Throw a dozen spears into a werewolf... nothing. Throw a werewolf onto a dozen spears... ?
Zero damage in both cases. The werewolf doesn't hit the ground because the dozen spears stop it. However, I would say it is Restrained in the second case.
I remember hearing that werewolf is immunity to those damages because it just heals back up as if nothing happens. In other words, those weapons can hurt him but won't damage him. A dozen spears into a werewolf should hinder its movement.
If a werewolf falls for a 20-foot deep pit trap with spikes, they're going to take the damage because it's not an attack.
Throw a dozen spears into a werewolf... nothing. Throw a werewolf onto a dozen spears... ?
Zero damage in both cases. The werewolf doesn't hit the ground because the dozen spears stop it. However, I would say it is Restrained in the second case.
I remember hearing that werewolf is immunity to those damages because it just heals back up as if nothing happens. In other words, those weapons can hurt him but won't damage him. A dozen spears into a werewolf should hinder its movement.
If a werewolf falls for a 20-foot deep pit trap with spikes, they're going to take the damage because it's not an attack.
This is the non-sense reasoning I was trying to point out in the first place. To each their own.
Throw a dozen spears into a werewolf... nothing. Throw a werewolf onto a dozen spears... ?
Zero damage in both cases. The werewolf doesn't hit the ground because the dozen spears stop it. However, I would say it is Restrained in the second case.
I remember hearing that werewolf is immunity to those damages because it just heals back up as if nothing happens. In other words, those weapons can hurt him but won't damage him. A dozen spears into a werewolf should hinder its movement.
If a werewolf falls for a 20-foot deep pit trap with spikes, they're going to take the damage because it's not an attack.
This is the non-sense reasoning I was trying to point out in the first place. To each their own.
Which is more nonsense: an attack having no effect or the 'thrope resting atop the spikes like a weighted balloon atop a bed of nails?
What makes sense is what I already said. The attack has an effect and so do a bunch of spikes. Neither are life threatening because the target is not susceptible to that kind of damage.
Saying damage is reliant on intent is plain silly. You shoot a crossbow bolt at a werewolf and it has no effect. A mouse scurries over a loaded crossbow on a table causing is to fire at the werewolf and he takes damage, because it wasn't an attack, it was an accidental misfire. OK, whatever floats your boat, as I said before.
What makes sense is what I already said. The attack has an effect and so do a bunch of spikes. Neither are life threatening because the target is not susceptible to that kind of damage.
Saying damage is reliant on intent is plain silly. You shoot a crossbow bolt at a werewolf and it has no effect. A mouse scurries over a loaded crossbow on a table causing is to fire at the werewolf and he takes damage, because it wasn't an attack, it was an accidental misfire. OK, whatever floats your boat, as I said before.
And as I said before, ask yourself why the rules are this way. What were the designers trying to accomplish? And if you think you can achieve the same end by different means, we'd love to see it.
What makes sense is what I already said. The attack has an effect and so do a bunch of spikes. Neither are life threatening because the target is not susceptible to that kind of damage.
Saying damage is reliant on intent is plain silly. You shoot a crossbow bolt at a werewolf and it has no effect. A mouse scurries over a loaded crossbow on a table causing is to fire at the werewolf and he takes damage, because it wasn't an attack, it was an accidental misfire. OK, whatever floats your boat, as I said before.
This particular paradox is an effect (probably unintentional) of the errata. In the original printing, the wording of the immunity was "bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from nonmagical weapons that aren't silvered" so neither would do any damage. Falling damage still applied though as clarified in the Sage Advice which references the older text.
Jeremy Crawford was asked about the intention behind the rule which treated man-made and natural damage differently. He said, "The material is modeling folklore. Curses and blessings in legend are often specific, not universal laws."
He was also asked why he didn't model this with regeneration (as earlier editions had done.) He said, "Regeneration has a different effect in world: many farmers could take out a werewolf with pitchforks. Not what we wanted."
However, this seems to me something of a fool's errand, since anything a party of low level adventurers could do, a committed group of farmers ought to be able to manage as well.
In 1st edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide, Gary Gygax had this to say about Lycanthropy:
There have been many different approaches to the disease of lycanthropy. Many are too complicated to understand or are structured so poorly that the werecreature dominates the game.
Note originally it was considered a disease rather than a curse. The 1st edition AD&D Monster Manual phrased it as "hit only by silver or +1 or better magic weapons" so similar in effect to the original 5th edition printing but here they cannot be hit rather than immune to the damage.
Crawford's take on it being a curse is telling, as many divine and fiendish creatures have similar immunities. Lycanthropy, when viewed as a curse, is a form of divine punishment. The original lycanthrope, Lycaon, was punished by Zeus. Those excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church were also said to become werewolves. Even some Saints were said to have the power to curse others with it.
Throw a dozen spears into a werewolf... nothing. Throw a werewolf onto a dozen spears... ?
Zero damage in both cases. The werewolf doesn't hit the ground because the dozen spears stop it. However, I would say it is Restrained in the second case.
I remember hearing that werewolf is immunity to those damages because it just heals back up as if nothing happens. In other words, those weapons can hurt him but won't damage him. A dozen spears into a werewolf should hinder its movement.
If a werewolf falls for a 20-foot deep pit trap with spikes, they're going to take the damage because it's not an attack.
This is the non-sense reasoning I was trying to point out in the first place. To each their own.
Which is more nonsense: an attack having no effect or the 'thrope resting atop the spikes like a weighted balloon atop a bed of nails?
I personally recognize what RAW says about the situation and yet at my table either a spike is able to pierce the skin or it isn't. It might be uncomfortable, sure, but it will not pierce the skin to deal damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If a werewolf falls for a 20-foot deep pit trap with spikes, they're going to take the damage because it's not an attack.
This is the non-sense reasoning I was trying to point out in the first place. To each their own.
Which is more nonsense: an attack having no effect or the 'thrope resting atop the spikes like a weighted balloon atop a bed of nails?
What makes sense is what I already said. The attack has an effect and so do a bunch of spikes. Neither are life threatening because the target is not susceptible to that kind of damage.
Saying damage is reliant on intent is plain silly. You shoot a crossbow bolt at a werewolf and it has no effect. A mouse scurries over a loaded crossbow on a table causing is to fire at the werewolf and he takes damage, because it wasn't an attack, it was an accidental misfire. OK, whatever floats your boat, as I said before.
And as I said before, ask yourself why the rules are this way. What were the designers trying to accomplish? And if you think you can achieve the same end by different means, we'd love to see it.
This particular paradox is an effect (probably unintentional) of the errata. In the original printing, the wording of the immunity was "bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from nonmagical weapons that aren't silvered" so neither would do any damage. Falling damage still applied though as clarified in the Sage Advice which references the older text.
Jeremy Crawford was asked about the intention behind the rule which treated man-made and natural damage differently. He said, "The material is modeling folklore. Curses and blessings in legend are often specific, not universal laws."
He was also asked why he didn't model this with regeneration (as earlier editions had done.) He said, "Regeneration has a different effect in world: many farmers could take out a werewolf with pitchforks. Not what we wanted."
However, this seems to me something of a fool's errand, since anything a party of low level adventurers could do, a committed group of farmers ought to be able to manage as well.
In 1st edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide, Gary Gygax had this to say about Lycanthropy:
Note originally it was considered a disease rather than a curse. The 1st edition AD&D Monster Manual phrased it as "hit only by silver or +1 or better magic weapons" so similar in effect to the original 5th edition printing but here they cannot be hit rather than immune to the damage.
Crawford's take on it being a curse is telling, as many divine and fiendish creatures have similar immunities. Lycanthropy, when viewed as a curse, is a form of divine punishment. The original lycanthrope, Lycaon, was punished by Zeus. Those excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church were also said to become werewolves. Even some Saints were said to have the power to curse others with it.
I personally recognize what RAW says about the situation and yet at my table either a spike is able to pierce the skin or it isn't. It might be uncomfortable, sure, but it will not pierce the skin to deal damage.