| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Protective Slime (Su) A layer of acidic slime coats a babau's skin. Any creature that strikes a babau with a natural attack or unarmed strike takes 1d8 points of acid damage from this slime if it fails a DC 18 Reflex save. A creature that strikes a babau with a melee weapon must make a DC 18 Reflex save or the weapon takes 1d8 points of acid damage; if this damage penetrates the weapon's hardness, the weapon gains the broken condition. Ammunition that strikes a babau is automatically destroyed after it inflicts its damage.
Most melee weapons have metal striking surfaces or edges (Clubs, Quarterstaves, etc., being the exceptions), with a hardness of 10. The Babau's protective slime will never be able to affect them in that case. Is this an intentional change, or a problem with the altered wording? Following is the 3.x version of the same:
Protective Slime (Su): A slimy red jelly coats the babau’s skin. Any weapon that touches it takes 1d8 points of acid damage from the corrosive goo, and the weapon’s hardness does not reduce this damage. A magic weapon may attempt a DC 18 Reflex save to avoid taking this damage. A creature who strikes the babau with an unarmed attack, unarmed strike, touch spell, or natural weapon takes this damage as well but can negate the damage with a DC 18 Reflex save. The save DCs are Constitution-based.
In the older version, hardness was ignored, making the slime highly effective against most melee weapons. The new version is largely ineffective.. most of the time, it will have no effect. Sometimes, however, it may result in immediate breakage of wooden weapons.
I think this is intentional. In 3.5, there was no such thing as the broken condition for objects - objects which took more damage than they have hit points were simply destroyed. It seems like paizo wants to not make destroying a pc's hard won magic items such a trivial thing as it was in 3.5.
Most melee weapons have metal striking surfaces or edges (Clubs, Quarterstaves, etc., being the exceptions), with a hardness of 10. The Babau's protective slime will never be able to affect them in that case.
I'd assume this was done by the same editors who made Prone Shooter a feat that had no benefit.
Not only are metal weapons totally immune (hardness 10 against 8 damage maximum), even wooden weapons are mostly unharmed by the average damage (hardness 5 against an average of 4.5 damage).
I agree some change was intentional, but I wonder if there is an error in over-doing it.
Previously, it was "save or take 1d8 damage to the weapon". Eventually, the weapon could be destroyed.
Now, it is, "save or.. if you have a wooden weapon (hardness 5), there is a 3-in-8 chance that it becomes broken immediately and accumulates 1, 2, or 3 hp damage toward being destroyed... if you have a metal weapon (hardness 10), never mind, nothing happens."
Where I suspect an error is in metal weapons taking no damage at all regardless of whether the save is successful... because the 1d8 damage can never beat the 10 hardness of the metal weapons (blades, metal hafted, etc.).
Edit: Ninja'd... I really need to compose faster.
Where I suspect an error is in metal weapons taking no damage at all regardless of whether the save is successful... because the 1d8 damage can never beat the 10 hardness of the metal weapons (blades, metal hafted, etc.).
The acid is applied to the weapon as a whole, NOT just the striking edge. Weapons with wooded hafts are vulnerable to this.
And the rules have been vague on what weapons can have what handles since 3E.
Where I suspect an error is in metal weapons taking no damage at all regardless of whether the save is successful... because the 1d8 damage can never beat the 10 hardness of the metal weapons (blades, metal hafted, etc.).The acid is applied to the weapon as a whole, NOT just the striking edge. Weapons with wooded hafts are vulnerable to this.
And the rules have been vague on what weapons can have what handles since 3E.
Agreed.
However according to Table of Common Weapon, Armor, and Shield Hardness and Hitpoints (Scroll all the way down), Light Blades, One-Handed Blades, Two-Handed Blades, Light Metal-Hafted Weapons, and One-Handed Metal-Hafted Weapons all have hardness 10. Light Hafted Weapons, One-Handed Hafted Weapons, Two-Handed Hafted Weapons, and Projectile Weapons all have hardness 5.Some are easily classified.. a bow, or a composite bow, is a projectile weapon. So is a crossbow. Swords are clearly blades. Some are less-easily classified. Axes? They're blades, and hafted. Pole-arms and quarterstaves are clearly hafted... but are they metal or wood?
But that's a side issue. Confusion about the nature of the haft, if any, of a weapon will persist as its own issue regardless of the question raised here, which is: "Is it intentional that the Babau Demon's protective slime has no effect at all on weapons with a hardness of 8 (or greater)?"
Reminder: Magic weapons add +2 to the hardness (and +10 to the hit points) per +, so a wooden weapon with a bonus of +2 or more is also immune to the Babau's slime.
Edit: Fixed reminder about weapon enhancement bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry about the necro, but how do I find the relevant FAQ? It says it was answered but I can't find a link to it. I tried checking FAQs for the Core Rulebook, Advanced Class Guide, Advanced Player Guide, and Bestiary but didn't find it in any of those.
"Answered in the FAQ" unfortunately doesn't always mean it was answered. Apparently, they didn't have an option to make it "No Answer Needed" or something, and needed to make it "answered" to clear it from their list. I think they may have a way to do so now, but didn't back then.
Generally, if it was actually answered, they post the relevant FAQ in the thread that started it.