Several questions/revisions after reading the book.

[jpariury]

Question 1: Alchemy
I presume that Alchemy effects are not Necromancy?

You presume correctly, but for the wrong reason, it seems. Alchemy is not an Effect group, Necromancy is. None of the standard effects listed as creatable alchemy fall under the Necromancy effect group (note that "Cause Damage" and its variants are listed under the "Damage" Effect group - see page 100). If, for some reason, your plot team allowed a creature to run around throwing "Drain Gas Poison", it would indeed fall under Necromancy in terms of Effect groups and applicable defenses.

it seems that the main reason for Necromancy being illegal is balance purposes, because it deals direct body damage

I would suggest that there are other necromantic effects that provide more efficient vectors than mere damage. As a general guideline, takeouts, nullification, and consistent damage are going to provide greater bang for your buck, so Cause Serious Wounds isn't really a game changer, but a Chaos Blade, Drain or Desecrate are.

An alchemist could be devastating with several orbs of Cause Serious Damage in their bag.

Not really. Amidst Resist Poison, Poison Shield, Dodge, physical avoidance, not to mention outright nullification (for PCs: golems, Reverse Lifeforce, for NPCs: undead, golems, elementals, fae, etc.) throwing 2.5 silver for every attempt to deliver 10 points of body damage isn't likely to yield substantial rewards over the course of the event. Add in the ugly verbal ("Cause Serious Damage Gas Poison"), and the fact that you'll likely need to land two that stick at minimum to deliver a takeout, and it's a niche go-to at best: potentially life-saving as a last resort, terrible as a primary plan.

1) Page 151, last paragraph - add that you cannot purchase Event Points for an event that occurred prior to you joining. Without this, page #13 would have one (such as myself) believe they can purchase a 'blanket' with goblin points even if it's their very first event.

I don't know that this is true. I suspect it is somewhat up to each chapter, but the general theme I've seen is that folks can "backblanket" up to three months prior to the date of purchase. So, for instance, if you join on June 10, and donate a bunch of stuff that provides you with sufficient gobbies to blanket an event held in May, you are permitted to do so (local chapter policies allowing - i.e. some chapters require that you have a membership in that chapter to spend gobbies, etc.).

3) 'Affect' is used in many places where it should be 'effect' - and it's a pet peeve of mine =Z (And now that I'm specifically LOOKING for them to point out I can't find them!)

I hope you can't, that was one of the first things I looked for when I helped edit. Although, looking through it now, I found a couple where I missed the reverse issue.

Add a clause for self-teaching. If there's ever a situation where a teacher absolutely cannot be found or there is a political struggle that prevents you from learning something (the Mages and Healer's guilds being at war, for example, and refusing to teach the other guild that type of magic), you should be able to teach yourself for a price.

That's a philosophical discussion, though, which amounts to "you should allow steampunk" - it's only valid if the game designers and runners want it to be.

 

[Dan Nickname Beshers]

Before you read the rest, please address the point I made about the Figure 5 example, where the level 3 slot has to be purchased before the level 2 slot, since that contradicts what you wrote. Also address the very last paragraph before the example in the rules spell slot rules, which also contradicts that.

I will get back to this. However, this is also an important point: I don't disagree that some areas of the book have muddy language. This is because the book is written in a conversational tone as opposed to a mechanical one and edited by volunteers. I myself have brought this up as a possible issue, and the rebuttal I was given was that new players would prefer the book as is, that it's friendlier. If nothing else, I appreciate someone being on my side of this issue. When I say that the concept is difficult to put into words, I am referring to this conversational tone; as an expression of logical rules it's simple. I'm afraid that your reading comprehension and attention to detail are misleading you because you are following literary guidelines that are not actually being strictly followed.

A good example of this is the phrase about the pyramid needing to grow. The fact that's its placed where it is, in connection to the 4 base point, throws needless confusing on the fact that it means the same thing as saying "build like a pyramid" much earlier in the section, just with more detail and a caveat.

Disagree here. If this is true what's to stop someone from doing this...
Starting with;
L1
L1 L2
L1 L2

to;
L1 <=2 gap You cannot have more than one two gap at a time.
L1
L1 L2 <=2 gap
L1 L2

Another quote from the rulebook that explicitly says this is not allowed (again the full paragraph in context is important);
Basically, you have very little choice in the manner in which spells may be purchased when you are starting out; if you have three first level slots and two 2nd level slots, the next slot you will have to buy is 3rd level. Your ability to vary won't occur at low levels.

An even more basic example is:

L1
L1

where the only possible option is a 2nd level spell, as a 1st level would create a 3 gap (3-0=3, natch).

Honestly, it seems a lot of the problem rests on the fact that you're sticking hard to an interpretation that rests on a technicality which wasn't observed by the author. The sentence about pyramid growth should not be removed, but moved higher up in the section.

Additionally, it's entirely possible (indeed, it seems likely) that the description is either out of date or the rule about filling up before spreading out is largely unobserved or observed incorrectly; I'll bring it to owner attention so it can get some scrutiny. The more I look it over, the more I think you have a legitimate point about some of what's written fitting in with your reading. So let me address your original point by saying that a) the book is written in an attempt to minimize the number of charts, something I don't personally agree with and b) as the author and proofreaders are primarily checking new material it's totally feasible that this section hasn't been looked over by anyone in much detail for over a decade; it matches the wording in my old rule book from 2001.

 

[phedre]

Some chapters do have a function where you can sort of self teach a skill... some chapters give you a free teacher card when you NPC or do things like show up for cleanup days, sign up for a set up/break down crew, things like that. You can then choose what skill you'd like added to your card and give yourself the downtime reason you learned it.

Or you can try to find an NPC to teach you, or have another PC teach you on the sly.

These rules are meant to give a foundation on which to build plotlines and character interactions. Teacher cards and the requirement for them to learn new skills are a way to encourage PCs to interact and RP, I don't think the intent was to limit what you can learn.

If you think this topic should be moved, you can request that a moderator move it to a more appropriate forum.

 

[MathGwyson]

1) Page 151, last paragraph - add that you cannot purchase Event Points for an event that occurred prior to you joining. Without this, page #13 would have one (such as myself) believe they can purchase a 'blanket' with goblin points even if it's their very first event.

I don't know that this is true. I suspect it is somewhat up to each chapter

That was the information that was given to me by Michael A. Ventrella when I used the email on the 'FAQ' page (before really understanding the forums here applied to all chapters, not just Ashbury). I had a disagreement with some of my local chapter people, and the way they tried to clarify it contradicted what was written, and since we are a new chapter that only had 1 full weekend event (and a couple single-days prior), I figured maybe the issue had never come up yet, so I emailed that for clarity. The above was a succinct explanation for what they *tried* (but failed) to that is consistent with the other rules in the book - which is why I suggested to add it.
If other chapters are allowing it - that's a whole other ball-park.

3) 'Affect' is used in many places where it should be 'effect' - and it's a pet peeve of mine =Z (And now that I'm specifically LOOKING for them to point out I can't find them!)

I hope you can't, that was one of the first things I looked for when I helped edit.

I did find one that I posted on the next line - in the traps section. Under 'Areas of Effect' there is a line that reads 'Anyone within that radius will take the affect' <- should be effect. OR should be 'anyone within that radius will be affected'

That's a philosophical discussion, though, which amounts to "you should allow steampunk" - it's only valid if the game designers and runners want it to be.

Fair enough. What I *intended* to state (and didn't realise how badly i failed until just now) was that people in the real world teach themselves skills all the time. (Likewise, the first person to ever learn magic probably taught themselves - though with the existance of really ancient beings maybe they did learn it from someone else...)

The 'should be able' was meant as 'it's realistically plausible and I'd like to see it's inclusion due to situations like this' - it's currently not possible to cast both types of spells unless you start your BPs that way (and then it's impossible to advance without your teachers literally risking their lives to teach you)

(My computer has spontaneously rebooted once already - so I'm posting this, but going to edit it with more stuff rather than triple post )

 

[phedre]

Teachers having to risk their life is something that sounds very chapter specific, it's not something I've ever seen happen. I know characters, and have one myself, that has spell slots for both schools of magic and it was neither difficult or illegal. There is nothing in the rules or rulebook that prohibits it, only the costs make it more difficult to be dual-school.

When it comes to self teaching, there are some things that cannot be. You cannot become a ballerina or martial artist without learning from someone, or your form will be unacceptable to most any company or school. Same with things like swordplay. If you don't have someone to practice with and learn via critique from, chances are the most you will do is look nice doing forms. What you end up knowing how to do won't fit the technical requirements of the masters and critics of your skill. Yes, someone has to come up with the skill in the first place. Magic, in Fortannis, is limited to the existing spells and rituals in the databases, which can be found out in game. It's all been leaned already.

Teacher cards are a longstanding mechanic that I don't see changing anytime soon, unless someone proposes to do away with them and a majority of owners vote to do so.

 

[MathGwyson]

My computer is spontaneously rebooting this evening repeatedly, I was going to add this to the other post but I've been typing it in Wordpad and saving every few seconds so I don't lose it all!

@Dan
I'd like to point you you still didn't get back to me on Fig 5 and the last paragraph before the example despite saying you would! - I realise the other bit was important - but we still don't agree on the 'no more than 1 less than the level above' when purchasing 4 or more spell slots. (We now agree on 'mandatory filling of higher level slots' - but keep reading for how that progressed)

If nothing else, I appreciate someone being on my side of this issue.

Thank you for this! So often when I get into these kinds of discussions I get called out for being stubborn or argumentative (or worse - I don't get called out, and they stew over it and get grumpy without *telling* me that they think I'm being rude and unreasonable) I appreciate that you seem to 'get' where I'm coming from with this.

I'm afraid that your reading comprehension and attention to detail are misleading you because you are following literary guidelines that are not actually being strictly followed.

This is something that I'm becoming more and more aware of. I have to actually 'learn' when to use my logical reading comprehension and when to recognize something is a colloquialism and I don't have to pay so much attention. Generally, if I'm reading a rulebook, like this, I presume logical and when I'm reading for entertainment I turn this off. The problem is, the only way I can RETAIN knowledge (as oposed to reading it and forget it right away) I have to interpret it literally. This is why I do this with rulebooks. When I read literally I completely store the information in my brain. I can often remember the concept accurately (even if not word for word), where I read it - and somehow I automatically cross-reference it with similar things For example, when I thought I could 'blanket' the May event even though I'm joining in June, and was told that your first character can never come in at more than 15 BPs, I remembered immediately the text on Page #13 - I didn't know the exact page but I DID know it was in the 'first timer's' information section under the suggestion to be an NPC. Since I referenced it directly once, I now always remember that the text is on page #13 - see how uncanny that is? I only get this when I read literally. If I allow figures of speach or colloquial language, ALL OF THIS goes out the window.

The flipside is that when I read something literally and someone tries to tell me something that contradicts this (and a book to me always trumps a forum post - even though that's also text - which trumps ANYTHING oral (I never remember oral stuff)) my brain basically throws a 'DOES NOT COMPUTE!!!' At this point I come across as arrogant, stubborn and argumentative - but my brain is trying to hyper corret. "But... I thought THIS was the way it's supposed to be? .... what do you mean it's not.. what you just said contradicts this and this??? Really? Are you sure?" Well, basically this whole therad =Z Basically I'm trying to struggle with understanding WHY it's not the way I interpreted it, and if I can figure out WHY that's the case, I can then proceed to unlern the old and relearn the new. It helps if the 'WHY' is information that was not contained in the original passage that does NOT contradict anything in the original source (like a new rule that wasn't actually writen down), but if the new information is contradictory to what I've stored, it's MUCH harder to accept (which is why this Spell Slot thread is problematic - what you are saying contradicts what I read.).

PART of this comes from information and presumptions about the person whose name is on the cover (Michael A Ventella). I learned he was a lawyer, and I presumed he was the 'Author' (rethar than the 'cheif editor' or whatever he calls himself) So given these two things, my 'default' was to hold the writing to a higher standard - plus rules to a game are often things I want to learn/remember, and to do that I have to file them by reading them more logically.

If you are familiar with the Big Bang Theory - my struggle with learing when to and when not to use the 'literal/learning' mode is very similar to how Sheldon Cooper has to 'learn' the procedures behind social conventions. It just will not compute unless I give it 'rules'. Reading a rules text book nearly always lands on the 'literal' side of the way I process, partly because they are rules and partly because I usually want to remember them. - which leads me to have disdain system with rules that sem to be intentionally vaguely defines (like Rolemsater, for example)

WHEW Didn't mean THAT to turn into a wall of text

back to the spell slot stuff!

L1 <=2 gap You cannot have more than one two gap at a time.
L1
L1 L2 <=2 gap
L1 L2

Okay, there is no rule in the book that says this is not permitted. *However* it is an interpretation that is logically consistant with what IS written AND explains the paragraph where it says "the next level you have to buy is level 3" -which I quoted right after this- for a DIFFERENT reason than I interpreted. What this then means is that the *only* line of text that lead me to believe you *must* build to the top of the pyramid before working more on the bottom is gone. Unfortunately, this was also the rule that prevents the taking all 4 level 1s, then all 4 level 2s, then all 4 level 3s in that order. That said, if we asume the 'cannot have more than one two gap at a time' is true, then 3 Level 1s, and nothing else, would be illegal (because there is then 2 open spaces).
In short, the addition of "You cannot have more than one two-gap at a time" to the book would then be completely accurate to your interpreatation, from what I can tell.

(Lol - you actually made this point right after the quoted text, I didn't read that far and was addressing it one point at a time)

Honestly, it seems a lot of the problem rests on the fact that you're sticking hard to an interpretation that rests on a technicality which wasn't observed by the author.

Yes, but I did not see it as a technicality, I considered it a rule or an example. NOW I get how I could have mis-interpreted it, because based on the axiom of 'cannot have more than one two-gap at a time' (which does not appear in the book) there is another way that example can be interpreted that can bing about the results you describe *in this regard* (there's still the issue of >5 Spell Slots which is still in contention)

Additionally, it's entirely possible (indeed, it seems likely) that the description is either out of date or the rule about filling up before spreading out is largely unobserved or observed incorrectly

Precicely, which is something I *have* been saying. If the way I interpret this is NOT the way this works - the rules probably need a rewording somewhere! However I do now see the different interpretation, even though it requires a rule that isn't in the book but probably should be, because it is more consistant with the rest than the way I interpret it.

I'd like to point you you still didn't get back to me on Fig 5 and the last paragraph before the example despite saying you would! While I've come to agree with you on the 'triangle' bit (assumin an axiomatic rule that isn't actually in the book, but we both agree *should* be), the 'no more than one less than the level you are buying bit we have not come to an agreement on.

@phedre

Some chapters do have a function where you can sort of self teach a skill... some chapters give you a free teacher card when you NPC or do things like show up for cleanup days, sign up for a set up/break down crew, things like that.

Perfect! Attach it to goblin points - that's solved as far as I'm concerned

Teachers having to risk their life is something that sounds very chapter specific,

It is, from what I've read of the lore on alliancealberta.ca website the Mage's Guild tried to take control and almost had a plot suceed to take out the Earth Magic guild by creating propogands that all Earth Magic was akin to Necromancy. Needless to say the two guilds here HATE EACH OTHER! Both Guilds have rules that teaching spells to people who are not members of the guild is punishable by death. (that's the way it's worded, I don't know if it's 'a death' though or not.)

Having not actually PLAYED yet, I don't know how this reacts with Mages getting ressurected? But I do know that it's *very* difficult to combine the two schools of magics due to this political event (which is why I said in my first post that such a rule is neccessary if an NPC absoloutely cannot be found or political events get in the way)

Teacher cards are a longstanding mechanic that I don't see changing anytime soon, unless someone proposes to do away with them and a majority of owners vote to do so.

I was not aware of them, and they fit the bill. Since Teacher cards are given out for the same reasons as Goblin Points, I would hope they get incorporated into the gobbies mechanic. Thanks for sharing!

 

[phedre]

You can always try to find NPCs that come into town, or make an alliance with someone. Or try to bridge the gap between the two guilds. It's all what you want to do with your character (although, playing a biata, you're restricted from ever having celestial spells, as you can't buy Read Magic, the necessary prerequisite). It sounds like a hurdle that your plot team has given the PCs to deal with. The chapter staff is also the ones who give out teacher cards. Talk to them on how to earn them if you can't accomplish it in game.

As a rules mechanic, though, it's not broken and I've never seen a reason that it needed to be "fixed."

 

[Dan Nickname Beshers]

Math, my "closing statement" that the language of the rule book may be either improperly worded or out of date (or it may be that nearly everybody is doing it wrong, I suppose) was meant to address (amongst other things) the issue of fig 5. I think we both agree that the beginning of the accompanying statement means "To buy a fifth level 2 slot, Belthavis must first buy a fifth slot at level 1." At that point the language is imprecise, and our interpretations diverge. You see it as "Secondly, Belthavis must buy a fourth slot at level 3. Only then does he qualify for the fifth slot at level 2." My reading is "Once that is done, the conditions to buy a fifth level 2 spell are met. After Belthavis has five spells at level 2, he must buy a fourth spell at level 3 before he could get an additional spell at level 2."

I'll note that the language used by players, which reference a pyramid that must begin from its base, is drawn from the visual of purchasing spells as I have described: always from the bottom up, unless the base is at least 4 spells.

The best point I can offer is that this debate and several similar ones have happened before. Multiple times. They arise because the language in the book is not totally precise, it is not superbly ordered, it is occasionally inaccurate and the majority of people would much rather play the game than argue about rule interpretations that have a minimal impact on the safety, fairness and fun of the game as a whole. The system you're envisioning is extremely restrictive and for many people counterintuitive to boot. Thus the looser and somewhat more user friendly system I have put forward is what gets practiced; just as the goal of the rule book is to make an average, first time LARPer feel comfortable with the rules and systems, a majority of old-time players support the circumstance that is less likely to result in new players being told "You're doing it wrong."

 

[MathGwyson]

(although, playing a biata, you're restricted from ever having celestial spells, as you can't buy Read Magic, the necessary prerequisite)

I know, but I considered playing a Stone Elf Adept that dabbled in both to suplement his fighting style, that's when I found out that our guilds really hated each other.

NPCs that can teach spells are likely to be from one guild or the other (and therefore prohibited from teaching them)

The Owner just sent out some clarifications about goblin points, and one of the things in that email was that NPCing gives one or two free trainings to an existing character. This can be used in the manner in which I was hoping for, thus the Stone Elf character could 'officially' belong to the Mages guild, while learning Earth Magic buffs on the sly (Endow, Bless, etc)

You see it as "Secondly, Belthavis must buy a fourth slot at level 3. Only then does he qualify for the fifth slot at level 2." My reading is "Once that is done, the conditions to buy a fifth level 2 spell are met. After Belthavis has five spells at level 2, he must buy a fourth spell at level 3 before he could get an additional spell at level 2."

Yes, I do see that interpreteation. Actually, the first time I read it I thought this too, but I wondered "Why does the Level 3 spell slot come up at all when this paragraph is talking about the 5th Level 2 slot?" It wasn't until this conversation that I clued in that this example supports the line "The level above must have only one less than the amount you are buying." In other words, it basically reads "he wants to buy a level 2, he must buy a level 1 to support it, then he must buy a level 3." Nowhere did it actually say he bought the level 2 before buying the level 3, just that the level one supported it from underneath.

However, you still have not discussed the last paragraph before the example on page 51. "So in order to buy a fifth 2nd level Spell Slot, you must have a 1st level Spell slot and a fourth 3rd level Spell Slot" Note it says fourth, not third, because 5-4=1 and 5-3=2, this is probably the most direct indicator that supports "The level above must have only one less than the amount you are buying."

The system you're envisioning is extremely restrictive and for many people counterintuitive to boot.

On this I'll agree. As an Artisan, I'd love to be able to purshase 4 level 1 spells before going up to level 2 spells (Since I'm not much of a combat character, I'll mostly be using Cure Light Wounds to get unconsious and dying players back on their feet, and for that spending 4 points on 4 level 1 spells is better than spending 4 points on 2 level 1s and a level 2). (And according to the other post about spell slots you replied to - apparently this is what our chapter allows, go figure)

I'm actually not advocating that it *should* be the way I describe - it's more of a matter of "This is what the rulebook says - why are people telling me it's done a different way?" It's about getting my lawful nature to accept a system that's a little more chaotic than I can deal with (But see my long wall of text regarding that in my previous post to this thread.)

 

[phedre]

Math: Nothing says you have to be honest about which guild you belong to. If you have serious issue with this and feel that it is unfairly restricting your character, talk to your plot team. They very well may tell you to do something about the political situation IG. The Connecticut chapter had "broken" celestial magic for a time, where anyone who had celestial spells in memory had to roll a die at Logistics and take the consequences. Some players grumbled about it OOG, and a few made it their mission to fix what was busted.

 

[jpariury]

I did find one that I posted on the next line - in the traps section. Under 'Areas of Effect' there is a line that reads 'Anyone within that radius will take the affect' <- should be effect. OR should be 'anyone within that radius will be affected'

Yep, my bad. That's on me.

Fair enough. What I *intended* to state (and didn't realise how badly i failed until just now) was that people in the real world teach themselves skills all the time.

That's where you need to draw the distinction between what likely has occurred in the real world, what is possible in the real world, and what the game designers decide makes for a desirable mechanic. For instance, it is possible to catch a weapon thrown at you offensively, and it's even something of a mainstay of fantasy trope to do so, but for whatever reason, the designers have opted not to include it as a mechanic for their game. I'm not even knocking discussion of "why don't we do X?", but as a point of discussion, it doesn't quite fit the theme of the majority of your post; to whit, "Hey, I'm new, and I found these bits confusing/unclear/contradictory".

I'm not sure what you're referencing re: "teachers risking their lives" - there is no mechanical risk in play, so anything of that nature sounds more dependent on a chapter-specific plotline. As Lauren mentioned, there may be other ways, both in-game and out-of-game, to achieve what you're looking for.

 

[Dan Nickname Beshers]

However, you still have not discussed the last paragraph before the example on page 51. "So in order to buy a fifth 2nd level Spell Slot, you must have a 1st level Spell slot and a fourth 3rd level Spell Slot" Note it says fourth, not third, because 5-4=1 and 5-3=2, this is probably the most direct indicator that supports "The level above must have only one less than the amount you are buying."

Yes. It is this line in specific to which I am referring when I say that multiple people who have been playing a long time come down on either side of this same discussion. It says what you think it says. My contention is that the line in the book is wrong when contrasted with how this has been done for a long time in practice. You're not even the first person to notice this discrepancy. It's been brought up before, just not resolved. After this wording was passed by the owners several of them have stated they intended the alternate system. <shrug>

 

[MathGwyson]

I'm not even knocking discussion of "why don't we do X?", but as a point of discussion, it doesn't quite fit the theme of the majority of your post; to whit, "Hey, I'm new, and I found these bits confusing/unclear/contradictory".

It was a suggestion, and thus why it's a separate section of the post with a separate header . The points regarding it are sufficiently and succingly addressed: There are reasons why it's not that way, and there are ways to get 'teacher' cards to do something similar. (I've also found a document describing some of the IG laws, and now that I understand a little more about the laws forcing spellcasters to register or pay a 5g fine, in conjunction with the fact that the guilds really really hate each other - the Mage's Guild tride to completely wipe out the Earth Magic Guild - things make a little more sense.)

I'm not sure what you're referencing re: "teachers risking their lives" - there is no mechanical risk in play,

Local Chapter thing. Teaching spells to non-guild members is punishable by death (that goes to both the Mages Guild or the Healer's Guild).

My contention is that the line in the book is wrong when contrasted with how this has been done for a long time in practice.

That's fair. Except that it is only one of 3 lines in the book that imply that, and 2 of those directly say that.

Like I said (I think in the very first posts) I'm reading these the way they are written, and if this is not the way it's being done - then they need to be re-written to match what is being done.

It's a struggle for me to accept that this is the rulebook... yet no one is actually following this rule.

After this wording was passed by the owners several of them have stated they intended the alternate system.

Would have saved a lot of time if you had said that earlier .

 

[Dan Nickname Beshers]

Yeah, I suppose it would have.

 

[MathGwyson]

Thanks for the discussion and helping me understand that the rule that's written was clearly not the intent - and all the chapters actually do it differently. I will proceed to ignore those 3 lines of the rulebook. Cheers!

 

[Dan Nickname Beshers]

For my part, I'll try to remind the owners I see that this issue never got resolved, and should probably be revisited.

I may get yelled at.

 

[Gilwing]

Teacher cards are a longstanding mechanic that I don't see changing anytime soon, unless someone proposes to do away with them and a majority of owners vote to do so.

I second that notion

 

[Warlok]

For my part, I'll try to remind the owners I see that this issue never got resolved, and should probably be revisited.

I may get yelled at.

I may not have participated in this discussion, but I have followed it in its entirety. I will do the same as Dan, but I don't expect to get yelled at :ninja:

-Luke