Wyvern76's page

6 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cordell Kintner wrote:
It doesn't matter what was offensive, just acknowledging that something you said may have offended them is way better than what you're doing.

That *was* what I was trying to do when I wrote this:

Quote:
I'm not sure how I rubbed you the wrong way so badly. I wasn't trying to *argue* with you. ... I genuinely, sincerely, am not trying to pick a fight or offend anyone.

But clearly it didn't work. I guess that's because I didn't explicitly admit fault? It's not that I'm too proud to do that, I just like to know what fault I'm admitting to. Because in my mind, saying you're sorry when you don't know what you're supposed to be sorry *for* is just empty words.

Nevertheless, if you think it'll help: Captain Zoom, I'm sorry if I offended you. That was not my intention at all. (I just wish I knew exactly *what* I said that offended you, so that I might try to avoid the same mistake in the future. But at this point, I'd just as soon put it behind me.)

I knew it was unlikely that I'd get a direct response from one of the game designers, but I was hoping at least that they might have already answered my questions somewhere else, and that someone could point me to it. Failing that, *is* there some other channel I'm not aware for submitting rules questions directly to Paizo?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cordell Kintner wrote:

They said they had no opinion on RAW, and explained how they would GM it. You then replied in a defensive and disagreeing fashion and stated what you thought, which coincidentally is in line with how they said would GM it.

You last post is even worse. You didn't even apologize, you are just being defensive for no reason. If you actually sincerely apologized rather than just trying to explain away your post by being "new here", it would go over much better.

I'd gladly apologize if I could understand how I've wronged him, but if I apologized *without* understanding that, it *wouldn't* be sincere. I've reread my reply over and over again and I still can't figure out exactly what I said that offended him so. I could dissect it line by line and talk about each part that *might* have been perceived as argumentative, and explain why it wasn't intended to be. But that would just make me seem even *more* defensive, and wouldn't get me any closer to an answer to my original questions. So I'll just sum it up like this:

I posted a couple of questions. He posted a reply that was well-reasoned but not the "official" response I was hoping for, and didn't really answer my main question (which was whether the rules actually *state* which effects are permanent). So I said as much, as politely as I knew how, and got my head bit off. If there's a better way of saying "that's not really what I was asking," please tell me what it is, so that I can avoid ruffling feathers in the future.

Quote:
Also, why are you so frustrated over a Cantrip that's not supposed to have any mechanical effects? It's literally just a spell for flavor, both figuratively and literally. 90% of the time I see players use it to have their pompous PCs clean sewer water or mud off their clothes.

The only thing I'm frustrated about (besides not being able to figure out what I said wrong) is that the spell description says that it's told you something which it hasn't told you, as far as I can see. That doesn't mean I'm losing sleep over it. I know it's a trivial spell, and that I'm free to interpret it however I wish. But I'd still like to know what the designers were thinking when they wrote that, and I assumed that this would be the best place to find out.


Captain Zoom wrote:

I am not even going to bother arguing with you.

I shall simply make a note to never try to help you again.

Have a nice day.

Um, wow. I'm not sure how I rubbed you the wrong way so badly. I wasn't trying to *argue* with you. Yes, I'm a bit frustrated, but that frustration isn't directed at you, it's directed at whoever wrote the spell description. The thing is, I actually agree with you. I think that everything you said *makes sense*. But I can form my own opinions on what makes sense without needing to ask.

The problem is that for some effects, one person's "common sense" ruling might differ from another's. (If you change the color of an item with the spell, is that change permanent? If you flavor food, does the flavor vanish when the spell ends?) Which is why I was hoping for something a bit more official. Only there doesn't seem to be an official channel for asking rules questions, so I assumed that posting here was the next best thing.

So please, cut me some slack. I'm new here, and I know I don't always succeed at tact. But I genuinely, sincerely, am not trying to pick a fight or offend anyone. I'm just looking for some insight into the designers' intent.


Captain Zoom wrote:
On switching targets, RAW I don't have an opinion. As a GM I'd be fine with most minor effects, like switching from cooking one piece of meat to another, or lifting up several pieces of a broken vase (as opposed to ruling that you need to target each piece separately).

Well, the spell description *does* say that each time you Sustain it, you can choose any of the listed options (Cook, Lift, Make, or Tidy). Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you're limited to a single target -- how often would you need to levitate the food you cooked using the spell? But I wondered if there was an official ruling on the matter.

Quote:
As for permanent effects... if you move a glass across the table, it doesn't pop back where it started when the spell ends, if you cook a piece of meat, it stays cooked, and if you clean gunk off your coat it remains clean once the spell ends (subject to you getting new gunk on your coat!). On the other hand, if you create a temporary object, well, it's temporary and disappears when the spell ends.

All of that seems like common sense, but that's not really what I was asking. As I said, the spell description says that all effects of the spell are temporary "beyond what is noted above," but as far as I can see, it *isn't* actually "noted above" which effects are permanent. What's the point of saying it's "noted above" when it isn't?

(As a side note, moving a glass across a table isn't actually one of the listed spell effects. You could *levitate* a glass, but presumably it doesn't continue levitating after the spell ends.

Also, I find the use of the word "cook" rather dubious when all the spell actually does is "cool, warm, or flavor" food. If it generated enough heat to actually *cook* a piece of meat, it would be capable of doing fire damage.)


I have two questions regarding the Prestidigitation cantrip:

- Can you switch targets when you Sustain it?

- The spell description says that the effects aren't permanent "beyond what is noted above". Where exactly is this "noted"?


hanexs wrote:
To sum up, when I am reading a description to my players I would like the description to be in english, preferably english that a child at a Grade 8 level would understand.
hanexs wrote:

There are 2 real counter arguements:

1. A signifigant portion of the population would understand marzipan, tureen, proboscis and me and my vocabulary are to blame. This I just do not see as reality.

I realize this is a reeeeally old thread, but I just stumbled across it for the first time today, and I feel compelled to mention this since nobody else has:

"Beautiful Soup, so rich and green,
Waiting in a hot tureen!"

That's a quote from the Mock Turtle's song in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland — which Amazon.com identifies as being suitable reading for Grades 5 and up.

Here's a passage from Alice Through the Looking-Class:

"‘...why, what are those creatures, making honey down there? They can’t be bees — nobody ever saw bees a mile off, you know —’ and for some time she stood silent, watching one of them that was bustling about among the flowers, poking its proboscis into them, ‘just as if it was a regular bee,’ thought Alice."