| | Ref | Ouvrage | Question | | Reponse |
|---|
| 470. | DR079 | Dragon #79 | What are the following weapons like in
AD&D gaming: great axe, great bow,
great sword? | | The great axe is a bardiche or halberd
(which are both poleaxes); the great bow
is a long bow or long composite bow; the
great sword is a two-handed sword. |
| 471. | DR121 | Dragon #121 | Oriental Adventures : One of the forest barbarian’s preferred
weapons is the harpoon. This
weapon isn’t mentioned in the rules. | | The harpoon is described in Unearthed
Arcana, on pages 26, 27, and 77. |
| 472. | DR134 | Dragon #134 | D&D: Is it possible to sever a slain medusa's head and use it to turn opponents
to stone? | | The hero Perseus did exactly that in Greek mythology. I recommend that the
head retain its power for not more than a
day (and possibly less). Note that any treasure
carried by a petrified character or
creature also turns to stone and cannot be
recovered until the victim is brought back.
The DM might rule that the medusa's
snakes will stay alive for a short time and
will attack a character who tries to carry
the head. |
| 473. | DR121 | Dragon #121 | Oriental Adventures : The rules say that when two kensai
are engaged in a psychic duel,
only the levels of the kensai affect
the outcome. Does this mean the
higher-level kensai always wins?
What about two kensai of equal
level? | | The higher-level kensai does not always
win. Use the normal procedure, as neither
kensai gains a bonus against the other. |
| 474. | DR121 | Dragon #121 | Oriental Adventures : What is the bushi honor loss for
proficiency with a ninja weapon?
It’s not listed on page 42 of Oriental
Adventures. | | The honor loss is - 1, the same as for
kensai. |
| 475. | DR122 | Dragon #122 | D&D® Companion Set : How are illusory walls created? | | The individual DM must decide. There
can be a high-level illusory wall spell, or
they can be constructed with a rare magi.
cal item, or simply a phantasmal force of a
wall made permanent with a permanence
spell. |
| 476. | DR119 | Dragon #119 | D&D® Immortals Set: Are the magical effects listed on
the inside back cover of the DM’s
Guide to Immortals the only effects
usable by Immortals of Entropy?
| | The inside back cover lists the only
powers usable by those Entropy Immortals
known as demons, but there are other
Immortals of Entropy who can use any
magical effect at the appropriate Sphere
cost. |
| 477. | DR121 | Dragon #121 | Oriental Adventures : Do kappa get a damage bonus as
well as a “to hit” bonus for high
strength? | | The kappa’s damage bonus is subsumed
in the damage range listed. They do get
the “to hit” bonus, just as the description
states. |
| 478. | DR126 | Dragon #126 | My regular D&D gaming group has
grown to 12 players. Do you have
any suggestions on how to handle
so large a group? | | The key to handling any group of that
size is organization. Make sure that you
have a summary of each character’s statistics,
spells, and items at hand. This quickreference
material will eliminate delays.
When a melee develops, ask each player in
turn (using some form of PC initiative
system or by simple round-robin selection)
for his character’s actions. Don’t allow the
players to speak out of turn. Using figures
to illustrate the party’s marching order
and each character’s position when melees
occur will also help. |
| 479. | 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. |
· 
· 39.9 40.9 41.9 42.9 43.9 44.9 45.9 46.9 47.9 48.9 49.9 50.9 51.9 52.9 53.9 54.9 · 
· 