|
All the APs have a pretty solid variety of enemies. I wouldn't expect electricity focus to give you a huge leg up, honestly.
That said, I also don't think it'll be a really bad choice like cold specialization in Reign of Winter.
So, if the wizard has a fun concept that wants electricity specialization, they should go for it.
Cheers!
Landon
Just remember, some robots have hardness. you must apply hardness before applying the energy vulnerability. Being focused on one energy type is tough, fundamentally wise, you will be great against robots. But not against demon's etc, if I were to do it, I would go for a mixture.
1/3 electricity spells, 2/3 versatility.
For example assuming 18 int:
1st level wizard
2 1st Magic Missle, Shocking Grasp
(make a 2 scrolls of mage armor, and shocking grasp) - Total Cost 50gp (average starting wealth 70 gp)
3rd level wizard
3 1st Magic Missle, shocking grasp x2
2 2nd Acid Arrow, Protection from arrows
(make a 3 scrolls of mage armor, and shocking grasp) (this will be two scrolls caster level 3) total cost 225 gp (3,000 gp is starting)
5th level wizard
4 1st shocking grasp x3, mage armor
3 2nd Acid Arrow, Protection from arrows x2
2 3rd Haste (or Fly which is my preference), Lightning bolt
(make a 4 scrolls of mage armor, shocking grasp, and 2 lightning bolt - total 2 scrolls) total cost 687 gp (10,500 average starting wealth)
Our group actually puts into a party fund for healing and scrolls. The rogue in our group always takes Use Magic Device, so he can also use scrolls as well.
Side note: if playing an android, instead of protection from arrows you can take "make whole" and heal yourself :) An Android Robot Slayer! Thematic effect when casting an electricity spell your nanites begin to glow as you cast your spell :)
Actually, you apply the vulnerability BEFORE the hardness.
With objects, you divide the damage by 2 and then subtract the hardness. In effect, objects have a 50% resistance to energy damage.
With Robots, you would multiply the damage by 150% (Increasing it by 50% as per vulnerability) and then subtract the hardness.
Multiplication before subtraction!
So let's say you are a Red Dragon, and you cast resist energy (cold), you are saying that when you do cone of cold 10d6 points of damage so to speak and you have a lowly cold resistance of 20, you inflict 15d6 points of damage then apply cold resistance.
Remember, this isn't an empowered spell.
You increase the damage the creature takes by 50%, not increase the spells effect by 50%.
the damage goes into a parenthesis (10d6-10)*1.5 when determining the effect.
Much like when using an injury poison against a monster with DR. you apply DR before determining if poison takes effect.
Fast Healing = recover wounds
Damage reduction = reduces damage
Way I explain this:
Hardness:
When an object is damaged, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object's hit points.
Plus Vulnerability:
A creature with vulnerabilities takes half again as much damage (+50%) from a specific energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure.
Equals
When an object is damaged, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object's hit points. A creature with vulnerabilities takes half again as much damage (+50%) from a specific energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure.
This goes with resistance as well.
here's the source page.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lyfg?Protection-Resistance-and-Vulnerability
If a red dragon has Resist Energy (Cold) with 20 resist and is then hit by a 10d6 Cone of Cold, you would roll the 10d6, multiply it by 50%, then subtract 20.
If it were the other way around (Lets go back to the Robots), then Robots with a Hardiness of 10 would be immune to any electricity damage of 10 or lower, regardless if they have vulnerability or not.
Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.
In this case, objects apply multiplication first, then subtraction. One can only assume then that the same goes for vulnerability.
If we had a Dragon statue in place of the dragon and it was hit by a 10d6 Cone of Cold, it would look like this: (If it has Hardness 20)
(10d6 / 2) - 20.
Not (10d6-20)/2. Multiplication obviously comes before subtraction as-exactly-written by the rules, so it makes sense that it would be the same when vulnerability is applied to a creature who also has hardness/resist.
Almost, almost. Remember, they are not Objects. they are creatures.
this was covered by James Jacobs earlier.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rez1?Robot-Hardness-Questions
>.> actually, it was even agreed upon by Crustypeanut as well, lol.
I'm well aware of that thread, as JJ even agreed with me on how it was ruled. But we're not discussing that.
Robots, even though they have Hardness, do not take half damage from energy attacks. Hardness is exactly like Resist when it comes to energy attacks. It just also happens to act as damage reduction as well.
However, Vulnerability to a certain energy is, in effect, similar to how Objects have Resist Energy 50%. All Objects (Unless specified by a GM's discretion) take half damage from energy attacks. All creatures with Vulnerability (Energy Type) take 50% extra damage from (Energy Type). Just as Objects half energy damage before applying hardness, then creatures with Vulnerability (Energy Type) multiply energy damage by 50% before applying hardness or resist.
Here is an example.
Robot #1 has Vulnerability (Electricity) and Hardness 10.
Player #1 hits Robot #1 with a 10d6 Fireball. Robot takes 10d6 then subtracts 10 from it.
Player #1, realizing that fire isn't as effective against the Robot, uses a 10d6 Lightning Bolt instead. Robot takes (10d6*1.5) then subtracts 10 from it, effectively empowering the Lightning Bolt due to the Robot's vulnerability.
remember the golden rule:
you apply it in the method most favorable to the defender.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nwj0?Energy-Vulnerability-Question
This is the key portion:
A critical hit for example: A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together. Unless otherwise specified, the threat range for a critical hit on an attack roll is 20, and the multiplier is ×2.
So when you score a crit, let's say with a longsword you would roll 2d8+(str+additional modifiers x2). you total up the damage and then apply damage reduction if any.
Vulnerability doesn't state that you roll damage and an additional half. It states a creature takes an additional 50% more points of damage. Now, Empower spell does :)
If Vulnerability stated "creatures vulnerable to this energy type are treated as if all variable, numeric effects are increased by half, including bonuses to those dice rolls." then you would be absolutely correct.
Vulnerability states : A creature with vulnerabilities takes half again as much damage (+50%) from a specific energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure.
So if I did an attack that did 14 points of electricity damage, after applying hardness 10, means I dealt 4 points of electricity after hardness, inflicting a total of 6 points of damage.
Hm alright well looking into more depth on it, it does seem you are correct, though it irks me to run it that way, as it just feels off. It also makes Robots a helluva lot more dangerous, as even a 3rd level Shocking Grasp is more likely to do no damage than it is to do damage to a robot, even though the robot has vulnerability.
It would be nice to have an official statement from JJ though, just to clarify.
(Also, I do apologize if I came off like a b+%@*$*+ earlier :P I tend to do that when discussing rules)
I hear ya, I am the same way :p two stubborn DM's don't make it right. That's why we have the old trusty golden rule:
you apply it in the method most favorable to the defender.
Although there is always this way if you want to easy it down for player's though:
Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.
If player's want an easier time I go with this portion right here:
Electricity inflicts regular damage, but all other energy attacks deal half damage, and then apply hardness to determine actual hit point damage.
But that was over-ruled by JJ.
Luckily for my players then that they don't rely on energy damage; They have Groog the Barbarian with 22 strength. When not raging. Even though I only gave 'em 15 point builds, he dumped Int/Wis/Cha and is playing a child-like Orc. 5 Int, 5 Wis, and 5 Cha. Its been rather hilarious, though they haven't met up with any robots yet.
They won't deal with too many that have hardness.
Adamantine Weapons = Robot/Golem/Animated object slayers.
By the way, my bad:
Vulnerable to Electricity: Robots take 150% as much
damage as normal from electricity attacks, unless they
are immune to electricity through other special defenses.
So it isn't Energy Vulnerability. It's Vulnerable to Electricity, they just used two words that create conflict.
Think it should be named "Electricity susceptibility" that would destroy any arguments as it is it's own unique trait.
So wait, I was right, in the sense for robots? (And only robots?)
Bah. Confused. They still subtract the Hardness from the electricity, aye? It just seems like its the exact same thing but worded differently.
So wait, I was right, in the sense for robots? (And only robots?)
Bah. Confused. They still subtract the Hardness from the electricity, aye? It just seems like its the exact same thing but worded differently.
** spoiler omitted **
created a post in the Iron gods requesting someone to look, as we are going way off topic.
Very interesting discussion, it seems that Oliver Veyrac is correct, thanks that really helps.
By the same logic an enemy with vulnerability to fire that has a CL 10+ protection from energy fire cast on him, would need 120 points of fire damage before the spell discharged without counting the +50% vulnerability.