This may have come up in the various discussions of druids and paladins about, but I'm too lazy to look through all of them to see if it has.
In both the druid Nature Bond and paladin Divine Bond abilities, the statement is made that they "can take one of two forms" (pg 15 and 20). I have only ever seen this where a choice must be made, but there is no other indication that a coice must be made in the entries and no reason that I see that there should be such a requirement. If a coice must be made between the two parts of these abilities (the druid domain and companion, the paladin holy weapon and mount), it should be stated more clearly (and I would contest that, it seems to me that they are improved by these abilities together), and if not the phrase should be changed to read "takes two forms".
I know this seem slike whining over semantics, but part of this project, as I understand it, is being less ambiguous about the rules, and I see this as slightly ambiguous.
|
This may have come up in the various discussions of druids and paladins about, but I'm too lazy to look through all of them to see if it has.
In both the druid Nature Bond and paladin Divine Bond abilities, the statement is made that they "can take one of two forms" (pg 15 and 20). I have only ever seen this where a choice must be made, but there is no other indication that a coice must be made in the entries and no reason that I see that there should be such a requirement. If a coice must be made between the two parts of these abilities (the druid domain and companion, the paladin holy weapon and mount), it should be stated more clearly (and I would contest that, it seems to me that they are improved by these abilities together), and if not the phrase should be changed to read "takes two forms".
I know this seem slike whining over semantics, but part of this project, as I understand it, is being less ambiguous about the rules, and I see this as slightly ambiguous.
I'm not sure where it is ambiguous. "can take one of two forms" as the druid can have an animal companion -or- she can have a a cleric domain. The only way I could see it being ambiguous is if you ignored the phrase "One of two".
|
|
It is especially ambigious on such subjects as the Wizard, whose arcane bond can take one of two forms and in each form is as much of a weakness as it is an advantage. Why do they have to take one? Why can't they take neither?
Now that is a different issue. First it is again not ambiguous "At first level, wizards forge a powerful bond with an object or creature." It's pretty straight forward. In your case it isn't desirable but it is quite clear.
Personally I don't see the whole "Bonded item is a weakness" thing but that's another topic. You could leave the familiar at home.
It used the prase but never mentioned explicitly that a choice would have to be made. That's where my issue comes from. It never said "the druid/paladin must chose between X and Y" only that those particular abilities had two forms. That's where the ambiguity comes up.
|
|
It used the prase but never mentioned explicitly that a choice would have to be made. That's where my issue comes from. It never said "the druid/paladin must chose between X and Y" only that those particular abilities had two forms. That's where the ambiguity comes up.
First, I apologize if I sounded terse. I tend to be a little to pointed in my wording sometimes.
Hmm, I still don't see that it's ambiguous. "At first level, a druid forms a bond with nature. This bond can take one of two forms."
The way I read it the first sentence tells you that you have a bond. Second sentence says that bond is one of two forms. It does not explicitly say the player must choose between those two forms, it is assumed.
Logically you have a few posibilities in the game:
1) Player Choice
2) DM Choice
3) Random Chance
Since it's character creation it follows that it would be player choice like all other character creation choices.
What I don't see is that you can say "I want both". The phrase "One of two" is pretty clear but it is also reinforced by the first sentence which uses the singular "forms a bond".
-- Dennis
It doesn't spell out if (a) you pick the "form of the bond" at 1st level (5th for paladins) and are stuck with it thereafter, for the rest of your life; or (b) you pick one form, and then keep it until, say, the familiar/horse/animal companion is killed or you throw away/break the object, in which case you can pick the other; or (c) you can switch back and forth at will, as long as you send away your animal/horse/familar and find an new object or prepare new spells. I think that's the ambiguity that Dirk is referring to. Certainly that's the first question that popped into my head.
What is the deal with people quoting entire posts to respond to them in the following post?
|
|
It doesn't spell out if (a) you pick the "form of the bond" at 1st level (5th for paladins) and are stuck with it thereafter, for the rest of your life; or (b) you pick one form, and then keep it until, say, the familiar/horse/animal companion is killed or you throw away/break the object, in which case you can pick the other; or (c) you can switch back and forth at will, as long as you send away your animal/horse/familar and find an new object or prepare new spells. I think that's the ambiguity that Dirk is referring to. Certainly that's the first question that popped into my head.
Ahh, now that makes a little more sense to me.
|
|
Now I would have thought my previous post was immediately after the post it responded to. When I hit reply it was. Had I not quoted it it would have looked like I was replying to your post. How do you know that a reply is to the previous post of one 2 up? Which message am I replying to now. Is it that hard to ignore 1" of greyed text?
Was I being that nitpicky about the OP post and this is payback?
-- Dennis
How do we know? Context. You can also quote exactly what you are replying to, or the minimum amount necessary to get the job done.
That's why threads are designed the way they are, it's not email. Like your original reply to the OP only needed to quote the last sentence, not the entire post.
I didn't intend to derail this thread, I apologize.
