Oddly, the text doesn't say that it does. But don't be surprised if a GM says that barkskin, natural armor, or other abilities referencing skin stop working. (I wouldn't allow skinsend to work, for example.)
Spells only do what they say they do.
Slough causes con damage and that's it. While it's mechanically jarring that it doesn't, causing con damage and also removing natural armor would be broke AF on many creatures, since things like dragons rely almost exclusively on natural armor to have any AC.
Spells only do what they say they do.
Slough causes con damage and that's it. While it's mechanically jarring that it doesn't, causing con damage and also removing natural armor would be broke AF on many creatures, since things like dragons rely almost exclusively on natural armor to have any AC.
Ehhhhh, I dunno. The description says a lot more than that it inflicts Con damage. It says the target's skin falls off. That isn't just page-filler--the target's skin falls clean off. At the very least, they're gonna cause a bit of a scene if they just walk into the tavern and order a pint after that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Natural armor not necessarily depends on the skin. It can be hard musculature, dense bones or even simply the size of the creature making hard to get to the important parts of the body. A wound 1" deep into a human body will touch some important organ or an artery almost everywhere in the body, a wound 1" deep on a sperm whale has hit blubber and some secondary vein.
Adding power to the spell "because you lose the skin" is simply adding power because you want to do it.
I see even less reason to have it affect magical effects unless they explicitly require you to use the skin. Or you would rule that barkskin doesn't work on a skeleton?
When speaking of skinsend I agree, if the creature has taken 5 or more points of constitution damage and has reached the point where the skin has fallen off.
|
|
Slough
Source Horror Adventures pg. 128
School transmutation [evil]; Level arcanist 5, cleric 5, occultist 4, oracle 5, psychic 5, sorcerer 5, spiritualist 4, warpriest 5, witch 5, wizard 5
Casting
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (a pinch of dried skin flakes)
Effect
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target one living creature
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Fortitude negates; Spell Resistance yes
Description
The target takes 1d4 points of Constitution damage each round as its skin loosens and splits. Once it has taken 5 or more points of Constitution damage in this way, its skin falls off to reveal its musculature. The creature ceases taking Constitution damage, but takes a –4 penalty on saving throws against disease, pain effects, or poison, and on Charisma-based skill checks with the exception of Intimidate and Use Magic Device. The creature’s skin regrows rapidly—once its Constitution damage is fully healed, its skin becomes intact once again and the penalties end.
An instantaneous spell with an effect that repeats each round?
Wonnerfull ....It can't even be dispelled. And healing the constitution damage before it reaches 5+ doesn't stop it.
|
|
Natural armor not necessarily depends on the skin.
I see even less reason to have it affect magical effects unless they explicitly require you to use the skin. Or you would rule that barkskin doesn't work on a skeleton?
If you read the original post you'll see I was talking about cases where the Nat armor *is* specifically coming from Skin/Hide...
And yes, I would rule that. Because that’s rules as written... it *specifically* calls out that it only works on living creatures, and refers to toughening the creature’s skin... imagine coming in here just to be contrary without even thinking about what you’re saying lol
Ok, true, I forgot that barkskin doesn't work on non living things.
But you are saying that it doesn't work on a Nuckelavee? or any creature with a carapace? Insects? Oozes?
Nuckelavee
This skinless creature resembles a horse and its humanoid rider, fused into a single hideous being of rage and sickness.
NE Large fey (aquatic)
And you have a way to deduce, without any chance of error, for what creatures the natural armor is dependant on skin and not on other factors?
Increasing the size of a creature beyond medium gives it an increase in natural armor (Bestiary, Table 2–2: Size Changes). Why does it increase? I don't see anything that says that it is because its skin becomes more though. Again it can be harder bones, 2 inches of subcutaneous fat or whatever.
If you want you can decide for each creature how much of the natural AC is dependant from its skin, but this game isn't meant to have that kind of detail.
Natural armor not necessarily depends on the skin. It can be hard musculature, dense bones or even simply the size of the creature making hard to get to the important parts of the body. A wound 1" deep into a human body will touch some important organ or an artery almost everywhere in the body, a wound 1" deep on a sperm whale has hit blubber and some secondary vein.
Adding power to the spell "because you lose the skin" is simply adding power because you want to do it.
Re: natural armor, that's fair. I misremembered that while 3.5E does define a natural armor bonus as being due to the creature's "tough hide", Pathfinder does not define it that way, leaving it more abstract.
Re: "want to do it", I have no skin (ha) in this game. I'd rule the same way for effects that hurt the target's skin as I would for effects that bolster it so long as the effect description indicates that the effect works via the target's skin. But I completely understand not ruling that way as well.
I see even less reason to have it affect magical effects unless they explicitly require you to use the skin. Or you would rule that barkskin doesn't work on a skeleton?
It doesn't, at least not by my reading. Skeletons don't have skin, and barkskin specifically states that the spell "toughens a creature’s skin.". You can't toughen what doesn't exist. But again, I won't argue with a GM that rules otherwise, especially since there are published skeletal monsters that have barkskin prepared (e.g., the siabrae). So at least some designers either agree with your stance or didn't consider the ramifications when they built their monsters.
When speaking of skinsend I agree, if the creature has taken 5 or more points of constitution damage and has reached the point where the skin has fallen off.
Agreed. Conversely, I'd also prevent slough from working on a creature with no skin.
The d20pfsrd text appears to be migrated from 3.5 text. I can't find any similar text on the Archives or in the legacy PRD.
|
|
I see even less reason to have it affect magical effects unless they explicitly require you to use the skin. Or you would rule that barkskin doesn't work on a skeleton?It doesn't, at least not by my reading. Skeletons don't have skin, and barkskin specifically states that the spell "toughens a creature’s skin.". You can't toughen what doesn't exist. But again, I won't argue with a GM that rules otherwise, especially since there are published skeletal monsters that have barkskin prepared (e.g., the siabrae). So at least some designers either agree with your stance or didn't consider the ramifications when they built their monsters.
Actually, I was wrong, as it doesn't work on undead, but I am not surprised to see that some skeletal creature has it. I was almost secure that there was some. But it is easily an error of the designer.
To make a different example, what would happen if a druid with barkskin on use wild shape to turn into an earth elemental?
He is a living being, but he hasn't any skin anymore. Skin is something form dependant, so he should lose it when polymorphed.
Even more strange, and one of the reasons why I don't feel that slough is a well-thought spell, what happens to him if he was the subject of a slough spell?
As he hasn't any skin, by your interpretation the spell will stop.
But, as it is an instantaneous spell, the effect will continue as soon as the wildshape ends.
|
|
I agree with Blahpers on this point, either Barkskin and Slough both work only on creatures with skin, or they work on every possible creature inside of their target listing, “living creature”
You can’t have your cake and eat it too
I think that Slough is a great SLA power for a horror monster, but a very badly thought spell. When a spellcaster can spam it in multiple encounters the chances of getting some strange interaction that will require time to be adjudicated is high.
But I agree that it should work on all targets that can benefit from barkskin.
To make a different example, what would happen if a druid with barkskin on use wild shape to turn into an earth elemental?
Ugh, now we're getting into "polymorph doesn't really change X" and "what is form-dependent?" stuff. I'd have to give it some serious thought, but slough and barkskin certainly aren't unique in that regard. We could start a new thread for all the head scratchers related to spells/abilities versus wild shape. : D