[OSSR]Encyclopedia Magica, Vol. 1

[Ancient History]

Not...exhaustive. There were a lot of Monstrous Compendiums, and probably at least a couple dozen variants in different sourcebooks and adventures. But there is this resource: http://www.dotd.com/mm/MM00138.htm

[shadzar]

specific rule overrides generic rule.

so if golems say "only hit by +3 ir better" this would work for ever normal weapon.

when the weapon itself says "i am +1 but i damage ALL golems hit", then this is a specific rule that overrides the generic golem rule. it was made purposefully to attack golems with. the fact that it is a +1 weapon is for ALL other uses.

it is like a sword +2 / +4 vs giants or something. it has a special function against one enemy type, and for all others it is still magical enough to do SOMETHING other than being a normal weapon for its type.

you would really need to reference the adventure (if exists) wher an item came from to see why it exists. this is a failing of understanding for many people that just used these types of books or ANY book that jsut has stuff in it between settings and such. maybe this one was made and mentioned just in a novel and was brought fro the novel to the game so people who read the novel could use the weapon itself?

this is just the same case as everything else found outside of the "core 3", which is USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.


EDIT: yup its a Gary item, one of a pair made specifically for fighting a dungeon full of iron golems. the sword from the fighter statue actually was a +3 against golems. strangely it was downgraded from being a normal +2 dagger to just a +1 when not used against golems. probably because it as converted from 1st to 2nd.. who knows. but this is why the items tell where they come from like the aforementioned index books. this one comes from WG5 Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure.

so for all reason, the "golemblight" it not very strange at all. as to whether it allows for backstabbing...well that will but up to individual DMs to decide.

[Username17]

Take, for example, Golemblight, a +1 dagger that gains a +2 bonus to attack rolls and inflicts 2d8 points of damage against golems. You know, golems, those giant near-invulnerable fucking things which often have over a hundred hit points, and are generally invulnerable to sneak attacks.

As far as I remember, Clay golems can only be wounded by +3 or better weapons, as well as stone golems...

Do you have an exhaustive list of all the golems which can be harm by the Golemblight? I guess there is the flesh golem, and, huh... nothing else.

Clay Golems can be damaged by +1 weapons, but are immune to damage from non-bludgeoning weapons. So no to Clay Golems. Stone Golems simply require a +2 weapon, so they can be hurt. But you really seem to underestimate how many fucking golems there are in 2nd edition. That weapon can't hurt a furnace golem, clay golem, iron golem, or diamond golem, and only does half damage to bone golems or glass golems, it does full damage to brain golems, wax golems, emerald golems, and flesh golems.

Actually, I can't even tell what kind of weapon you need to hurt a lightning golem, because it's supposed to inherit its weapon immunities from another text and I don't know which one. 2nd edition has a lot of golems.

-Username17

[shadzar]

again Frank please learn to play the game. Specific rule overrides generic rule. it is as simple as that.

you don't need a single "+X" to kill a vampire, if you have a Vampire Slaying sword that says "hits Vampires ignoring their immunities/etc"

it really is that damn simple. so a weapon made for the purpose of damaging golems was made so it CAN hit golems. the "+1" on it if for NON-golems.

that is why it says in the adventure "it is otherwise a normal +2 dagger" and in this book being review the same thing except for being reduced to +1.

it is just a SPECIAL +1 or +2 dagger, that can do extra stuff towards golems. that is the SPECIFIC rule of the dagger. just accept it and there is nothing else to question. you want to ask, but why can it do this... because MAGIC!

[Cyberzombie]

2nd edition also generally made the assumption of common sense, where if there was a dagger made to hurt golems, that the DM would allow it to hurt golems, even if the wording had a few flaws.

Back in the old days, it was assumed that game designers weren't all knowing and when you see an issue like the golembane dagger, you just assume the designers had an oversight and left out something. Nowadays it's the opposite where anything short of designer infallibility leads to parts of the game failing to work.

[Prak]

It's called exception based design, things are done the same way now for the most part. Even so, the dagger probably should have explicitly said it could damage golems regardless of its bonus compared to what was needed to damage the golem.

[Username17]

Whether you want to call it exception, common sense, narrative, or ad hoc based, the fact of the matter is that 2nd edition AD&D was about the DM doing whatever he wanted and dicking over the players. This is an edition that spends multiple pages gleefully suggesting various means for the DM to fuck the players over while they are trying to buy horses. This is an edition that tells you that the DM can choose to not allow your character to have skills three times before telling you what the skills actually do. Considering how much 2nd edition faps to DMs being able to do whatever the fuck they want whenever they want and how many ways it outright tells you to screw over players in bullshit petty fashion, I would be pretty surprised if you could find more than a meager handful of 2nd edition DMs who would allow a character with a piercing weapon that was +2 against Golems to hurt a Golem that was either immune to piercing weapons or required a +3 or better weapon to hit. That's just not how that edition rolled.

The only major ambiguity is that really a lot of golems, from Snow Golems to Lightning Golems don't actually bother to tell you what the minimum plus on a weapon to hurt them actually is. They say that they have the weapon immunities of a "greater golem" which means that they either require a +2 or a +3 weapon to hurt, see the appropriate monster description. Which is a closed loop page reference that never actually tells you whether it's +2 or +3 for a bunch of the greater golems. Glass Golems say (they need a +2), and Furnace Golems say (they need a +3), but a lot of the greater golems just don't say. Because it's 2nd edition, and since it's DM option anyway actually including the rules is pointless. So sometimes they just don't bother.

-Username17

[shadzar]

2nd edition AD&D was about the DM doing whatever he wanted and dicking over the players.

you just really dont get it. it is 3tards like you that really piss me off bout EVERYONE or at least the majority of this forum. you carry your buttsore forever and just don't get the game at all and blame it for you playing with bad DMs, or you inability to understand the game.

1. where the fuck are snow and lightning golems from? i cant readily find them in 2nd edition.

2. if from some much later product or specific adventure then odds are the author didn't know what the hell they were doing.

3. typos happen, they are in 3rd too.

4. TSR didn't have enough editors to check anythng and wasnt allowed to palytest. either of those things would prevent LW or the Blumes from embezzling money from it.

5. just learn what TSR edition D&D was about, and maybe you and the rest of the world will understand why WotC editions fail.

D&D is WYSIWYG. each edition assumes you have played the previously released edition to understand some things or to fall back on some things of past edition when a question arises or something is copied wrong. D&D material is USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. even for OD&D you couldnt just add Blackmoor and Greyhawk material at the same time and expect things to work flawlessly. this was the whole purpose of D&D: TO PLAY YOUR WAY. this is why it was created to break away from wargames where the medic always had to do only this one thing etc.

sure design ideas were corssed and mixed and disagreed upon because whatever...and that whatever really breaks down to playstyles and legal rights. BD&D has the same kind of discrepancies since even Mentzer didn't agree with himself later and made things that changed the whole of the game. if you want mounted combat, you don't use the unmounted combat rules. AD&D jsut tried to take 20 books and magazine articles and compile them into simpler and lesser book design (and to claim total legal rights). UA purposefully was to change the game, to contradict some things to offer that thing that players like yourself want so badly and bitch for... customization of your game. 2nd is just an extension of that.

D&D was supposed to be a framework and toolkit, not a board game like WotC is trying to make it. that is why you and them just don't get it. you want HeroQuest(GW/MB): the RPG. yeah that is a fun board game, but very boring for anything outside its premise. you can play overland with it, but then you are no longer "trapped" my Morcar/Zargon so the board itself becomes a problem as overland paly like that only works for silly games like the fb Neverwinter game....and that isnt for long.

D&D requires commons sense that you seem not to have.

here is the dagger in question and how it clearly says it is MADE for attacking golems.

Against a golem, this weapon gains a +2 bonus to attack rolls and inflicts 2d8 points of damage,

if you don't have the common sense to know this means it was MADE FOR attacking golems and bypasses the specific immunities or restrictions they ahve, then you failed to read the fucking rules. you don't understand the game because you didnt read the "what is D&D" section, or the forward explaining how the books are set up or something else. you missed something and people have been TRYING to explain what you are missing for years, but you blame the system itself because you wanted to play with bad DMs rather than just walk away from the game.

2nd was less ambiguous in MANY areas than 1st, but its still the same game (minus demons/devils by those names). you just lack the common sense and math skills to play pre-WotC D&D because it was made for players age 11 and up, and you are less educated and less mature than the required age range.

you just don't know how to use tools, so you don't understand a toolkit system. YOU allowed bad DMs to screw you over, so go see a shrink about your inability to analyze the situation and about your need to place blame on others for your shortcomings. sorry, just you and Mearls and Wyatt will never be able to understand D&D because you just don't understand common sense even after 40 years in various media it has been explained over and over.

get some preparation H for your buttsore and get over it, and yourself.

[Koumei]

Careful guys, you insulted his wife.

[Cyberzombie]

Whether you want to call it exception, common sense, narrative, or ad hoc based, the fact of the matter is that 2nd edition AD&D was about the DM doing whatever he wanted and dicking over the players.

Only if you had a bad DM. While AD&D gave out a lot of power to the DM, the DM wasn't supposed to abuse that power.

And really, it was more the AD&D rules, not the DM, that dicked over the players. I still remember where the 2E rules tell you to give people a big experience penalty for changing alignment from Lawful good to neutral good. That's something that most DMs will outright ignore in AD&D, but the rulebook tells you to screw your players.

In many cases in 2E you were hoping your DM didn't follow the rules, because if he followed the rules to the letter, you were getting hosed. Most DMs weren't that cruel.

[Lago PARANOIA]

While AD&D gave out a lot of power to the DM, the DM wasn't supposed to abuse that power.

In many cases in 2E you were hoping your DM didn't follow the rules, because if he followed the rules to the letter, you were getting hosed. Most DMs weren't that cruel.

You do realize that these two statements are contradictions, right? The DM is still flaunting the rules and waving his 'Rule Zero'-tattooed micropenis at the players.

[shadzar]

And really, it was more the AD&D rules, not the DM, that dicked over the players. I still remember where the 2E rules tell you to give people a big experience penalty for changing alignment from Lawful good to neutral good. That's something that most DMs will outright ignore in AD&D, but the rulebook tells you to screw your players.

In many cases in 2E you were hoping your DM didn't follow the rules, because if he followed the rules to the letter, you were getting hosed. Most DMs weren't that cruel.

now you are just being dense.

OD&D you changed alignment from good to evil you practically became an NPC and no longer a player. there was only good/Evil

AD&D poorly did alignment, i have gone over this MILLIONS of times probably, but the point was it was trying to amke use of that new alignment axis. what it was doing was trying to make sure people werent being flakes and just screwing around but, contrary to Gary's words, he wanted people to "act" the way they said they would. and really XP was a dime a dozen since GP converts to it. so taking some away was just taking away a bit of power. thematically it works. your character internal struggle to blahblahblah...

it was just another system of showing the players their choices matter in the long term, even those made when you created the character. you picked package X you got both the good and bad with it.

i guess you would say the outfielder is being screwed over by the ump when he has less chance to win because the game tells the ump to give a free base to the batter that gets beaned with the ball because the pitcher slipped or something else? hey the outfielder made the choice to be on that team with that pitcher, not the umps fault, not the games fault. blame the bad player who caused it.

same thing.

the game was set up to have alignment have a meaning, the fact that people would remove connections to alignment (and the fact they could) was a part of the game design too. it shows people can CHANGE what they want easily from the system because it doesn't really connect to much.

2nd edition also generally made the assumption of common sense,

oh how soon we forget.

[Leress]

Careful guys, you insulted his wife.

...on the internet.

[GâtFromKI]

Stone Golems simply require a +2 weapon, so they can be hurt.

The dagger gets a +2 to hit against golems, but isn't a +2 weapon against golem - it doesn't have the +2 to damage. Since the RAI of AD&D2 are simply "each time you can interpret a rule in a way that disadvantage the PCs, go for it", I don't think the dagger works against a stone golem.

[shadzar]

and more stupidity from 3tards

[GâtFromKI]

I played AD&D2, I read the book whan I was young, and, yes, I can affirm that the only rule was "bone the players each times you can".

A weapon that grants a +2 to hit isn't a +2 weapon; actually, AD&D contains many, many weapon that are "+X to hit, +Y to damages, and considered as +Z to know if it can harm something". If X is specified but not Z, then Z is considered to be 0. Anyone who have read the rules knows that. A weapon that grant a bonus to damage isn't automatically able to bypass immunities; again, anyone who have read the rules knows that.

...Actually, I don't think you have read the rules or you have played AD&D2. I don't know what game you play, but it isn't the one described in the PHB and the DMG.

[shadzar]

go read this book and the item description, then go read the actual adventure it came from. you will see what it was made to do. again ALL the compilation items should be USE AT YOUR OWN RISK, or just make it up since all the information is NOT provided.

i cant recall a single item that says "can violate restrictions against X" but everyone knows it can when you look at the item.

this weapon was made for fighting golems. what kind of idiot would think it cannot hit them?

OMG you found a typo in a D&D book!

WELCOME TO D&D!

stop being stupid. i made a thread for your other problem, so you should go use it, then you and Frank can cry together and do that bonding thing over the abuse you let yourselves go through at the hands of bad DMs.

what the dagger does outside of use on golems is clear.. it is "+2" and would follow the rules of a dagger +2. what it does to golems is hits them, given the proper roll vs THAC0 for them. its a fucking golem slaying dagger for fuck's sake! use what little common sense your ilk was born with!

[GâtFromKI]

I still don't think you know how AD&D2 works.