I guess that's "tidier", although I suspect the gentle reader is more likely to feel in need of a footnote when they encounter the ad-hoc bonus at the section in question. (If indeed they were ad hoc bonuses - it's things like this which are virtually impossible to answer conclusively without subjecting Joe Dever to the mind probe...) -- http://www.feline1.co.uk On Fri 17/06/11 11:21 AM , Simon Osborne outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx sent: On 17/06/2011 07:53, David Davis wrote: > PS however readers might still rightly think "oh, but the rules say +3 - > was that a mistake?" - > so I think each one should have a footnote "Note that that the Grand > Weaponmastery bonus for this particular piece of archery is higher than > the one stated in the Game Rules" ? Personally, I prefer the current (under-discussion!) model of footnoting Disciplines/Grand Weaponmastery to say that on occasion the bonus is more than +3. This meshes with your notes that the +4s and +5s are ad-hoc bonuses that Joe threw in for variety. We did something similar respecting the Sommerswerd and its potential enhanced CS bonus on the Plane of Darkness in Book 20--rather than footnoting each fight, we footnoted the Game Rules. -- Simon Osborne Project Aon ~~~~~~ Manage your subscription at