Yes. That was a master move.
This was one of the goals of PF2E, according to Mark Seifter. He likes talking on this topic a lot.
The point is for the GM to be enabled to say yes more often. Stuff like undead not getting all their immunities, but having an option spelled out in the book as possible though disruptive, lets the GM be the "fun parent" in the equation rather than having to nerf or otherwise limit undead players in ways the book doesn't spell out.
I personally find it annoying as I like to play with all the options. I never seriously considered limiting just to common. Plus I'm very happy to just accept it if the GM says no. But I guess if some folks like it.
The only games I can think of where immunity would have substantially changed the plot were with negative energy, and ironically negative healing is the one immunity that we DO have in 2nd ed.
Can attest to that. Negative healing makes abomination vaults really funny.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the release of the new spiritual damage in PF2R, maybe this will change. I also find that ridiculous to be immune to ghosts with my Dhampir. On top of being boring (total immunity is not really funny), it feels weird as it means ghosts can never damage undeads...
If you wanted to be stfict about RAW, then oncorporeal creatures can be equipped with ghost touch weapons.
Sure, they could be, but why would they ever be? Ghosts are site bound so they can't look for them after death, and by definition they were not prepared for their own death by virtue of their unfinished business.
|
If you wanted to be stfict about RAW, then oncorporeal creatures can be equipped with ghost touch weapons.Sure, they could be, but why would they ever be? Ghosts are site bound so they can't look for them after death, and by definition they were not prepared for their own death by virtue of their unfinished business.
You can always handwave that any weapon that was important to them in life becomes ghost-touch in their hands.