Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hadavar" data-source="post: 7108385" data-attributes="member: 6880919">1. [WOIN] Advancement rules are inconsistent. Of the following three statements, only two can be true at once (taken directly from OLD, but also appearing in NEW):A) The XP cost of a career grade is equal to 10 times the next gradeB) The core advancement assumption is that you need to defeat or overcome 10 encounters of Medium difficulty to advance to the next gradeC)&nbsp; For a Medium difficulty encounter, characters gain XP equal to their own gradeA and B imply C is wrong; for a Medium difficulty encounter, characters must gain XP equal to the next grade.B and C imply A is wrong; the XP cost of a career grade is equal to 10 times the current grade.A and C imply B is wrong; it's true as current grade approaches infinity, but at lower grades the total number of encounters increases, all the way down to requiring 20 encounters to go from grade 1 to 2.Keeping the charts intact and keeping progression consistent with the number of challenges met seem like more important goals than keeping encounter XP at an arbitrary level, so I assume that C is wrong and that an encounter yields XP equal to the next grade. Is this correct?2) [OLD] I know Morrus has already replied to this in a different thread, but it's definitely errata-worthy: &quot;By increasing the casting time, you can exceed your normal maximum MP limit—you can reduce the effective MP cost of the spell for the purposes of determining the maximum MP you can use on one spell, but you still need to actually spend the original MP cost.&quot; However, the MP costs for quite a few sample spells beg to differ. See &quot;Airship&quot; (15 MP: 18 MP telekinesis, –3 MP casting time), &quot;Aspect of Phoenix&quot; (19 MP: 3 MP duration with contingency, –2 MP casting time, 18 MP resurrection), &quot;Counterscry&quot;, and so on. NB: The official ruling is that the initial rule text stands, ergo the costs must be wrong, but this means that extended casting is only useful if you can't cast the spell any other way. Allowing the reverse ruling means that any mage can gain a benefit from extended casting by preserving his MP, which I personally find more appealing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hadavar, post: 7108385, member: 6880919"] 1. [WOIN] Advancement rules are inconsistent. Of the following three statements, only two can be true at once (taken directly from OLD, but also appearing in NEW): A) The XP cost of a career grade is equal to 10 times the next grade B) The core advancement assumption is that you need to defeat or overcome 10 encounters of Medium difficulty to advance to the next grade C) For a Medium difficulty encounter, characters gain XP equal to their own grade A and B imply C is wrong; for a Medium difficulty encounter, characters must gain XP equal to the [I]next [/I]grade. B and C imply A is wrong; the XP cost of a career grade is equal to 10 times the [I]current[/I] grade. A and C imply B is wrong; it's true as current grade approaches infinity, but at lower grades the total number of encounters increases, all the way down to requiring [I]20 encounters[/I] to go from grade 1 to 2. Keeping the charts intact and keeping progression consistent with the number of challenges met seem like more important goals than keeping encounter XP at an arbitrary level, so I assume that C is wrong and that an encounter yields XP equal to the next grade. Is this correct? 2) [OLD] I know Morrus has already replied to this in a different thread, but it's definitely errata-worthy: "By increasing the casting time, you can exceed your normal maximum MP limit—you can reduce the effective MP cost of the spell for the purposes of determining the maximum MP you can use on one spell, but you still need to actually spend the original MP cost." However, the MP costs for quite a few sample spells beg to differ. See "Airship" (15 MP: 18 MP telekinesis, –3 MP casting time), "Aspect of Phoenix" (19 MP: 3 MP duration with contingency, –2 MP casting time, 18 MP resurrection), "Counterscry", and so on. NB: The official ruling is that the initial rule text stands, ergo the costs must be wrong, but this means that extended casting is only useful if you can't cast the spell any other way. Allowing the reverse ruling means that any mage can gain a benefit from extended casting by preserving his MP, which I personally find more appealing. [/QUOTE]

Verification