Immunity Question

Immunity to Swords, what would it be, I lean towards a greater immunity but I can see an argument that it is a subset of immunity to Iron and so should be a lesser immunity.

Lesser. Swords are themselves a subset of weaponry and, frankly, one of the lesser threats to a magus. For a knight-companion, on the other hand ...

This is a greater immunity.

Swords are certainly not:
a) rare
b) not deadly
and certainly not then
c) both.

I also fail to see how they are a "lesser" threat to a magus...


Because Magi are extraordinarily well equipped to deal with one man with a sword. Making swords a lesser immunity encourages stories and fun involving it, but since any magus who can't deal with one man and a sword on 5 seconds warning is probably an apprentice anyway ... making it a greater immunity seems to be charging for the sake of charging.

Lesser Immunity. They are part of the Greater Immunity to iron or (if you be a crazy SG) part of Greater Immuninty to Weapons.

You're not just immune to one man with a sword. You're immune to all the swords everywhere, all the time...even the ones in the hands of fae knights and reaving demons and avenging angels.

And I would say it encourages bravado and removes tension from the game, as the magus views what should be a threat as nothing immediately concerning. That may or may not still be fun, but I don't think it will be in the long run.

Five seconds of warning is a lifetime. I'm thinking of situations where there is a large melee, or an ambushed camp in disarray, a riot. Not needing to fear an unexpected sword blow makes those situations just so much setting. Not fearing the group of six guards with longswords because you will seem invulnerable as they attack you minimalizes what could otherwise be a very exciting moment.

While most magi can "handle" a man with a sword charging them, you make that number even two and the situation changes...the tactics for dealing with those threats can certainly overwhelm the magus who doesn't have a solution specifically prepared. There are six magi in our saga's covenant, all run by experienced players, and I think each of them would handle the issue differently-- though I think at least one of them would have a real hard time surviving it. Looking at the magi templates from ArM5...almost all of them are going to have a tough time with more than one opponent, and the criamon and the guernicus are both going to be concerned over a single foe. Designing a very fun magus who is quite capable in many ways but faces serious trouble in combat is an easy thing to do.

No, it's treating swords as the common, deadly threat that they are. Substitute "arrows" for "swords," and ask if we'd be having this discussion... I don't think we would.


Reread Lesser has nothing to do with being a subset of anything.

A lesser immunity is immunity "to some hazard which is either rare, or not deadly, or both."

Swords are not rare. They are most certainly deadly. That's pretty clear.


The RAW support you, and I fully understand your argument. I just disagree on the implementation - I think it more fun for it to be a minor virtue for a magus.

Ditto. Seconded.

I also find it to be stupid as a concept, so I would simply veto it IMS. No justification for this kind of immunity under almost any situation I can think about.



I agree it is a stupid concept like the concept of imminity fire, weapons, iron, we should only allow deeply interesting immunities like
immunity spanish flamenco, immunity sheep, immunity pork salami.

Thanks for your insulting and pointless answer.
I appreciate the other comments and am glad to see that it is not immeidatly obvious that this is a greater or lesser immunity


Perhaps Xavi put it a bit rude, but I think he's got a point.

Fire and iron are basic things you can be immune to. Swords are a shape and/or function, I don't like the concept as much as a basic immunity.

On the other hand, I think that has little to do with the discussion we were having on immunities.

I would also go for major virtue, since swords are one of the better ways of killing a magus (you just have to magically protect the wielder). You're also immune to non-iron swords, which is a small bonus over immunity iron.

A Blessing from a Faerie Lord/Angel/demon/dragon. Along the lines of no blade Shall injure you.
Ancient ritual magic anointment as a child (Similar to achilles but a bit more specific , he would have had immunity to weapons except for this small spot on my left heel where I know some B***ard is going to stab me)
Weird magical warping incident involving a magical sword possibly before Birth

Thats five minutes effort to think of an explanation for immunity to swords which are not excessively stupid and have justification in myth.
As to Xavi , I occasionaly think people post something stupid on a message board I try to avoid calling the person stupid as it is needlessly rude his point could have been made just as well without the insult.

In general I think the immunity virtue needs more examples to tie it down to an effect better. As I think Immunity(Weapons) is justifiable as is immunity(Swords) and every time I have seen any immunity suggested it becomes a complciated discussion leaning towards it being a greater immunity.
Not that I disagree in this case as I said when I posed the question I can see an argument for it not being major but in general leaned towards it being major.

I thought a little as much, until i figured this to be akin to a classic celt hero power. Something such a a prophecy "thou shalt not die by a sword"

Arf, andrew got me, but then, we agree on this.

However, immunity: Weapons seems to me to be too encompassing compared to immunity to iron or wood, and I'd disallow it.

I probably would as well , however I don't find the guidance clear , then again it is only 1 paragraph so there is bound to be some confusion.


Oh, I'd allow it. And then, when the player started complaining when his character got killed by a rock (flung by a sling, but no matter), or a peasant's pitchfork, or an eating knife, or a tankard of ale, or an axe made for chopping wood, or a butcher's cleaver or a blacksmith's hammer... These aren't weapons.



Sorry if you felt insulted. Long day, bad mood, should have not answered in those terms.

A player IMS tried to pass a "immunity to violent death" a while ago. Since then I got a deep dislike for the virtue in general, specially if it is someything that deals with combat.

When it comes to heroes, remember that they tend to do better with Geasa, and more restrictive immunities, more than total immunities.


I probably shouldn't have taken offense.

Immunity to violent death does seem to be going to far by a wide margin .

Take in mind that those prophesies and advantages (signfried, achiles...) usually include some kind of flaw that is not necessarily known by the hero himself. As a SG you might want to put that up as well. Otherwise it might happen what we said "they are only armed with swords? In that case I remove my armour and charge them straight ahead". Lack of tension in combat is the anticlimax we all tend to want to avoid. If the combat scene is designed to be climatic and dangerous, that is.

That can work as well.

And for me, in any case it is major. Common and mortal thingy.



And then he steps into a caltrop and they pummel him to death like naked peasants with a stick. I'd allow for immunity to swords, since swords are weapons only brought in after the arrow and spear has been surpassed and before you get to daggers, and then only for those that have the money to buy swords. In judicidal combat it would not be fair however (though a judgement so taken would induce a new trial, one of sorcery, immidiately) but that can be overlooked. I think I'd allow immunity for the kinds of weapons, lances/spears/javelins, swords, axes, and arrows, but I'd all make them greater, they all are fairly common, and they all are lethal.