Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jmucchiello" data-source="post: 1129482" data-attributes="member: 813">I'm going to attack the example given (an argument no-no, I realize) but I have no other way to express this. I also don't want to appear to be Monte bashing, it's just that all the examples so far have involved AU. Even so, I don't think Monte should have closed any rule content and I disagree strongly with Clark's reasoning as to why he could close rule content.So which is it? Is the new rule a true innovation or is it based on old Cthulhu rules? How is a rule based on a new game and innovation? I find the idea of a book doing damage fairly old-school. I've done this in my games before. My source of inspiration was the explosive runes spell but with a suggestion or insanity effect, and no explosion. (My players avoid touching, let alone opening, mysterious tomes in my games.)Second, in the specific case of Monte's death's door rules: I've been using the exact same point of death (negative Con) in my home games for the last 15 years. So you'll understand if I don't find it innovative. I know I didn't come up with the idea. I probably read it somewhere.Spell templates generally are just metamagic feats that don't affect the casting level of the spell. You could rewrite Eschew Materials to say &quot;Benefit: you may apply the Immaterial template to spells&quot; and in the Immaterial spell template state: &quot;Spells cast with this template do not require material components unless those components are worth more than 1 gp.&quot; I don't find them innovative, more of a twist on existing feat design.In any case, I have a feeling I will not persuade Clark that his interpretation is off and I know he won't sway me so I don't plan to respond to this except if clarification is needed. Since Clark says this has been argued elsewhere (this is my first encounter with it) I won't dig up a deadhorse to add my whip marks to it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jmucchiello, post: 1129482, member: 813"] I'm going to attack the example given (an argument no-no, I realize) but I have no other way to express this. I also don't want to appear to be Monte bashing, it's just that all the examples so far have involved AU. Even so, I don't think Monte should have closed any rule content and I disagree strongly with Clark's reasoning as to why he could close rule content. So which is it? Is the new rule a true innovation or is it based on old Cthulhu rules? How is a rule based on a new game and innovation? I find the idea of a book doing damage fairly old-school. I've done this in my games before. My source of inspiration was the explosive runes spell but with a suggestion or insanity effect, and no explosion. (My players avoid touching, let alone opening, mysterious tomes in my games.) Second, in the specific case of Monte's death's door rules: I've been using the exact same point of death (negative Con) in my home games for the last 15 years. So you'll understand if I don't find it innovative. I know I didn't come up with the idea. I probably read it somewhere. Spell templates generally are just metamagic feats that don't affect the casting level of the spell. You could rewrite Eschew Materials to say "Benefit: you may apply the Immaterial template to spells" and in the Immaterial spell template state: "Spells cast with this template do not require material components unless those components are worth more than 1 gp." I don't find them innovative, more of a twist on existing feat design. In any case, I have a feeling I will not persuade Clark that his interpretation is off and I know he won't sway me so I don't plan to respond to this except if clarification is needed. Since Clark says this has been argued elsewhere (this is my first encounter with it) I won't dig up a deadhorse to add my whip marks to it. [/QUOTE]

Verification