Q. One of my characters was recently tricked into donning a girdle of
femininity/masculinity. What options do I have for getting the
character back to normal? If the character finds another such girdle
and puts it on, will this change him back? My DM says this won't work
because the item's description says a wish has only a 50% chance of
restoring the character's original sex. Obviously, a polymorph other
spell could restore the character, but I'm leery of dispel magic and
anti-magic shell spells.
A. It isn't often that I get a question with so many... possibilities.
power to change the character's gender is stronger than the wish's
general power to remove misfortune. (Several powerful miscellaneous
magical items are more potent within their limited portfolios than
wishes are.) If the character dons a second girdle, he might have his
gender restored, or he might lose all gender, and your DM might rule
that this is more likely than the standard 10% chance (DMG, page 170),
since the character is fiddling around with things best left alone.
But your character's gender will be altered if he puts on a second
girdle, as these items are quite potent. There is nothing in the
polymorph other spell listing to suggest that secondary
characteristics like age or gender can be altered by the spell.
Individual DMs are free to include the ability to change gender along
with form, but players shouldn't count on it without consulting the
DM. Furthermore, assuming that your DM does allow polymorph other to
change gender, there would be at least a 50% chance that the attempt
would fail. A wish certainly is more powerful than the 4th-level
polymorph other. If the character was polymorphed back to his original
gender, a system-shock roll would be required. A successful dispel
magic would change the character back to the "wrong" gender and would
require another system-shock roll. You are quite right to be worried
about anti-magic shells, but note that an anti-magic shell cannot
permanently dispel a long-term effect such as polymorph other. The
effect temporarily dampens magic, it does not dispel it. If the
polymorphed character entered an anti-magic shell, he would be forced
back into the "wrong" form, and this would require a system shock
roll. Upon leaving the anti-magic shell, the character immediately
would resume the "correct" form, and another system-shock roll would
be in order.
Q. How is each spell's school chosen? Also please explain how the
various pairs of opposing schools of magic were chosen. What is the
nature of the opposition? Why do illusionists have to contend with an
extra opposition school?
A. Generally, spells are grouped into schools according to the types
of effects they produce and, by extension, the type of power used to
produce their effects. Abjuration blocks, dispels, or protects;
alteration produces changes in its target; conjuration/summoning
brings material from some other place; enchantment/charm grants its
users or targets special abilities; greater divination reveals
information; illusion/phantasm causes perceived changes that are not
real; invocation/evocation creates matter or energy; and necromancy
Handbook for detailed explanations of each school. No two schools of
magic are mutually hostile due to their natures; opposition arises
from how the spells are learned and used. Specialist wizards employ
methods of study and mental discipline that enhance their abilities to
use certain types of magic and erode their aptitudes for others. This
is why generalists can freely use magic from opposing schools while
specialists cannot. Specific pairs of opposed schools were selected
according to common sense and game balance. For example, if invokers
spend a lot of time learning how to bring things into being from
nothing, they probably neglect to learn how to call things from one
place to another. Illusionists, who spend their time trying to create
believable unrealities, have a hard time casting magic that produces
and channels real energies; there are three such schools:
invocation/evocation, necromancy, and abjuration.
Q. I've noticed that a few spells are parts of two opposing schools of
magic. For example, the limited wish spell is both
conjuration/summoning and invocation/evocation. Can specialist wizards
from either school use such spells? That is, can conjurers or invokers
use limited wish? How is it that a spell can be from two opposing
schools anyway?
A. A specialist wizard can use any spell that falls within the schools
allowed to him, even if the spell in question also falls under an
opposing school. Certain effects, such as limited wishes, can be
produced in more than one way; in this case, what is wished for can be
plucked from some other place and delivered, or it can simply be
created to order.
Q. How do you calculate a multi-classed or dual-classed character's
personality score or chance to detect scrying?
A. For a multi-classed character, use either the character's highest
level or the level of the pertinent class. For example, a
fighter/magician would use his fighter level when calculating his
personality score in a conflict with an egotistical magical weapon,
but would use his wizard level to determine his chance to detect
scrying. The DM should decide which method to use, then use it
consistently. Dual-classed characters use the level of the class in
which they are currently active. If the character has more experience
in the previous class, he can use the higher level but must pay the
experience penalty for reverting to that class (PHB, page 45).
Q. Will a spider climb spell negate the effects of a grease spell?
A. This is up to the DM, but I suggest not. The coating from the
grease spell would keep a spider climbing creature from adhering to a
surface if that creature failed a save versus spells, as per the
grease spell description. A spider climbing creature (or any other
creature normally able to climb sheer surfaces or ceilings) can still
traverse greased surfaces; however, if they fail their saves, they
fall.
Q. There is a contradiction in the D&D Immortals rules regarding the
effects of mortal magic on Immortals. Page 6 of the Players' Guide to
Immortals says that Immortal minds are immune to mortal magic, but
their corporeal forms are not. But page 16 says mortal magic is
ineffective against Immortals in any form.
A. Page 6 is right. The second sentence under the heading "Limits on
Use" on page 16 should be deleted.
Q. I'm confused by the castle construction section of The Castle
Guide. When using smaller work forces (page 60), is the savings
calculated once per project, or more often?
A. The "Larger Work Forces" section on the same page suggests that the
savings be calculated per week, but if that's the case a character
could get a castle for free just by cutting the work force in half and
waiting patiently through the increased construction time. Also, if a
character is feeling frugal but still is in a hurry, what's to keep
him from reducing the work force but keeping it above 75% of normal,
thus gaining substantial savings and not extending construction time?
The savings from reduced work forces is calculated per week, so
dropping one worker saves 520 gold pieces each year. However, The
Castle Guide editor Bill Connors says there is some dropped copy in
the "Smaller Work Forces" section. The last sentence in the second
paragraph should read: "No reduction below 50% in the work force or
cost is possible". While a castle builder can reduce labour and
administration costs, he can't get them for free and must still pay
for materials. Smart castle builders will adjust their work forces to
get some savings, but I can think of two ways to discourage this if
the referee thinks the practice is getting out of hand. First, an
accident or misfortune (such as a raid or marauding monster) might
deplete a reduced work force even further and cause a construction
delay. Second, morale in the reduced work force might deteriorate.
Workers who believe they are being asked to do the impossible tend to
be resentful. This might prompt the referee to recalculate the
Production Modifier in mid-project and declare a "cost overrun" for
the castle.
|
|