Paradigm Concepts
http://forums.paradigmconcepts.com/

rulings , informal agreement
http://forums.paradigmconcepts.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=661
Page 2 of 4

Author:  SamhainIA [ Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: rulings , informal agreement

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

Author:  Eric Hughes [ Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: rulings , informal agreement

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?

Author:  SamhainIA [ Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: rulings , informal agreement

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

Author:  Eric Hughes [ Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: rulings , informal agreement

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!

Author:  Harliquinn [ Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: rulings , informal agreement

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

Author:  SamhainIA [ Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: rulings , informal agreement

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.

Author:  Harliquinn [ Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: rulings , informal agreement

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

Author:  SamhainIA [ Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: rulings , informal agreement

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.

Author:  Harliquinn [ Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: rulings , informal agreement

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

Author:  wilcoxon [ Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: rulings , informal agreement

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).

Page 2 of 4 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/