Aysle Sourcebook Q&A Thread

[GeniusCodeMonkey]

@Deanna, are there any Asyle books you haven't got feedback from yet?

For those who want contribute but don't want to go over old ground it would be good to know.

[TorgHacker]

Helped a player build a dwarf tonight and had a few questions (and one suggestion) regarding Runemaker:

1. Carving a "quick rune" as an action requires a roll against dwarven runes. What about carving a permanent rune into equipment -- does that still require a skill roll? The rules aren't explicit here, and I read it as "yes because assume the rules from earlier still apply" while he read it as "no because this is a different situation and it doesn't say it does."

No. The section on permanent runes specifies what you need to do: spend an hour doing it, and then it can be activated or deactivated without a test.

The thing with "quick runes" is that it takes an action and could fail...so you either precast...or you don't but need to take an action during combat to specify which one you're using. Note that nothing actually happens if you fail...the only loss is the loss of the action...and you don't get any benefit for Good or Outstanding successes.

2. Can an item have multiple permanent runes? Can I give my axe a Wind rune and Stone rune so it staggers and is favored?

Good question, but no. Runed items are effectively Enchanted items, not Arcane or Artifacts.

3. Permanent runes can be switched on and off. So can you carve more than three permanent runes, as long as you activate no more than three at once?

No.

4. I figure the answer to #3 is "no," but if so then does that mean that once you carve three permanent runes, you're done forever? You can't upgrade your gear, etc.?

If it was "yes" you could always destroy the item, and start again.

5. Also, if the answer to #3 is "no," there's no reason you'd ever need to bother switching off Stone or Wind runes, right? It's just for things like Fire, that would be inconvenient?

Correct.

And a suggestion, from my player:

6. It's a bit hard to swallow the idea that someone can only carry three pebbles, when it seems that the runemaker is just smoothing out stones that are otherwise normal. Upon careful reflection, we realized that this would make much more sense if it was stated (or even just rephrased to imply) that there was a bit of partial enchantment going on here. If it's not too late, just changing "can make new stones" to "can magically prepare new stones" would be helpful.

It's already gone to print.

[TorgHacker]

@Deanna, are there any Asyle books you haven't got feedback from yet?

For those who want contribute but don't want to go over old ground it would be good to know.

Everything that was previously previewed has had the feedback already applied and sent off to printing.

All comments have to go through the feedback link, because we don't want to have to go over and over something in case we've already done it. With the system we have, we sort by page number, so all corrections from that page are there, and once we're done that, we can go on.

There's still When Cosms Collide and...something else I can't recall to come though.

[pkitty]

Correct.

Thanks for all of the clarifications! Makes sense.

It's already gone to print.

Nice! Does that mean we backers get final-version PDFs soon?

[cloudshaper2k]

Note that "It's gone to print," means a product is now subject to the Law of the Inevitable Typo which states that no matter how many eyes review the text a mistake will make it's way through to print.

[TorgHacker]

Correct.

Thanks for all of the clarifications! Makes sense.

It's already gone to print.

Nice! Does that mean we backers get final-version PDFs soon?

Soon, yes. But I don't know how soon.

I don't know if they'll come with the When Cosms Collide preview or not.

[TorgHacker]

Note that "It's gone to print," means a product is now subject to the Law of the Inevitable Typo which states that no matter how many eyes review the text a mistake will make it's way through to print.

Yup.

[Count Thalim]

Note that "It's gone to print," means a product is now subject to the Law of the Inevitable Typo which states that no matter how many eyes review the text a mistake will make it's way through to print.

It's not a mistake it's proof of a first edition collectable.

[Spatula]

And a suggestion, from my player:

6. It's a bit hard to swallow the idea that someone can only carry three pebbles, when it seems that the runemaker is just smoothing out stones that are otherwise normal. Upon careful reflection, we realized that this would make much more sense if it was stated (or even just rephrased to imply) that there was a bit of partial enchantment going on here. If it's not too late, just changing "can make new stones" to "can magically prepare new stones" would be helpful.

The limit here is no different than the alchemist’s or bulletsmith’s, and is not unheard of in other systems - that the runemaker can only imbue magic into a certain number of objects at once, not that they can only carry X stones.

[pkitty]

And a suggestion, from my player:

6. It's a bit hard to swallow the idea that someone can only carry three pebbles, when it seems that the runemaker is just smoothing out stones that are otherwise normal. Upon careful reflection, we realized that this would make much more sense if it was stated (or even just rephrased to imply) that there was a bit of partial enchantment going on here. If it's not too late, just changing "can make new stones" to "can magically prepare new stones" would be helpful.

The limit here is no different than the alchemist’s or bulletsmith’s, and is not unheard of in other systems - that the runemaker can only imbue magic into a certain number of objects at once, not that they can only carry X stones.

But that was EXACTLY the issue.

The alchemist can only carry three potions because they're magic. But the runemaker can only carry three pebbles. Not special magical pebbles -- just normal stones. That is silly.

(And as I said, this makes sense if you assume those stones are semi-enchanted or otherwise magical, but since the text doesn't say that they are, it seems silly.)