|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 3:52PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2013
|
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!?!?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 4:27PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
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).
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 4:27PM
#3
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
There are no rules for this yet. It's up to the DM
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 4:48PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2013
|
Ha Ha Ha! Big tough Fire Giant colony, feel the wrath of my Stone Golem.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 4:56PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Maybe the better idea is to ask why "a monster needed a +1 weapon to hit it" needs to even exist at all.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 6:30PM
#6
|
|
|
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.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 3:11AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 7:05AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2008
|
Maybe the better idea is to ask why "a monster needed a +1 weapon to hit it" needs to even exist at all.
Because it was a game? The +1 is just an abstraction of the magical potency.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 7:15AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
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
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 8:57AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2010
|
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!?
|
|
|
