Does absolute magic immunity prevent magical bonuses to hit and damage?

[j l 629]

I am using the wonderful Iron Kingdoms rpg setting and in their monsternomicon is the Gear Wurm, a snake like creature that has absolute magic immunity and poops out dispels. No roll can be made to overcome this, complete magic immunity.

Will a +1 magic weapon still get the plus 1 to hit and damage it?

[Berik]

A Gear Wyrm has both Absolute Magic Resistance (which seems to basically mean Spell Resistance: infinite) and a Null Field (which functions as the spell Antimagic Field but doesn't affect the Gear Wyrm itself.

Checking the d20 srd for Antimagic Field we can see:

srd wrote:

A normal creature can enter the area, as can normal missiles. Furthermore, while a magic sword does not function magically within the area, it is still a sword (and a masterwork sword at that).

Hence a magic weapon is still masterwork and thus gives you +1 to hit, but none of the magical effects will work.

[Anguish]

I'd probably argue the other way unless the snake-like creature actually has a similar null field. If it's just immune, then the weapon should function normally, I think.

Let's take it more extreme. If you've got a +1 flaming longsword, that weapon deals 1d6 points of fire damage on a hit. It doesn't deal "magic fire" damage. Yes, the source is a magical item, but the damage isn't inherently magical.

Let me explain. If you fireball the creature, again the damage is fire damage, but the source of the fire is a spell. Direct, first-order relationship. The spell (the magic) is trying to harm the creature. In the case of a weapon, the spell was cast into the weapon, sheathing it in fire. (Albeit unusual fire you can turn on and off.) This is a second-order relationship.

What if you used a spell to massively heat a weapon? Or enlarge it? If you bring a magical light source into the room the creature is in, can it see that light? If you use invisibility on yourself, can the creature see you?

Personally I think the intention is what Berik said: infinite SR. You can't cast things on the creature, but it's not immune to outside effects. If you enlarge yourself, the creature doesn't get to fight you as if you weren't. You get all your bonuses and penalties for being enlarged because while the source is magical, the magic isn't directly applied to the creature.

So +1 weapons do +1 to hit and damage.

[Ravingdork]

Magic Immunity itself does not negate the magical bonuses of weapons (it merely negates spells and spell-like abilities that allow for spell resistance). That null field, however, will negate the magical bonuses of weapons from the sound of it.

[Morgen]

Cool, you can hit it with instant conjuration effects that don't allow SR from outside of it's field.

It's null field does sound like it'd negate any magical bonuses to hit and damage inside of it's zone.

[LazarX]

Anguish wrote:

I'd probably argue the other way unless the snake-like creature actually has a similar null field. If it's just immune, then the weapon should function normally, I think.

Let's take it more extreme. If you've got a +1 flaming longsword, that weapon deals 1d6 points of fire damage on a hit. It doesn't deal "magic fire" damage. Yes, the source is a magical item, but the damage isn't inherently magical.

The fire is a magical effect and thus subject to spell resistance. if th creature is immune to anything that would be suppressed in an anti-magic zone... it'd be immune to that as well.

[Anguish]

LazarX wrote:

Anguish wrote:

I'd probably argue the other way unless the snake-like creature actually has a similar null field. If it's just immune, then the weapon should function normally, I think.

Let's take it more extreme. If you've got a +1 flaming longsword, that weapon deals 1d6 points of fire damage on a hit. It doesn't deal "magic fire" damage. Yes, the source is a magical item, but the damage isn't inherently magical.

The fire is a magical effect and thus subject to spell resistance. if th creature is immune to anything that would be suppressed in an anti-magic zone... it'd be immune to that as well.

Wow. Bad day. I completely misunderstood that the second poster was actually providing details about the original poster's creature. I thought it was a similar creature for purposes of thinking out the rules. My mistake entirely.

[Ravingdork]

LazarX wrote:

Anguish wrote:

I'd probably argue the other way unless the snake-like creature actually has a similar null field. If it's just immune, then the weapon should function normally, I think.

Let's take it more extreme. If you've got a +1 flaming longsword, that weapon deals 1d6 points of fire damage on a hit. It doesn't deal "magic fire" damage. Yes, the source is a magical item, but the damage isn't inherently magical.

The fire is a magical effect and thus subject to spell resistance. if th creature is immune to anything that would be suppressed in an anti-magic zone... it'd be immune to that as well.

The flaming property is not subject to spell resistance, though that antimagic aura likely keeps it from working.