[projectaon] Re: Book 13 Erratum

...and what if I pick a 3 and a 4 in Book 13? Can I have another go at re-picking the values in Book 14 hoping to get better scores? Does that make "more sense"? ;-) 

--
Simon Osborne
Project Aon

On 11/05/2012 15:59, John TFS wrote:

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 http://www.freelists.org/list/projectaon

Other related posts: