Stacked abilities, part deux

[jpariury]

In the ARC request thread "Stacked Abilities", it was stated "The intent of Spirit Store is that *only* PC skills will transfer."

This appears to contradict the rulebook. Specifically,

Characters stored in a golem are still considered to have all of the attributes of their character card in addition to the bonuses for being a golem. A living character in a golem is still considered “living” for the purposes of Desecrate and Domain of the Defiled. A sarr character in a golem is still affected by the sarr Racial Reaver, and a kobold stored in a golem is still affected by a kobold Slayer. - pg 141 of the ARB v 1.1, underlining mine

Being "alive" or a "sarr" or a "kobold" is not a PC skill. It's a function of the character's "physicalness" (for lack of a better term). Normally I wouldn't ask for further clarification, but the previous ruling did not make any overt statements with regards to this particular section of the rulebook, so it's not clear if the intention of the ruling is to override the newly-minted rulebook, if this section was missed in the consideration, or if further parsing of which "non-PC skills" are "transferable attributes" is needed.

 

[Polare]

Characters stored in a golem are still considered to have all of the attributes of their character card in addition to the bonuses for being a golem. A living character in a golem is still considered “living” for the purposes of Desecrate and Domain of the Defiled. A sarr character in a golem is still affected by the sarr Racial Reaver, and a kobold stored in a golem is still affected by a kobold Slayer.

That section of the rulebook talks about the "type" (for lack of a better word) of the character being transferred into the golem. The previous ruling asked specifically about abilities on the monster card which would get passed along into the golem. Two completely separate topics; the ruling for one does not affect the other. The word "attributes" is perhaps overused in discussion about these rulings, but the examples in your quote give a clear view into the intent of that section of the rulebook (a Lich in a Golem still being affected by Undead Slayer, for instance). There is no mention of skills or Monster Abilities, which was the intent of the prior question raised to ARC (and the subject of that ruling).

As with all ARC rulings, if you feel it was made in error or was different from the owner's intent in passing the rule, you are welcome to bring the issue up to your chapter owner and ask them to propose a vote to change the wording to make it more explicit.

-Bryan Gregory
ARC