Kelrugem's extensions

[Kelrugem]

Appreciate it.

-G

Hi

Sorry, I am still drowning in work, I hope I can look at that soon Sadly my life is just work and sleep right now

[tahl_liadon]

Sadly my life is just work and sleep right now

oh-noes! :-(

when you get around to it, a question -- (i think these are relevant from your extension? or maybe part of fg coding?):

i have this in npc "sq" box:

DR 5/magic and slashing; Resist fire 10; Immune cold, electricity, magicmissile, undead traits; Defensive Abilities channel resistance +4

when i drop npc into combat tracker, these populated:

Undead traits; IMMUNE: nonlethal; DR: 5 magic and slashing; RESIST: 10 fire; IMMUNE: cold; IMMUNE: electricity; DMGTYPE: magic; IFTAG: mindaffecting, death, disease, paralysis, poison, sleep, stun, fatigue, exhaustion, abilitydrain, energydrain; SIMMUNE

i can guess how some are rewritten and make sense, but a few don't look right -- e.g. why "dmgtype:magic"? and nothing about a) immunity to magic missile, and b) channel resistance (do these exist / work?)

thx

(hope you can adjust your work-life and gain a more balanced ratio)

[Phixation]

DMGTYPE: magic from DR magic. its a rule in the bestiary. immunity to magic missiles i wouldn't know unless i saw the npc stat block in question. the channel resistance is pretty standard across higher level undead in PF too but they dont work automatically in FG

[tahl_liadon]

thx for explanation. still unclear on this one:

DMGTYPE: magic from DR magic. its a rule in the bestiary.

my understanding of "dmgtype: magic" is that it treats the creature's damage done to others as magical damage? how does it interact with "dr: 5 magic"?

i.e. "dr: 5 magic" just means creature has damage reduction 5, bypassed by magic... what does that have to do with whether the creature can inflict magical damage?

[Phixation]

Shrugs. Its part of the damage reduction universal monster rules.

"Some monsters are vulnerable to magic weapons. Any weapon with at least a +1 magical enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls overcomes the damage reduction of these monsters. Such creatures’ natural weapons (but not their attacks with weapons) are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction."

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/ru...-monster-rules under damage reduction

there are quite a few of things like this that are hidden in random parts of books under appendices that change a few things. Not all are well known. i always have to re check to make sure this ability or that ability doesnt have extra rules on it

[tahl_liadon]

.
thx for the reference text.

hm... it's odd, and i think it's a wording issue because it is about the attacker overcoming dr, not whether a targeted creature can do magical damage.

i think this bit "Such creatures’ natural weapons..." is causing confusion -- it sounds like it's referring to "Some monsters..." (first sentence, the target), whereas it should be referring to the weapon being used (by the attacker), further qualifying the second sentence.

"natural weapons" [if qualified as magic] of the attacker, not of "some monsters".

my conclusion why "dmgtype: magic" was added in fg is because it was interpreted that the "natural weapons" belong to "some monsters" -- thus the npc / monster gets to do magical damage, although it should not.

[Phixation]

See, I read it the other way. The first sentence states that DR from the monster is broken by magic weapons. the second sentence reads that their natural attacks are treated as capable of breaking magic damage reduction. Just envision that monster fighting others of their kind. wouldnt make sense for them not to be able to hurt themselves or others of their kind in dominance issues so this grants them the ability to break their own DR if needed.

[tahl_liadon]

.

The first sentence states that DR from the monster is broken by magic weapons.

that's clear. agreed.

the second sentence reads that their natural attacks are treated as capable of breaking magic damage reduction.

i don't interpret it like that.

there are 2 parties referenced in this sentence: the attacker ("any weapon") against the target ("these monsters" -- referring back to "some monsters" in first sentence).

Just envision that monster fighting others of their kind. wouldnt make sense for them not to be able to hurt themselves or others of their kind in dominance issues so this grants them the ability to break their own DR if needed.

although i see and understand your scenario, i think you're putting words into the rules that's not there, i.e. r.a.w.

if the creature's stat block does not say its natural attacks are magical, it cannot do magical damage. simply r.a.w.

to entertain the scenario you stated above, i would say if two creatures of same type want to duke it out for dominance, damage reduction stands (they're not immune to each other's attacks).

each creature would need to continual just do big damages to the other one, each hit reducing by (in this case) 5 and the rest of the damage goes through. it's gonna be a drawn out fight, but the one that happens to hits harder (luck of the dice) more often will win over -- and dominate.

[Phixation]

We both agree the first sentence says what it says... the third sentence doesn't have a target other than the reference back to the first sentence. Such creatures' (referring to the monsters that have vulnerable to magic weapons) natural weapons are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. nowhere in there does that sentence have a 2nd target. just says that DR magic monsters break DR magic. If you don't agree (and that's perfectly fine too) as a GM, don't use it.

[Phixation]

Now should FG add that as a DMGTYPE. probably not. as it doesn't apply to weapons other than their own natural weapons. But I am not the original coder of the PF ruleset and i do not know what was going thru their head. Maybe they want to be more through. I do not know. Just means there is something you need to keep your eye on for any game that are ran.