A Question About Traits and Advancement Points

[aramis]

You can't invoke the for experience nor autosuccess.

Given the nature of the discussion/OP those were the uses relevant to the subject at hand.

True, it's a side element.

However, the second half of the post you ignored, and that's the portion on the OP's topic - you mark the experience when you make the roll, not later.

But there are several common skills used in Combat, too... Athletics, Inspire, Song, Battle... the dwarf making huge clouds of smoke to make an autosuccess on inspire... "See, 'e's no threat. I've got time for me smoke while he attempts to put up a fight!"

[Glorelendil]

I don't think there was any question about what RAW says. The OP was starting a discussion about alternative interpretations.

[Rich H]

Yeah, what Glorelendil said. I'm not ignoring the second part of the post you made, Aramis. I'm not questioning how the RAW works, nor is anyone here, the thread is about increasing the narrative options available to players with respect to the subject of AP checks.

[Falenthal]

There are the laws as written, and then there's the "spirit of the law". Sometime we encounter situations that, if we applied the law literally, would really go against what the law tried to enforce/protect/etc. That's simply because not everything in life (or game) can be predicted and, therefore, taken into account when designing the law.

I think this is one of those examples: Is what the OP proposes included in the "law" or RAW? I don't think so.
Is it a way of using Traits that increases narrative and, thus, is probably "in the spirit" of the law, without breaking any balance? That depends on each one's opinion, but mine is: Absolutely yes.

[zedturtle]

There are the laws as written, and then there's the "spirit of the law". Sometime we encounter situations that, if we applied the law literally, would really go against what the law tried to enforce/protect/etc. That's simply because not everything in life (or game) can be predicted and, therefore, taken into account when designing the law.

I think this is one of those examples: Is what the OP proposes included in the "law" or RAW? I don't think so.
Is it a way of using Traits that increases narrative and, thus, is probably "in the spirit" of the law, without breaking any balance? That depends on each one's opinion, but mine is: Absolutely yes.

When I first posted the question, I was on the side of 'no, that's not how it works' but folks here have convinced me that we're just time-shifting the invocation that's normally allowed, so as to make the invocation match the fiction (the scene as described by the Loremaster) better. So, yeah, might not be literally rules-as-written, but certainly fits into the mood of The One Ring and thus I am okay with it now.