Elven Verve and ghoul paralyze


Rules Discussion


Elven Verve says that all elves are immune to ghoul paralyze but i can't find anywhere in the elf info that backs this claim up??

While all elves are immune to the paralyzing touch of ghouls, you can shake off flesh-numbing magic of all kinds. You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to saves against effects that would impose the immobilized, paralyzed, or slowed conditions. When you would be immobilized, paralyzed, or slowed for at least 2 rounds, reduce that duration by 1 round.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's in the description of the ghoul, Bestiary page 158.

Quote:
Any living, non-elf creature hit by a ghoul’s attack (...)


so its listen under ghouls... why is it not listed under elves, it seems like something that might convince people to play an elf and it is a racial ability.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Because they’re only immune to Ghoul’s Paralysis, it doesn’t make much sense to list it anywhere else.


No offense, but no, it doesn't make sense.

It's no different than listing low-light vision or a clan dagger.
The Elf entry is exactly the place to mention these relatively minor ancestry rules.

It looks like an oversight to me.
I think it should be corrected in the second print of the CRB and mentioned in the next errata as well.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
LordVanya wrote:


It's no different than listing low-light vision or a clan dagger.

It's pretty radically different when those are general features of the ancestry and the other is a specific quirk of a monster ability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
LordVanya wrote:


It's no different than listing low-light vision or a clan dagger.
It's pretty radically different when those are general features of the ancestry and the other is a specific quirk of a monster ability.

And it allows a GM to more easily tailor the rules to their setting as well. It is on their end.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
LordVanya wrote:


It's no different than listing low-light vision or a clan dagger.
It's pretty radically different when those are general features of the ancestry and the other is a specific quirk of a monster ability.

^

Elves are not immune to all paralysis, just that of Ghoul’s. So the immunity is only listed in the Ghoul ability, the thing they’re immune to.

It would serve no purpose other than to eat up wordcount to list the immunity to this one ability from this one creature in the elf statblock.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It doesn't matter if elves are immune to ghoul paralysis until you come up against a ghoul. And when you come up against a ghoul, the ghoul paralysis says it doesn't apply to elves. So.

Plus if they print, I dunno, a bear that thinks dwarves smell gross in a future bestiary it'd make more sense to put that in the bear's stats than errata the dwarf ancestry. Keep monster-specific things with the monsters.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

9 people marked this as a favorite.

There's also this bulette fact, once again in the bulette: "Favored Prey A bulette gains a +1 circumstance bonus to attack and damage rolls with its jaws against a specific type of creature designated as its favorite food. Unless otherwise stated, a bulette’s favored prey is halflings. Elves are never a favored prey for bulettes."


Then to put it more succinctly, Ghoul paralysis not working on elves is a Ghoul drawback, not an elf trait.

In the description for Elven Verve it states "... elves are immune to the paralyzing touch of ghouls,".

That clearly contradicts the way we are supposed to be looking at it.

I suggest it needs to be edited for the sake of consistency and clarity.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

You are getting extremely hung up on a non-issue.

There's no contradiction. Elves are immune to this one creature's one ability, this feat gives them bonuses vs similar abilities from other sources.

A complete and total non-issue that is handled perfectly fine in the current presentation, consistent and clear.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LordVanya wrote:
That clearly contradicts the way we are supposed to be looking at it.

How is there a contradiction? Elves are immune to ghoul paralysis, per the ghoul paralysis ability and... the feat mentions it.


It should also be listed in the glossary, in the index, and tattooed on my forehead. Come on, Paizo. Get on this.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
It should also be listed in the glossary, in the index, and tattooed on my forehead. Come on, Paizo. Get on this.

Bestiary Gisher's Forehead Tattoos, Now Available!

(Not available)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Side question: How much of the monster special rules are known to the characters? How much of the monster special rules are thus known to the players? And how is that knowledge transfered and at which time? Though I don't think that retroactive addition of ancestry specific monster abilities to the CRB is possible or necessary how much do the respective characters know?

Do Halflings on Golarion know that a bulette will be after them first? Do Elves know that they are immune to Ghoul paralysis and can therefore act accordingly? Is this kind of information to be freely passed by the GM when the monster is first encountered or do players need to learn this the hard way, either by being attacked or passing a suitable knowledge check?

Mistakes happen often enough, especially if only one person (GM) is in charge of all available information and I have seen my fair share of Elves about to fall prone to the Sleep spell or Dwarves about to use blindness rules despite having darkvision. And unless the player has read and memorized the appropriate character and/or monster entry there is no way for him to ask his GM to double-check if there has been a mistake or if an exception is being made (for whatever reason).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Mistakes can and will happen, whether they’re abilities misread or numbers counted wrong. A player is more likely to forget a number or ability than the GM will forget the known ability of the monster they’re using against the party I’d wager.

Regardless, the players and GM should trust each other to act in good faith while playing.


Rysky wrote:

Mistakes can and will happen, whether they’re abilities misread or numbers counted wrong. A player is more likely to forget a number or ability than the GM will forget the known ability of the monster they’re using against the party I’d wager.

Regardless, the players and GM should trust each other to act in good faith while playing.

i disagree, a DM is more likely to forget an ability one of his players has than the player is. but in this case the player doesn't even know he is supposed to be immune. it should be in the stat block for the race.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Immunity to Ghoul’s paralysis is not an ability they PCs have that the GM can forget because it’s in the monster ability itself. A GM might forgot one of the characters has Darkvision but they’re not going to forget the PC is immune to Ghoul’s paralysis unless they forget the character is an elf, highly unlikely.

It’s ridiculous to demand that every monster future and present that have abilities that function ways on certain Ancestries have that info in the Ancestry bio.

A player would forget all that trying to keep track of everything.

As opposed to how it works sufficiently now where the info is detailed on the monster, the only time the ability would ever come into play.


Rysky wrote:

Immunity to Ghoul’s paralysis is not an ability they PCs have that the GM can forget because it’s in the monster ability itself. A GM might forgot one of the characters has Darkvision but they’re not going to forget the PC is immune to Ghoul’s paralysis unless they forget the character is an elf, highly unlikely.

It’s ridiculous to demand that every monster future and present that have abilities that function ways on certain Ancestries have that info in the Ancestry bio.

A player would forget all that trying to keep track of everything.

As opposed to how it works sufficiently now where the info is detailed on the monster, the only time the ability would ever come into play.

are you joking? in pathfinder 2e races only have 1 sometimes 2 abilities. listing 1 or 2 more would not even be close to "unable to remember" level of abilities. if i can remember the dwarf racial abilities from 1e i'm sure i'll be fine with 3 or 4 abilities in 2e

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Why are you assuming it’s only 1 or 2? You don’t know all the monsters that will be made for P2.

Better question, why waste wordcount putting an immunity to an ability from a specific creature onto an Ancestry when in all honesty they’ll never encounter the creature instead of just putting the info in the creature, the ONLY place it will show up and have an effect.

Not every game has ghouls in it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just to add another voice for immunity to Ghouls' paralysis to be kept in Ghoul entry and not added to ancestral abilities.

I remember having all of this "vs specific enemy" abilities before, and they were my favourite to trade away for other bonuses because they were so specific and irrelevant.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Why are you assuming it’s only 1 or 2? You don’t know all the monsters that will be made for P2.

This right here is the key point. It's listed in the monster stats for future-proofing. If it is listed in the CRB under elf and then a future monster has the same or similar limitation then you've left yourself in a bad position with where the info is listed, possibly in different locations: in the CRB for ghouls and elsewhere for other monsters.

Horizon Hunters

On a different note, are half-elves immune to Ghouls Touch?


DomHeroEllis wrote:
On a different note, are half-elves immune to Ghouls Touch?

They have the Elf Trait, so yes.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Gisher wrote:
It should also be listed in the glossary, in the index, and tattooed on my forehead. Come on, Paizo. Get on this.

Bestiary Gisher's Forehead Tattoos, Now Available!

(Not available)

I can't stop giggling. :)

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Suppose by the time Bestiary 2.5 rolls around, there's a monster in there with an awful ability that doesn't work on gnomes. Perhaps the Color From Out of Space has trouble eating the colors of unbleached gnomes because their First World color palette makes them resilient.

Since that book will be written something like five years from now, how could we realistically include that in the CRB now already?

So if we're not going to do that for later bestiaries, then it wouldn't be very consistent to do it for Bestiary 1.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

yucKy GnOmeS!

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Elven Verve and ghoul paralyze All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.