues in Best Served Cold and The Heroes which are also awesome!!

So, you're a librarian, huh? How's that for a gig?

Huh, but neither of them feature Glokta or Logen as protagonists, do they?

Being a public librarian is a dream job for me... I'm always surrounded by a vast number of great books, and I get paid to read and talk about them! :D

Well, the pay could be a bit better, but at least it's a secure and permanent job.

You know, I used to be a graphic designer, but got tired of constant deadlines and ever longer days. In the end I couldn't even sleep or eat, it got that bad; at that point I decided I need to switch to another profession. I've always been a voracious reader, and one day I realized I want to become a librarian; so I became a student, again, and eventually got the degree. And it was probably the smartest decision I've ever made... :)

Asgetrion,

Thanks for those recommendations! I'll get the The First Law series as soon as I finish the 4 or 5 Mary Renault books I last purchased.

It's been a long time since I've read the Earthsea books, I've got to put them out for a re-read soon. I usually read The Chronicles of Amber every-other year or so.

I'll check out those other authors once I finish The First Law stuff ...

Regards, and thanks again!

-- Andy

Heh, no problem; it's my job to recommend good books to people, and I love doing it! :D

I just love The Chronicles of Amber, and I've read the books several times, too (and included them in my booktalks for youth). We used to play Amber DRPG on a regular basis, but these days we get to play so rarely that Pathfinder naturally takes precedence over any other games. It's a great game, though, and really captures the atmosphere and spirit of Zelazny's novels.

Just finishing Last Argument of Kings, the final book of The First Law trilogy by Joe Abercrombie. It has been an absolutely brilliant ride, and my only regret is that I wouldn't want it to end.

I'm a librarian and I read a LOT, and yet I'd easily consider this trilogy among the best fantasy books I've read in a long time. In my opinion it is a masterpiece of contemporary fantasy, and I'd recommend it to anyone who liked LotR, LeGuin's Earthsea novels, Gemmell's Drenai series, Chronicles of Amber, Gormenghast, A Song of Ice and Fire or Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising.

Wonderfully written and complex characters, exciting twists, lots of intrigue... there's just so much to love about these books that I don't know where to begin. Maybe I'll just keep it short and simple: if you liked any of the works mentioned above, READ these books! Period.

Me neither; I might be a bit more friendly to fellow dwarves, but generally I feel contempt towards every non-Chelaxian on these boards, especially all Taldorians and Andorans. ;P

Thirded, although you might need to tweak the premise and hooks a bit with experienced players.

Godsmouth Heresy is indeed awesome... might even be the best 1st level adventure I've ever seen! :)

Wait, Sean has grown a beard?

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:

Asgetrion wrote:

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:

Suddenly, being a companion seems like a legitimate career choice.

Ha! I'd gladly accept you as my leafy slav... companion, old treant! Now, if we only could add the fiendish template to your stats...

Sorry, but somehow, you don't measure up to Hot Elven Babe.

** spoiler omitted **

"Yeah, nice bush lady" is likely your last words

You two just made it to my ignore list...

And how could that simple "elven babe" peasant be hotter than the Master of Hellfire, hmmm?

Suddenly, being a companion seems like a legitimate career choice.

Ha! I'd gladly accept you as my leafy slav... companion, old treant! Now, if we only could add the fiendish template to your stats...

The forum in which Baron posts is ALWAYS the right forum.

M'lord Baron, as a highly-esteemed member of Chelaxian aristocracy, is indeed infallible.

While I don't much like ninjas (crafty, soulless b******* who are resistant to my Asmodean mind tricks), Liz is an exception! Go Liz!

(and now I'd like to have my share of your fiendish cookies, please!)

I'm not sure exactly the layout you're talking about, but I think its this:

╔═══←Rogue is here.
║←Trap is here.
╚═══

Lets look at the perception modifiers.
+1 for being 15 feet away.
+10/foot of thickness of wall. 15' down and 5' over... Square root of (15^2+5^2) is about 19 feet.. so +190..... now at +191 plus the DC of the trap.

Yeah, pretty much this is why rogues get trapfinding, evasion and improved evasion. Diplomacy checks to gather info to learn about the trap and what it was keyed to bypass (people wearing a symbol of X, Race Y, etc.) Then change so that you meet those characteristics. Or just set it off and count on your reflex save.
In fact, if the rogue knows the trap is there, could he not carry a tower shield, ready an action to deploy the shield to grant total cover if the trap is set off, then move action forward?

Hold on... where did you get that +190 from? If I understood correctly, this is about a rogue walking down a corridor, and there's no wall between the rogue and the trap.

Happler: if I'm for sure going to attack next round (i.e. I'm currently in the final round of prep) I don't see what different it would make "free action" vs "immediate action". Let's say, in the round of prep, I move points to AC upon my initiative sequence in the prep round....it would seem that my point and Tarantual's would be feasible/correct.

Jeff, note that it says "at the start of his turn before using the weapon", which implies that you can only do it in combat (after initiative is rolled). if you could activate it whenever you wanted, it would be either an immediate action or a free action without any specific clauses attached to it. I see it as the same kind of thing as readying; you cannot ready an action outside of combat, because otherwise you could "cheat" initiative by constantly saying that you're readying an attack against potential foes.

This set looks better and better each time you guys preview new minis... every mini has been amazing (with the sole exception of the harpy), and that rune giant totally blew my mind! :)

Erik, are you guys planning on doing any swarms in the future?

Awesome news! I can't wait to get my grubby hands on those boosters...

Ilizmagorti or Port Peril would probably go nicely in the 'Freeport' niche.

IMO Riddleport as well...

Kirth, did you know that "maahiset" actually refers to gnomes in Finnish? Although a literal translation to English would be something like "earthfolk" or "earthlings" (in this context: "folk/people who live under the earth").

Isn't guisarme a two-handed weapon? How are you going to use a shield with it?

Asgetrion wrote:

Nobody cares about your opinion; get back to the Worldwound or Abyss or whatever pit you crawled out of!

Actually, I care. While on the surface appearing to make a complete mockery of the contest, (and being hilarious while doing so), these reviews actually ask some pointed questions. Questions such as: "What good is this for a socially oriented character?", "An evil character?", "A really high level character?", Etc. Then again, they say that if you explain the joke, it's not funny. So maybe I shoulda' kept quiet.

The last two fantasy novels I've read were The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss and The Blade Itself by Joe Abercrombie. I was sorely disappointed in NotW, and found it to be tedious and overhyped, but I really loved the latter. The next ones will be Delirium by Lauren Oliver and [/i]Before They Are Hanged[i] by Abercrombie (the second book in the series).

Disclaimer:

In case you’ve only just woken up to the contest or otherwise (somehow) missed these Round-by-Round reviews before, Ask A RPGSupersuccubus is posting from the point of view of a (very advanced) CE aligned succubus: ** spoiler omitted ** ;)

BOO! HISS! Nobody cares about your opinion; get back to the Worldwound or Abyss or whatever pit you crawled out of! ;P

I want that Nualia so bad.

I want all of them... all of the previews have been just amazing! It looks like Paizo and WizKids are improving the quality and these are much better than anything WotC ever did!

I love that there are more than a few NPCs in this set; not only will it add to the atmosphere when I'll be running RotRL, they also work as great PC minis, too.

Hah! When I saw the thread title, I honestly thought this was some sort of jab at Wes... "Dark Schneider", Wes' evil twin... brilliant! ;)

Anyway, I read a lot of manga, but I wasn't familiar with this one. Looks like it's heavily RPG-themed, so it might be worth checking out.

I'm glad they made this movie; I haven't seen it yet, but regardless of whether it's good or not I'm sure it will make the books more popular again among younger readers. I do booktalks, and I always try to recommend the Mars series (the comic adaptations as well) to boys, but so far with little success. Now that the movie is out, there will be new printings of the books, and it will hopefully be much easier to get new generations to read them. :)

It happened with Hunger Games, too.

Wow, the last five single boosters I purchased contained the following minis: spectre, half-orc barbarian, gargoyle, venomous snake and dwarf fighter. Three rares and two uncommons... not bad! :)

Thanks for the comments, guys!

It's good to hear that I'm not the only one who has described them as three-dimensional, wraithlike beings. But I'm kind of torn; I like the image of PCs searching a room and beginning to relax... and then the shadows start dancing and writhing on the floor and the walls. On the other hand, it'd be easier to keep them as they've been for over 20 years in my games.

Maybe I'll do what you said, Cyberwolf; describe them as written, but let them "manifest" a three-dimensional form when they attack.

My next session will feature a lot of Shadows, those horrible undead guardians, but as I looked at their entry in the Bestiary I felt a bit confused. Now, I have always described them (since BD&D) as a lesser version of wraiths, i.e. smoky and black ghost-like beings with glowing eyes, but it seems that these days they are more than that: animate, two-dimensional shadows gliding along surfaces and reaching hungrily towards you. Or maybe they always were like that, and I’ve just managed to ignore their description and focused on the stats? Anyway, I actually like that… except that I don’t understand how they’re supposed to work.

So I took a look at Undead Revisited, but it didn’t help much; cool plot hooks, ideas and variant abilities, but no concrete advice on linking the flavor to mechanics.

Now I have a host of questions about Shadows: for example, should they be impossible to spot without light, even with darkvision? How do you hit them; are you supposed to strike at the floor or wall to hurt them? Or strike at empty air, estimating where their invisible "essence" should be? How do they attack you; do they “rise up” from your own shadow as “concrete” (spectral) and visible creatures, or do you just see their shadowy limbs moving along the floor/wall? And is a flying/levitating character immune to their attacks, if they’re supposed to be two-dimensional? (obviously not per RAW, but my players would ask this if I described them “as written”)

How do you describe and run Shadows in your game?

Neutral Good Human Druid (6th Level)

Ability Scores:
Strength- 15
Dexterity- 15
Constitution- 14
Intelligence- 17
Wisdom- 16
Charisma- 14

That test is clearly biased! Regardless of your faction symbol, you must be a Taldorian dandy in disguise! Or maybe you cheated...

I will be sorely disappointed if this book doesn't doesn't have the Chelaxian Dwarven Librarian PrC... ;)

According to This site My stats are

NG Wizard

Str.8
Dex.13
Con.9
Int.17
Wis.13
Cha.11

I'd have switched the int and the dex, but *shrug*

BAH! That site is obviously created by Taldorians, because my stats came in as:

Lawful Neutral Elf Monk (4th Level)

Ability Scores:
Strength- 9
Dexterity- 13
Constitution- 9
Intelligence- 12
Wisdom- 11
Charisma- 13

What in the name of Sweet, Almighty Asmodeus is that? Those stats are suboptimal, and my supposed race is unforgivable! I'm an epic level Chelaxian fiendish dwarf librarian, not a bloody elven monk!

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Brandon Hodge wrote:

Adam has very feminine ankles...I suggest the shackles be TIGHT!

I plan on adhering him to his desk by applying large quantities of chewing gum to his hair.

We tried that with Sean himself—I'd call the results "mixed."

Wait, you actually tried that with someone who is universally known as "The Balddude"? :O

I just received mine from Amazon on Friday, and it was 5th printing.

Corrected for you; this may seem like nitpicking, but it is important to note that there's a big difference between 'edition' and 'printing'.

Asgetrion wrote:

Erik Mona wrote:

It repeats the core rulebook stuff, but a lot of it has been rearranged by magic item "slot." We agonized over this, but eventually sided with making this book a more useful reference by including pretty much everything.

I'm glad you did; in fact, I wouldn't mind if you had repeated most of the stuff (mundane and magical) from AA and APG as well. Sometimes it's a serious pain to equip mid/high level PCs and NPCs with three books open on the table...

I totally appreciate the convenience factor of bringing together already-seen material from other Paizo products. But speaking as someone who already has all the other Paizo products I can't understate how much I hope that 'tons and tons of new items' translates into at least 25% of the book.

Hey, I own those books as well; however, statting NPCs takes a lot of time, which is why (IMO) it'd be fantastically convenient to get *all* the items in one book (now it takes another hour or two to pour through the lists in CR, APG and AA). And, as The Bag (TM) said, there'd still be a lot of room for new items, especially considering how little space item descriptions take in PF RPG.

Wow, these look amazing!!!

+1; these are truly AMAZING! :)

Not yet. But I do have one more to assign...

C'mon James, you know you can't do an AP called 'Shattered Shar' without the mad geniosity of the Pett, right? ;)

It repeats the core rulebook stuff, but a lot of it has been rearranged by magic item "slot." We agonized over this, but eventually sided with making this book a more useful reference by including pretty much everything.

I'm glad you did; in fact, I wouldn't mind if you had repeated most of the stuff (mundane and magical) from AA and APG as well. Sometimes it's a serious pain to equip mid/high level PCs and NPCs with three books open on the table...

Asgetrion wrote:

Okay, that explains a lot; although in that case I'd have just given the mummy a couple of character levels. Or is that also forbidden? Maybe two regular mummies, then, or one regular and one with the 'young' template?

Character levels isn't forbidden, but the problem is the length of the stat-block within a fixed word limit. Tom was right to steer clear of using them, it would have killed his ability to describe a compelling location. Using young and advanced templates would have been a good option, as is giving specific combat-useful treasure such as the necklace of fireballs.

(This reply is also @Veiled Nail)

So there was nothing to prevent Tom from adding a couple of levels and/or a template to that mummy, and I think he should have done it. Tom could have trimmed his eloquent descriptions a bit; for example, I never use read-aloud boxed texts, because quite often they're either very sparse/short (and thus more or less meaningless), or just don't fit the situation ("You open the double-doors to reveal... er, no, you guys came in through the secret door in the west wall").

Asgetrion, the contestants were limited to a certain group of monsters by the figure selections, so couldn't have used a wight (unless I'm missing one in the mini pack).

Okay, that explains a lot; although in that case I'd have just given the mummy a couple of character levels. Or is that also forbidden? Maybe two regular mummies, then, or one regular and one with the 'young' template?

As I said, I think it's written well and the whole place oozes atmosphere; it also includes a nice surprise (skeletons hiding under mud). However, I don't think this is superstar material, and for the large part it's due to the map being quite boring. YMMV, of course. :)

I love your map. Love love love it. It's the sort of map I would draw. Heck, it actually LOOKS like a map I would draw.

Sean, who're you trying to kid here? We've seen maps drawn by you, and we all know they're not this good! ;P

Wow! It's an elegantly drawn, interesting map, and the encounters (except for the pushover cultists hiding inside sarcophagi; my players would instantly discover them) are really exciting. I've used fat, lazy giant spiders more than a few times myself, and I don't share Ryan's opinion of them being "old and tired". The smokestick trick is just pure awesome!

Very well done, and I'd gladly run this for my group. I *do* have a soft spot for Urgathoa and her cultists, so that may also influence my opinion a bit. Anyway, you got my vote for this round, James! :)

While I like the cross sections and that the map itself is well-drawn, it's kind of bland; straight corridors connecting square rooms. From an aesthetic POV I couldn't care less for this map; there's nothing in the layout that would make me, as a player, want to explore it.

As for the encounter, I don't think it's that memorable; the descriptions are well-written and I can see the players caught by surprise ("Gotcha!") when the skeletons rise up from the mud to attack them. However, as Neil pointed out, it's probably too easy for parties with clerics. If it had to be an undead encounter, I'd have replaced the mummy with advanced wight and given it a couple of warrior or fighter levels.

Congrats, Adam! And now that you're in a position of power, remember your blood oath to Eternal Cheliax, House of Thrune and the Almighty Asmodeus! ;P

Asgetrion wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

"Green slime devours flesh and organic materials on contact and is even capable of dissolving metal. "

There are no rules about the damage done to metal or non living organic material.
I would use something like 1d6 hp of damage for round of contact for non living things/creatures, with the capacity to bypass most hardness.

I must say that that your question has sparked a very bad idea (for my players). A patch of green slime that has devoured all the flesh from a zombie, leaving only the animated skeleton to which it clings (the bones have a organic origin, but are generally much more resistant than flesh). Not RAW it it can be a nasty encounter.

As noted above, my original idea was indeed to use green slime in a ghoul-infested corridor, but then I started thinking that I have to be able to tell curious players why it hasn't devoured or harmed any undead. Also, ghouls wouldn't likely share their meals with the slime.

Anyway, I didn't quote the whole bit. Here's what PRD says about damage to metal and wood:

PRD wrote:

Against wood or metal, green slime deals 2d6 points of damage per round, ignoring metal's hardness but not that of wood. It does not harm stone.

I had looked the PRD and missed that line. Thanks for getting it to my attention.

I would treat dead flesh like wood (wood is dead organic matter, after all). Bones would get some level of hardness, so they should survive for a time.

It will not work with your ghoul scenario, but you can change them to weakened Huecuvas. The slime would have stripped all the flesh from them, so if needed you could reduce their HP or attacks.
If your PC are strong enough a single, wakened Mohrg will be interesting, I think. Having lost all his flesh he would have lost his tongue attack and suffer from some other downgrading of its abilities, but it could be interesting.

Or simply you could create a new kind of skeletal undead.

Okay, your point about wood being dead organic matter is a good one. Even though green slime could only affect "live" flesh in AD&D, it's fair to say that now it can corrode zombies or ghouls (it just takes a while).

Although slime-encrusted ghouls sound nice, it may be just easier if I change my plan and use them as separate encounters. For example, there's a nice, empty crypt that already has a nasty trap...maybe I could add some oil of slipperiness on the stairs, and a few patches of green slime on the floor and ceiling? Hmmm...

But what if the slime only likes living flesh? What if it is not interested in carrion?

Also, with undead, as they are not in a preservative then surely all the ghouls 'flesh' would fall off over time anyhow, ditto zombies. Just because the flesh fell off the stats shouldn't change :p

Don't forget that ghouls suck bone marrow; maybe that makes them "fleshier" and healthier than zombies? ;P

In this particular case these are not ancient dead, but a group of fallen adventurers (plus some unfortunate orcs) animated and led by a huecuva cleric; that is why they're not as rotten as ghouls who've been trapped in a sealed crypt for decades or centuries.

As for the ecology of the green slime... yeah, most likely they were created by a magical accident/mishap, and thus it may be okay to assume that their acid only works on certain materials (living flesh, metal and wood). It just feels a bit weird, and as I said, these days the rules allow characters to get a lot more information on various subjects -- sometimes forcing the GM to improvise on the fly. Occasionally I've tried the "You simply don't know, even though you rolled a natural 20, and got 35 as your check" type of answer, but it is usually met with vocal protests.

Anyway, I don't think green slime can tell a living target from an unliving one; since they don't have "real" stats, it's hard to say whether they have blinsense or any ranks in perception. I believe they sense movement and drop down, regardless of whether it's a human, a golem or a ghoul. And that kind of makes my scenario impossible, because I want at least a few patches on the ceiling, in a corridor that sees a lot of travel.

"Green slime devours flesh and organic materials on contact and is even capable of dissolving metal. "

There are no rules about the damage done to metal or non living organic material.
I would use something like 1d6 hp of damage for round of contact for non living things/creatures, with the capacity to bypass most hardness.

I must say that that your question has sparked a very bad idea (for my players). A patch of green slime that has devoured all the flesh from a zombie, leaving only the animated skeleton to which it clings (the bones have a organic origin, but are generally much more resistant than flesh). Not RAW it it can be a nasty encounter.

As noted above, my original idea was indeed to use green slime in a ghoul-infested corridor, but then I started thinking that I have to be able to tell curious players why it hasn't devoured or harmed any undead. Also, ghouls wouldn't likely share their meals with the slime.

Anyway, I didn't quote the whole bit. Here's what PRD says about damage to metal and wood:

Against wood or metal, green slime deals 2d6 points of damage per round, ignoring metal's hardness but not that of wood. It does not harm stone.

@Selgard & wraithstrike : Yeah, I can just say that it's a mystery, or that ancient archmages created them, but it feels like a cop-out, especially if one of the PCs rolls 25+ in a Knowledge (dungeoneering) check (which entitles him, by RAW, to more information than just vague rumours or "you don't know"). In AD&D it was easier to say that characters don't know why monster X's ability Y works the way it does, but Knowledge skills (and in this case it's only DC 19) have changed this.

Maybe I'll explain the whole thing. Now that Diego mentioned it, my original idea was that the PCs would be pursuing a couple of ghouls through a corridor that has several patches of green slime (both on the ceiling and the floor). Just as they start frantically scraping off/burning the slime, they would be assaulted by a stronger group of ghouls and ghasts. Or that was what I first thought, but then I asked myself: "Would the slime know the difference between a living and undead target? And if it can instantaneously devour flesh, WHY does it do con damage and not acid damage?"

At that point someone will surely ask (and as a player I'd do it also myself) "Hold on... this slime which is eating through my armor doesn't do anything to those ghouls? I'm gonna use Knowledge (dungeoneering) check here, because there's something fishy about this".

I could swear the fire/cold damage could be just a single point, but the host takes damage, too. Same with cutting it away and the slime potentially damaging the tool. I'd think that any sturdy item would work for scraping off the slime [although it's gonna get slimy, too].

Dunno why it wouldn't work on undead flesh; isn't there a line somewhere about undead using Charisma for Constitution-related stuff? Heck, in real world history, corpses were sometimes used for firewood [mummies], so I'd use wood as a good model for a lot of organic-but-not-necessarily-alive situations.

It's pure RAW that green slime cannot affect corporeal undead, since they don't have a con score (as you said, undead use charisma instead of con). But the real question is that why doesn't it affect dead flesh, if it seems to corrode/consume live organic material? Is it some sort of bacteria instead of corrosive slime? That is what I'd like to know, because my players will likely pose this question to me (we've ignored it in the past, but my current players are more curious).

As for fire/cold damage, I think one point would be enough, but I'm not sure about the cutting part...

A couple of days ago I was going through potential hazards and monsters to use in dungeon environment, and I noticed that green slime's description and art still does not (IMO) correctly match its statistics. Back in AD&D, I remember that it was explicitly noted that green slime could only affect "live" flesh and would quickly turn a victim into a patch of green slime as well. Buth here is how it works in 3E and PF RPG:

Green slime devours flesh and organic materials on contact and is even capable of dissolving metal. A single 5-foot square of green slime deals 1d6 points of Constitution damage per round while it devours flesh. On the first round of contact, the slime can be scraped off a creature (destroying the scraping device), but after that it must be frozen, burned, or cut away (dealing damage to the victim as well). Anything that deals cold or fire damage, sunlight, or a remove disease spell destroys a patch of green slime.

These days it simply deals constitution damage, yet the text from PRD implies it devours/dissolves all flesh, apparently even that of dead creatures? Even though it cannot harm them, since corporeal undead are immune to con damage? (Unless, of course, dead flesh would be equated to wood or metal...)

My point is, based on how it's been described in the game, I've always felt green slime is corrosive, and this is also supported by the art piece of the poor, melting goblin in the core rulebook (p. 416). Shouldn't it simply deal acid damage, then? I don't know, somehow it all feels contradictory to me, but then again, we always shrugged at the whole thing back in AD&D, too (however, it did make more sense that it simply turned you into slime, instead of devouring your con score).

I'm also a bit puzzled by the reference to cold and fire damage; green slime does not have HD or HPs, so is one point enough to kill it? And what about "cutting it away"? Do you have to cut away the victim's arm or leg, or would one point of damage (again) be enough for this purpose?

Thoughts?

In Cheliax, we know only Glory.

Fully agree with my fellow Chelaxian and good friend AM HELLKNIGHT! Glory is Cheliax, and Cheliax is Glory!

(Poster Neo2151's attitude is commendable, for we truly are the pinnacle of perfection on Golarion, also in culture. That is a fact.)