| | Ref | Ouvrage | Question | | Reponse |
|---|
| 141. | DR118 | Dragon #118 | Can a waterfall (or other loud
sources of noise) negate the casting
of a spell with a verbal component?
Also, can a character cast a hold
person on a character who has just
gone over a waterfall to hold him
under water and drown him? | | Nope and nope. To negate a spell with a
verbal component, one needs to stop the
spell-caster from speaking. It doesn’t matter
whether the target can hear the words
— all that matters is that the words are
spoken. The tremendous din of a waterfall
would not affect a spell that requires a
verbal component to cast, but a silence
spell or a gag will prevent the spell from
being cast. A waterfall does, however,
drown out the noise of shriekers and the
singing of harpies (the DM must decide
how far from the waterfall one must be
before normal hearing is restored).
A hold person spell doesn’t work that
way. It only prevents a person from voluntarily
moving, and cannot stop the action
of the moving water (and the body’s natural
buoyancy) from bringing the person to
the surface, where he can float (and
breathe). |
| 142. | DR052 | Dragon #52 | Can an evil cleric cast Cure Wounds spells? Can a good cleric
use a Cause Wounds spell? What about clerics who are neutral
with respect to good and evil?
How do lawful neutral and chaotic neutral clerics behave with
respect to undead? Do they befriend/command them as an evil
cleric would, or do they turn them as a good cleric would? | | Judging by the general guidelines of the AD&D alignment
system, causing or promoting pain and suffering is an evil act,
while counteracting or preventing that pain and suffering is a
good thing to do. It’s not right to say absolutely that an evil cleric
can’t use a Cure spell; healing another evil creature (or perhaps
oneself) is not necessarily viewed as a good act when performed
by an evil character. Likewise, a good cleric cannot always be
condemned for using a Cause Wounds spell. Good clerics do
use weapons, and the purpose of a weapon attack is the same as
that of a Cause Wounds spell: If damaging or destroying an
enemy is necessary to save your skin, then causing pain and
suffering suddenly becomes a lot less evil — in fact, neither
good nor evil, but neutral (in one’s own best interest). But in
almost all cases, it’s best for clerics who want to remain in good
standing with their deities to choose the version of a reversible
spell that best fits their general philosophy and purpose. A good
general guideline is given in the description of the reverse of the
Raise Dead spell, Slay Living: “An evil cleric can freely use the
reverse spell; a good cleric must exercise extreme caution in its
employment...” In most cases where a reversible spell is distinctly
good in one version and evil in the other, evil clerics have the
most latitude in determining which version they’d like to learn.
That’s what you get for being good.
It can be much more difficult to play a cleric who is neutral
with respect to evil and good, and much more taxing for the DM
who must represent the deity that judges the appropriateness of
the cleric’s actions. To make life simpler, a cleric’s deity may
make it known that he prefers his followers to use one certain
form of a reversible spell. When a preference is not specified,
and no other circumstances prevent it, the cleric would logically
be free to choose which version of the spell he wished to learn —
and he would still be subject to the judgement of his god after he
cast it (you never know what a chaotic neutral god will do).
As far as dealings with undead are concerned, the same
guidelines would seem to be applicable: The cleric and his deity
have a choice of how to cause undead to react to them. A lawful
neutral deity, for example, might feel more benevolent toward a
ghost than a ghoul, because of the monsters’ alignments with
respect to law and chaos. In encounters with such creatures, the
actions of a cleric of that deity would be governed by the instruction
he has received, or by the cleric’s decision on which course
of action would be looked on most favorably by his god. Perhaps
a non-evil, non-good cleric of sufficiently high level would be
trusted by his deity enough to make “to turn or not to turn”
decisions on a case-by-case basis, whereas a lower-level cleric
would need an occasional suggestion or instruction — or perhaps
might be allowed to learn from his mistakes. Because of
the unique personal relationship which must exist between a
cleric and his deity, it is impossible to make concrete judgements
about any subject which involves this relationship. |
| 143. | DR118 | Dragon #118 | Can any mounted character fire a
bow weapon while riding a horse
(or other mount)? Page 33 in the
DSG seems to say that he can, while
page 86 in the Wilderness Survival
Guide says that only a character
with riding proficiency can do this.
Which is correct? | | They’re both correct. Page 33 in DSG
says that any character can fire a bow
from a stationary mount. Rut the next
sentence states that only a character with
riding proficiency (and a bow weapon
proficiency) can fire a bow weapon from a
moving mount. |
| 144. | DR039 | Dragon #39 | Can centaurs read scrolls? Can a centaur
leader have psionic ability? Can a centaur be raised from the
dead? | | Whether or not a centaur can read scrolls will depend on
how the DM has the campaign structured. Perhaps such ability
would be possible in centaurs with above-average (for centaurs)
intelligence, as long as such a creature had some formal training in
reading.
Under no circumstances can centaurs possess psionics, nor can
they be raised from the dead. |
| 145. | DR042 | Dragon #42 | Can evil Clerics turn good creatures such as
Lammasu and Shedu? | | According to page 66 of the Dungeon Masters Guide, “ . . . A Cleric of the opposite alignment may attempt to negate the
effects of a Cleric who has affected undead or other creatures.” This
would seem to indicate that such turning or control is possible, but as
with a paladin’s being turned, it should only happen between chaotic
evils and lawful goods and chances of success should be roughly
equivalent to the paladin turning system. |
| 146. | DR076 | Dragon #76 | Can half-ogres be barbarians? | | They can behave in a barbarous fashion, but cannot be of the
barbarian character class. They lack the dexterity and agility of
humans and cannot perform many of the barbarians’ basic skills.
Half-ogres could, however, be raised in barbarian tribes and be
considered members of such a tribe, though they would still be of
the fighter class. |
| 147. | DR131 | Dragon #131 | Can humanoid monsters use
wands and other magical devices? | | No, but witch doctor or shaman types (if
allowed for the humanoid race in question)
can do so; see page 40 of the DMG. |
| 148. | DR131 | Dragon #131 | Can humanoid monsters use
weapon specialization? | | No; weapon specialization is for the
fighter class only. I suppose, however,
that some very extraordinary and rare
humanoids might actually have fighter
training, and so could specialize. |
| 149. | DR043 | Dragon #43 | Can magic-users bring their spell books into
dungeons or on overland adventures? | | It is perfectly all right to bring spell books anywhere one
wishes, but those who are wise will realize several factors which would
discourage this action. From page 39 of the DMG, one sees that a
great deal of uninterrupted time is needed to recover spells, and this
time cannot be taken in a dungeon filled with wandering monsters.
Area-effect spells like lightning bolts and fireballs will ruin books that
are very expensive to replace (check page 115 of the DMG for details
on cost). Damage can also be taken from creatures like blue dragons
and black puddings whose attacks eat away at materials. Simple traps
like falling into a pit filled with briny water can also take their toll on
the pages of a spell book. |
| 150. | DR078 | Dragon #78 | Can molecular agitation be carried out on any visible object,
even if seen through a crystal ball, wall of force, by clairvoyance,
and so forth? Also, if a creature only possesses a small quantity
of metal, can it still be burned if this metal is heated? | | The range of the molecular agitation discipline is “sight,” but
this means literally and strictly visible, not including objects
seen with the aid of an item that enhances or detects the object’s
image when the object cannot normally be seen (whether it’s
behind the next door or on a distant deserted island). When
actual (normal, not infra- or ultra-) vision is concerned, the DM
will have to arbitrate what can and cannot be seen at a distance;
for instance, a character could not eyeball the iron buttons on an
orc’s jacket at a range of 300 yards.
A crystal ball or the power of clairvoyance, then, cannot be
used in conjunction with molecular agitation. The employment
of a wall of force will indeed block the use of this discipline, as
will anything similar (such as a cube of force). Objects seen
through non-magical windows, though, can be affected by this
power.
Creatures that have only a small amount of metal on their
“persons” may, at the DM’s discretion, take lesser amounts of
damage from this power; if the iron buttons on the orc’s jacket
were the only metal items the creature had, perhaps it would
only take 1 hit point of damage per round (at most) until the
jacket was discarded. |
· 
· 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 · 
· 