1. A natural roll of 20 always hits - this comes from the 2E DMG, pg. 20. It says a natural roll of 20 always hits and a 1 always misses, regardless of whether or not its literally impossible to roll high enough to hit (say a 17 thaco vs. AC: -5). Well, ok. Let's say the PC (or villain) is carrying a vorpal weapon. He has a total thaco of 17 with bonuses vs. the opponent's -5 AC, so he'd need a 21 to hit, which is impossible (since we already figured in any bonuses, etc). But he rolls a natural 20 and so he hits because of this rule. And he beheads the opponent. But this made me think - is it a fair rule? What I mean is that the sword wielder has no chance to hit the opponent. But because a natural 20 always hits, he does. The rule seems to be there only because you don't want un-hit-able characters. Anyone can get in a lucky shot now and then. Bruce Lee got hit once in awhile sparring. But in this case (vorpal sword), EVERY "lucky" hit severs the head, killing the opponent. See what I mean? Not just luck, but every lucky shot is automatically a one-hit kill shot. Thinking about it, that seems a bit generous, no?
2. Limited wish or wish vs. magic resistance - I had a brilliant player once who played a wizard. Whenever we fought magic resistant monsters, he was always wise when it came to picking spells that did not affect the monster directly. He'd cast dig beneath its feet, drop walls of iron on it, or summon monsters to battle it. Never tried affecting them directly. And this past weekend a situation came up that made me ponder once more the idea of using a wish or limited wish against a magic resistant creature. For example, say the PCs are fighting a dragon and they're losing so they try using a limited wish or wish along the lines of: "I wish the dragon was no longer here fighting us" or "I wish the dragon did not have a breath weapon". I'd have to say that a wish like those would have to get past the dragon's magic resistance. The argument is that the spell is directly affecting the dragon. However, the counter-argument (yes, I argue with myself sometimes) is that we could say the spell is directly affecting reality, not the dragon. It would be indirectly affecting the dragon, and thus not inhibited by its magic resistance (similar to the way a dig spell cast beneath it is not affected). I think I would rule that the wish/limited wish is directly affecting the dragon, or the dragon's reality, and so it would have to overcome his magic resistance. We're affecting reality, yes, but as it pertains to that dragon in particular, so we would be directly attacking it. Otherwise, anyone with a limited wish or wish spell (memorized or on a scroll) could far too easily defeat any dragon. I'm open to arguments for or against. It's a hard call.
3. Penalty to potion creation - In the DMG, pg. 87, it shows how to calculate whether or not a potion is brewed correctly. Base chance is 70%, plus 1% for every two levels of the caster. So a 12th level wizard has a base of 76% chance of brewing the potion, minus 1% per 100 gp worth of ingredients used. Wait...what?
That's backwards. More expensive ingredients of higher quality should make the potion more likely to succeed, not less likely! So if that wizard uses 5,000 gp worth of ingredients, he subtracts 50%, meaning the potion has only a 26% chance of working? That doesn't make sense. 4. Violet fungus - What do they mean by "rots flesh"? Because this damned fungus is outrageously deadly depending how you read it. The MM says if it hits it "rots flesh" in 1 rd. unless a cure disease spell is used. Does that mean if it hits a PC, that PC rots away in 1 rd.? Is that how people use it? Because it has a very insignificant xp value, but my god, even green slime takes 1d4 rds. to kill you! It seems a bit too powerful, no?
