Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Falling Icicle" data-source="post: 6120510" data-attributes="member: 17077">The article talks about immunity to non-magical weapons and immunity to spells as if they are equivalent. They're not. The former is quite easy to overcome. Practically every adventurer is going to come across at least a +1 weapon at some point, unless the campaign is extremely low magic. Immunity to spells, on the other hand, can't be overcome by any means. The wizard player is just screwed. A better comparison would be if a monster was immune to all weapons - period.Either way, I hate immunities like this. If a creature is immune to non-magical weapons, or non-silver weapons, or whatever, it either irrelevant because the player happens to have the right weapon, or it makes the monster totally immune to that character, forcing him to sit out the fight. They talk about using creative means to defeat such creatures, but that isn't how it goes. What happens is that one or more of the players has to sit there bored and useless while the rest of the party kills it. If a creature is immune to weapons, the spellcasters kill it. If the creature is immune to magic, the weapon-users kill it.They're right that these things should be used sparingly, but I don't think they're being sparing enough. I don't think any of the creatures in the monster manual should have such immunities by default. Instead, this should be an optional suggestion for customizing monsters. For example, I wouldn't give rakshasa immunity to almost all levels of spells by default, but in the customization sidebar, it could suggest that perhaps some unique and very powerful rakshasa are rumored to have that power. Then it's entirely up to the DM whether or not he wants to use it, and it's something that's special by its very nature when he does, not just something that all rakshasa, all golems, etc. have by default.</blockquote>

Verification