Unusual Stuff
Sheesh! What kind of games do you people play, anyhow? Do you really
encounter these problems in play, or do you just sit around thinking
of strange questions to send me? Here we go:
Q. If a wizard cast an anti-magic shell spell on himself at the same
time a beholder aimed its anti-magic ray at him, which effect would
prevail?
A. Anti-anti-magic: The question is moot since both effects produce
the same results: the temporary suppression (not dispelling) of all
magic. (Artifacts function, but any spell-like effects they produce
are suppressed.) Both effects work normally, even in the area of
overlap.
Q. My 9th-level ranger was changed into a glass of water by a powerful
magician using a wish spell. After killing the rest of the party, the
magician drank my character. The DM said my character is dead, but I
say my character 's essence has mingled with the magician's. Who is
right?
A. Watery ranger: I have my doubts about the validity of the wish.
Since it was used against a character directly, I'd treat it as a
permanent polymorph any object spell. Such a wish could be dispelled
so long as the water-character stayed intact. Once the water is
spilled, evaporated, or consumed, the character's "essence" is
scattered or destroyed, and only another wish will restore the
character.
Q. Can a human be cleanly killed, enlarged, have permanency cast on
him, then be raised or animated without the caster of the permanency
losing a constitution point? How about animating the corpse, then
enlarging it and making it permanent-would the caster of the
permanency spell lose a constitution point then?
A. Enlarged corpse: A corpse is an object. Use the rules for
non-living objects when adjudicating the results of enlarge or
permanency spells. A zombie, however, is a creature (even if it is
biologically dead). In the AD&D 1st Edition rules, a magician who
enlarged a corpse and cast permanency on it would have only a 5%
chance to lose point of constitution (see the 1st Edition DMG, page
46), because he was working with an object. The AD&D 2nd Edition game
does not make a distinction between permanent effects on objects or
creatures, but I think it's safe to assume this is an oversight. In
either game, the enlarged corpse could be as a huge, 1-HD zombie.
Q. How far can three bozak draconians (which are described in the
Dragonlance Adventures book) be hurled from a catapult if they were
bound together and had their wings amputated? What would be the range
if they were launched singly? Would the ranges for other draconians be
similar?
A. Catapulted draconians: Light catapults hurl rocks that weigh 8-10
lbs. Heavy catapults hurl rocks that weigh 20-25 lbs. Even a single
draconian of any species placed on a catapult would overload the
machine so much that the catapult wouldn't fire at all. Trebuchets,
however, have a much larger load capacity, hurling rocks that weigh
about 500 lbs, which is probably about right for three draconians.
Rocks, however, are a bit more aerodynamic than any three wingless
draconians tied together, so a draconian-firing trebuchet's range
should be halved, for a maximum range of 240 yards and a minimum of
120 yards. A single draconian fired from a trebuchet is grossly
underweight as well as unaerodynamic, producing an effect akin to
trying to hurl a slightly under-inflated beach ball. Use-the scatter
diagram on page 63 of the 2nd Edition DMG. Treat the point labelled
"intended target" as the trebuchet; a roll of 1 indicates that the
draconian is hurled straight up into the air and lands right on the
trebuchet (or on top of its operators, at the DM's option). Any other
roll indicates that the draconian flies wildly off in the given
direction. Roll 8d4 × 10 for the total distance in yards that the
draconian "flies".
Q. My character was recently polymorphed into a worm. Another
character cut my character in half. If the two halves were allowed to
grow into two worms, would I have two characters if the polymorph
spell was dispelled? Wouldn't the two characters be identical and
friendly toward each other (not prone to kill each other as two clones
would)?
A. Wormy PC: Characters retain their hit points and intellect when
subjected to polymorphing, so your character should have been the
worlds smartest and tough est worm, at least until he failed an
intelligence check and assumed a worm's mentality (if a worm can be
said to have a mentality). Your character would be dead if chopped in
half while still mentally a "person". If the character reverted to
worm mentality before being cut in half, it still would be one tough
worm (having your PC's hit points), but it might very well survive
being chopped in half if anyone were persistent enough to actually do
it. Many DMs, however, would rule that the polymorph spell could no
longer be dispelled once the change in personality took place. If the
magic on either or both halves
of the worm were dispelled, you'd have one or two halves of a dead
character. Each "new" worm still is only half a character, even if
allowed to grow into a whole worm.
Q. My deep gnome character lost both his legs on an adventure. The
party's paladin graciously carried my gnome in a jury-rigged
papoose-type backpack. Could the paladin or my character engage in
mêlée using this arrangement? How much would a legless gnome weigh?
A. Legless gnome: The character carrying the gnome is going to be
encumbered, even if he can handle the weight, because of the gnome's
bulk. This means he'll suffer at least a −1 penalty to his to-hit
rolls (see the 2nd Edition Player's Handbook, page 79); the penalty
will be worse if the gnome weighs enough to reduce the carrier's
movement. The DM might also add an initiative penalty equal to the
combat penalty. The gnome could fight if his arms were free. I suggest
a −4 penalty to his to-hit roll and a +3 penalty to his initiative.
Human, elf, half-elf, and halfling anatomy generally follows the
so-called Rule of Nines: The head takes up 9% of the body's weight,
each arm 9%, the chest 18%, the abdomen 18%, and each leg 18%. The
missing 1% is ignored. Gnomes and dwarves are stocky and carry less
mass in their limbs. The distribution of their weight always fails a
saving throw, weapons' might be: head 9%; each arm 8%, chest bonuses
notwithstanding. Someone is 21%, abdomen 21%, and each leg 16%.
Q. If a bastard sword +6, defender was trampled by a triceratops, and
the roll on the item saving throw table was a 1 on 1d20, would the
item fail because the roll was a 1 or would it make the save because
it needs a 6 to save and its pluses make up the difference? If the
sword did break, could it be remade with all its pluses? Would a wish
completely restore the broken sword?
A. Dinosaur versus magical item: In either edition of the AD&D game, a
roll of 1 bound to write to me and point out that the item
saving-throw table in the 1st Edition DMG, page 80, lists the numbers
1 and 0 in several places. When an item has a saving throw of 1, a
roll of 1 still fails; however, if the DM assigns a circumstantial
penalty, any adjusted roll of 1 or more is a successful save. For
example, a book falling 15' onto a hard surface has a modifier of −2
( −1 for every 5' beyond the first 5'; if a 3 were rolled as a save,
the save would be successful (3 − 2 = 1, still good). Items that
have a save of 0 are immune to the listed attack form; for example,
liquids are immune to blows, even if their containers are not. A wish
certainly could restore the sword if all its pieces were present.
Whether or not the sword could simply be remade is up to the DM. I
suggest that most enchanted items be rendered non-magical if broken,
though I can think of one or two classic fantasy stories in which
broken magical items were remade. If the item is very powerful (with a
bonus of +4 or better), it might be remade if it is simply broken, not
disintegrated or reduced to ash or slag, and if it rolls a second save
of 20. The item should get a bonus of +1 for every two magical bonuses
the item has (artifacts receive a +4 bonus to their saves). If the
item fails the second save, it no longer radiates magic; characters
smart enough to use detect magic will know an attempt to repair the
item is a waste of time. If the save is successful, the repair should
be made using the best possible materials and a master craftsman of
unequalled skill; finding either of these should be an adventure in
itself. If the DM really wants to prolong the player's agony, he can
require the being who will repair the item to make a successful
proficiency check and maybe even make a save versus spells to be
successful.
Q. The rules say a fire ball detonates at a point designated by the
caster or when it strikes a solid object. What is the chance of an
archer hitting the fire ball with an arrow and causing it to detonate
while in flight?
A. Shooting down a fire ball: I repeated this question to one of my
regular playing groups and got in return five bemused grins and the
following straight-faced comment: "Gee, you'll also need rules for
[shooting down fire balls with] magic missiles and things like that,
too." For the record, hitting a fireball or similar missile with
another missile, magical or not, is about as likely as every creature
on a world taking a step at the same instant, thereby creating
cataclysmic vibrations that shake the planet apart. That is, it's
possible in theory but gosh darn well near impossible in practice.
Q. Can a ring of regeneration restore a female character's maidenhood?
Could this be done well enough to fool a unicorn?
A. Regenerating maidenhood: Sorry, unicorns know their maidens too
well to be fooled. Under certain circumstances, a ring of regeneration
can restore the, ahem, physical aspects of a lady's maidenhood. A ring
of regeneration can restore any damage or appendage loss if it occurs
while the ring is worn. For example, if a character wearing a ring of
regeneration loses a finger, the ring will eventually restore the
finger. However, if the character loses the finger and then dons the
ring, the finger isn't regrown. In a similar vein, a ring of
regeneration can't be passed from character to character to provide a
party with cheap healing. Damage that exists before the ring is put on
is not restored. Note that a clerical regenerate spell can restore a
lost limb at any time. In any case, maidenhood is a state of being.
Once it is lost, it is lost forever, regeneration notwithstanding.
Re-Saging
Q. In Dragon #148, you said elven chain mail negates a ranger's
ability to fight two-handed without penalty. Why is this? Armour made
from elven steel has one-half the normal encumbrance value, according
to the 2nd Edition DMG. So elven chain mail weighs 20 lbs, or 5 lbs
less than studded leather, which is the "heaviest" armour a ranger can
wear and still avoid the penalty.
A. Chain mail armour isn't all metal. Chain mail is a shirt of metal
links worn over a padded garment; this is necessary to keep the links
from being driven into the wearer 's body when a blow strikes. The
padding weighs about 10 lbs, giving elven chain mail a weight of 25
lbs, the same as studded leather. Second, weight alone is not the only
factor. The armour's thickness, stiffness, weight distribution, and
general protective value also must be considered. While elven chain
mail weighs about as much as studded leather, it is still "heavier".
Generally, any armour type whose base armour class (before magical or
dexterity adjustments) is AC 6 or better is "heavier" than studded
leather, even if it actually weighs less than 25 lbs due to materials
or enchantments, or both.
Q. In issue #138, you said that protection from evil effects do not
keep undead at bay, except for ghouls. Come on! Since all undead are
magically created, they're all enchanted monsters and all are thwarted
by protection from evil. While we're at it, you also said that
banshees turn as specials, if they can be turned at all. Come on
again! The rules say that clerics have power over the undead, not some
undead.
A. The only undead that are magically created are skeletons and
zombies, which are created with the animate dead spell. However,
enchanted monsters are those brought into being with
conjuration/summoning spells, and animate dead is necromantic. Ghouls
are hedged out because their descriptions in the 1st Edition Monster
Manual and 2nd Edition Monstrous Compendium say they are. Still, the
DM could rule that the normal undead creation process (in which a
being killed by certain undead beings becomes an undead creature, too)
is magical. Expanding the list in this fashion logically would include
lycanthropes (which suffer from a quasi-magical curse), golems (which
are ritually created), creatures such as owlbears and bulettes
(commonly known to be magical crossbreeds), and gargoyles (which have
"magical natures"), and the list goes on. It's much better to draw the
line early on. The rules don't say that clerics have power over all
undead. Banshees were left off the clerics versus undead table in the
AD&D 1st Edition DMG because they couldn't be turned in those rules
(see the 1st Edition Monster Manual, "Groaning Spirit"). Currently,
banshees can be turned as "special" undead (see "Groaning Spirit",
Monstrous Compendium, Volume 2).
Q. In issue #148, you said all warrior characters are entitled to
exceptional strength scores, but a footnote on page 20 of the 2nd
Edition Player's Handbook says halfling fighters do not roll for
exceptional strength.
A. You are correct. Score one for footnotes and for people who read
them.
Q. In an earlier issue, you said a paladin's detect evil ability works
just like a detect evil spell, and that it could detect evil
characters. Isn't there a section in the rules that says detect evil
spells don't work on evil characters?
A. There sure is. Check out the 1st Edition DMG, page 60. Evil
characters don't always radiate evil. Just for the record, I didn't
actually say that; one of my editors did [It was me. Roger]. While my
editors are fine people whose timely interventions have more than once
caught my errors before I embarrassed myself in print, the shoe was on
the other foot this time.
Q. Why does a paladin's immunity to disease protect him from attack by
green slime, violet fungi, and other plant monsters?
A. In my opinion, it doesn't. My editor [me again] assumed that since
green slime can be killed with a cure disease spell, paladins must be
immune to its effects. However, green slime is a monster with the
ability to destroy flesh, wood, and metal. A disease is a malady
caused by a pathogenic organism; a paladin's immunity to disease does
not protect him or his equipment from a green slime's attack, its
susceptibility to cure disease spells notwithstanding. Similarly, a
violet fungi's flesh-destroying attack works on paladins, even though
cure disease spells halt its effects. Furthermore, paladins can get
infected wounds (if your campaign considers them), as these are not
diseases per se; cure disease spells also remove such infections.
Q. In issue #146, you discussed the enchant an item spell and said
that a magical weapon's bonus was not a spell effect. What about the
enchanted weapon spell?
A. As described in the AD&D 1st Edition game, the fourth-level spell
enchanted weapon did not produce a true "plus". The spell allowed the
recipient weapon to harm creatures hit only by magical weapons, but it
did not bestow any bonuses whatsoever. Consequently, I tread lightly
around the subject in the column. The new enchanted weapon spell,
however, does bestow a true bonus and is useful for enchanting most
weapons, as described in the 2nd Edition PHB, page 157.
Q. In issue #149, you said that result shifts actually change the
colour of results obtained on the Gamma World game's ACT. Doesn't the
rules supplement included with the game contradict this?
A. It sure does. The rules supplement, page 2, is correct; the column
was wrong. As one reader pointed out, changing an attacks damage
multiplier, but not the ACT colour, allows for hits which do no damage
but that still cause special effects. For example, laser blasts might
blind mutants with infravision.
|
|