| | Ref | Ouvrage | Question | | Reponse |
|---|
| 420. | 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. |
| 421. | DR079 | Dragon #79 | Several questions regarding the astral
module “Fedifensor” (issue #67):
Githyanki knights in the module are
apparently normal fighters, while the
FIEND FOLIO® Tome notes them as
being anti-paladins; why is this so, and
what are an anti-paladin’s powers? Do
githyanki have clerics or shamans? Why
were there not more knights at the outpost,
since the FF notes that githyanki
astral fortresses have 40 knights? | | The “anti-paladin” reference in the
FIEND FOLIO Tome should not be
taken literally; actually, there is no official
anti-paladin class. The phrase, as
used in the githyanki text, should be
taken to mean that githyanki knights act
very much the opposite of how a paladin
would act (i.e., they are chaotic evil).
Githyanki knights have powers normally
associated with regular fighters.
Githyanki have no clerics or shamans,
since the “deity” they worship (like the
one ruling the githzerai) is not a true
deity or demigod and cannot grant spell
powers to any followers. There were not
more knights at the outpost because it
was an outpost, not a fully equipped
fortress. |
| 422. | DR124 | Dragon #124 | D&D® Expert Set : Why was the method for calculating
Will scores changed in the new
Expert rules? As it stands now, a
fighter who wants to exchange ability
score points to get a high
strength will have a difficult time
controlling intelligent swords. | | The “old” D&D Expert Set used strength
and wisdom because the original D&,D
game by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson
used strength and intelligence to determine
the Will score. Since wisdom, not
intelligence, determines the power of a
character’s personality, the editor decided
to change intelligence to wisdom when the
Expert Set rules were first compiled. The
“new” D&D Expert Set takes that logic a
step further; the struggle between character
and sword is mental, not physical, so
we use the character’s two mental scores.
Now players have to make a choice about
creating their characters: gain high
strength for extra experience and more
damage right from the start, or keep the
intelligence and wisdom scores in case the
character is lucky enough to find a magical
sword. The D&D game is a game of
choices, and they aren’t always easy ones. |
| 423. | DR124 | Dragon #124 | D&D® Expert Set : Why do saving throws and thief
abilities get worse in the 1983 edition
of the Expert Rulebook? | | The “old” D&D Expert Set was prepared
at a time when no one knew how far the
D&D game system was going to go. These
rules allowed certain character abilities to
improve far too quickly, leaving little room
for further advancement and development.
The “new” Expert Set was prepared
with the D&D Companion and Masters
Sets in mind. If you plan to go no farther
than the Expert Set, you can use the old
rules. Otherwise, use the new rules. |
| 424. | DR044 | Dragon #44 | Is it okay for a Monk (Lawful Neutral) to sneak
up on an opponent and then backstab? (Is this act chaotic? Is
this evil?) | | The act of killing a victim without knowing if he/she is truly
an enemy (in other words, killing a complete stranger without knowing
if he/she presents a threat) is a chaotic act. The act of killing an opponent
with the knowledge that there is some other way to overcome
him/her is an evil act. It would seem permissible for the Lawful
Neutral Monk (or any other similarly aligned being) to attack a known
enemy from the back, when circumstances make it necessary to kill
that foe. |
| 425. | DR043 | Dragon #43 | Does one saving throw, apply to multiple attacks
(e.g. If three ghouls hit one character simultaneously are
three saves necessary to negate paralyzation?)? | | The act of rolling a saving throw is the end result of the
concept that there is a chance for an occurrence to not adversely influence
a character for one reason or another. In the case of three ghouls
making paralyzation attacks, there are three separate chances to be influenced
by the magic of the ghouls and thus a need for three separate
saving throws. Just because a character is lucky enough to resist
the influence of two ghouls does not mean that the luck he has will or
will not run out with that third attack. |
| 426. | DR047 | Dragon #47 | is it okay for a chaotic good
character to torture others? To slay heipless
opponents? To back stab? | | The act of torturing is basically
“ungood,” and even in the case of extreme
hatred for another race or creature
type a good character will not perform
such an act. But there might be times
when it is justified, if the end result is
good and it cannot be achieved any other
way. A character who can justify his
actions (to the DM) in such a manner
might expect to be able to torture an
enemy without changing his alignment
status. The “clean” slaying of helpless
opponents is acceptable, if those opponents
had previously presented a challenge
to the character and his party and
had attempted to harm the chaotic good
character. The act of back stabbing by a
chaotic good character is acceptable
when it is performed on an enemy of the
character and his party — but turning on
other party members in the middle of an
adventure is not a good act. |
| 427. | DR046 | Dragon #46 | What happens when a cornered (as in a deep pit)
undead creature is turned? | | The act of turning undead (by a good Cleric)
compels the victim to turn directly away from the Cleric and
move as fast and as far away as possible for 3-12 rounds. When
it is physically impossible for the creature to keep moving away,
it will retreat to the most remote (from the Cleric) location in the
area and continually face away from the Cleric and his/her holy
symbol. |
| 428. | DR076 | Dragon #76 | What happens if a GAMMA WORLD® mutant hits an AD&D
character with the power de-evolution? | | The AD&D character, unlike GAMMA WORLD characters,
has no resistance to mental attacks or radiation attacks from
GAMMA WORLD monsters or devices. De-evolution will automatically
strip an AD&D character of one level per GAMMA WORLD combat round (10 seconds), meaning that 6 life levels
will be lost per AD&D round, no saving throw allowed. This was
confirmed by Jim Ward, the co-author of the GAMMA WORLD
rules. And you thought vampires were bad! AD&D characters
drained of life levels by de-evolution simply die and do not
become undead. If raised, the character so affected will be a zerolevel
character. |
| 429. | 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? |
· 
· 34.9 35.9 36.9 37.9 38.9 39.9 40.9 41.9 42.9 43.9 44.9 45.9 46.9 47.9 48.9 49.9 · 
· 