Proposal: Arcane Power

renau1g · Jul 24, 2009

The issue is if every possible misuse/abuse of a power/ability needs to be spelled out in the charter then it's going to be super cumbersome and will possibly turn new people off.

nerdytenor · Jul 24, 2009

renau1g said:
The issue is if every possible misuse/abuse of a power/ability needs to be spelled out in the charter then it's going to be super cumbersome and will possibly turn new people off.

+1

It can be hard to forget sometimes while in the thick of discussions such as these that this is a game we are working with, not a legal system. IMO, we shouldn't concern ourselves with problems that don't yet exist. From the high quality of much of what goes on here, I have a lot of faith in the community and don't feel that we need every last uber-munchkin-combo spelled out explicitly.

This is a game without a goal and without winners - unless certain players are making things un-fun for certain other players (or DMs), it's best to just stay out of the way.

FWIW,
nt

stonegod · Jul 24, 2009

I'm going to be selfish and just ask for everything Dang't wants (feats and Storm Sorcerer) to be approved soon.

You folks can argue about the rest.

stonegod · Jul 28, 2009

stonegod said:
I'm going to be selfish and just ask for everything Dang't wants (feats and Storm Sorcerer) to be approved soon. You folks can argue about the rest.

Just a bump, now that ENW is back.

elecgraystone · Jul 28, 2009

renau1g said:
The issue is if every possible misuse/abuse of a power/ability needs to be spelled out in the charter then it's going to be super cumbersome and will possibly turn new people off.

Well there is a big difference between 'possible misuse/abuse' and issues that we have identified and gm/judges have already said that they don't think that is should work the RAW way. We seem to be in general agreement that the movement from grease shouldn't trigger new attack. How is putting that in any different that telling dark warlocks that they need player consent to use powers that hurt other players? Both are changes to the character that the character should know before to makes his choices. How is it ok to inform new players in one case but leave them in the dark with the other?

My position is clear. I think it best to have everything in the open and NOT surprise people after they have made their character. I feel that doing otherwise will only lead to problems later when people find out during play that things don't work as the book reads.

That said, I'm finished arguing. This is just the kind of situation I was trying to avoid by asking for a ruling of grease. Do whatever you want. There isn't any reason to hold up things. Go and vote on what Stonegod wants.

stonegod · Jul 30, 2009

So, to get this ball rolling (and so Dang't can be updated

), how but I propose the following (since I started this thread):

- Proposal: Accept all of Arcane Power except Grease, Illusory Wall, and Planar Gateway.

Folks can propose separate things for the other three, though only Grease is of a primary concern right now (as it is is the only power anyway can take at L4W levels).

Ozymandias79 · Jul 30, 2009

That I vote YES to

Ozy

Dunamin · Jul 30, 2009

stonegod said:
- Proposal: Accept all of Arcane Power except Grease, Illusory Wall, and Planar Gateway.

Folks can propose separate things for the other three, though only Grease is of a primary concern right now (as it is is the only power anyway can take at L4W levels).

Yours sincerely agrees.

covaithe · Jul 30, 2009

YES

Furthermore, I propose (independently) that we pass Grease as is and trust our DMs to interpret it sanely.

JoeNotCharles · Jul 30, 2009

I vote YES to StoneGod's proposal.

And a couple of my own independant proposals:

I believe this will mean that there are two versions of the Illusion powers, and both are legal. So I also propose that if Stonegod's proposal passes, we ban the Dragon magazine Illusions article except for Illusory Wall.

I propose that we pass Grease with the amendment "the slide does not trigger an attack from the same Grease spell again". (Does this mean I can vote no to covaithe's proposal, but not yet to my own?)

I also propose that we pass the Compendium version of Planar Gateway.