How to play a Bjornaer

[callen]

@Ovarwa

I don't know if it explicitly says so, but there are explicit examples. For example, any Criamon path taken to its end.

OK. Cool. I can accept canon examples as showing the rule doesn't persist. But you're not going to like this. There are canon examples of core-book Virtues taken more than once even when the Virtue doesn't say they it can be taken more than once. That means there are canon examples that break the rule "A Virtue or Flaw may be taken more than once only if the description explicitly allows it" just like there are canon examples breaking 10 points. So if we're accepting canon examples this way, then we must agree that V&F may be taken more than once even when not explicitly stated they can.

@Ovarwa

Indeed I can't, unless there is a magus writeup somewhere that has it. If not, a strict RAW reading would indeed preclude this.

This is why I was talking about arbitrary selectivity. Everyone seems fine with this rule getting tossed but not with the other one stated in the same box.

@Ovarwa

Ok, so you're saying that using CrCo to increase a stat up to +1 stacks if you're doing it as a ritual, but not if you're doing it with a duration?

You're saying the spells "explicitly stack." I'm reminding you that the Momentary Ritual has ended, so there is no spell present to stack with.

@Ovarwa

Me, I'm saying that the guideline explicitly sets a limit, and it's not 'beyond the original characteristic,' so that other than the spell duration and possible warping for long-term effects, the spells do exactly the same thing.

This is not is saying it "explicitly stacks," not even close.

@Ovarwa

You're making an assumption too. My assumption is that the virtue does what it says, adding 3 to Soak. So if I have it twice, I follow the rule twice, so x+3+3 = x+6. That math looks straightforward to me. Soak = Tough(Tough(Soak)). You're saying that I can have the virtue twice, but then assume that the Soak referred to in the virtue is always the original Soak, even though the virtue says no such thing.

No, I'm not making that assumption. I'm saying the problem doesn't exist until you make the choice you're making. I'm pointing out there is another choice that you've overlooked, and that if you make that choice, this problem will never exist. Therefore what I've been saying does not lead to this problem. What I'm saying only leads to this problem when you add that assumption to it, an assumption I've avoided.

Let me show you the other straightforward math: If I have Tough, I get +3 to Soak.

What does that conditional statement lead to? I'll provide an example. Without Tough, my Soak is +5. I take Tough once. The condition is satisfied. Now my Soak is +8. I take Tough 100 times. The condition is satisfied. Now my Soak is +8. The math is just as straightforward for both versions. Here are the two versions as conditional statements:

If I have Tough, I get +3 to Soak for each instance of Tough. (Yours.)
If I have Tough, I get +3 to Soak. (The other.)

Look in the book at Tough. Which one is it? You cannot tell.