|
Why does Immunity to Fire / Cold need to confer vulnerability to Cold / Fire respectively? Its not in every creature's stat block, and it seems like the forgotten bastard child stepson of rules. Thematically I can see it making sense for certain creatures, like beings from the elemental plane of fire, but red/gold dragons? can't they just be immune to fire? do they need to suffer the frost slings and arrows?
P.S. Why is it only harder to cast Water spells on the plane of fire? did anyone notice its HOT down there? wouldn't it be equally hard to cast "Cold" spells?
Wind Stance /Lightning stance.
Could the 1 liner abilities be adjusted to accurately reflect the feats?
wind stance - grants 20% concealment vs. ranged attacks.
lightning stance - grants 50% concealment on a double move or withdraw action.
( lame. cool if they could be combined with spring attack. lame otherwise )
Cleave - your targets need to be adjacent to eachother. huh? why? you already swinging wildly, why nerf the ability beyond uselessness and require it to be doubly situation specific?
Starsoul bloodline. starts off granting cold and fire resistance. but then only grants cold immunity in its capstone ability. Borean bloodline specified that it granted immunity to cold but also reminded you that you get vulnerability to fire as a result. ( its in the rules anyway, any creature with immunity to fire has vulnerability to cold whether they forget to put it in the stat blocks or not and vice versa ). Why not at least increase their resistance to fire if you're going to make them suffer 150% of the damage from it.
Verdant sorcerer bloodline (apg). 15th level abiltiy: fast healing 1.
yeah, there's a winner. why not make it at least level appropriate and make it fast healing 5 or something?
cleric domain abilities: most of these would be downright useful if they were a swift action to activate instead of a standard action.
whirlwind attack.
why does this require combat expertise and spring attack? you're staying put, and swinging wildly at everyone you can reach. shouldn't this branch off the Cleave tree?
elf racial ability option to get +1/2 on critical confirmations, that doesn't stack with Critical Focus... so if you're going to be focusing on criticals... but you're never planning on taking any of the subsequent feats, great. otherwise useless, since you would be wasting points that you'd get anyway with the prerequisite feat you need.
channel energy. specify what creature types are subject to its effects. the wording on it for "any living creature" is confusing when you then have to examine certain creature types, like outsiders, and determine whether Align Channel is placed in the game specifically to include outsiders in channelling.
Elemental Focus/Greater Elemental Focus/ Spell Focus (Evocation)/greater spell focus
so ... can i get a +4 to the DC of my Fireball if i'm that dedicated?
|
|
( btw. i love Pathfinder RPG. i loved it since its inception. i was so happy when it fixed so many silly things about the game when it was ushered in, like sneak attack vs. undead. I just wish it would continue in that vein and fix certain things in errata that seem to be common quandaries among players )
|
I agree with some of what you pointed out (elf racial option), disagree with some others (cleave), but the focuses are fine. Elemental/Greater Elemental Focus and Spell/Greater Spell Focus give +4 DC to Fireball, yes. Now it is ALMOST decent. It gives blasters a way to not be unplayable but still be worse than control/support.
On a side note, I hate "meh."
You are making a mistake in your interpretations of fire and cold immunity/vulnerability. An understandable mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.
Specifically, nothing about fire immunity confers cold vulnerability, or vice versa.
What you are referring to is the Cold and Fire creature subtypes, which do specifically come with vulnerability to their opposing element.
A creature can have energy immunity, even fire or cold, without corresponding vulnerability. Devils are a good example, fire immune, cold resistant.
The specific descriptions of the subtypes are in the Creature Type section of the Bestiary or PRD. Likewise, the Immunities/Vulnerabilities section is in the Universal Monster Rules section.
You are making a mistake in your interpretations of fire and cold immunity/vulnerability. An understandable mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.
Specifically, nothing about fire immunity confers cold vulnerability, or vice versa.
What you are referring to is the Cold and Fire creature subtypes, which do specifically come with vulnerability to their opposing element.
A creature can have energy immunity, even fire or cold, without corresponding vulnerability. Devils are a good example, fire immune, cold resistant.
The specific descriptions of the subtypes are in the Creature Type section of the Bestiary or PRD. Likewise, the Immunities/Vulnerabilities section is in the Universal Monster Rules section.
pretty sure it says somewhere immunity ton fire/cold gives vulnerability to the opposite but my search Fu isvweak to give a link.
i do agree that i don't like that cleave requires your opponents to be adjacent to each other.
I agree with cleave, other than the fact that it makes quite situational, it makes cleave very dependant on the DM.
Yeah, I'd like to see the rule that says that Fire/Cold Immunity grants Cold/Fire vulnerability.
As I see it, the only rule on immunities is that one.
Whereas the fire subtype and the cold subtype seem to be the ones that grant alternate immunity/vulnerabilities.
Which, honestly, to me makes a lot of sense.
If you channel energy to heal, you will affect everything alive in a 30 foot radius. Including outsiders. Alignment channel is there so you can DAMAGE outsiders.
This is correct.
That's two rules you don't seem to have a firm grasp on before you're criticizing. Ask before you put down, would be my advise in the future. (Though, to be fair, the game has never explicitly come out and said what a "living creature" is defined as. In my reading, with the exception of the "living constructs", all creatures are alive except Constructs and Undead. And the rules are pretty clear with what happens to Undead, so Constructs are simply unaffected.)
Verdant sorcerer bloodline (apg). 15th level abiltiy: fast healing 1.
yeah, there's a winner. why not make it at least level appropriate and make it fast healing 5 or something?
It's clear you've never played in a game where a PC has access to Fast Healing.
Fast Healing 1 makes clerics/other healers completely obsolete. If they character has access to a cape of the mountebank, they're pretty much unkillable too.
Why does Immunity to Fire / Cold need to confer vulnerability to Cold / Fire respectively?
It doesn't really. It's common, but not mandatory.
Thematically I can see it making sense for certain creatures, like beings from the elemental plane of fire, but red/gold dragons? can't they just be immune to fire? do they need to suffer the frost slings and arrows?
Yes. It's tradition. More importantly, it's a tradition that isn't so bad that it needs to be broken. So the reds and golds need to suffer the frost slings and arrows. Serves them right not to get the proper magic to confer resistance to cold.
P.S. Why is it only harder to cast Water spells on the plane of fire? did anyone notice its HOT down there? wouldn't it be equally hard to cast "Cold" spells?
I'd say it's because water and fire are the elemental opposites, and as such, the elemental planes have problems with them. Cold is an energy, and since the fire plane is not the energy plane of fire (fire is both an energy type and an element in Pathfinder), there is no ideological aversion present.
That and cold spells are often more an instantaneous effect. They have stopped working by the time the heat can affect them.
That's all I got about this. Maybe they wanted to limit the planar inhibitions to one kind of magic, so they left out cold.
Cleave - your targets need to be adjacent to eachother. huh? why? you already swinging wildly, why nerf the ability beyond uselessness and require it to be doubly situation specific?
I could go either way as far as "stylistic correctness" is concerned, but I don't agree that the feat is useless. Enemies will often be adjacent - they might have a shield phalanx or just want to fight back to back to make it harder to be flanked. Or there isn't enough room to be too far apart.
Starsoul bloodline. starts off granting cold and fire resistance. but then only grants cold immunity in its capstone ability.
Two immunities would probably have been too good.
Borean bloodline specified that it granted immunity to cold but also reminded you that you get vulnerability to fire as a result. ( its in the rules anyway, any creature with immunity to fire has vulnerability to cold whether they forget to put it in the stat blocks or not and vice versa ).
Again, that's not the rule. The rule is that fire/cold subtype confers immunity to one element and vulnerability to the other, but not that immunity itself confers vulnerability. And the boreal bloodline gives you the cold subtype.
That basically turns you into an elemental, complete with immunity to fatigue, exhaustion, sneak attacks and critical hits. Bring on the fire vulnerability, I'll just counter it with protection from energy or energy resistance. Hooray for spellcasting!
Why not at least increase their resistance to fire if you're going to make them suffer 150% of the damage from it.
Starsoul sorcerers are not vulnerable to fire. And giving fire resistance and vulnerability in the same package would be nonsensical.
Verdant sorcerer bloodline (apg). 15th level abiltiy: fast healing 1.
yeah, there's a winner. why not make it at least level appropriate and make it fast healing 5 or something?
That is a winner. It might not be that great during combat or between back-to-back combats, but it means that any even slightly extended period of calm will heal you (fast healing 1 means 10 hp per minute, or fully healed in under 20 minutes for all but the most hardy sorcerers) AND it makes you immune to bleed damage or bleeding to death.
cleric domain abilities: most of these would be downright useful if they were a swift action to activate instead of a standard action.
That is true. Some of them need to be swift actions, maybe even free ones.
whirlwind attack.
why does this require combat expertise and spring attack? you're staying put, and swinging wildly at everyone you can reach. shouldn't this branch off the Cleave tree?
Again, tradition. Whirlwind Attack has been the crowning jewel of the Dodge/Combat Expertise feat trees since it was introduced into the game along with the feat concept with D&D 3rd edition in 2000.
It makes sense, too, since while you might not change your coordinates, you're hardly standing still. You turn into a whirlwind of steel.
Plus, Great Cleave is close to Whirlwind Attack. Much easier to get but not as easy to pull off (enemies need to be adjacent, and you have to hit with each attack to get the next one).
So they're basically two alternatives to a similar ability.
elf racial ability option to get +1/2 on critical confirmations, that doesn't stack with Critical Focus... so if you're going to be focusing on criticals... but you're never planning on taking any of the subsequent feats, great. otherwise useless, since you would be wasting points that you'd get anyway with the prerequisite feat you need.
Agreed. That's why I have houseruled that 4 levels of this favoured class bonus will count as Critical Focus, but only while you wield the weapon in question.
Still, it can be useful since you can get that confirmation bonus much earlier.
channel energy. specify what creature types are subject to its effects. the wording on it for "any living creature" is confusing when you then have to examine certain creature types, like outsiders, and determine whether Align Channel is placed in the game specifically to include outsiders in channelling.
Living creature means living creature. Outsiders are living creatures. If you use the standard channel energy to affect all living creatures, they're all affected, regardless of their creature type.
Alignment Channel is not the standard channel energy. In that instant, you affect outsiders of a specific alignment subtype and everything else (whether it's living, undead, or non-living) ignores the channel.
Elemental Focus/Greater Elemental Focus/ Spell Focus (Evocation)/greater spell focus
so ... can i get a +4 to the DC of my Fireball if i'm that dedicated?
Yes.
|
|
Verdant sorcerer bloodline (apg). 15th level abiltiy: fast healing 1.
yeah, there's a winner. why not make it at least level appropriate and make it fast healing 5 or something?It's clear you've never played in a game where a PC has access to Fast Healing.
Fast Healing 1 makes clerics/other healers completely obsolete. If they character has access to a cape of the mountebank, they're pretty much unkillable too.
I've played 3.5 with the alternate druid feature that granted a fast healing aura. that was great, but the fast healing increased with caster level so that it remained combat effective. Out of combat its nice, yes, but 10hp of healing in 1 minute increments, 15/day at 15th level isn't exactly something to make a cleric useless during combat. Its a defensive ability for use to protect the sorcerer in combat. it'd be more useful if it granted a higher fast healing.
as far as Immunity/Vulnerability, its in the glossary
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html
Energy Immunity and VulnerabilityA creature with energy immunity never takes damage from that energy type. If a creature has fire immunity, it also has vulnerability to cold. If a creature has cold immunity, it also has vulnerability to fire. Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure.
Archmagus,
For channelling energy, like you said, Its not spelled out what a "living creature" is. In previous editions, outsiders weren't really specified as living creatures. and the Align Channel feat says 'Instead of its normal effect, you can choose to have your ability to channel energy heal or harm outsiders of the chosen alignment subtype'.for a while i was under the assumption that the normal effect was not healing outsiders because they weren't living. the creature type definition for outsiders says " An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane. Some creatures start out as some other type and become outsiders when they attain a higher (or lower) state of spiritual existence. An outsider has the following features. ", which makes them sound closer to an Elemental ( which i don't think qualifies as a "living" creature either.
what i did read was in the type description where it says "• Unlike most living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature-... " . which doesn't outright say that an outsider is a living creature. it implies that they are, but it could just be comparing them to living creatures as far as souls go. so i'm still not completely convinced and would like one of the developers someday to clarify the Channel Energy ability.
PS. one further thing Paizo could fix:
cure spells beyond 3rd level. the "max" bonus on the spells advances faster than is useful ( ex. cure critical wounds heals for 4d8+ 1/level, max 20. its a 7th level spell, so when a cleric gains access to it they deal 4d8+7, with a Max that only gets fully utilized at 20th level. ).
A change for the 4th level - 6th level spells like mass cure light wounds that would be nice ( so that the caster can start out within sight of hitting the max ) would be something like +2hp/level. A change for 7th - 9th level spells that would be nice would be +3hp/level.
mass cure critical wounds has 4d8+1/level (max 40) ... how often has anyone seen that spell cast, let alone the limit approached. ? I haven't, as my players prefer to burst or use more effective / focused healing in combat. When you're a 11th level cleric, and your option is Heal , for 110 hp to one ally ( tank ) , or 2d8+11 to you and 11 allies ( in a game where the typical party is 3-5 players ), or 5d6 worth of channeled energy that doesn't use up a 6th level slot...
though i can recommend a Priest's Phylactery ( custom wondrous item. it combines a headband of wisdom +X , with a phylactery of positive or negative channelling. since they both consume the same slot on priests.
yes it costs quite a pretty penny, but worth it.
+2 = 17,000gp, +4 = 32,000gp , +6 = 52,000gp. )
Sorry i'm being down on Pathfinder, i'll find something to occupy myself once i dig through my old Dungeon magazines and convert Age of Worms to PFRPG.
Kae, i like the houserule there, nicely done.
|
|
Verdant sorcerer bloodline (apg). 15th level abiltiy: fast healing 1.
yeah, there's a winner. why not make it at least level appropriate and make it fast healing 5 or something?It's clear you've never played in a game where a PC has access to Fast Healing.
Fast Healing 1 makes clerics/other healers completely obsolete. If they character has access to a cape of the mountebank, they're pretty much unkillable too.
oh and he's not unkillable. fast healing isn't regeneration. if the sorcerer is brought below -CON from damage or a death effect, to true death, fast healing won't avail him/her.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
as far as Immunity/Vulnerability, its in the glossary
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html
Energy Immunity and VulnerabilityA creature with energy immunity never takes damage from that energy type. If a creature has fire immunity, it also has vulnerability to cold. If a creature has cold immunity, it also has vulnerability to fire. Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure.
That is odd. I just now checked my 3.5 books, and a similar connection between fire/cold immunity/vulnerability is found also there. Never noticed that before.
I don't think the monster designers in any of the editions really noticed that either, since so many creatures have immunities to fire or cold without being vulnerable to the other element.
I'll just file this one under one more thing to house rule away so that I can play the way I always have :)
|
|
as far as Immunity/Vulnerability, its in the glossary
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html
Energy Immunity and VulnerabilityA creature with energy immunity never takes damage from that energy type. If a creature has fire immunity, it also has vulnerability to cold. If a creature has cold immunity, it also has vulnerability to fire. Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure.
That is odd. I just now checked my 3.5 books, and a similar connection between fire/cold immunity/vulnerability is found also there. Never noticed that before.
I don't think the monster designers in any of the editions really noticed that either, since so many creatures have immunities to fire or cold without being vulnerable to the other element.
I'll just file this one under one more thing to house rule away so that I can play the way I always have :)
Sadly I just lost a player b/c they felt I was house ruling too much away and wasn't running RAW. =/ ( i hadn't even told him i wasn't going to be adding vulnerability to cold where it wasn't printed in monster stats anymore. this was in reference to me house ruling fire resistance = lava/magma resistance and fire immunity = lava/magma immunity in my game. If the publishers would clear up these silly obscure inconsistencies, I wouldn't be losing players b/c they'd be hard and fast and in print =P
Sadly I just lost a player b/c they felt I was house ruling too much away and wasn't running RAW. =/ ( i hadn't even told him i wasn't going to be adding vulnerability to cold where it wasn't printed in monster stats anymore. this was in reference to me house ruling fire resistance = lava/magma resistance and fire immunity = lava/magma immunity in my game. If the publishers would clear up these silly obscure inconsistencies, I wouldn't be losing players b/c they'd be hard and fast and in print =P
Unless of course your ex-player(s) just don't agree that these obscure inconsistencies are silly and want to play the game the way it is, not the way you wish it was. Just pointing out the obvious alternate interpretation. One man's mandatory house-rule is another man's deal-breaker.
Leaving the game over a house rule (which is generally accepted to be the actual rule if it wasn't for a typo) that isn't all that likely to come up seems a bit too hasty.
Of course, if the house rule was mentioned after the player's character had already fallen into the lava, then I'd understand his reaction :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does it have a Con score? Then it's a living creature.
|
|
Does it have a Con score? Then it's a living creature.
So an elemental, a being composed of a pure element with no internal anatomy, is a living being, and is healed by positive energy ?
Btw,
any comment on the other obscure rules quandries?
lava?
invulnerability to fire automatically requiring vulnerability to cold?
whether a glove of duelling actually grants +2 to hit/damage or merely + 2 CMB / CMD ?
whether a glove of duelling actually grants +2 to hit/damage or merely + 2 CMB / CMD ?
That's a question? It grants a +4 to your CMD vs disarm. If you have weapon training, it adds +2 to that. What isn't clear? Why would you assume there is a restriction to the weapon training portion that isn't written?
( btw. i love Pathfinder RPG. i loved it since its inception. i was so happy when it fixed so many silly things about the game when it was ushered in, like sneak attack vs. undead. I just wish it would continue in that vein and fix certain things in errata that seem to be common quandaries among players )
HOLY MISSED DETAILS BATMAN!!!
Sneak Attack vs. Undead has changed !?!?!? I totally missed that!! (I've been playing Pathfinder since the beginning!! lol)
Has Critical Hits vs. Undead change as well??
Can we now Sneak Attack and criticaly hit undead now?
Ultradan
( btw. i love Pathfinder RPG. i loved it since its inception. i was so happy when it fixed so many silly things about the game when it was ushered in, like sneak attack vs. undead. I just wish it would continue in that vein and fix certain things in errata that seem to be common quandaries among players )HOLY MISSED DETAILS BATMAN!!!
Sneak Attack vs. Undead has changed !?!?!? I totally missed that!! (I've been playing Pathfinder since the beginning!! lol)
Has Critical Hits vs. Undead change as well??
Can we now Sneak Attack and criticaly hit undead now?
Ultradan
In a word... yes. And constructs.
( btw. i love Pathfinder RPG. i loved it since its inception. i was so happy when it fixed so many silly things about the game when it was ushered in, like sneak attack vs. undead. I just wish it would continue in that vein and fix certain things in errata that seem to be common quandaries among players )HOLY MISSED DETAILS BATMAN!!!
Sneak Attack vs. Undead has changed !?!?!? I totally missed that!! (I've been playing Pathfinder since the beginning!! lol)
Has Critical Hits vs. Undead change as well??
Can we now Sneak Attack and criticaly hit undead now?
Ultradan
I have these same observations and questions regarding SA and Crits v. Undead. This came up in one of our games recently and after scouring the PF rulebook and Bestiary, we came up empty. I ruled undead could be both SAed and Critted and we moved on.
In a word... yes. And constructs.( btw. i love Pathfinder RPG. i loved it since its inception. i was so happy when it fixed so many silly things about the game when it was ushered in, like sneak attack vs. undead. I just wish it would continue in that vein and fix certain things in errata that seem to be common quandaries among players )HOLY MISSED DETAILS BATMAN!!!
Sneak Attack vs. Undead has changed !?!?!? I totally missed that!! (I've been playing Pathfinder since the beginning!! lol)
Has Critical Hits vs. Undead change as well??
Can we now Sneak Attack and criticaly hit undead now?
Ultradan
DOH! Sneaky sneaky Talynonyx. You snuck the answer in while i was typing my question.
I'm floored.
My Gods, how can we have missed THAT!
Thanks folks!!
Ultradan
( btw. i love Pathfinder RPG. i loved it since its inception. i was so happy when it fixed so many silly things about the game when it was ushered in, like sneak attack vs. undead. I just wish it would continue in that vein and fix certain things in errata that seem to be common quandaries among players )HOLY MISSED DETAILS BATMAN!!!
Sneak Attack vs. Undead has changed !?!?!? I totally missed that!! (I've been playing Pathfinder since the beginning!! lol)
Has Critical Hits vs. Undead change as well??
Can we now Sneak Attack and criticaly hit undead now?
Ultradan
I have these same observations and questions regarding SA and Crits v. Undead. This came up in one of our games recently and after scouring the PF rulebook and Bestiary, we came up empty. I ruled undead could be both SAed and Critted and we moved on.
The rule is in the Bestiary, where it's not spelled out as such. Certain creature types say they are immune to critical hits and sneak attack, such as oozes and elementals. Undead and constructs no longer have this, making them vulnerable.
Only Oozes, Elementals, and Incorporeal creatures are immune to sneak attack in Pathfinder.
I guess it's just one of those rules that was anchored in our minds and never gave it a second thought. We (my group and I) just never realized that that part of the rule was "missing" from the text.
Ultradan
|
|
whether a glove of duelling actually grants +2 to hit/damage or merely + 2 CMB / CMD ?That's a question? It grants a +4 to your CMD vs disarm. If you have weapon training, it adds +2 to that. What isn't clear? Why would you assume there is a restriction to the weapon training portion that isn't written?
I know it grants a +4 to CMD
if they've got weapon training, it says the weapon training bonus granted is increased by 2.everyone else that reads the description ( aka greedy little players ) reads that as , "my fighter 5 has weapon training 1 with heavy blades. but now he's got weapon training 3 when wielding them with these gloves" [ and gets +3 to damage / + 3 to hit with it, rather than +1/+1/+1 CMB/+1CMD]
when they should probably be saying, "my fighter not only gets +4 CMD vs disarms/sunders with these gloves, he gets his weapon training +1, and an additional boost of +2 for a total of +7 CMD ( for weapon training 1 )
The way the gloves of dueling are written, I can certainly see the argument that the weapon training bonus is increased by +2 for all uses of weapon training. I imagine the intent might be to increase the bonus by +2 only for disarm and sunder attempts, but it's not written particularly clearly if that is the case.
The way the gloves of dueling are written, I can certainly see the argument that the weapon training bonus is increased by +2 for all uses of weapon training. I imagine the intent might be to increase the bonus by +2 only for disarm and sunder attempts, but it's not written particularly clearly if that is the case.
I certainly wouldn't spend 15k just to get a boost to disarm. I'm fairly certain the item is intended to be exactly as written, and increases the bonus from weapon training by +2.
Does it have a Con score? Then it's a living creature.So an elemental, a being composed of a pure element with no internal anatomy, is a living being, and is healed by positive energy ?
Just because it doesn't have an internat anatomy with organs and blood doesn't mean it's not alive. A vampire has organs and blood, and it's most definitely not alive. An ooze has neither organs nor blood, and it's alive.
If it has a Con score, it's alive. If its Con score is —, it's either a construct or an undead, which aren't alive. If it doesn't have a Con score at all, it's an object.
lava?
I assume you mean the bit that says "Immunity or resistance to fire serves as an immunity to lava or magma." That's been noted in the errata for the next printing of the Core Rulebook, and should say something like "Immunity or resistance to fire serves as an immunity to fire damage from lava or magma." (Which the previous paragraph should specify is fire damage.)
invulnerability to fire automatically requiring vulnerability to cold?
The game doesn't say that anywhere. The game does say that a creature with the fire subtype is automatically vulnerable to cold, and many fire-immune monsters have the fire subtype, and there are many fire-immune monsters that happen to have cold vulnerability without having the fire subtype, but having fire immunity doesn't automatically mean fire subtype, and thus doesn't automatically mean cold vulnerability.
For example, devils are immune to fire, but they don't have the fire subtype, and they're not vulnerable to cold (in fact, most are resistant to cold). Intellect devourers are immune to fire and not vulnerable to cold. Crag linnorms are immune to fire and not vulnerable to cold. Same with the tarrasque.
Likewise, skeletons are immune to cold, but they don't have the cold subtype, thus they're not vulnerable to fire. Ditto for kytons, liches, ice linnorms, shoggoths,
And then you have things like mummies and treants that are vulnerable to fire, but don't have the cold subtype and aren't immune to cold. And things like night hags and remorhazes that are immune to fire AND cold, but don't have the fire or cold subtype.
Flipping through the Bestiary shows you many examples of how your basic premise ("being immune to fire makes you vulnerable to cold, and vice versa") is not true.
invulnerability to fire automatically requiring vulnerability to cold?The game doesn't say that anywhere. The game does say that a creature with the fire subtype is automatically vulnerable to cold, and many fire-immune monsters have the fire subtype, and there are many fire-immune monsters that happen to have cold vulnerability without having the fire subtype, but having fire immunity doesn't automatically mean fire subtype, and thus doesn't automatically mean cold vulnerability.
Actually:
Energy Immunity and Vulnerability
A creature with energy immunity never takes damage from that energy type. If a creature has fire immunity, it also has vulnerability to cold. If a creature has cold immunity, it also has vulnerability to fire. Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure.
Which I suspect is a hold-over from the 3.5 SRD.
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*facepalm*
I'm going to errata the hell out of that.
I assume you mean the bit that says "Immunity or resistance to fire serves as an immunity to lava or magma." That's been noted in the errata for the next printing of the Core Rulebook, and should say something like "Immunity or resistance to fire serves as an immunity to fire damage from lava or magma." (Which the previous paragraph should specify is fire damage.)
That wouldn't fix the problem. The problem is that it says "immunity or resistance ... serves as immunity".
So, as written, you're immune to fire damage from lava and magma even if you only have resistance to fire. The section should say "immunity or resistance ... serves as immunity or resistance, respectively,"
And as for the immunity/vulnerability connection: The game does say that, on page 562 of the Core Rulebook.
Edit: partly double-ninja'ed :)
*facepalm*
I'm going to errata the hell out of that.
Yeah for errata. Don't feel bad. I had the same thought. That facepalm was almost mine.
So, as written, you're immune to fire damage from lava and magma even if you only have resistance to fire. The section should say "immunity or resistance ... serves as immunity or resistance, respectively,"
Yes, of course. Don't worry, I wasn't quoting the actual errata document. :)
I certainly wouldn't spend 15k just to get a boost to disarm. I'm fairly certain the item is intended to be exactly as written, and increases the bonus from weapon training by +2.
Having thought about it some more, I agree. 15,000 gp is far too much for an item that only gives bonuses vs disarm and sunder. While it seems reasonable for an item that gives +2 to hit and damage.
Yes, of course. Don't worry, I wasn't quoting the actual errata document. :)
I'm not worrying; it's Paizo we're talking about here, after all :)
By the way, I'm not sure we're giving you guys enough credit. It's extremely nice of all of you to be frequenting the forums and answering questions on just about every topic one can imagine :)
I managed to read through this whole thread without racing to comment immediately.
I have often wondered why immunity carried vulnerability on it. I had noticed instances where creatures I've used had some immunity and not the vulnerability. I assumed it was a typo and played it out as if the vulnerability was there.
I have a question though: If a creature has a vulnerability, should it carry an immunity as well? I'm assuming not, since Mr. Reynolds wants to "errata the hell out of that."
*facepalm*
I'm going to errata the hell out of that.
Sean, didn't I ask you about this last summer? And I heard you say the exact same thing then! What am I, chopped liver?
*licks his arm*
Oh wait, I guess I am chopped liver. Hm, that's tastier than I thought it would be. Nevermind.
Sean, didn't I ask you about this last summer? And I heard you say the exact same thing then! What am I, chopped liver?
*licks his arm*
Oh wait, I guess I am chopped liver. Hm, that's tastier than I thought it would be. Nevermind.
No Human should be this delicious!- Invader Zim
|
*facepalm*
I'm going to errata the hell out of that.
Sean, didn't I ask you about this last summer? And I heard you say the exact same thing then! What am I, chopped liver?
*licks his arm*
Oh wait, I guess I am chopped liver. Hm, that's tastier than I thought it would be. Nevermind.
If Sean doesn't errata the hell out of that, we will make Todd Stewart overwrite the daemon book.
And when I say overwrite, I mean uberwrite. 300 page turn in for a 64 page book.
*facepalm*
I'm going to errata the hell out of that.
Sean, didn't I ask you about this last summer? And I heard you say the exact same thing then! What am I, chopped liver?
*licks his arm*
Oh wait, I guess I am chopped liver. Hm, that's tastier than I thought it would be. Nevermind.
If you asked me about something in summer, odds are I was in a Gen Con haze. :p
And you're not chopped liver, you're the wurst liver.
If you asked me about something in summer, odds are I was in a Gen Con haze. :pAnd you're not chopped liver, you're the wurst liver.
That must have been it then. Actually, you mumbled something about strangling Jason B. and then you wandered off. Sounds like GenCon haze to me.
Nope; vulnerabilities shouldn't automatically carry linked immunities at all.
Thanks for the reply, Mr. Jacobs. You're my favorite Giant Lizard on the forums. [/brownnose]
Sean Reynold's post of the millenium:
*facepalm*
I'm going to errata the hell out of that.
Didn't make sense for about half a second until I noticed "Developer" next to his name. Then it made a ton of sense. And I smiled on the inside. And the outside.
I've never known a company with a national (international?) reach browse it's own forums to notice discrepancies and such. It's very cool.
Same for Mr. James Jacobs. I appreciate you guys listening to the community! Unlike some former companies I used to game with...something about a new edition that nobody liked...I dunno. :-)
A+ to Paizo's team!