| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Liquid", so it can destroy liquid mercury but not ice?
Sounds right. Or magma but not a damp sponge.
The ability's wording may need a little 'interpretation' by the GM to get where you expect it to end up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Liquid", so it can destroy liquid mercury but not ice?Sounds right. Or magma but not a damp sponge.
The ability's wording may need a little 'interpretation' by the GM to get where you expect it to end up.
But what about it using its ability to destroy a potion sponge?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But what about it using its ability to destroy a potion sponge?"Liquid", so it can destroy liquid mercury but not ice?Sounds right. Or magma but not a damp sponge.
The ability's wording may need a little 'interpretation' by the GM to get where you expect it to end up.
Mhar awakens, everyone dies.
This was already necro'd so it totally counts that I can make the most important comment this thread was missing for the last six years:
Oh! Oh! I recall this from Star Trek, where people were reduced to a tiny dehydrated cube. IIRC some of them were also reconstituted, with no ill effects. Hilarious!
I know, right?!
And when in Batman when Joker gets all the baddies together to do that to the whole UN! Little piles of dust they then vacuum up! And later, put them back onto the chair and add water, and poof! They're back!
It's great!
I'm still looking for a quote on that, but with so many people saying that this is something the Devs have stated *Somewhere* it does now appear to me that Simon's premise and interpretation may be the official one, and not just a different basic assumption to read the rules under.
I disagreed with Simon because I couldn't find anything in the book (or with a google search) to suggest that his premise was correct, and therefore read his posts as him approaching RAW with a basic premise that was incorrect, and therefore reaching incorrect conclusions.
I still can't find anything in an official published source to suggest his premise is at all correct, but I've heard a couple times now that the Devs have officially stated this position *Somewhere*, so I probably have been reading it wrong.
@Suthainn;
I will keep that in mind in the future when it comes to Pathfinder.It would have been helpful to me if that assumption/baseline rule/whatever was actually stated somewhere in the rules themselves, since that is the opposite premise of how a other games work (lots of games simply wouldn't run at all if that premise was applied), and apparently most of the people I have gamed with in the past 15 years have been reading RAW under the opposite baseline assumption (if the rules logically state that something would happen but don't spell out how, the GM needs to make a decision on *How* -Not If- it works), and therefore reaching different conclusions.
Its frustrating to me that this seems to be an unwritten rule that can drastically change how a good portion of the game functions, which you would have to actually ask the developers about to get an official answer for because its not in the book anywhere (you could easily read the rules under either assumption). (It is *possible* that I have just missed it every time I looked at the book, but...
Yes. And yes, we have already established that an assumption of Pathfinder which is never stated anywhere in the book is not an assumption I was aware of before last week (though at this point the only evidence I have found of this is the widespread opinion of other forum goers).
Oh, hey, in more relevant and proooooooobably useful set of posts to bring up, here Stephen Radney-MacFarland (Designer) says I'm a putz (), Stephen Radney-MacFarland (Designer) says that monster design is significantly less rigid than PC design.
It still isn't exactly what we're looking for, but it should help out that, when interpreting that rules, the Dev team has a looser view of what counts as RAW than many of their players do, and even more so for monsters than PC abilities.
EDIT: And one more from the man, the legend, the myth, the Radney-MacFarland, just so we're all on the same page. :D