Thanks for the tip, I actually have one of these volumes, but haven't tried it yet: picked it up for a $1 at a used book store some while back, now will elevate it on the reading sequence.

This is shaping up really nicely, and very Hyperborean! Have you consider any kind of weird science-fantasy stuff, e.g. Captain Nebo's Amazing Submersible?

Fantastic looking cover! Can't wait...

Blackadder23 wrote:

^
Hmmm... the Sea-Hold rediscovered, fighting between crews, Flotsam built and the council formed, Pike Keep built... I probably need to push the rediscovery back to about two years before the campaign begins.
 

I think six months is better: that sounds reasonable if at least some fantastic treasure has already been discovered, leading to a "treasure-rush" type environment (i.e, "there's treasure in them thar pines!"). If nothing has been discovered, or only moderate wealth, you probably don't have a boomtown. And along those lines: there might be an early explorer who struck it rich with a discovery, leading all the following explorers to rush in?

Nice, have passed the link on to my group!

Very nice!

Yes, sounds reasonable to me too.

Ghul wrote:

rhialto wrote:

Jeff, the link to the public picture gallery brings one to a sign-in page: is an account required to view the gallery?

All I did is post a picture, but Boardhost sometimes has other things in mind -- galleries with ads, for instance. 

Ah, that must be it: I thought it would be a gallery of various areas of the map...whoops.

Caveman wrote:

rhialto wrote:

In the end I think I'd accept a Refs ruling either way, and would rule as I've stated (especially if the purloiner were devoted to a deity such as Apollo, for example).

That make sense, he still a conduit of a god's divine power. It not actually the Purloiner that is generates the magic? 

Well, I think that is a setting-specific question. Sorcery should be mysterious, especially in a sword & sorcery inspired setting like Hyperborea. In my campaign I haven't bothered to detail this. And I wouldn't be surprized if I missed such a detail in the rules...

Blackadder23 wrote:

rhialto wrote:

Hmmm, I'm inclined to permit it: a 9th level Purloiner has CA 9, like all the others, and access to the same spell. So the difference would be explained how? Because the rules don't specify "purloiner"? I don't know, seems too mechanistic, with a murky reasoning for the exclusion.

My reasoning is as follows: if it just said "cleric", I would probably assume any PC who can cast clerical spells can cure lycanthropy. But it specifically lists some classes and subclasses that can cast clerical spells, so my inclination would be to limit it to just those classes and subclasses. After all, if anyone casting cure disease can cure lycanthropy, why not just say "Cure disease can end this affliction"?
 

That's a reasonable explanation, and one I would accept to keep the game moving, and also accords with Gizmo's reasoning that all the classes cited in the spell description are in the Cleric class, and purloiner is a subclass of Thief. However, just to demonstrate that I think the truth value of this explanation is <1: are there other spells with such constraints? Asking out of curiosity, and still falling on the side of "it's the same spell, cast by a sorcerer of the same CA, why would it *not* also cure lycanthropy?" If the reasoning is that non-clerics don't learn the exact same version of the spell, then that begs the question for every spell. As always I think this is a gap Refs are free to fill with their own judicious ruling.