Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[erik]

It looks like the author just recommends making it immune to Ability Drain in addition to Ability Damage, because Ability Drain works and he doesn't like that.

The knowledge check is just ridiculous failed sophistry. Using stat draining undead on whatever is a time honored means of necromancers in the business of fucking other people's shit up. You don't need a knowledge check to use base tactics.

Assuming this is 3.5 then a 1 on a d20 auto-fails a save, so you can even use ghosts. They'll get it done eventually. And it's not at all unreasonable to find a good ghost who would be willing to do the deed for team hero. [edit: or just use a Level 1 Ghost, ECL 6 character]

This Lavos-masturbatory-prop could be an entertaining challenge for a low level party.
"Hey, this big nasty monster is destroying stuff, what do we do?"
"How about we convince the ghost of the dirt farmer's daughter that we met last week to take care of it?"
"Good call."
"Afterwards we can look into the fish-man that is scaring people away from the docks. 5 silver says it's an old guy in a mask working a scam."

[LeadPal]

I don't know much about epic weapons - do they count as magic. Can the Lavos hit an allip with any of its attacks? I see they're epic adamantine for the purpose of overcoming DR. But that doesn't make them capable of hitting incorporeal creatures, does it? Not unless someone casts Magic Fang on it (but it'd have to lower the SR).

Epic weapons are defined as magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus, and incorporeal creatures are specifically hurt by creatures that strike as magic weapons. So the argument that the onanism monster totally can hit incorporeal (50% of the time) is pretty reasonable. This is why the author, being the sort of person who writes up a CR 1558 monster, is not making that argument, and instead believes that the PCs should make a DC 6154 knowledge check to do something obvious.

[ishy]

Well an argument that natural weapons "are treated as magic(epic) weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction" also means that they are magical (epic) for other uses is pretty much 100% a houserule.

[deaddmwalking]

Well an argument that natural weapons "are treated as magic(epic) weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction" also means that they are magical (epic) for other uses is pretty much 100% a houserule.

I wouldn't tend to rule it that way. I don't treat a demon's weapons as magic even if they are silver and evil.

Clearly the lavos's weapons aren't adamantine, even though you treat them as such for overcoming DR. I would assume that they don't ignore 20 points of hardness when attacking a wall (the way REAL adamantine would do) so I'd assume that while they overcome Epic DR, they aren't ACTUALLY magical. So my assumption would be that this creature, despite being able to overcome epic DR has no ability to hit incorporeal creatures.

At least, barring a rule to the contrary.

[erik]

Well an argument that natural weapons "are treated as magic(epic) weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction" also means that they are magical (epic) for other uses is pretty much 100% a houserule.

Yep. This is (a small) part of why monks blow so hard with their unarmed "ki strike" since it doesn't do anything to help them hit incorporeal creatures.

Tarrasque is just the same.

[Username17]

I don't know much about epic weapons - do they count as magic. Can the Lavos hit an allip with any of its attacks? I see they're epic adamantine for the purpose of overcoming DR. But that doesn't make them capable of hitting incorporeal creatures, does it? Not unless someone casts Magic Fang on it (but it'd have to lower the SR).

Epic weapons are defined as magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus, and incorporeal creatures are specifically hurt by creatures that strike as magic weapons. So the argument that the onanism monster totally can hit incorporeal (50% of the time) is pretty reasonable. This is why the author, being the sort of person who writes up a CR 1558 monster, is not making that argument, and instead believes that the PCs should make a DC 6154 knowledge check to do something obvious.

Um... no. The ability to penetrate DR as if you had a magic weapons specifically does not allow you to actually hurt an incorporeal creature. It probably should, but it does not.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

Lavos has a CR that high? Uh, did everyone just forget about the fact that he was beaten on by three teenagers with piddling magic?

Lavos is an amusing artifact of the fact that D&D magic scales in effect much more sharply than it does in range. Unless you're doing an exploit it's easier to get personal time manipulation magic than it is to one-shot a few city blocks.

[LeadPal]

I don't know much about epic weapons - do they count as magic. Can the Lavos hit an allip with any of its attacks? I see they're epic adamantine for the purpose of overcoming DR. But that doesn't make them capable of hitting incorporeal creatures, does it? Not unless someone casts Magic Fang on it (but it'd have to lower the SR).

Epic weapons are defined as magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus, and incorporeal creatures are specifically hurt by creatures that strike as magic weapons. So the argument that the onanism monster totally can hit incorporeal (50% of the time) is pretty reasonable. This is why the author, being the sort of person who writes up a CR 1558 monster, is not making that argument, and instead believes that the PCs should make a DC 6154 knowledge check to do something obvious.

Um... no. The ability to penetrate DR as if you had a magic weapons specifically does not allow you to actually hurt an incorporeal creature. It probably should, but it does not.

-Username17

Oh fuck, you're right. Why even call out that incorporeal creatures can be hit by creatures that strike as magic weapons when 99% of the things that do that only do it for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction?

[FatR]

It is very hard to estimate power of PCs magic with Chrono Cross due to gameplay boundaries, but Lavos is a planet-destroying threat, and powered a whole magic civilization with floating islands and shit with just a part of its power, and was able to do stuff like creating much stronger doppelgangers of previous bosses. It basically fits just right at around CR 20. But four-digit CR - that's obviously bullshit. Besides, you don't even destroy its main body in a head-on fight - you blast through its weak point and then proceed to beat up its human-scale core.

[DMReckless]

To add in a few bits of information gained actually attending some Paizo seminars (and thus fuel the rage):

Mythic "achievement"-based leveling will be 1/2 based on Player choices of which track/destiny/whatever they choose, and 1/2 by whatever the GM decides is necessary to go the rest of the way and actually gain another the level up. So you get to choose "whether to spread peanut butter, chocolate, or ky jelly on your GM's dick before you suck it."

Jason Buhlman freely admits that Pathfinder's math breaks at high levels, and recognizes that adding more to the math by adding in "more Levels" isn't something he wants to do. He further said that fixing the math would basically take a whole new game design/edition and that Paizo's not interested in doing this currently either. So Mythic isn't supposed to break the math, just other parts of the game (namely action economy).

Unfortunately for Jason, he also proudly mentioned the backwards ass way he is adding math to hit points by adding immortality clauses that push your ability to stay conscious and not die into 3-5 times your Con Score, and then lets you come back to life after being killed by non-epic damage. But, hey, "you don't get more Hit Points with Mythic", so that's cool, right?

The public playtest in the next month or two should give everyone stuff to bitch about...

[erik]

Hrm. It does look like they changed the Incorporeal subtype from 3e to 3.5.

In 3e the Tarrasque has no room to argue as it clearly cannot hit incorporeals. In 3.5 Incorporeals may be hit by creatures that strike as magic weapons.

That clause is not as unambiguous as it could be since it could just mean via Magic Fang rather than "strike as magic weapons for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction", but there is at least room to argue it now. But hey, send forth a bunch of Allips/Ghosts and even if they can be hit and destroyed, they can at least have their first strike by floating through the ground underneath it and emerging to strike.

[Kaelik]

Where the fuck are you getting that from erik?

"Incorporeal creatures can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, by magic weapons, or by spells, spell-like effects, or supernatural effects. They are immune to all nonmagical attack forms."

[NineInchNall]

Incorporeal Subtype

An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms.

Not that "for the purposes of bypassing damage reduction" shouldn't act as a limiter here or anything. I mean, if I have a character who is treated as Large "for the purposes of opposed grapple and trip checks", that doesn't mean that he is affected by a spell that affects Large creatures.

Lesson: "X for the purposes of Y" does not mean X in any other context.

In any case, the wording for creatures' ability to overcome damage reduction was changed between the time of MM3 ("strike as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction") and MM4, when it became "treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction."

[erik]

Where the fuck are you getting that from erik?

"Incorporeal creatures can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, by magic weapons, or by spells, spell-like effects, or supernatural effects. They are immune to all nonmagical attack forms."

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes ... ealSubtype

I would quote it but copying the link was hard enuff on an iPod.

[edit:] ah, here, I found a proper computer.

"An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities."

That could just mean Magic Fang'd creatures or it could mean creatures with DR(Magic).

[LeadPal]

Yeah, there isn't an argument after all due to the X for the purposes of Y clause in the DR entry, even though the incorporeal subtype changed. This is still a problem in Pathfinder, of course.

[Kaelik]

Where the fuck are you getting that from erik?

"Incorporeal creatures can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, by magic weapons, or by spells, spell-like effects, or supernatural effects. They are immune to all nonmagical attack forms."

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes ... ealSubtype

I would quote it but copying the link was hard enuff on an iPod.

[edit:] ah, here, I found a proper computer.

"An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities."

That could just mean Magic Fang'd creatures or it could mean creatures with DR(Magic).

Compare to http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilit ... rporeality

But please stop saying "they could mean Magic Fang" They could mean natural weapons that strike as magic weapons, which are not the same thing as natural weapons on a creature with DR/magic.

[erik]

Yes, I read both. But the one I cited explicitly mentions the issue of creatures striking as magic weapons. It is just unclear what the hell that means exactly.

3e didn't appear to have subtype explanations so there's no hope for Monks hitting an incorporeal there. 3.5 you have some argumentation wiggle-room.

Given that monks definitely could not touch incorporeal creatures before, I suspect that that was the intent for 3.5 as well since major hay was not made over this sneaky new rule notation, and such a power-up/fix for monks is something that is worth making hay over.

[Kaelik]

No, you still have absolutely no argument whatsoever.

Why do you keep saying they have an argument when there is no possible argument?

[erik]

Where, precisely, is it explained what the fuck "creatures that strike as magic weapons" means?

If it is not explained anywhere, then that is an ambiguous term. Ambiguous terms are grounds for argument.

[edit]
If you cannot piece it together, I'll help. I'm a helpful guy. I also have a deficit where I give the benefit of the doubt, possibly to a fault.

Creatures with Damage Reduction (Magic). "Such creatures’ natural weapons (but not their attacks with weapons) are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction."

Incorporeal creatures may be struck by "creatures that strike as magic weapons."

There are similarities in terminology there. The DR rule could very well be referencing the Incorporeal Subtype rule.

It is true to say that creatures with Damage Reduction (Magic) do strike as magic weapons. They strike as magic weapons for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction.

The argument is whether or not that qualifier at the end is relevant to the Incorporeal Subtype.

Maybe it is, maybe it ain't. I think the strength of the argument is behind ruling that having DR(Magic) doesn't let you bad-touch ghosts, but that doesn't mean that the argument cannot be made.

These aren't air tight documents, these are ambiguous RPG rules.

I mean, if I have a character who is treated as Large "for the purposes of opposed grapple and trip checks", that doesn't mean that he is affected by a spell that affects Large creatures.

But that is not an accurate representation of the argument.

If you have a character treated as Large for the purposes of X, then is he affected by an spell that affects creatures which are treated as Large creatures? That is the valid comparison. And it is murkier.

[hogarth]

To add in a few bits of information gained actually attending some Paizo seminars (and thus fuel the rage):

Weren't some of the examples of "mythic" things include a Cure Light Wounds spell that cures 3d6 damage + 1 ability damage, and a fireball spell that does 10d10 damage + sets things on fire? And that somehow is supposed to enable you to fight demon lords and stuff?

From what I gather (there are "mythic levels" that add to your APL but not your character level), it reminds me of the bloodlines from Unearthed Arcana. Which is a bit underwhelming.

[DMReckless]

To add in a few bits of information gained actually attending some Paizo seminars (and thus fuel the rage):

Weren't some of the examples of "mythic" things include a Cure Light Wounds spell that cures 3d6 damage + 1 ability damage, and a fireball spell that does 10d10 damage + sets things on fire? And that somehow is supposed to enable you to fight demon lords and stuff?

From what I gather (there are "mythic levels" that add to your APL but not your character level), it reminds me of the bloodlines from Unearthed Arcana. Which is a bit underwhelming.

Yep, those were a few examples he gave on Mythic Spells. Or spells modified by expending Mythic Points.

[NineInchNall]

I mean, if I have a character who is treated as Large "for the purposes of opposed grapple and trip checks", that doesn't mean that he is affected by a spell that affects Large creatures.

But that is not an accurate representation of the argument.

If you have a character treated as Large for the purposes of X, then is he affected by an spell that affects creatures which are treated as Large creatures? That is the valid comparison. And it is murkier.

Did you not notice the update to the damage reduction rules that I pointed out? The wording is no longer "strike as magic weapons". It is now "treated as magic weapons".

There is no longer any ambiguity, even under your tortured interpretation of restrictive clauses.

In any case, no. The syntax is this: "X, for Y purpose(s)." It doesn't matter X is. It could be "eats babies" for all I care. A spell that targets only things that are X would not affect this creature, because for the purpose of the spell's targeting the creature is not X. (Except in the case where Y actually applies to that spell.)

So with X="treated as Large", the creature is not treated as Large for the spell's targeting.

[Juton]

So Pathfinder is continuing the glorious tradition of 3.x being caster edition. They have added a new ring that lets you persist a personal range spell. Basically persistent spell from 3.5, except it only costs gold, not even any feats.

You can read a description here:
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz6b98?Infini ... e-Infinite

[Silent Wayfarer]

On the Lavos vs Allip issue, what stops the Allip from just floating into Lavos' body while incorporeal and just fondling whichever organ it can reach? I mean, good luck punching through yourself to hit the magic rape ghost touching your heart.

[Juton]

I mean, good luck punching through yourself to hit the magic rape ghost touching your heart.

Lavos won't lose any levels unless he enjoys it. /thread