# Faq



## astriemer (May 25, 2005)

RW,
  I when through the boards and tried to find all the instances were you replied to questions posed by inquiring minds.  I've compiled them into a set of html web pages, have attached them as as zip file, and thus have two questions regarding them.

1) Can you (and anyone else for that matter) glance over them and make sure that I'm not attributing something to you that you didn't say (it's a lot of pages it turns out so take your time   )?
2) Assuming you approve, is there a way to get them posted to the boards as a sticky somehow?


Archus,
 When this is ready to post, is there a way to convert standard HTML pages to wiki pages so that it can also be posted on Arcane Arcade?

P.S. Much thanks to RuleMaster for getting this started.

File changed to current draft in next post from me.


----------



## Kemrain (May 25, 2005)

Very, very good idea!  Hope this does well.

- Kemrain the Impressed with The Amount of Effort that Went into This.


----------



## Verequus (May 25, 2005)

Ah, I wondered already, where the FAQ is - but it was my pleasure to get you started. You've saved me from finishing this work, because I'd wanted to show RW the questions for improving the compilation. Did you include the unanswered questions somewhere? I haven't been able yet to look through every file. And regarding the correct attributing - don't worry so much about this. It is nice to see your name in it, but who knows after all these months, what he exactly wrote? Furthermore, one thing what I don't like is, that you haven't edited the questions far enough - for example, FAQ entries don't need to include praisings, how good EoMR is: Those, who read it, know this already!  More seriously, a FAQ entry should state the most actual information and should not have changes added after itself. Also, the entry shouldn't leave any questions open, but be self-contained.


But now, here are my suggested changes to improve the FAQ:

Use in the main file name the word "index" - even after reading your readme file, I had a little trouble to find it.

Links back to the index file would be nice.

Main file:

"Lycenia Arcana" is spelled "Lyceian Arcana".   
The first miscellaneous question regarding the patch can be deleted - the patch is already applied to the RPGnow-file. 
 Magical Classes: Class-related Questions:

You can delete at the first question "Page 7:"   
"Earlier today I looked at EoM Revised for the first time and came away very intruiged and interested in using it. But I have a few questions." can be deleted.   
"Why is there no Charm, Compel, Create or Move Specialist feats? What might they do, if they did exist? Can we expect to see them in Lycean Arcana?" Charm and Compel Specialist do exist now, so you can remove those references.   
"How could/would you impliment these feats -- as feats -- not just through combining spell lists?" Only after reading the answer one knows, what is exactly asked. Also the answer needs further fixing, but without access to the original post I can't provide that.   
"How would you handle the requirement for a prestige class that needed one of these feats (Elemental Savant from T&B for example)?" Only after reading the answer one knows, what is exactly asked.   
"Is Spell Focus still available?" This question can be deleted. 
 Spell Elements:

"Metamagic feats: Is the DC not increased through the extra paid MP? I didn't found a direct mentioning of that, but the example of Intense Spell implies it, along with core rules." This is going to be revised in the compilation, so this question will be unnecessary.   
"Are spells with 0 MP for one or more lists allowed (except Gen 0)? Can someone get cantrip-effects for free, if spells with normal MP-costs are used like Evoke Fire 5/Evoke Death 0/Evoke Lava 0/Gen 2?" This question has been probably posted before the publishing of EoMR ans is already answered in it.   
"Will the Elements of Magic be compatible for epic play?" A supplement will handle all open questions.   
"I would also like a better description of why the MP limit for casting a spell rises so quickly when learning from the same spell list. I better description would be of help... It seems that low level characters can generally specialize in something like transform, placing 4 lists in varing forms of transform, and be able to spend every point of thier power for one big effect. What would be the reason for building a system like this?" The question should be reformulated a bit: "Why rises the MP limit for casting a spell so quickly when learning several spell lists from the same action type? It seems that low level characters can generally specialize in something like transform, placing 4 lists in varing forms of transform, and be able to spend every point of thier power for one big effect. What would be the reason for building a system like this?"   
Some questions with page designations should have those removed.   
""Diogenes's Deshackling (Dispel Magic 13/Gen 2)": Shouldn't the name be "Diogenes' Deshackling"? And the spell is a Dispel Magic 14/Gen 1." The reference to English grammar seems to be unnecessary.   
"Actually, there are more elements with no friendly elements - next to Life all of the unifying elements. Furthermore, I have to admit, that I don't like it, that several instances forbid the knowledge of some spell lists - one of the very things I like about the specialisation feats is, that you can become a specialist of everything (except Create ) without sacrifacing knowledge." No mentioning, that this question is regarding the Elemental feats. 
 Because I don't have enough time for everything, I've left some minor adjustments out  - if you read through the questions, the places should should be clear. The other files I'm going to leave to the others - erstwhile now.


----------



## astriemer (May 26, 2005)

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Ah, I wondered already, where the FAQ is - but it was my pleasure to get you started. You've saved me from finishing this work, because I'd wanted to show RW the questions for improving the compilation. Did you include the unanswered questions somewhere? I haven't been able yet to look through every file. And regarding the correct attributing - don't worry so much about this. It is nice to see your name in it, but who knows after all these months, what he exactly wrote? Furthermore, one thing what I don't like is, that you haven't edited the questions far enough - for example, FAQ entries don't need to include praisings, how good EoMR is: Those, who read it, know this already!  More seriously, a FAQ entry should state the most actual information and should not have changes added after itself. Also, the entry shouldn't leave any questions open, but be self-contained.
> 
> 
> But now, here are my suggested changes to improve the FAQ:
> ...




I have now included the unanswered questions. Good points about cleaning it up. 

I debated with myself about changing the wording of the questions and almost did so, but didn't want to misquote others, you're point about not remembering what exactly we wrote is a good one (though you can just do a search to see). As a result I haven't changed the question wordings yet.

Is the general concensus to prefer to have the questions trimmed down/rephrased or kept as originally asked?

Doh! I was going to rename the file at one point and forgot. That and the links back to the main file have been added in this new draft. And I've renamed and reorganized the files somewhat.

Also, I've made most of the changes, but am not sure about the following:

Main file:

re: patch - potentially there could still be people out there who have not patched their copy correct?

Magical Classes:

Re: deleting first question - why? might not others have the same question?
re: charm & compel specialist feat - yes they now exist, but if you don't have LA you might not know that
re: spell focus - others might still wonder

Spell Elements

re: metamagic feats - until the compliation comes out it should be included then correct?
re: 0 MP stacking - while it might have come out before the final publication, we had one player who didn't read the rules thoroughly and it would have helped him...though he probably wouldn't have read the FAQ closely either  :\ 
re: rephrasing "why build a system like this?" question - doesn't it read okay now?
re: page numbering removed - why, shouldn't we know what page the reference comes from? Are some of the page number references wrong?
re: Diogenes - someone was curious about the spelling, so I think it wouldn't hurt to leave in

Thanks for the feedback. I won't post another version of the FAQ until I've made a bunch of changes (assuming that I get more suggestions), but wanted to at least get the file naming stuff changed before people start giving me feedback.

So here's version 2 of the draft.


----------



## HellHound (May 26, 2005)

I say yes... trim down the questions and answers to nice, clean work. Then we can release the whole thing as a purty PDF in time, and harvest all this hard work you are putting into it.


----------



## Verequus (May 26, 2005)

astriemer said:
			
		

> Also, I've made most of the changes, but am not sure about the following:
> 
> Main file:
> 
> ...




 
I doubt it - this would be only the case, if someone has never looked for a patch and has turned all notifications from RPGnow off. And then I don't expect, that someone reads the FAQ, because everything indicates, that the buyer wasn't pleased.





> Magical Classes:
> 
> 
> Re: deleting first question - why? might not others have the same question?
> ...





 No, not the entire question, but the page reference. Those page references aren't really necessary, because one can search through the PDF or is already familiar enough with the layout to find the relevant section. Furthermore, the compilation can and will probably outdate those references and I prefer FAQ entries, which are as much independent on a certain revision as possible. (That answers the other question, too.)


LA and EoMR are one work - if you don't buy LA, then you aren't interested in EoMR anyway. IMO, of course. Furthermore, the compilation will reorganize the feats, so this question wouldn't be entirely correct.



 In the Spell Focus description this is already explained - no need for a FAQ question.




> Spell Elements
> 
> 
> re: metamagic feats - until the compliation comes out it should be included then correct?
> ...





If you don't forget to remove the question after the publishing, then can you leave it in.


In this case, only someone familiar with EoMR could have told him that - moreover, I'd like to have only entries in the FAQ, which aren't obvious or clearly stated in EoMR. Reexplaining the book does defeat its purpose.


No it doesn't. Grammar errors, typos and superflous text hinder the comprehension.


It was me, who was curious about the spelling. While it is interesting to know this, it doesn't have a relevance to EoMR itself. If you don't want to remove this, then move it to the Miscelleneous section.

----

I hope this clarifies everything.


----------



## Kemrain (May 26, 2005)

Speaking of frequently asked questions, here's one.

Using the Elemental Weapon enhancement from Create Element, how many arrows can I enhance with a single spell? Do I have to use the Discerning enhancement to target more than one? Would it be cheaper to throw an Elemental Object enhancement in there and make sure the spell had enough MP to make X many arrows? I'd rather just enhance existing arrows (Cold Iron arrowheads.)

This idea is inspired by the Magic Weapon spells in the corebooks. I can enhance up to 50 rounds of ammunition with one casting. I was hoping to do something similar with EoM.

- Kemrain the Creative.


----------



## astriemer (May 26, 2005)

Kemrain said:
			
		

> Speaking of frequently asked questions, here's one.
> 
> Using the Elemental Weapon enhancement from Create Element, how many arrows can I enhance with a single spell? Do I have to use the Discerning enhancement to target more than one? Would it be cheaper to throw an Elemental Object enhancement in there and make sure the spell had enough MP to make X many arrows? I'd rather just enhance existing arrows (Cold Iron arrowheads.)
> 
> ...




I could have sworn that I remember seeing a similar question that RW answered somewhere. You know what I didn't look through the thread on proposed spells. I'll have to check there in any case. I think that RW said something about if they were all touching each other and fit within the 5' area then they could all be affected. Did you say something like that RW, or did I dream it?


----------



## astriemer (May 26, 2005)

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> [/list]I doubt it - this would be only the case, if someone has never looked for a patch and has turned all notifications from RPGnow off. And then I don't expect, that someone reads the FAQ, because everything indicates, that the buyer wasn't pleased.
> 
> 
> [/list] No, not the entire question, but the page reference. Those page references aren't really necessary, because one can search through the PDF or is already familiar enough with the layout to find the relevant section. Furthermore, the compilation can and will probably outdate those references and I prefer FAQ entries, which are as much independent on a certain revision as possible. (That answers the other question, too.)
> ...




Good point about the patch.

Interesting point about the page numbers, grammar errors, et cetera. I guess I was thinking that the FAQ would be both a FAQ and also a Errata like work (since the Appendici do not have corrections ala errata style). I will break those into two separate works, one a FAQ that is revision independent (mostly) and that doesn't answer questions that are answered clearly in the text and a second section that is corrections/comments/errata like questions with answers.

Regarding the LA related stuff that covers information left out of EoM, I think it is helpful to include the points about what is in LA (that isn't in EoM) as while it is like a complete work and most people will buy both, until one has bought LA (perhaps funds are running low for a while) it is helpful to know that somethings have been taken care of in it.


A purty pdf, perfect!

I've made some major changes to the structure. There are now two sections: FAQ and Errata. I hope that it is okay for me to include the material from Appendix Two and the Infusion Revision. If not, let me know and I'll remove it. Hopefully that will help with some of the questions regarding what to include or not and where to put it.


----------



## Archus (May 30, 2005)

astriemer said:
			
		

> RW,
> Archus,
> When this is ready to post, is there a way to convert standard HTML pages to wiki pages so that it can also be posted on Arcane Arcade?



Sorry, I'm embroiled in my last semester of my MBA while working full time.  I have hardly had the time to pay attention to anything.  Once it is all over I'll have time to be a gamer again (for a while at least) - not sure what I'm going to run.  If I run d20 I'll use EoMR combined with a little Spycraft (rules not setting) and BESM d20 - or maybe EoMR combined with Blue Rose (replacing their magic system).  I might run Hero, Torg, Mutants and Masterminds, or Torg though.

The following tool advertises as being able to convert HTML to PmWiki style:
http://search.cpan.org/~diberri/HTML-WikiConverter-0.22/WikiConverter.pm

I haven't tried it.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 1, 2005)

Just downloaded the file.  I'll take a look.

I really appreciate all this work.  I personally believe that some issues inevitably will come up that the rules don't explicitly cover, requiring a GM judgment call, but it's nice to have the opinion of the designer for what's balanced.

Elemental Weapon on 50 arrows?  Sure, sounds fine for me.


----------

