|
2 years ago ::
Jan 19, 2011 - 2:03PM
#31
|
|
|
i may be silly in saying this but creatures dont really have "turns" out of combat right? so technically it would only come up in an encounter, where it wouldnt be so unreasonable for players to have to navigate around the aura.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 19, 2011 - 3:08PM
#32
|
|
|
That solution works for quite a few people.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 20, 2011 - 1:15AM
#33
|
|
|
The "you're a big chicken" ... is one of my favorite things in any RPG rulebook.
I found it the opposite: Like several other lines in the book it felt more like an immature attempt to sound cool. But then I didn't have much respect for people who resorted to the "double-dog dare" to get me to do something as a kid either.  As far as this thread goes, the description in the book has such characters leaving sooty footsteps and presents an illustration with vaguely flaming hair but no massive nimbus of fire. This is not reflective of the *15 foot wide* swath of scorched earth a character who could not turn off the aura would generate. From a role playing perspective, contrary to what some other people have proposed, I would find a character in a permanent fireball to be denied a lot of chances outside of the "Oh no, the world has cursed me" variety (which is frankly overdone and more the area of other RPGs): They have to maintain physical distance from all NPCs, probably would not be allowed inside any village do to fire hazards ("I'll just wait here while you guys talk to the chief guys" *twiddle*), and can never get a good night's sleep ("Drat, another bed destroyed").
The fiery aura is a power that has positive and negative effects, thus removing the negative effects can be viewed as taking the easy way out.
The plant can not just turn off its vulnerability to fire when it suits it, it has to live with it.
so, Boo Hoo
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 20, 2011 - 1:30AM
#34
|
|
|
yall keep comparing a vunerabilty to an aura and they arent the same thing. they have 2 different effects, please stop bringing it up. the aura has positive and negative, but your generally allowed some control over it. vunerabilities and resistances are always in effect.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 20, 2011 - 1:58AM
#35
|
|
|
yall keep comparing a vunerabilty to an aura and they arent the same thing. they have 2 different effects, please stop bringing it up. the aura has positive and negative, but your generally allowed some control over it. vunerabilities and resistances are always in effect.
The vulnerability of the plant is in title only as with the aura of the pyrokinetic.
If the "aura" of the pyrokinetic was written as "aura 1, 5 fire damage if a creature ends its turn with in the aura" there would be no debate, but it is as followed:
Fiery Aura (level 1): whenever a creature ends its turn adjacent to you, it takes five fire damage.
Compare that to the plants ablility which is:
Vulnerable to Fire(level 1): whenever you take fire damage, you take 5 extra fire damage.
Both are written the same way.
They both mimic the effect of an aura/vulnerability but both neither are an aura or a vulnerability.
That is why I bring up the plant.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 20, 2011 - 2:33AM
#36
|
|
|
valid point, the posts didnt seem to reflect that aspect of the arguement though. from my perspective the vagueness of the rule in in which the GW book is laid out, seems to lend the application from pg 105. i know they already made the FAQ post, but just want to say that.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 20, 2011 - 9:55AM
#37
|
|
|
I guess that's because I never considered the wording to be vague.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 20, 2011 - 10:36AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Apr 17, 2008
|
It doesn't seem vague to me either. I read the trait names as merely labels and not game mechanics -- anything before the colon is flavor text, anything after is mechanics -- and just like "Swarm Defense" doesn't give a rat swarm character full swarm powers, neither does "Fiery Aura" give an actual aura as-in-the-game-mechanic.
(That said, if someone in my game complained too much I'd let them switch it off, but that's a house rule, it's not RAW.)
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 20, 2011 - 11:33AM
#39
|
|
|
i guess i still have a hard time gettin out of the DnD rule system. it always feels like im using 1/2 the rules and it feel akward at times.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 20, 2011 - 1:48PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2011
|
i may be silly in saying this but creatures dont really have "turns" out of combat right? so technically it would only come up in an encounter, where it wouldnt be so unreasonable for players to have to navigate around the aura.
Personally, I find this to satisfy both RAW and RAI. The flavor for the Radioactive origin states that they have a glow that gets more intense when they start using their powers. Mechanically that has no bearing, but that is how I would treat the Fiery Aura. It's always on but less intense when your not using your powers. For instance you could say that people don't want to sit next to you, and that you might scorch things in your wake, but there is no actual damage being done. In combat this aura would intesify so much that it would change from being uncomfitable to being dangerous.
Allowing a Pyrokinetic to turn a trait off seems like a boost in their overall quality. This solution allows a pyro to ride a mount out of combat with no penalty without also giving them an additional bonus. It is my opinion that even with an aura you cannot turn off and the inability to ride mounts in combat that the pyrokinetic orgin is still better than others. I suppose if the only use to being able to turn off ones aura was to allow them to ride a mount in combat; then no one would mind. Sadly, that isn't the case.
I would suggest a different solution to this problem. Using either a replacement for Omega Tech or mundane gear with a mechanics check to insulate the mount. Thermal blankets, thick leather, and other types of insulation should be able to be found to help you build a type of barding to make your mount safe from the aura. Alternately, instead of drawing an Omega Tech card as a reward, give the player the option to get something that can be modified to protect the mount. How exactly this is done is up to the DM, but if you go the route of the mundane gear (which is what I would do) I have some suggestions. Firstly, I would not give the mount fire resistance, but rather immunity to Fiery Aura. This would not be at all unbalancing, and would still get the job done. Secondly, I would use the mechanics checks to determine how many rounds this barding will protect the mount. Frequent repairs would extend it's life, and will force an upkeep situation to which some of the players resources will have to be used.
At the end of the day, it's a dicision for the DM. This is the fairest thing I could come up with. I hope this will be helpful to someone.
|
|
|
