How flexible are you when it comes to diabolist's runes

[Thinyser]

So in the "limitations and reminders" section it states thing like runes cannot be placed on weapons to make them magical items, they cannot be drawn on cloth and unrolled at a moment of need nor can they be placed on items and used as grenades.

All the GM's I've played under allow these rules to be violated by the diabolist that made the runes reasoning that the same section also states that the diabolist is immune to his own runes (and the diabolist really needs a hand up when it comes to combat). So with these rules GM'ed out of the way the diabolist can rune up his own weapon and handle it without setting off the runes until its used on an opponent. They can be drawn on cloth, stored unenergized, and then placed around camp, energized as alarms or whatever, de-energized & collected once not needed, and stored again. They can be drawn on stones or arrows or whatever and sent flying to be set off if they reach a target that trigger the ward. etc.

One GM even ignored the "Area affect wards cannot be placed on living beings." rule and allowed permanent wards (on demon/dragon bone) to be sewn onto characters permanently warding them with area of effect wards.

How do you handle it?

[Nightmask]

I leave the limitations and restrictions as is (since the section about the immunities for Diabolists for their own runes doesn't have anything to do with the limitations and restrictions as the runes are clearly noted as needing to be on things that are stationary because they aren't able to deal with being moved about), and Diabolists don't need a leg-up in combat as they're not supposed to be combat machines. They aren't supposed to be in combat and if they are they aren't supposed to be competing on the same level as the warriors or wizards (and with how Palladium is there isn't much different stat wise between those various non-combat and combat classes anyway if they have the same HtH skill).

[Killer Cyborg]

So in the "limitations and reminders" section it states thing like runes cannot be placed on weapons to make them magical items, they cannot be drawn on cloth and unrolled at a moment of need nor can they be placed on items and used as grenades.

All the GM's I've played under allow these rules to be violated by the diabolist that made the runes reasoning that the same section also states that the diabolist is immune to his own runes (and the diabolist really needs a hand up when it comes to combat). So with these rules GM'ed out of the way the diabolist can rune up his own weapon and handle it without setting off the runes until its used on an opponent. They can be drawn on cloth, stored unenergized, and then placed around camp, energized as alarms or whatever, de-energized & collected once not needed, and stored again. They can be drawn on stones or arrows or whatever and sent flying to be set off if they reach a target that trigger the ward. etc.

One GM even ignored the "Area affect wards cannot be placed on living beings." rule and allowed permanent wards (on demon/dragon bone) to be sewn onto characters permanently warding them with area of effect wards.

How do you handle it?

Pretty much the same way, except for the Area Affect wards.
Palladium (like most people/groups) is sloppy with their logic. On one hand, they state that the reason why certain things cannot be done with wards is because "the ward will be triggered," but then they state "a diabolist does not trigger his own wards unless he wishes to."
I go with logic, and rule that the second rule trumps the first rule.

Of course, if a Diabolist has a backpack full of active wards, and he bumps into somebody, THAT can be a whole heap of trouble.

[Alrik Vas]

I just advise players not to be diabolists, yet if they insist, I come up with more logical reasons for the wars to work the way they do, then I give then spell magic roughly equal to a mystic. Gives then something to do in a fight.

[Thinyser]

I leave the limitations and restrictions as is (since the section about the immunities for Diabolists for their own runes doesn't have anything to do with the limitations and restrictions as the runes are clearly noted as needing to be on things that are stationary because they aren't able to deal with being moved about),

Actually it directly contradicts this, under "Immunity" it states

"A Diabolist is impervious to the magical effects of his own wards and cannot trigger them by touching or disturbing them. Consequently, he can pick up a book he has covered with wards without triggering a single one. However, someone else touching the book will set them off in an instant. Furthermore, if some unauthorized person sets off an area affect ward placed by the Diabolist, the mage is not affected by "his" magic; unfortunately, everybody else around him is affected, unless they make a successful saving throw — such is the nature of wards."

So can he ward a book and touch (or toss it at) an attacker but not do the same to a weapon or a stone? it makes no sense, hence why the Immunity to triggering your own wards and your own ward effects don't effect you unless you want to" rule trumps the others. It makes sense to have a diabolist immune to his own wards. it continues to make sense to say he can handle a weapon warded by himself and even wield it too, while active, w/o setting of the ward himself. Same with an item. He can ward a key and use it to open locks without setting off the ward but if he tosses or hands the key to a burglar it makes sense that the burglar would set it off and take the effects of the ward. This "making sense" breaks down when you try to account for the seemingly arbitrary "limitations" imposed to nerf them.

But this is just the "logic" that makes sense to me (and it seems KC to some extent) and that my previous GM's have used to fix these issues.

If you can logically explain why a diabolist, who obviously needs to be able to handle his own wards without setting them off, can handle a book he's warded but cannot wield a weapon having his ward on it or toss a key at a burglar without setting of his own ward I'd really like to hear it.

[Thinyser]

I just advise players not to be diabolists, yet if they insist, I come up with more logical reasons for the wars to work the way they do, then I give then spell magic roughly equal to a mystic. Gives then something to do in a fight.

I don't really like the work around of giving them mystic like knowledge but I supposed its better than just sticking with them as is.

However I'm really wondering what "logical" reasons for wards working how they do you can come up with?

[Thinyser]

Pretty much the same way, except for the Area Affect wards.
Palladium (like most people/groups) is sloppy with their logic. On one hand, they state that the reason why certain things cannot be done with wards is because "the ward will be triggered," but then they state "a diabolist does not trigger his own wards unless he wishes to."
I go with logic, and rule that the second rule trumps the first rule.

Of course, if a Diabolist has a backpack full of active wards, and he bumps into somebody, THAT can be a whole heap of trouble.

Yeah the AoE was a little much but it had some pretty funny results. Like protection from Evil by infliction of blindness to AoE made nearly an entire tavern including more than half our own party go blind because the serving wench was evil and patted the diabolist on the arm. He was pissed when we made him (painfully though without the damage direct to HP since it was less than a year old) remove that ward.

As to the backpack my GM's ruled that if the warded items (like a book or his "grenades") were secured inside and not actually touched by somebody besides the diabolist then they would not detonate since the wards thought it was just natural to be jostled while in the pack. If somebody reached in or they spilled out and someone tries to help gather them up then they go off. Wards that could be set off by something entering an area were never carried while active since their "Sensor range" wouldn't be contained by any backpack.

[smashed]

I choose a middle ground. I consider most of the limitations to be things that are unwise and/or prone to fail. Put your ward on a piece of cloth, rolling it up can break the ward. Paint it on an arrow it may be rubbed off. This makes carving the wards the stablest course of action, which is balanced by the fact it takes hours to prepare each one. Even then there is the danger of setting off the ward from fires, falls from great height, and violent jolts. That generally limits the amount and type of offensive warded objects.

Though on top of this I allow them to carry around almost finished carved wards safely, which with a little practice they can get off fairly quickly (an action to finish the last mark, and action to charge, and finally an action to throw).

[Alrik Vas]

I just advise players not to be diabolists, yet if they insist, I come up with more logical reasons for the wars to work the way they do, then I give then spell magic roughly equal to a mystic. Gives then something to do in a fight.

I don't really like the work around of giving them mystic like knowledge but I supposed its better than just sticking with them as is.

However I'm really wondering what "logical" reasons for wards working how they do you can come up with?

I'd say that hard, stationary materials are properly grounded and connected to the ebb and flow of power that the runes and circles draw upon, allowing them to be made in such places. I'd say that things that agitate a lot, like cloth, paper, even steel weapons that constantly take damage are out of this synch and won't hold the power a diabolist puts into them...for long. (meaning, i'd let a diabolist put Pain on his staff or sword, but it would be single use then they'd have to remake the ward, for example). It's more like a feng-shui thing, i guess? Haha...pulling this out of nowhere, mind you. Though it seems somewhat logical to me.

[The Dark Elf]

I use the rules as they are but for some grey areas: I do allow for example, if a permanent inflict protection from fire wards on a sword then the entire sword is resistant to fire and registers as magic to any senses but don't class them as magical weapons (for use in killing those only harmed by such). Make an invisible sword and give the bonuses in the magic weapons section too.

[Nightmask]

I leave the limitations and restrictions as is (since the section about the immunities for Diabolists for their own runes doesn't have anything to do with the limitations and restrictions as the runes are clearly noted as needing to be on things that are stationary because they aren't able to deal with being moved about),

Actually it directly contradicts this, under "Immunity" it states

"A Diabolist is impervious to the magical effects of his own wards and cannot trigger them by touching or disturbing them. Consequently, he can pick up a book he has covered with wards without triggering a single one. However, someone else touching the book will set them off in an instant. Furthermore, if some unauthorized person sets off an area affect ward placed by the Diabolist, the mage is not affected by "his" magic; unfortunately, everybody else around him is affected, unless they make a successful saving throw — such is the nature of wards."

So can he ward a book and touch (or toss it at) an attacker but not do the same to a weapon or a stone? it makes no sense, hence why the Immunity to triggering your own wards and your own ward effects don't effect you unless you want to" rule trumps the others. It makes sense to have a diabolist immune to his own wards. it continues to make sense to say he can handle a weapon warded by himself and even wield it too, while active, w/o setting of the ward himself. Same with an item. He can ward a key and use it to open locks without setting off the ward but if he tosses or hands the key to a burglar it makes sense that the burglar would set it off and take the effects of the ward. This "making sense" breaks down when you try to account for the seemingly arbitrary "limitations" imposed to nerf them.

But this is just the "logic" that makes sense to me (and it seems KC to some extent) and that my previous GM's have used to fix these issues.

If you can logically explain why a diabolist, who obviously needs to be able to handle his own wards without setting them off, can handle a book he's warded but cannot wield a weapon having his ward on it or toss a key at a burglar without setting of his own ward I'd really like to hear it.

Because there is a marked difference between picking up a book and setting it back down and carrying it around all over the place or whacking someone with a sword, which is why it's explicitly noted that things that are moved around and used frequently can't be targets of wards. If they are the ward is disrupted when subjected to such activity. Which does not in any way contradict the statement that they don't set off their own wards, it just means that they don't have to worry about activating them prematurely not that they can violate the rules saying they can't make things like mobile ward tapestries (there'd be no point in even giving limitations if the limitations never applied because of that exclusion).

I mean really, you think it's logical that they'd give limitations saying that they can't put wards on frequently used or moved items like weapons or woven into tapestries when the limitation never comes into play? The entire point of the limitations is to make it clear that you can't do any of that stuff, because the Diabolists immunity has no say whatsoever regarding the limitations and is quite irrelevant to them because it doesn't apply.

[Thinyser]

First let me thank you for your perspective, Its exactly what I'm looking for when starting this thread!
Secondly let me say while I disagree with you I don't think your way is wrong or a bad way to play as long as it works for you and your players have fun. What follows is my opinion.

I leave the limitations and restrictions as is (since the section about the immunities for Diabolists for their own runes doesn't have anything to do with the limitations and restrictions as the runes are clearly noted as needing to be on things that are stationary because they aren't able to deal with being moved about),

Actually it directly contradicts this, under "Immunity" it states

"A Diabolist is impervious to the magical effects of his own wards and cannot trigger them by touching or disturbing them. Consequently, he can pick up a book he has covered with wards without triggering a single one. However, someone else touching the book will set them off in an instant. Furthermore, if some unauthorized person sets off an area affect ward placed by the Diabolist, the mage is not affected by "his" magic; unfortunately, everybody else around him is affected, unless they make a successful saving throw — such is the nature of wards."

So can he ward a book and touch (or toss it at) an attacker but not do the same to a weapon or a stone? it makes no sense, hence why the Immunity to triggering your own wards and your own ward effects don't effect you unless you want to" rule trumps the others. It makes sense to have a diabolist immune to his own wards. it continues to make sense to say he can handle a weapon warded by himself and even wield it too, while active, w/o setting of the ward himself. Same with an item. He can ward a key and use it to open locks without setting off the ward but if he tosses or hands the key to a burglar it makes sense that the burglar would set it off and take the effects of the ward. This "making sense" breaks down when you try to account for the seemingly arbitrary "limitations" imposed to nerf them.

But this is just the "logic" that makes sense to me (and it seems KC to some extent) and that my previous GM's have used to fix these issues.

If you can logically explain why a diabolist, who obviously needs to be able to handle his own wards without setting them off, can handle a book he's warded but cannot wield a weapon having his ward on it or toss a key at a burglar without setting of his own ward I'd really like to hear it.

Because there is a marked difference between picking up a book and setting it back down and carrying it around all over the place or whacking someone with a sword, which is why it's explicitly noted that things that are moved around and used frequently can't be targets of wards.

Really no I don't see much difference where wards are concerned. Movement is movement be it slowly picking up a book and setting it back down or carrying it down the street in your backpack at a full sprint. Same for a sword. Gingerly picking it up from a weapon rack and using it to "knight" a soldier or removing it from a scabbard and swinging it with force. As long as the Diabolist that warded it is doing the moving it is NOT going to activate, at least not until it contacts something else that would set it off. Again this is my interpretation of what IMO is a primary rule of "diabolists are immune from activating their own wards" rule.

If they are the ward is disrupted when subjected to such activity.

Not if its the warding diabolist that moves it.
With the way that you run it where do you draw the line?
For most GMs I know Its much more cut and dried to say "you Mr. Diabolist can touch your own wards and move them as much as you like WITHOUT setting them off even if you would normally meet the requirements to do so, and anybody else that meets the requirements to set it off WILL set it off at the slightest touch"

Which does not in any way contradict the statement that they don't set off their own wards, it just means that they don't have to worry about activating them prematurely not that they can violate the rules saying they can't make things like mobile ward tapestries (there'd be no point in even giving limitations if the limitations never applied because of that exclusion).

I think the limitation as written are purely an afterthought stuck in to nerf them. Which is why it disagrees with the primary rule of "diabolists are immune to setting of their own wards" and is why it is ignored by most GMs I know personally and it seems at least a few here on the boards too.

I mean really, you think it's logical that they'd give limitations saying that they can't put wards on frequently used or moved items like weapons or woven into tapestries when the limitation never comes into play?

Nope I think its illogical and pretty much just an afterthought to nerf them, thats why I (and many other GM's) ignore or at least modify most of the limitations.

The entire point of the limitations is to make it clear that you can't do any of that stuff, because the Diabolists immunity has no say whatsoever regarding the limitations and is quite irrelevant to them because it doesn't apply.

Then It gets into the contradictions that have been mentioned, so I don't think the limitations were done to "make it clear" that the diabolist immunity doesn't apply. See I don't think they were even thinking of the diabolists immunity to their own wards at all when applying said limitations. HAD they been thinking about that they would have seen how the limitations do not jive logically with the diabolist being immune to activating his own wards and that active wards can be moved without setting them off. IMO Their only goal here was to nerf the diabolist and they did so by applying very illogical and contradictory limitations.

Just like the book example I gave, (and that you are trying to explain away by essentially saying "they don't have to move a book often" which I don't agree with since books are meant to be moved about repeatedly and often, not simply picked up and set down) it explicitly states that The diabolist can ward himself!

"The Diabolist can also place and use protection wards on himself"

and again under the permanency wards it states

"A permanence ward can only be applied to a living creature by sewing on the character's body (other wards can be glued or sewn; area affect wards cannot be used on a living being).

Which says that permanency wards must be sewn on but other wards (ie non permanent) can be attached to living beings by being glued or sewed, but regardless of how they are attached, and be they permanent or not, AoE wards cannot be attached on a living being.

Last I checked living beings move around... A LOT. So unless the book means "3 toed sloths only" whenever it refers to "living being" I think that pretty much clears up the whole moving around frequently.

Now I'm not saying your way is wrong just that its not any more logical, or more right, than the way all my previous GMs, myself, and KC have run it. We just feel that the limitations were arbitrarily placed and don't follow the logic of the diabolist being immune to activating his own wards and the fact that wards can obviously be moved about a lot, so long as its either the creator of the ward or the being the ward is directly attached to that is doing the moving, and that they are not AoE wards.

[Nightmask]

Considering the purpose of the Diabolist and his wards is to generally ward locations and not movable items it defeats the purpose to go 'well no really they can use their wards anytime they want in any way that they want', particularly when all the book material on them makes it clear that no they can't use their wards to make instant magic weapons and that they aren't intended to be front-line combat mages anymore than Summoners are and that their strengths are in being able to prepare things ahead of time in a set location. If you're wanting a front-line combat mage then actually play a Wizard.

Just because some wards are specifically capable of being applied to living beings does not stand as justification that that should mean all wards should be able to be moved around, that makes no more sense than trying to argue that because some people can eat peanuts then everyone can eat peanuts. We're already told that wards in general can't be placed on objects and moved around, with the only exception being the Diabolist can move or touch objects he's warded in a limited fashion. He can't however move them around freely or else he ruins the ward.

I suppose I should also reiterate that just because the Diabolist won't set off his own wards opening and closing a warded chest doesn't constitute a contradiction regarding the ability to move warded objects around, having a limited range of safe contact or use does not constitute having an unlimited range of use particularly when we're told explicitly that it can't be done.

If you don't want to play Diabolists how they're written that's fine but the material on them simply does not allow for warding things like weapons so you can go around hitting people with them or making portable land mines or what have you. When the book says 'no you can't make tapestries of wards to unroll for quick use' and your response is 'no they can it says they don't set off their own wards' then you aren't playing the Diabolist as it's written, because 'you can't do this' trumps 'but they can do this'. Their immunity to getting fried by their own wards simply does not constitute groundwork for throwing out all the limitations and restrictions that are very explicitly laid out as being things that they can't do in spite of that immunity.

[Reagren Wright]

So in the "limitations and reminders" section it states thing like runes cannot be placed on weapons to make them magical items, they cannot be drawn on cloth and unrolled at a moment of need nor can they be placed on items and used as grenades.

All the GM's I've played under allow these rules to be violated by the diabolist that made the runes reasoning that the same section also states that the diabolist is immune to his own runes (and the diabolist really needs a hand up when it comes to combat). So with these rules GM'ed out of the way the diabolist can rune up his own weapon and handle it without setting off the runes until its used on an opponent. They can be drawn on cloth, stored unenergized, and then placed around camp, energized as alarms or whatever, de-energized & collected once not needed, and stored again. They can be drawn on stones or arrows or whatever and sent flying to be set off if they reach a target that trigger the ward. etc.

One GM even ignored the "Area affect wards cannot be placed on living beings." rule and allowed permanent wards (on demon/dragon bone) to be sewn onto characters permanently warding them with area of effect wards.

How do you handle it?

Pretty much the same way, except for the Area Affect wards.
Palladium (like most people/groups) is sloppy with their logic. On one hand, they state that the reason why certain things cannot be done with wards is because "the ward will be triggered," but then they state "a diabolist does not trigger his own wards unless he wishes to."
I go with logic, and rule that the second rule trumps the first rule.

Of course, if a Diabolist has a backpack full of active wards, and he bumps into somebody, THAT can be a whole heap of trouble.

I'm with KC on this. Long time ago, I wrote Kevin because 1st edition rules gave me a headache with their logic and Kevin
wrote me back saying go by the book. 2nd edition did try to to clarify the rules but there are times I when it
comes to wards yet I try to stay with the rules. If the diabolist is immune to his wards, what does he care if he walking around inflicting death area effect.

[jade von delioch]

After using wards a few time and reading this I kind of want to rewrite how wards work in Palladium.

If you were to make changes to wards in the game, what would you change?

[Thinyser]

Considering the purpose of the Diabolist and his wards is to generally ward locations and not movable items it defeats the purpose to go 'well no really they can use their wards anytime they want in any way that they want', particularly when all the book material on them makes it clear that no they can't use their wards to make instant magic weapons and that they aren't intended to be front-line combat mages anymore than Summoners are and that their strengths are in being able to prepare things ahead of time in a set location. If you're wanting a front-line combat mage then actually play a Wizard.

Besides the limitations being illogical, the problem that I see with them is that if you play them "as is" (the way you would play them) they arn't any fun. They make good NPCs (like alchemists) to buy stuff from but not fun to play. I and most GMs it seems understand that in order for diabolists to get interest from players as a possible character the player has to see how they can be engaged in the story. Warding stationary stuff for a fee isn't very fun. Warding your camp every night is good for the party but again not very fun. At least IMO and most other GMs and players I know.

Just because some wards are specifically capable of being applied to living beings does not stand as justification that that should mean all wards should be able to be moved around, that makes no more sense than trying to argue that because some people can eat peanuts then everyone can eat peanuts. We're already told that wards in general can't be placed on objects and moved around, with the only exception being the Diabolist can move or touch objects he's warded in a limited fashion. He can't however move them around freely or else he ruins the ward.

I think you miss read that. ALL wards (with the exception of AoE) can be attached to a living being.

I have no clue what your statement about peanuts is supposed to mean. Everyone CAN eat peanuts (some people might die because they have a severe allergy to them but eat them they can, and do, then sometimes die). I think it is this strange peanut statement that "doesn't make sense" and not my argument...

Wards in general CAN be placed on items and moved around (just not AoE wards as they are tied to that specific location). This is evidenced by the fact that ALL wards (except AoE) can be placed on living beings.

Also it never says diabolist can only touch/move objects he's warded in a limited fashion. In two places, the "limitations" and in the "Ward placement section" it says "Wards cannot be placed on any object that is handled frequently" and in the ward placement section (where it actually elaborates on the "Wards cannot be placed on any object that is handled frequently" rule) it SPECIFICALLY exempts the diabolist, people who touch the item at the same time he does and people he specifically made exempt at the time the ward was created from this limitation.

"If the person using the warded object is the Diabolist who created it, the ward is not activated. Nor will it be activated by others touching it at the same time he is, unless he willingly activates it (see ward energizing and immunity). Wards can also be made to exempt a specific person, so he or she can touch and move the item without activating the magic, but if another person should touch it, the ward is activated and that person will suffer the ward assault"

So If I as a diabolist wards a spell book for a wizard are you saying that wizard can't move his own book around, put it in his backpack, sprint away from danger, and actually, you know, use it?
If so what the heck is the point of warding a book or anything really?

"Hey guys I got this awesome spell book that has all my spells in it and I got some awesome protection wards on it. Yeah I'm exempt from setting them off, but you know really I can only take the book off the shelf, dust it off and then put it back up on the shelf... No the diabolist told me that if I actually try to take it some place or you know "use it" then I'll set the wards off."

I suppose I should also reiterate that just because the Diabolist won't set off his own wards opening and closing a warded chest doesn't constitute a contradiction regarding the ability to move warded objects around, having a limited range of safe contact or use does not constitute having an unlimited range of use particularly when we're told explicitly that it can't be done.

see above, it states specifically in two places that they are immune to setting off their wards and one place elaborates that even if they USE the item that is warded it does not set it off.

If you don't want to play Diabolists how they're written that's fine but the material on them simply does not allow for warding things like weapons so you can go around hitting people with them or making portable land mines or what have you. When the book says 'no you can't make tapestries of wards to unroll for quick use' and your response is 'no they can it says they don't set off their own wards' then you aren't playing the Diabolist as it's written, because 'you can't do this' trumps 'but they can do this'. Their immunity to getting fried by their own wards simply does not constitute groundwork for throwing out all the limitations and restrictions that are very explicitly laid out as being things that they can't do in spite of that immunity.

I disagree and I've offered book quotes to back up my logic.

[Thinyser]

After using wards a few time and reading this I kind of want to rewrite how wards work in Palladium.

If you were to make changes to wards in the game, what would you change?

If you're asking me I wouldn't change them i'd just continue to interpret the rules as I do. So if anything I guess I would change the rules to be more explicit that the "immunity to setting off your own wards" trumps any other limitation that is based on the diabolist himself setting off the wards through movement or use/eliminate those limitations totally.

Who cares if a ward can be energized and carried on a weapon or used as a grenade? Once it goes off one time its done and has to be redrawn and energized again. Same with alarms around camp. Carry a bunch and set them around each night. When one is tripped its done and has to be replaced with a new ward.

Permanency wards are still rare and expensive (6000 gp per oz for demon/dragon bone is nothing to shake a stick at) so if a diabolist wants to make his staff inflict "death" permanently to anybody that touches it besides himself, he's going to have to kill a pretty bad@$$ foe and hope he can collect some bones or pay a pretty penny to acquire the needed material (if its available for sale at all) to do so. Thats enough game balance for me. Its not like there are gonna be tons of low level characters running around with permanently warded up weapons.

I'd even allow diabolist to ward weapons and exclude the weapon's owner so the next time that weapon is wielded by the owner he would benefit from the ward discharging against his opponent. It would also protect the weapon from theft until the ward is discharged BUT could be a major danger to curious/careless people, especially kids. Again though, it goes off once and then its done.

[Nightmask]

Like I've already said you're taking two basically unrelated rules, one for the set of limitations, and one for an exception, and then declaring that the exception removes the limitations even limitations that clearly state that the Diabolist can't do it. So in spite of a direct rule that says 'no diabolists can't make carved rune disks to use like land mines or ward tapestries' you insist that those rules don't apply because diabolists can handle items they've runed without setting them off (note that setting them off is NOT the same thing as meaning they can be handled with impunity) which isn't even remotely logical. Being able to handle things he's put runes on doesn't trump a direct rule that says he can't in spite of that do things like create portable rune land mines, if he could there wouldn't be any point to even putting in a rule against it since the rule would be irrelevant.

But hey like I said you don't want to run the Diabolist as it's written that's up to you, but how you're running them isn't justifiable by the book because it directly contradicts the book and there is no contradiction or ambiguity involved. All the material on Diabolists makes it clear that they aren't meant to be front-line troops or able to do much rune-wise on the fly and that their strength is based on being able to rune set locations ahead of time making them to be careful, cautious thinkers since they can't use their skills with the speed and versatility of Wizards. If you feel that you have to twist things to insist it's possible by the book rather than admit you're just house-ruling things well they don't twist that far. The rules state that they can't rune weapons to carry around in combat, create portable items like tapestries to just quick reveal a rune, or other such stunts and there are no rules that supersede or contradict that. We're told those things can't be done so they can't, being able to handle things they rune without setting them off does not contradict that.

EDIT:
It baffles me the stigma against something being a house rule to some, that they have to spin something so it can be seen as 'canon' even when it isn't. I'm the last person to go around with a 'must be by the book' position but if you're going to talk about how to improve things for the Diabolist by the book without house rules then house ruling that they don't have limitations and trying to claim it's really written that way in the book is just going to fail every time you make the argument. If you don't have problems with house rules then why keep trying to insist an obvious house rule isn't a house rule? Why would they give a list of limitations if the limitations didn't exist? Answer, because they do exist and the Diabolist immunity to his own wards has nothing to do with the limitations which is why he's written with those limitations because they're LIMITATIONS, things he can't ignore/skip.

By the same token if you're going to have people using a character that's weak in a certain area in that area then they should be WEAK in that area. If you want to improve them somehow in that area house-ruling away their limitations so that they aren't really that character anymore isn't really the way, and since Diabolists aren't that inferior to thieves and scholars and such what do you do to improve them in direct combat? Or do you just go 'well it's okay for them to be weak in that area, but the Diabolist shouldn't be'? Even though the Diabolist shouldn't be any better at combat either and should be making use of the same methods that the other combat-weak classes use (which includes just staying out of combat unless you have to fight).

[The Dark Elf]

I do not allow items such as books to be inscribed with protection by infliction+condition wards and then activated and thrown at an enemy thereby striking the enemy and bouncing off them the ward being caused to be activated as if the enemy was the individual disturbing the warded item.

I do this because the "grenade" sentence against it but also because of my belief that the intention of wards (by the creator) are to be defensive and a different, interesting type of magic removed from an action orientation and towards a more strategic plan. IMO ofc.

I also hate discussions about wards cos the descriptions are so undefined.

[eliakon]

I have allowed ward 'mines' but not 'grenades' with the theory that 'disturbing a ward' requires an action on the part of the one doing the disturbing. Thus if I throw a rock at you, I am the actor, if you step on a rock you are the actor. Yah its petty, and obscure, and I just shrug and say "its magic, it uses its own logic". This neatly removes the "warded staff with <suitable number here> permanent death wards" tactic. It wont affect what you hit, as they aren't 'disturbing' it, you are...and the diabolist cant set of his own wards by disturbance.

And as a side note I have allowed the 1st ed ability of Diabolists to be limited users of circles to be maintained. I let diabolists try to decipher circles, and they can make/use them. HOWEVER all summons are limited as if they were level 1 (so no summon circles....gee I guess that means that only SUMMONERS can summon ).

[Natasha]

Never has been an issue for us. I have allowed our Diabolist to bug his wagon; so anyone with a draft animal could walk away with it, the trigger is trying to remove an object from the wagon.

[Thinyser]

I have allowed ward 'mines' but not 'grenades' with the theory that 'disturbing a ward' requires an action on the part of the one doing the disturbing. Thus if I throw a rock at you, I am the actor, if you step on a rock you are the actor. Yah its petty, and obscure, and I just shrug and say "its magic, it uses its own logic". This neatly removes the "warded staff with <suitable number here> permanent death wards" tactic. It wont affect what you hit, as they aren't 'disturbing' it, you are...and the diabolist cant set of his own wards by disturbance.

And as a side note I have allowed the 1st ed ability of Diabolists to be limited users of circles to be maintained. I let diabolists try to decipher circles, and they can make/use them. HOWEVER all summons are limited as if they were level 1 (so no summon circles....gee I guess that means that only SUMMONERS can summon ).

Now that actually seems like some well thought out logic. Though it does specifically state the diabolist can will his wards to discharge when he and another are touching it (but it costs 2 PPE to do so). Never the less this argument at least makes sense why the grenade option is out.

[Thinyser]

Like I've already said you're taking two basically unrelated rules, one for the set of limitations, and one for an exception, and then declaring that the exception removes the limitations even limitations that clearly state that the Diabolist can't do it. So in spite of a direct rule that says 'no diabolists can't make carved rune disks to use like land mines or ward tapestries' you insist that those rules don't apply because diabolists can handle items they've runed without setting them off (note that setting them off is NOT the same thing as meaning they can be handled with impunity) which isn't even remotely logical. Being able to handle things he's put runes on doesn't trump a direct rule that says he can't in spite of that do things like create portable rune land mines, if he could there wouldn't be any point to even putting in a rule against it since the rule would be irrelevant.

But hey like I said you don't want to run the Diabolist as it's written that's up to you, but how you're running them isn't justifiable by the book because it directly contradicts the book and there is no contradiction or ambiguity involved. All the material on Diabolists makes it clear that they aren't meant to be front-line troops or able to do much rune-wise on the fly and that their strength is based on being able to rune set locations ahead of time making them to be careful, cautious thinkers since they can't use their skills with the speed and versatility of Wizards. If you feel that you have to twist things to insist it's possible by the book rather than admit you're just house-ruling things well they don't twist that far. The rules state that they can't rune weapons to carry around in combat, create portable items like tapestries to just quick reveal a rune, or other such stunts and there are no rules that supersede or contradict that. We're told those things can't be done so they can't, being able to handle things they rune without setting them off does not contradict that.

EDIT:
It baffles me the stigma against something being a house rule to some, that they have to spin something so it can be seen as 'canon' even when it isn't. I'm the last person to go around with a 'must be by the book' position but if you're going to talk about how to improve things for the Diabolist by the book without house rules then house ruling that they don't have limitations and trying to claim it's really written that way in the book is just going to fail every time you make the argument. If you don't have problems with house rules then why keep trying to insist an obvious house rule isn't a house rule? Why would they give a list of limitations if the limitations didn't exist? Answer, because they do exist and the Diabolist immunity to his own wards has nothing to do with the limitations which is why he's written with those limitations because they're LIMITATIONS, things he can't ignore/skip.

By the same token if you're going to have people using a character that's weak in a certain area in that area then they should be WEAK in that area. If you want to improve them somehow in that area house-ruling away their limitations so that they aren't really that character anymore isn't really the way, and since Diabolists aren't that inferior to thieves and scholars and such what do you do to improve them in direct combat? Or do you just go 'well it's okay for them to be weak in that area, but the Diabolist shouldn't be'? Even though the Diabolist shouldn't be any better at combat either and should be making use of the same methods that the other combat-weak classes use (which includes just staying out of combat unless you have to fight).

Thats a pretty holier than thou attitude. Especially considering that there is no real consensus on how to interpret the rules, and yes they are vague/contradictory enough that you and I can see them differently and both be adhering to canon as we see it, so get off your high horse.

I'm honestly surprised you continue to deny there are contradictions in the diabolist write up. You ignore the fact that the book says two different things and focus on these limitations as being the end all be all.

Care to explain how these

"If the person using the warded object is the Diabolist who created it, the ward is not activated. Nor will it be activated by others touching it at the same time he is, unless he willingly activates it (see ward energizing and immunity). Wards can also be made to exempt a specific person, so he or she can touch and move the item without activating the magic, but if another person should touch it, the ward is activated and that person will suffer the ward assault"

"The Diabolist can also place and use protection wards on himself"

"Wards must be placed on the specific individual item or person it is to affect or protect."

"Protection wards must be visible; a good place on a person is the forehead or chest."

"A permanence ward can only be applied to a living creature by sewing on the character's body (other wards can be glued or sewn; area affect wards cannot be used on a living being)."

quotes which all pertain to use or handling of warded items by the diabolist (or those that are exempted at the time of creation), or the actual warding of living beings (that will obviously not be immobile and will most definitely be moving "frequently") are not a direct contradiction to "Wards cannot be placed on any object that is handled frequently."

or care to explain how these quotes dont verify that the diabolist, people he exempts, and people wearing the wards (probably because they were exempted) that these wards can be handled with impunity by these people that are specifically exempted from setting them off.

How exactly is "immune from setting them off" not the same thing as "they can handle them with impunity"? *them here being their own wards or wards that a specified individual is exempted from setting off.

[Nightmask]

Like I've already said you're taking two basically unrelated rules, one for the set of limitations, and one for an exception, and then declaring that the exception removes the limitations even limitations that clearly state that the Diabolist can't do it. So in spite of a direct rule that says 'no diabolists can't make carved rune disks to use like land mines or ward tapestries' you insist that those rules don't apply because diabolists can handle items they've runed without setting them off (note that setting them off is NOT the same thing as meaning they can be handled with impunity) which isn't even remotely logical. Being able to handle things he's put runes on doesn't trump a direct rule that says he can't in spite of that do things like create portable rune land mines, if he could there wouldn't be any point to even putting in a rule against it since the rule would be irrelevant.

But hey like I said you don't want to run the Diabolist as it's written that's up to you, but how you're running them isn't justifiable by the book because it directly contradicts the book and there is no contradiction or ambiguity involved. All the material on Diabolists makes it clear that they aren't meant to be front-line troops or able to do much rune-wise on the fly and that their strength is based on being able to rune set locations ahead of time making them to be careful, cautious thinkers since they can't use their skills with the speed and versatility of Wizards. If you feel that you have to twist things to insist it's possible by the book rather than admit you're just house-ruling things well they don't twist that far. The rules state that they can't rune weapons to carry around in combat, create portable items like tapestries to just quick reveal a rune, or other such stunts and there are no rules that supersede or contradict that. We're told those things can't be done so they can't, being able to handle things they rune without setting them off does not contradict that.

EDIT:
It baffles me the stigma against something being a house rule to some, that they have to spin something so it can be seen as 'canon' even when it isn't. I'm the last person to go around with a 'must be by the book' position but if you're going to talk about how to improve things for the Diabolist by the book without house rules then house ruling that they don't have limitations and trying to claim it's really written that way in the book is just going to fail every time you make the argument. If you don't have problems with house rules then why keep trying to insist an obvious house rule isn't a house rule? Why would they give a list of limitations if the limitations didn't exist? Answer, because they do exist and the Diabolist immunity to his own wards has nothing to do with the limitations which is why he's written with those limitations because they're LIMITATIONS, things he can't ignore/skip.

By the same token if you're going to have people using a character that's weak in a certain area in that area then they should be WEAK in that area. If you want to improve them somehow in that area house-ruling away their limitations so that they aren't really that character anymore isn't really the way, and since Diabolists aren't that inferior to thieves and scholars and such what do you do to improve them in direct combat? Or do you just go 'well it's okay for them to be weak in that area, but the Diabolist shouldn't be'? Even though the Diabolist shouldn't be any better at combat either and should be making use of the same methods that the other combat-weak classes use (which includes just staying out of combat unless you have to fight).

Thats a pretty holier than thou attitude. Especially considering that there is no real consensus on how to interpret the rules, and yes they are vague/contradictory enough that you and I can see them differently and both be adhering to canon as we see it, so get off your high horse.

I'm honestly surprised you continue to deny there are contradictions in the diabolist write up. You ignore the fact that the book says two different things and focus on these limitations as being the end all be all.

There's nothing 'holier than thou' about my post, and yes there is a general consensus regarding how to interpret the rules because we all are bound by the rules of grammar for the English Language that set a boundary on things. I'm also not denying any contradictions because there aren't any contradictions. The book doesn't say contradictory things regarding wards, you simply choose to insist it does because you're working from an end-goal of giving what amounts to spell-casting power to Diabolists so they can be more like traditional mages even though they clearly aren't.

Those limitations ARE the end all and be all of things when it comes to what a Diabolist CAN'T do, they're there to make it clear that you can't do those things in spite of what else you can do. That's why they're called 'limitations', and if something else seems to contradict them (and no none of the other stuff contradicts them) the limitations trump the broader implications that seem to exist elsewhere since clearly the limitations are meant to apply otherwise they would have never included them in the first place. So any seeming contradictions must give way to the stated limitations because the limitations tell us what can't be done, they put the limits on the range of things one can get away with. To insist that the limitations never apply when they're clearly listed is to be making a house rule that the limitations don't exist because by the book we are told that they do. Limitations that never limit aren't limitations and from what I've seen out of people around here trying to set things up so you don't have to worry about limitations normally gets you flamed for such suggestions rather than lauded.

Care to explain how these

"If the person using the warded object is the Diabolist who created it, the ward is not activated. Nor will it be activated by others touching it at the same time he is, unless he willingly activates it (see ward energizing and immunity). Wards can also be made to exempt a specific person, so he or she can touch and move the item without activating the magic, but if another person should touch it, the ward is activated and that person will suffer the ward assault"

"The Diabolist can also place and use protection wards on himself"

"Wards must be placed on the specific individual item or person it is to affect or protect."

"Protection wards must be visible; a good place on a person is the forehead or chest."

"A permanence ward can only be applied to a living creature by sewing on the character's body (other wards can be glued or sewn; area affect wards cannot be used on a living being)."

quotes which all pertain to use or handling of warded items by the diabolist (or those that are exempted at the time of creation), or the actual warding of living beings (that will obviously not be immobile and will most definitely be moving "frequently") are not a direct contradiction to "Wards cannot be placed on any object that is handled frequently."

or care to explain how these quotes dont verify that the diabolist, people he exempts, and people wearing the wards (probably because they were exempted) that these wards can be handled with impunity by these people that are specifically exempted from setting them off.

How exactly is "immune from setting them off" not the same thing as "they can handle them with impunity"? *them here being their own wards or wards that a specified individual is exempted from setting off.

None of that means that clearly stated limitations don't actually exist, just because you can do X doesn't mean you can do Y. Just because the Diabolist can handle his own wards without setting them off doesn't mean he can create handy portable ward mines or ward tapestries he can make use of on demand, and we're told that in fact he can't do those things so his ability to handle his own warded items means nothing, it fails to affect whatever it is about wards that makes such things impossible. Clearly there are things about wards that just aren't compatible with creating those things, something that isn't related to their ability to handle their own warded items to a limited degree so can't be defeated by it.

But like I've said, you want to house rule that Diabolists don't have any limitations that's fine, but call it what it is because it's definitely not a by-the-book Diabolist. By the book Diabolists have clearly stated limitations on what they can do, removing those limitations means it's not a by the book Diabolist, there is no 'but the book is vague about it so it is valid' because it isn't.

[eliakon]

I think the best explanation for the contradiction is that in the first edition none of the limits was present. So these sorts of tricks were legal (heck this is even the basis of one of the adventures in Old Kingdoms). Then Kevin heard all the stories about diabolists doing stuff that he didn't like. So he makes the Q&A about them. That works for a while, and then in classic palladium fashion he cuts and pastes to make the new book, instead of rewriting things. A
nd Voila, we have the retroactive nerf (no grenades) not making sense to the rule it is designed to nerf (that grenades could be made)

[Nightmask]

Again Nightmask, you gloss over pretty much every direct question i've asked, and ignored the quotes of various book passages that clearly illustrate that the limitations cannot always apply. I'm done trying to explain anything regarding this to you. Thanks for your input but I just don't think its worth my time to try to communicate such a basic concept as contradiction to you any longer.

That's reaching into being personally insulting there, I understand the concept of contradiction quite well and do not need you to explain it to me. All you have done is point to things that the Diabolist can do and declared 'well if they can do that then there aren't any limitations and where it says they have limitations it doesn't exist', which is demonstrably a house rule. Being able to do the things you've listed does not even remotely constitute a contradiction with the limitations, they are EXCEPTIONS. So when it says 'can't do this' we have the EXCEPTION 'but can do this'. For example, the ability to place a ward on a person, it has ZERO to do with a limitation that says 'can't place a ward on a tapestry to unroll on demand'. Absolutely zero. They aren't related at all.

You've also been quite clear that you've made this house rule because you feel Diabolists are weak and need 'pumping up' as it were, rather than accept that Diabolists aren't supposed to be strong in the area you're pumping them up in. If you're looking to pump them up by the book then you look to how you improve other classes that aren't strong in that area either instead of removing completely a very explicit set of limitations and try and make it out that the limitations written in the book don't really exist and never apply to anything no matter how explicit they are.

[Nightmask]

I think the best explanation for the contradiction is that in the first edition none of the limits was present. So these sorts of tricks were legal (heck this is even the basis of one of the adventures in Old Kingdoms). Then Kevin heard all the stories about diabolists doing stuff that he didn't like. So he makes the Q&A about them. That works for a while, and then in classic palladium fashion he cuts and pastes to make the new book, instead of rewriting things. And Voila, we have the retroactive nerf (no grenades) not making sense to the rule it is designed to nerf (that grenades could be made)

There are printings of Palladium Fantasy where Diabolists didn't have limitations on what they could get away with? I don't have my first edition copy handy to peruse it and see if it does or doesn't have any listed.

Still, even if the limitations have been added on later, since the discussion is based on the editions that include the restrictions we have to conclude that because they were added on they're meant to trump anything else in regards to those limitations since there'd be no reason to add them otherwise since some try and argue that the limitations don't apply at all because they're trumped by what's said elsewhere (even when what's said elsewhere says nothing of the sort). I mean that's the point of limitations, they trump what else you can do.

It's like the Mega-Hero Vulnerabilities, they're still vulnerable to damage from their weakness even if they have powers (like Invulnerability) that would otherwise protect against it. If the Invulnerability still applied then they don't have a weakness since the weakness can never work. Which is why limitations trump everything else, they explicitly limit or leave holes in things if they can't limit things then they aren't limitations. Since we're told that they are limitations then they win any battles of possible or mistaken contradiction (since there can't actually be a contradiction since the limitation modifies whatever it limits, like saying 'Green Lantern Power Rings don't work against Yellow', the limitation makes it clear that in spite of working on everything else they don't work on yellow).

[Thinyser]

Again Nightmask, you gloss over pretty much every direct question i've asked, and ignored the quotes of various book passages that clearly illustrate that the limitations cannot always apply. I'm done trying to explain anything regarding this to you. Thanks for your input but I just don't think its worth my time to try to communicate such a basic concept as contradiction to you any longer.

That's reaching into being personally insulting there, I understand the concept of contradiction quite well and do not need you to explain it to me. All you have done is point to things that the Diabolist can do and declared 'well if they can do that then there aren't any limitations and where it says they have limitations it doesn't exist', which is demonstrably a house rule. Being able to do the things you've listed does not even remotely constitute a contradiction with the limitations, they are EXCEPTIONS. So when it says 'can't do this' we have the EXCEPTION 'but can do this'. For example, the ability to place a ward on a person, it has ZERO to do with a limitation that says 'can't place a ward on a tapestry to unroll on demand'. Absolutely zero. They aren't related at all.

You've also been quite clear that you've made this house rule because you feel Diabolists are weak and need 'pumping up' as it were, rather than accept that Diabolists aren't supposed to be strong in the area you're pumping them up in. If you're looking to pump them up by the book then you look to how you improve other classes that aren't strong in that area either instead of removing completely a very explicit set of limitations and try and make it out that the limitations written in the book don't really exist and never apply to anything no matter how explicit they are.

You seem to be repeatedly and purposely misrepresenting what I have posted. Please discontinue posting on this thread if you cannot accurately portray what I've posted. I will consider you continuing to misrepresent me as trolling and will report you. Please note I've been using these boards for a LONG time and have reported less than a handful of people, I don't usually consider reporting people but when they continuously, and seeming purposefully, missrepresent what I've posted in order to support their views rather than using logic and actual canon quotes to support their claim or refute mine I do see it as trolling as you are putting words In my mouth.

Example 1: I stated that all of my previous GM's saw contradictions in the limitations (and because the diabolist needs a hand up in combat) they decided to ignore these limitations. So A) I never made this house rule it was my previous GMs and 2) you consider this a house rule I consider it a valid intrerpretation of contradicting canon.

Example 2: You also misrepresent that my examples of people having wards applied to them and the passage where the diabolist is stated as being able to use items he's warded and others that are exempted being able to touch and handle them as pertaining to the no cloth limitation when I have EXPLICITLY stated it contradicts the "wards cannot be placed on items that will be handled frequently" limitation... AND you continue to ignore this direct contradiction.

So I'll be happy to continue to read your posts if they actually represent what I have stated AND actually address what issues I have pointed out. If you continue to twist my statements and ignore others I won't continue with your antics.

[Nightmask]

You don't appear to actually be responding to what I'm actually posting, since I don't see any response to the actual points I've made.

Limitations by definition put restrictions on things, they reflect that in spite of everything else something can do they can't do X. So when a limitation says 'can't do X' it doesn't matter if they can do Y and X may or may not be normally part of Y they can't do it because that's what limitations do they say where Y doesn't apply. That's not a contradiction.

It doesn't matter that a Diabolist can touch or move things he's warded without setting off the wards, it doesn't matter that when it comes to living things you can put a ward on them while they move around, the limitations make it clear that even though you can do those exceptions you can't do the things under the heading of limitations because that's what they are, qualifiers that limit what you can do which is why they trump the rest.

Now if you want to use your own personal definition of limitation that means 'does not limit anything' well then I'm certainly done here if you choose to use non-standard definitions for words because It's impossible to hold a meaningful discussion. You call things that aren't contradictions contradictions and limitations don't limit and that's just too fundamentally wrong to continue.

[Killer Cyborg]

I think the best explanation for the contradiction is that in the first edition none of the limits was present. So these sorts of tricks were legal (heck this is even the basis of one of the adventures in Old Kingdoms). Then Kevin heard all the stories about diabolists doing stuff that he didn't like. So he makes the Q&A about them. That works for a while, and then in classic palladium fashion he cuts and pastes to make the new book, instead of rewriting things. A
nd Voila, we have the retroactive nerf (no grenades) not making sense to the rule it is designed to nerf (that grenades could be made)

A likely explanation.
But it still doesn't make the nerfing actually make any sense as explained.

[Thinyser]

It says the can do X (putting wards on things like books and people) then it says they cannot do X (cannot place wards on items that are frequently handled) what part of this don't you understand? Both people and books are examples of things frequently handled. Yet the limitation says wards cannot be placed on items that are frequently handled. How are the examples NOT directly contradicting the limitation?

If the limitations were the end all be all that trumps all other rules then they would be inviolate, ie without exceptions. Since these limitations obviously do have exceptions they cannot be the end all be all trumps all rules.

Logically you cannot have both. These limitations are either are inviolate or they have "exceptions".

Would you actually disallow a diabolist warded spellbook where the owner is exempted from activating the wards from actually, carrying, handling, and using his spellboook? Or would that be an acceptable exception to the "cannot place wards on frequently handled items" ???

[Killer Cyborg]

You don't appear to actually be responding to what I'm actually posting, since I don't see any response to the actual points I've made.

That's pretty much what he's been saying to you, but it makes more sense when he says it.

[Thinyser]

You don't appear to actually be responding to what I'm actually posting, since I don't see any response to the actual points I've made.

That's pretty much what he's been saying to you, but it makes more sense when he says it.

Thanks KC. I'm about to lose my cool, think I'm just gonna have to quit responding.

[Nightmask]

Wards are subject to wearing off (as in physical wear, i.e. rubbing off) which is likely at least one reason you can't put them on frequently handled items. Because you're handling it you're damaging the ward (since few wards are permanent and nearly all are done up using easily rubbed away materials) resulting in its destruction rendering it useless. Which is also why wards are generally placed in static locations where they won't be disturbed, because they can't generally survive the wear and tear of movement.

People on the other hand have latent magical potential that in cooperation with a properly drawn ward may be why you can place them on people (or sew them in the case of a permanency ward), the nature of a living body is somehow more compatible with wards (not surprising when you consider rune weapons get their power by binding living beings to them) than an unliving thing. So maybe the Diabolist should invest in some turtles and work wards into their shells since presumably they could accept those wards that affect living beings and get around some of the limitations on Diabolists.

[Nightmask]

You don't appear to actually be responding to what I'm actually posting, since I don't see any response to the actual points I've made.

That's pretty much what he's been saying to you, but it makes more sense when he says it.

To you perhaps, since he's arguing the same 'those aren't limitations they're contradictions' position you support, but not likely to those who recognize that limitations aren't contradictions they're limitations.

[eliakon]

Wards are subject to wearing off (as in physical wear, i.e. rubbing off) which is likely at least one reason you can't put them on frequently handled items. Because you're handling it you're damaging the ward (since few wards are permanent and nearly all are done up using easily rubbed away materials) resulting in its destruction rendering it useless. Which is also why wards are generally placed in static locations where they won't be disturbed, because they can't generally survive the wear and tear of movement.

a thoughtful insight, and quite likely a good reason not to put a ward on a frequently handled item. And it is something I intend to make more use of in the future.
That said though it would seem to support that theory that "no wards on handled items" is a limitation that is separate from the actual rules of magic. especially if the diabolist DOES make the ward Permanent.

People on the other hand have latent magical potential that in cooperation with a properly drawn ward may be why you can place them on people (or sew them in the case of a permanency ward), the nature of a living body is somehow more compatible with wards (not surprising when you consider rune weapons get their power by binding living beings to them) than an unliving thing. So maybe the Diabolist should invest in some turtles and work wards into their shells since presumably they could accept those wards that affect living beings and get around some of the limitations on Diabolists.

That is an interesting hypothesis, and would make a pretty cool house rule. But it has zero support from the game, and thus is not exactly a strong argument to use for arguing the nature of wards.

Thought Exercise time
1.) Diabolist A places a ward sequence on the bottom of a small statue of Isis he prays to. Sequence is Permenent, Inflict, Cold
2.) Our Diabolist takes the statue when he moves houses (moved, but not frequently handled).
3.) During the move his convoy is attacked, and everything is stolen. When the thieves open his pack they find the statue.
4.) Thief #1 tries to take statue, and is chilled
5.) Thief #2 tries and is chilled
6.) Thief #3 is an undead that is immune to cold, so he takes the statue and puts it in his pocket
7.) On their next raid they are chassed by a paladin, Thief #3 takes the statue out of his pocket (and ignores the chill) and tosses it at the paladin yelling 'catch'.
8.) The paladin catches the statues and is chilled

Are these legal? if this is NOT legal....where does it stop being legal, and what happens at that point?

[42dragon]

Initially I would lean toward the book specified limitations as trumping as Nightmask has argued for. And anything else is a house rule which I am fine with.

However eliakon's thought exercise does make me think...kudos .

Now, I do not know where I come down on the issue. Looking at most of the published adventure modules in the books, it seems that wards are almost always only placed on items that can't reasonably be moved (floors, large statues, ect.) or placed on items in which the moving of the item probably would not set off the ward but the opening mechanism is warded (from the view of the ward if the entire chest is moved the ward sees no movement, only when the locking mechainism is moved does the ward see movement and activate) and the permanence ward is used exceptionally sparingly.

However again in the Old Ones there is the Mystic Parcel adventure in which the package is warded (no permanence) and it can be transported and moved, and the wards will only trigger if seriously jostled or any time the package is attempted to be opened (until the ward string runs out). This seems to indicate that there is some mystical logic behind when the wards actually activate or not.

What exactly does this mystic logic control, and what limitation might it have when attempting to use warded weapons or ward grenades?

[Natasha]

It is all about intent, the spirit rather than the letter of the rule.

[eliakon]

It is all about intent, the spirit rather than the letter of the rule.

which is great...until you run into the grey areas and then you are left with either making it up as you go, changing one of the two contradictory rules, or saying that stuff only works when its 'used as intended'

My thought exercise was designed to show that the rules, even if used as 'intended' still have huge gaps.

[Natasha]

It is all about intent, the spirit rather than the letter of the rule.

which is great...until you run into the grey areas and then you are left with either making it up as you go, changing one of the two contradictory rules, or saying that stuff only works when its 'used as intended'

My thought exercise was designed to show that the rules, even if used as 'intended' still have huge gaps.

Intent of the diabolist. My wording was crappy, sorry.

[eliakon]

It is all about intent, the spirit rather than the letter of the rule.

which is great...until you run into the grey areas and then you are left with either making it up as you go, changing one of the two contradictory rules, or saying that stuff only works when its 'used as intended'

My thought exercise was designed to show that the rules, even if used as 'intended' still have huge gaps.

Intent of the diabolist. My wording was crappy, sorry.

Which still leaves problems.
the intent of the diabolist in my example was to have an idol that was in a shrine be warded. what happened was some undead decides to use it as a grenade. The intent followed the rules, and thus was obviously legal...but at some point the legal item was being used in an illegal manner....to which I ask 'what happens'
does the ward not work when thrown? why not?

[Natasha]

What happens is precisely what should happen, the ward is triggered by the undead distrubing the warded idol. I have search this thread for the word idol and shrine and I still do not find your example.

It only becomes illegal when the diabolist picks it up to throw it as a grenade. At which point I probably would have the ward triggered to discourage further such behaviours.

[Killer Cyborg]

You don't appear to actually be responding to what I'm actually posting, since I don't see any response to the actual points I've made.

That's pretty much what he's been saying to you, but it makes more sense when he says it.

To you perhaps, since he's arguing the same 'those aren't limitations they're contradictions' position you support, but not likely to those who recognize that limitations aren't contradictions they're limitations.

Not better.

[eliakon]

What happens is precisely what should happen, the ward is triggered by the undead distrubing the warded idol. I have search this thread for the word idol and shrine and I still do not find your example.

It only becomes illegal when the diabolist picks it up to throw it as a grenade. At which point I probably would have the ward triggered to discourage further such behaviours.

Thought Exercise time
1.) Diabolist A places a ward sequence on the bottom of a small statue of Isis he prays to. Sequence is Permenent, Inflict, Cold
2.) Our Diabolist takes the statue when he moves houses (moved, but not frequently handled).
3.) During the move his convoy is attacked, and everything is stolen. When the thieves open his pack they find the statue.
4.) Thief #1 tries to take statue, and is chilled
5.) Thief #2 tries and is chilled
6.) Thief #3 is an undead that is immune to cold, so he takes the statue and puts it in his pocket
7.) On their next raid they are chassed by a paladin, Thief #3 takes the statue out of his pocket (and ignores the chill) and tosses it at the paladin yelling 'catch'.
8.) The paladin catches the statues and is chilled

The statue was a legal target for the diabolist (object, not commonly handled...it sits on a shelf and is worshiped)
then the thieves take it and move it around several times
THEN the undead (who is immune) takes it, and uses it as a grenade

so is step 1 legal? 2? 6? 8? where does the ward go from 'legal' to 'illegal' and what are the consequences of ignoring the limitations?

[Natasha]

Since the intent of the ward creator is that the icon is not a grenade and the intent of the rules that the icon is not a grenade, then it ought not be handled as a grenade. The moment it is used as such, the ward is rendered inert. The paladin will suffer no ill effects from catching it. If he continues to carry it around with him, that is a different story.

[eliakon]

Since the intent of the ward creator is that the icon is not a grenade and the intent of the rules that the icon is not a grenade, then it ought not be handled as a grenade. The moment it is used as such, the ward is rendered inert. The paladin will suffer no ill effects from catching it. If he continues to carry it around with him, that is a different story.

Would that mean that I could carry a warded item and be fine, as long as the item wasn't intended to be carried, since I am not violating the intent of the ward? *visualizes people juggling loot to prevent the wards from working *

[Natasha]

Since the intent of the ward creator is that the icon is not a grenade and the intent of the rules that the icon is not a grenade, then it ought not be handled as a grenade. The moment it is used as such, the ward is rendered inert. The paladin will suffer no ill effects from catching it. If he continues to carry it around with him, that is a different story.

Would that mean that I could carry a warded item and be fine, as long as the item wasn't intended to be carried, since I am not violating the intent of the ward? *visualizes people juggling loot to prevent the wards from working *

No, you are violating the intent of the ward by moving the object; the verb you choose is irrelevant.

[eliakon]

Since the intent of the ward creator is that the icon is not a grenade and the intent of the rules that the icon is not a grenade, then it ought not be handled as a grenade. The moment it is used as such, the ward is rendered inert. The paladin will suffer no ill effects from catching it. If he continues to carry it around with him, that is a different story.

Would that mean that I could carry a warded item and be fine, as long as the item wasn't intended to be carried, since I am not violating the intent of the ward? *visualizes people juggling loot to prevent the wards from working *

No, you are violating the intent of the ward by moving the object; the verb you choose is irrelevant.

that's the POINT though. If a thief can make a ward deactivate by 'violating the intent' wouldn't they...violate the intent so they can deactivate the ward?
the issue is does
1) the ward work all the time the statue is moved, regardless of the intent of the mover
2) only work when the statue is moved, and the intent of the mover is not to do something that might violate the intent of the ward maker

this is important. since in case 1 you can make a situation where you have a grenade/mine. In case 2 you have a situation where you can get around a ward by violating its intent. Either way seems to break one of the base conditions for the ward.

[Thinyser]

This is why every GM I've played under has ruled to avoid these contradictions that lead to "well what if..."

They all essentially come to the conclusion that the limitations don't logically allow for the acts the diabolist is specified as capable of, so cause problems, AND said limitations are an afterthought to nerf them. As such they should be mostly ignored in favor of the more specific and more in depth explanations of the diabolist's abilities.
In essence they say:
"The diabolist and anyone exempt from setting off the ward can use, touch, move, and even toss their warded item as frequently as they want to. Anybody else touching the ward sets it of suffering its effects."

It's not perfect but its way better than trying to enforce the limitations when there are several other passages where they are contradicted.

[Natasha]

Since the intent of the ward creator is that the icon is not a grenade and the intent of the rules that the icon is not a grenade, then it ought not be handled as a grenade. The moment it is used as such, the ward is rendered inert. The paladin will suffer no ill effects from catching it. If he continues to carry it around with him, that is a different story.

Would that mean that I could carry a warded item and be fine, as long as the item wasn't intended to be carried, since I am not violating the intent of the ward? *visualizes people juggling loot to prevent the wards from working *

No, you are violating the intent of the ward by moving the object; the verb you choose is irrelevant.

that's the POINT though. If a thief can make a ward deactivate by 'violating the intent' wouldn't they...violate the intent so they can deactivate the ward?
the issue is does
1) the ward work all the time the statue is moved, regardless of the intent of the mover
2) only work when the statue is moved, and the intent of the mover is not to do something that might violate the intent of the ward maker

this is important. since in case 1 you can make a situation where you have a grenade/mine. In case 2 you have a situation where you can get around a ward by violating its intent. Either way seems to break one of the base conditions for the ward.

The devil is in the details. Few rules can cover every case, which is why people say that there are exceptions to every rule and that rules are made to be broken.

Two solutions being mutually exclusive do not rule both out as a solution. It only means that they cannot be used simultaneously. The Game Master may use context to determine the proper solution.