I certainly don't anticipate everyone agreeing with everything that gets said or decided. I'm more than happy to discuss, clarify, and explain anything in the packet with or to anyone, but I expect there will be points where we may need to realize that we simply have different philosophies about how the game should be played.Before I get into replies to replies, I just want to thank you for your answers. While I and the submitters don't agree with all of them, I appreciate the open and public discussion. With 2.0 there was a sense of things being secret in the background and feedback being utterly ignored. With text discussion, it's very easy to have comments be interpreted as attacks (especially when criticism is involved), which is why I wanted to put this up front.
In regards to interpretation of statements as attacks, I certainly hope that nothing in my prior reply was taken as such. I try to be fairly neutral in my writing, but if there is anything you felt was at all inflammatory, please let me know, I can assure you it was not meant that way.
That was not the way that I phrased my answer and while I can't stop you from interpreting it that way, I'd prefer the explanation that I provided above be the one ascribed to me.Goals: As I read this, you're saying there's no set goal for this and it ended up being a mish-mash of other ideas? Is that correct? We're trying to pin down the intent, so if it ended up getting dragged in a lot of directions, that kind of answers the question, but I want to make sure I'm not putting words in your mouth.
The "constant recasting" that mention was not something that I said. I think that the statement that you are referencing was in regards to the ritual duplicating effects (abilities would have been a better word choice for me, in hindsight). For clarification, the crafting abilities that duplicate ritual effects, which I am assuming is one of the things you mentioned in your original statement, are the things that require repeated expenditure of XP (in the form of CP) from LP to LP. For instance, if I cast (as a ritual caster) the Armored Shell ritual, that's a one time cost that persists for (at least) 20 LP. If I buy the Stoneskin smithing ability, I have to respend those CP every event in order to maintain the ability.Ritualists: This one I admit I don't understand the reply on. As I read the packet (and how others seem to have read it based on the comments I've been getting), if you bought X levels of a skill, you can do Y ritual. I don't see (and I may be simply overlooking it) where it requires constant recasting other than for superior gear. The comment about it costing more and more xp I definitely don't get. Can you clarify? This may simply be a case of those close to the text understand the vaguer points and those of us who are reading it for the first time might be making other assumptions.
I've got some concern that maybe we are discussing two different things here, so please let me know if I'm off base on what I'm addressing here.
As well as a significant reduction (and potential elimination) in the time required on the part of NPC camp.Rit Marshal: So the goal is not to remove the marshal, but rather the ritual training/knowledge for said marshal?
I think it may come down to us having different definitions of what limited means as opposed to whether or not PC-side healing is limited, but I agree with your end point.Indomitable Will: I think the crux of our disagreement on this one is the amount of available healing. In 2.1, it seems night onto limitless, making this ability vastly overpowered. If we agreed on healing being limited (which we don't ), then yes, the ability has limits.
Shot is not a new delivery or qualifier. Its a new keyword (just like strike) that can be added to Mystic deliveries in order to change them to follow Material delivery rules. It is, essentially, the opposite of strike.Qualifier: No, I think you covered it. "Shot" was the new delivery (qualifier? I could see it argued as being either category, since it's a modifier to either) I was referring to.
I guess I am not certain on the point made by the original asking of the question. I took it as "Can we find a different name?" and explained the reasoning behind why we did not have a problem with a name that didn't conflict with anything that has ever been in the ruleset of this game. If I misinterpreted this in some way, please let me know how.Shatter Spirit: I think the reply on this one rather misses the point being made by the original asker, but if they have suggestions, I'll send that your way.
I think I may not have been as clear as I could here. The intention was not to say that Passive & Daily abilities were removed by resurrection, but merely that resurrection was a method by which some abilities may be removed, very similar to how High magic interacts with resurrection. I would be fairly surprised if any abilities end up being removed when you go to the circle, but it is a possibility, though not, in my opinion, for things like refitting, locks, traps, globe throwing, or the like.Passive Crafting: Resurrect? So as I read that, if I took Trap Making's passive to do lockpicking/legerdemain and I resurrect...I can't touch locks until logistics?
No rep is required at time of use. Obviously, as per the normal rules, the item must be repped when it is initially utilized, but once that is done, the item is consumed and can't be reclaimed, so no need for a rep at that point.Automatic Injector: Perfect on the call. Wasn't sure if it was a silent call or stated. Still curious if it needs a rep.
I think this may be a matter of misinterpretation of the scope of what was stated, but also some exaggeration on your part. My statement applied specifically to the statement it was in reply to. I could have been more clear in that regard, but I don't think we need to be concerned with the scope of change that there seems to be concern about.The one remaining major concern we have (aside from the items not addressed, obviously) is in the last comment you made. "ARC does not place a great amount of value on maintaining parity with the 1.3/2.0 production skills". This feels like a pretty harsh statement on the condition of Alliance rules. We've thrown away 100% of the game many of us signed up to play/run/own when 2.0 came along, then this statement appears to indicate we're overhauling yet again, two years later (most of that with chapters closed). This really doesn't give any sense of stability and continuity to the rules system if it's endlessly being rewritten. Many of us want to be able to play without having to rewrite or relearn every season or two, so this definitely has my concerns raised!