Hi I was wondering did they ever errata clay-golums cursed wounds so that you didn't need 9th level spells to counteract their curse ? which seems high for a level 10 enemy.
Or was it intentional that clay golums curse be that difficult to shift?
Oh this thread again.
1
2
3
4
Been a good year since the last one, I assuming a no then. Guess its an easy thing to house-rule.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
There has not been any kind of errata, or statementity that you should or should not expect errata. Nothing has changed since the previous threads on this subject.
It is tradition that Clay Golems have a trait that makes the wounds they cause very unlikely to overcome in standard ways.
In AD&D it required a 6th-level spell cast by a 17th-level or higher caster.
In D&D 3.5 it required the caster of healing to roll 1d20+their level (or less if they weren't a single-classed spell caster) and get a total of 26 or higher for the healing to have any effect.
In Pathfinder 1st edition, the 3.5 method was kept as-is.
And now, in Pathfinder 2nd edition you've got two options to get over the cursed wounds:
1) Get a high enough level counteract effect (7th level with a critical success, or 9th level otherwise)
or 2) Use magical healing that doesn't rely on casting spells, such as healing potions.
So not only is it intentional that curse wounds are a pain - but this is actually the easiest to overcome version of the curse to exist so far.
thenobledrake wrote: So not only is it intentional that curse wounds are a pain - but this is actually the easiest to overcome version of the curse to exist so far. I disagree that it is easier to remove than in 3.x.
Characters have lower health (less to recover), more spellslots and so on. Sure potions work automatically, but you have to have access to them I would wager in an actual adventuring day a PF2e character would have more trouble healing it.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote: I disagree that it is easier to remove than in 3.x. Here's why I say that it is easier:
Let's say we're using a clay golem as a solo threat for a party that is 8th level - as that is a not uncommon circumstance in which to encounter a clay golem for the first time in a campaign.
In 3.x, getting over the curse means the party's healer spends a spell slot for a healing spell, and rolls 1d20+8 to try and get a 26 (and I don't think there's a natural 20 = success rule on that, but I might be misremembering that one detail). So getting over the cursed wounds takes something unique - the GM has to toss in a particular NPC that is higher level and can take care of this, or powerful magic items, something outside what a party easily could have come across or chosen to purchase as a natural part of the adventure up to this point.
In PF2, the counteract route is functionally the same as above. But then, there's the second route of using potions - a thing that parties typically come across all the time, and might even already have a stockpile they've been hanging on to "just in case" or they can go buy if they haven't.
The difference being, in effect, what level of thing the GM has to let the party get to fix their problem - in one case something higher level than the party, and in the other case items lower level than the party.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
You can get rid of a golum's "nasty effectses" by throwing the One Ring into Mount Doom. ;-)
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
coriolis wrote: You can get rid of a golum's "nasty effectses" by throwing the One Ring into Mount Doom. ;-) Rubbish mount doom everyone knows all the best clay golems come from Prague.
thenobledrake wrote: In 3.x, getting over the curse means the party's healer spends a spell slot for a healing spell, and rolls 1d20+8 to try and get a 26 (and I don't think there's a natural 20 = success rule on that, but I might be misremembering that one detail). There isn't, but last I checked, 20+8 was more than 26. ;)
Maybe I'm confused how do potions get around the healing issue?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Talonhawke wrote: Maybe I'm confused how do potions get around the healing issue? Descriptors, potions have the magical descriptor but cursed wounds only forbids non-magical healing and require healing spells to make a counteract to work (with its impossibly high level).
So as potions are magical healing but not spells and the condition ends when someone is on full hps you can just potion away your cursed wounds.
I am not sure if that was intentional but given they set the counteract level to 10 so you need 7 -9 level spells to counteract the condition then it seems fair game to use the loop-whole.
Draco18s wrote: There isn't, but last I checked, 20+8 was more than 26. ;) Yeah, of course it is... dunno why my brain was declaring 15% chance impossible before.
siegriedliner wrote: I am not sure if that was intentional... If it weren't intentional it would be worded something like "The cursed creature can't regain HP except via magic, and that magic must succceed at a DC 29 counteract check or the healing has no effect." instead of inserting the words "and anyone casting a spell to heal the creature..."
Unless we're suggesting not that the writer made an accidental inclusion of a bunch of words, and instead assuming when they wrote this section they somehow forgot that magic healing that isn't a spell even exists.
Either way, though, evidence and probability both strongly suggest this "loophole" is actually an intentional part of the rules.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: Unless we're suggesting not that the writer made an accidental inclusion of a bunch of words, and instead assuming when they wrote this section they somehow forgot that magic healing that isn't a spell even exists. Er, more like the writer forgetting that elixers of life are (a) magical and (b) aren't a spell.
Which is a very believable thing, given that different people work on different parts of the rules all the time.
Draco18s wrote: thenobledrake wrote: Unless we're suggesting not that the writer made an accidental inclusion of a bunch of words, and instead assuming when they wrote this section they somehow forgot that magic healing that isn't a spell even exists. Er, more like the writer forgetting that elixers of life are (a) magical and (b) aren't a spell.
Which is a very believable thing, given that different people work on different parts of the rules all the time. Elixirs of life are not magical. Healing potions are.
Kennethray covered my reply, mostly.
Draco18s wrote: Which is a very believable thing, given that different people work on different parts of the rules all the time. I know people work on different parts of the book and that can cause some issues when specific wordings don't line up (see the whole "does the requirement to have tools mean I have to use the tools?" thing)
I don't think that applies to broad concepts that have been solidly baked into the game even during the playtest - because unless I'm remembering incorrectly, healing potions have always (for a value of always that means PF2's lifetime only) been magical, and a specific effect rather than a casting of a spell. It would require the author of the clay golem's Cursed Wound feature to think that potions functioned like drinkable scrolls in order for the wording used to not deliberately allow potions to work - and that seems like an outlandish thing for the writer to believe.
coriolis wrote: You can get rid of a golum's "nasty effectses" by throwing the One Ring into Mount Doom. ;-) Give the ring to a pixie and tell them it's a shield. I give it 3 blocks before the job's done.
Kennethray wrote: Elixirs of life are not magical. Healing potions are. s/Exlixer of Life/Healing Potion on my post. You already knew what I was trying to say, so respond to that instead of pointing out that I named the wrong item.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
