On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 15:56 -0700, Jonathan Blake wrote: > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Simon Osborne <outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Over on the forum is a post about something we intend to alter for the next > > release of Book 13, specifically the hoary old chestnut about re-picking > > stats when transitioning from Book 12 -> 13. Since you don;t repick your > > starts in transitioning from Book 1 -> 2 (just in case you might get better > > numbers), it seems obvious to me that you do NOT re-pick stats, but some > > feel otherwise. > > > > <http://projectaon.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=helpwanted&action=display&thread=2248> > > > > Anyone want to field a reply/response? Are we happy with the changes we > > intend to make? Am currently laid low with a very unpleasant bug, so I'll > > leave it in the capable hands of the rest of the PA staff! ;-) > > Hope you're feeling better now. > > This seems to have gotten very little discussion the first go 'round > because we got caught up with +3/+5 Bow bonus. I can see the point of > someone being at a disadvantage if they started in the middle of the > series (although I wonder if anyone does that now that all of the > books are freely available online). Should we just reverse our > decision and leave it as "can"? > I believe we should leave it as "can". Its my opinion that the Grandmaster books are balanced for a player not carrying stats over from previous books. Therefore playing with stats that are lower than the lowest possible book13-only stats puts you at a distinct disadvantage (especially if you have not obtained the Sommerswerd for whatever reason) - I actually get the impression this whole thing was a way to nerf the CS imbalance by those with the sword and those without (it would have been much better if the sword set your base CS to X while wielding it rather than adding X - ah well). I cant see any reason why a veteran player should not have the option of dumping all their stats and resetting them for books 13+ if they so choose. The word "can" implies you have this option, as does "should" - but "should" is pushing an interpretation of the rules that is not backed by any official (ie from Joe or newsletters) recommendation (as far as I am aware). Basically it seems like a case of changing wording for no benefit. ~~~~~~ Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon