Mace of Disruption vs High Power Undead
ma...@hunter.apana.org.au
for years (for 1 or 2 it was a 1st time), so I'm a little unsure how to
handle it so I thought I would ask around.
A PC cleric while playing Return to Tomb of Horrors attacked a certain unique
high-level undead. This normally can only be hit by +4 items. The players
argument is that the mace shoudl work, seeing as it's designed/created to
destro all sorts of undead. An arguement that has some merit.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
Hi well it is your call as DM however, looking at describtion of Mace.
Powerful undead get a saving throws, lich listed as 5, for other
other specials, saving throw being 2. Odds could be reduced to
even unless if d% is used. If the undead makes saving throw, damage
could be prehaps half of 5d4 or prehaps no damage at all. Other
possibles are because of the nature of undead. Prehaps it is inmune to
mace, prehaps has protection from good, that prevents the mace from
striking a blow.
Good luck
Larry Mead
: In a recent game the following debate came up. Our group hadnt played AD&D
: for years (for 1 or 2 it was a 1st time), so I'm a little unsure how to
: handle it so I thought I would ask around.
: A PC cleric while playing Return to Tomb of Horrors attacked a certain unique
: high-level undead. This normally can only be hit by +4 items. The players
: argument is that the mace shoudl work, seeing as it's designed/created to
: destro all sorts of undead. An arguement that has some merit.
It will hit on a natural 20 in any case, will it not? Then its disruptive
powers are operative.
DMgorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead Ph.D. (Lawren...@usm.edu)
Eschew Obfuscation! Espouse Elucidation!
www-dept.usm.edu/~physics/mead.html
mark edward hardwidge
> A PC cleric while playing Return to Tomb of Horrors attacked a
> certain unique high-level undead. This normally can only be hit by
> +4 items. The players argument is that the mace shoudl work, seeing
> as it's designed/created to destro all sorts of undead. An arguement
> that has some merit.
Well, it's obviously DM call (duh). But, if I was the DM, I'd
think like this: "Well, this isn't just a regular magic mace, it's a
"Special Extra Powerful Magic Mace Designed to Kill Evil Undead", so
it would be kind of silly if it couldn't even HURT the monster. But,
I don't think it would be 'good' if this one magic mace could destroy
this "Super Powerful Evil Undead" in one hit... So, I will rule that
it can hit the monster, and will do, say, 2d4 damage or something."
--
Mark E. Hardwidge
hard...@uiuc.edu
Neutronium Dragon
>
>In a recent game the following debate came up. Our group hadnt played AD&D
>for years (for 1 or 2 it was a 1st time), so I'm a little unsure how to
>handle it so I thought I would ask around.
>
>high-level undead. This normally can only be hit by +4 items. The players
>argument is that the mace shoudl work, seeing as it's designed/created to
>destro all sorts of undead. An arguement that has some merit.
The mace would not do it's normal damage, since it's not +4. However, it's
disruption power would still operate on a hit, although with that type of
undead, it'd be only a 5% chance per hit.
--
| Neutronium Dragon | Dragon Code: DC.D f+ s++ h++++ CSW a++++ $- |
| aha...@direct.ca | m- d+++ WL++* Fr+++ L+++ BP e++++! g- i- U+++ |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| "Is that all you monks ever think about!? Sects, sects, sects!" |
bjbrown
specific about what weapons can and cannot affect it. It has a very
specific rule about what affect a Mace of Disruption has on it. It's
in the module, so you can point out to the DM that the rule is in the
module. He may have already read it, though.
On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 10:02:19 GMT, ma...@hunter.apana.org.au wrote:
>In a recent game the following debate came up. Our group hadnt played AD&D
>for years (for 1 or 2 it was a 1st time), so I'm a little unsure how to
>handle it so I thought I would ask around.
>
>A PC cleric while playing Return to Tomb of Horrors attacked a certain unique
>high-level undead. This normally can only be hit by +4 items. The players
>argument is that the mace shoudl work, seeing as it's designed/created to
>destro all sorts of undead. An arguement that has some merit.
>
Zimri
>ma...@hunter.apana.org.au wrote:
>: In a recent game the following debate came up. Our group hadnt
played AD&D
>: for years (for 1 or 2 it was a 1st time), so I'm a little unsure
how to
>: handle it so I thought I would ask around.
>
>: A PC cleric while playing Return to Tomb of Horrors attacked a
certain unique
>: high-level undead. This normally can only be hit by +4 items. The
players
>: argument is that the mace shoudl work, seeing as it's
designed/created to
>: destro all sorts of undead. An arguement that has some merit.
>
disruptive
>powers are operative.
That +4 refers to a level of magic, not just the to-hit bonus.
For instance, say you're fighting a gargoyle with a large, very sharp,
but still mundane battleaxe. Even if you roll a natural 20, you still
won't nick it.
It's the same thing with only-hit-by-+4 monsters. If you roll a
natural 20 with a mace +3, you still won't hit it.
-- Zimri
------------------------------------
"'It was indeed Nylissa whom you summoned and saw,' replied the viper.
'Your necromancy was potent up to this point; but no necromantic spell
could recall for you your own lost youth or the fervent and guileless
heart that loved Nylissa, or the ardent eyes that beheld her then...
This, my master, was the thing you had to learn.'"
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "The Last Incantation"
Larry Mead
: >It will hit on a natural 20 in any case, will it not? Then its
: disruptive
: >powers are operative.
: That +4 refers to a level of magic, not just the to-hit bonus.
: For instance, say you're fighting a gargoyle with a large, very sharp,
: but still mundane battleaxe. Even if you roll a natural 20, you still
: won't nick it.
: It's the same thing with only-hit-by-+4 monsters. If you roll a
: natural 20 with a mace +3, you still won't hit it.
Ah, yes I believe you are correct here.
robb...@ozemail.com.au
ma...@hunter.apana.org.au wrote:
> A PC cleric while playing Return to Tomb of Horrors attacked a certain unique
> high-level undead. This normally can only be hit by +4 items. The players
> argument is that the mace shoudl work, seeing as it's designed/created to
> destro all sorts of undead. An arguement that has some merit.
A +0 longsword is designed/created to destroy all sorts of things, should it
therefore hit as well? Not a strictly applicable analogy but you get the
drift. If it isn't +4 it doesn't hit.
Rob
You can afford to be arrogant when you're the best....
Durath Darkfriend
David Hardingham
>
> The mace would not do it's normal damage, since it's not +4. However, it's
> disruption power would still operate on a hit, although with that type of
> undead, it'd be only a 5% chance per hit.
How I run it
If he hits it with a Mace of Disruption he still hits it but he can not damage the
creature unless a natural 20 is rolled which is when the special disruption takes
effect
one thing to understand
In the real world it is just as easy to hit some one wearing plate mail then some
one wearing there birthday suit but it would take a lot longer to kill a man in
plate mail then a man in his birthday suit
as for the man in this birthday suit every hit does damage
the man in plate gets hit just as often but only takes damage form a few of the
blows
and ignores the rest as they did no damage even though they hit
as a glancing blow on armor, that produces sparks produces a much different effect
on flesh
Magnus
a_jedi...@my-dejanews.com
> for years (for 1 or 2 it was a 1st time), so I'm a little unsure how to
> handle it so I thought I would ask around.
>
> high-level undead. This normally can only be hit by +4 items. The players
> argument is that the mace shoudl work, seeing as it's designed/created to
> destro all sorts of undead. An arguement that has some merit.
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
can the creature be turned? that is the inherent power of the mace.
--- --- --- ---
I submit that we are both atheist, I simply beleive in one fewer god
than you. When you can understand why you dismiss all other gods, then
you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Jeneth Hawke
>In the real world it is just as easy to hit some one wearing plate mail
then some
>one wearing there birthday suit but it would take a lot longer to kill a
man in
>plate mail then a man in his birthday suit
>as for the man in this birthday suit every hit does damage
>the man in plate gets hit just as often but only takes damage form a few of
the
>blows
>and ignores the rest as they did no damage even though they hit
>as a glancing blow on armor, that produces sparks produces a much
different effect
>on flesh
>
Magnus brings up an interesting point here. It's something I've used in my
games' combat descriptions for a long time and something I really miss when
I'm playing with a DM who ignores it. The AD&D system reads as if it's
actually harder to hit someone in platemail than it is if he's just wearing
normal clothing. In fact, this really isn't the case. It's harder to hit the
actual person *in a location and manner that will damage him*, but you still
have the same odds of hitting him or something attached to him. The only
difference lies in wether you hit the actual person (and damage him) or just
the armor he's wearing/carrying (and do not damage him).
If you're fighting a human opponent with a 12 dexterity and no armor, you
hit him and damage him if your attack roll hits AC 10. If you're fighting a
human opponent with a 12 dexterity, platemail and a shield, you still hit
him if your attack rolls hits AC 10. The difference is that he has 8 points
of armor and shield between himself and your attack and that armor prevents
him from taking damage. You still hit him (or something attached to him) if
you hit AC10, but you only damage him if you hit AC 2. He's not really
harder *to hit*, he's harder *to damage through/around his armor*.
When one of my players characters is fighting the opponent above, I don't
tell him "you missed" if he hits AC 10. I tell him, "you face off against
one another and, after a few seconds, you spot an opening in his defenses.
You swing, but your sword skitters off his breastplate and he shrugs it
off."
So, as Magnus said, the difference is simple. You hit him either way but, in
one case, you *may* see harmless sparks, a small dent, etc and in the other
you *will* see blood.
This may just be a small technicality to a lot of players and DM's, but it
can add a whole lot of extra flavor to a game when its impact is considered.
Combat goes from being a "you hit, you miss" affair to a "how *well* did you
hit" affair that can get quite descriptive and quite enjoyable even for
those who prefer roleplay over hack-n-slash.
-- Isildur
-----------------------------------------------------
"Never take 'Holy Word' to a bar fight."
contact: webm...@greyhawke.net
homepage: http://www.greyhawke.net
ma...@hunter.apana.org.au
bjb...@rica.net (bjbrown) wrote:
> The description of the unique undead in the Tomb of Horrors is very
> specific about what weapons can and cannot affect it. It has a very
> specific rule about what affect a Mace of Disruption has on it. It's
> in the module, so you can point out to the DM that the rule is in the
> module. He may have already read it, though.
The undead in question isn't Acererak, it's another powerful undead thats in
the City that Waits (a Vestige).
Zimri
<77scfa$6j5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In a recent game the following debate came up. Our group hadnt played
AD&D
>for years (for 1 or 2 it was a 1st time), so I'm a little unsure how
to
>handle it so I thought I would ask around.
>
>A PC cleric while playing Return to Tomb of Horrors attacked a
certain unique
>high-level undead. This normally can only be hit by +4 items. The
players
>argument is that the mace shoudl work, seeing as it's
designed/created to
>destro all sorts of undead. An arguement that has some merit.
Okay, I've thought about it.
I'll grant that the creator of the Mace of Disruption designed that
weapon to destroy all sorts of undead *known to the creator*. But a
mace created by a mortal man (it's no artifact) will not necessarily
have power over all undead entities in the multiverse.
A Mace of Disruption +2 or +3 just doesn't have the magical energy to
fight that strain of undead. It may be holy enough, but that just
means it's banking on Good intentions.
Now, by that token a Mace of Disruption +4 will probably work. Since
such a mace probably doesn't exist, your party will just have to find
a way to make one.
Marshall
While the correct ruling here is that the Mace of Disruption couldn't
hit the undead, since it's only +2 against them, our group often rules
that items designed to destroy specific classes of creatures can strike
them. This adds an interesting "not-in-the-book" element to them and
makes the PCs feel more heroic. I'd allow this if the PCs were lacking
other ways of harming the creature. You could argue that the god of the
priest blessed the weapon with the ability to stike that creature at that
moment in particular (In ToH you're pretty much on of your gods favorite
followers anyway). Of course, if the item is intelligent then the PC
probably dosen't have much of a choice about fighting it..."but I don't
wanna fight the dragon" *whine*.."tough kid, we're going in!" and this can
lead to all sorts of interesting scenarios. A character of a friend of
mine played a high level dwarf who had a war hammer which was far more
intelligent than he was and also a former general. They used to get into
fights about tactics and strategy all the time.
-Andrew
bjbrown
version), Acererak was it.