PASS MN Rules Proposal: Remove Spell Book GS Purchases, Raise LP Limit to 75

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jack Y.

Newbie
Assistant General Manager
Proposed by MN 3/11/24
Seconded by AGB 3/19/24, NH and Chicago 3/22/24


Summary: This vote removes the logistics exception for Full Spell Book purchase for 500 Goblin Stamps, changes the price of full Alchemy Recipe Books to 100 Goblin Stamps, and raises the per-Logistics Period limit for Game Item purchase to 75 Goblin Stamps.

Full Text Changes:

Original Text from ARB pg 12:

“Full Spell Books may be purchased for 500 Goblin stamps each and full Alchemy Books may be purchased for 250 Goblin stamps. Any spells or recipes that are deemed illegal in game in the chapter may be excluded.”

And

Game Items: Goblin Stamps can also be turned in for
Adventuring Equipment or Alliance coin. During
preregistration or event check in you can spend up to 50
Goblin Stamps per Logistics Period of the event. During
your preregistration, indicate that you wish to spend
Goblin Stamps and what you would like to exchange them
for.

Proposed change:

Strikeout to adjust to “Full Alchemy Books may be purchased for 100 Goblin stamps. Any Recipes that are deemed illegal in game in the chapter may be excluded.” And

Delete and replace “50” to “75”

Vote: MN Rules Proposal: Remove Spell Book GS Purchases, Raise LP Limit to 75
The following chapters voted for this policy: Northeast Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Gettysburg, Wisconsin, California-Arizona, Atlanta, Chicago
The following chapters voted against this policy: Las Vegas
The following chapters abstained from vote: Crossroads

Synopsis of conversations: The question was raised if the membership thought the additional 50GS total for a standard two logistics period weekend would weaken crafting, to which the membership generally seemed comfortable with the impact due to adventuring equipment seeing further turnover. The point that Crafting skills also confer Crafting Ability Points that give amplified use of the skills was raised as a counterpoint. Concern was also raised that adjusting the limitation to allow for a full spell book of either aspect seemed aggressive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top