Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
You mean like Cannons?
And dragons are named after metals. Does this mean they get to punch the DR of that metal?
No?
Then the naming convention is immaterial to the abilities. They have the abilities they have. I don't see any rule where the name of a construct gives them extra abilities. Could you point that out for me in the universal monster rules? Construct traits?
==Aelryinth
Personally, I think the cannon golem looks like pieces of exploded canons, but I'll admit that might be bias on my part. So I'll be charitable and give you that exception.
But does that mean there isn't a naming convention? Note that I'm not saying it's a hard and fast rule--simply that it's the way it's usually done.
So, you didn't answer my question. Do you disagree that golems have a naming convention, specifically that they are usually named after the material they are made of?
|
Silver fox = fox made of silver.
I see we are on the same page!
Golden Retriever = retriever made of gold!
Rosy complexion = complexion made of roses!
Bald eagle = eagle with a bald head!
Red Robin = a Robin that is Red!
Since you seem to be stuck on this...
If the fox and Retriever where both constructs then yes i would say the fox is made of silver and the dog is made of gold (and that said dog would retrieve things) in this case they are named as such because they are that color.
If i did not know better and had no other information to go on, i would say a bald eagle was in fact and eagle that happens to be bald, after all there are birds without feathers on their heads, looking at you vultures, but we know they are not because we have other sources to give us more info and we can go an observe these things.
A red robin is actually red...
But within the context of the game, constructs, and golems are named after the materials they are made of so my argument on this matter holds more water then yours does at this point.
Ohhhh, so now there's a trait for constructs that says they get DR Punch of the material they are made of!
Oh, wait, no, there isn't. I guess being a construct doesn't do what you say.
==Aelryinth
Within the context of this post you avoided and ignored what i was actually saying. I was merely pointing out your flawed argument on the naming scheme you tried so hard to disprove. I am a simple man and target one problem at a time.
I decided to do some poking around on random science-y websites to get an idea of this. What follows is a vague babble based on the notes I found, and if there are any inaccuracies, I do ask you forgive me.
Golems are, roughly, man-shaped[citation needed]. Though, naturally, they tend to be of sizes that far exceed that of ordinary men.
But let's tackle this one step at a time.
The average human male weighs, in the Pathfinder universe, 140 pounds. This man is roughly the same density of water. If this man were made of iron, we multiply by iron's density compared to water (searches tells me 7.87) to get the metal man's weight. This gets us a metal man of 1101.8 pounds.
There is no data for how much adamantine weighs, but as it does not actually increase how much armor or weapons weigh, we can for the sake of brevity assume it's about as heavy as iron.
Now, the adamantine golem isn't man-sized. It's Huge, rather than Medium. So we need to increase the metal man's size a little. Following the square-cube law, every time we double the golem's size in all dimensions, we multiply its weight by 8. So a Large-sized metal man weighs 8814.4 pounds.
But this still isn't Huge, so we increase it again, doubling his dimentions and multiplying his weight by 8 again. This gets us to 70,515.2 pounds.
This all assumes an adamantine golem that is the same proportion among Huge-sized creatures as our average man is among Medium-sized creatures. It might not be entirely human-shaped, but this seems to be a good ballpark estimate for how much an adamantine golem weighs.
It would probably be more accurate to simply use an iron golem's weight(5,000 lbs) and take it from there. So, based off of an iron golem's weight at size large, a huge adamantine golem should weigh only 40,000 lbs, more than half the original estimate, but still quite a reduction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Writers tend not to understand how the whole square cube thing works. Which is why you have 300 pound nine foot tall monsters that should be defeatable just by offering them a ham sandwich.
Writers tend not to understand how the whole square cube thing works. Which is why you have 300 pound nine foot tall monsters that should be defeatable just by offering them a ham sandwich.
I always want to put a Fly spell on a gargantuan creature and have it just land on buildings/castles to collapse them.
Guys, there's a problem... The Adamantine material isn't stated to be considered as Adamantine either... What do we do?
I mean, you would think it did, right? But Silver Foxes aren't made of silver either, they're just called "Silver" Foxes (apparently).
But would it work if something had DR/Fox?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But would it work if something had DR/Fox?Guys, there's a problem... The Adamantine material isn't stated to be considered as Adamantine either... What do we do?
I mean, you would think it did, right? But Silver Foxes aren't made of silver either, they're just called "Silver" Foxes (apparently).
Foxes don't have an ability that says they bypass DR/fox. But it's a good houserule!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I read somewhere that the bite of an Irish wolfhound could kill a werewolf.
Because irish wolfhounds are werewolves with ranks in disguise.
...It's not totally out of the question to have a creature whose weakness is another type of creature. That occasionally pops up in folklore and mythology. XD
Does this mean dragons have DR magic or fey now?
So the CL 20 mental stat caster (said stat presumably buffed crazy style with headbands and tomes and such[cuz, ya know, CL 20]) didn't have the presence of mind to make ANY offensive contact surface of their crafting endeavor out of Adamantine? Then why, pray tell, did they bother making a construct out of said very rare material? Did they, after 2 years and half a million gold pieces (travel expenses yada yada) say "Now my masterpiece is complete! Behold my Adamantine filled rust bucket golem! Mwahahaha"? Also, look @ the GD picture on the entry and tell me what that monstrosity appears to be made of. Because it sure doesn't look like iron or whatever else you might say went into the crafting.
BTW, the bald eagle was named during a period of history when being "bald" meant having grey, white or silver colored hair. English has a tendency towards "linguistic drift".
One more thing. If there were such a thing as DR/ flesh, would a monks unarmed attacks not overcome it simply because the monk stat block doesn't state that his unarmed attacks are considered flesh for the purposes of overcoming DR in addition to CI, Magic, Silver, et al?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
One more thing. If there were such a thing as DR/ flesh, would a monks unarmed attacks not overcome it simply because the monk stat block doesn't state that his unarmed attacks are considered flesh for the purposes of overcoming DR in addition to CI, Magic, Silver, et al?
Nope! Without an ability that specifically calls out their unarmed strikes as counting as bypassing DR/flesh, how can we be sure the monk isn't punching people with his blood or his hair?
Besides, the monk is really only flesh plated, and we all know that doesn't count.
Within the context of this post you avoided and ignored what i was actually saying. I was merely pointing out your flawed argument on the naming scheme you tried so hard to disprove. I am a simple man and target one problem at a time.Silver fox = fox made of silver.
I see we are on the same page!
Golden Retriever = retriever made of gold!
Rosy complexion = complexion made of roses!
Bald eagle = eagle with a bald head!
Red Robin = a Robin that is Red!
Since you seem to be stuck on this...
If the fox and Retriever where both constructs then yes i would say the fox is made of silver and the dog is made of gold (and that said dog would retrieve things) in this case they are named as such because they are that color.
If i did not know better and had no other information to go on, i would say a bald eagle was in fact and eagle that happens to be bald, after all there are birds without feathers on their heads, looking at you vultures, but we know they are not because we have other sources to give us more info and we can go an observe these things.
A red robin is actually red...
But within the context of the game, constructs, and golems are named after the materials they are made of so my argument on this matter holds more water then yours does at this point.
Ohhhh, so now there's a trait for constructs that says they get DR Punch of the material they are made of!
Oh, wait, no, there isn't. I guess being a construct doesn't do what you say.
==Aelryinth
Noooo, you're trying to make an irrelevant point.
There are no Bald Vultures.
'Red robins' are orange and black/grey. I know this because I live in Michigan, and they are the state bird. There's one outside my window right now bouncing on the lawn looking for worms. You want red, look at a parrot or red-winged blackbird. Or cardinal. Or red-tailed hawk. Those birds are red.
What you WANT is an admission that because the name is usually based on what it is made of, then it gets DR Punch relative to that name.
And what I counter posted is that the name of the monster is utterly irrelevant to what abilities the monster has.
And 'Cannon Golem' by itself disproves your entire point. Not only does it not punch DR/Cannon, it actually lists out what DR the golem actually punches. Because, you know, weapons made of more then one special material can only punch ONE type of material, and it's made of 3, and can punch all 3.
And the adamantine golem isn't even made of pure adamantine, merely some small fraction of its total mass. That's exactly like arguing my sword's blade is made of adamantine, gold, mithral, and platinum, so I get DR/Adamatine because I say it's the same as a true adamantine weapon. It doesn't have the Cannon Golem's language, so it doesn't get the ability.
House rule around it. Nobody is going to contest you if you do. Just because the rules aren't perfect and somewhat defy common sense doesn't mean you can't Rule 0 them.
==Aelryinth
One more thing. If there were such a thing as DR/ flesh, would a monks unarmed attacks not overcome it simply because the monk stat block doesn't state that his unarmed attacks are considered flesh for the purposes of overcoming DR in addition to CI, Magic, Silver, et al?Nope! Without an ability that specifically calls out their unarmed strikes as counting as bypassing DR/flesh, how can we be sure the monk isn't punching people with his blood or his hair?
Besides, the monk is really only flesh plated, and we all know that doesn't count.
And if they ever come out with DR/Flesh, I am sure they will define what exactly that means so your silly example becomes moot.
Because, among other things, that will disqualify most claw and bite attacks, which aren't flesh, they're keratin, bone or ivory.
I imagine Shieldbreaker could grant DR/Unarmed attacks, and Aragorn was certainly bypassing something with his unarmed attacks vs the spirits in Return of the King.
==Aelryinth
...It's not totally out of the question to have a creature whose weakness is another type of creature. That occasionally pops up in folklore and mythology. XD
Weasels and cockatrices.
==Aelryinth
A couple random thoughts on pricing:
What's the other 250,000 GP of raw materials? Note that for a few other golem types the priced and weighted elements are separate, so you can make an argument the 100k is for the 'other metals' rather than the adamantine.
Also remember that for whatever reason, processed adamantine can be significantly cheaper than raw adamantine. You get nearly double the adamantine if you melt down dwarven longhammers.
Though even with both of those played at their most lenient you still cap out around 40% adamantine.
Actually, you don't get raw adamantine out of melting down longhammers. remember its an alloy, and some is wasted in the process.
Otherwise, you're trying to exploit some loophole that you get more adamantine out of a weapon you made then you put into it.
Also note the weight of the longhammer includes the wooden haft.
Glaucite (?) from the Iron Gods AP is an alloy of adamantine and iron, and it would cost more to melt it down and break the alloy then it would to get new adamantine.
==Aelryinth
So... Did you just write that Adamantine was an alloy? As in - Adamantine that is used in weapons, etc, is actually made up of pure Adamantine plus other non-Adamantine metals?
It sounds like you just said that.
Was this a mistake?
If not, how does this differ from the body composition of an Adamantine Golem (which is comprised of pure Adamantine mixed with other non-Adamantine metals)?
Bestiary page 299:
A few very powerful monsters are vulnerable only to epic weapons — that is, magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus. Such creatures’ natural weapons are also treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.d20 SRD:
An adamantine golem’s natural weapons are treated as epic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.CRB page 562:
Weapon Enhancement - DR Type Bonus Equivalent
Cold iron/silver +3
Adamantine* +4
Alignment-based +5
* Note that this does not give the ability to ignore hardness, like an actual adamantine weapon doesConclusion:
An adamantine golem's slams are treated as epic weapons, which are considered to have at least a +6 enhancement bonus so they overcome DR/adamantine, which only requires a +4 enhancement bonus to overcome.
This would be conclusive but the line from the d20pfsrd does not appear on the PRD. It is not a Pathfinder rule. I suspect it is a 3.5 carryover. Now I know this seems to be unpopular but it does seem to me that based on the PRD there is no universal rule allowing for golems to pierce their name sake DR. Not like DR alignment with outsiders or DR magic with magic weapons.
It is a construct made of adamantine but I would point out it is only partially made of such and is not even crafted using adamantine as the majority material.
Then I would point out this FAQ. This does say that a weapon partially made of adamantine punches DR adamantine. Prior to that FAQ an adamantine golem did not punch DR adamantine, after if we treat the golem as a weapon than even partially constructed of adamantine it would punch.
|
This would be conclusive but the line from the d20pfsrd does not appear on the PRD.Bestiary page 299:
A few very powerful monsters are vulnerable only to epic weapons — that is, magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus. Such creatures’ natural weapons are also treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.d20 SRD:
An adamantine golem’s natural weapons are treated as epic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
Read the PRD quotation immediately before it again. It says that creatures with DR/Epic (like Adamantine golems) treat their natural weapon attacks as epic weapons for overcoming damage reduction.
Thus, the line from d20psfrd is simply applying the standard rule from the PRD to the Adamantine golem specifically.
And 'Cannon Golem' by itself disproves your entire point. Not only does it not punch DR/Cannon, it actually lists out what DR the golem actually punches. Because, you know, weapons made of more then one special material can only punch ONE type of material, and it's made of 3, and can punch all 3.
I'd argue that regardless of your position in this debate what the cannon golem's entry says is irrelevant.
After all, the crux of the debate is whether or not the adamantine golem being called/described as an adamantine golem qualfies to to punch through DR. The cannon golem never describes itself as being intrinsically of one material or another, which makes its entry immaterial.
What would be helpful is if, say, there was a cold iron golem that specified, because that follows the conventions we're dealing with.
Actually, you don't get raw adamantine out of melting down longhammers. remember its an alloy, and some is wasted in the process.
That's glaucite(which is a horrible, horrible alloy). Adamantine isn't one though by any reading I can find.
Also note the weight of the longhammer includes the wooden haft.
Presuming it's wooden hafted (the longaxe's appears to be metal and has a similar design). Though even if you want to go more conservatively (say with a dorn-dergar) there's still a pretty solid discount on adamantine over buying it raw.
It gets DR/adamantine. It is just obscured by DR/epic because they are just such bad dudes.
"Immunity to Magic (Ex)An adamantine golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance, except as noted below.
• Transmute metal to wood slows an adamantine golem for 1d4 rounds, during which time its damage reduction is reduced to 15/adamantine (no save)."
I think this serves to show how nerfed DR/epic is. When it debuted in Bestiary 2 (at least I think that's when it debuted), you needed a +6 enhancement bonus and that pretty much means any weapon capable of penetrating epic DR could penetrate any material or magic-based DR, including DR/adamantine. When Mythic reduced DR/epic to +6 equivalent bonus 3 years later, there became no certainty a weapon capable of penetrating DR/epic could penetrate much else. Transmute metal to wood might actually improve the adamantine golem's DR.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
What you WANT is an admission that because the name is usually based on what it is made of, then it gets DR Punch relative to that name.
You'll admit that the name is usually based on what its made of to Shadowlords, but not to me? Even though I asked several times? :(
What I want is an admission that because golems are usually named after what they're made of, the comparison to golden retrievers and silver dragons is a poor one. That's all.
And if they ever come out with DR/Flesh, I am sure they will define what exactly that means so your silly example becomes moot.
Because, among other things, that will disqualify most claw and bite attacks, which aren't flesh, they're keratin, bone or ivory.
==Aelryinth
They didn't do that with DR/glass when they wrote the Fext.
And are you saying that claw and bite attacks could bypass DR/keratin, bone, or ivory? :D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the adamantine golem isn't even made of pure adamantine, merely some small fraction of its total mass. That's exactly like arguing my sword's blade is made of adamantine, gold, mithral, and platinum, so I get DR/Adamatine because I say it's the same as a true adamantine weapon. It doesn't have the Cannon Golem's language, so it doesn't get the ability.
Exactly like arguing the blade is made of multiple materials? I'd quibble that. More like the adamantine sword has gold and platinum inlays and mithral wire on the hilt. The business part is adamantine. The question is, does it make sense for the business end or the outer shell of the adamantine golem to be adamantine? For my money it does, hence the name rather than some-other-material golem as well as its DR which was clearly envisioned as better than adamantine.
Nope, you're trying to argue his natural weapons are made of adamantine and get the bonus, not his bones and joints. I specifically said sword's BLADE, because I knew someone would try to do exactly what you just did and move the other materials to the non-weapon portion of it.
Sorry, can't schroedinger things like that.
==============================
Benchak, now what if you went into the bestiary and what if there suddenly popped up a creature named golden retriever?
You'd laugh and wonder why they put a dog in there.
And then you might read it and find it's an advanced CG version of an Abyssal retriever used by Azatas, or something. In short, the name didn't mean what you thought it did, until you read the stat block.
My point was that the name means nothing, and trying to use it as 'proof' it gets an ability not in its stat block is DUMB. Just like my examples were silly. Just like the cannon golem proves that definition is dumb.
So, your point was obvious just by posting. I was merely disproving its relevance. Why exactly did you need me to acknowledge anything? What you were trying to do was apparent, and I shot it down by taking it to the logical extreme.
============
Did nobody read back on my post about the history of the adamantine golem a page or two back? eesh. I'm not reposting how DR worked back in 3.5 again.
And the Epic DR definition in the beastiary now has to contend with the definition in MYthic AND the fact DR/Epic in 3.5 didn't punch ANY of the material resistances. And on something made up nigh 20 years ago for another game, that's a whole lot of uncertainty.
Regardless, it's obviously not equal to a +6 enhancement bonus anymore.
And yes, DR/EPic has been hugely nerfed. Without being level 21, the only previous way to punch that DR was with a +4 or better Bane weapon against the specific foe. Adamantine weapons you could get for cheap cheap in comparison.
C'mon, people. just house rule it at your table and move on. It's not even a Paizo monster. It should be updated, anyways.
==Aelryinth
...Y'know, I feel like Bane is kind of arguable, unless I missed a rule/FAQ/statement explicitly saying it can break the normal +5 limit. XD I was never totally sure on that. And there are a few rare items (mostly in 3PP adventures) that are genuinely epic. So that's a thing.
The FAQ on Epic DR specifically calls out Bane as an example of how to bypass DR. So, yes, it does increase the bonus against that foe.
So, a +1 Human Bane sword will let you carve up most werewolves, for example, since it's +3 against humans and so would bypass their DR/Silver.
==Aelryinth
Foxes don't have an ability that says they bypass DR/fox. But it's a good houserule!But would it work if something had DR/Fox?Guys, there's a problem... The Adamantine material isn't stated to be considered as Adamantine either... What do we do?
I mean, you would think it did, right? But Silver Foxes aren't made of silver either, they're just called "Silver" Foxes (apparently).
I'm still confused on this issue: in the end what did the fox say?
Will this suffice? (It's slightly down the page)
DR/Epic: A type of damage reduction, DR/epic can be overcome only by a weapon with an enhancement bonus of +6 or greater. Weapons with special abilities also count as epic for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction if the total bonus value of all of their abilities (including the enhancement bonus) is +6 or greater.
Exactly. Not +6 enhanced weapons anymore, just magically powerful enough to overcome DR/Epic. Which doesn't bypass any other form of DR.
==Aelryinth
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
==============================
Benchak, now what if you went into the bestiary and what if there suddenly popped up a creature named golden retriever?
You'd laugh and wonder why they put a dog in there.
And then you might read it and find it's an advanced CG version of an Abyssal retriever used by Azatas, or something. In short, the name didn't mean what you thought it did, until you read the stat block.My point was that the name means nothing, and trying to use it as 'proof' it gets an ability not in its stat block is DUMB. Just like my examples were silly. Just like the cannon golem proves that definition is dumb.
So, your point was obvious just by posting. I was merely disproving its relevance. Why exactly did you need me to acknowledge anything? What you were trying to do was apparent, and I shot it down by taking it to the logical extreme.
============
But you're not taking anything to the logical extreme, because you're addressing arguments that no one is making.
No one is saying monster names are always literal.
Nor does "monster names are always literal" follow logically from "golem names are usually literal"
Furthermore, showing that a name can "mean nothing" does not mean that all names mean nothing.
And I don't need you to do anything, I simply want you to admit you made a bad argument. If I wanted nothing, why would I participate the conversation at all :)
C'mon, people. just house rule it at your table and move on. It's not even a Paizo monster. It should be updated, anyways.
You do know that it was updated, and is a Paizo monster, right? That there's an adamantine golem in Bestiary 2?
The old epic adamantine golem was explicitly made entirely of adamantine (you built it out of iron and then used wish to transmute it into adamantine). Given that the old one is homogeneous, I'd love to hear your rationale for why it doesn't bypass. :)
Again with the invoking of 3.x rules. This thread is in "Pathfinder RPG". Just because something is OGL doesn't mean we use multiple rules systems.
You're absolutely right, it was updated to PF (and severely downtoned in so doing).
And its not homogeneous, because the new golem is not built entirely from adamantine, as has been quoted NUMEROUS times.
Although I don't know why it still does 6d10 dmg...doesn't have the 51 str, however.
Probably because it went from CR 25 down to 19.
-------------------------
You're making a supercilious argument on the names.
The naming argument itself is a horrible argument. I simply made it more horrible. That's all there is to it. It has no relevance to the abilities of the monster, and I illustrated that, too.
Trying to say I made a bad argument is superfluous. I was simply adding on to an already bad argument to show just how bad it was. the entire reason for the naming argument was "It's called an adamantine golem, so because it's a golem that means it's made of adamantine, and so it has DR/Adamantine punch."
Which is an inane argument reflected in no stat block, anywhere. It's an argument trying to justify the NAME of a creature gives it special abilities.
Of course I mocked it. There's no rule anywhere supporting it.
If you're trying to get me to state the obvious, that the name of a golem usually reflects what it is made of...obvious is obvious. Dragons are usually named after the color of their scales...but not always. Dragon horses are made of neither dragons nor horses.
The name doesn't mean ANYTHING. I illustrated that, you could call the golem Pink Twinkie Assembly and it wouldn't change the stats, you'd still have to read the stats to see what it could do.
House rule it and move along.
==Aelryinth
Again with the invoking of 3.x rules. This thread is in "Pathfinder RPG". Just because something is OGL doesn't mean we use multiple rules systems.
DR/Epic equivaling a +6 Enhancement IS a 3.5 rule. It has since been updated to +6 worth of magic. Major difference, and done precisely to sidestep Paizo's change to +'s beating material DR.
Worth noting the original Epic Golem had dr 20/EPic and Adamatine.
Obviously, you can get +6 worth of magic on a weapon without being +6 enhancement. You CANNOT get +6 of enhancement without being at least +6 overall, however (+4 bane constructs is a +7 equiv against golems).
==Aelryinth
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
You're absolutely right, it was updated to PF (and severely downtoned in so doing).
And its not homogeneous, because the new golem is not built entirely from adamantine, as has been quoted NUMEROUS times.Although I don't know why it still does 6d10 dmg...doesn't have the 51 str, however.
Probably because it went from CR 25 down to 19.
-------------------------
You're making a supercilious argument on the names.
The naming argument itself is a horrible argument. I simply made it more horrible. That's all there is to it. It has no relevance to the abilities of the monster, and I illustrated that, too.
Trying to say I made a bad argument is superfluous. I was simply adding on to an already bad argument to show just how bad it was. the entire reason for the naming argument was "It's called an adamantine golem, so because it's a golem that means it's made of adamantine, and so it has DR/Adamantine punch."Which is an inane argument reflected in no stat block, anywhere. It's an argument trying to justify the NAME of a creature gives it special abilities.
Of course I mocked it. There's no rule anywhere supporting it.
==Aelryinth
People have been quoting the new golem information. The old adamantine golem was homogeneous. Does the old golem bypass? Edit: If not, why not?
And responding to a bad argument with a worse argument (especially one that doesn't in any way follow from the first bad argument) is usually a bad way to prove a point.
anything with Epic DR can punch through Epic DR, like anything with DR/Magic can punch DR/Magic.
No, the old golem didn't bypass adamantine DR, either.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/golem.htm#adamantineGolem
You had to be 30th level to make one of these things!
It even notes the golem can overcome EPic DR...unnecessarily, since it's right there in the DR rules that Epic/DR monsters can also punch it...
I have NO idea why the 3.5 AGolem doesn't bypass adamantine, just like I have no idea why the Paizo one doesn't. Seems dumb to me!
And I wasn't responding to a bad argument with a worse argument. I was taking the bad argument to its extreme, and showing how bad it really was. There's a difference, y'see?
==Aelryinth