Ultimate Wilderness: Was removing plant immunities really necessary?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

51 to 57 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

*sees a mushroom approach, and the poison-laced caltrops disappearing.* At least it's not the lizard that could actually poison me. I probably still need to retreat before he seeds me.


It's way more likely that a given poison will work on both people and plants (how many herbicides are safe to eat?) than that a given disease will infect both (like never AFAIK). But plants have never had immunity to diseases.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

I just had a player completely annihilate my campaign with his delicious immunities.

It also doesn't make sense for a plant based race to have a mind and not have anything interact with it.

Does it make sense for an undead with a mind not to have anything interact with it? A serpentfolk? Intellect devourers?

In my games only mindless undead are immune to mind-effecting.

Immunity to Mind-Effecting for creatures with intelligence scores is best left to specific creatures to actually make those creatures special.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am fine with constructs and undead being immune to mind-affecting effects. I am glad that they are no longer immune to crits and precision damage. I can understand plant creatures being immune to mind-affecting effects unless they are a player race but a 0HD plant race not being immune to sleep and paralysis still doesn't make sense to me.


captain yesterday wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Mary Mary Quite Contrary wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

So it seems this change might actually increase options for many tables, and other tables dissatisfied with the change will likely continue to keep the immunities if they wish.

Seems like it will only be a problem if the GMs and their players happen to disagree on the matter.

I disagree with that.
Was that a joke? If not, would you care to elaborate?

I thought the use of an alias made it fairly obvious.

Yes, it's a joke. :-)

Its ok. I got it.


Ravingdork wrote:
The Ghorum from the Inner Sea Beastiary and the Bestiary V and the Gathlains from the Advanced Race Guide are reprinted races with the Plant type that have been cut down.

I know I'm a bit late to the party here, but Gathlain are Fey, not Plants. They have a symbiotic relationship with a plant, but they aren't plants themselves.

Unless Ultimate Wilderness changed them into Plants, in which case I retract my pedantry.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Kristal Moonhand wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
The Ghorum from the Inner Sea Beastiary and the Bestiary V and the Gathlains from the Advanced Race Guide are reprinted races with the Plant type that have been cut down.

I know I'm a bit late to the party here, but Gathlain are Fey, not Plants. They have a symbiotic relationship with a plant, but they aren't plants themselves.

Unless Ultimate Wilderness changed them into Plants, in which case I retract my pedantry.

Gathlains are still Fey.

51 to 57 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Ultimate Wilderness: Was removing plant immunities really necessary? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.