> Yes, that's more or less what it does say, but the
whole 'appropriate
> ability' thing, there's the rub. I'd have thought that 'tall' was
> pretty appropriate to resist being jumped over (having a HP or two
in
> that "ability" myself I may be biased, though). Magical or not.
The
> HQ example almost implies that the magic has a 'defined effect',
> something along the lines of "if successfully 'cast', will jump you
> over any mundane" -- as of course it would have done, back in the
bad
> old RQ days. Trouble (and liberating opportunity, it must be said)
is
> that there _is_ no such defined effect, other than in the gestalt
of a
> given group, so whether the tree gets its 'saving throw' or not is
> entirely in the realm of interpretation.
I think the rules are quie clear on this. If the object of the magic is magical it gets to resist usng it's most apropriate magical ability. If it's a character, likewise. If it has no magical abiities (wether it's a character or not) it's resisance is 14.
IMHO saying that a thing (tree, mountain, whatever) has a magical ability effectively makes it a character anyway, so actualy I'd argue that these two cases are realy just different ways of saying the same thing.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail