The Ring of Stoneshifting (Extinction Curse - Life's Long Shadows) is tagged as "light" for the bulk... That is the first ring I see that has light bulk.
This sounds like a typo, right?!
Also: Where is the best place to report such (suspected) errors in adventure path books/modules so that Paizo can be made aware of these?
Thanks!
Maybe since it's earth themed it's just a particularly heavy ring.
Pretty sure the "bulbous geode" part explains the Light bulk since that implies something like half a fist-sized rock fastened to your finger rather than anything in the normal range of size for a ring.
I though 'bulbous' was a reference to the form, and not the size.
A bulk of L is also what a Torch, a Waterskin and Light Mace have... and now this Ring? LOL
Then, then forgot to add that you can't wear a Gauntlet if you have this ring!!
Something is weird here... :D
TOS
Pretty sure the "bulbous geode" part explains the Light bulk since that implies something like half a fist-sized rock fastened to your finger rather than anything in the normal range of size for a ring.
Geodes range in size from under one centimeter to several meters in length. Bulbous just means round or bulb shaped. So, I'm not seeing how that explains anything.
Bulbous doesn't "just" mean round or bulb-shaped, though, it also means "fat" and "bulging."
Sure, but if we take it as a supersized geode, we're talking 30' wide... So there isn't any sense of proportion to give it any value as a measurement or reason. "fat"/"bulging" compared to what? 'Normal' geodes?
That fact, combined with a Light bulk, suggests the usage of the word could have been in the way that someone might write the word "rotund" when they aren't meaning round then either.
*shrug* It could as easily suggest it's a clerical error. It's all a pure guess. If it said 'large', 'oversized', 'heavy', ect I'd be easier to agree: when it uses a word that can be used to JUST describe shape instead of one that only refers to size/weight, I just can't agree with you that it's obviously the case over what could be an error.
Which we have no reason to do, so why would we?
Maybe because you where going with "fat, bulging": ie larger than normal. If you didn't mean that, then I don't understand your point.
We have the context that it is a ring, thus it is fat/bulging compared to other rings' stones.
You ignore the content of the item in debate: geodes are often found in odd and weird shape so mentioning it is round or bulb shaped is perfectly IN context for them. Some places call them potato stones because of the oblong shape the geodes tend to have there.
At least you've arrived at the "it could be either" conclusion, rather than thinking "this is definitely an error" - far too many people don't make it that far.
Well my point from the beginning was that there wasn't a clear reason for it from the wording.
And that's not me ignoring the context of the item in debate, it literally is the context of the item in debate - that item being not "a geode" but "a ring with a geode mounted on it"
It is is ignoring the context when you ignore an alternate way to read bulbous as it relates to "a geode" on a ring: instead you've assumed that it's a "a ring that is bulky" and the fact it's a geode is meaningless in the discussion. It'd be different if the item in question that's attached to the ring couldn't reasonably be described as "round or bulb-shaped".
I think it is more likely that the bulk of light is deliberate and that it is because it is bigger and heavier than other rings, rather than "someones finger slipped and hit the l, i, g, h and t keys in order when they went to hit the - key".
I suspect it's an error made by a developer who isn't keeping up with the current 2e paradigms. I've been seeing it a lot with the new splat material.
...no, graystone... that's not how context works.
context noun
con·text | \ ˈkän-ˌtekst \Definition of context
1: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning.
What you are doing is drawing a conclusion by ignoring the words that surround the subject: Ring and geode are equally important factors on the word in question.
And I haven't "assumed" that it's "a ring that is bulky" it <expletive deleted> says that outright by having a higher bulk than is typical of a ring.
That's circular reasoning: it's bulky so the description must be about bulk. Someone questioned 'is the bulk rating correct'. So you're ASSUMING one way of reading it instead of reading it, drawing a conclusion from a neutral perspective and seeing if it matches. You're reading it assuming it's correct instead of letting the sentence speak for itself. One singular reading isn't self-evident as you're claiming when you ignore key factors.
My point is you can't look at the description and conclude 100% the bulk is correct as there is a perfectly reasonable reading that doesn't involve oversized ring elements. Ise can read it as it's a big 'rock' but you can also read it as a spherical one too.
Which isn't in disagreement with anything I've said. I never said the bulk is definitely correct, I said it could be and I explained how.
If this is true, then I don't see a disagreement: I got the impression that you were saying that. if you aren't and just offering an opinion on what it means, then sorry I got the wrong impression.
For myself, I was just saying it was a perfectly valid reading that it was purely about shape [and that would be how I read it]. I can see the size reading too and wasn't trying to say it couldn't be read that way just that it wasn't a forgone conclusion. It just seems like a miscommunication at some place in this thread from your last post.
Yeah? Well I disagree with your disagreeing on the disagreements!
;P
Yeah? Well I disagree with your disagreeing on the disagreements!
;P
You would... ;P
|
I dunno guys, I think I would put these real-life geode rings at about Light Bulk given how disruptive it would be to actually hold anything and maintaining finger dexterity.
I dunno guys, I think I would put these rings at about Light Bulk given how disruptive it would be to actually hold anything and maintaining finger dexterity.
Looking at those nails and I can imagine "how disruptive it would be to actually hold anything and maintaining finger dexterity"... :P
|
|
I dunno guys, I think I would put these rings at about Light Bulk given how disruptive it would be to actually hold anything and maintaining finger dexterity.Looking at those nails and I can imagine "how disruptive it would be to actually hold anything and maintaining finger dexterity"... :P
True facts. The model should at least have etched them with Runes if they wanted to really pull off this look.