| | Ref | Ouvrage | Question | | Reponse |
|---|
| 201. | DR060 | Dragon #60 | An 8th-level monk is reincarnated into a half-elf; does he still
retain his thief abilities and 4 damage?
If an elven fighter/magic-user/thief had reached the maximum
levels allowed by race and suddenly was changed into a
human (permanently), would he still be bound by the previous
racial restrictions? | | Reincarnation is handled the same way whether the effects
are due to the druid spell Reincarnate or the magic-user spell
Reincarnation. If the form of the incarnation is a creature type
that can be a player-character race, then the character must be
generated from scratch, just as if it were a new character. The
description of the druid spell in the Players Handbook specifies
that “If an elf, gnome or human is indicated (by the dice roll),
the character must be created.” The reason those three races
are mentioned specifically is that those are the only three
player-character races on the list of creature types possible
with the druid spell. However, the list of creature types given
under the magic-user spell also includes dwarves, half-elves,
halflings, and half-orcs — all the other races a normal player
character is allowed to choose from. And there is a slim chance
for any of those incarnations to be the result of a druid spell,
too, if the roll on that table results in reference to the M-U
reincarnation table. The same rule applies for all reincarnations:
If the character created by the spell effect is a playercharacter
racial type — even the same race as the original
character — then the abilities and characteristics of that character
must be determined just as if it were a brand-new
adventurer.
So, a monk reincarnated into a half-elf cannot remain a
monk, or retain any of the abilities of that class. The character is
a half-elf of unspecified (until they’re rolled up) abilities and
characteristics, and is bound by all the class restrictions and
racial limitations which normally apply to that race. An elven (or
any other non-human) multiclassed character reincarnated
into a human can no longer be multiclassed; like it says in the
description of the druid spell in the Players Handbook, “the
class they (reincarnated characters) have, if any, in their new
incarnation might be different indeed.” Except for the fact that
the reincarnated character “will recall the majority of his or her
former life and form,” a reincarnated character is essentially an
all-new adventurer. Maybe you don’t like the idea of your 10thlevel
paladin coming back to life as a gnome — but isn’t any life
better than no life at all? |
| 202. | DR062 | Dragon #62 | Will a Clone spell alone restore a character to life when death
has occurred and the body has not been recovered? Is there a
limit to the number of times a Clone spell may restore a
character? | | Based on the spell description, there is nothing to prevent a
character from being “resurrected” by a Clone spell once or
more than once. The Players Handbook says that “if the original
and a duplicate exist at the same time, each knows of the
other’s existence.” This indicates that a clone can exist at a time
when the original person is no longer alive. A character with
foresight — and a good friend who is capable of casting the
Clone spell — could do worse than to leave a little of himself or
herself behind before going off on a perilous adventure.
Note that the flesh sample needed as the material component
of the spell must be obtained from the person to be cloned while
that person is alive in order for the pseudo-resurrection to be
effected: “The clone will become the person as he or she existed
at the time at which the flesh was taken,” which means that a
flesh sample from an already-dead person will yield only a
clone that is just as dead.
In order to properly monitor the chance for success of such a
cloning attempt, the DM may make certain stipulations (which
players may or may not be aware of). Assuming that some trace
of “life” must remain in the flesh sample in order for the spell to
work, a means of storing and preserving the sample(s) must be
devised and maintained. Flesh that is allowed to decay and/or
dry out could spoil the spell casting.
It might be difficult, if not virtually impossible, for two clones
of the same person to be created non-simultaneously: Since it
takes 2-8 months for a clone to grow after the spell is cast, and
at least some measurable amount of time thereafter for the first
clone to die, the flesh sample used for a second clone must
have been preserved for at least 2 months longer than the first
sample. There are only a few methods or devices which might
make preservation possible for such an extended time.
If a character dies and, subsequently, two clones of that
character come into existence at the same time, the two clones
would logically “each desire to do away with the other,” with the
results as described in the Clone spell description. One way or
the other, no two clones of the same character can coexist for
longer than one week, because the clone created most recently
would look upon the first-created clone as if he or she were the
original person. |
| 203. | DR062 | Dragon #62 | Why may a person survive teleporting into liquid or gas but
not into a solid? Can a person teleport beside an opponent so
that his weapon would be lodged into the opponent’s head,
thereby causing instant death? | | A liquid or gas can be displaced when a solid is introduced
into it, the same way that you can sit in an empty bathtub or in
one that contains water. It doesn’t work the same way with two
solids; they don’t “mix,” just like you can’t take a bath inside a
block of ice. The technical description or interpretation of what
happens really doesn’t matter: The point, for playing purposes,
is that a mass being teleported is not able to properly rematerialize
inside a solid. Persons and/or objects that teleport
low and end up inside a solid suffer “instant death,” of a sort
such that only a Wish or similarly strong magic might be able to
negate.
The DM may interpret the risks of teleportation liberally
enough to allow characters a chance of surviving certain “low”
results. For instance, someone trying to teleport to the top of a
sand dune might not suffer “instant death” on a “low” result,
because it might be assumed that the sand can be displaced by
the teleporting mass. But in the best of such circumstances, the
person(s) teleporting would be buried and immobilized under
10 feet of sand, which means that whether or not the teleportation
“worked” is immaterial, since death by suffocation would
almost certainly occur imminently thereafter.
What’s wrong with the idea of teleporting a weapon into
someone’s body? Well, first of all, here’s what’s right with it: The
description of the Teleport spell indicates that the variables
over which the spell caster has control are the destination and
(indirectly) the probability of arriving precisely upon the surface
of the solid substance that defines that destination. No
mention is made of any ability to change or control in what
position or facing the teleported things will reappear. Since
teleportation of any sort occurs instantaneously (upon the casting
of the spell or the employment of an appropriate magic
item), the character(s) and objects being teleported will reappear
in the same relative positions they occupied just before
making the trip. Since the Teleport spell has no somatic component,
it would be possible for a magic-user to cast the spell
while holding an unsheathed dagger. Likewise, a character
employing a magic sword with teleportation power could assume
an “attack position” with the weapon and would reappear
in the same pose.
However, there is no guarantee that the teleporting person(s)
will end up facing in a desired direction —only the location can
be specified. By this interpretation, a person trying to teleport
to a spot directly behind an intended victim might reappear
facing the victim’s back, or back-to-back with the target, or in
any other configuration between those extremes. If someone
insists on trying, the DM can determine the facing and positioning
of the teleported mass randomly, and moderate the consequences
accordingly.
And even if the “teleport attack” comes off as desired by the
teleporter, it’s still an open question whether or not a non-living
solid can “survive” being teleported inside another (living) solid.
A DM who prefers to discourage this activity could rule that if
any part of the non-living mass being teleported reappears
inside another solid mass, the teleportation is ruined and the
person holding such an object suffers “instant death” just as if
that person had teleported low into a solid. For the teleportation
to succeed, all of the matter being teleported must arrive in a
space not already occupied by other solid matter, or else none
of the teleported matter — living or non-living — will be able to
survive the trip. |
| 204. | DR062 | Dragon #62 | In the description of Affect Normal Fires, it says that fires can
be increased in size and light to become as bright as a Light
spell. However, a Light spell casts only as much light as a torch.
Which is correct? | | First of all, the question doesn’t describe Affect Normal Fires
the same way the Players Handbook does. The spell causes
fires to “reduce in size and light” or to “increase in light.” A fire
can not “be increased in size and light,” according to the spell
description. This literally means that, while you could reduce a
bonfire 3 feet in diameter to a smaller flame (with a corresponding
reduction in light output), you could not make a small flame
into a fire of greater size by the “increase” application of the
spell. The small flame would become as bright (i.e., throw off as
much light) as a larger fire, up to the brightness of a Light spell,
but would not take up any more physical space than it did
before.
It is true that a Light spell casts as much light as a torch. But
there are lots of types of “normal fires” (able to be affected by
the spell in question) that aren’t as bright as a torch to begin
with. According to page 102 of the Players Handbook, a lantern
is by definition not as bright as a torch (30-foot radius of illumination
compared to 40 for the latter), and naturally that would
be true of any other type of flame of comparable size. Any
source of flame or fire brighter than a torch (such as the aforementioned
bonfire) would, presumably, actually be diminished
in size and illumination by the use of the “increase” application
of the spell. |
| 205. | DR062 | Dragon #62 | I want to make a continual light wand (by casting the third
level cleric spell on a metal rod). In the DMG, under spell
explanations, it says, “Darkness spells are the bane of this
device....” Does the darkness spell have to be cast on the rod
itself in order to negate the light? If so, what would happen-if
someone holding the continual light wand (light exposed)
walked into an area under a darkness spell? Would the light be
cancelled, the darkness be cancelled, or both be negated?
Would the wand be negated if a darkness spell is cast in a
general area containing the wand, but while it is enclosed so
that the light isn’t visible? | | Either a Continual Darkness or Dispel Magic spell can negate
a Continual Light spell, whether the light had been placed over
an area or upon an object. Continual Darkness does not have to
be cast on the rod itself in order to ruin the light wand; the
darkness negates not only the light of the spell, but also the
magic which caused the rod to give off the light in the first
place. As long as the light wand is in, or is brought into, the area
of effect of the darkness spell, both spells would cancel each
other out. The same would be true if the wand were in a lightproof
container inside the area of effect: That container is not
magic-proof, and it is the magic itself, not just the visible effects
of that magic, which is negated.
It’s important to understand the difference between a light
wand of this type and an item which is actually enchanted to
give off light, such as a Wand of Illumination or a Gem of
Brightness. When actual magic items are employed to produce
magical light, a darkness spell would at best only neutralize the
charge(s) currently in use; the item is not rendered unusable as
long as other charges remain. For example, Continual Darkness
will negate the effect of a Gem of Brightness for only one
day — or not at all, if the owner of the item expends charges to
offset the darkness. A continual light wand, on the other hand,
is no more than a stick with a spell cast on it. When that spell is
dispelled, the stick’s light goes out for good (or until another
Continual Light is cast upon it).
Dispel Magic is effective against a continual light wand, again
because it neutralizes the magic of the spell which was applied
to the rod. Dispel Magic cannot, as the spell description indicates,
weaken or negate the power of a “specially enchanted”
item such as the Gem of Brightness. The success of Dispel
Magic against a continual light wand or other similar object
depends in part on which particular kind of Continual Light was
used to manufacture the wand; the dispelling would be more
likely to succeed against the magic-user version of Continual
Light, since that is a second level spell and the cleric and
illusionist versions of the same spell are third level incantations. |
| 206. | DR062 | Dragon #62 | Can a person talk under the influence of a Hold Person spell? | | No, because talking or making vocal sounds of any sort
requires movement, even if only the vibration of a set of vocal
cords. Any character or creature under the influence of a Hold
Person or Hold Animal or Hold Monster spell literally can’t
move a muscle, and it takes muscles to form sounds and to
expel the breath that carries the sound forth from its source.
This would seem to hold true even for creatures that don’t
produce sounds the same way human vocal cords do. Sounds
are vibrations, and vibrations are created only when something
is set in motion. If a creature can make no motion or movement,
it can make no sound.
Interestingly enough, the only occasion when sound is mentioned
in the description of a Hold spell is for the Hold Plant
spell. That spell “prevents vegetable matter from making any
sound or movement which is not caused by wind,” according to
the Players Handbook. It stands to reason that this would apply
to other Hold spells and other types of living matter as well. |
| 207. | DR062 | Dragon #62 | A second-level thief is drained one life level. In the next few
days, he accumulates enough gold pieces and experience
points to not only get back to second level, but to pay for a
Restoration spell as well, Could the thief attain third level by
application of his XP’s and then a Restoration (or vice versa)? | | A character who wants to be restored has a fairly long time to
find a cleric to cast the spell. And in the meantime, the character
might very well acquire additional treasure and experience.
Whether or not the character actually “gets credit” for the
experience points, though, should depend on what the character’s
(assuming a player character in this case) intentions were
in the first place.
A second-level thief drained of one energy level becomes a
first-level thief with 625 experience points. As soon as that
character accumulates enough experience points to qualify for
second level, “no further experience points can be gained until
the character actually gains the new level,” according to the
DMG. The training period which the character must undergo to
qualify for the new level in all respects will take at least 1-4
weeks.
Even if the Restoration could still be attempted at this juncture,
it wouldn’t work, because the thief has already “restored”
himself. Restoration, as the name of the spell strongly implies,
only brings back an energy level when that energy level was
previously lost; the spell can’t “restore” a character to a level of
experience the character had never before attained.
Here’s where the character’s intentions come into consideration.
If the thief voices a desire to seek a Restoration after
suffering the energy-level drain, and if the thief actively pursues
that goal during the next 16 (or perhaps more) days of his life, a
kindly DM might defer the recording of experience points for
that character, in effect “holding” the thief at first level so the
Restoration (if it comes to pass) will have its intended effect.
Experience gained in the meantime could then be applied to the
character’s total after he has been restored to second level.
But the same benefit should not accrue to a character who
wasn’t Restoration-minded all along. If the thief only starts to
think about being restored after he happens to run across
enough cash to pay for the spell casting, the experience he has
gained in the meantime should not be deferred for later application
— the points are applied right after they are earned, and if
the thief’s current XP total exceeds the 1,250 upper limit for first
level, he can’t be restored no matter how much he pays. |
| 208. | DR064 | Dragon #64 | How do you figure the chance to open doors if more than one
character tries to do it at the same time? | | That depends on what sort of door the characters are confronted
with, how the DM chooses to define and describe the
door in game terms, and what the capabilities of the characters
are. There is no set of “rules” for such a situation that could
apply in all possible cases.
The size of the door and the number of gripping places
(handles) it has will help determine, first and foremost, whether
two or more characters can even get their hands on it. If they
can, and if the door is nothing more than an ordinary “stuck or
heavy door” as described in the Players Handbook, then the
chance for a pair of characters to pull or push open the door
might be as great as a simple sum of their chances: Two characters
each with a strength of 12 would have a 1-4 (on d6) chance
together, while two characters each with strength of 16 or
better would automatically be able to open such a door.
Or, the chance might not be quite that great if the DM reasons
that the individual characters can’t each apply all the strength
at their disposal (for lack of good balance or leverage), so that
perhaps the chance for two 12-strength characters would only
increase to 1-3, and the pair of 16-strength characters might
have an 80% or 90% chance (or at least something short of
guaranteed success). If you want to get really particular, it
would be more efficient for characters to work in tandem
against a door that pushes open rather than one that is pulled.
The procedure used will vary according to the circumstances
and the surroundings — and in cases where it isn’t a matter of
life or death for that door to be opened in the next round of
action, it often doesn’t really matter what the exact chance of
success might be. A good DM won’t make a big thing out of it if
two characters want to “attack” a door at the same time, unless
there’s something really important about the door — or behind
it — in which case the door would generally already be locked
or magically sealed to prevent it from being breached by
strength alone. |
| 209. | DR064 | Dragon #64 | What is the chance for climbing walls, etc., for non-thieves? | | The same chance thieves have of knowing spells or possessing
18/00 strength: none. (I can hear all the fighters saying, “But
I can hide in the shadows: Watch this!” Even though the thief
abilities have rather unimpressive, mundane names, they are
indeed special abilities and can be successfully performed only
by someone who has had, and continues to take, training in the
thief profession.
In a standard AD&D campaign, there can be no deviation
from this rule — and it is a fact of “life” as much as it is a rule of
the game. Only thieves can employ abilities described as unique
to that class, just as clerics can do only what clerics are
described as being capable of. This is obvious, necessary (from
a playability standpoint), and logical as well; it takes a great
deal of introductory training — specialized training — for a
character to attain adventurer status (first level), and continuous
review and training in the chosen class(es) if one is to rise in
levels. The practice of an adventuring profession is a serious
matter, often even a vital one, and each profession demands of
its adherents all the interest, energy, and effort they can muster.
Any DM who settles for less than this attitude from player
characters and still allows them to rise in experience levels as if
nothing was amiss is doing the playing group and the game a
disservice.
In extraordinary circumstances or for the sake of experimentation,
non-thief characters with exceptionally high dexterity
might be allowed a chance of successfully performing certain
thief-like abilities. This mutates the adventure or campaign,
and this fact should be understood by the DM and all the
players: what they’re playing isn’t an AD&D game any longer.
But it might be interesting if, for instance, any non-thief with a
dexterity of at least 16 (and any monsters with the same trait)
was given a small chance to use that dexterity similar to the way
the ability benefits a thief. In this hypothetical system, the
“dexterity benefit” would only apply to those thief abilities that
allow bonuses for high dexterity: picking pockets, opening
locks, locating/removing traps, moving silently, and hiding in
shadows. The percentage chance of success for a non-thief to
perform a certain function would be a constant, related only to
the character’s dexterity and not to his or her level of experience.
The percentage chance for success is the same as the
number given as a bonus on Dexterity Table II (Players Handbook,
page 12), and success is only possible when a number is
given. Thus, a non-thief with 16 dexterity would have a 5%
chance of using the opening locks ability, but no other thief-like
abilities, and a non-thief would need 18 dexterity to have any
chance of locating/removing traps.
In no case could it be justified for non-thieves to have the
ability to climb walls using this same reasoning, however. First
of all, the ability has no direct relationship to dexterity, or else it
would be listed in Dexterity Table II. Second of all, climbing
walls is a thief’s bread and butter, his claim to fame, the one
thing even a first-level thief can do with a decent chance of
success. It stands to reason that a large portion of the thief’s
training goes into acquiring this ability in the first place; it isn’t
something a fighter-type can pick up over a weekend of rigorous
wall-clutching. Climbing walls is like riding a unicycle: It
takes forever to learn how, and once you learn the basics you
don’t ever get a whole lot better at it than you were when you
started. Most people (except for thieves and diehard unicycle
riders) will give up after taking a few spills, when it becomes
apparent that the bumps aren’t worth the benefits. |
| 210. | DR064 | Dragon #64 | Can a two-classed fighter-cleric use edged weapons and mix
the use of these with the use of clerical abilities (spells)? If this
is not allowable, does that mean a two-classed character must
follow the conditions of the more restricted class with regard to
the use of certain weapons, the wearing of certain armor, and
other particulars? | | In essence, being a character with two classes means you
can do different things at different times, which makes “double
duty” desirable for some players and their characters. But twoclassed
characters (always human) can’t legitimately mix the
abilities and benefits of different classes at the same time the
way multi-classed (always non-human or semi-human) characters
can.
Like it says on page 33 of the Players Handbook, “restrictions
regarding armor, shield, and/or weapon apply with regard to
operations particular to one or both classes.” From that statement,
and the example that follows it concerning a two-classed
fighter and magic-user, we can see that the intent of the rules is
to keep the class functions separate. The result is that a twoclassed
character must be played quite a bit differently than a
multi-classed character who is practicing the same professions.
A fighter-cleric wielding an edged weapon can’t successfully
cast a spell, turn an undead, or perform any other cleric-type
action. If the character wants to be able to hold a weapon and
act as a cleric at the same time, it must be a weapon clerics are
permitted to use. A fighter-MU can “carry (but not wear) armor
and weapons not normally usable by magic-users,” according
to the Players Handbook.
Thus, a two-classed fighter-cleric ought to be allowed to
carry (but not hold) an edged weapon and still use clerical
abilities: It would be okay for the two-classed fighter-cleric to
keep a sword at his belt and turn an undead, for instance— but
if he tries to do the same thing with a sword in one hand and a
holy symbol in the other, he’d better be ready to use that sword.
A fighter-cleric carrying more than one weapon but not holding
any particular one at a given time can perform as a cleric as long
as one of the weapons he carries is permitted to clerics, and as
long as that particular weapon is the one (if any) being drawn or
wielded. |
· 
· 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 · 
· 