It is stated in the campaign, that the worms can be killed by a remove curse or remove disease spell. The Periapt of Health makes the wearer immune to all supernatural diseases. Does this stop the worms from being able to do ability damage? I don't want one item to stop the worms, but I don't want to cheat the players either.
The Worms are not a disease, per se, rather they are parasites. The use of Remove Disease is there, in my opinion, for two reasons: 1) It gives the players a way of dealing with the Worms that isn't limited to high-level spell-casters (as Paladins and others have access to this spell) and 2) it is in keeping with other parasites in various books.
The Periapt of Health is a useful item for avoiding diseases like Mummy Rot and Lycanthropy, but it doesn't remove the threat of burrowing parasites which get inside a person and begin warping them.
I don't think you're cheating the PC's at all - there are enough ways to counter the Green Worms that a magic item which makes them immune to such beasts is not truly necessary.
Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with allowing players to use the item to prevent worm infestation. To use the periapt, players have to give up a neck slot, which can be used for any number of incredibly useful items. A cleric, for example, has to give up a periapt of wisdom, which boosts his Will save, and spellcasting ability. A monk has to give up an amulet of mighty fists, which boosts her natural attacks. Finally, a fighter has to give up an amulet of natural armor, which boosts his AC. Those are some pretty big sacrifices, for what is, essentially, very little gain.
Also, becoming infested is notoriously difficult. Each worm has 1 hit point, and can be killed by normal means, or by simply touching them with silver. It also takes most worms 1 round to burrow into a creature's flesh. That means that players should have plenty of time to kill the worms before they become infested. Finally, even if the players do become infested, it only takes one spell to remove the infestation. So in my opinion, if players want to waste 7,500 gp in order to prevent something that is likely never going to affect them, then I say more power to them.
One last thing. I think you have to take into account how your decision ultimately makes you look as a DM. If you allow players to use the periapt of health, you're forcing them to make some pretty difficult choices about their character builds that may wind up working to your advantage in the long run. In the meantime, you wind up looking like a good guy because it looks like you're rewarding player ingenuity. On the other hand, if you don't allow players to use the periapt of health, then there's nothing stopping them from taking items that will certainly boost their characters' abilities overall. In the meantime, you look like a jerk because it seems like you arbitrarily made a decision to disallow an item that is arguably designed for this very purpose.
Given those choices, I would say allow the item. It's free for you and cheap for them! :)
This point has seen some debate over the years, no surprise to see it again. I beleive James Jacobs mentioned that his "semi-official" opinion was that the amulet will not protect agains the worms, nor would class abilities like Paladin divine health. Effectively, while the worms can be killed by remove disease, they are not actually a disease, and thus can not be blocked as one. Kind of like getting burned by a microwave is heat, but its not fire. If that makes any sense at all.
Ultimately, it really depends on the tone you want to set for the game. You can go "heroic fight against the forces of darkness" in which the PCs enjoy the protection of the amulet, or you can go "grim scramble for survival against the squirming corruption" in which they don't.
Consider though, a group of Spawn of Kyuss could throw their worms at a single target, which could make it problematic for them to save themselves. Six or seven worms on a single person will likely allow one to get through to infect, even with assistance from allies.
I believe James Jacobs mentioned that his "semi-official" opinion was that the amulet will not protect agains the worms, nor would class abilities like Paladin divine health.
James Jacobs is wrong! And he supports terrorism! :)
I'm just kidding. Seriously, I think you can rule it either way and it's fine. I just think if you can say yes to your players, and it doesn't break the game, then why not?
Hiya.
In my campaign, it's not going to work. Then again, I'm not using 3.x, so it's kind of a moot point. But, if I was using 3e...I'd rule the worms are too 'multi-cellular' to be classified as simply 'diseases'.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
|
Given the spoilers in the cleric preview, Remove Disease and other automatic cures are going to be downgraded in the final PF rules, to require something similar to a caster level check vs the affliction's severity DC.
If your game does port over to PF (which I've hinted I may do, if it resolves some of the high-level headaches), this should put some uncertainty back into the game, and make it less of a plot-spoiler for the PCs to wear an amulet, assuming the effects translate into the new item rules.
I'd allow the amulet to provide the effects of a new Remove Disease spell every round, making it effectively automatic vs regular slow-acting infections, but making it more of a nail-biter vs the fast-burrowing worms.
|
|
Can someone confirm that the writers stated the worms still bypass Paladins' Divine Health?
And that the damage they do is temporary, curable via Lesser Restoration?
Only, my PCs just fought the first spawn at Blackwall Keep, and the one who took the brunt was the paladin with Int 6, who took 3 Int damage...I want to make sure if I have a drooling moron on my hands, or if he can be brought back to 'normal'.
It's damage, not drain, so it is restorable via Lesser Restoration. Lets not get into how that spell can apparently regrow portions of the brain that have been eaten, but it takes a much higher level spell to regrow a severed pinky finger or earlobe.
Do a search in the Age of Worms archives for "remove disease" or "kyuss worms paladin divine health" and you'll likely find the thread were James Jacobs added his two cents.
*Edit* Here they are.
I allowed items that convey immunity to disease to block the ability damage and subsequent turning and it didn't break the game. As the AP progresses, they're going to be fighting tons of things that are literally dripping with these worms, and I felt that with the risk of getting splattered EVERY TIME a character does melee damage in addition to every hit by a Kyuss thingie resulting in a worm transfer, I would soon have mulitple groups of Kyuss turned, worm dripping heroes if I DIDN'T allow it.
Basically, there was a desperate scramble at the low level games for the PCs to find things to make them immune, which was lovely to watch. Not all of them found items, so the remainder continually make sure they're stocked up on things that do the same thing. It's rewarding players for taking the threat seriously and making sure they spend resources one way or another to deal with it.
Also, it doesn't remove the physical bite damage, so I still play up the "ick" factor of worms hitting, biting, and burrowing under the skin... continuing to move "upstream" for a few seconds before the warding kicks in and they die.
I just finished the 11th module last weekend, and my players STILL shudder around the table when the worms crawl out... one even brought gummy worms for everone to munch on.
One last thing. I think you have to take into account how your decision ultimately makes you look as a DM. If you allow players to use the periapt of health, you're forcing them to make some pretty difficult choices about their character builds that may wind up working to your advantage in the long run. In the meantime, you wind up looking like a good guy because it looks like you're rewarding player ingenuity. On the other hand, if you don't allow players to use the periapt of health, then there's nothing stopping them from taking items that will certainly boost their characters' abilities overall. In the meantime, you look like a jerk because it seems like you arbitrarily made a decision to disallow an item that is arguably designed for this very purpose.
That's some of the best DMing advice I've seen on the boards (which are full of good DMing advice. Kudos!
|
|
Basically, there was a desperate scramble at the low level games for the PCs to find things to make them immune, which was lovely to watch. Not all of them found items, so the remainder continually make sure they're stocked up on things that do the same thing. It's rewarding players for taking the threat seriously and making sure they spend resources one way or another to deal with it.
Bolded part by me.
I think this whole issue, and whether it's seen as a problem or not, is heavily affected by whether you are using the default assumption of the 'Magic Shop', where PCs can just pick up exactly what they want, at no notice.
If so, then it can be anticlimactic to introduce the threat of the worms, only to have the whole party turn up with anti-worm necklaces next session. As a DM, you play up the horror of the situation, only to have the players negate it. You can be forgiven for wondering 'Whyohwhy do I bother?'.
What should happen, even in a 'Magic Shop' economy, is that certain items will be in higher demand, once the news of the threat gets out.
Filge, Smenk, Kullen's gang, the survivors from Blackwall Keep, can all flap their mouths, and the PCs find there are strangely, no anti-disease items to be had, at least not for less than ten times book price, so must make their own.
It is stated in the campaign, that the worms can be killed by a remove curse or remove disease spell. The Periapt of Health makes the wearer immune to all supernatural diseases. Does this stop the worms from being able to do ability damage? I don't want one item to stop the worms, but I don't want to cheat the players either.
The common reasoning behind letting the periapt (& paladin ability) grant immunity to the worms is because they make the wearer (or paladin) immune to diseases. Remove disease gets rid of the worms, so ruling that anything else that gets rid of diseases also should work on the worms makes sense on an intuitive level.
But if you read the spell description for Remove Disease, it says that the spell does 2 things: "cures all diseases that the subject is suffering from" (shocking) AND "kills parasites". It's this second function that comes into play when the worms attack; they are clearly parasites. There's nothing in the rules stating the periapt or the paladin's class ability replicate this second function of Remove Disease - just the first part dealing with actual diseases. So as I read it, the periapt and Divine Health won't help without some sort of houserule in place to allow it.
I think that's why James Jacobs offered the ruling he did. To me it seems consistent with the rules as written, but do note that I'm certainly not suggesting that such a houserule would be inappropriate. That's a whole other question that IMO doesn't have any one right answer - as with all houserules, that depends on the campaign and the game group more than anything else.
So from where I sit, you're good to go and it's no cheat.
Kang
I think that's why James Jacobs offered the ruling he did. To me it seems consistent with the rules as written, but do note that I'm certainly not suggesting that such a houserule would be inappropriate.
Yeah; RAR generally mean less to me than a bowl of warm spit.
Yeah; RAR generally mean less to me than a bowl of warm spit.
There's a lovely image. I sort of suspected using the words, "rules," "as," and, "written," together and in that order would cause someone to start frothing at the mouth. I just didn't expect they'd want to save it for later! Apparently the, "but do note that I'm certainly not suggesting that such a houserule would be inappropriate," which I included immediately following those words was insufficient to placate you as I had intended.
I appreciate your position, but in this particular thread the original question did seem to be a request for an interpretation of the "RAR" as you call it (does the 2nd R stand for "ritten"?); so that is what I offered, and it had the added benefit of neither cheating the players nor allowing that single magic item to provide immunity to the worms, also as requested. I think I was pretty much on-topic there.
I must have missed the part where the OP asked for a vessel filled with your much-cherished tepid bodily secretions. Bon Appétit!
Kang
Apparently the, "but do note that I'm certainly not suggesting that such a houserule would be inappropriate," which I included immediately following those words was insufficient to placate you as I had intended.
Naw; I was placated as can be! ;) My reply was intended as agreement with your full statement, including the caveat you mention, with a note to the OP that maybe "RAW" shouldn't be looked up to as some sort of stone tablets (yes, the second "R" was as in the old RRR of "readin', 'ritin', and 'rithmetic.")
Loved your reply, BTW. I may start posting totally inane nonsense just to see how you'll spin the response... but first I must attend to my "precious bodily fluids" (if you're a Stanley Kubric fan).
...I must attend to my "precious bodily fluids" (if you're a Stanley Kubric fan).
You got lucky there; The Shining was a masterpiece, so you've got your official clearance to let'er rip. :o)
Glad you got a kick out of my retort & apologies if it was undeserved - hope you can understand how your bowl o'phlegm wasn't difficult to interpret as having been unduly directed into my face. I'll keep my eyes open for any more of your inane nonsense & try to oblige, LOL.
Peace,
Kang
|
|
Did the 'Egg Incident' at the Twisted Branch, which I totally had to make up for myself, what with there being no official ruling in the adventure.
Short story; party killed the evil lizardfolk, friends with the good druid, told about the dragon, agreed to kill Ilthane's newcomers (half-dragons, acid-resistant kobolds and a young dragon).
Go in, kill several defenders, the dragon and three kobolds have loud discussion about saving the precious egg, drag it to the centre of the pool, and flee. Short fight with baby dragon, who escapes, again (recurring thorn in their side). Paladin recognises dragon egg, and lops the top off. (Show player the picture, and laugh)
I assume there's enough worms to infect every egg in the place, so start with a base value of 200. Roll to see what percentage splatter on the paladin. Assume a base 1 in 20 of these (modified by a random die roll up or down +/-50%) landed in a weak spot in his armour, and start burrowing immediately. Scout throws last missile from the kenku's necklace at the roof, and fireballs him (this was discussed earlier...). Assume roughly half the worms are below the waterline, these and the embedded ones are safe from the flames, the rest burn to a crisp.
Net result is that he had 6 worms in him at the start of the battle, and potentially more could swim up through his legs on subsequent rounds. The rest of the worms attack the eggs (another issue altogether, with a separate minigame mechanic).
Assume the worms have a cure resistance as strong as the creature that sired them (hatchling black dragon HD), and the paladin's aura of purity washes his system with a strength equal to his own class level every round. This gave a roughly equal chance of killing each worm each round, rolled individually.
Net result was that even with some poor rolls, most of the worms didn't survive long enough to start dealing Int damage, though it got very close, with some new arrivals gnawing their way up the inside of his leg. Total Int damage of 3 points, from starting total of 6(!), before they were all eradicated.
I played up the horror of the situation, even on successful rolls, by having the dying worms thrash and squirm in their death throes, fighting to get away via any orifice possible. S#*%ting them out, vomiting, and being flushed out his urethra, nose and tear-ducts.
Just because a PC has resistance, doesn't mean the DM can't still have fun!
I played up the horror of the situation, even on successful rolls, by having the dying worms thrash and squirm in their death throes, fighting to get away via any orifice possible. s~%*ting them out, vomiting, and being flushed out his urethra, nose and tear-ducts.
Just because a PC has resistance, doesn't mean the DM can't still have fun!
Urethra!!!
You nasty, nasty DM!Consider that yoinked!
I played up the horror of the situation, even on successful rolls, by having the dying worms thrash and squirm in their death throes, fighting to get away via any orifice possible. s~%*ting them out, vomiting, and being flushed out his urethra, nose and tear-ducts.
Just because a PC has resistance, doesn't mean the DM can't still have fun!
Urethra!!!
You nasty, nasty DM!
Consider that yoinked!
Same here... gross, yet awesome!
Same here... gross, yet awesome!I played up the horror of the situation, even on successful rolls, by having the dying worms thrash and squirm in their death throes, fighting to get away via any orifice possible. s~%*ting them out, vomiting, and being flushed out his urethra, nose and tear-ducts.
Just because a PC has resistance, doesn't mean the DM can't still have fun!
Urethra!!!
You nasty, nasty DM!
Consider that yoinked!
After having read that post all I can say: +1!
That has to be the most creative and disgusting thing I can imagine.well done sir.