Immune monsters facing non-magical weapons. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Immune monsters facing non-magical weapons. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
keldor
10-02-07, 04:34 PM A problem I've always had as a DM, is this: how should a DM describe how a monster such as a werewolf or a vampire behaves in combat before it knows its opponents can actually harm it? The problem is this: the monsters, being intelligent, wouldn't want to give away the fact that they're immune to their attackers' weapons, plus, they would often not be certain of the fact when faced with potentially deadly magical weapons; thus, they would dodge attacks from all weapons just as if they were deadly, right? In which case, how does the DM describe a 'hit' with a non-magical weapon?

I don't have the 3rd Edition rules, nor have I ever read them, so I don't know if this has ever been cleared up since the 2nd edition was written, because in the 2nd. ed. in one place a werewolf is used in a description intended to answer this question and it said that the non-magical weapon would pass right through the creature. This makes no sense to my mind since both sword and monster are very real and on the same plane i.e. with a vampire, partially occupying the negative material plane, this might make sense but not with a lycanthrope. Elsewhere in the 2nd ed. rules a vampire is described getting hit with non-magical arrows, which it pulls from its body disdainfully! This makes no sense to my mind either, because unless the vampire lacks cunning (not likely), it would never allow the arrows to hit it so obviously (and even if it did, surely they would pass through its not-entirely corporeal body (which effect it would want to disguise anyway if it could).

What solutions do you guys have for this?
Suin Bahhar
10-02-07, 09:08 PM Werewolves are very corporeal and dont exist as incorporeal spirits (if you dont use the WoD interpretation that is). Vampyres have corporeal bodies too.

A D&D werewolf regenerates all wounds done to him by nonmagical non silver weapons as soon as the wounds are dealt. You can describe it as instantly closing of wounds. Damage reduction here reflects the regenerating of nonsilver attacks.

Damage reduction on a golem or undead is more of an absorption effect. Depends on the description of the monster mostly. A vampire uses his supernatural state to absorb blows so here it should be described as deflections of swordblows on bone(/metal/wood/etc) or little flashes of arcane or negative energy.
keldor
10-04-07, 07:03 PM Werewolves are very corporeal and dont exist as incorporeal spiritsPerhaps you misunderstood me but I knew this.Vampyres have corporeal bodies too.Again, I knew this, but one can imagine some DMs describing a non-magical weapon as passing through a vampire on account of their being partially on the negative material plane and being able to turn into gas at will.A D&D werewolf regenerates all wounds done to him by nonmagical non silver weapons as soon as the wounds are dealt. You can describe it as instantly closing of wounds. Damage reduction here reflects the regenerating of nonsilver attacks.Firstly, in 2nd. Ed. AD&D at least, werewolves don't have any regenerative capability. Secondly, the rules state that non-magical weapons do no harm, not 'visible but insignificant harm' or 'visible harm that heals at once'. If this is how you deal with the problem, fair play, but it surely makes it more tricky for players ignorant of the werewolf's immunity to realise it - which is why I wouldn't choose this interpretation. For the record, I'd say, "Your weapon strikes home but without sign of having inflicted any injury." Thirdly, this wouldn't be applicable to vampires without revealing the extraordinary power of regeneration; a party under the impression that the vampire was merely human, would instantly (and, to my mind, unreasonably) become aware that the enemy was not human; vampires, of course, don't bleed - much less from non-magical weapons.

I guess in the case of a vampire, I'd declare what I would with a werewolf. Only a particularly cunning enemy would feign pain and fear to accompany such a blow.

As for golems, these are an interesting issue: I would presume from the AC's that despite being mindless, golems do make attempts to dodge blows; this would imply that (in the unlikely event of a warrior of a high enough level to be facing a golem not having a magical weapon, and being ignorant of their immunity) a warrior would be struggling to land a blow ordinarily. Thus, surely, he'd be hard pressed to notice immediately that his weapon was useless, in which case, how should a DM adjudicate when a character would realise his weapon was useless?

How do you DMs (or would you DMs) adjudicate such a fight when (as is usually the case) the players know well that the vampire (or whatever monster is weapon-immune) cannot be harmed by non-magical weapons? For example, do you insist upon the characters fighting until at least one of them has scored a hit before any of them can 'realise' that the foe is immune?

In a similar vein, basilisks: the player knows what it can do, but the characters have never encountered one. Presumably monster manuals aren't handily available to the characters. What does one do? Making a saving throw versus petrification must (for the sake of fairness) alert the character of the danger, but what do you tell the players? Do you just say, "You realise that the mere gaze of this monster can turn you to stone" or do you try to be more 'realistic'? If so, how?
The WarOverlord
10-09-07, 07:03 AM A problem I've always had as a DM, is this: how should a DM describe how a monster such as a werewolf or a vampire behaves in combat before it knows its opponents can actually harm it?

Um, unless the thing can detect magic or can see the visual particulars of a weaopn How would it know that a weapon can or can't hurt it?

In the case of the Werewolf that has decided to attack it relies on it's speed and Stretgh to overcome it's victim before the victim can fight back or flee and only when the wound burns will it realies that it has been hurt with a weapon that can hurt it.

Same with a vampire that may not know about a mace of Disruption in the Backback or that the Mundane Sword has been prepared with Holy oil instead of WD-40 or the like :P
keldor
10-09-07, 07:15 PM I admit my meaning isn't clear although I've sorted this out in my own mind now. I think that, in order that I'm not unfair to either a player or a monster, for any hit with a non-magical weapon I'd secretly roll an intelligence check for the character and if he/she succeeds, I'd say something like, "You strike the creature; it snarls and recoils although the lack of a wound leaves you doubting that it was really harmed" but if he/she failed I'd say something like, "You strike the creature to surprisingly little effect; it snarls and recoils". With each successive hit I'd make it increasingly obvious that there was no effect; if the player has hit several times and still not guessed his weapon is useless, I'd have the monster begin laughing mockingly, and if necessary, openly reveal that the PC cannot harm it.
Regardless of the monster type, I'd play that magical weapons reveal their true effectiveness by providing the wielder feedback via its bite . Against a non-corporeal monster such as a ghost, the DM could rule that any weapon merely passes through it (and the ghost wails whether the weapon is magical or not); I think this would be too harsh on the players though so I'd always let the players know when they had wounded a monster against which it might not ordinarily be obvious, by describing the feel of the magical weapon striking home, and a clear reaction from the monster. There'd be no need to describe a magical 'gleam' or such, although this is fine if the DM likes the idea.
Golems might provide a particular difficulty but then they're meant to be tough, aren't they? I mean, they don't bleed, they don't show pain, they don't become fatigued; they either function or they cease to function. The damage from magical weapons may appear minimal unless the DM wishes to rule that they always crumble upon 'death'.

Thanks for answering.:)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
keldor 10-02-07, 04:34 PM	A problem I've always had as a DM, is this: how should a DM describe how a monster such as a werewolf or a vampire behaves in combat before it knows its opponents can actually harm it? The problem is this: the monsters, being intelligent, wouldn't want to give away the fact that they're immune to their attackers' weapons, plus, they would often not be certain of the fact when faced with potentially deadly magical weapons; thus, they would dodge attacks from all weapons just as if they were deadly, right? In which case, how does the DM describe a 'hit' with a non-magical weapon? I don't have the 3rd Edition rules, nor have I ever read them, so I don't know if this has ever been cleared up since the 2nd edition was written, because in the 2nd. ed. in one place a werewolf is used in a description intended to answer this question and it said that the non-magical weapon would pass right through the creature. This makes no sense to my mind since both sword and monster are very real and on the same plane i.e. with a vampire, partially occupying the negative material plane, this might make sense but not with a lycanthrope. Elsewhere in the 2nd ed. rules a vampire is described getting hit with non-magical arrows, which it pulls from its body disdainfully! This makes no sense to my mind either, because unless the vampire lacks cunning (not likely), it would never allow the arrows to hit it so obviously (and even if it did, surely they would pass through its not-entirely corporeal body (which effect it would want to disguise anyway if it could). What solutions do you guys have for this?
Suin Bahhar 10-02-07, 09:08 PM	Werewolves are very corporeal and dont exist as incorporeal spirits (if you dont use the WoD interpretation that is). Vampyres have corporeal bodies too. A D&D werewolf regenerates all wounds done to him by nonmagical non silver weapons as soon as the wounds are dealt. You can describe it as instantly closing of wounds. Damage reduction here reflects the regenerating of nonsilver attacks. Damage reduction on a golem or undead is more of an absorption effect. Depends on the description of the monster mostly. A vampire uses his supernatural state to absorb blows so here it should be described as deflections of swordblows on bone(/metal/wood/etc) or little flashes of arcane or negative energy.
keldor 10-04-07, 07:03 PM	Werewolves are very corporeal and dont exist as incorporeal spiritsPerhaps you misunderstood me but I knew this.Vampyres have corporeal bodies too.Again, I knew this, but one can imagine some DMs describing a non-magical weapon as passing through a vampire on account of their being partially on the negative material plane and being able to turn into gas at will.A D&D werewolf regenerates all wounds done to him by nonmagical non silver weapons as soon as the wounds are dealt. You can describe it as instantly closing of wounds. Damage reduction here reflects the regenerating of nonsilver attacks.Firstly, in 2nd. Ed. AD&D at least, werewolves don't have any regenerative capability. Secondly, the rules state that non-magical weapons do no harm, not 'visible but insignificant harm' or 'visible harm that heals at once'. If this is how you deal with the problem, fair play, but it surely makes it more tricky for players ignorant of the werewolf's immunity to realise it - which is why I wouldn't choose this interpretation. For the record, I'd say, "Your weapon strikes home but without sign of having inflicted any injury." Thirdly, this wouldn't be applicable to vampires without revealing the extraordinary power of regeneration; a party under the impression that the vampire was merely human, would instantly (and, to my mind, unreasonably) become aware that the enemy was not human; vampires, of course, don't bleed - much less from non-magical weapons. I guess in the case of a vampire, I'd declare what I would with a werewolf. Only a particularly cunning enemy would feign pain and fear to accompany such a blow. As for golems, these are an interesting issue: I would presume from the AC's that despite being mindless, golems do make attempts to dodge blows; this would imply that (in the unlikely event of a warrior of a high enough level to be facing a golem not having a magical weapon, and being ignorant of their immunity) a warrior would be struggling to land a blow ordinarily. Thus, surely, he'd be hard pressed to notice immediately that his weapon was useless, in which case, how should a DM adjudicate when a character would realise his weapon was useless? How do you DMs (or would you DMs) adjudicate such a fight when (as is usually the case) the players know well that the vampire (or whatever monster is weapon-immune) cannot be harmed by non-magical weapons? For example, do you insist upon the characters fighting until at least one of them has scored a hit before any of them can 'realise' that the foe is immune? In a similar vein, basilisks: the player knows what it can do, but the characters have never encountered one. Presumably monster manuals aren't handily available to the characters. What does one do? Making a saving throw versus petrification must (for the sake of fairness) alert the character of the danger, but what do you tell the players? Do you just say, "You realise that the mere gaze of this monster can turn you to stone" or do you try to be more 'realistic'? If so, how?
The WarOverlord 10-09-07, 07:03 AM	A problem I've always had as a DM, is this: how should a DM describe how a monster such as a werewolf or a vampire behaves in combat before it knows its opponents can actually harm it? Um, unless the thing can detect magic or can see the visual particulars of a weaopn How would it know that a weapon can or can't hurt it? In the case of the Werewolf that has decided to attack it relies on it's speed and Stretgh to overcome it's victim before the victim can fight back or flee and only when the wound burns will it realies that it has been hurt with a weapon that can hurt it. Same with a vampire that may not know about a mace of Disruption in the Backback or that the Mundane Sword has been prepared with Holy oil instead of WD-40 or the like :P
keldor 10-09-07, 07:15 PM	I admit my meaning isn't clear although I've sorted this out in my own mind now. I think that, in order that I'm not unfair to either a player or a monster, for any hit with a non-magical weapon I'd secretly roll an intelligence check for the character and if he/she succeeds, I'd say something like, "You strike the creature; it snarls and recoils although the lack of a wound leaves you doubting that it was really harmed" but if he/she failed I'd say something like, "You strike the creature to surprisingly little effect; it snarls and recoils". With each successive hit I'd make it increasingly obvious that there was no effect; if the player has hit several times and still not guessed his weapon is useless, I'd have the monster begin laughing mockingly, and if necessary, openly reveal that the PC cannot harm it. Regardless of the monster type, I'd play that magical weapons reveal their true effectiveness by providing the wielder feedback via its bite . Against a non-corporeal monster such as a ghost, the DM could rule that any weapon merely passes through it (and the ghost wails whether the weapon is magical or not); I think this would be too harsh on the players though so I'd always let the players know when they had wounded a monster against which it might not ordinarily be obvious, by describing the feel of the magical weapon striking home, and a clear reaction from the monster. There'd be no need to describe a magical 'gleam' or such, although this is fine if the DM likes the idea. Golems might provide a particular difficulty but then they're meant to be tough, aren't they? I mean, they don't bleed, they don't show pain, they don't become fatigued; they either function or they cease to function. The damage from magical weapons may appear minimal unless the DM wishes to rule that they always crumble upon 'death'. Thanks for answering.:)