Great Sage Advice web page

[replicant2]

I came across this link from a post at Dragonsfoot and had to share. It's a compilation of all the old Sage Advice columns from past issues of Dragon. It makes for a very informative and humorous read if you have the time: http://jgrimbert.free.fr/add2/advice/?order=id&debut=70.

Some sample questions include:

I have a female character who has gotten herself pregnant. How should I handle this?

I have been playing Dungeons and Dragons for several months, to the point where I have challenged Asmodeus and won! Is Asmodeus in a lemure state now, until he can regain his former status, or is Baalzebul in charge?

We are having an argument as to whether or not a character was killed in combat. You see, we had to leave him lying on the floor of a dungeon and could not find him when we returned. One guy (it was his character) says that he got up and left. Well, we found out later that the character we had had to leave had been assassinated by another player-character. Well, the guy who assassinated the first character says he is dead and the other guy says he isn't, and now everyone is divided over the issue. Is the guy dead or not?

All these questions and more are actually answered.

 

[Agamon]

I remember all three of those! Mind you, I was reading some early issues of The Dragon recently, so that's probably why.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I have a female character who has gotten herself pregnant. How should I handle this?

I don't remember this one, but I do remember one along the lines of:

I have a female player who wants to get pregnant. What should I do?

Yes, you read that right. And the response was priceless, something like this:

If one of your players wants to become pregnant, the Sage does not feel qualified to give advice on this matter. However, the Sage assumes you mean that the player's character wants to become pregnant, in which case...

 

[3d6]

I thought this one was interesting:

Why can’t human, half-elf and elven Magic- Users wear armor and still cast spells? Elves and half-elves who are Magic-Users and Fighters can, so I don’t believe it is because of the iron in their armor or weapons. If it is because of training, then Magic-Users could be able to learn how to wear armor and cast spells at the same time—and even a human Magic-User/Fighter could train to acquire the ability.

This is a tough one. I would like to provide a logical answer why M-Us can’t wear armor—but I can’t because there isn’t one. The only reason for the restriction is game balance, giving each character class advantages and disadvantages which will make it comparable in power and potential with the other classes. As part of the built-in game balance, elven and half-elf Fighter/ Magic-Users are limited as to how far they may rise in experience levels. They also must divide their experience points between more than one class. So, to make that type of character one which players will desire to try, those particular spell-casters are allowed to wear armor and cast spells. Even though elven and half-elf Magic-Users are also limited in how many levels they can gain, they are forbidden to wear armor because human Magic-Users are also not allowed to be armored. If elven and half-elf M-Us could wear armor, why would anyone want to be a human M-U?

 

[3d6]

Here's one I thought hilarious:

What is the chance for climbing walls, etc., for non-thieves?

The same chance thieves have of knowing spells or possessing 18/00 strength: none. (I can hear all the fighters saying, “But I can hide in the shadows: Watch this!” Even though the thief abilities have rather unimpressive, mundane names, they are indeed special abilities and can be successfully performed only by someone who has had, and continues to take, training in the thief profession. In a standard AD&D campaign, there can be no deviation from this rule — and it is a fact of “life” as much as it is a rule of the game. Only thieves can employ abilities described as unique to that class, just as clerics can do only what clerics are described as being capable of. This is obvious, necessary (from a playability standpoint), and logical as well; it takes a great deal of introductory training — specialized training — for a character to attain adventurer status (first level), and continuous review and training in the chosen class(es) if one is to rise in levels. The practice of an adventuring profession is a serious matter, often even a vital one, and each profession demands of its adherents all the interest, energy, and effort they can muster. Any DM who settles for less than this attitude from player characters and still allows them to rise in experience levels as if nothing was amiss is doing the playing group and the game a disservice. In extraordinary circumstances or for the sake of experimentation, non-thief characters with exceptionally high dexterity might be allowed a chance of successfully performing certain thief-like abilities. This mutates the adventure or campaign, and this fact should be understood by the DM and all the players: what they’re playing isn’t an AD&D game any longer. But it might be interesting if, for instance, any non-thief with a dexterity of at least 16 (and any monsters with the same trait) was given a small chance to use that dexterity similar to the way the ability benefits a thief. In this hypothetical system, the “dexterity benefit” would only apply to those thief abilities that allow bonuses for high dexterity: picking pockets, opening locks, locating/removing traps, moving silently, and hiding in shadows. The percentage chance of success for a non-thief to perform a certain function would be a constant, related only to the character’s dexterity and not to his or her level of experience. The percentage chance for success is the same as the number given as a bonus on Dexterity Table II (Players Handbook, page 12), and success is only possible when a number is given. Thus, a non-thief with 16 dexterity would have a 5% chance of using the opening locks ability, but no other thief-like abilities, and a non-thief would need 18 dexterity to have any chance of locating/removing traps. In no case could it be justified for non-thieves to have the ability to climb walls using this same reasoning, however. First of all, the ability has no direct relationship to dexterity, or else it would be listed in Dexterity Table II. Second of all, climbing walls is a thief’s bread and butter, his claim to fame, the one thing even a first-level thief can do with a decent chance of success. It stands to reason that a large portion of the thief’s training goes into acquiring this ability in the first place; it isn’t something a fighter-type can pick up over a weekend of rigorous wall-clutching. Climbing walls is like riding a unicycle: It takes forever to learn how, and once you learn the basics you don’t ever get a whole lot better at it than you were when you started. Most people (except for thieves and diehard unicycle riders) will give up after taking a few spills, when it becomes apparent that the bumps aren’t worth the benefits.

I'm bringing this up in every edition wars thread from now on.

 

[3d6]

My players want to roll their own dice. Do I have to let them?

No. The DM is free to establish whatever “table rules” he wishes. Most players will enjoy the game more, however, if they are allowed to make their own die rolls. If you are worried about cheating, you can still allow players to make their own rolls but require any roll to be witnessed by at least two other players.

I want to meet this DM, and see how his games run today. How did he even get a group together?

 

[Turanil]

I would like this cool compilation made into a PDF for download...