Alliance Rulebook 2.1 Draft 5

[Shen [he/him]]

It specifically says 15 silver *pieces*.

"15 silver" "1.5 gold" "150 copper" - these all mean the same thing, in different denominations. Grammatically we do not refer to this in the plural, saying 15 silvers or 150 coppers

But because the rule explicitly sites "pieces" is notes that you need 15 individual silver coins, seperately & specifically. Going on to state that once silvered, -the silver- never be recovered or removed from the weapon. Which would be irrelevant if it were simply a value of 15silver. Because 150 Cooper /1.5 gold wouldn't remove "silver".

"In silver" has been a "rule" since I started in 2.0 beta tests.

 

[Shen [he/him]]

That said, in the 2009 time frame, searching the forums has shown that Seattle and Oregon were very public about the "nope, coins are coins and its just the cost - we aren't doing this because...."

But in the 2019 2.0 beta questions, it was once again asked and clarified to require the actual silver seperate from the PP cost & Weapon cost.

So if 2.1, uses the same words, carried over from 1.34>2.0>2.4. Then it's still silver, but if it doesn't then much rejoicing... but it is indeed a change.

 

[tieran]

So if 2.1, uses the same words, carried over from 1.34>2.0>2.4. Then it's still silver, but if it doesn't then much rejoicing... but it is indeed a change.

It is not a change.

Costs for Strenghthening/silvering

Does the extra cost for strengthen/silver replace the production cost or is it in addition. eg. I strengthen a longsword thats 50 production costing 50 copper is that replaced by the 5 gold cost of strenthening for a 5 gold total cost or is it additive for a 5 gold 5 silver total cost?

alliancelarp.com

The above post references paying the strengthening cost in gold, as opposed to silver.

Silvering/strengthening costs

There was some ambiguity in the past about the costs for silvering/strengthening and I've received a response from one marshal that contradicts the example listed in the beta rulebook. The rules are as follows: Items can be made in two ways. The simplest is to create items at Logistics. You...

alliancelarp.com

This thread specifically calls out the question of whether the silvering cost has to be paid in silver.

 

[Gilwing]

Just as a reminder this topic is here to report any new issues. Thank you to all that have already done so as well as to any future ones.

 

[Heinricht]

"15 silver" as it appears there is simply one of the ways to express 1.5 gold.
Its not been required to be paid in silver in at least a decade and a half.

This needs to be clarified as their are chapters that only accept payment to silver weapons in silver coins.

 

[Auric]

Agree. Let's get docs to update wording so it's not confused.

 

[Shen [he/him]]

Drinking & Force Feeding...

Alchemy states that you can drink or feed to another (pg 83, Alchemy)
Poisoning Food or drink with Elixers (Pg. 83, Elixers)
Anyone can drink a potion (pg. 84 Using Potions)
"You may Administer any earth/necro potion as its reversed" - Purify the potion/Corrupt the concoction (Brewing abilities pg 91)
Counted Actions Pg 26 - Lists nothing about potions or elixers and their use. Despite that such is often done on a 3count.

Matters of Life and Death, Pg 27: Unconscious & Bleeding Out both reference healing, and being subject to effects as you are not yet dead. but do not mention potions/alchemy/force feeding (which is required for the unconscious/bleeding out).

Searching for keywords: Feed, Force, Force Feed, Someone Else, Drink - All yield no results except whats mentioned above or a lot of eldritch force effects. There are no rules which I can find of how one Feeds or force feeds any substance to another character, with consent or against their will.

Q. Was this specifically removed, because doing so is no longer allowed; or is just just an oversight of another rule that is missing from the V5 draft? If it was an oversight, how should players continue their interpersonal actions when this rule would otherwise be relevant? If it was removed, Why?

Other Game Skills - Pg 30, has a nice chart to break down for the visually minded. This section I feel would be a great section for the Drinking/eating/Force Feeding, as it directly follows the counted actions on pg 26.

---

Matters of Life and Death pg. 27
Bleeding out... specifically and explicitly references 3 different times in the same paragraph that First Aid Requires 1 min of interrupted focus. Contextually, there is no reason to reference the exact same rule 3 times in the same paragraph and could instead be rephrased a single time as a preamble or closing to the paragraph. As it currently reads, it also can create the confusion that unlike "normal first aid" Bleeding out First aid is presented as different and may not be quickened by any game skills because it specifically reinforces three different times that it requires 1min of uninterrupted focus. This rapid repetition of a rule presents a reinforcement that many along the Neuro-Divergent will often (though not always) accept as undisputed fact simply because of the reinforcement. All in all, if this is not the intention of this paragraph removing the repetition and adjusting the structure accordingly I think will help this paragraph.

---

Matters of Life and Death pg 27
Dead's Final paragraph lists the 7 effects which persist while/through death. This past weekend there was confusion about this subject which makes me believe that the 7 effects cited inside of descriptions and paragraph makes them easily looked over. My two recommendations for this is: 1) on each of those 7 effects, cite that "this effect persists while dead". as well as Adding that Euphoria cites "this effect persists through Resurrection" 2) the whole Life and death section needs a visual representation. This has a lot of nit and pick specific rules which dictate how or why someone does or doesn't die. This information should be easily and quickly accessible without needing to read a whole page of text to pick out the exact one sentence relevant to your situation, and then re read it again when the situation is different for a different character and you need to re-read the whole page to find the one specific sentence that applies to that situation.

--Personal Gripe. Ritual Effects and anything else that is "body" is destroyed during resurrection under the explanation that your body dissipates and during resurrection you form a new body which does not have those effects. No matter what I think of that explanation personally, that explanation is equally true for Euphoria. Your old body held an addiction, your new body is brand new and doesn't have any effects or addictions, thus Euphoria should not persist through Resurrection. As Euphoria is Scientific and not Magic, further supporting it having no reason to endure, particularly in the face of ritual magic which doesn't endure and is substantially more "powerful", as are greater commands, and transformations as those target spirit and you didn't build a brand new one of those.

 

[Gandian Ravenscroft]

Drinking & Force Feeding...

Alchemy states that you can drink or feed to another (pg 83, Alchemy)
Poisoning Food or drink with Elixers (Pg. 83, Elixers)
Anyone can drink a potion (pg. 84 Using Potions)
"You may Administer any earth/necro potion as its reversed" - Purify the potion/Corrupt the concoction (Brewing abilities pg 91)
Counted Actions Pg 26 - Lists nothing about potions or elixers and their use. Despite that such is often done on a 3count.

Matters of Life and Death, Pg 27: Unconscious & Bleeding Out both reference healing, and being subject to effects as you are not yet dead. but do not mention potions/alchemy/force feeding (which is required for the unconscious/bleeding out).

Searching for keywords: Feed, Force, Force Feed, Someone Else, Drink - All yield no results except whats mentioned above or a lot of eldritch force effects. There are no rules which I can find of how one Feeds or force feeds any substance to another character, with consent or against their will.

Q. Was this specifically removed, because doing so is no longer allowed; or is just just an oversight of another rule that is missing from the V5 draft? If it was an oversight, how should players continue their interpersonal actions when this rule would otherwise be relevant? If it was removed, Why?

Other Game Skills - Pg 30, has a nice chart to break down for the visually minded. This section I feel would be a great section for the Drinking/eating/Force Feeding, as it directly follows the counted actions on pg 26.

As a follow-up point to this: there's been some rules debate in past on whether or not feeding a potion to another character is an action that merits a 3-count or not, based on ambiguity in past rulebooks. Previous editions stated that you didn't need to count drinking a potion yourself (as long as the physical action of doing so took at least 3 seconds) and some players/chapters believe that extended to include feeding a potion to someone else, whereas some players/chapters believe that feeding a potion to another player is an example of an "action [that] cannot actually be performed for reasons of safety or reality but must be considered as taking some time to complete" as per the Counted Actions section (since you are not actually performing the action of shoving something down someone's throat for obvious reasons) and therefore should be done on a 3-count.

If the new rulebook could confirm how exactly folks should be doing feeding potions to others, that'd be dandy.

 

[Gandian Ravenscroft]

Now that I mention it: the same goes for picking up an unconscious body, etc.

 

[Shen [he/him]]

Now that I mention it: the same goes for picking up an unconscious body, etc.

I was about to get there today, as I also couldn't find any rules about that as it has a variety of unique rules which only apply in that situation.

 

[Shen [he/him]]

Armor Locations -

In the way back, this was supposed to have a graphic assigned to it, as in every test the different experimental graphics were able to more quickly, easily, and completely explain what an entire text block did. While being as equally reader friendly among the visual and descriptive learners.

Was this graphic simply not included in V5 but will in the next published draft, or was it decided that none of the test images would be used? If not used, why? While I think who ever wrote the section as it is now did a good job, that is otherwise time they didn't need to commit to an otherwise finished section which was replaced with a graphic.

 

[Jack Y.]

Hi there! Me again! I'm not going to do an exhaustive deep dive, but something that came up in the AGB discord rules channel:

Improvised Use, page 94 is as follows:

Whereas in the 2.1 December packet, the wording was as follows, on page 20:

This has lead to confusion as to whether or not the ability allows a player to mix elixirs into food/drink or apply coatings to weapons.

Thank you for your time and consideration!

 

[tieran]

Hi there! Me again! I'm not going to do an exhaustive deep dive, but something that came up in the AGB discord rules channel:

Improvised Use, page 94 is as follows:

Whereas in the 2.1 December packet, the wording was as follows, on page 20:

This has lead to confusion as to whether or not the ability allows a player to mix elixirs into food/drink or apply coatings to weapons.

Thank you for your time and consideration!

Expect this to be updated to explicitly lay out the things you can do.

 

[Aramente_Viezd]

Drinking & Force Feeding...

Alchemy states that you can drink or feed to another (pg 83, Alchemy)
Poisoning Food or drink with Elixers (Pg. 83, Elixers)
Anyone can drink a potion (pg. 84 Using Potions)
"You may Administer any earth/necro potion as its reversed" - Purify the potion/Corrupt the concoction (Brewing abilities pg 91)
Counted Actions Pg 26 - Lists nothing about potions or elixers and their use. Despite that such is often done on a 3count.

Matters of Life and Death, Pg 27: Unconscious & Bleeding Out both reference healing, and being subject to effects as you are not yet dead. but do not mention potions/alchemy/force feeding (which is required for the unconscious/bleeding out).

Searching for keywords: Feed, Force, Force Feed, Someone Else, Drink - All yield no results except whats mentioned above or a lot of eldritch force effects. There are no rules which I can find of how one Feeds or force feeds any substance to another character, with consent or against their will.

Q. Was this specifically removed, because doing so is no longer allowed; or is just just an oversight of another rule that is missing from the V5 draft? If it was an oversight, how should players continue their interpersonal actions when this rule would otherwise be relevant? If it was removed, Why?

Poisoning is described in the Alchemy Types: Elixirs section as well as the three second rule
Added three count to Administration of Potions and Elixirs under using potions on previous edit.

Added clarification to Matters of Life and Death Section regarding Potions and Elixirs.

Updated language to be "administer a potion or elixir" the rules on feeding others a potion or elixir is still the same.

Thanks

 

[Vryan]

Not sure if this was pointed out already, but the sentence on pg 84 about needing Healing Arts to identify a Potion should be changed to Educated.

 

[Vryan]

Poisoning is described in the Alchemy Types: Elixirs section as well as the three second rule
Added three count to Administration of Potions and Elixirs under using potions on previous edit.

Added clarification to Matters of Life and Death Section regarding Potions and Elixirs.

Updated language to be "administer a potion or elixir" the rules on feeding others a potion or elixir is still the same.

Thanks

This seems like a very big change to an existing mechanic to suddenly add. The "Counted Action" section in the 2.0 rulebook was pretty clear that three-counting was generally discouraged for things that you otherwise could pantomime doing. For reference:



I could see it being dangerous to pantomime feeding somebody a potion if you're actively being attacked, and the 2.0 wording of the Counted Action rule suggested that in those instances you should maybe three-count instead. In most cases, though, fishing out a potion and pretending to open and pour it in the target's mouth was all that was strictly required, so long as the entire process took at least 3 seconds (per the 2.0 Player's Guide pg. 76). But "taking 3 or more seconds" to roleplay is not the same thing as "must perform a three-count".

The 2.0 and prior rulesets all strongly encouraged "act the action out" instead of three-counting them, especially for ones that the player could physically do. This didn't seem like a paradigm that 2.1 was shifting away from.

 

[Aramente_Viezd]

This seems like a very big change to an existing mechanic to suddenly add. The "Counted Action" section in the 2.0 rulebook was pretty clear that three-counting was generally discouraged for things that you otherwise could pantomime doing. For reference:

View attachment 3578

I could see it being dangerous to pantomime feeding somebody a potion if you're actively being attacked, and the 2.0 wording of the Counted Action rule suggested that in those instances you should maybe three-count instead. In most cases, though, fishing out a potion and pretending to open and pour it in the target's mouth was all that was strictly required, so long as the entire process took at least 3 seconds (per the 2.0 Player's Guide pg. 76). But "taking 3 or more seconds" to roleplay is not the same thing as "must perform a three-count".

The 2.0 and prior rulesets all strongly encouraged "act the action out" instead of three-counting them, especially for ones that the player could physically do. This didn't seem like a paradigm that 2.1 was shifting away from.

Excuse the confusion, I worded that poorly in my last post. Added the three seconds of role-play to the potion and elixir sections. You are correct that it is not a "three count". Forgive my lack of specificity.

Thank you

 

[Vryan]

Excuse the confusion, I worded that poorly in my last post. Added the three seconds of role-play to the potion and elixir sections. You are correct that it is not a "three count". Forgive my lack of specificity.

Thank you

Thank you so much for that clarification! You are doing great work!

 

[Gandian Ravenscroft]

I personally disagree and fully believe feeding a potion to someone should be a counted action as an "action [that] cannot actually be performed for reasons of safety or reality but must be considered as taking some time to complete" especially since it is an interaction with another player that isn't performing any pantomime that should be 1. announced to that player for clear comprehension of what is occuring since it is NOT happening in reality and 2. be interruptible by that player (if they're conscious, etc.) or other players as per standard interruptible means, since they are delivering an in-game effect to another player and it is very frequently an action taking place in active combat.

According to your logic, I can tell someone to close their eyes in-game while they are fully conscious, hold a vial silently vaguely in the area near their head for 3 seconds while they sit there, then say "Aha, I just fed you a Paralysis potion, even though you definitely would have been able to tell that was happening in real life if I actually was opening your mouth and pouring liquid inside!"

If an action doesn't affect anyone but myself, sure, I'll absolutely pantomine and l don't count it. But if it does affect someone else and they're not in on the pantomime, I should count it so that everyone involved or witnessing the action is in the loop of what is happening.

When I drink a potion myself, I pantomime all actions involved: lift potion, open mouth, make drinking motion, etc. When I feed a potion to someone else, I can't make them do the pantomime parts involved on their part - only the pantomime on my part. They aren't doing anything. Therefore, the action isn't taking place in reality and should fall under 3-count purview.

I can speak with 100% certainty that there are several known chapters, past and present, including those overseen/played by members of ARC past and present, that have played by the paradigm I describe above at every game for 15+ years. I know there are members of every single National committee (including ARC) that currently that do this because they believe it to be the proper method and how it is done in the chapters they play. It's a long-lived, widespread thing. To those chapters/players, the change being made here is just as notable of a "very big rules change to an existing mechanic to suddenly add" in the other direction and is set to be a very confusing shift for a lot of players. It's been an ambiguous thing for a long time played differently across the country, and I don't think it can be simply determined in the rulebook as one way or the other without going through proper Rules discussion and approval channels.

But hey, I'm not the one writing the rulebook, so my opinion doesn't matter.

 

[Shen [he/him]]

Brewing Sup Eq.

The language in Congealing Powder (pg 96) presents this as functioning differently than normal weapon coatings (pg83).

Justin has already clarified in local Discord that applicable text was indeed cut and should be added back in. But to keep feedback all in the same requested location I'm simply re-posting here for everyone's visibility.