| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Okay, My question is about a black pudding vs. a monk.
I know that every time someone attacks a black pudding they must make a DC 21 reflex save to avoid the weapon getting damaged, and +1 (and up) weapons have increased hardness and HP, so they're not going to break as fast. However, I'm wondering about a monk's attacks. They usually attack with their fists.
Do they take extra acid damage for attacking a creatures covered in acid, or would they have to make a reflex save for every blow they make (flurry of blows included)? And would that damage be applied to them directly, or to their bracers (if they have any) first?
Also, does anyone know if acid bypasses hardness, or does hardness apply when it comes to weapons and armor?
Thanks!
You can't damage an unarmed strike, as it isn't an object, so monks get a slight boon there.
Edit: Judging whether energy bypasses hardness for a particular object is mostly GM fiat, according to the rules for damaging objects. If there is a specific rule for a specific object or material, use that; otherwise, it's up to the GM's discretion.
|
Also, does anyone know if acid bypasses hardness, or does hardness apply when it comes to weapons and armor?
Not sure on the others. Regarding this one, the CRB says that it's up to the GM. For energy attacks (like acid, fire, cold, sonic, the other one...), damage is halved before applying hardness. That said, some energy attacks may be particularly effective against certain objects/materials and instead deal full damage and bypass hardness. This is up to the GM. The examples given for full damage are Fire vs Cloth/Parchment and Sonic vs Crystaline/glass.
So, yeah, ask the GM, totally up to them.
There's an additional note regarding "ineffective weapons" which don't do any damage to the object no matter what. Their example is trying to sunder rope with a warhammer. They also suggest that weapons not designed to harm stone walls and doors, are unable to do so (their examples are hammers and picks for weapons that can damage stone walls and doors).
Regarding the Black Pudding, it describes the ability as desolving organic and metal materials quickly, but not stone. So I think it would probably bypass hardess on non-stone weapons, but that's up to the GM.
You can't damage an unarmed strike, as it isn't an object, so monks get a slight boon there.
Forgive me, I've never heard this rule before, nor can I find it, can you please site a source on this.
It doesn't make sense to me. If you're hitting a creature with your firsts, and this creature's acid damages weapons, and your fists count as a natural weapon, wouldn't your fists be subject to said damaged (providing a failed reflex save)?
I'm just trying to understand how this would work. I'm the GM, I have a monk in the party, and they might face black puddings in the next adventure, so I'm trying to be prepared for the outcome.
Thanks again for the help.
|
|
You can't damage an unarmed strike, as it isn't an object, so monks get a slight boon there.Forgive me, I've never heard this rule before, nor can I find it, can you please site a source on this.
It doesn't make sense to me. If you're hitting a creature with your firsts, and this creature's acid damages weapons, and your fists count as a natural weapon, wouldn't your fists be subject to said damaged (providing a failed reflex save)?
I'm just trying to understand how this would work. I'm the GM, I have a monk in the party, and they might face black puddings in the next adventure, so I'm trying to be prepared for the outcome.
Thanks again for the help.
He's talking about sunder. You can't sunder a fist or other natural attack. Looking at the Black Pudding entry, I think the monk (or natural attack user) would take damage (unless they were made of stone). It does not state this directly, but I think the intention is that strikes from non-stone weapons take damage.
Though it would depend on the GM's setting (if looking for a "clothes melting ooze," then the monk would probably be unharmed. Definitely could be a hentai ooze in the right setting). For realism, I think the monk would melt...in a very horrible way.
Hmmm...no link yet, here is the black pudding.
An unarmed strike is an attack such as a punch or a kick where the attacker is not using a weapon to make the attack. A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes at his discretion. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.
So, unarmed strikes aren't weapons, but can be considered as weapons for certain purposes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The black puddings acid ability states: "A metal or wooden weapon that strikes a black pudding takes 2d6 acid damage unless the weapon's wielder succeeds on a DC 21 Reflex save."
An unarmed attack is not a metal or wooden weapon, so it is definitely not effected by this.
I think it is intended that the acid bypasses Hardness, and that is how I would rule, but it definitively stated.
Any ability that targets an object is not going to work on an unarmed strike (as an example, you can't sunder a monks fists.) Some monsters have abilities that cause a creature attacking them to take damage, and for things like that the monk would take damage just like anyone else.
You can't damage an unarmed strike, as it isn't an object, so monks get a slight boon there.Forgive me, I've never heard this rule before, nor can I find it, can you please site a source on this.
It doesn't make sense to me. If you're hitting a creature with your firsts, and this creature's acid damages weapons, and your fists count as a natural weapon, wouldn't your fists be subject to said damaged (providing a failed reflex save)?
I'm just trying to understand how this would work. I'm the GM, I have a monk in the party, and they might face black puddings in the next adventure, so I'm trying to be prepared for the outcome.
Thanks again for the help.
The rule is that weapons take damage, an unarmed strike (and natural attacks for that matter) is not a weapon. It is that simple. An unarmed strike does not have hit points that the black puddings ability can affect. Generally if an effect can affect both natural weapons/unarmed strikes and manufactured weapons it will call it out such as with the Remorhaz's heat ability.
Okay, I see where you all are getting at with the unarmed strike. It's technically not a weapon, thus does not have hit points. But at the the player is the weapon and the player has hit points. And punching a big black blob of acid over and over again wouldn't damage said flesh? I don't know...if it can melt wood or metal it can melt flesh in my opinion.
I was just looking to see what the rule is on this, but it seems to me like it will have to come down to GM decision since there is no definitive rule about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I reread the rules on energy attacks damaging objects:
Hardness
Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. 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 (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points, Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points, and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points).
Hit Points: An object’s hit point total depends on what it is made of and how big it is (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points, Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points, and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points). Objects that take damage equal to or greater than half their total hit points gain the broken condition (see Conditions). When an object’s hit points reach 0, it’s ruined.
Very large objects have separate hit point totals for different sections.
Energy AttacksEnergy 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.
Given that and the black pudding description and rules, I would not have black pudding acid bypass hardness, but I would have it deal full damage to organic and metal objects. Energy damage does not bypass hardness by default, though there may be special cases where it does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a house rule, if the party agreed to it, a reasonable thing to do would be to have it damage creatures who touch it with exposed flesh (unarmed strikes, grapples, etc.), but if so I would raise the CR of the creature by 1 to compensate. That's strictly outside the written rules, of course.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is actually definitive. Wood and Metal weapons get damaged. Nothing else does. A bone weapon wouldn't get damaged. A whip wouldn't get damaged. a sap or a net wouldn't get damaged. A fist wouldn't get damaged.
"metal or wooden weapon" is clear and definitive.
You are of course free to run your game the way you like, and modify creatures as you wish, you are the GM. I would certainly make sure the players know you are going to do this before hand though (not necessarily the specifics, but the general concept that you will be modifying monster abilities as you see fit) or some of them might feel you are being unfair and thus not enjoy the game.
If you want to get pedantic about Unarmed Strikes, and as is obvious, I Do:
An unarmed strike is not a weapon, not even a natural weapon, it is a Technique and it demonstrably "USES" the striker's natural weapons, individually or in concert, to do the actual attack.
EDIT
You can't Sunder a Power Attack, a Vital Strike, et al either. Same idea.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is actually definitive. Wood and Metal weapons get damaged. Nothing else does. A bone weapon wouldn't get damaged. A whip wouldn't get damaged. a sap or a net wouldn't get damaged. A fist wouldn't get damaged.
"metal or wooden weapon" is clear and definitive.
Ignoring the first sentance of the ability?
Says, "A black pudding secretes a digestive acid that disolves organic material and metal quickly, but does not affect Stone."
How exactly is this definitive to mean that organic material weapons, other than wood, are immune to this ability?
The GM should adjust this to account for unusual situations (like people using exotic weapons, unarmed strikes, and so forth). And the GM doesn't need to surprise the players, it should be in the description of the creature and directly explained to the players, that they'll be melting any non-stone object/creature to come into contact with them. The monk taking damage when they punch the ooze shouldn't be surprising for the player, it should be a calculated risk.
Monks aren't helpless, they can wield lots of weapon types without major loss of class abilties. Plus acid resistance would solve the issue.
And, as an aside, a Monk, or any character that wants acid resistance, can get it with this handy feat (PFS legal). Requires Favored Enemy Ooze OR having survived being engulfed by an ooze. For games of PFS, I always mention to other players when we face oozes to have the GM write on their chronicle sheet that they survived being engulfed by an ooze for this very feat.
There is a definitive rule
It's in the black puddings ability reading it damages metal and wooden weapons. That's definitive
Yeah, it seems that it should cause damage to the monk on an unarmed strike, but the Ooze's ability spells out that it only damages wooden and metal weapons, so that specific rule for the Ooze trumps the flavor text about organic materials.
Acid (Ex) A black pudding secretes a digestive acid that dissolves organic material and metal quickly, but does not affect stone. Each time a creature suffers damage from a black pudding's acid, its clothing and armor take the same amount of damage from the acid. A DC 21 Reflex save prevents damage to clothing and armor. A metal or wooden weapon that strikes a black pudding takes 2d6 acid damage unless the weapon's wielder succeeds on a DC 21 Reflex save. If a black pudding remains in contact with a wooden or metal object for 1 full round, it inflicts 21 points of acid damage (no save) to the object. The save DCs are Constitution-based.
It's not flavor text, it's written directly in the ability that it also dissolves organic material. It doesn't reiterate it, but does it need to? And it makes sense in terms of logic of the creature itself. How does something that will dissolve metal and wood not dissolve flesh?
I'm not trying to cause an argument, but I do think that a monk's fists could possibly be injured by attacking a creature made of acid, failing a saving throw.
There was a developer opinion on a similar effect a while back:
The caryatid column's shatter weapons defense only works against manufactured weapons. It doesn't hurt unarmed strikes or natural attacks.
Not that it's germane to Pathfinder, but I had this very encounter with my monk in a 5e game. I ended up deciding that I'd rather not use unarmed strike or flurry of blows on a black pudding, as this just seemed like a very bad idea. 5e is much clearer in the monster text stating that
A creature that touches the pudding or hits it with a melee attack while within 5 feet of it takes 4 (1d8) acid damage.
Not a lot of wiggle room. It does go on to talk about metal/wood weapons but in those cases it just does damage to the weapons breaking them after 5 hits.
I was thinking that if a monk used unarmed strike against say a fire elemental, it would be a similar situation except that in the case of a fire elemental, it states
Creatures that hit a burning creature with natural weapons or unarmed attacks take fire damage as though hit by the burning creature and must make a Reflex save to avoid catching on fire. See Burn for more details.
If the intent for black pudding was the same, why not have similar language.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is indeed flavor text describing the ability, because it lists exactly what takes damage, only metal or wooden weapons. If it were to include unarmed strikes or natural weapons, it would have to include that in that sentence, as it does for other monsters when PCs suffer some effect when attacking with an unarmed strike or natural weapon.
Up to the GM. The game often seems to assume that all weapons are wood or metal. I think a whip or an obsidian weapon, would be fair game for the GM to decide they count or not. And more obscure weapons certainly exist, like the Paper Shortsword of a Scrollmaster or white hair of a White Haired Witch. The game is certainly not definitive and relies heavily on GM interpretions. This is just one such ability.
I don't blame Paizo for not writing every single type of obscure weapon material in abilities like this. And there are lots and lots of ways to construct a weapon, especially with obscure archetypes, magic, alchemy or just very exotic weapons.
Regarding monks and natural attacks, up to the GM. It is important that players aren't surprised when they, or their weapons, take damage from an ability like this. As long as the players see it as a calculated risk, it shouldn't be an issue. Encouraging players to apply a diversity of tactics will challenge them in a positive way.
Rules reading aside (I have to say that because you are in the Rules forum), it's probably best to assume that if the monk would be subject to the acid damage if hit, then him punching, kicking, or touching the ooze triggers the damage (it's all the same acid and there's no logical, scientific, or magical indication that it is any different.)
Often times a GM must make a judgment call based on common sense and understand that not every specific material or weapon makeup will be factored into a creature that has existed in some iteration for 30 years or more. We know that black pudding dissolves organic materials; flesh, leather, paper, etc. That's not in question (how long that takes may be up for debate.) In this case, since the acid would deal damage to any non-stone creature struck, whether they're flesh, bone, another ooze (acid immunity not-withstanding), or chitin, we can assume that it works whether it touches them or they touch it.
My call in this situation is that the monk striking the black pudding takes damage, but I would forgo the part about their clothing and armor also taking damage even though the listing says that when a creature takes acid damage it applies to those items. I view that part as a reference to being struck by the pudding. That's a logical, reasonable and fair approach which will likely serve you best.
I hope you up the CR, since it isn't calculated with that in mind.
<entering the absurd> "So can a Monk Grapple/Pin a Pudding?"
Yes.
Absolutely. You can grapple and pin air and water elementals, why not puddings? They're actually remarkably easy to hold onto. You just need acid resistance to keep from dying horribly.
|
|
If they wanted only stone weapons to be immune, the language of the ability would be
Agree, but 2 two things. First, it's from bestiary 1, which predates the pathfinder access to stone weapons. Second, paizo seems to rarely use the best wording for abilities (there's a lot of text they get right, in each book, but the mechanics often seem to need a bit more proofreading than they get.)
<entering the absurd> "So can a Monk Grapple/Pin a Pudding?"
I would say yes to this. There's nothing in the pudding's stat block to indicate that it can't be grappled or pined. Doing so would hurt though, I'd say. That would be some damage.
Note that the text doesn't say "all organic material". It just says "organic material", and then goes on to specify wood.
|
|
Note that the text doesn't say "all organic material". It just says "organic material", and then goes on to specify wood.
It specifies Wood and Clothing and armor. Again, B1, so creature came out prior to wooden armor from AVG, and prior to primative materials in UC. And paizo really doesn't update things, unless it causes huge problems (they'd rather sell a new book than update an old book).
Anyway, seems pretty obvious that the intention is that things touching this ooze take acid damage. If the monk or animal companion or familiar decide that attacking it with natural attacks and unarmed strikes is a good plan, expect them to get harmed. That should be common sense.
Besides, it has AC of 3, -2 will and -2 reflex. There's no reason the monk can't just use thrown improvised weapons to kill this thing. Not difficult to rely on magic, either. Plus, with a speed of only 20ft and no intelligence, this creature is very easy to ignore and can be bypassed without combat, if you want.
Anyway, seems pretty obvious that the intention is that things touching this ooze take acid damage.
It's pretty obvious to me (based on developer commentary in the past, and the specific rules given) that it's only intended to harm manufactured weapons made of wood or metal.
If this were to get an official ruling, I'd only expect a 70% chance that the monk's unarmed strikes can't take damage.
So, to the people are arguing that only wood or metal weapons can be damaged by striking the pudding, and that beating on it with hands, feat, knees and elbows is safe for the attacker. Oh, right, also grapple. How is it this amorphous blob, whose only way of causing damage is through simple physical contact, can actually damage people at all then. Envelop and suffocate, and eventually digest as the body rots on its own?
Definitely need to seriously lower this creatures rating.
How is it this amorphous blob, whose only way of causing damage is through simple physical contact, can actually damage people at all then.
Melee: Slam +8 (2d6+4 plus 2d6 acid plus grab)
Special Attacks: Constrict (2d6+4 plus 2d6 acid)
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.
So, the natural attacks become secondary, because unarmed strikes are specifically accounted for. Because they aren't actually weapons.
We have another instance of things on the weapon table not really being weapons, though. The spiked shield is not an actual weapon, but merely the stats for a regular shield that is being modified by shield spikes. If the spiked shield were actually a weapon, it'd be able to benefit from the bashing ability.
|
|
So, to the people are arguing that only wood or metal weapons can be damaged by striking the pudding, and that beating on it with hands, feat, knees and elbows is safe for the attacker. Oh, right, also grapple. How is it this amorphous blob, whose only way of causing damage is through simple physical contact, can actually damage people at all then. Envelop and suffocate, and eventually digest as the body rots on its own?
Definitely need to seriously lower this creatures rating.
Yeah, definitely seems like the CR should be reduced if this easily exploitable loophole is allowed.
"Everyone get naked, we'll punch it to death"
I will note that this particular ooze lack the engulf rule. It just grabs and constricts, which is clearly meant to function in conjunction with the acid abilities.
I wouldn't call it easily exploitable. Most characters are pretty bad at unarmed strikes, even taking attacks of opportunity to do so.
So, to the people are arguing that only wood or metal weapons can be damaged by striking the pudding, and that beating on it with hands, feat, knees and elbows is safe for the attacker. Oh, right, also grapple. How is it this amorphous blob, whose only way of causing damage is through simple physical contact, can actually damage people at all then. Envelop and suffocate, and eventually digest as the body rots on its own?
Definitely need to seriously lower this creatures rating.
Yeah, definitely seems like the CR should be reduced if this easily exploitable loophole is allowed.
"Everyone get naked, we'll punch it to death"
I will note that this particular ooze lack the engulf rule. It just grabs and constricts, which is clearly meant to function in conjunction with the acid abilities.
That works fine, since it has listed damage to apply for those abilities. But you can't damage an unarmed strike, so punch away.
Also, c'mon Murdock. You're supposed to eat pudding and wrestle in mud, not the other way around!
I'd prefer not to have my hands dissolve off, were I a PC monk. I'd accept that the thing that just ate through the oaken door, and left an absent archway in the iron portcullis, might not be my new cuddle-buddy.
But that DC21 Reflex save is the key. A Weapon user has _that_ long to get their weapon clear of the thing, before it turns its tiny mouths against the weapon. I'd probably give the monk a circumstance bonus, hands being nimbler than greataxes. And having done all that, I'd expect the monk can make a DC21 Reflex save.
Or I'd decide I don't want another die roll per hit, and just rule that the pudding doesn't react to flesh as quickly as metals and woods.
QUOTE="blahpers"] Also, c'mon Murdock. You're supposed to eat pudding and wrestle in mud, not the other way around!
"Step right up everyone and see these bikini-clad ladies drink Resist Energy potions and wrestle in this black pudding!"
;-)
I'd prefer not to have my hands dissolve off, were I a PC monk. I'd accept that the thing that just ate through the oaken door, and left an absent archway in the iron portcullis, might not be my new cuddle-buddy.
But that DC21 Reflex save is the key. A Weapon user has _that_ long to get their weapon clear of the thing, before it turns its tiny mouths against the weapon. I'd probably give the monk a circumstance bonus, hands being nimbler than greataxes. And having done all that, I'd expect the monk can make a DC21 Reflex save.
Or I'd decide I don't want another die roll per hit, and just rule that the pudding doesn't react to flesh as quickly as metals and woods.
Hmm. What if the attacker is a wooden or metal construct? A treant?
Hmm. What if the attacker is a wooden or metal construct? A treant?
That's one of those oddities. Like how the slams from an adamantine golem don't seem to be considered adamantine weapons.
|
|
I wouldn't call it easily exploitable. Most characters are pretty bad at unarmed strikes, even taking attacks of opportunity to do so.
Okay, sake of arguement, party has 5 medium characters totally naked with two fists each, 1 BAB and 12 str. None are monks or have improved unarmed strike.
So each character's main hand is -6 to attack (1 BAB, +1 STR, -4 lethal damage with unarmed, -4 light main hand two weaponfighting without the feat). The off hand is -10.
Main hand will hit almost every time thanks to AC 3 on the black pudding. Off hand will hit sometimes, but not often. Sake of arguement, let's say they hit half the time with off hand attacks.
With main hands, party deals 5d3+5 per turn, and the black pudding has no DR. If a D3 is 1.5, then that's 12 damage per turn. Off hands will add another 2d3 or 3 damage. So the naked party will deal about 15 damage per turn, which means the black pudding will be at zero in 7 rounds.
7 rounds is a long time to be at point blank with an ooze, though I think the low Str and BAB, and the lack of buffs is rather unrealistic for PCs, even naked PCs. Ooze can make only a single AoO per turn. Very likely, it would die much faster than 7 rounds with 5 PCs.