Concealing Amorpha Powers from XPH

[KarinsDad]

I didn't ask you.

You responded to my post, not the original posters.

Yes, I responded when you incorrectly stated an opinion as opposed to the rule.

Some people here want to know what the actual rules are.

Do not post opinions and pretend that they are the real rules.

I was answering a question that was asked of me.

You just saw a nit you could pick, and you decided to do it, even though you later stated that you thought the intent was that True Seeing would work.

On a rules forum, I am interested in both the actual rule and the intent. Sometimes, they disagree. But, it is not a "nit to pick".

It is discussing the issue and stating both is important.

But, just because I quoted the actual rule and you quoted "Caliban's interpretation of designer intent" isn't a reason for you to jump on my case.

I'm really not interested in argueing for the sake of argueing.

Fine. Although you seem to be doing a poor job of it considering that your last two most recent posts here have no rules discussion in them at all.

But if you are going to post antagonistic crap like:

"*shrug* Whatever. Ignore the intent of the rules if you want."

merely because my statement of the actual rule is different than "your opinion of a rule" and you know my statement is actually correct according to RAW, then you aren't doing too good of a job not "argueing for the sake of argueing".


And, just to make sure I post something about the rule here:

In this case, the rule is that True Seeing does not negate concealment unless it is an illusionary concealment or concealment caused by darkness (tmk, I do not know of any transmutation concealments).

 

[Caliban]

Yes, I responded when you incorrectly stated an opinion as opposed to the rule.

Some people here want to know what the actual rules are.

Do not post opinions and pretend that they are the real rules.

KD, he specifically asked for my opinion, and I gave it. I think that is the way it's supposed to work, so that's how it works in my games.

So stop being so antagonistic about it.

On a rules forum, I am interested in both the actual rule and the intent. Sometimes, they disagree. But, it is not a "nit to pick".

That's exactly what you did here.

But, just because I quoted the actual rule and you quoted "Caliban's interpretation of designer intent" isn't a reason for you to jump on my case.

You jumped on me first. My opinion was asked, I gave it. You decided to jump all over me for posting my opinion.

But if you are going to post antagonistic crap like:

"*shrug* Whatever. Ignore the intent of the rules if you want."

My opinion was specifically asked. You even agreed that that was probably the intent of the designers. Yet you seem to be saying that you should ignore that, and use only the most hardline interpretation of the rules. Do that if you want. I really don't care.

But don't give me any crap about "Caliban's opinioni of the designers intent", because you are being a hypocrite when you do.

 

[saucercrab]

Uh wow. Lotta' activity since I was here last.

Caliban & green slime,
KarinsDad pretty much stated my rules view on this.

If the intent of the designers was to make concealing amorpha the psionic equivalent of blur (& that would make sense to me, as the effects they provide are pretty much the same), they failed, because the ways in which they work (via their respective discipline/school & flavor text) are so very different.

Except for some telepathy powers, there really aren't that many psionic equivalents to illusion-based spells (i.e., powers that are illusory, as opposed to powers whose mechanical benefits are similar to illusions). As much as I value the intent of designers in game rules (& usually I do), it makes no sense to me in this case to judge concealing amorpha as if it were an illusion-based ability.

And Caliban, I don't remember asking for an opinion on how these things should interact. I was asking how they should interact (& since I asked in the Rules forum, that would be per RAW); your guess at the intent, at no additional charge, is fine (like a cherry on top).

atom crash,
I so agree with you about not using m/p transparency.

 

[atom crash]

And Caliban, I don't remember asking for an opinion on how these things should interact. I was asking how they should interact (& since I asked in the Rules forum, that would be per RAW); your guess at the intent, at no additional charge, is fine (like a cherry on top).

atom crash,
I so agree with you about not using m/p transparency.

To back up Caliban here, I specifically asked for his opinion on how they should interact when he mentioned the Shadow Conjuration/Shadow Evocation analogy.

I have to admit I'm in over my head when trying to sync up magical and psionic powers, mainly because I see so many differences and thus use the "psionics are different" rules.

 

[Piratecat]

Caliban and KarinsDad, please don't continue your personal disagreement.

Here's a good rule of thumb: every time you're tempted to make a post just to disagree or rebut one particular poster, and the post has little to do with the original point of the thread -- such as people arguing whether or not they're being antagonistic or nit-picky - don't make the post. Never post while angry. Avoiding such derailing "meta-posts" means that you don't bore lots of readers who don't want to read you arguing, you don't annoy your moderators, and you don't hijack the thread. All good things.

I've noticed a big jump in antagonism in this forum over the last couple of weeks. I'm not sure why. A faster server means more posts? People are sick of winter weather? In any case, it's something that we're not going to put up with. Folks, please report personal attacks when you see them, and we appreciate it when people do their best to keep threads on track.

 

[Piratecat]

On the thread's (hijacked) topic, I see concealing amorpha to be a lot like a translucent film that defracts light; easily pierced by weapons or magic, but solid enough to be difficult to see through (thus the miss chance.) Think of someone standing behind a screen of translucent tissue paper; that's a solid object, but by no stretch of the imagination is it cover.

 

[Caliban]

And Caliban, I don't remember asking for an opinion on how these things should interact. I was asking how they should interact (& since I asked in the Rules forum, that would be per RAW); your guess at the intent, at no additional charge, is fine (like a cherry on top).

You didn't. Atom Crash did.

 

[Goobermunch]

On the thread's (hijacked) topic, I see concealing amorpha to be a lot like a translucent film that defracts light; easily pierced by weapons or magic, but solid enough to be difficult to see through (thus the miss chance.) Think of someone standing behind a screen of translucent tissue paper; that's a solid object, but by no stretch of the imagination is it cover.

And I think that gets to the whole point. It's like darkness, in reverse. Concealment from darkness is penetrated by true seeing, because the fundamental nature of what's hidden hasn't really changed. Concealing Amphora creates a quasi-real membrane of ectoplasm (since it's a metacreative power) that defracts and reflects light. Think of it as a fine mist of ectoplasmic vapor. It's not foggy per se, but, it has a similar effect.

Of course, this isn't according to the RAW, but I think it's a not unreasonable interpretation of a poorly explained effect. Further, it has the virtue of allowing an harmonious interpretation of all similar effects. Such interpretations are generally superior because they make it easier to use the rules.

--G

 

[Caliban]

On the thread's (hijacked) topic, I see concealing amorpha to be a lot like a translucent film that defracts light; easily pierced by weapons or magic, but solid enough to be difficult to see through (thus the miss chance.) Think of someone standing behind a screen of translucent tissue paper; that's a solid object, but by no stretch of the imagination is it cover.

So you think True Seeing can penetrate, or you do see it as yet another area where 3.5 Psionics are superior to magic?

 

[saucercrab]

atom crash & Caliban,
Oh, sorry, I see that now. In my egocentric reality, I thought I was being referred to (since I had started the thread). My bad.

Piratecat,
Yeah, like Caliban said, which position are you taking?