7-26 All for Immortality Part 2: All the Gods Beyond


GM Discussion

1 to 50 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
4/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I see some of the encounter feedback from part 1 appears to have made it into this one. These encounters are brutal by comparison. I greatly appreciate the higher CRs this time around.

For the research portion, does it require a 2nd delay to access the Council of Shadows? I'm leaning towards yes since you have to complete the research in the notes first, but I don't want to be overly punishing to the players.

The Exchange

I just had a quick look at the encounters. They look fantastic. It even has real hard mode. I'm excited for when I get to run this.

Still a little surprised the Field Command section doesn't provide any bonuses to Venture Captains.

Paizo Employee 5/5 Pathfinder Society Lead Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ragoz wrote:
I just had a quick look at the encounters. They look fantastic. It even has real hard mode. I'm excited for when I get to run this.

Spoiler:
I...kinda expect some angry letters for that last encounter, both with and without hard mode. Immortal ichors are utterly wretched to fight thanks to their numerous immunities, and this one's environment and hazards should make this tough. I can't wait to hear about the first time a CR 17/CR 19 ooze splits!
Quote:
Still a little surprised the Field Command section doesn't provide any bonuses to Venture Captains.

Half aside, half response:
I had considered it, but given how much players trash-talk in-game venture-captains, there seemed to be no reason to reward the PCs once they had a flashy title to throw around. <wry>

In all seriousness, though, I would love to see a real-world cultural shift to stop badmouthing the likes of Sheila Heidmarch, Drandle Dreng, and others.

Paizo Employee 5/5 Pathfinder Society Lead Developer

Serisan wrote:
[[Research questions]]

Spoiler:
In fact, the PCs accrue a delay each time they perform a round of research checks (i.e. each time the primary researcher rolls a check). There's a pretty good chance that the PC will accrue several delays while researching the two libraries—especially without an NPC team's assistance. That's one of the attractions of just having a secondary team do the heavy lifting in the library: they spare the PCs' accumulating delays, trading off the chance to uncover information for a more likely means of finding Professor Kramolag alive. As an added bonus, there's the chance of afflicting Janira Gavix with the shadowbound corruption!
4/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What is the ceiling height throughout the lab? I can't find mention of it anywhere.

Also, re: research, is the expectation that there is only one primary researcher and everyone aids? It seems like more progress is likely if there are multiple primaries and I'm certain my group of players will have the capacity. There's no listed limitation that I can see.

4/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
John Compton wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
I just had a quick look at the encounters. They look fantastic. It even has real hard mode. I'm excited for when I get to run this.

** spoiler omitted **

Quote:
Still a little surprised the Field Command section doesn't provide any bonuses to Venture Captains.
** spoiler omitted **

Re: spoiler 1, expect that report on Sunday morning. ^.^

Paizo Employee 5/5 Pathfinder Society Lead Developer

Serisan wrote:
What is the ceiling height throughout the lab? I can't find mention of it anywhere.

Spoiler:
I'd say in the range of 15–20 feet. That gives "Mr. Cuddles" in area B2 enough space to maneuver.
Paizo Employee 5/5 Pathfinder Society Lead Developer

Serisan wrote:
John Compton wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
I just had a quick look at the encounters. They look fantastic. It even has real hard mode. I'm excited for when I get to run this.

** spoiler omitted **

Quote:
Still a little surprised the Field Command section doesn't provide any bonuses to Venture Captains.
** spoiler omitted **
Re: spoiler 1, expect that report on Sunday morning. ^.^

Tactics:
Remember to watch the ooze's morale. I wrote in the part about it just crushing a PC or two and then leaving as a way to let the PCs still "win" even if they didn't pack a +1 holy longsword for chopping up ichors.
4/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
John Compton wrote:
Serisan wrote:
John Compton wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
I just had a quick look at the encounters. They look fantastic. It even has real hard mode. I'm excited for when I get to run this.

** spoiler omitted **

Quote:
Still a little surprised the Field Command section doesn't provide any bonuses to Venture Captains.
** spoiler omitted **
Re: spoiler 1, expect that report on Sunday morning. ^.^
** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
They have a level 14 paladin that I intend to drop in the drink.
4/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Here's a hypothetical worth considering:

More research questions:
Suppose the PCs bring along a team and assign them to research while they continue along into area C1. The PCs then defeat the God Fount, triggering the encounter in B3 as hostile. Does the research team get attacked or do the creatures leave them alone?

Paizo Employee 5/5 Pathfinder Society Lead Developer

Serisan wrote:

Here's a hypothetical worth considering:

** spoiler omitted **

I hear your friends like to read:
I remember considering that possibility during development but didn't include anything on that front. My original inclination would be to afflict the leader with the corruption, kill another NPC, and have the others run away shouting "nope nope nope." However, since I didn't write that an NPC would die, I would just stick to the corruption and the screaming. When the PCs return to area B, they likely (being an optional encounter) run into a bunch of owbs that they didn't know about, and their NPC subordinates are nowhere in sight.
4/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Encounter in C1:
Is a panicked creature with no means of flight compelled to flee into the acid or do they cower on the platform?

Paizo Employee 5/5 Pathfinder Society Lead Developer

Serisan wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
A panicked creature should only flee into an unexplored area if that area has a respectable chance of being safer than being anywhere near the source of fear. A pool of acid is pretty obviously a dangerous place, and so I would have such a character either flee toward (but not into) the acid or cower. If the way is clear, the ideal choice would be to flee back to the teleportation circle so as to hide in area B7.
The Exchange

I guess this is more a general question but do we have to keep using spoiler tags in GM prep threads, at least if directly related to the scenario?

Paizo Employee 5/5 Pathfinder Society Lead Developer

Ragoz wrote:
I guess this is more a general question but do we have to keep using spoiler tags in GM prep threads, at least if directly related to the scenario?

Nobody else needs to, but I am trying to use spoiler tags more often because I understand some people skim through my recent posts for important news and don't want to happen across a spoiler. Especially for a seeker arc, that could be rather upsetting.

The Exchange

Ah ok that makes sense.

Paizo Employee 5/5 Designer

Removed a post that made personal attacks.

The Exchange

Does the feat Deific Obedience count as an ability from your deity for the God Fount?

Quote:

Once you've performed the obedience, you gain the benefit of a special ability or resistance as indicated in the "Obedience" entry for the god to whom you performed the obedience.

If you have at least 12 Hit Dice, you also gain the first boon granted by your deity upon undertaking your obedience.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Thanks for the input John, I'm still a week out from running it, but I suspect that Serisen is right about the reaction to this one. The last fight is absolutely brutal.

Paizo Employee 5/5 Pathfinder Society Lead Developer

Ragoz wrote:

Does the feat Deific Obedience count as an ability from your deity for the God Fount?

Quote:

Once you've performed the obedience, you gain the benefit of a special ability or resistance as indicated in the "Obedience" entry for the god to whom you performed the obedience.

If you have at least 12 Hit Dice, you also gain the first boon granted by your deity upon undertaking your obedience.

Spoiler:
Absolutely. I would also consider deity-specific prestige classes, and I would likely even accept deity-specific feats and traits. The idea of requiring an atonement to regain Lessons of Chaldira or the like amuses me—as it would no doubt amuse the God Fount.
4/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Subtier 14-15 encounters have been posted to PFS Prep for easy printing. I did not include the adjustments for hard mode in the doc, but I did include the Augnagar for easy reference.

4/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Session report time!

The party consisted of 5 14s and a 12, who elected for hard mode. That poor, poor 12. Sorry Tindalen!

Rogue 12
Mystic Theurge
Cavalier/Banner Herald
Paladin
Evoker
Inquisitor

Briefing + Teams:
I had to go out of my way to offer up some of the fun bits of Farabellus' talking points, particularly the "punching a silver agent" bit that absolutely has to be said.

Kernaug Group was sent to Wirholt's Rictus and succeeded.
Axe-Fixers were sent to Uskwood and the Nidalese PC was notably concerned about the knowledge checks associated with that site. Visbaron died a second time and the party chipped in for a Raise Dead at the end. Poor bugger had gotten crushed during the cave in during part 1.
Scroll Seekers came with on the boat to Wingless Rock. Janira is now the proud owner of a Shadowbound Corruption boon. I really, REALLY wish that had been a reporting checkbox.

The Crack Fiend + Researchers:
For having "perfected her story," it would have been really nice if Rag had even 1 rank in Bluff. That would not have helped given the 30ish Sense Motive, though, and the party enjoyed some of the banter. They didn't get any info out of her and the rogue was unpleasantly surprised as I rolled nearly max damage when he failed the disable by more than 5 on the electrified door. The MT then disintegrated the door, saw the crowd, and used a Shadow Enchantment for Calm Emotions to adequately address the researchers. There was some minor hobnobbing, they realized that having Janira's team work the crowd would have taken all their time, and simply made sure that the boat wouldn't get stolen.

Thulgant + Augnagar:
The party did not have a reliable way to deal with the fog. As a result, the Augnagar was actually the larger threat given its Blindsight. It killed the rogue, then was shut down long enough that it couldn't work over anyone else or cast Waves of Exhaustion. The Thulgant was largely ineffective, missing most of its attacks and not being able to use its morale condition. This was a very challenging encounter for the party, but generally satisfying. Greater Dispel was a significant sweep, hitting all of the Greater Magic Weapons and cutting a few people out of the Telepathic Bond.

Research:
"Oh god, this subsystem?!? JANIRA! WE HAVE MENIAL LABOR FOR YOU!"

The MT's player had played Blakros Connection 2 days ago and had a sub-par experience. They ditched the research as soon as I brought up the research mechanics, not even asking what the checks were. I was not surprised.

The Rest of B:
Hallway trap absolutely trolled the rogue, who had checked the door, opened it, and stridently moved towards the cage. He became a goat-weasel. Given his build, there were actually bodies available that would have been more effective for him than his normal body had he been able to make the Persistent Will save. They felt a little goofy when I mentioned that they could have used Handle Animal on him to trigger the other teleportation trap after freeing the rogue, but I had waited until after the Break Enchantment to mention that. 10/10, would troll again.

I was amazed how much time was spent before they decided to look around the room in the teleportation circle room and one of the players noted that the puzzle was directly lifted from a module, word for word (Carrion Hill, I think?). The party was also disappointed that they had given so many material resources to Janira's team before finding the spoons + decanter.

God Fount:
"Huh, looks tall and there's an acid pit at the bottom. Everybody drink their Fly potions."

Tactics broken immediately, right there. Furthermore, the party's take 10 perception spotted the ooze from 70' up. Ooze uses Mind Fog, only the rogue fails. There's monologue, the party attempts to ID, and the only info they get is the DR and creature type. Ooze type creates split hype and a push to avoid slashing damage.

Cavalier is stymied by the piercing immunity on the first charge. Inquisitor takes a non-good longsword to it, causing a split and creating a lot of concern. Paladin, who had bonded for Holy, slashes and there's no split, so they figured it out. MT played off the things that oozes aren't immune to in order to avoid the action economy. Rogue gets hit by Fear and teleports out to safety on the circle, then walks away from the table to find out what happens afterward. Wizard assumes the ooze is immune to everything but force and sonic damage after the maximized Chain Lightning does nothing and the Inquisitor's 1d6 fire damage on his sword does nothing. I chuckle.

Cavalier then finds out that it's immune to her shield bash, as well. I laugh at a job well done, but the party walks all over the APL+5 critter as though it wasn't there. This encounter was initially daunting, then completely faceroll. As much as I liked the idea of the acid, there is no party in the 14-15 subtier that is likely to have any issue avoiding the environmental hazard. The 14-15 subtier version of the encounter does not meaningfully threaten the party I had at the table, but they were definitely looking through the rolodex to figure out the solution. One of the single largest problems is that the ooze cannot reliably hit anyone with its SLAs (example: the MT rolled a 2 on the save vs Mind Fog and still succeeded) and the slam is not a very meaningful amount of damage. Despite being APL+5, it's a single creature and the action economy of a 6 player party is too much for it to handle.

Wrap-up:
Zero delays. They enjoyed talking with Kramolag. We skipped the Conjoined Owbs due to time, having run for approximately 5.5 hours. In discussing the mechanics with the players, we agreed that the cavalier and rogue would basically dismantle one per round each.

Not a single klaxon survived the scenario. I kind of wish there was a silly boon to give out for that.

So, about that leadership thing: my players glazed over with frustration about this section of the scenario. It's seen as (A) a wealth sink and (B) petty gotchas to get back at the complaints about the VCs. One player likes Janira and that's literally the only positive feedback I received about this section of the adventure.

I explained the bit about the Shadow Touched boon they missed and the universal response was "well, it was gated behind something we didn't want to do. Oh well." It's also significantly less enticing right now given that the source book isn't released yet. The research mechanics are not really enjoyed by players in my region as it seems like a huge time sink at any given table.

The roper was teleported back to the Dark Lands so he can resettle and figure out what to do with his life next.

The Exchange

Yeah I had figured the Thulgant + Augnagar would be the real combat of the scenario. The God Fount is hard to kill but doesn't really do anything to you at the same rate.

When I was reading through the scenario I had the same reaction your players did to the Research subsystem.

Thanks for sharing.

4/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The other point of note is that most parties will have more trouble with the augnagar because of its blindsight, which allows it to ignore the fog and AoO anything in the room. The thulgant was somewhat threatening, but its inability to function in the fog with any effectiveness was a real letdown.

The Exchange

Maybe having it dimension door to a new room would be more favorable for it.

4/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ragoz wrote:
Maybe having it dimension door to a new room would be more favorable for it.

It tried. That room was made inhospitable very quickly by one of the casters, who walled off a significant portion of the space.

5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Serisan wrote:
So, about that leadership thing: my players glazed over with frustration about this section of the scenario. It's seen as (A) a wealth sink and (B) petty gotchas to get back at the complaints about the VCs. One player likes Janira and that's literally the only positive feedback I received about this section of the adventure.

As the mystic theurge who caused so much trouble at Serisan's table (see: force sphere, emergency and prison, icy) I wanted to chime in here (and separately in a review, once we finish the arc and I can read the last two scenarios) on the Leadership mechanic in All for Immortality. As a concept, I like the Leadership idea. Especially in All for Immortality I, it felt like an awesome way to make the high level PCs feel like the hard work of achieving high level is being rewarded, and that they're being recognized. However, during Part II there came a point where the mechanics behind the scenes made the whole encounter feel punitive at the expense of actually being more challenging.

We must do research!!!:
After doing the research briefing (or maybe during it, my recollection is unclear) my character provided the research team a Handy Haversack to store the information. I didn't intend for this to be a "donor item" for their success; I wasn't even really at that point of the briefing mentally. It just seemed appropriate to store the research they were sifting through. Instead, they apparently found a way (while on the island, mind you) to whisk my haversack into the ether (maybe they turned the research over to the VCs in it?).

I found the entire exchange regarding that item jarring, and unlike in our previous runs noticed a gaping hole in consistency between the NPC VCs and the PC VCs - when an NPC gives the PCs a permanent magic item to do McGuffin stuff to, it's returned to the VC at the end of the scenario. The PCs can't sell it, they can't keep it. The NPC field agents, on the other hand, seem to be designed/empowered to rob their VCs blind, and based on the comments in the previous GM thread on the matter are empowered to do so as a punitive measure for the PCs not showing the NPC Venture Captains proper obeisance:

John Compton wrote:
For years, players have complained that Venture-Captain Sheila Heidmarch a) didn't provide enough information before adventures, b) didn't give the PCs free equipment for missions, and c) didn't seem to care about the dangerous circumstances into which she sent agents—concerns I've tried to combat while at Paizo. Players have also seemed to assume that she and other venture-captains have all of the answers and unlimited resources, rather than just being accomplished adventurers who run lodges out-of-pocket. Now those same players get to play the part of Sheila and other Society leaders they've spent their careers demonizing. As the adventure advises, if you know that the players/PCs are critical of their venture-captains for perceived tight-fistedness, lack of empathy, or incompetence, let the NPC Pathfinder teams give them a taste of their own medicine. You may have heard the classic parental line "I hope your children are as terrible to you as you are being to me." Have some fun with it. Leadership isn't easy.

Being required to invest gold in the success of the agents under our PCs' commands is totally reasonable. We see "care packages" of useful consumables handed out by NPC Venture-Captains in lower tier scenarios often, and that's something the PC Venture-Captains should be asked to do as well. However, the inability to also provide loaner permanent items was frustrating in the moment and in hindsight seems like it was designed as a finger in the eye of a (possibly large) segment of the player base who took issue with some of the NPC Venture-Captains. I have no problem with needing to invest resources in the success of the field teams - I have a problem with not being able to also lend powerful gear to them to help them survive (heck, I'd just like the option to provide loaner equipment at no bonus in III just for the entertainment value of being able to lend Shadow-Janira the Crook of Cidhureen).

Having read the mechanics presented in All for Immortality I*, I think the disconnect is fixable. Either weight the value of items given versus items that must be returned differently (perhaps they only contribute 1/10 of their value, rounded down, towards the target gear donation, so a 32,500 gp Persistent rod would count 3,250 gp towards the "equipment" goal), or provide a lesser bonus for loaned gear (say, a flat +1 if the party loans an item of value equal to (5*[value required in donated items] to the group, so to get the +1 at APL 14-15 would require an item valued at 12,500 gp or more). In-character, Ontovar would be happy to hand off his trademark staff or his Persistent rod to one of the field teams to see them through a dangerous task, but he's not willing to gift them 16,800 gp of unique item (or 32,500 gp of useful non-unique item).

Lent gear at a reduced cost-to-bonus ratio also means PCs who want that bonus will be without mid-tier (I'm not sure what else to call it) gear, like boots of speed or metamagic rods, raising the challenge for the party during the more traditional portions of the scenario; without aforementioned staff I wouldn't have had the spell resources to play, "What's my elemental resistance?" using shadow evocations, and loaning out my rod would've saved Loaralis from one icy prison in Part I. If part of the design goal of the scenarios is to provide challenging combat encounters to the PCs, this would certainly facilitate said goal.

I hope the Leadership mechanic sticks around, and maybe even makes its way to Tier 7-11 scenarios. I like the idea a lot. It is very hard to create a fair, balanced challenge for high level PCs while still adhering to the CR system, and this mechanic makes high level PCs feel like they've accomplished something. However, the current "equipment" portion of the mechanic appears, at least to this player, to sacrifice its full potential in the name of punishing players for not being grateful enough to the in-game NPC Venture Captains.

*:
I read All for Immortality I during the brouhaha surrounding emergency force sphere and icy prison use/abuse. I felt that I was being called out as a bad table influence without the ability to defend myself. I have, at Serisan's recommendation, avoided reading certain portions of the first scenario and all of Part II to avoid any plot spoilers in advance of III. If the mechanics materially changed between I and II, then my recommendations for fixing them may no longer be relevant or applicable.

4/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For reference, the equipment disappearing was one of John's clarifications from part 1.

Paizo Employee 5/5 Pathfinder Society Lead Developer

Ryan Blomquist wrote:
Having read the mechanics presented in All for Immortality I*, I think the disconnect is fixable. Either weight the value of items given versus items that must be returned differently (perhaps they only contribute 1/10 of their value, rounded down, towards the target gear donation, so a 32,500 gp Persistent rod would count 3,250 gp towards the "equipment" goal), or provide a lesser bonus for loaned gear (say, a flat +1 if the party loans an item of value equal to (5*[value required in donated items] to the group, so to get the +1 at APL 14-15 would require an item valued at 12,500 gp or more). In-character, Ontovar would be happy to hand off his trademark staff or his Persistent rod to one of the field teams to see them through a dangerous task, but he's not willing to gift them 16,800 gp of unique item (or 32,500 gp of useful non-unique item).

The idea of counting loaned (rather than gifted) items as a fraction of their value for the purpose of this mechanic is a solid idea. I appreciate the feedback.

5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'm excited to hear that - again, I want to reiterate that I really like the mechanic on a conceptual level, I just felt really burned in the moment (which is why I waited until Monday to reply - to cool off after the session) by Janira suddenly turning into the worst parts of a field agent, instead of the best parts. I'm looking forward to Part III and hoping the arc goes well enough to justify the presence of Seeker content going forward.

5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Michigan—Detroit

John Compton wrote:
Serisan wrote:
[[Research questions]]
** spoiler omitted **

Is there anything preventing PCs from skipping the research initially and coming back to it later? I didn't see anything that would indicate research done after getting to the professor would be any less effective. Did I miss something?

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

When I get a moment to describe the major positives/negatives of this scenario (which I ran Saturday) I will. A real challenge and one that generally received good marks, although it was very mundane in its execution.

There were two major issues though we had with the scenario.

Issue #1:
The research section really miffed most of us. Having played the already mostly dull mechanic in Blakros connection, I was none too happy to see it again. Nor were most of the other players, who were under the impression that with klaxons blaring, and being told of some kind of containment breach, that the literally HOURS required to do the research weren't worth it. My biggest pet peeve though was the lack of inclusion of the bulk of the research rules in the first place. I had already run Blakros so I knew what to expect, I suspect many other GMs will not be as lucky. I understand page count issues, but unless I just missed them, the lack of detailed rules really drove me nuts.

Issue #2:
The significant gold penalty for not taking her alive. For groups that wanted to do research, or couldn't figure out the correct order of button pushing and needed to do research, the near auto-failure of the timing of the scenario in those cases came with far too hefty a "play penalty". I get wanting to make choices matter, but this didn't feel like a real choice. Maybe I'm just missing something here too, but there was general bemoaning not of a loss of gold (everybody expected that, but were not happy after already spending 1,500 each on missions), but the amount of gold, that totaled roughly a third of their earnings when a raise dead would have been a fraction of that.

4/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jeffrey Stop wrote:
John Compton wrote:
Serisan wrote:
[[Research questions]]
** spoiler omitted **
Is there anything preventing PCs from skipping the research initially and coming back to it later? I didn't see anything that would indicate research done after getting to the professor would be any less effective. Did I miss something?

Part 2 of the research becomes impossible as the God Fount's death triggers automatic hostility with the Council of Shadows.

Dark Archive 5/5

MisterSlanky wrote:

When I get a moment to describe the major positives/negatives of this scenario (which I ran Saturday) I will. A real challenge and one that generally received good marks, although it was very mundane in its execution.

There were two major issues though we had with the scenario.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Issue 2:
Ahem, some of us spent 3,000 of our own gold with out any help from the rest of the group. So losing the gold at the end of the scenario was a net loss of 6,000gp for me.
Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Robin Aeronica wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Shut your hog hole pig-skunk.

Dark Archive 5/5

Stupid trap.

4/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Robin Aeronica wrote:
Stupid trap.

I think you mean "awesome trap."

Paizo Employee 5/5 Pathfinder Society Lead Developer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Serisan wrote:
Robin Aeronica wrote:
Stupid trap.
I think you mean "awesome trap."

*Steeples fingers* Gooooood...It's a delightful trap. Perhaps Robin can now join the Hellknight Order of the Stripe or perhaps the Order of the Stink?

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵

Honestly didn't seem that bad of a trap... Just a little willpower needed to maintain your location. Though rumor has it that Robin was glad to be in the cage after the God Fount scared the living crap out her... To the point she might have been holding up the broken bars of the cage hoping it was enough.

That stupid immortal ichor... it seemed custom made to make a bad day for gunslingers, archers, swashbucklers, Cavaliers...

5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Michigan—Detroit

{ snipped for brevity }

Serisan wrote:
Part 2 of the research becomes impossible as the God Fount's death triggers automatic hostility with the Council of Shadows.

Thanks!

Sovereign Court 5/5 Venture-Captain, North Carolina—Central Region aka Kyrand

God Fount immunity question:
Quick clarification: the God Fount's immunity to bludgeoning and piercing... How does that interact with attacks that are one (or both) of those as well as slashing? Bite attacks, for example, are all three types

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Is the site Sundersun or Slumbersun.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Landon Hatfield wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Same as any case. They are not immune to the damage if it counts as slashing, which it does.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Venture-Captain, North Carolina—Central Region aka Kyrand

MisterSlanky wrote:
Landon Hatfield wrote:
** spoiler omitted **
Same as any case. They are not immune to the damage if it counts as slashing, which it does.

Is there a particular book or page where that's spelled out that I can reference? As it reads to me, the logic process is simply "Is the damage B or P at all? If yes, immune." without regards to if it is also slashing or not. I'd hate to unfairly penalize (or make too easy) this encounter, especially for players who don't successfully identify the creature enough to learn about Incite Blasphemy.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I don't know how to explain what you're looking for.

In the case a creature has immunity, they take no damage from the source indicated. In this case they take no damage from piercing or bludgeoning. Since the weapon could be slashing, it's not immune.

The best I can give you is to look at the DR section of universal monster rules where it states:

PRD wrote:
A few creatures are harmed by more than one kind of weapon. A weapon that inflicts damage of either type overcomes this damage reduction.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I had a high rolling inquisitor in my group. It's fair to assume most groups will never learn about the Incite Blasphemy. Since this is the case, I strongly suggest you find ways to encourage they figure it out. At my table, I had the creature constantly berating them, telling them to "bow down before his godhood" and "swear fealty to him" and "cast off the shackles of the lesser beings you worship." They got the gist, but nobody took the bait.

Dark Archive 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Minnesota—Minneapolis aka Silbeg

PRD - natural attacks wrote:
In such cases all the damage is considered to be of all listed types for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction
PRD wrote:

Immunity (Ex or Su) A creature with immunities takes no damage from listed sources. Immunities can also apply to afflictions, conditions, spells (based on school, level, or save type), and other effects. A creature that is immune does not suffer from these effects, or any secondary effects that are triggered due to an immune effect.

So, a bite attack, being B/S/P, does do damage that is not Slashing or Piercing, so it would overcome the immunity to slashing or piercing.

Said another way,a bite attack is considered to be slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning all at once, at the same time. So, it does do bludgeoning damage, and thus the creature is not immune

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Jack Brown wrote:
So, it does do bludgeoning damage, and thus the creature is not immune

You mean slashing? Or did Munny forget the horrors of what happened already?

Sovereign Court 5/5 Venture-Captain, North Carolina—Central Region aka Kyrand

In effect, the immunities in this case are the same as saying "DR infinity/slashing," which is less difficult for me to accept, somehow.

It just felt weird that hitting it with an earthbreaker or arrows for 200+ points does nothing, while a bite (which is all three types at once) does 100% damage, instead of partial or none. Another artifact of keeping the game from being even more complex, I guess.

Thank both of you for helping me to understand.

1 to 50 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / 7-26 All for Immortality Part 2: All the Gods Beyond All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.