| | Ref | Ouvrage | Question | | Reponse |
|---|
| 161. | DR052 | Dragon #52 | The Wand of Orcus is said to cause death upon touch, except
to those of “like status” such as saints. What level does a cleric
have to attain to be considered a saint? | | The AD&D game rules do not define conditions which must be
met for a character to attain “sainthood.” Specifics like this will
vary depending on the pantheon of deities a DM employs in the
campaign, and is entirely a matter for the DM to decide. Perhaps
“sainthood” as the term generally applies might not even be
possible in a certain mythos; in another, it may take the form of
divine ascension. In yet another, sainthood might be a status
which is attainable by a cleric of sufficiently high level. In such a
situation, it seems reasonable that no cleric (or druid) should be
considered for sainthood unless and until the character has the
ability to cast seventh-level spells.
For a cleric to be awarded sainthood would be a great honor
for the character. It would give the cleric many more powers, not
the least of which would be the ability to survive a swat from the
Wand of Orcus. (Note that the wand only causes death “upon
touch” when that touch is in the form of a hit in combat, and only
when the wand is wielded by Orcus himself.) But achieving
sainthood might not be preferable to the player, if the DM rules
that the sanctified cleric must become a non-player character
instead of continuing to be a player character. Are you sure you
want your 20th-level cleric to be a saint after all? |
| 162. | DR053 | Dragon #53 | My character is a lawful neutral monk in a party with two
neutral evil characters and two neutral goods. The DM says that
if our party runs into a party of lawful neutral monks and fighting
breaks out, my monk would join the other monks in fighting,
against my party. I think the DM is full of it. What do you think?
There is a lawful evil high-level NPC monk in our campaign.
What will happen when my lawful good player-character monk
gains enough experience to challenge this monk for position?
There seem to be many ways in which an evil character could
avoid such a challenger. How can such an opponent be made to
“fight fair”? | | The key to properly determining a monk’s course of action in
each of these examples has to do with understanding the conceptof
lawfulness. Monks must always be lawful, and for very good
reason, because a monkish hierarchy and advancement within
that hierarchy would be valueless if so much as a single nonlawful
element was allowed to “contaminate” it.
The purpose and goal of lawfulness, from the definition of
lawful neutral in the Players Handbook, is “bringing all to predictability
and regulation.” Lawful characters must always be
predictable in their actions and motives. The Dungeon Masters
Guide adds that it is vital for all lawful neutral characters to have
“regimentation and strict definition” in their lives and their outlook
on life.
How is this applied to the first situation? Simply this: A monk’s
lawfulness will cause him to always honor the prior commitment
he made to the members of the party he’s with. His allegiance is
to his comrades first, because that’s the lawful thing to do. Of
course, if the party members treat the monk in a less than lawful
fashion themselves, they must be willing to suffer the consequences
of that action if the monk elects to “desert.” No lawful
character will remain allied to a party which treats him unfairly,
regardless of previous commitments — and may get rather fervent
in his objections to such treatment.
if the concept of lawfulness is correctly interpreted and properly
integrated into an adventure or a campaign, no “desertion”
of this sort will occur without extenuating circumstances—and
in no event should a DM ever feel justified in decreeing that such
an event must take place. It is the character’s (and player’s) right
and responsibility to decide what to do. After that decision is
made and carried out, it is the DM’s right and responsibility to
evaluate the “correctness” of the decision in light of the character’s
professed alignment. A lawful player character cannot be
forced (by the DM directly) to do something unlawful, but
should always be held accountable if it happens involuntarily as
the result of a game activity, or if the character does it of his own
free will.
The guidelines in the definitions of lawful neutral similarly
apply to lawful evil characters, who must also respect “the system.”
A lawful evil monk will “fight fair” with, respect to lawfulness
— that is, he will recognize and accept the challenge of an
up-and-coming monk. He will respect the challenger’s right to
face him in hand-to-hand combat, because that’s the foundation
of the system which all monks are bound to uphold.
It is not lawful, for instance, for an evil monk to sequester
himself in a stronghold while a mob of monsters stand guard to
make sure no other monk can get to him. In such a situation, the
lawful thing to do would be to allow the challenger to pass freely
past all wards and obstacles — and then ambush the challenger
from the shadows as soon as he’s within striking range.
A lawful evil monk should have to “fight fair” in making it
possible for the hand-to-hand combat to take place — but once
the battle is joined (in most cases, begun by an evil sneak
attack), it’s every monk for himself. By contrast, a pair of lawful
good monks competing for the same position would probably
square off with great ceremony, like prizefighters or sumo
wrestlers do, and conduct the whole matter as “fairly” as possible,
including the presence of a referee.
And the two kinds of challenging don’t mix easily. Only a very
powerful or very self-confident evil monk would agree to an
elaborate ceremonial combat against a good monk —and if he
does consent to fight in this fashion, he’s going to have something
up his sleeve anyway. |
| 163. | 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. |
| 164. | DR053 | Dragon #53 | Can a human fighter split class into a monk if he has the
required abilities? | | Even though the answer to this question can easily be found in
the AD&D rules, it gives the sage an opportunity to emphasize
some points which a lot of players and DMs seem to have
misinterpreted. Assuming that “split class” means “become
multi-classed,” the answer is NO. Humans cannot be multiclassed
characters, period. And, since only humans can become
monks, no character can be a multi-classed monk. If “split
class” instead means “become a character with two classes,”
the answer is a qualified yes. Nothing in the rule books specifically
prohibits a character from taking up the monk class as a
second class, or temporarily abandoning monkish pursuits to
gain experience in a new class. However, a monk (or would-be
monk) who travels this path would effectively forsake all chance
of advancement to the higher levels of the monk class — and it
should probably be stipulated that no upper-level monk (8th or
higher) can decide to stop being a monk and take up a new class
in any event, because an unlawful act of that sort would seriously
harm the monkish organizational structure. The Players
Handbook says that “nearly any combination of, classes” is
possible, but points out that alignment restrictions will make
some switches impossible without being disqualified from the
former class; for instance, a monk (must be lawful) can never
decide to study as a druid (must be true neutral) without changing
alignment and losing his right to be a monk, or vice versa. |
| 165. | DR053 | Dragon #53 | The Players Handbook says that monks fight on the table
used by thieves and assassins, but the DMG puts monks on the
same combat table as clerics and druids. Which is correct? | | The Dungeon Masters Guide is the right source. Monks were
placed on the thief’s attack matrix when the Players Handbook
was being compiled, but by the time the DMG was released, the
decision had been made (in the interest of game balance) to
have monks attack on the more favorable table for clerics and
druids. In most cases where the Players Handbook and Dungeon
Masters Guide disagree on a specific subject, it is safe to
assume that the ruling in the DMG is to be given preference,
since that book was released after the Players Handbook. |
| 166. | DR053 | Dragon #53 | My monk with a dexterity of 15 was hit in the leg by an arrow.
The DM said there would be a temporary loss of 3 dexterity
points, and later he said that one of those points would be lost
permanently. He took away half of my experience points (the
character was first level) and said I’d have to change classes
because the character no longer met the minimum requirements
for being a monk.. Is this proper? If I change, would I keep
any of the abilities of the former class? | | It sounds like you’ve willingly accepted the “fact” that you
have permanently lost a point of dexterity from a relatively minor
wound — yet that’s really the heart of your problem. It seems as
though your DM was determined to find a way to keep you from
playing that character as a monk. This sage doesn’t have ESP, of
course, and it’s impossible to know the details of this incident,
but any DM who decides to have such a tragedy befall a firstlevel
character had better have a very good reason for acting
that way.
There is nothing in the AD&D rules to suggest that a character
has to abandon his or her chosen class because of a drop in an
ability score anyway. Ability scores are not infrequently raised
or lowered by various magical means, and by certain types of
psionic attacks. The life of a character or a long-running campaign
would be thrown into disorder if characters were forced to
change classes every time an ability score fell below the minimum
number originally needed to qualify for membership in
that class.
If it were mandatory for a character to change class whenever
an important ability score was lowered during the course of an
adventure, what would be the fate of, for instance, a character
rendered feebleminded by a psionic blast attack? Such a character,
with (by definition) a combined intelligence and wisdom
score of 0-5 for the duration of the feeblemind effect, technically
doesn’t qualify for any class of adventurer.
There are certain types of magical attacks which cause the
loss of a point of strength or some other attribute. Losses of this
kind are sometimes only temporary (the strength drain of a
shadow, for instance), and even so-called “permanent” changes
can be counteracted by different magical means at a later time.
There may be occasions when a character has lost so much of
his original attribute score that it is not practical or healthy to
continue in the same class: A human fighter who has his
strength reduced to, say, 6 points is risking ruin if he sets out on
an adventure in that condition, and the character might stand a
better chance of survival in the long run if he decided to take up
magic-using (assuming a sufficiently high intelligence to do
that). But the choice should belong to the character and player,
not to the DM.
In the descriptions of the fighter, paladin and thief player
character classes in the Players Handbook, the rules state that
certain minimum ability scores are needed to “become” a
member of that class. The same reasoning should be applied to
those classes where the same wording is not used. In other
words, minimum requirements have to be met when a character
begins a career in a class, but not necessarily at all times thereafter
while that profession is being pursued. |
| 167. | DR053 | Dragon #53 | When a player character monk attains 8th level or higher, will
there be non-player character monks seeking to defeat him in
combat so as to attain his level? Will be always have to combat
higher-level NPCs when this is necessary to attain the next level? | | In a well structured campaign, there will be a monkish hierarchy
even if there is only one monk player character of sufficiently
high level to challenge for another monk’s position. In
the extreme, this hierarchy would be delineated all the way up to
the Grand Master of Flowers—a total of 12 positions (from 8th
level through 17th) which would all be filled by NPCs if no player
character has yet advanced beyond 7th level. At the least, the
DM should provide opposition for a player character as it becomes
necessary: Be sure there is an 8th-level monk for the
upstart player character to battle, when the time comes, and
have other “titleholders” prepared and ready to play if the player
character rises even higher.
The rules about advancement for monks are specific: A monk
must meet a higher-level monk in hand-to-hand combat when
the lower-level monk obtains enough experience points to qualify
for ascension to the next level. This presumes the existence
of higher-level monks, which the DM must provide if player
characters do not already fill those positions. Otherwise, the
lower-level PC monk’s efforts to rise in level, obtain experience
points and strive for greater prowess and superiority become
meaningless.
It doesn’t necessarily work the same way when a player character is in a position to be challenged by a lower-level monk. It is
not mandatory for higher-level PC monks to face challenges
from lower-level aspirants, but such challenges will certainly
come about in a campaign where the DM actively employs NPC
monks, charting their advancement up the experience-point
ladder just as for player characters. Challenges to a player
character monk do not ever have to occur, but it would be
ridiculous for a player character to make it all the way to Grand
Master of Flowers without ever facing a bid for his position from
a lower-level contender. |
| 168. | DR053 | Dragon #53 | Will a monk’s open hand attack affect creatures which can be
hit only by magical weapons? | | The sage says no. It doesn’t specifically say in the rules that a
monk can hit in this fashion, so the only possible ruling to make
is that a monk cannot. As soon as we start giving characters and
creatures attributes that aren’t specifically prohibited to them,
the ruination of the campaign is not far behind.
There is some justification for this ruling to be found in the
way certain other rules are worded. The PH does specifically say
that a monk can’t use his special dodging ability on magical
missiles, and that the quivering palm — “perhaps the most
terrible power” a monk has (in the words of the Players Handbook),
is not usable against creatures which are only vulnerable
to magic weapons. In that light, there is no rationale for allowing
an open hand attack, certainly not as “terrible” a power, to be
useful in the same circumstances. The Dungeon Masters Guide
sums it up with the statement, “...monks are not supermen or
superwomen.” Monks have a number of special abilities which
set them apart — but not that far apart. |
| 169. | DR054 | Dragon #54 | A character with a vorpal sword decapitated an iron golem.
This would negate the golem’s special attack of poisonous gas,
wouldn’t it? Or can the golem still see and use its breath weapon
after it is decapitated? | | Decapitating a golem does not necessarily render the creature
helpless or harmless. In essence, it turns the golem into two
separate monsters. The body is still able to function, and will
continue to attempt to carry out the wishes of its creator.
Whether or not the body can “see” after the head is severed
depends on your interpretation of how a golem “sees” in the first
place. It is possible that the golem is magically empowered to
detect the presence of a threat, and doesn’t really need the
“eyes” in its head to find its way around. It is also reasonable to
treat a headless golem as a creature which has been blinded,
and apply the appropriate penalties on the monster’s “to hit,”
saving throw, and armor class figures.
And what about the head? It, too, remains “alive” and functional,
although it is immobile and the effectiveness of its breath
weapon is drastically reduced. To determine the position and
placement of the fallen head, the DM can roll d4 or d6 for the
direction in which the top of the head points, and d4 again to
determine which surface (face, back, either side) is pointing
down. The breath weapon will continue to function once every 7
rounds, and the cloud of gas will still expand to fill a 1” x 1” x 1”
volume directly in front of the source. But since the head is not
capable of independent movement, it should be a simple matter
to keep away from it when it’s about to discharge.
In a case such as this, DM’s must decide how to apportion hit
points between the two parts. The iron golem’s head must still
be “defeated” to stop the expulsion of the poisonous gas; it will
retain a certain fraction of the golem’s current hit points when it
is severed, and it will still have all the general properties (+3 or
better to hit, etc.) the creature normally has. |
| 170. | DR054 | Dragon #54 | A lich is said to use a combination of will power, enchantments,
arcane magic, a phylactery and larva essence to maintain
undead status. What exactly are the processes involved in
becoming a lich and maintaining that status? | | There is no “ultimate recipe” for becoming a lich, just as there
is no universal way of making a chocolate cake. Only those
things which are generally true are stated in the AD&D rules-a
magic-user or cleric gains undead status through “force of will”
(the desire to be a lich, coupled with magical assistance) and
thereafter has to maintain that status by special effort, employing
“conjurations, enchantments and a phylactery” (from the
lich description in the Monster Manual). The essence of larvae,
mentioned as one of the ingredients in the process (in the MM
description of larvae) might be used as a spell component, or
might be an integral part of the phylactery: Exactly what it is, and
what it is used for, is left to be defined by characters and the DM,
if it becomes necessary to have specific rules for making a lich.
Several combinations of spells might trigger or release the
energy needed to transform a magic-user or m-u/cleric into a
lich; exactly which combination of magic is required or preferred
in a certain campaign is entirely up to the participants.
The subject has been addressed in an article in DRAGON magazine
(“Blueprint for a Lich,” by Len Lakofka, in #26), but that
“recipe” was offered only as a suggestion and not as a flat
statement of the way it’s supposed to be done.
No matter what ingredients and procedures are defined in any
“recipe” for a lich, it should be virtually (if not completely)
impossible for a player character to perform the process on
himself — and if the attempt at becoming a lich does succeed,
the character should no longer be allowed to operate as a player
character. A character might have a long and prosperous existence
as a lich, but would not be able to be considered an
adventuring character — in fact, there would be no reason or
incentive for a player-character lich to be an adventurer, because
experience points are meaningless to a character who
can’t rise in levels and gain new abilities. Besides, who knows
how much time it takes to maintain lich status? Maybe a lich
player character would have to spend all his time working to
maintain lich-hood, with no time left to “enjoy” the fruits of his
labor. |
· 
· 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 · 
· 