Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Living_Greyhawk] Re: attacking with a torch

Expand Messages
  • Steve Campey
    ... I am sorry but you are absolutely wrong. I am not posting my opinion here. I am communicating a fact as a Triad member (ie part of the campaign staff.) of
    Message 1 of 50 , Jul 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      > A clarification of the core rules is still Core Rules. It's just
      > 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 sorry but you are absolutely wrong. I am not posting my opinion here.
      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.
    • Russ Stanley
      ... seeing them ... At the time I posted that comment, I had not read your reply, so I guess in that sense I chose not to see them. Given the generally
      Message 50 of 50 , Jul 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        >>Please provide examples of this. Everytime I ask someone to do
        >>they have never been able to produce a valid example.
        > I posted four examples of this already, apparently you're not
        seeing them
        > because you _choose_ not to.
        > --
        > Russ Taylor (http://www.cmc.net/~rtaylor/)

        At the time I posted that comment, I had not read your reply, so I
        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:

        >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
        >retracted this.

        This may be a valid example, if this was a ruling he made in Sage
        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
        considered official.

        >Then there's the infamous 2nd ed polymorph ruling, in which Skip
        >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.

        Given that the Polymorph spells don't change your hit point total,
        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 claims
        >negative levels do no affect level-determined spell resistance, in
        >direct contradiction to how the rules are written.

        Which Dragon is this Sage Advice located in? If this is indeed an
        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 caster
        >level, rather than total level. The Player's Handbook says, in black
        >and white, "character level" on page 51.

        Same as with the previous example: Which issue of Dragon is this Sage
        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
        endurance spell?

        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,

        Russ Stanley
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.