[projectaon] Re: Book 13 Erratum
- From: John TFS <johntfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 14:59:11 +0000
Well, I suppose we could change "can" for MUST! And yes, that word should be
bold, italicized, underlined and capitalized for emphasis. :)
Really the main thing I object to in terms of the Veteran is that their CS
bonuses are item-based instead of intrinsic. In both The Deathlord of Ixia and
Wolf's Bane there are points where the character may be forced to engage in
unarmed combat. If his CS is item based, he is at a huge disadvantage in those
situations. The worst part to me is that this Item-based LW makes no sense.
He's a Grandmaster, just like the Kai-order Grandmaster. A CS of 25+RNT is
intrinsic to being a Grandmaster, as is an EP of 30 + RNT. The only difference
and only "bonus" that should exist between a new LW Grandmaster and a Veteran
LW Grandmaster is the stuff the Veteran happened to gather along the way.
> Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 11:38:15 +0100
> From: outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [projectaon] Re: Book 13 Erratum
>
> On 11/05/2012 00:57, Jonathan Blake wrote:
> > Is it just me or is there just too much going on with this. It seems
> > like a simple change from "can" to "should" does not give enough
> > information to help the reader make an informed choice. It's beginning
> > to seem like this would be best handled by an extended explanation in
> > the Readers' Handbook?
>
> If I roll a 5 and a 5 for EP and CS in Book 1, I don't then re-roll my
> stats at the start of Book 2 in the hope of picking better numbers
> simply because "some of the opponents might be harder". And if I did and
> picked a 9 and a 9, should I then re-pick the numbers at the start of
> Book 3? Or now that I'm satisfied, is it time to stick with what I've
> got? I can't see how the transition from Magnakai to Grand Master is any
> different. To my mind, "should" is the correct word here; and if players
> want to do otherwise, they can, but such rules-meistering is not "by the
> book". (Compare the fact that we haven't included any "dual-wielding"
> rules in the RH because they are not in the original rules, irrespective
> of how vocally and passionately some argue that 'carrying two Weapons
> makes dual-wielding an implicit rule'.)
>
> But I'm still feeling grumpy and crotchety right now. :-p
>
> --
> Simon Osborne
> Project Aon
>
> ~~~~~~
> Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
>
>
Other related posts:
