*shrugs* styles will vary. I always liked how magic was odd and specefic in folk tales. So to me, "leap obstacle" will help you to just cleanly leap an obstacle. So putting a piece of grass down to "leap" over so you can use your magic in a long jump contest won't work, because the magic just helps you get over the obstacle, no farther.
I mean some of them are intentionally obscure just so
> that players can have fun determining the meanings. I mean,
if "Mile Javelin
> Throw" is taken literally, it will never get used. If it just means
that you
> can throw a javelin a looong way, a reasonable interpretation, even
if the
> orignal myth said it went a mile, then it'll get used a lot.
I agree (contrary to something I said earlier about this feat). Magic is supposed to do impossible things, but it shouldn't be that restricted. I'd let this feat be used as a ranged attack, affected only by the magic modifiers for distance (as opposed to the normal rules for throwing a javelin). Most other feats that allow 'impossible' times or distances I'd treat similarly I suppose.
Although if it came up in a real game session, there is a reasonable chance I'd botch the first application. Which is why we always had the house rule "no arguing the rules in session, but we'll have a bull session at the end to hash out disagreements."
>
> The words are for color, not for legalistic reduction of the
abilities down
> to an absurd level.
I really think this comes down to the issue that has been discussed here before. Are all those names just pompousness, and really the abilities are jump, run, etc, or should those names be used to make fancier sounding abilities better at some things and worse at others? I'm firmly in the latter camp. To me, leap, cat's leap, leap over obstacle, and leap over tree to me are completely different abilities (sorted from the most general to the most specific), that would come into play in quite different cases.
-Bryan
Powered by hypermail