A situation came up in our last game session where we were up against a number of Dretches. The DM was under the impression that the Dretches would be immune to their own Stinking Cloud spell-like ability. There's nothing that I know of that would provide that immunity in general however. The only thing that might apply as far as I know would be their immunity to Poison. Does that apply in this case? Is there anything else that I've missed that might allow them to avoid the effects of the Stinking Cloud (even the vision blocking)?
The Dretches have nothing that makes them immune to stinking cloud -- poison immunity works on cloudkill however.
Actually, Stinking cloud got the new poison descriptor in UM. As such, poison resistance (like a dwarf's hary trait) and immunity apply to it.
Creatures with resistance to poison (such as dwarves) apply that resistance to their saving throws and the effects of poison spells.
Creatures with immunity are immune to poisonous aspects of poison spells, but not necessarily all effects of the spell (for example, a spell that creates a pit full of liquid poison could still trap or drown a poison-immune creature).
Poison: accelerate poison**, cloudkill, ghoul touch (stench aspect only), poison, putrefy food and drink**, stinking cloud, transmute potion to poison**, venomous bolt**
Poison Immunity Wins
Ooh neat that does change things -- though what about the cloud effect?
As already quoted:
Creatures with immunity are immune to poisonous aspects of poison spells, but not necessarily all effects of the spell (for example, a spell that creates a pit full of liquid poison could still trap or drown a poison-immune creature).
So the could stil applies and negates sight.
However, I'd like to know how thsis works with the hardy trait of the dwarves. Do they get just +2 to their save or +4 (+2 for spel and +2 for poison). And what about dwarves with the Steel Soul feat?
As already quoted:
Creatures with immunity are immune to poisonous aspects of poison spells, but not necessarily all effects of the spell (for example, a spell that creates a pit full of liquid poison could still trap or drown a poison-immune creature).So the could stil applies and negates sight.
However, I'd like to know how thsis works with the hardy trait of the dwarves. Do they get just +2 to their save or +4 (+2 for spel and +2 for poison). And what about dwarves with the Steel Soul feat?
I don't think they'd stack as they're both typed as Racial bonuses. I'm not familiar with Steel Soul off the top of my head.
Steel Soul increases the bonus of Hardy by 2, but only against spells and SLAs (not poison). Makes dwarves with high saves (monks, clerics, inquisitors) even more untouchable.
But yeah, I just checked and noticed that hardy is typed as racial. Thought it was untyped. Guess that means it's +2 to saves against poison spells without steel soul and +4 with the feat.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Is this updating of the spell descriptors of Core spells something that will folded back into the Core Rules via Errata?
It seems... disturbing for rules changes/clarifications like this pop into new products, but (potentially) not the original product.
Even if they don´t EXPLAIN the poison descriptor, it´s presence would be enough of a clue that bonuses/immunity to poison would apply.
Wow, now I need to read Ultimate Magic to understand what spells in the core rules do? That sucks.
(Note: I like the change personally, but I don't like how it was implemented by changing how a core spell works outside the actual core rules.)
The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
Racial bonuses do, in fact, stack! Dwarves rejoice!
Is this updating of the spell descriptors of Core spells something that will folded back into the Core Rules via Errata?
It seems... disturbing for rules changes/clarifications like this pop into new products, but (potentially) not the original product.
Even if they don´t EXPLAIN the poison descriptor, it´s presence would be enough of a clue that bonuses/immunity to poison would apply.
Nothing in the online PRD which I would have thought would have been the obvious place to change first if it is errata.
If UM has put a whole new range of descriptors on spells on the sly (so to speak) that is really sucky IMO
The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.Racial bonuses do, in fact, stack! Dwarves rejoice!
So with Steel Soul that's a +6 on saves against poison spells like Stinking Cloud? And that's ON TOP of the natural high constitution? Wow... Gotta play a dwarf really soon.
Creative Director
|
| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
Stinking cloud should have said "this is a poison effect" in its text. It doesn't, alas. I'll flag that for errata. Hiding that information in another book is not optimal, and it's not something we intended to do, nor is it something we'll be doing more of. If I can help it, that is.
Stinking cloud should have said "this is a poison effect" in its text. It doesn't, alas. I'll flag that for errata.
Cool thanks (:
Stinking cloud should have said "this is a poison effect" in its text. It doesn't, alas. I'll flag that for errata. Hiding that information in another book is not optimal, and it's not something we intended to do, nor is it something we'll be doing more of. If I can help it, that is.
Is there an eta for the new round of errata in the works, brave leader?
|
Creative Director
|
Stinking cloud should have said "this is a poison effect" in its text. It doesn't, alas. I'll flag that for errata. Hiding that information in another book is not optimal, and it's not something we intended to do, nor is it something we'll be doing more of. If I can help it, that is.Is there an eta for the new round of errata in the works, brave leader?
Nope.
It'll happen when and if we reprint, and we have plenty in stock right now.
It'll happen when and if we reprint, and we have plenty in stock right now.
Ah well that's fair. I'll just hope for an updated and indexed FAQ section then!
Stinking cloud should have said "this is a poison effect" in its text. It doesn't, alas. I'll flag that for errata. Hiding that information in another book is not optimal, and it's not something we intended to do, nor is it something we'll be doing more of. If I can help it, that is.
Awesome to hear. It´s totally understandable when new product/re-print schedules aren´t exactly in sync, and I don´t expect you guys to wait to change things in new products until the old ones are actually Errata´d (and THEN Errata the new product when you already ID´d the problem before it´s 1st run... how silly would that be?)
So this more or less seems on par with the change to Grab´s size restriction or whatever in the Bestiary 2. I think the most important thing for you guys is having a system so anybody implementing minor changes like this has an easy way to ´flag´ it for up-stream/previous products to see Errata on.
Incidentally, is updating stuff like Spell Stat Blocks in the Core Rule Book to include APG, UM, etc, classes at all in the cards? It´s minorly frustrating to not be able to flip thru Core Rule spells and be able to see what class can cast it/make items of it/etc, and need to cross-reference another spell list. I can see why you guys might not do this right away (HEY, there´s plenty of other real Errata), but it seems like ´at some point´, it´s something that should be done... Maybe it could be saved for a ´PRPG 1.5´ or whatever.
|
Creative Director
|
Incidentally, is updating stuff like Spell Stat Blocks in the Core Rule Book to include APG, UM, etc, classes at all in the cards? It´s minorly frustrating to not be able to flip thru Core Rule spells and be able to see what class can cast it/make items of it/etc, and need to cross-reference another spell list. I can see why you guys might not do this right away (HEY, there´s plenty of other real Errata), but it seems like ´at some point´, it´s something that should be done... Maybe it could be saved for a ´PRPG 1.5´ or whatever.
Nope; not in the cards. For the same reason, but in reverse. We want the Core Rulebook to be self-contained. Someone should be able to play the game using just that book and not feel like he's got an incomplete game. Labeling all the spells in the Core Rulebook as needed as witch or summoner or magus or whatever spells would make the Core Rulebook feel incomplete, and that's not what we want it to feel like.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Nope.
It'll happen when and if we reprint, and we have plenty in stock right now.
As much as I can appreciate you all coming out with Ultimate Combat, The Beginner Box, Adventure Paths, Modules, Companions, etc., the FAQ & Errata is absolutely critical. This should have the same priority as all your other products. You guys have been putting it off for a while now and it is time that this be given real work time. Supporting previous products is important to keeping subscribers, bringing in new subscribers, and over-all business.
I truly hope that you all will give the FAQ & Errata the time and work that it needs. Do keep up the good work but never forget that we customers are looking for these things all the time.
Regardless of what may or may not happen with future printings of the Core Rulebook and/or the PRD, d20pfsrd.com is now fully updated with all the new descriptors on all spells that get/got them, as well as adding little warning flags to each such spell indicating the change.
And we love you for it brother.
|
Nope.
It'll happen when and if we reprint, and we have plenty in stock right now.
As much as I can appreciate you all coming out with Ultimate Combat, The Beginner Box, Adventure Paths, Modules, Companions, etc., the FAQ & Errata is absolutely critical. This should have the same priority as all your other products. You guys have been putting it off for a while now and it is time that this be given real work time. Supporting previous products is important to keeping subscribers, bringing in new subscribers, and over-all business.
I truly hope that you all will give the FAQ & Errata the time and work that it needs. Do keep up the good work but never forget that we customers are looking for these things all the time.
+1
It has been a long time since we got some decent FAQ answers. I know you guys are busy but supporting existing products is as important as pumping out new ones.
|
Creative Director
|
I truly hope that you all will give the FAQ & Errata the time and work that it needs. Do keep up the good work but never forget that we customers are looking for these things all the time.
I truly hope so as well. I've been doing what I can to speed it along... but it's mostly out of my hands.
|
Creative Director
|
... supporting existing products is as important as pumping out new ones.
From one viewpoint, yes. But from a financial viewpoint... that's not the case. It's more important to keep releasing new products than it is to support existing ones from a short-term cash flow view.
And since we can't really even HAVE long-term views if the short term ones collapse... it's kinda just a fact of life that putting out new products is always going to have a bigger push behind it than something like the FAQ.
Now, hopefully we can soon get a better balance between those two aspects, but one thing you won't see us do is "turn off" the product spigot for a few months just so we'll be able to devote only that time to the FAQ.
Stinking cloud should have said "this is a poison effect" in its text. It doesn't, alas. I'll flag that for errata. Hiding that information in another book is not optimal, and it's not something we intended to do, nor is it something we'll be doing more of. If I can help it, that is.Is there an eta for the new round of errata in the works, brave leader?Nope.
It'll happen when and if we reprint, and we have plenty in stock right now.
I dislike this philosophy. I would much rather see one where errata is released every so often (every 3 months?), and when a reprint is needed the current errata is incorporated, rather than using the errata as a change list from one printing to the next. Even if the in-between errata were released as a list of "pending errata," or a beta, or minor version numbers, or whatever, and the "official" errata only came out when a new printing did, it'd still be good to have.
I think more errata and FAQ stuff would be cool, but the fact James showed up here to give us some guidance is cool too. Maybe some of us should offer to go to Paizo and work for free as an errata interns. I'm not down for that myself since like JJ I need to spend my time on stuff which makes money.