Aescleal (Ashley Munday) wrote:
>
>
> > However, "therefore cannot be subjected to a credibility test" is
> clearly
> > wrong.
>
> To me the "augment only" label is a handy tool for setting the
> expectations
> of me playing a character or narrating. It saves me the balls ache of
> trying
> to work out whether a use of an ability is really extraordinary and
> avoiding
> disappointing my players too much.
>
Oh, I certainly use it that way. But for me it just constantly turns
into "why do I have to find another ability when this one makes the most
sense"?
Plus, it is a complete add-on to the rules, unless there is something
about augment-only abilities in the core book which I missed.
>
> But the credibility test isn't just "can I use a fire rune to burn the
> house
> down?" It's usually more specific than that, it's more along the lines of:
>
> - "Can I as a lay member of the Sun pantheon use my Fire affinity to burn
> the house down?" (No, not because lay member's can't use their abilities
> actively - I know this wasn't your example, I haven't missed the point).
>
And see, here is where I'd disagree with you. "HOW are you using your
fire affinity to burn the house down" is the question.
If I am lighting sparks on the thatch with my torch and encouraging the
fire with my fire affinity, that's damn well using the fire affinity to
burn the house down, in my view. ^_^
(I mean, what am I using to burn the house down? My "heortling" ability?
What governs my ability to stick a torch into thatch?)
>
>
> Even with the rule "cannot be used to create extraordinary effects"
> I'd have
> said something called "fire affinity" would have been pretty good at
> burning
> combustible things - like the thatch on houses. After all burning
> isn't that
> extraordinary. Maintaining a ball of fire without an obvious means of
> combustion is extraordinary to me, burning a house with a thatched roof
> isn't, sometimes they just go up on their own.
>
Agreed.
> Had the rules just said "you
> can't do anything extraordinary or overtly magical with an affinity as
> a lay
> member" and left it at that I might have been posting to the list
> wondering
> what the hell it meant and presenting oodles of corner cases where it
> wasn't
> clear cut.
>
Whereas I think it's much clearer and consistent for that to be the
rule, rather than "augment only".
> Anyway, thanks for bringing this up, it's made me think of whether
> perhaps
> lay members could use their affinities as active abilities provided
> nothing
> that couldn't be explained with a mundane "real world" physics
> explanation
> occurs. I'm going to have to think a bit more about this!
>
For me that is far more sensible. The other way smacks of manipulating
the rule system for no real benefit.
>
> One last quick point:
>
> - "Can I as an initiate of Zorak Zoran use my Darkness affinity to
> burn the
> house down?" (Yes as I've sacrificed for one use of the "tear fire
> from the
> defeated sun" feat. Or whatever the feat or spirit is that represent's
> Zorak
> Zoran's bashing Yelmalio on the Hill of Gold.)
>
HAH!!
Well played. ^_^
Of course, we have no proof that Trolls use rune affinities in the new
system. (I'm currently working out a general magic system theory since
we're not going to find out what the one Moon Design is using for years,
probably.) I'm leaning towards everyone who was involved in "I Fought,
We Won" to have rune affinities as a lay-person/initiate into adulthood,
but am not sure of that yet.
LC