Looking at the troll entry:
"The first thing that comes to mind when most think of trolls is the creatures’ power of bodily regeneration. So potent is this regeneration that the only way to overcome it is to exploit the troll’s vulnerability to acid and fire. It is not enough to slay the troll with caustic or flaming weapons, though—even the smallest scrap of a troll’s flesh can regenerate into a full-size troll given enough time. The only sure way to eradicate a troll menace is to burn the monster’s entire body until nothing remains."
Looking at the troll entry:
"The first thing that comes to mind when most think of trolls is the creatures’ power of bodily regeneration. So potent is this regeneration that the only way to overcome it is to exploit the troll’s vulnerability to acid and fire. It is not enough to slay the troll with caustic or flaming weapons, though—even the smallest scrap of a troll’s flesh can regenerate into a full-size troll given enough time. The only sure way to eradicate a troll menace is to burn the monster’s entire body until nothing remains."
I mean acid damage is also colloqualy known as "burns"
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I had to take a guess, I'd say there's probably a "backend" calculation at work, and there wasn't any room to add another weakness to the troll at it's level without beefing it up too far in another area, and still maintain it's level.
At least the Acid effects the Regen.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That might be why that happened. Or its a typo no one noticed until now.
Or it's another example of them using conversational speech with Key terms/traits. I have a feeling they meant vulnerability [as in it bypasses regen] instead of Vulnerability [as in takes more damage].
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That might be why that happened. Or its a typo no one noticed until now.Or it's another example of them using conversational speech with Key terms/traits. I have a feeling they meant vulnerability [as in it bypasses regen] instead of Vulnerability [as in takes more damage].
This
Trolls are vulnerable to fire and acid (in terms of regeneration), trolls have a weakness (game term) to fire.
Descriptive text is not rules text 99% of the time.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are trolls weak to fire but not acid?
Paizo wants all energies to be roughly equivalent in terms of efficiency, unlike PF1 where Acid was way better than Fire because there are tons of creatures that are resistant to fire.
To achieve that, they kept a high number of fire resistant creatures (as it would have been illogical for a fire elemental to not be immune to fire) but added a high number of fire weaknesses to compensate.As a consequence, a monster that is vulnerable to fire has great chances to also have a weakness, when a monster vulnerable to acid will just have its regeneration stopped.
That might be why that happened. Or its a typo no one noticed until now.Or it's another example of them using conversational speech with Key terms/traits. I have a feeling they meant vulnerability [as in it bypasses regen] instead of Vulnerability [as in takes more damage].This
Trolls are vulnerable to fire and acid (in terms of regeneration), trolls have a weakness (game term) to fire.
Descriptive text is not rules text 99% of the time.
I would imagine that a vat of acid would be an effective measure to take out a troll's regenned hp at a constant rate. Which is more effective than having a guy sit there and stab it 24/7.
Or it's another example of them using conversational speech with Key terms/traits.But is “vulberability” a trait?
Vulnerability [as in takes more damage].I could have sworn that was “Weakness”.
Sin Vulnerability is a trait for Demons that represent a specific sin. Arboreal Warden has Axe Vulnerability. Chimpanzee Visitant has Whip Vulnerability. Shadow has Light Vulnerability. Dig-Widget has Mechanical Vulnerability. Bodak has Sunlight Vulnerability...
Sin Vulnerability is a trait for Demons that represent a specific sin. Arboreal Warden has Axe Vulnerability. Chimpanzee Visitant has Whip Vulnerability. Shadow has Light Vulnerability. Dig-Widget has Mechanical Vulnerability. Bodak has Sunlight Vulnerability...Or it's another example of them using conversational speech with Key terms/traits.But is “vulberability” a trait?
Vulnerability [as in takes more damage].I could have sworn that was “Weakness”.
The traits are defined and none of the above are "Traits" as per the rules. But yes some meet the descriptive definition of traits.
Fire and Acid are traits.
The traits are defined and none of the above are "Traits" as per the rules.
Sin Vulnerability is listed under Trait Abilities in Building Creatures in Gamemastery Guide pg. 70. Of course, it could be a case of trait vs Trait. ;)
Cool. Extra rules.
The GMG p 70 is a table defining the abilities of Creature Traits that the list. All those headings Aberation/AEON/etc are traits.
They also have extra Traits listed under some creature traits. Like Angels are also Celestial.
But there is no Sin Vulernability listed as a Trait. In fact it is its own section, not in the Trait section. So its not a Creature Trait or a Trait of a Creature Trait.
Further there are extra Traits listed in the GMG glossary. I'm not seeing any of the traits for our recent discussions listed there either.
The online list of Traits still seems correct with the exception that the nine alignments abbreviations (explained in the Bestiary) arguably could be there.
|
Sin Vulnerability is a trait for Demons that represent a specific sin. Arboreal Warden has Axe Vulnerability. Chimpanzee Visitant has Whip Vulnerability. Shadow has Light Vulnerability. Dig-Widget has Mechanical Vulnerability. Bodak has Sunlight Vulnerability...
Good point. Each of those Vulnerabilities, though, is to something that isn’t a damage type, as opposed to Fire and Acid. The equivalent effect for Fire and Acid is Weakness, not Vunerability.
I'm not sure where this is going. Weakness isn't a trait on the list either so I don't know what's gained by it either being a trait or not. Vulnerability [with a capital V] exists in the game along with Weakness. I only mentioned trait as I pulled it from the section on Creature Traits: for that post, you can replace trait with Trait Ability if you wish.
Good point. Each of those Vulnerabilities, though, is to something that isn’t a damage type, as opposed to Fire and Acid. The equivalent effect for Fire and Acid is Weakness, not Vunerability.
Not always: for instance, Viper Vine has a weakness to Cold spells. The theme is that it's not the standard weakness [damage type > bonus damage]: it includes [damage type > negative affect] or [non damage type > negative affect and/or bonus damage]. In essence, it seems like it's the non-standard Weakness catchall ability.
I'm not sure where this is going.
No where. Just you were using terms incorrectly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it specifies Cold effects, but specifically isn’t limited to Cold damage
It SHOULD be limited to damage if you look at the trait.
Cold trait
Source Core Rulebook pg. 629
"Effects with this trait deal cold damage"
it specifies Cold effects, but specifically isn’t limited to Cold damageIt SHOULD be limited to damage if you look at the trait.
Cold trait
Source Core Rulebook pg. 629
"Effects with this trait deal cold damage"
Wall of Ice is the only exception that I've found so far, but in theory I can imagine an item with the trait that doesn't deal cold damage, much as they say creatures with the trait have a connection to magical cold. Not sure what they'd DO with the trait, but it's within the bounds of possibilities.