Last visit was: It is currently Wed Oct 23, 2019 6:24 pm


All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: rulings , informal agreement
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:42 am 

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:36 am
Posts: 1554
John B

1 its not possible to get rudimentary prayers during character creation is it?

2 its not likely to get an official answer, thats why this document exists in the first place

_________________
--Josh Elliott
Oswald val'Inares V, The Seeker of the Val'Inares
Harvester Lord of the Eastern Fields of Iowa


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: rulings , informal agreement
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:08 am 

Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:45 pm
Posts: 632
Under Heirloom. I have a follow up question regarding the Wand.... I'll accept that wand's are not weapons and are not allowed until there is an official rules change. But what about Rune Staffs since they are both weapons and wands?

_________________
---
Eric Hughes

There once was a gnome called Oozy,
Who kissed a Yaricite floozy.
But rather than wed,
She drowned him instead,
Now he is a Yaricite toosey!


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: rulings , informal agreement
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:17 am 

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:36 am
Posts: 1554
Added the text for advanced spells from the community ruling we had come to on the old boards and reposted.

added info about herb use

@ Eric, ill add runestaves in like wands , but if you want to debate it please start another thread

_________________
--Josh Elliott
Oswald val'Inares V, The Seeker of the Val'Inares
Harvester Lord of the Eastern Fields of Iowa


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: rulings , informal agreement
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:33 am 

Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:45 pm
Posts: 632
No need for debate. There is far more to be gained from getting agreement on these rules issues than endlessly debating them. I just needed clarification.

Thanks Josh!

_________________
---
Eric Hughes

There once was a gnome called Oozy,
Who kissed a Yaricite floozy.
But rather than wed,
She drowned him instead,
Now he is a Yaricite toosey!


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: rulings , informal agreement
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:22 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:40 am
Posts: 2046
SamhainIA wrote:
John B

1 its not possible to get rudimentary prayers during character creation is it?

2 its not likely to get an official answer, thats why this document exists in the first place


1) Not sure but I don't think so. Who knows in the future, just covering bases. If you're going from the general Pedro ruling "No spellcasting" to specifics ("These talents") I'd just include them for completeness.

2) Fair enough. I don't have anything to offer new in a PM. You've asked the question and there was about an equal split of both schools of thought, so there wasn't an informal agreement. I think it's premature to list only one opinion as the "Agreement". If your goal is to have guidelines for GM's across the board, it needs to be fairly represented.

John

_________________
- John Bellando

Kelb'Bakari Masalio, Dark-kin Altherian Corsair, Gentleman Archaeologist, and Wandering Bard
"The highest compliment an Altherian can pay you is to shoot you with his flintlock. It means you were worth the expense."


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: rulings , informal agreement
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:31 am 

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:36 am
Posts: 1554
the goal is to have one answer not fair representation, specifically not "this or that", and I'm usually going to pick the more restrictive answer if its not clear.

_________________
--Josh Elliott
Oswald val'Inares V, The Seeker of the Val'Inares
Harvester Lord of the Eastern Fields of Iowa


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: rulings , informal agreement
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:48 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:40 am
Posts: 2046
SamhainIA wrote:
the goal is to have one answer not fair representation, specifically not "this or that", and I'm usually going to pick the more restrictive answer if its not clear.


That's fine if you are picking the answers. If the option is then "Follow Josh's answer or don't" that's cool too, I will pick and choose as needed and no debate is needed.

Thanks,

John

_________________
- John Bellando

Kelb'Bakari Masalio, Dark-kin Altherian Corsair, Gentleman Archaeologist, and Wandering Bard
"The highest compliment an Altherian can pay you is to shoot you with his flintlock. It means you were worth the expense."


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: rulings , informal agreement
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:10 pm 

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:36 am
Posts: 1554
and john you are just going to avoid the entire purpose of the project, to prevent all of the individual judges from picking and choosing what ever rules they like, and thus providing an uncertain inconsistent playing field

Its not Josh's answer, its the community's majority OR if there isnt a majority, the more restrictive answer.

_________________
--Josh Elliott
Oswald val'Inares V, The Seeker of the Val'Inares
Harvester Lord of the Eastern Fields of Iowa


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: rulings , informal agreement
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:40 am
Posts: 2046
SamhainIA wrote:
and john you are just going to avoid the entire purpose of the project, to prevent all of the individual judges from picking and choosing what ever rules they like, and thus providing an uncertain inconsistent playing field


You've just stated that you are using the answers you feel are more restrictive even if that's no consensus amongst the judges. I don't agree with that approach. If you're not interested in presenting the 'majority' rules or in the case of very close discussions, then the document is not going to provide consistent playing field and becomes "Josh's way to adjudicate"

I'm perfectly fine with adhering to 'rulings' that are in majority agreement on the boards by GM's and encourage it (Which is a large part of the document and I commend you for putting it together). I'm not fine with you choosing the ruling you want to use when there's a clear division and saying "This is how we should all do it."

John

_________________
- John Bellando

Kelb'Bakari Masalio, Dark-kin Altherian Corsair, Gentleman Archaeologist, and Wandering Bard
"The highest compliment an Altherian can pay you is to shoot you with his flintlock. It means you were worth the expense."


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: rulings , informal agreement
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:25 pm 

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 4:12 pm
Posts: 1037
Enemy of My Enemy already has a +3 Discipline vs further castings so I'm assuming the intended change is that Thrall is counted as the "same" spell?

I think there's some errors in the Advanced Spell examples.
  • 15' cone and 10' Radius should be 10' cone (not 15' cone).
  • 15' cone and 10' arc should be 10' cone (not 10' arc).

_________________
Steve Wilcoxon
Ss'kethis - Expert Holy Champion of the Fire Dragon 3.1
G'hyu'thyh Sungha - Martial Templar of Illiir 1.7
Eryk Bauer - Martial Awakened 1.2


Top
Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Moderators: james.zwiers, PCI Eric, PCI_StatMonkey Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Theme created StylerBB.net & kodeki