|
|
Post by thorswulf on Apr 18, 2008 22:04:04 GMT -6
To be perfectly honest this magic item has confused me. What exactly is an "enchanted creature/monster"? Somebody under a charm person spell might fall into that category, as well as a golem, or an animated skeleton. Does anybody know if there is an official ruling on this from TSR?
|
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Apr 18, 2008 22:42:30 GMT -6
I don't know about official ruling, but my highly unofficial and ambiguous ruling (based off the "vs. Magic Users" part) is that the sword is most effective against those who live and breathe magic: magic-users, monsters with a highly magical nature (especially those with spells or spell-like abilities), et cetera.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 19, 2008 5:44:01 GMT -6
I would think that Djinii, Invisible Stalkers, Golems, and the like might qualify as "enchanted creatures." Anything that a Magic-user might conjure, summon or create in a laboratory could be what they had in mind.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Apr 19, 2008 21:31:18 GMT -6
Good to know I'm on the right track. I think creatures like the Chimera, Pegasi, Manticores, and hydras might fit into this category. The other swords pretty much cover the rest of the undead, lycanthropes,etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Apr 19, 2008 21:35:09 GMT -6
On an entirely related track, the sword, flaming +1, +2 vs Trolls, +3 vs undead seems really familiar. It sounds like Dyrrnwynn(sic) from the Prydain Chronicles, as well some other swords from fantasy. I'm not sure which, but hey even mythology has some silmilar weapons.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 20, 2008 8:59:02 GMT -6
I see "enchanted" as a precursor term for creatures whose natures will make them immune to hits by non-magical weapons in later editions of the game. I realize this is a "backwards" interpretation but I often find that reference to the way game concepts evolve can be a good way to get a sense of the original intent. It's not fool proof, obviously, but I see a lot of continuity in the evolution of D&D game concepts.
|
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Apr 20, 2008 11:07:59 GMT -6
...I often find that reference to the way game concepts evolve can be a good way to get a sense of the original intent. It's not fool proof, obviously, but I see a lot of continuity in the evolution of D&D game concepts. I agree; that's a valuable technique. On the other hand, I often prefer to ignore the later developments and interpretations (even if they shed light on the original intent) in favor of my own. Of course, I'm inconsistent on this; sometimes I might cite original intent and later developments to explain my position (i.e. preference) on something, and sometimes I might reject those concepts as irrelevant.  |
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 20, 2008 12:04:41 GMT -6
Of course, I'm inconsistent on this; sometimes I might cite original intent and later developments to explain my position (i.e. preference) on something, and sometimes I might reject those concepts as irrelevant. Sounds like you're playing OD&D to me then  That's honestly what I like about the game: consistency isn't mandated. It's perfectly legitimate to use one kind of logic to decide one thing and another kind of logic to decide a second thing. As I've said elsewhere, I tend to hew pretty closely to the "proto- AD&D" version of OD&D, but I also recognize that's not the One True Way to do it and indeed I relish the fact that others go about these things differently. It makes playing in other people's games far more interesting, since each one will have its unique character and idiosyncrasies. |
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Aug 16, 2019 4:51:41 GMT -6
One of my players acquired this sword recently, so I have to deal with it.
Enchanted Monsters - for me these are creatures summoned from the other worlds by magic, magical in nature and so on. Invisible Stalkers, Elementals, Salamanders. Djinn and Efreet would also fall into this category, and I decided to include Balrogs here.
As for the animated or created by magic creatures: Greyhawk and Eldritch Wizardry add Golems to the "enchanted" category, and B/X add Living Statues, Skeletons and Zombies. But what about Robots? If D&D magic is Vancian, so it's high level science, robots are sort of living statues, aren't they? I got a mixed feeling about this because of the Protection from Evil spell. So I probably stay with the summoned, magical creatures.
Moreover, I don't treat charmed creatures as enchanted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Aug 16, 2019 8:00:11 GMT -6
One of my players acquired this sword recently, so I have to deal with it. Enchanted Monsters - for me these are creatures summoned from the other worlds by magic, magical in nature and so on. Invisible Stalkers, Elementals, Salamanders. Djinn and Efreet would also fall into this category, and I decided to include Balrogs here. As for the animated or created by magic creatures: Greyhawk and Eldritch Wizardry add Golems to the "enchanted" category, and B/X add Living Statues, Skeletons and Zombies. But what about Robots? If D&D magic is Vancian, so it's high level science, robots are sort of living statues, aren't they? I got a mixed feeling about this because of the Protection from Evil spell. So I probably stay with the summoned, magical creatures. Moreover, I don't treat charmed creatures as enchanted. I agree with this interpretation. Elementals, Invisible Stalkers, Balrogs, Djinn, and Efreet are the monsters affected by the Sword +1, +2 vs Enchanted Creatures and by the "Protection from Evil" spell. The Vancian term for such creatures is "Sandestins". I would not count golems, undead, or robots as enchanted creatures, because they are magically created/animated creatures rather than a magically summoned/controlled entity. |
|
|
|
Post by gemini476 on Aug 16, 2019 17:54:21 GMT -6
I don't know if this neccessarily holds true to the sword as printed since they changed their minds on a lot of things post-LBBs (hello, magic shields!), but here's what AD&D 1E had to say on the matter:
For what it's worth, that's pretty much what I figured to begin with. Magic-Users and Enchanted Creatures means wizards and stuff summoned/created by wizards. (On a close read it doesn't seem like it would cover Golems, since "Create" is probably a reference to Create Undead, but maybe they should be vulnerable as well? I'm unsure.)
For a complete list in the LBBs, that would mean:
Elementals of all types (Conjure Elemental, Misc. magic items Controlling X Elementals)
Invisible Stalkers (Invisible Stalker)
Djinn (Ring of Djinn Summoning)
Efreet (Efreet Bottle)
Maybe Zombies/Skeletons? (Animate Dead) I'm not sure on this, but would lean towards "yes, you get the bonus".
Once you get out into further products it's kind of up in the air. Generally, I'd rule that if it exists because of a spell or magic item it's probably an enchanted creature and just rule on specific situations as they come up.
|
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Aug 17, 2019 2:59:27 GMT -6
In the LBBs there are also Salamanders:
Greyhawk:
Eldritch Wizardry:
Holmes:
Moldvay
|
|
That's honestly what I like about the game: consistency isn't mandated. It's perfectly legitimate to use one kind of logic to decide one thing and another kind of logic to decide a second thing. As I've said elsewhere, I tend to hew pretty closely to the "proto-AD&D" version of OD&D, but I also recognize that's not the One True Way to do it and indeed I relish the fact that others go about these things differently. It makes playing in other people's games far more interesting, since each one will have its unique character and idiosyncrasies.
