| | Ref | Ouvrage | Question | | Reponse |
|---|
| 360. | DR054 | Dragon #54 | Are demons and devils immune to Sleep and Charm spells,
just like the undead are? | | Not exactly, although the end result is about the same. Demons
and devils are not by nature immune to Sleep and Charm
spells- except for the manes and lemures, which are specifically
described as being immune to both those types of magic. The
rest of the ranks don’t need to be “made” immune to Sleep spells
— they already are, because the spell only affects creatures of
up to 4+4 hit dice, and none of the demons or devils (except for
manes and lemures) has a hit-dice figure lower than 5+5.
Demons and devils are technically vulnerable to the effects of
a Charm Monster spell, but the percentages aren’t exactly in
favor of the character who tries to use such a spell -and keep it
working after it is cast. Considering the magic resistance of
demons and devils, plus the fact that they get a saving throw
against the spell even if their magic resistance fails, plus the fact
that they can successfully “break” the charm after it is cast, the
odds are definitely against the spell caster. For example, consider
an 11th-level magic-user trying to snare a “lowly” Type I
demon with Charm Monster: The demon has a 50% chance
(magic resistance) of being unaffected, a 35% chance to make a
saving throw vs. the spell even if its magic resistance fails, and a
45% chance per week thereafter of snapping out of it. That all
adds up to less than an 18% chance that the spell will succeed
and be effective for longer than one week. The chance of success
is a lot lower for the most powerful demons and devils, and
it would not be improper for a DM to simply rule that the “big
names” (Demogorgon, Juiblex, Orcus, Yeenoghu, Asmodeus,
Baalzebul, Dispater, Geryon) are effectively immune to the
spell. The idea of being able to bring one of the demon princes
or arch-devils under control by means of a mere 4th-level spell is
hard to accept. |
| 361. | DR031 | Dragon #31 | In GODS, DEMI-GODS AND HEROES it says
that a forty-plus level character is ridiculous. In our game we
have two characters that are at one thousand-plus level. This
happened in “Armageddon,” a conflict between the gods and
the characters. Of course, the characters won. What do you
think about that? | | Not much. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. I will
repeat: A forty-plus-level character is ridiculous. We feel that you must
advance one level at a time, not a whole bunch at once. I don’t
understand how or what happened or even if all the gods were in this
battle, but if you enjoy playing this way, feel free to do so. I don’t want
to spoil your fun. |
| 362. | DR053 | Dragon #53 | If a monk’s alignment changes from lawful to neutral or chaotic,
does he become a thief? | | Not necessarily. A monk whose alignment changes with respect
to law and chaos “loses all monk abilities and must begin
again as a first-level character,” according to the Players Handbook.
The character’s new class can be anything else. It stands
to reason that most “defrocked” monks would choose to be a
fighter, cleric or thief, because the prime requisites for those
classes are the abilities for which a monk must always have
above-average scores. But it’s not impossible for a monk character
to have a high intelligence as well as the other high scores,
in which case that character might decide to begin again as a
magic-user. |
| 363. | DR071 | Dragon #71 | ASTRAL, Movement and Combat: Since all movement depends upon simply thinking about
moving, couldn’t a character dodge a blow by literally thinking
himself out of the way? | | Not really; the ability to dodge blows in this fashion is subsumed
in the normal armor class adjustments involving dexterity.
The higher dexterity one has, regardless of intelligence, the
better one’s nervous system is at responding to mental commands
to move. (Think of dexterity as analogous to reaction
time.) One astral character could “swoop down” at another
character and strike as he flew past, but unless the target
character is preoccupied, he or she will get a chance to strike
back, too, at normal odds “to hit.” |
| 364. | DR060 | Dragon #60 | In the Players Handbook, it is stated that elves and halfelves
are 90% and 30% resistant to sleep and charm spells. What
spells are considered charm spells? | | Obviously, the only charm spells where the elves’ resistance
makes a difference are those which have a chance (even a small
one) of affecting them: The druid spell Charm Person or Mammal
and the magic-user incantations Charm Person, Charm
Monster, and Mass Charm. There are other charm spells, of
course (Charm P/ants, for instance), which can’t affect elves or
any other humanoids or creatures.
Certain magic items can also charm, and since most of those
magic items are described in terms that equate them to charm
spells, it’s logical and reasonable to have elves’ and half-elves’
resistance apply to the effects of these items as well, even
though the Players Handbook does specify that the resistance
is to charm spells. These items include the Potion of Human
Control, Philter of Love, Ring of Human Influence, Rod of
Beguiling, Staff of Command, Eyes of Charming, and any magic
sword with the Extraordinary Power of charm person. Note
also that elves are resistant to the charming caused by a bard’s
singing and playing, which according to the Players Handbook
“does not negate any immunities” to such effects. |
| 365. | DR126 | Dragon #126 | How many points of strength or
constitution will a PC gain if he
spends nonadventuring time
exercising? | | Officially, none. All character classes are
assumed to exercise to a degree appropriate
to their professions. The less-physical
classes fill in their nonadventuring time
with study and mental exercises. Note that
the cavalier class, as given in Unearthed
Arcana, can improve some of its characteristics
over time. |
| 366. | DR118 | Dragon #118 | Say, what's up with the DSG proficiencies
system? The modifiers for
increased skill seem to penalize
rather than reward, and the conditions
for doing a great job seem to
be exactly wrong. What gives? | | OK, OK, OK, already! You’re right —
there is something wrong with the DSG
nonweapon proficiency system. Our
thanks to all the players and DMs who
wrote (more or less politely) and informed
us of this fact.
The original system was changed during
the final playtesting period that took place
while the book was being edited. We went
through the manuscript and thought we
had caught all the places where the text
needed to be changed. We missed a couple
of simple ones, and this caused a tremendous
problem in the system.
The solution is simple. The column on
Tables 11 and 13 (pages 25 and 26, respectively)
that reads “Die Roll Modifier”
should read “Ability Modifier.” Also, every
place you see “die roll modifier” in the
Proficiencies section, change it to “ability
modifier.” This is what was originally intended,
so that adding proficiency slots
improves your character’s skills. Notice
that the proficiencies with negative modifiers
are the most difficult to master in
this corrected system.
The second change that needs to be
made involves the discussions of Proficiency
Checks that grant extraordinarily
good or bad results (these unusual results
come from the Proficiency Check roll
itself, not from a separate roll to determine extraordinary success or failure).
The numbers mentioned in those passages
should be reversed (i.e., change “1” to “20,”
“20” to “1,” “3 or less” to “18 or greater:
etc.). For example, at the top of page 26, it
says that a roll of 20 increases the range of
the bow or arrow by + 2”. This should say
that a roll of 1 grants this increase, Similar
passages also exist in the weaponsmith
and direction-sense proficiencies. And
don’t forget to change the paragraph on
page 23 (right above the “Construction
Time” heading) to say that a check of 18 or
greater is a failure! |
| 367. | DR056 | Dragon #56 | The Players Handbook says that bards-to-be must switch to thieving before attaining 8th level as a fighter. A footnote on page 181 of the DMG indicates that a bard could have 8th-level
fighting ability. Of course, this only makes a difference if one
opts for the special note regarding fighters’ progression on
page 74 of the DMG. Please clarify. | | Okay, I’ll try. The Players Handbook does stipulate that bards
must stop gaining experience as fighters prior to attaining 8th
level. But it also says that bards are subject to the effects of
“magical books/librams/tomes which pertain to druids, fighters
or thieves,” and these magic items can raise the effective
fighting or thieving level of the bard beyond the usual limits.
Thus, a bard who has 7th-level fighting ability and comes
under the influence of the effects of a Manual of Puissant Skill
at Arms will operate at the 8th level of fighting ability for as long
as the manual’s benefits remain in effect.
A bard is limited to “between the 5th and 9th level” in his
advancement as a thief, which the sage interprets to mean that
the bard-to-be must stop at the 6th, 7th or 8th level of thieving
ability — between, but not including, 5th and 9th. Yet the same
footnote on page 181 of the DMG allows for bards with 9th-level
thieving ability — and it is possible for a bard to obtain that
effective level of ability by settling down with a Manual of
Stealthy Pilfering, providing he had 8th-level thieving ability to
begin with.
It’s also worth noting the table on page 181 of the DMG, to
which the troublesome footnote refers, is designed to generate
non-player characters for an encounter and has no bearing on
the definition of a bard as a player character. If you don’t want
to assume a non-player character bard with 8th-level fighting
ability has gained that ability magically, then you can assume it
is possible for a non-player character bard to have powers and
abilities far beyond those of a normal (player character) bard.
For justification of this position, see the “Adjustments to Ability
Dice Rolls for Non-Player Characters” on page 100 of the DMG;
many of these bonuses apply only to NPCs, and the overall
effect is to make non-player characters generally more formidable
(in some respects) than a player character of the same
class and race. In some cases, this means non-player characters
can possess ability scores higher than the maximum attainable
by a player character. By the same reasoning, a NPC bard
might have a higher fighting or thieving level than it is possible
for a player character to possess without magical assistance. |
| 368. | DR078 | Dragon #78 | How often should a character check for possession of psionic
abilities? | | Once when the character first begins play; afterward, psionics
checks are made only when powerful magics or special circumstances
permit this to occur; see the next question. |
| 369. | DR048 | Dragon #48 | In the ninth-level Magic-
User spell Power Word, Kill the spell
description states, “The power word will
destroy a creature with up to 60 hit
points, or it will kill 2 or more creatures
with 10 or fewer hit points...” How should
the word “destroy” be interpreted, as
“blown out of existence” or “merely
killed”? | | One way to answer this question
is to refer to the description of the
sixth-level MU spell, Death Spell. That
spell’s description states that affected
creatures are slain “instantly and irrevocably,”
which means without possibility
of resurrection. Since Power Word,
Kill is a more powerful spell than Death
Spell, it is reasonable to assume that victims
of that spell are also not able to be
resurrected. Whether or not they are
literally “blown out of existence” depends
on the nature of the creatures(s) destroyed,
but in any event victims are not
“merely killed.” |
· 
· 28.9 29.9 30.9 31.9 32.9 33.9 34.9 35.9 36.9 37.9 38.9 39.9 40.9 41.9 42.9 43.9 · 
· 