| | Ref | Ouvrage | Question | | Reponse |
|---|
| 151. | DR048 | Dragon #48 | If a creature has magic resistance
and someone is using a magical
weapon against it, does their magic resistance
affect the use of these kinds of
weapons (fail to work), or do they work
normally? | | As stated in the Explanatory
Notes in the front of the Monster Manual,
“Magic resistance indicates the percentage
chance of any spell absolutely
failing.” Magic resistance does not have
any effect on a creature’s ability to withstand
damage from magical weapons or
any magical item which can damage or
otherwise affect the creature, unless the
description of that weapon or magic
item specifically states otherwise. |
| 152. | DR052 | Dragon #52 | The DMG is very specific on how magic-users receive their
starting spells, but I cannot tell how to give clerics their starting
spells and how many of them to start with. | | A cleric who is starting an adventuring career has already
spent a long time affirming and strengthening his faith. As outlined
in the DMG, clerical spells of first and second level are
obtained by “inspiration” — that is, without needing the prior
approval of a deity or a servant of the deity (such as is the case
with spells of third level or higher). A cleric is assumed to be in
good standing with his deity when he begins as a first-level
character, and is entitled to choose from all of the first-level
spells, up to the limit allowable because of the cleric’s wisdom
score — 3 spells for those with wisdom of 14 or more, 2 spells for
those with wisdom of 13, and always at least 1 spell.
If the cleric remains in good standing with his deity, the continued
acquisition and replenishment of first- and second-level
spells will be automatic, assuming the cleric spends 15 minutes
in prayer per spell level each day. However, the DM must constantly
assess the relationship between the cleric and his deity.
Transgressions by even a first-level cleric should not go unpunished,
but that punishment will almost always be meted out by
mortal servants of the deity (higher-level clerics). As punishment,
a low-level cleric might be forbidden to use a certain spell
— or all spells— for a length of time, though this must always be
decided by the DM. Low-level clerics should remember that
even though they don’t have to ask for first- and second-level
spells, they aren’t always automatically entitled to receive them
if they don’t remain wholly faithful. |
| 153. | DR052 | Dragon #52 | If a turned monster is attacked by the cleric who turned him,
will the monster fight back? | | Wouldn’t you? Of course the monster will fight back. “Hostile
acts” of any sort (DMG, page 66) will disrupt and negate the cleric’s effect on the turned creature. However, the monster will
not necessarily continue to fight. The disrupt/on only lasts for
the round in which it takes place, after which the cleric may
again attempt to turn the creature. |
| 154. | DR052 | Dragon #52 | Even though a cleric can only receive new spells from his/her
deity once per day, is it possible for a cleric to appeal to his/her
deity for spells more than once a day if the first appeal is not
granted? | | Well, anything’s possible. A cleric’s chance of getting spells
depends almost exclusively on how well he’s getting along with
the deity he serves. If a deity withholds spells because of displeasure
with the cleric, praying for atonement would be the
prudent thing to do, instead of making the same request again
right away. Of course, emergency circumstances can dictate
extreme measures: A cleric may well justify asking for a replenishment
of one or more spells twice in one day if it is truly a
life-or-death situation, or if some other serious peril makes it
worth taking the chance of asking twice. If the deity doesn’t
agree that the circumstances warrant a second request, the
second answer may well be more than a simple “no.” |
| 155. | DR052 | Dragon #52 | How much area may be caused to glow by a Light or Continual
light spell? Do the clerical reverses of these spells blacken 4”
and 12” diameter spheres, respectively? If so, what’s the good of
Darkness, 15’ radius? | | An interesting three-part question: Part two answers part one,
and part three doesn’t seem to make sense. Yes, the reverses of
the cleric spells Light and Continual light would “blacken”
globes of that diameter — the same diameter as the globe of
light formed when the “normal” version of the spell is cast.
Nothing beyond the 4” or 12” diameter sphere of light or darkness
would be affected —that is, the light sphere doesn’t “glow”
and give off light to the area beyond the limit of the sphere.
What’s the good of the Darkness spell? Well, the clerical Light
spells can be reversed, but the magic-user spells can’t, so there
isn’t any duplication of the sort that the question seems to
suggest. |
| 156. | DR052 | Dragon #52 | How long do the paralyzing effects of a glyph of warding (peh)
last? | | That’s up to the DM. (If you want a recommendation from the
sage, try 1-6 turns.) There are no details in the AD&D game rules
on exactly which glyphs should be employed in a campaign or
what their characteristics should be. The glyph of paralysis
(peh) which is illustrated on page 41 of the DMG, along with
some others, is meant as an example of how a glyph might appear and what its general function might be. Other suggestions
for “typical glyphs” are found in the spell description in the
Players Handbook, but players and DMs must take it from there,
formulating all the specific rules governing how severe and how
long-lasting the effects of a glyph are. |
| 157. | 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. |
| 158. | DR052 | Dragon #52 | In previous clarifications in this column and from the DEITIES
& DEMIGODS™ cyclopedia, we know that elves and half-orcs have no souls and therefore cannot be raised from the dead or
resurrected. Since Raise Dead and Resurrection return the soul
to the body, it must reasonably follow that the reverses of these
spells (Slay Living and DestructIon) release the soul from the
body. Does this mean that elves and half-orcs are not affected
by the reverse spells, since they have no souls to release? | | Good question, but your reasoning isn’t quite sound. The
unreversed forms of those spells do indeed “return the soul to
the body” — but they also do a lot more. They reintroduce
biological, physical life into a body; otherwise, a lifeless body
with a soul inside it would be just that — a lifeless body. The
physical trauma that the recipient of a Raise Dead spell goes
through is considerable, so much so that the revived person is
“weak and helpless” and must rest to regain his former vigor. So,
it is reasonable to assume that an elf or half-orc struck by a Slay
Living spell would undergo physical trauma to the same degree,
and in this case, the trauma is great enough to kill even a
soulless being. Likewise, the trauma caused by a Destruction
spell, which turns the victim to dust, is something which no
creature could endure and remain alive.
The reasoning which suggests that a creature can’t be affected
by the reverse of a spell if that creature is immune to the
unreversed form breaks down under a bit of examination. Many
reversible spells are defined in such a way that a figure cannot
possibly be immune to both forms of the spell at once. For
example, should a blind character, obviously immune (at least
for the moment) to Cause Blindness, also be unaffected by Cure
Blindness? Of course not. There is no general rule which indicates
that someone who is unaffected by one form of a spell is
automatically unaffected by the reverse as well. |
| 159. | DR052 | Dragon #52 | What happens when a Resurrection or a Raise Dead is cast on
an undead? | | Hmmm. It stands to reason that undead can be resurrected, as
long as their living bodies had souls. But according to the spell
description for Resurrection, a cleric can resurrect the “bones”
of a dead body — that is, there must be some part of the body
available for the cleric to touch for the process of resurrection to
take place. Any undead which is encountered in an immaterial,
gaseous or ethereal form could not be resurrected, because
there’s nothing for the cleric to lay his hands on — even if he
dared to touch one.
An undead creature which is corporeal, and especially one
which has retained at least a vestige of the appearance it had in
life, could conceivably be resurrected with a touch — again, if
the cleric is willing and able to withstand the effects of that
touch. It’s worth noting here that a cleric who casts Resurrection
is incapacitated for at least one day afterward, during which
time the cleric cannot engage in combat or spell-casting. Unless
some means is at hand to control the resurrected creature and
save the cleric’s skin, he’s going to be in a lot of trouble after the
spell is cast.
A further guideline on the subject is found in the Monster
Manual in the description for ghouls. A human who is killed by a
ghoul will himself become a ghoul., unless a Bless spell is cast
upon the corpse (in which case the victim is simply dead). The
corpse could then be resurrected — after being blessed. Logically,
the same procedure — bless first, raise later — could be
required for an attempt to resurrect any undead creature.
Depending on the DM’s interpretation of “touch,” it might be
possible for a cleric to lay hands on, for instance, the immobilized
body of a vampire without suffering the loss of 2 life energy
levels which accompanies a vampire’s hit on a victim. (Since the
vampire isn’t doing the “hitting” or “touching,” he can’t do any
damage.) But what about the mummy? Its touch “inflicts a
rotting disease on any hit,” but it’s logical to assume that anyone
who initiates contact with a mummy would also be subject to the
disease. Since each type of undead is at least slightly different from each other type, there are no general rules which can
apply. Whether or not to require a Bless spell, whether or not to
assess damage upon a “touch,” and any other particular questions
are left to the DM’s discretion.
Raise Dead is a different matter entirely. The spell description
pretty well covers it: The vital parts of the body must be present,
which rules out skeletons and any non-corporeal undead, and
the undead creature must have been in a non-alive state for a
length of time which does not exceed the limit of the spell’s
power. The Monster Manual gives specifics for some cases:
spectres, wights and wraiths will be destroyed by a Raise Dead
spell (unless they make a save vs. magic), and a mummy can be
resurrected by casting Cure Disease followed by Raise Dead.
If a Bless is required before a Resurrection attempt can be
successful, the blessing need not also be required for a Raise
Dead attempt, because the soul hasn’t been away from the body
as long and the newly created undead hasn’t fallen entirely into
the clutches of eviltry. |
| 160. | DR052 | Dragon #52 | An evil cleric has control of a spectre. The spectre drains the
life force from another character, making it a half-strength spectre
under control of the full-strength spectre. Does the cleric
automatically have control of the half-strength spectre, or does
the cleric have to attempt to command it to service (turn it)? | | can control the new one. What does matter is that there is now a
spectre where there wasn’t one when the first spectre was
brought under control. A new spectre, even a half-strength one,
must be dealt with separately just as if the beastie were another
full-strength one that had just come onto the scene.
Wights, wraiths and spectres all have the ability to turn victims
into half-strength creatures of their own type. The half-strength creatures are not affected by the result of any successful attempt
to turn which preceded their becoming undead. Another
attempt to turn should be rolled on the appropriate row of the
“Clerics Affecting Undead” chart. Alternatively, because the
new creatures are only half-strength monsters, the DM may
allow rolls on the chart to be treated as if the half-strength
undead were a type of undead with half as many hit dice. |
· 
· 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 · 
· 