Kaihlik said:

No one is arguing against that I think. The rules only require the priest to meet the requirements at the time when he is invoking the blessing.

Dvang is just arguing that from a logical/fluffwise standpoint it doesn't make sense.

I can see what you're saying dvang, but if the priest only has to meet the requirements at the time of invoking the blessing and when it comes into effect it doesn't make sense to me.

Either he has to meet the requirements durring the WHOLE time the blessing is being prepared or just when invoking. It would be silly if he could invoke it, meet the requirements, then run off to do something else and then have to go back to meet the requirements when it comes into effect. That doesn't make sense to me.

But it's a matter of house ruling really, because nothing in the rules can accurately describe if your way or my way is more correct. We can only conlcude that the rules only say that the requirements must be met when invoking. I can understand your point of view, but I just don't see it as an issue that needs any rules.

It would be silly for the priest to transfer a card and then use it so the other player recieves it with recharge tokens on. BUT if he does so, I can't see how it can be a problem. The action card will still recharge at the same rate and there is no exploitation or anything going on.

Without taking sides in the argument here, i just found that p.121 "Resolving a blessing" of the PG states that the requirements, once enough Favors are generated for a Blessing to be resolved, they don't need to be checked again : "There is no need to check requirements a second time, nor to roll a second check when the blessings is resolved."

It also clarifies that only when the Blessing resolves (invoked AND enough Favors) that you put Recharge Tokens onto it (& not just when successfully invoked), which i was already doing, but i remember a discusion either here or at the table.

Cwell2101 said:

Ahh nice. The PG is great. While I never found the tome of blessings explanation to cause any issues in our group, but the clarification is noce none the less.

<sigh> More and more the PG makes these rulings and clarifications that are different than the Core Set. I really hope Jay & Dan get these put into an errata. I guess it also means that I really need to buy the PG sooner rather than later, or else I'll be playing by the wrong rules, since they are so different from the Core Set versions. I'm not saying the PG version is worse, in fact it seems like it is much better written, it's just a dismaying fact that the changes they made to the rules seem to be much more extensive than they suggested before it was released.

I guess I'll have to allow it, since I try to stick with the rules pretty closely, but I still say it makes absolutely no sense to me.

Even with that writing, i won't allow everything to be unchecked depending on the Blessing. A bolt type attack described as "coming out of your eyes" will have to check the distance when it goes off, but some sort of Divine strike may not, like a bolt striking from the skies onto the target, the God's wrath is unescapable! If you see what i mean.

dvang said:

The only thing I have found to be clarified in a way that can be rule changing is the whole soak and damage reduction issue that we have already debated. They have cleared that up so it's 100% certain that toughness isn't ignored as a part of ignore soak effects.

But it's also clear now that it was their intention in the core rules as well although there were some bad contradictions.

I would also say the fact that Party talents remove a recharge token at the end of a turn is the biggest "change."

(Not to quibble, but to just get this info spread around more)

Gallows said:

They also added that party talents recharge at the end of every round. There might be more things changed, but not having the PG yet I cannot say. See, and I would say that the Toughness/Damage Reduction wasn't a game-changing change because that always seemed to me to be the intention of the core rules too, while I think this "clarification" is game-changing. There is also a change to the stats for the spear. So, from a perspective, now there are 3 game-changing rules changes/clarifications in the PG, plus a significant alteration of a common piece of equipment. How many more are there that haven't been mentioned yet? That's why it feels like I *have* to buy the PG. I've got a player who has purchased it, and is reading it. While I know the "GM is law", I'd rather not be blindsided by any of these significant rules changes/clarifications when my player assumes (having read the PG rules) that something works one way, while I am playing/ruling another because of my interpretation from the Core Set books.

Well I see it differently. For me this checking of blessing requirement was never an issue simply because the rules never required you to check more than once, whereas the toughness + soak issue was actually presented in two different ways where the only really clear and precise definition was a bad example that turned out to be wrong.

The party sheet recharge rule however is quite important and changes a lot.

But I think they will update the FAQ, so you don't HAVE to buy the PG.

I know I'm going to contradict what might be my apparent position on this, but I'm going to hybridize my approach.

In situations where the description and spirit of the action seems to be one in which the player could invoke, then ignore requirements at resolution, I'll play by RAW. In some cases, however, it just doesn't fit the spirit of the action.

A card which states that you pray to Ulric, and the images of snow-covered white wolves leap at your target dealing wounds, then I wouldn't require a second requirement check as it seems the effects of the card is resolved on the part of the God rather than the character.

A card which states that, blessed by Shallya, you heal the wounds of an injured ally with a touch, would require you to remain in contact with the target.

I'd say most actions would not require the second check based upon how they're worded and the mental image evoked by the card, but a few strike me as requiring a check simply based on the description.

Darrett said:

Why is that? The priest lays his hands on the wound, invokes the blessing and a warm feeling spreads in the patient. As the priest continue to play to his god while he is fighting the wound slowly heals. But the moment he touched the wound, the seed was planted and all he had to do was keep praying to fuel the spell.

I can see that it's any stranger than people hurling fireballs to he honest. That's slightly unrealistic as well.

I can see that. My point is though that some descriptions just can't be taken any other way. A guess a better example than my hastily-constructed healing example would be a card which states that a bolt of lightning erupts from your fingertips and strikes the target. I know this isn't exactly a Priest Blessing, but any card with a similar description would appear to demand at least a line of sight check narratively, unless you envision the lightning tracking unerringly to the target over any distance or past any obstacle.

There's nothing wrong with that approach, and it does adhere to the rules as written more strictly.