>So yes, I would allow an "augment only" magical ability to be used as
>a defense. On the one hand, I don't think defense is really
>an 'active' use, and on the other I think it makes magic more
>interesting. Both hands suggest allowing them to be used!
I think that's an interesting interpretation, and probably effective. The rules lawyer in me wants to say that I think that the "active" rule has precedence here in that you can certainly defend with an "augment only" ability, but only as an augment. Otherwise you're arguing that the "best relevant ability" clause over-rules the "augment only" rule.
I think this one's worth asking for clarification on. Mark? Somone in the know? What's the intent here?
In any case, if I were to go with your interpretation, I'd just change the rule from "augment only" to "augment most of the time". Basically, saying to think of the ability as an augment first, but allowing in as a full ability in certain specific situations (like defense, but including others as well). The advantage to either method is that it makes these things worth spending HP to increase again. They'll still be increased less often, but the option to do so will seem more sane when you want to.
Mike
Powered by hypermail