Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Nurah Dendiwhar

Erkenbard the Eyeful's page

39 posts. Alias of bearinjapan.


RSS


The vast difference in coloration would be obvious with Darkvision and not just in low light. Dark elves are coal black or dark purple in colour and the regular elf is pale and would be unlikely heavily suntanned. It's easy to tell the difference with Darkvision. if the Drow wanted to appear as regular elves they could use Disguise skill and apply makeup (and vice versa for eleves wanting to appear as Drow).


So if you picked up the helpless ally then you could do this without provoking an AOO from any square threatening the ally's original square. And after the end of your turn the helpless ally would then be inside your square.


Your unconscious comrade is knocked out in the next square to you. If you bend over/reach across and lay on hands or heal or give a potion to this unconscious ally, do the foes within striking distance of the helpless comrade get an attack of opportunity on you? Or are you considered to still be in your own square for attacks of opportunity?
Or both? I mean, your hands and part of your body must be in the helpless ally's square in order to help them? Please point me in the right direction ...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The body parts of dead monsters surely retain magic or have intrinsic chemical properties otherwise they would not be so prized by alchemists and wizards and the like, and used as material spell components. I recently decided that the dwarf fighter in our party will receive 30 gold pieces for each Xill egg he has been carrying since they were surgically removed from his stomach a few months ago. If he had sold them fresh he would have got a lot more.


Hydras have acidic bile, so just like with puffer fish, you'd need a certificated experienced chef to slice it up. Same as a black pudding, full of acid. Not a good idea to bite into it. And a gelatinous cube would not taste like jellyfish.


The players in my group often try and eat monsters/creatures they have killed. This is not an issue with things such as wild boars or even owlbears, but last session they ran out of rations in the wilderness and chopped up a basilisk they had just killed. Fresh basilisk blood has certain unique properties such as returning a creature from stone to flesh if applied soon after the basilisk's death. Would it be edible? They also have xill eggs? Are xill eggs edible? Or would they get diarrhea? I usually use common sense as a DM but the basilisk steaks got me thinking.


No. Because it is a divine scroll and not an arcane scroll. Even if a wizard and a cleric have the same spell on their lists it is not written in the same "language." The one draws from divine sources, the other arcane. Rule: The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thankyou all for your posts. This is the kind of advice I hoped for. As that's how I played it! Cheers!


It should specify in the basilisk's Special Ability info whether you need to make a Fortitude saving throw to return (alive and ok) from stone to flesh using the basilisk's blood. I saw an old thread here and no answer was given. Recently, is there an official answer? I might have missed it somewhere. It happened right at the end of my game last Saturday. I didn't ask for a saving throw at the time, although now I am thinking it probably (common sense) is required. Basilisk creature (no mention of save): "A creature petrified ... that is then coated ... with fresh basilisk blood ... is instantly restored to flesh." Stone to Flesh Spell: "This spell restores a petrified creature to its normal state, restoring life and goods. The creature must make a DC 15 Fortitude save to survive the process."


This exact issue just arose in my campaign. Two players got turned to stone last weekend. A surviving PC saw a carving in the ceiling of the basilisk's nest depicting one of the lizard's strung upside down, throat slit and blood being collected in a bucket by some dwarves (a clue installed by me as DM). So the remaining adventurers then smeared some blood on the petrified and I ruled that the part of the statue momentarily softened and became like flesh. Then they covered the statues with blood and I allowed the characters to return to flesh and I did not have them make a save (maybe because I had NOT checked the stone to flesh spell. This happened right at the end of the session so next session I could get them to make the FORT 15 save, or I could let it go. I think I will let it go ... although to be quite frank the "realism" side of me says that they should really make the save, as basically the process of stone to flesh is arduous, that's what the spell infers, and if it is arduous spell or no spell then it is STILL going to be an arduous process. Hmmmmm ... a head scratcher is this.


Thank you all for the comments. I enjoyed reading all of them on an interesting topic. Some of the comments may help, in some lovely bizarre ways, of improving this quest scenario I wrote myself. Just fyi ... the cleric wants to complete the quest because right now he is level 5 and has no spells until he atones ... also, though, he has been aware that he was about to go on the quest for some time so he has had plenty of time to organize himself. The scenario is now ongoing and if anyone is interested they can watch the videos on the facebook page "Pathfinder RPG Tokyo." It's been a long-running issue for the cleric and he's dealing with it while the other half of my campaign group deal with the wonderful Curse of the Crimson Throne.


John Mechalas wrote:
Erkenbard the Eyeful wrote:
Can you think of an activity where the stat penalties WOULD kick in? I guess if he went on another non-linked adventure, or just pursued non-quest activities in the city for 24 hours or longer. He has been warnnd that when the quest kicks in he must pursue it or face penalties.

Repeat offenses would absolutely qualify. I'd say if he didn't learn from the first time, then it's fair game. And, if he's doing anything in the city other than getting necessary supplies, then you can start letting penalties creep in.

I'd be pretty merciless, too, if he got distracted, detained, or delayed on the supply run. A delay from an honest mistake is one thing. That mistake compounding to more delays and problems is in "you made your bed now lay in it" territory.

That's good advice. Thanks very much.


John Mechalas wrote:

If you want to be a killer GM, then sure.

If you want to be less aggressive because players sometimes underestimate the resources they will need, and the success of the geas depends on them not dying, then give the cleric a break. It's a reasonable thing to go back for necessary supplies.

I'm not the killer GM type. I try not to be anyway. I often post here to help me rein myself in when I feel I could be being too aggressive, so as to help me be more reasonable as DM. I agree that it's fair to let him go back for forgotten supplies. Can you think of an activity where the stat penalties WOULD kick in? I guess if he went on another non-linked adventure, or just pursued non-quest activities in the city for 24 hours or longer. He has been warnnd that when the quest kicks in he must pursue it or face penalties.


Example: If the atoning spell-less cleric PC runs out of cure potions after battling some dungeon beasts while on the quest is he allowed to travel 2 days to the nearest town to re-stock (and 2 days back to the dungeon) or would this be seen as NOT obeying the geas/quest and thus incurring the stat penalties. Or what happens if the PC decides a levitation potion would help, is he then allowed to go back and get one? Or if he encounters a strange monster may he return home and do research on the monster through an NPC or library, thus delaying achieving the goal of the quest by 2-4 days etc etc??? It seems like it's up to the DM. Background: As DM, I have warned the party ahead of the quest including the quested individual that they are going into the wilderness and may be there for at least a week to complete the quest.


Nox Aeterna wrote:
Erkenbard the Eyeful wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Depends on what you have already build in the story.

For example if it is the temple of a god related to this kind of stuff and such, maybe you could have multiple walls that depict the dead comming back to live or could be carvings on an item, maybe they find a journal that gives hints to such pratices taking place in there.

In the end, there are ways to do it, but you must give further info on the whole situation there mate.

You've given me a great idea with the carvings. Thanks. Sorry I can't go into detail but there is an outside chance that one of the players may read this thread. I have already blurred my initial description to throw such accidental peeking off scent.
Fair enough. Do keep in mind the 3 hint rule if you arent being direct about it, otherwise your player might not catch the drift.

Thanks for the Three Clue Rule mention. I didn't even know about that excellent rule advice. I had included two pretty obvious clues, but I think a third will not go amiss!


Nox Aeterna wrote:

Depends on what you have already build in the story.

For example if it is the temple of a god related to this kind of stuff and such, maybe you could have multiple walls that depict the dead comming back to live or could be carvings on an item, maybe they find a journal that gives hints to such pratices taking place in there.

In the end, there are ways to do it, but you must give further info on the whole situation there mate.

You've given me a great idea with the carvings. Thanks. Sorry I can't go into detail but there is an outside chance that one of the players may read this thread. I have already blurred my initial description to throw such accidental peeking off scent.


One of my players, an elf, can be defeatist in attitude. His ally, a human, will probably be killed next session (don't ask why; it is a plot thing) and I am concerned the elf will just give up and return to the town. However, a Raise Dead device is located a little further on in the dungeon. If the elf does not give up he may be able to discover it. (And Raise Dead is unavailable in the town) What kind of hints should I drop about there still being hope without outright telling him that there is a raise dead device there? How do I phrase it? I've written this lengthy scenario and finally my wellspring of creativity has run dry so any ideas would be welcome. Finally, if nothing works and he walks away, would you say he only has himself to blame? or should I be to blame for not directing him more.


Matthew Downie wrote:

Here is one of the threads about pinned / helpless. Worth FAQing there, as there is some ambiguity. (My take is that it wouldn't say "A pinned creature cannot move and is flatfooted" if they meant "A pinned creature is helpless"; therefore they are using the word 'bound' to mean something different in the two contexts.)

If you have some way of making an undead or construct helpless, you should be able to coup-de-grace them. Basically, anything that is not immune to critical hits is likely vulnerable to having its head cut off.

John Murdock wrote:
also do you think a creature that is bound by a rope helpless or not helpless?
Depends how thoroughly it's done. If they're hastily tied up in a few seconds by someone using the 'Tie Up' ability, then no. If they're securely bound (perhaps while unconscious) using a large amount of rope, and taking a few minutes to make sure they can't move, then yes.

I totally agree with what you say. I think I will allow a coup de grace on skeletons or constructs if they are bound in a way that makes them helpless. It makes total sense that you would be able to cut off the skull of said skeleton if it was bound firmly in place. I would say the magic would emanate from the heads of such creatures and the head has to be part of the body. Also this thread has now reminded me of the tying up rules and how I need to decide the difference between tying up in combat and firmly binding a foe later. Cheers


If you decapitate in some way or do a coup de grace on an unintelligent undead or construct such as a skeleton or wood golem, for example, are they destroyed? I can't seem to find an answer in the rules. Also if you pin someone can an ally then do a coup de grace on the pinned foe. I think "no" as the person is not "helpless" but would like opinions or confirmation. It seems kind of possible to do a coup de grace on a person pinned in real life, not that I've ever done it, of course.


Thanks. I had the feeling this was the case, but was wondering if I had perhaps missed optional rules outside of the Core Rulebook and APG regarding it. I like the idea of backstabbing thieves sneaking up behind someone who cannot use a shield, but still ... I can live with the rules outlined in the responses above. Again, thanks.


The Shield spell says the shield "hovers in front of you," but as there are no "facing" directions in the rulebook, it is counted as always covering one in combat. However, sometimes you are flanked or clearly attacked from behind ... when you suffer a surprise sneak attack (i.e. backstabbed). So does the Shield apply in these circumstances?


SlimGauge wrote:

When there are no rules for doing something, then it's not a rules question, but Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew.

The initial "Are there any rules for this that I don't know about ?" is a rules question, but "Since there aren't any rules for this, what should I do ?" is advice/suggestion/Homebrew.

Having been smacked before for making homebrew suggestions in a rules thread, I am trying hard not to be irked.

I didn't know if there were rules for it or not. There might have been some that I was unaware of. That's why I asked the question in the first place. People have pointed out a lot of rules which have been very helpful and have helped me come to my conclusion about this situation.


N N 959 wrote:
Erkenbard the Eyeful wrote:
OK, not going to argue it, just saying in my group we enjoy slowly making each rule more realistic although we haven't got round to all of them yet. We will no doubt get round to dealing with the weather rules at some point. But for now we are happy and the dice continue to roll.

And I'm telling you that you're headed down the rabbit hole. When I first started playing 3.5 with another GM, we went down this road. Every time we came across one of the many many many rules that seem superficially silly, we thought we were so clever for figuring out how to make it "better" or more "realistic." My personal pet peeve was the flat-footed rule and the ridiculousness of how that rule is implemented. A person with a 1000 DEX is no better off than a person with a 10 DEX, but a person with an 8 DEX is worse off than both...by the same amount.

Then I realized something, the rules are the way they are to facilitate other things in the game. The flat-footed rules are there to enable things like sneak attack and as a counter balance to Touch AC. So when we started mucking around with the rules in our hubris to "fix it," we just ended up breaking more things downstream.

Yes, you can do whatever you want with the game. But the rules are co-depedent and by that I mean Rule C is "balanced" around Rule A working the way it does. When the game authors wrote Rule C, they did it based on how Rule A works. So when you change how Rule A works, you're unwittingly screwing up Rule C and Rule G which also depends on Rule C, and so on.

To put it another way, the game rules are like a knit wool sweater with a lot of loose ends. If you start pulling on one of those loose thread to try and make it look better, you're most likely going end up unraveling it and doing more harm than good.

Honestly my group is having fun with adjusting certain rules and others that don't make sense we are fine with also. It's not a big deal. And we love Pathfinder. So we play it. And this kind of debate is getting away from my original question and the theme of this thread. This isn't about changing rules. so much It's about animals and their saving throws.


SlimGauge wrote:

I am sorely tempted to flag this as "wrong forum" since the OP is basically proposing a house rule and asking for opinions.

Instead, I think I'll just add this, emphasizing that it's entirely a house-rule suggestion.

Have the animal make a sense motive check. If it succeeds, it reacts appropriately, accepting well-intentioned spell casting and resisting hostile spell casting. If it fails, it instinctively resists a spell that it doesn't understand.

Not sure what you mean about flagging my post as wrong forum. My question sums it up ... DO ANIMALS INSTINCTIVELY TRY AND SAVE AGAINST ANY SPELL, EVEN IF CAST BY ITS "MASTER"? Isn't that a rule question? I obviously can't find the answer so I am thinking of the house rule. For the future, which forum should I have put this question/thread on?


N N 959 wrote:
Erkenbard the Eyeful wrote:
I don't mean animal companions which is clearly special and where there is clearly a bond. What I do mean is your average regular animal that the spellcaster is briefly acquainted with, and that he has maybe fed some food to for a day or so. If the animal felt a sudden magical presence in its head wouldn't it instinctively attempt to save as it doesn't know what the hell is going on? (Note: I also think animals could be trained to accept spells (e.g. give it a treat everytime you start chanting, so that it eventually just accepts the spell treat or no treat.)

In this case, you should base it on the attitude of the creature towards the caster, using the Diplomacy table. The rules for Wild Empathy state that a domestic animal starts out as indifferent and and wild animal is unfriendly.

I would rule that indifferent creatures will not resist harmless spells but unfriendly ones will, and Friendly creatures will intentionally fail their save.

Gilfalas wrote:
When the player successfully uses Handle Animal on the creature and gets it domesticated I would say that a bond of trust has been formed between the animal and the trainer

Per RAW, I would disagree with that. HA has nothing to do with changing the attitude of animal to the trainer. I've seen a lot of homebrew games where Handle Animal is substituted for Wild Empathy. Training an animal does not make it trust you. Caring and feeding for animal makes it trust. There are plenty of unfriendly animals that will follow commands because they are trained to follow commands, not because the animal has any level of trust.

Granted, most trainers care for the animals that they train and certainly any good trainer is able to establish some sort of rapport with the animal. But as I said above, this is a game, not real life so the rules don't reflect any robust reality.

Erkenbard the Eyeful wrote:


I think I will go with if a PC has been with an animal for a week and has not abused it in any
...

Cool. Thanks a lot. That's really helpful. I will read this through and undoubtedly apply some of it. By putting "training" in quotes I basically meant "looking after it/hanging out with it," by the way. The other points useful. Thanks.


I think I will go with if a PC has been with an animal for a week and has not abused it in any way and makes a successful Handle Animal check then a bond of trust has been formed. The animal then will not resist spells cast by the person or anyone else involved closely with the animal during the "training." Although teaching a trick is not quite involved I will rule the "training" need not be intensive and being on the road is fine so long as the animal is not injured/terrified.
If the animal has not been "trained" (meaning it is wary, suspicious, wild or aggressive) it will take it's saves. That said, using "Handle Animal" to calm a wild creature or scared animal enough to try and cure it is a valid use of the skill.

Thanks to Gilfalas and others who helped me come to this decision. I needed to decide before tomorrow's session so your advice was valuable. I may adjust/change my ruling later so I will read further comments if made.


J4RH34D wrote:

The drowning rules are absolutely horse radish and can't be said to represent reality.

A character with 12 con can hold his breath for two and a half minutes before even starting to roll. That is huge.

Read up on the cold weather rules issues and you will see how absurd those are as well.

Basically it is impossible for any life you exist in regions were the temp drops below 40 farrenheit for any appreciable length of time.

The game is an abstraction, not a simulation.

OK, not going to argue it, just saying in my group we enjoy slowly making each rule more realistic although we haven't got round to all of them yet. We will no doubt get round to dealing with the weather rules at some point. But for now we are happy and the dice continue to roll.


Matthew Downie wrote:
In my game I'd probably rule that any animal that basically trusts you would not resist you. In your lizard example, there's no trust, so the creature would instinctively save.

That's what I aim to do. But the issue is when does the trust kick in? Iwas thinking one week of being with the animal and feeding/caring for it. You seem to suggest in your reply that it is not training. I can imagine in my game the witch will toss the lizard some food and then 5 minutes later cast the Anthromorphic Animal or Animal growth spell on it and complain if I give it a save. So I want to give the witch a basic idea.


Matthew Downie wrote:
There's no "Receive spells" trick in the Handle Animal rules, which there presumably would be if it was supposed to be played that way. Though you could just set a DC for it.

Well, just because it's not there doesn't mean they did think about it and decided against it. They might not have thought about it or opted to leave it out as the rulebook is hefty enough as it is. They have to leave some stuff out. And sometimes they then have to add stuff later. Good point on the Handle Animal, a simple DC15 I guess. I might even say it can be a free extra trick above the 3 and 6 rule for INT of 2 or 3. Also please refer to my lizard example. That shows that this question is worth discussing. (ok, the cure light wounds, yeah, whatever, but there are reasons why there should be a ruling on animal saves).


Another example of the animal-save issue here ... In regard to casting Animal Growth on an animal? I want to cast it on a lizard. Not an attack on the lizard so it doesn't get a save?
However, what happens if I cast Animal Growth on a lizard to stop the lizard from moving through a small hole in a wall to attack me. That would be a kind of "offensive" intention to the spell.
So how would an animal of Intelligence 1 or 2 know when to save or when not to save?


Let me emphasize ... I mean 1/ animals that have recently been met (such as a goat on a mountain track) and perhaps fed some tasty food (to make it "friendly") or 2/ a pet rat or pet lizard or pet anything who has a "master," who feeds it etc. I am NOT referring to an animal companion or anything like that as I believe they would already be taught that when the boss starts his verbal, somatic stuff you just grin and bear it and no problem. (sorry if I was unclear in the original post)


N N 959 wrote:

Animal Companions are not going to save against any friendly spell that is cast by an ally.

PRD wrote:
Generally, when you are subject to an unusual or magical attack, you get a saving throw to avoid or reduce the effect.

A cure light wounds spell is not an "attack" unless you're undead.

Erkenbard the Eyeful wrote:
A spell would mess with their mind, wouldn't it? It would rattle them and they would instinctively react against it.

Let me offer some advice. Don't use real life as a basis for countermanding RAW in a game that is filled with magic and all manners of absurd and fantastical things. Doing so is going to lead to a tremendous amount of arbitrary and inconsistent outcomes. Pathfinder is a game. It's not real life and it the rules are not meant to simulate real life. There are bajillion things in the game that defy real life logic. So when you start inventing rules because suddenly one thing sticks out at you, it comes across as capricious and arbitrary to players.

The rules aren't designed to make real life sense, they are crafted to facilitate a game experience.

I disagree on your latter "advice." Lots of the rules are meant to simulate real life, that's why they are there in quite some detail such as drowning, weather conditions etc etc. It's up to individual DM how to run the game, of course, and if it's good players will play and enjoy and everyone's happy. I'm sure you agree. I run a gritty true-to-life game because that's how I want to run the game. We have a few house rules relating to making the game more realistic in the basics (e.g. double penalty for swimming in armour), although not many, because the rules do a superb true-to-life job. Hence my initial thinking about the animals as the witch just chose "Anthromorphic Animal" and I just began wondering if an animal's instincts would kick in against any magic interfering with its head unless it had been trained otherwise.


I don't mean animal companions which is clearly special and where there is clearly a bond. What I do mean is your average regular animal that the spellcaster is briefly acquainted with, and that he has maybe fed some food to for a day or so. If the animal felt a sudden magical presence in its head wouldn't it instinctively attempt to save as it doesn't know what the hell is going on? (Note: I also think animals could be trained to accept spells (e.g. give it a treat everytime you start chanting, so that it eventually just accepts the spell treat or no treat.)


As DM I am about to rule that as animals are so dumb (i.e. Intelligence of 1 or 2) they will automatically through instinctive natural defence mechanisms attempt to resist any spell, even if it is cast by someone they are on "friendly" terms with, i.e. the master (so they would save against Cure Light Wounds, Anthromorphic Animal, Animal Growth). A spell would mess with their mind, wouldn't it? It would rattle them and they would instinctively react against it. Or am I wrong? I admit I am a little unsure.


Weirdo wrote:

Keep in mind that they need to cut out the eggs one at a time - with 2d6 eggs implanted that's an average of 7 separate Heal checks, and as many as 12. The patient takes damage even if the Heal check is successful, so even if every check succeeds it's still a significant amount of damage, particularly for the rouge 2 / wizard 1. If the party can't make a DC 20 heal check while taking 10 - or if they are prevented from taking 10 - the patient could easily take 20d4 points of damage.

And as Gallant Armor suggests, you can use other threats to up the danger. Interrupt the surgeries, introduce delays so they might not have time to get all the eggs out, or attack while they are still recovering and have expended their healing. Just don't push it too hard - keep in mind the total damage they surgeries will deal as described above.

EDIT: Cruel - maybe? I think it depends on a few things. How plausible is the new threat - are they in an area that should be safe or one that is known to be dangerous? How high is the risk of death from the eggs alone, keeping in mind the number of eggs implanted and the party's Heal check? And do you think the game would be more enjoyable because of the increased tension from the increased danger, or will describing the grueling nature of the surgery (and perhaps not letting the party know at first exactly how many eggs they have to remove - thus increasing uncertainty about the risk) be sufficient even if there is no risk the PCs will actually die?

Erkenbard the Eyeful wrote:
Also, previously one of the adventurers had one of their kidneys cut out during torture and I ruled they lost 1 Con until they got it regenerated. So would people here say that a simple restoration spell should have fixed the missing kidney problem or was I fair in saying -1 Con until regeneration?

Specific effects can always be harder to heal than usual.

However I would be cautious about inflicting conditions on PCs that they are unable to fix for long periods of time.

They are near a tiny druidic settlement but it will be in the middle of the night when they get there and the druids don't like strangers much, are not much interested in gold, and the party have been bothering them for small things twice in the near past already. Arriving in the middle of the night claiming to have eggs in their stomachs won't go down too well and they will need a luck check to see if there is a druid available with a remove disease spell immediately available and if not then a Diplomacy check to try and convince a druid to get up in the night and perform what could be 2-hour surgery. So I think the risk is in not having any druids to help. Then, with only two of them there, would have to operate on one another and then

it gets tricky!


Gallant Armor wrote:
Each attempt takes 10 minutes. Assuming they each have around the average of 7 eggs implanted in could take hours to remove all of the eggs depending on how many are performing surgery. A lot could happen in 2 hours.

But basically it would require a random encounter tossed in for no other reason than to mess up their healing, which is a bit on the cruel side.


I guess I am clutching at straws. So the xill's brilliantly terrifying impregnation attack is basically useless against anything but very low-level characters, which it wouldn't be fighting in the first place. Just about anyone can eventually cut out those eggs given a bit of time and the chance of the incubating adventurer dying is virtually zero.
By the way my group is around 4th level. The dwarf fighter level 5 and elf rogue 2/wizard 1 in the party were impregnated before the Xill was killed. They are really worried approaching the next session, which is fun. I was hoping for them to just about avoid death, or at least be in some degree of danger, as is what the game is all about. But if it's hit points of damage rather than Con then they obviously have nothing to fear. About 15-20 heal skill checks would have to fail for one of them to die (and that's without them any cure light wounds when they need it).
* NOTE: There is a chance Remove Dsease will not be available, so they might need the surgery, so I was hoping there would be some degree of danger in that


Gallant Armor wrote:
I read the 1d4 as HP damage not Con damage. The Con damage can be healed with restoration like any other ability damage.

A few more points ...

Thanks Gallant Armor, I see about the restoration spell. I misread it. It can heal 1d4 of any kind of Con damage.

Still not sure where or why internal damage switches from hit points damage to Con damage? i.e. Xilldren do 1 Con damage per hour eating their way out of the gut, but the surgical operation does hit points damage. (I assume it's because Xilldren are doing a more severe type of damage as they are ravenously going about their business; but why wouldn't this simply translate as 1d10 or 2d6 damage to hit points or something)

Also, previously one of the adventurers had one of their kidneys cut out during torture and I ruled they lost 1 Con until they got it regenerated. So would people here say that a simple restoration spell should have fixed the missing kidney problem or was I fair in saying -1 Con until regeneration?


A Xill has laid eggs inside an adventurer and an NPC tries to cut them out using heal skill. It says each surgical attempt, successful or not, causes 1d4 damage. It seems fair to assume that the 1d4 damage here is damage to Con and not to hit points, because it says if the Xilldren eat their way out then the damage is 1 Con each hour. Surely it is the same kind of damage, to internal organs. Thus Con damage rather than simple hit points.
This leads on to ... from such internal Con damage how would you recover the the Con, both naturally and magically?
I assume Cure Wound spells just affect hit points, which are mainly in reality kind of fatigue points. Also a restoration spell, for example, dispels magical effects from monsters that drain ability scores. So I assume that would not heal the internal Con damage.
I would think that only a powerful spell like Heal would work to restore damage to Con done by botched operations, or broken limbs, or fractured skulls. Am I correct? Where are the rules?


©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.