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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The_Warlock" data-source="post: 3467309" data-attributes="member: 21215">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 fun2) 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 NSMagically imbued sword -- fails vs NSWall of Force -- failsWall of Stone -- worksPasswall -- 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.)</blockquote>

Verification