Paladins and Kyuss Worms?

[StreamOfTheSky]

Google is your friend. More specifically, James Jacobs post, which is the 18th reply (19th post) on that page (I can't get a link to that post to work right ATM).

Thanks for that link. After reading through, I've actually decided if I ever run an AoW game, I'm totally allowing a Paladin to be immune to infestation.

In particular, these posts really made me look at it differently:

"though 2nd edition, heres the Paladin's Handbook outtake:

Immunity to Disease
A paladin has complete immunity to all forms of organic disease. This immunity includes diseases from rat, otyugh, and neo-otyugh bites, as well as nonlethal but disabling maladies like measles and earaches. A paladin never catches a cold or suffers from tooth decay, and is unaffected by parasitic monsters such as green slime, violet fungi, gas spores, phycomids, and rot grubs. His wounds never become infected.

The process occurs instantly, automatically, and painlessly; the paladin isn't even aware of exposure to a disease."

(yeah, 2E, but that aspect of Paladins doesn't seem to have changed much in RAW, and definitely not in intent)

"Given that on another thread it was noted that the damage reduction of Warlocks and Barbarians would prevent the worms from burrowing, I think were I playing a paladin I'd be a bit upset if I look over and see the barbarian is immune due to his thick hide and hard living, the warlock is immune due to his pacts with creatures that should not be dealt with, and then my own devotion to the ideals of good nets me . . . nothing in this case. I am going to run them as immune to the worms."

So...the worms deal 1 point of damage as they burrow inside, then are destroyed by the paladin's divine immune system. Classes with DR (or hell, even adamantine armor, though I guess the worms could try to attack an area not protected by the armor) would just plain be safe. And I say that having only third person anectdotal experience of AoW till now. I have no idea if ruling like that severely ruins the campaign, but if it does, doesn't sound like a very well-built one to begin with...

 

[Dyson Logos]

Sorry, but to call something "official" you at least need to know where the answer can be found.

Interesting take on the term official.

By that logic, I can't post that "officially" a fighter can wear plate mail armor unless I can tell you where to find the rule?

 

[billd91]

Interesting take on the term official.

By that logic, I can't post that "officially" a fighter can wear plate mail armor unless I can tell you where to find the rule?

I agree with Ogrork. If you say something's official, you should be able to find the info to back it up better than just saying you read it "somewhere", particularly if it's obscure. Message board posts on the internet simply don't have enough inherent credibility to determine whether or not something is an "official" interpretation without being able to trace it back.

For the question of whether or not fighters can wear plate armor, if I were to ask about where the rules cover this (rules which are quite definitely NOT obscure), I'd be happy with you mentioning that the fighter's starting feats include heavy armor and that the PH has all the information I need. It's a far more helpful answer than saying you read it "somewhere".

 

[Piratecat]

Oh, come on, guys. Please obey the rules here and don't bicker or be rude to one another; even if you think an answer is insufficient, there are ways to state that without coming across impolitely.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Google is your friend. More specifically, James Jacobs post, which is the 18th reply (19th post) on that page (I can't get a link to that post to work right ATM).

Thanks! That was helpful.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I agree with Ogrork. If you say something's official, you should be able to find the info to back it up better than just saying you read it "somewhere", particularly if it's obscure.

I was able to do it; I just didn't care to spend my time that way. I wasn't the one who was interested in finding the answer, because I already knew it. I offered as much help as I could given the effort I was willing to put forth. I'm sorry it wasn't appreciated.

 

[irdeggman]

I agree with Ogrork. If you say something's official, you should be able to find the info to back it up better than just saying you read it "somewhere", particularly if it's obscure. Message board posts on the internet simply don't have enough inherent credibility to determine whether or not something is an "official" interpretation without being able to trace it back.

The problem with adventure path "official" answers are that they are never addressed in the "official" WotC answers (like errata, sage advice (even if you don't believe in it), etc.) because they are from a different "company" - paizo.

So the "only" place to really find those things is via searching their message boards.


So asking for "offical" answers to 3rd party product questions ends up being something like what was given.

Note how much effort that people other than the one who wanted to know the answer went through to find it for him.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Jeez Louise, I didn't know about the Paizo messageboards and even if I did I wouldn't know who were adventure authors and who were not.

Thanks to those who actually assisted. To the rest...

 

[irdeggman]

Jeez Louise, I didn't know about the Paizo messageboards and even if I did I wouldn't know who were adventure authors and who were not.

True

I am making a few assumptions here though

You did know that Paizo and not WotC was the publisher of the adventure path.

You did have access to the the Dungeon and Dragon magazines that were published with the related adventure path information.

You did research through all of those (published) sources before asking the question.

Thanks to those who actually assisted. To the rest...

You are welcome. {I did post the links too.}

Oh and I highly recommend mining the Paizo boards for other discussion topics too (well if you are the DM, if a player. . . . .) Paizo has a wealth of "free" information you can get your hands on (they have supplements to most dungeon magazines with good maps and player handouts), they have an Age of Worms Overload freebie too that helps capture a lot of information that didn't fit into the magazine - specifically on the NPCs.


I do disagree with the tone of a lot of the responses on both sides.

Too acusatory and self-righteous, IMO.

Potential sources of the information should have been pointed out early on but to "shoot the messenger" was just as bad, IMO.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Original question was answered.

Mods, this thread can be closed.