George Spiceland

I'm thinking if someone has the ability to make something bigger, there are better uses than shrubbery.

@Novian that's about how I feel about nWoD. I ~know~ the rules, but yet I'm constantly questioning my knowledge of them and how they apply to situations.

It appears to be a facts-based question but I don't know the system at all. Seems like it should have a positive or negative answer.

Besides, it takes a full flight before the cost of the wifi provided via datalink to the plane in flight even begins to be covered by the price.

@ObliviousSage I disagree, when we have "Free" Wifi at 30k feet I will be living in a cardboard box.

@BrianBallsun-Stanton I'll do that once I get up tomorrow. I'm off work and it's time to sleep, but that's definitely a thing I shall do. :)

@BESW Good, if it's easy to write for then it may be worth a lot more than the $2.50.

@BrianBallsun-Stanton: WHAT? For real? Thank you for that.

Ah, I see.

Or is it older than I'm seeing?

write, for.

right...for...sigh.

It must be fairly easy to right for, doesn't seem that old but there's a profusion of stuff that uses it?

$2.50 I can do.

Decimals, my everpresent bane.

Oh. OH.

Yes, and there's the rub. Despite my high-paying IT job I don't have $25 to rub together. :-\

I really should probably pick up some form of book.

I haven't seen any of FATE. Which is a shame. :-\

Well, that too.

Yeah...but the bad news is I need to learn them!

Generally speaking as much as I love ascension, I agree with this sentiment as far as rules go. Part of why we just made stuff up when we played that...and why I don't know the rules for Awakening very well.

The copyeditors were worse. There's so many typographical or typesetting errors. So. Many.

I would love you more if you answered my Mage questions.

No, we just had a fairly decent discussion of authorial intent and it's applications.

Kidding. Seriously.

RAWR, YOU START ALL THE FIGHTS. WHY DO I LOVE YOU?!?

Indeed. No fights.

And there's no sarcasm there, as a DM It would've frustrated me.

I'm apparently glad that nobody in my typical gaming group liked how the Druid felt and so none of them ever really bothered to try it out.

@KRyan I guess? Personally when I read it I assumed there was something wrong with it. Yes, it works, but it works exactly as the question originally stated, providing a druid with the ability to basically be a single-person party by around level 6.

I'm at work, and will be tomorrow as well. :|

In my case, I use "broken" to mean something that's "broken" not something that's overpowered necessarily but something that doesn't work correctly. Not something that doesn't work as intended assuming that it works correctly however. So, far's it goes, this falls into my definition of "broken by typographical omission."

I don't really think I ever argued that...what I am willing to argue is that authorial intent doesn't apply in the case of the author stating that there was a typographical error. A typographical error that changes the power of an ability could be considered "broken" however because an unwitting and unwilling omission increased the ability without due balance and without proper consideration. This depends of course on how you apply "broken"

I did, and I agree they can be removed. I'll do so for mine currently.

@KRyan I'm in agreement with you at that, but he's since edited the answer to at least be at least a little more complete. My disagreement stems from the idea of "authorial intent" in this case, that's all.

He saw me come in.