I'm so curious about this but I can't find anything in the rules about it. I swear in the old editions that a monster if it had sufficient HD could start to hit/damage creatures with magical protection. Say if a monster needed a +1 weapon to hit it, then a 6 HD monster could hit it because it had enough HD.
I was just thinking about whether a Fire Giant could even hurt a Stone Golem in next. And I don't have an answer. Just looking at the monster info for the Fire Giant, I don't get the impression that it could damage it. Yet it is a powerful monster. Very confusing to figure out, methinks.
WHAtz The ANSwer!?!?
I'm so curious about this but I can't find anything in the rules about it. I swear in the old editions that a monster if it had sufficient HD could start to hit/damage creatures with magical protection. Say if a monster needed a +1 weapon to hit
Such rules do not yet exist for Next, though they did exist in prior editions. I do not recall what they were exactly in AD&D (it was definitely of the "anything with x Hit Dice can overcome +Y immunity" variety), but I believe the 3E rules stated that a creature could automatically overcome DR/+x equal to its own DR (so a creature whose DR required a +2 weapon to beat would be able to overcome any other DR/+2).
Such rules do not yet exist for Next, though they did exist in prior editions. I do not recall what they were exactly in AD&D (it was definitely of the "anything with x Hit Dice can overcome +Y immunity" variety), but I believe the 3E rules stated th
Maybe the better idea is to ask why "a monster needed a +1 weapon to hit it" needs to even exist at all.
I think that rule will make a great optional augmentation for monsters, just like the deathknight's 9 lives stealer. That being said, I much prefer that weapon have a story-based reason to hit those creatures. I once gave the example of letting a PC use a normal sword to hit demons. The sword had been buried with a paladin and had absorbed his hatred of demonkind.
I think that rule will make a great optional augmentation for monsters, just like the deathknight's 9 lives stealer. That being said, I much prefer that weapon have a story-based reason to hit those creatures. I once gave the example of letting a P
In the situation where a wizard constructs a golem and sends it at monsters (which will happen), it will become necessary to make a determination on whether monsters should defeat damage reduction and immunity. I like the notion that if they have immunity or reduction themselves then they can defeat the immunity or reduction of another creature because it earths the mechanic in the concept of what a creature is rather than keeping it as a purely mechanical construct.
In the situation where a wizard constructs a golem and sends it at monsters (which will happen), it will become necessary to make a determination on whether monsters should defeat damage reduction and immunity. I like the notion that if they have imm
Yeah no rules exist for this yet. For reference, in AD&D 2nd edition, the rules for Hit Dice vs Immunity are:
Hit Dice Hit creatures requiring 4+1 or more +1 weapon 6+2 or more +2 weapon 8+3 or more +3 weapon 10+4 or more +4 weapon
Yeah no rules exist for this yet. For reference, in AD&D 2nd edition, the rules for Hit Dice vs Immunity are:Hit Dice Hit creatures requiring4+1 or more +1 weapon6+2 or more +2 weapon8+3 or more +3 weapon10+4 or mor
Hit Dice Hit creatures requiring 4+1 or more +1 weapon 6+2 or more +2 weapon 8+3 or more +3 weapon 10+4 or more +4 weapon
So... is there any reason why a level 11 fighter should still be screwed when a golem shows up?
"Oh, you can't seem to damage it." "But Fred's bear can? What the hell, man?"
So... is there any reason why a level 11 fighter should still be screwed when a golem shows up?"Oh, you can't seem to damage it.""But Fred's bear can? What the hell, man?"
Maybe the better idea is to ask why "a monster needed a +1 weapon to hit it" needs to even exist at all.
To me, it makes the creature seem more powerful and a therefore a greater danger than it actually is. In practice, in 1e and 2e such immunities rarely made a difference since PCs had the requisite magic weapons by the time they started encountering these things. In 3e, they made a miniscule difference since there was the odd creature that had an immunity to a material that you may not have. The vast majority of the time, though, it didn't make a difference in 3e, either.
To me, it makes the creature seem more powerful and a therefore a greater danger than it actually is. In practice, in 1e and 2e such immunities rarely made a difference since PCs had the requisite magic weapons by the time they started encountering
Maybe the better idea is to ask why "a monster needed a +1 weapon to hit it" needs to even exist at all.
I think that rule will make a great optional augmentation for monsters, just like the deathknight's 9 lives stealer. That being said, I much prefer that weapon have a story-based reason to hit those creatures. I once gave the example of letting a PC use a normal sword to hit demons. The sword had been buried with a paladin and had absorbed his hatred of demonkind.
I would argue that a sword that had absorbed a hatred of demonkind from a paladin is not normal
I think that rule will make a great optional augmentation for monsters, just like the deathknight's 9 lives stealer. That being said, I much prefer that weapon have a story-based reason to hit those creatures. I once gave the example of letting a P
Hit Dice Hit creatures requiring 4+1 or more +1 weapon 6+2 or more +2 weapon 8+3 or more +3 weapon 10+4 or more +4 weapon
So... is there any reason why a level 11 fighter should still be screwed when a golem shows up?
"Oh, you can't seem to damage it." "But Fred's bear can? What the hell, man?"
Yes. The answer to why the fighter should be screwed is bad DMing. The DM was an asshat because the fighter should have had a magic weapon long before that point.
So... is there any reason why a level 11 fighter should still be screwed when a golem shows up?"Oh, you can't seem to damage it.""But Fred's bear can? What the hell, man?"[/quote]Yes. The answer to why the fighter should be screwed is bad DMing.
Hit Dice Hit creatures requiring 4+1 or more +1 weapon 6+2 or more +2 weapon 8+3 or more +3 weapon 10+4 or more +4 weapon
So... is there any reason why a level 11 fighter should still be screwed when a golem shows up?
"Oh, you can't seem to damage it." "But Fred's bear can? What the hell, man?"
I think its there because monsters seem not to have magical weapons and dnd characters do. That seems to be the norm to me.
So... is there any reason why a level 11 fighter should still be screwed when a golem shows up?"Oh, you can't seem to damage it.""But Fred's bear can? What the hell, man?"[/quote]I think its there because monsters seem not to have magical weapons a
Hit Dice Hit creatures requiring 4+1 or more +1 weapon 6+2 or more +2 weapon 8+3 or more +3 weapon 10+4 or more +4 weapon
So... is there any reason why a level 11 fighter should still be screwed when a golem shows up?
"Oh, you can't seem to damage it." "But Fred's bear can? What the hell, man?"
I think its there because monsters seem not to have magical weapons and dnd characters do. That seems to be the norm to me.
Yep. That's exactly it. The immunity was an illusion unless the DM wanted something to be unhurtable for story reasons.
So... is there any reason why a level 11 fighter should still be screwed when a golem shows up?"Oh, you can't seem to damage it.""But Fred's bear can? What the hell, man?"[/quote]I think its there because monsters seem not to have magical weapons a
And people complain that on 4e if you lag on a weapon upgrade every 5 freaking levels, you have 5% more chance of failing to hit!?
People make ignorant, ridiculous complaints about 4e all the time.
However, requiring your players to have a magic item to have AC, NADs, and attack bonuses that you build into the monster math is a faulted system; what if I want magic items to be special and unique in my campaign? What if I don't want magic items at all?
Luckily, this was taken care of with inherent bonuses, but future editions don't seem too keen on having to have that.
And the idea of needing a magic weapon in order to damage a creature is tied to the creature being so bad-ass, that it needs a magic item to slay it - regular stuff can't actually kill it.
People make ignorant, ridiculous complaints about 4e all the time. However, requiring your players to have a magic item to have AC, NADs, and attack bonuses that you build into the monster math is a faulted system; what if I want magic items to be sp
Hit Dice Hit creatures requiring 4+1 or more +1 weapon 6+2 or more +2 weapon 8+3 or more +3 weapon 10+4 or more +4 weapon
So... is there any reason why a level 11 fighter should still be screwed when a golem shows up?
Yes, the reason is because the DMG entry for Hit Dice vs Immunity says:
''This Hit Dice equivalent only apply to monsters. Player characters and NPC cannot benefit from this.''
So... is there any reason why a level 11 fighter should still be screwed when a golem shows up?[/quote]Yes, the reason is because the DMG entry for Hit Dice vs Immunity says:''This Hit Dice equivalent only apply to monsters. Player characters and NPC
Powerful Wizard trying to defeat a powerful beast using their abilities alone? Totally fine!
Powerful Fighter trying to defeat a powerful beast using their abilities alone? Don't be stupid, he needs some glowy trinket to even THINK of harming it!
Magic items should be special, unique, powerful, and memorable. They should not be some required upgrade every character needs to advance. And they should NOT be the only thing allowing a character to actually do his job.
Three options here:
1) If Fighters need a magic item to harm super-special powerful monsters, so should a Wizard.
2) If a powerful Wizard can overcome resistances/immunities with their power alone, a powerful Fighter should be able to too. Remember guys, a high level Fighter isn't just some shlub swinging a sword. He's a hero, a legend.
3) Find a better way to represent how powerful those monsters are. A better, less stupid way than just saying "Even the most powerful warrior on the entire planet can't touch me because his weapon doesn't have enough fairy sparkles!"
Powerful Wizard trying to defeat a powerful beast using their abilities alone? Totally fine!Powerful Fighter trying to defeat a powerful beast using their abilities alone? Don't be stupid, he needs some glowy trinket to even THINK of harming it! Magi
Powerful Wizard trying to defeat a powerful beast using their abilities alone? Totally fine!
Powerful Fighter trying to defeat a powerful beast using their abilities alone? Don't be stupid, he needs some glowy trinket to even THINK of harming it!
Magic items should be special, unique, powerful, and memorable. They should not be some required upgrade every character needs to advance. And they should NOT be the only thing allowing a character to actually do his job.
Three options here:
1) If Fighters need a magic item to harm super-special powerful monsters, so should a Wizard.
2) If a powerful Wizard can overcome resistances/immunities with their power alone, a powerful Fighter should be able to too. Remember guys, a high level Fighter isn't just some shlub swinging a sword. He's a hero, a legend.
3) Find a better way to represent how powerful those monsters are. A better, less stupid way than just saying "Even the most powerful warrior on the entire planet can't touch me because his weapon doesn't have enough fairy sparkles!"
Mearls seems enchanted with some of the AD&D legacy rules, but he takes them out of context. That same monster that might need a +1 sword to hit might be only affected by a few spells and/or have magic resistance on top of that. Plus, there were real costs to the magic user for the powerful magic. In the context of the time it wasn't a bad rule.
Mearls seems enchanted with some of the AD&D legacy rules, but he takes them out of context. That same monster that might need a +1 sword to hit might be only affected by a few spells and/or have magic resistance on top of that. Plus, there were real
I don't see the point of such immunities, unless there's a very strong specific flavor reason for a creature to be immune to mundane weaponry. "It's a powerful guy!" is not a reason. Either the martial character has the weapon to bypass the immunity in which case the immunity is doing nothing whatsoever to contribute to the challenge of the fight, or he doesn't have it and the monster is mostly impervious to him. If fighters are expected to have such a weapon, then what's the point of even having the property? It hardly seems worth it for "immune to random wizard backup crossbow potshots" to be something that's we're dropping on monsters with any degree of regularity.
I don't see the point of such immunities, unless there's a very strong specific flavor reason for a creature to be immune to mundane weaponry. "It's a powerful guy!" is not a reason. Either the martial character has the weapon to bypass the immunity
My suggestion is most of special monster attacks should have got a XP value because DM wish replace them for a weaker or more powerful version, or the adventures is withing a dead magic zone.
I mean monster powers (and special ammunition) should be modular, optional.
My suggestion is most of special monster attacks should have got a XP value because DM wish replace them for a weaker or more powerful version, or the adventures is withing a dead magic zone. I mean monster powers (and special ammunition) should be m
I don't see the point of such immunities, unless there's a very strong specific flavor reason for a creature to be immune to mundane weaponry. "It's a powerful guy!" is not a reason. Either the martial character has the weapon to bypass the immunity in which case the immunity is doing nothing whatsoever to contribute to the challenge of the fight, or he doesn't have it and the monster is mostly impervious to him. If fighters are expected to have such a weapon, then what's the point of even having the property? It hardly seems worth it for "immune to random wizard backup crossbow potshots" to be something that's we're dropping on monsters with any degree of regularity.
This monster property existed in a time when D&D wasn't strictly a party of 4-6 going into a cave to rob a monster. PCs were expected to have a multitude of henchmen and hirelings that worked with them or for them. High level PCs may also have over a 100 followers in a stronghold. It was not expected each and every one of them was decked out in magic items. It's a bit of a legacy rule.
This monster property existed in a time when D&D wasn't strictly a party of 4-6 going into a cave to rob a monster. PCs were expected to have a multitude of henchmen and hirelings that worked with them or for them. High level PCs may also have over a
PCs were expected to have a multitude of henchmen and hirelings that worked with them or for them. High level PCs may also have over a 100 followers in a stronghold.
Good point. I had entirely failed to consider this, since followers were always the first rule we'd nix (waay too much bookkeeping), but we can't take our own house-rules into account when evaluating the game for internal consistency.
Good point. I had entirely failed to consider this, since followers were always the first rule we'd nix (waay too much bookkeeping), but we can't take our own house-rules into account when evaluating the game for internal consistency.
Let´s imagine a DM wish change some monster powers, for example he thinks the uncorporeal undead should have got psionic powers, because wraiths, ghosts, spectres... are "psiquis".
Or somebody wishs create a homebreed template (a classic half-XXX).
How could changing monster powers be possible without breaking balance of power?
My suggestion is special monster attacks are added like optional templates, and like this they could be easily replaced or changed.
For example:
Banshee: 500 PXs reward. (Standard, withouth the classic power death scream).
Banshee with death scream: 500 +250 PXs
Banshee with death scream(lesser) 500 + 125 PXs
Banshee with death scream(higher) 500 + 375 PXs
Banshee with psionic cry. 500 + 300 PXs.
Now I have a doubt.:Let´s imagine a DM wish change some monster powers, for example he thinks the uncorporeal undead should have got psionic powers, because wraiths, ghosts, spectres... are "psiquis". Or somebody wishs create a homebreed templa
