Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Being the Official Discussion Forum for Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea™


Visit us at the HYPERBOREA web site!




You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

4/17/2017 3:17 pm  #1


+0 magic vs targets of +1< to hit?

Hi y'all!
I've been mulling over this idea for a bit and wonder how others might rule...?

For many this might never be a real consideration if you're outside Handy's AOE nonetheless, what if one hits a Lycanthrope (silver or magic weapons) with a Rod of Rulership or Staff of Healing or a +0 Holy Water Sprinkler (Morningstar w/ vial insert)
I'd give full damage in these cases.

How about the same items vs a Minotron (+1< weapon)?
I'm now inclined to give 1/2 damage in this case.

Same vs a Mummy (magic weapons deal 1/2)?
Rod and Staff does only 1 pip of damage per hit + str mod (also, magic shields, gauntlets, etc.) while +0 Morningstar inflicts 1/4 damage.

Non-weapon magic items used for melee should make Class 3 saves after each hit.


...before fatidic silver pools on a auspicious night stood a Hyperborean Xathoqquan priestess; stripping naked like a beast crawling in on all fours in supplication...
 

4/17/2017 3:32 pm  #2


Re: +0 magic vs targets of +1< to hit?

Personally I don't allow staves to be used as effective weapons unless their description says they can; a staff of healing(!) used as a weapon would just break.  I suppose I would allow a non-weapon rod to be used as a mace, but it wouldn't be magical (for that purpose).

But your way is cool too. http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/smile.png


"The fear of death, its risk each time, is one of the most stimulating parts of the game. It therefore behooves the referee to include as many mystifying and dangerous areas as is consistent with a reasonable chance for survival." - J. Eric Holmes
 

4/17/2017 4:23 pm  #3


Re: +0 magic vs targets of +1< to hit?

Blackadder23 wrote:

Personally I don't allow staves to be used as effective weapons unless their description says they can; a staff of healing(!) used as a weapon would just break.  I suppose I would allow a non-weapon rod to be used as a mace, but it wouldn't be magical (for that purpose).

But your way is cool too. http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/smile.png

Desperate times inspire desperate measures!
I never concern myself whether the party can harm random encounters that they roll up, such as when they faced two gargoyles as 1st lvls w/o any magic weapons, so anything and everything might come into play...

Using an item that is weapon-like (rods, shields, gauntlets, even staves I figure...)? Sure! 1/2 damage and make a Class 3 save.
Using a non-weapon in a weaponized way (hurling a brazier, kicking with slippers...) Good Luck! If hit: 1 pip of damage and make a Class 2 save.

I like giving them options with proper consequences while allowing every horror and stalk ample opportunity for introduction with the party (pulling no punches, full RAW as we understand it)...

probably should've just kept the question about +0 weapons...


...before fatidic silver pools on a auspicious night stood a Hyperborean Xathoqquan priestess; stripping naked like a beast crawling in on all fours in supplication...
     Thread Starter
 

4/17/2017 4:35 pm  #4


Re: +0 magic vs targets of +1< to hit?

...the real question I have is a bit opaque, so I guess it's:

Is there any actual difference regarding the magical requirements to hit in the various descriptions?
"+1 or better weapon to hit", "harmed only by silver or magical weapons", "unharmed by non-magical weapons; magical weapons inflict half damage", etc

Part Two: if a magic weapon is +0 does it qualify for the aforementioned?

And, thanks again, guys!

Last edited by Monkeydono (4/17/2017 4:48 pm)


...before fatidic silver pools on a auspicious night stood a Hyperborean Xathoqquan priestess; stripping naked like a beast crawling in on all fours in supplication...
     Thread Starter
 

4/17/2017 8:39 pm  #5


Re: +0 magic vs targets of +1< to hit?

Off the top of my head I'd allow non weapon magical items to be used as weapons, to hit creatures if they could only be hit by magic,  if the items could conceivably do damage - of course a trip to the item saving rolls would need to be in order as you say.  If the description said +2 or higher I'd be stricter though the use (and potential breakage) of the more powerful non weapon magic items might be allowed (or even encouraged - I hear full potions make great sling bullets!).  I am intrigued by the +0 weapon concept but Handy hasn't quite converted me to that heresy yet!

 

4/18/2017 5:14 am  #6


Re: +0 magic vs targets of +1< to hit?

Monkeydono wrote:

...the real question I have is a bit opaque, so I guess it's:

Is there any actual difference regarding the magical requirements to hit in the various descriptions?
"+1 or better weapon to hit", "harmed only by silver or magical weapons", "unharmed by non-magical weapons; magical weapons inflict half damage", etc

Part Two: if a magic weapon is +0 does it qualify for the aforementioned?

And, thanks again, guys!

The difference is indeed in the "+" as far as my campaign is concerned. I would allow some of what lige mentions above, the improvised weapons (though they would be subject to breakage), but if the requirement is "+1 or better", than +0 is not enough to penetrate the creature's otherworldly, netherworldly, or sorcerous defenses. 


 


Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea - A Role-Playing Game of Swords, Sorcery, and Weird Fantasy
 

4/18/2017 11:36 am  #7


Re: +0 magic vs targets of +1< to hit?

Ghul wrote:

The difference is indeed in the "+" as far as my campaign is concerned. I would allow some of what lige mentions above, the improvised weapons (though they would be subject to breakage), but if the requirement is "+1 or better", than +0 is not enough to penetrate the creature's otherworldly, netherworldly, or sorcerous defenses. 

Thanks, Jeff!
So there is a qualifiable magical requirement difference when fighting Mummies (+0 to hit) versus fighting a Minotron (+1 to hit)...


...before fatidic silver pools on a auspicious night stood a Hyperborean Xathoqquan priestess; stripping naked like a beast crawling in on all fours in supplication...
     Thread Starter
 

4/18/2017 11:59 am  #8


Re: +0 magic vs targets of +1< to hit?

lige wrote:

Off the top of my head I'd allow non weapon magical items to be used as weapons, to hit creatures if they could only be hit by magic,  if the items could conceivably do damage - of course a trip to the item saving rolls would need to be in order as you say.  If the description said +2 or higher I'd be stricter though the use (and potential breakage) of the more powerful non weapon magic items might be allowed (or even encouraged - I hear full potions make great sling bullets!).  I am intrigued by the +0 weapon concept but Handy hasn't quite converted me to that heresy yet!

Nice, Eli - definitely "encourage" them to use those potions as sling bullets (lmk the results)!!!

Unless I missed it, there doesn't seem to be any "+2 or greater" to hit monsters, and since I'm a low magic world, I'll keep magical requirements binary (needs anything magical to hit it, otherwise mundane will do) with 1/2 damage for unintended magic item usage (guess this will be my first departure from RAW).


...before fatidic silver pools on a auspicious night stood a Hyperborean Xathoqquan priestess; stripping naked like a beast crawling in on all fours in supplication...
     Thread Starter
 

4/20/2017 2:49 pm  #9


Re: +0 magic vs targets of +1< to hit?

Ghul wrote:

Monkeydono wrote:

...the real question I have is a bit opaque, so I guess it's:

Is there any actual difference regarding the magical requirements to hit in the various descriptions?
"+1 or better weapon to hit", "harmed only by silver or magical weapons", "unharmed by non-magical weapons; magical weapons inflict half damage", etc

Part Two: if a magic weapon is +0 does it qualify for the aforementioned?

And, thanks again, guys!

The difference is indeed in the "+" as far as my campaign is concerned. I would allow some of what lige mentions above, the improvised weapons (though they would be subject to breakage), but if the requirement is "+1 or better", than +0 is not enough to penetrate the creature's otherworldly, netherworldly, or sorcerous defenses.

Yeah, me, too. Especially because you don't want to lose the true majesty of a +0 weapon by watering it down with all that combat.

While I'm generally not a big fan of "+x to hit" just because it implies that I as the DM should have those in my world (which is essentially impossible at current levels of player bribes), I mainly see these as opportunities for testing player skill and inventiveness. If you are a first- and second-level party with one magical weapon among you and are surrounded by wights, figure it the hell out. Ropes, fire, swimming, whatever it takes. Not having a +x weapon means having to use your +x brain.
 

 

4/23/2017 7:30 pm  #10


Re: +0 magic vs targets of +1< to hit?

The elegant rules I adore so I'll keep in simple and binary, since there would otherwise be too many grey areas (hitting w/ a Staff of the Magus, Automations fighting each other or an earth elemental, dæmons fighting ghosts)...

Blackadder23 wrote:

Personally I don't allow staves to be used as effective weapons unless their description says they can; a staff of healing(!) used as a weapon would just break

Not what I was asking but, in case you care: [magic] Staves...might be shod...treat as quartstaffs for purposes of combat; if not shod in metal, they deliver but 1d4.

Arbitrary outcomes should be avoided.


...before fatidic silver pools on a auspicious night stood a Hyperborean Xathoqquan priestess; stripping naked like a beast crawling in on all fours in supplication...
     Thread Starter
 

4/23/2017 9:05 pm  #11


Re: +0 magic vs targets of +1< to hit?

Monkeydono wrote:

Arbitrary outcomes should be avoided.

Hyperborea seems like exactly the place for arbitrary outcomes... http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/wink.png

 

Last edited by Blackadder23 (4/23/2017 9:10 pm)


"The fear of death, its risk each time, is one of the most stimulating parts of the game. It therefore behooves the referee to include as many mystifying and dangerous areas as is consistent with a reasonable chance for survival." - J. Eric Holmes
 

4/23/2017 9:17 pm  #12


Re: +0 magic vs targets of +1< to hit?

Blackadder23 wrote:

Monkeydono wrote:

Arbitrary outcomes should be avoided.

Hyperborea seems like exactly the place for arbitrary outcomes... http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/wink.png

 

"Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system"?
 Ugh, I used to game with DMs like that...no thanks.


...before fatidic silver pools on a auspicious night stood a Hyperborean Xathoqquan priestess; stripping naked like a beast crawling in on all fours in supplication...
     Thread Starter
 

4/23/2017 9:31 pm  #13


Re: +0 magic vs targets of +1< to hit?

Monkeydono wrote:

"Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system"?

Every time he hears a phrase like that, Xathoqqua's heart grows two sizes.


"The fear of death, its risk each time, is one of the most stimulating parts of the game. It therefore behooves the referee to include as many mystifying and dangerous areas as is consistent with a reasonable chance for survival." - J. Eric Holmes
 

4/23/2017 9:46 pm  #14


Re: +0 magic vs targets of +1< to hit?

Sorry man, I just don't know where you're going, I'm quite comfortable with the setting and whatnot, I was only asking for an answer, not an unsolicited opinion.
Thanks anyway, though (I'll take a break from here for awhile, didn't realize what was on the encounter table for this terrain).
Take care y'all!


...before fatidic silver pools on a auspicious night stood a Hyperborean Xathoqquan priestess; stripping naked like a beast crawling in on all fours in supplication...
     Thread Starter
 

4/24/2017 8:07 am  #15


Re: +0 magic vs targets of +1< to hit?

Hey guys, remember, although we are fairly like-minded in our love of Hyperborea, we will still have healthy disagreements occasionally and during these times it's very easy to accidentally misrepresent one's own tone or misconstrue someone else's tone online. I know I have done both! So, sometimes we all need a little break, but I would hate to see anyone leave our great Hyperborea forum for good, especially either of you two who are easily in my top 500 favorite Hyperboreans! 


Blackadder23: Insanely long villain soliloquy, then "Your action?"
BORGO'S PLAYER: I shoot him in the face
 

4/24/2017 3:22 pm  #16


Re: +0 magic vs targets of +1< to hit?

lige wrote:

Off the top of my head I'd allow non weapon magical items to be used as weapons, to hit creatures if they could only be hit by magic,  if the items could conceivably do damage - of course a trip to the item saving rolls would need to be in order as you say.  If the description said +2 or higher I'd be stricter though the use (and potential breakage) of the more powerful non weapon magic items might be allowed (or even encouraged - I hear full potions make great sling bullets!).  I am intrigued by the +0 weapon concept but Handy hasn't quite converted me to that heresy yet!

I'm a lazy GM but I think it would be cool to give a player a magic weapon and not reveal the bonus.  Therefore they may never know how powerfully or minimally magical the weapon is. 


“How can I wear the harness of toil
And sweat at the daily round,
While in my soul forever
The drums of Pictdom sound?” 
 

4/25/2017 7:50 pm  #17


Re: +0 magic vs targets of +1< to hit?

mabon5127 wrote:

lige wrote:

Off the top of my head I'd allow non weapon magical items to be used as weapons, to hit creatures if they could only be hit by magic,  if the items could conceivably do damage - of course a trip to the item saving rolls would need to be in order as you say.  If the description said +2 or higher I'd be stricter though the use (and potential breakage) of the more powerful non weapon magic items might be allowed (or even encouraged - I hear full potions make great sling bullets!).  I am intrigued by the +0 weapon concept but Handy hasn't quite converted me to that heresy yet!

I'm a lazy GM but I think it would be cool to give a player a magic weapon and not reveal the bonus.  Therefore they may never know how powerfully or minimally magical the weapon is. 

It *would* be . . . but I'm way too lazy to pull it off!

 

Board footera

“Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea”, “AS&SH”, and all other North Wind Adventures product names and their respective logos are trademarks of North Wind Adventures, LLC in the USA and other countries. ©2017 North Wind Adventures, LLC.