Null Shadows

In Sagiro's Story Hour, one type of creature that the PCs encountered were Null Shadows, excellently scary critters and fun for GMs to spring on players used to monsters that bleed when you hit them with shiny swords and spells.

For those folks who manage to tear themselves away from said story hour back to this thread - or read it all the way through - stats for the Null Shadows can be found linked from the bottom of this site, http://stevenac.net/sagiro/StoryHour.htm

Note: spoiler posts moving from the story hour thread to here, rest of metagame discussion from there should hopefully appear soon

In my excitement to discuss Null Shadows, I forgot I shouldn't have discussed their stats in the story thread. Thus moving the thread (hope I'm not just pushing the foot further in):

The_One_Warlock said:

Many are the GM's who have taken glee in using Sagiro's creation...

Click to expand...

While fun as an intellectual exercise and to spring on overconfident PCs as both a GM and a player it discomfits me to have creatures with "absolute immunity to magic" - as a supernatural ability no less - be "created by foul magics and unholy rituals"... and furthermore despite being "unaffected by magic in any way, form or application" they can still target spellcasters and travel across planes through additional supernatural abilities?

One solution is to change these abilities to extraordinary and change "created" to "called", and the first thing null shadows usually do is eat the conjurer(s). Even if the callee survives, many magic guilds would react with extreme prejudice to such an individual.

Also, summoned creatures - if null shadows can't be affected by them, what if you summon a spellcasting creature? The arcane attraction ability would then result in the magic having an effect!

Everett said:

Am not familiar with the rule you quote, but absolute immunity bars any circumstance, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Null Shadows are, from their own text,
(a) "unaffected by magic in any way, form or application" - to the extent that they "cannot be harmed by magic weapons", this isn't just no benefit from the plusses, it's no damage at all!
(b) have a special ability to pick out spellcasters and if so, attack only them
(c) can pass through any magical barrier, e.g. a wall of force

Put an ordinary commoner and a summoned spellcaster in front of it. Which does it go for and why?

If I use a wall of stone - such a wall is not magical, but it was brought into being by magic - can the Null Shadow walk through it too? Can a Null Shadow walk across a bridge formed via wall of stone? What about a bridge built a century ago from the rubble of a wall of stone? What if half the rubble was from a quarry?

If I disintegrate the ground underneath a Null Shadow, does it fall? What if I'm using passwall instead? A portable hole?

If I hit a Null Shadow with a sword, it takes damage. If I hit it with a sword+1, it takes no damage (does the sword pass through it? if it's literally totally unaffected...). Can it walk through a brick wall if the wall has had its hardness magically enhanced (a wall+1)?

In some settings, the gods created the entire world. That involved magic. What happens?

Maybe I'm fixating... this sort of thing probably keeps mages up at night

Everett said:

Yeah, but that's fine. This sort of speculation is the best thing about D&D for my money; it's like pondering a zen koan.

<<<Which does it go for and why?

It goes for the summoned spellcaster. That it's unaffected by magic does not mean it's unable to identify a magically created being.

It can't walk through the Wall of Stone. Why? The magic isn't residual. If you cast disintegrate beneath the creature, ultimately it's however the DM wants to play it, but I would say no, it doesn't fall. It's a question of awareness. If you think the ground you stand on is solid, you're not worried about falling. If the ground suddenly turns to glass, but you just don't notice, you feel the same way.

Does the +1 sword pass through it? Yes, it does, if the weapon is judged to be inherently magical. But it can't walk through a magically enhanced wall that's fundamentally just rock underneath.

As the samurais say... you must consider this. These are my opinions, but a case could be made just as strongly the other way.

In a god-created world... well, they might be intermittently there, flicking in and out of existence like a bad internet connection. (Remember the backstory about Foogzl the Cleaner, the battle where OCS died?) They might be polymorphed. They might be giants (no pun intended) with psychic abilities.

They could be beings like the Inevitables - the non-living, planer-appointed bounty hunters described in the Monster Manual. They could be a lot of things.

Click to expand...

In that spirit, then:

* "It goes for the summoned spellcaster. That it's unaffected by magic does not mean it's unable to identify a magically created being."

So unaffected applies to interaction, not observation? Does this mean it can be potentially fooled by glamers and figments (obviously not phantasms and patterns, being mind-affecting)?

* "It can't walk through the Wall of Stone. Why? The magic isn't residual. If you cast disintegrate beneath the creature, ultimately it's however the DM wants to play it, but I would say no, it doesn't fall. It's a question of awareness." ... "turns to glass"

Um, disintegrate would turn the floor to dust, leaving a 10ft deep non-magical pit, not to glass?

But to go further, what about magic that employs non-magical attacks? If a Null Shadow can't pass through a wall of stone, and can(?) fall into the pit left behind by disintegrate, can it be hurt by an ordinary sword that is being wielded via telekinesis? Hurled by telekinesis?

And to go further in the other direction, what about passwall? Can it make use of the magical passage?

* "Does the +1 sword pass through it? Yes, it does, if the weapon is judged to be inherently magical. But it can't walk through a magically enhanced wall that's fundamentally just rock underneath."

What is "inherently magical"? A 'standard sword+1' is a masterwork sword with a magical enhancement bonus (it gains +1 attack, +1 damage, +5 hardness, +10 hp, etc). If I make a wall+1, being a masterwork wall with a magical enhancement bonus (etc), then is it considered a magical barrier that a Null Shadow can pass through? Fundamentally a sword+1 is just metal underneath...?

* "As the samurais say... you must consider this. "

Heh, yes. This is one of those monster abilities where if you don't have all your ducks in a row, the players will want to pluck you.

KidCthulhu said:

Oh, no they won't. For one thing, Sagiro has never let us see the Null Shadow stats. And for another, to paraphrase the Matrix, "When you see a Null Shadow, you do what we do. You run."

We're always too busy screaming in terror to nit-pick the stats.

Click to expand...

Everett said:

If the +1 sword is a masterwork upgrade, then it hits the Shadow; if it's an artifact or wonderous item of some kind, that would be "inherently" magical & would pass through. But like the upgrade, a stone wall that was _created_ via magic is still just a stone wall. Hmm. Make sense? A sword that's been upgraded to +1 magic can be dispelled back to ordinary, suggesting that the ordinary sword is still *there*. If you can think of magic like a new paint job - the previous layer is still underneath, you know.

And it was my mistake about the summoned creature vs. commoner question; the summoned creature isn't magically "created" when it's summoned from somewhere else, but I still say the Shadow would go for it instead of the commoner; summoned creatures are in the fight for a certain amount of time, suggesting that the magic that brought them there could be seen via Arcane Sight; likewise, I'd bet that the Null Shadow would sense that too.

<<<So unaffected applies to interaction, not observation? Does this mean it can be potentially fooled by glamers and figments?

Hmm. I'd say yes, that's possible. If it can see magic... and it can... then it can be fooled by magic.

<<Um, disintegrate would turn the floor to dust, leaving a 10ft deep non-magical pit, not to glass?

Right, that was silly of me, wasn't it.

Could it be hit by an ordinary sword wielded by telekinesis? I would say so, yes. The magic isn't directly doing the attacking. Passwall - I don't know; I don't play D&D currently and I don't have a Player's Handbook I can consult to look at the spell, unfortunately. Care to post a brief spell description?

Click to expand...

A full description of Passwall can be found here. In brief, it "creates a passage" through walls, which disappears at the end of the spell's duration. It's not clear (to me) whether the passage is inherently magical and the wall is still actually "there", or if the wall is being temporarily reshaped. The PHB non-OGL text might be more informative, I'll have to check.

From spell description: When passwall ends, creatures within the passage are ejected out the nearest exit. If someone dispels the passwall or you dismiss it, creatures in the passage are ejected out the far exit, if there is one, or out the sole exit if there is only one.
*****************

To me this suggests that the Shadows would not be able to use the passage; they wouldn't be forcibly evicted from the passage, hypothetically, since they're unaffected by magic in toto, so I think realistically they wouldn't be able to enter it in the first place.

Is the Passwall then "inherently" magical by that rule of thumb? No, I don't really think so - it's a different shade of spell.

...(after thinking it through again, more slowly) it's an interesting paradox. My answer stays on no. Passwall isn't a barrier, like Wall of Force. "Unaffected by magic" could, in a tricky way, be read to mean that they could use the Passwall, but "unaffected" more truly means a rebuff in this case.

Having used these monstrosities in play, I have to say, it's really not that hard to use effectively, nor in a balanced manner (esp given the original design), nor to wrap one's mind around.

Though I will say, I can agree, that especially at first blush, the definition of it's non-magical abilities as magical presents some conundrums.

In my experience, and that's important to note, it depends on your mindset and how you interpret rules, this is all based on my experience...

1) Having creatures made by magic to be utterly untouched by it? Well, I have a spell called anti-magic aura which is a magical effect which ALMOST utterly prevents magic (the physical nature of items remain intact). So taking that one step further to a creature made by magic which ignores those things imbued with or effects created by magic is not a far stretch. The conundrum occurs when you say - well, since Anti-Magic subdues even Su abilities, and the Magic Invulnerability of the Nulls is Su, does that mean that in an area where magic can't function, they aren't immune to it? I don't know, but it isn't mechanically relevant, unless you as a GM wish to take that paradox and run with it in your implementation of your game world by adding an unlisted effect when the two interact. On the relevant aspects of their abilities, if a NS entered an AMA, then it wouldn't, by the defition of its powers, be able to siphon away memorized spell energy or ID who was the arcane caster unerringly. So, then, is that good or bad? We have now given mages a magical way to counter the supernatural nature of a creature that is unaffected by any implementation of magic, by making an area non-magical. That's for the GM to decide, and half the fun

2) Most of the implementation of the resistance can be taken as common sense, even if it is a step beyond the core rules regarding concepts of magic resistance. In the grey area that remains is the job and duty of the GM. Adjudication and consistency of world.

The end result is the following checklist I use:

1) Is the item or effect made by, or imbued with, magic?
2) If imbued, then it has a magical aura - NS not affected.
3) If made, is it a persisting magic effect or instantaneous?
4) If persisting magical effect, then it's duration is maintained by magic - NS not affected.
5) If instantaneous, is the effect applied directly to the NS or to some other target?
6) If applied to NS, though instantaneous, it cannot be applied due to ability of NS - NS not affected.
7) If applied to other target, target is affected, NS must deal with new state of other target as magic no longer maintains the effect or item.
8) Consider exceptions.
9) Be as consistent as possible.

So, for me, the answers would be as follows:

Non-magical masterwork sword -- works vs NS

Magically imbued sword -- fails vs NS

Wall of Force -- fails

Wall of Stone -- works

Passwall -- Exception - Continuous effect, does not target NS. NS can travel the passwall. Passwall collapses, magical redistribution of stone to area cannot affect NS, NS cohabitates space with stone and is "smushimified" [that's a technical term].

SRD Acid Arrow -- Conjuration (creation) Acid which is flung at target - real acid launched by magic. "Target is acid". Acid can impact and affect NS.

Disintegrate - Target NS? NS not affected. Target floor beneath NS? Instant state change of floor - gone. NS must deal with new physical state of unenchanted floor - NS falls into hole.

Anti-Magic Aura - Exception (and wonderful paradox) - Magical effect which affects NS by nullifying magic.

Grell Alchemi-Techno-mancy - Detects as magic to Fantasy races, Lords of Madness describes as Grell manipulating basic physical and energetic laws/forces of the universe but which is perceived as magic by Fantasy races. Exception? Or follows the rule? My call - affects NS.

In the end, I've had great fun using them, and my Players have been wide eyed as their characters scrambled in fear to overcome their new enemies, and had fun doing so. And to be fair, they still haven't figured it out completely, though they have a good grasp and the casters don't like them. They have something for their characters to fear and hate, and which forces the players to think creatively.

As for player plucking you - I've generally only found that to be true if you as a DM are inconsistent in your rulings, or if Rules Lawyers have access to the same books you are using and disagree on wording or intent. If your players trust you to run the game, then plucking just don't happen.

As an exercise, look up Zodar from...um, I forget, either Fiend Folio or MM2, and look at some of their abilities.

Another point to be made about introducing utterly magic immune creatures is...as long as ALL creatures aren't utterly magic immune, is there really an issue? As long as your creature is balanced (in this case by being weak meleers with small hit points), and appropriate in world, and consistently played when it does appear, is it game breaking?

On the intellectual exercise bit, I don't think I'd allow a Null Shadow Template - as that would likely be much easier to abuse ruleswise. On the other hand, if the template consistently reduced the physical combat ability of the template creature so that it was always weak versus the "appropriate" level of PC, maybe I would.
The problem would be what is appropriate in one campaign is not always the same, even when everybody starts from the exact same ruleset.

There's my 2 cents (though it reads more like a buck fifty, chuckle.)

I would try to redesign the null shadows (maybe make a "null" template) to produce many of the terror inducing effects without too many of the rules headaches.

Golem-style magic immunity, for one. It can't be lowered.

Some sort of way of bypassing those silly Orb spells. Energy immunity seems a little drastic (I'd like torches to affect them, and vials of acid, but not breath weapons), but may be required to close rules loopholes.

Immunity to supernatural attacks (as if inside an anti-magic field).

A weird DR; 50/non-magical. Or even infinity; but that seems excessive. 50 is probably excessive. 15/non-magical would probably be enough.

Unique form: you can't polymorph into them.

Extra damage to spellcasters; maybe a bonus equal to the highest level spell they can cast?

Touch attacks. Probably should be able to ignore certain kinds of AC bonuses that affect one's touch AC; deflection, sacred, etc.. I think all such bonuses would be magical in nature.

If you want to introduce new rules, the prime candidate would be that when matter or energy is created, it has a "residual aura" that means the null-shadows could ignore them. Even a round would be enough to handle most difficulties (orbs and such); a minute might be better. (They can get past wall of stone if it was cast less than a minute ago).

I think they could fly, and maybe become ethereal. Or transition to or from the plane of shadow. Something like that might be desirable. Or maybe not- they could be trapped if they had no other way of traveling.

There does need to be some kind of "handle" to the critters - how do the villains control and/or summon the things? And there should be stuff that they don't like; sunlight, say. Maybe moonlight and starlight too; shadowy critters that only come out on cloudy, moonless nights or deep underground would be good.

Do they have auras? Can they be detected? IIRC they cause an aura of unease when they are in an area for a while.

Anyway, I'd try to redesign the concept rather than be 100% faithful to Sagiro's description.

That's kind of cool, Cheiro...

I can definitely see more where Sabriel is coming from via your idea of a rules consistent template.

I guess I just don't feel the need based on the original write-up.

Though if I were to go there...DR/15 is nothing...that I know from personal experience with various critical jockeys in my campaign. But that's putting the cart before the horse, too, I suppose.

Of course, by coming up with new ways to account for the various immunities to things which by the core rules wouldn't allow immunity, we would actually be making the creature more rules complex. Yes, it would be a definitive and detailed listing of all the various reasons and abilities that make it immune to everything of a magical nature, but even by your description so far, we'd be coming up with new rules/abilities which have no effective precedent in the RAW (ex: immune to conjuration (creation) for a minute after creation), which seem to be clunkier than the broad but succinct ability of "Just Darn Immune".

I don't know. But I think the implementation becomes as much about the rules as it does about playstyle and GMing style, which makes this a difficult creature to please all the people, all the time with any given implementation.

I was thinking that if someone had a +5 sword it would do an extra 5 damage just due to the bonus, and maybe another +10 if the attack bonus were converted into power attack. Or if they weren't using power attack but got a x3 critical. Basically DR 15 means they would be better off to use a mundane weapon. To punish them for using a magical weapon you'd have to have a higher DR.

"Just Darn Immune" works well if the DM knows what he wants to have happen. If he gets puzzled by whether they can go through a passwall, though, it would be nice to have a way of figuring out whether they can or can't do it.

I'm not really enthusiastic about them being aberrations. (They are aberrations, aren't they?) Maybe their name is too evocative of the undead. I wonder if they could get a cosmetic change and become levitating clusters of tentacles and stuff?

Cheiromancer said:

"Just Darn Immune" works well if the DM knows what he wants to have happen. If he gets puzzled by whether they can go through a passwall, though, it would be nice to have a way of figuring out whether they can or can't do it.

I'm not really enthusiastic about them being aberrations. (They are aberrations, aren't they?) Maybe their name is too evocative of the undead. I wonder if they could get a cosmetic change and become levitating clusters of tentacles and stuff?

Click to expand...

I guess that's where I'm coming from. When I saw them, I knew exactly what faction would be willing to use them, how to integrate them in the world, and started identifying how I would have to interpret their immunity in the SR goofiness that is 3rd edition.

Oooh, floating tentacles...always a good choice. But the implication in Sagiro's Story Hour, IF you intend to use a similar creation schema, is that the enemy are actually corrupting living people INTO Null Shadows, which is why they retain a humanoid shape, but are aberrant in their nature (no real individualized features, no recognizable internal anatomy, etc). Walking Bags of Mostly Evil, to paraphrase a Star Trek The Next Generation line. In that way, I see them at least as aberrant as any Aboleth genetic experiment slave while retaining the joy of thumbs. Though I could be convinced that they are Monstrous Humanoids, but that just doesn't seem "wrong" enough (if you will) to describe them.