Posts by: Eric Minton

Back to List

[#][F] Eric Minton - 5/25/2013
Erinys wrote:
They want to make sure that the new Exalt types (not to mention Lunars and Infernals and the classics) are fully integrated into the setting and history and map, so that none of them feel tacked on and inconsequential.
When did Lunars get removed from the category of "classics"? emotion-1.gif

[#][F] Eric Minton - 3/21/2013
Huh, Avoidance Kata's mechanics changed significantly between 1e and 2e.

[#][F] Eric Minton - 3/21/2013
Let's not forget the breeding process for fishmen!

[#][F] Eric Minton - 3/21/2013
No, it makes them a superliminal. bluh.

[#][F] Eric Minton - 3/19/2013
Segev wrote:
I try to look towards pre-modern pseudo-science and mysticism for "how things actually work" in Creation.
This is always a good initial approach!

[#][F] Eric Minton - 3/19/2013

[#][F] Eric Minton - 3/18/2013
Thoth wrote:
A Dawn caste that was raised in a Mercenary Camp and only knows fighting
Seriously? A kid who grows up in a mercenary camp will acquire all sorts of non-combat skills. Sent out as a runner? Athletics. Kitchen duty? Craft. Wheedling for seconds? Performance, Presence. Cadging extra food more directly? Investigation, Larceny. Constant ribbing from the grunts? Integrity, Socialize. Sentry duty? Awareness, Stealth. Helping the medic, the quartermaster, the grooms? Medicine, Bureaucracy, Ride.

[#][F] Eric Minton - 3/6/2013
Morangias wrote:
Pasty golems?
I assume you meant "pastry golems." A pasty golem would be something else entirely.

[#][F] Eric Minton - 3/3/2013
Blaque wrote:
I just realized I got names mixed-up.
To clarify for other posters, the character in question is Bal Keraz, the Realm's Minister of the Treasury.

[#][F] Eric Minton - 3/3/2013
Isator Levi wrote:
Stephanie Vega wrote:
- Will Sijan still be around?
Now this here, I think this could be worth being my hill to die on.
I don't think you have anything to worry about on that score.

[#][F] Eric Minton - 3/1/2013
Mizu005 wrote:
Holden wrote:
As far as the hardback went, to my knowledge it went from concept ("we're gonna do an Infernals hardback") to completion (final drafts in) in about 4 months.
What, really? They went from not really thinking about it at all to final draft in 4 months? I suppose that explains a few things.
It may explain even more to note that since the original author for the "helltech" (ugh) chapter dropped out halfway through the development cycle without turning in any material, I went from concept ("there's going to be an Infernals hardback?") to final draft in a month and a half. Good times.

[#][F] Eric Minton - 2/28/2013
Note that "not even binary inputs" is also a valid interpretation -- no gestures, no passwords, etc -- and is probably more fitting to the tight strictures of task binding.

[#][F] Eric Minton - 2/28/2013
Segev wrote:
How is "admit everybody who says this password" and "fill the cup when I say the password" different?

edit: By which I mean, "different in a way that the first is acceptable and the second isn't."
No, you're right, the cup-filling gesture is probably kosher.

As noted earlier, this is all about the bright line between task binding and regular binding. None of the sorcerers in my games have ever tried to game the system with edge cases, so I cannot speak from experience as to what needs to fall on which side of the line. But that line is what you need to keep in mind when determining what tasks are valid and what aren't.

[#][F] Eric Minton - 2/28/2013
Segev wrote:
Interesting. Rather than "wait X days" and "then attack Y," which is two tasks, could you say, "Attack Y on the last day of Calibration" and call that one task?
As per Savant and Sorcerer, no, that would just be a semantic reordering of the same pair of tasks. A delay would only be relevant if it's part and parcel of the core task (like "push forward the seconds hand of my demon-powered clock once per second").

Mind you, Savant and Sorcerer presents the issue in terms of demons being obsessed with their tasks and being unwilling to hang around waiting before fulfilling the task. But I think that parsing out the delay as a separate task is the only way for that ruling to make sense.

Segev wrote:
Does this also mean you can't put in triggers that serve as "input?"
That's correct. You must rely on the demon's own judgment as to what actions it takes in support of the task.

Segev wrote:
Two examples, the first of which I think is an "intended" use for taskbinding and the second which I think might potentially be an abuse:

1) "Defend my castle against all who I do not grant permission to enter."
2) "Bring me a cup of pure, clean water whenever I beckon you like this," including a demonstration of the beckoning hand signal.
#2 is unacceptable because it relies on outside input. Fill the cup every hour? Sure. Fill the cup when it thinks you might be thirsty? Sure. Fill the cup in response to your instructions? Nope.

Ultimately, this is to draw a bright line between task binding and regular binding, to avoid the inevitable task of "obey me as if you were bound in the normal way, but since it's a task you have to do it forever instead of for a year." It's kind of like how you can't wish for a genie to give you more wishes.

[#][F] Eric Minton - 2/28/2013
Segev wrote:
Interesting. Rather than "wait X days" and "then attack Y," which is two tasks, could you say, "Attack Y on the last day of Calibration" and call that one task?
As per Savant and Sorcerer, no, that would just be a semantic reordering of the same pair of tasks. A delay would only be relevant if it's part and parcel of the core task (like "push forward the seconds hand of my demon-powered clock once per second").

Mind you, Savant and Sorcerer presents the issue in terms of demons being obsessed with their tasks and being unwilling to hang around waiting before fulfilling the task. But I think that parsing out the delay as a separate task is the only way for that ruling to make sense.

Segev wrote:
Does this also mean you can't put in triggers that serve as "input?"
That's correct. You must rely on the demon's own judgment as to what actions it takes in support of the task.

Segev wrote:
Two examples, the first of which I think is an "intended" use for taskbinding and the second which I think might potentially be an abuse:

1) "Defend my castle against all who I do not grant permission to enter."
2) "Bring me a cup of pure, clean water whenever I beckon you like this," including a demonstration of the beckoning hand signal.
#2 is unacceptable because it relies on outside input. Fill the cup every hour? Sure. Fill the cup when it thinks you might be thirsty? Sure. Fill the cup in response to your instructions? Nope.

#1 is actually unacceptable as well, for the same reason. Grant admission to a set of people listed during the binding? Sure. Grant admission to people wearing specific livery or who repeat a certain password? Sure. Grant admission in response to your instructions? Nope.

Ultimately, this is to draw a bright line between task binding and regular binding, to avoid the inevitable task of "obey me as if you were bound in the normal way, but since it's a task you have to do it forever instead of for a year." It's kind of like how you can't wish for a genie to give you more wishes.