Re: [Living_Greyhawk] Re: attacking with a torch
> A clarification of the core rules is still Core Rules. It's justI am sorry but you are absolutely wrong. I am not posting my opinion here.
> more clearly explained. LG uses the core rules except where the
> campaign documents outline specific exceptions.
> So unless Skip clarifies something that has already been specifically
> dealt with in a LG campaign document, then yes, any clarification of
> the core rules he makes would be official in LG.
I am communicating a fact as a Triad member (ie part of the campaign staff.)
of an official policy that was decided upon a while ago by the LG campaign
staff, and announced at that time. This information was posted to this list
when it was decided, and is currently part of the FAQ, complete with its own
heading of "LG Errata Policy." (The link to the FAQ is in the footer of
every email from this list.)
So to restate:
The official stance of the LG campaign is that email from Skip, Sage Advice,
(if it has a special box around it or not) or anything else that isn't WotC
Product Errata is an opinion in LG, and that is all.
Steve of Ket
Living Greyhawk Triad POC for Eastern Canada
Putting monsters wherever I can.
>>Please provide examples of this. Everytime I ask someone to doseeing them
>>they have never been able to produce a valid example.
> I posted four examples of this already, apparently you're not
> because you _choose_ not to.At the time I posted that comment, I had not read your reply, so I
> Russ Taylor (http://www.cmc.net/~rtaylor/)
guess in that sense I chose not to see them. Given the generally
hostile nature of your replies to me so far, you aren't currently at
the top of my "must read and respond" priority list.
But I have taken time to read your examples of incorrect Sage Advice
answers, so let's take a look at them:
>Sure:This may be a valid example, if this was a ruling he made in Sage
>Back in 2nd ed, Skip had an outright incorrect ruling on ray of
>enfeeblement. He said that it would negate strength granted by a
>magic item, when the spell specifically said it would not. He never
Advice. If it is, could you provide the issue # that it appeared
in, or the exact text of his reply?
As you and others have pointed out, private e-mails can't be
>Then there's the infamous 2nd ed polymorph ruling, in which SkipGiven that the Polymorph spells don't change your hit point total,
>said a person poly'd into a glass of water could only be killed
>(when drinking them) by inflicting 1-2 hp of damage per sip, then
>smashing the glass.
that's pretty much the only way he could rule. (I don't know
about "sipping" causing 1-2 points of damage, but that's as good a
guess as any.)
Even polymorphed into a glass of water, they still have all their hit
points, and unless you are using death magic you have to do enough
damage to kill them. Welcome to the weird world created by the D&D
hit point system, where a high level fighter with a high Con score
can fall from orbit, impact the earth, and walk away after taking
only 20d6 falling damage.
So this doesn't qualify as a valid example.
>Then there's his ruling on spell resistance, where he claimsWhich Dragon is this Sage Advice located in? If this is indeed an
>negative levels do no affect level-determined spell resistance, in
>direct contradiction to how the rules are written.
official response, and it wasn't marked as errata, then this would be
a valid example of him making a mistake on a rules question.
If it's just something you heard about, or a private e-mail, then
it's not a valid example.
>He also has claimed that familiar hit dice are based on casterSame as with the previous example: Which issue of Dragon is this Sage
>level, rather than total level. The Player's Handbook says, in black
>and white, "character level" on page 51.
advice located in? I don't recall seeing it.
The closest official response I have found from him was regarding a
question of hit points (not hit dice) for a familiar, and he verified
that they were based off the players totat hit points. I couldnt'
find any Sage Advice regarding hit dice.
Dragon # 280, Sage Advice column:
Question: The Player's Handbook says a familiar gets half the
master's hit points. What constitutes the master's hit points? Does
the master's Constitution modifier apply? What about the Toughness
feat? What about temporary hit point increases such as aid spells or
extra hit points from temporary Constitution increases such as the
Sages Answer: The familiar gets half the master's (undamaged) hit
points, rounded down. Constitution bonuses and the Toughness feat
count, as does any other permanent hit point gain (such as from
gaining a level or a permanent increase in Constitution). Temporary
hit point gains don't affect the familiar's hit points.
So one example is ruled out, one is and undocumented reference from
2e, and the last two are undocumented examples from 3rd edition. I
haven't had time to look through my most current issues of Dragon,
but those two examples you mention don't appear in any of them up to
Dragon #281. I'll check issues #282 through #285 later this evening.
Even if these do prove to be valid examples of mistakes on his part
(and Skip is human, so he could easily have made the mistakes you
attribute to him), two or three mistakes out of the hundreds of
questions he has answered really doesn't support the idea that "Skip
makes rather frequent mistakes and rather questionable judgements".
With all due respect,