|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:I never played BECMI. I started in the mid-70s with white box OD&D, added Greyhawk, Blackmoor, and Eldritch Wizardry along with the Arduin Grimoire. Then AD&D came out and that was when the groups I played with migrated over. When 3.0 came out it took a while to make that change because we were so invested in the previous edition. Do you have any special memory or call out regarding Arduin Grimoire? That sounds interesting.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 08:53 |
|
|
For real, getting an early copy of that thing is very much on my to do list.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I suspect a lot of this was ginned up by Paizo in order to support the launch of Pathfinder as a business venture, and to be fair I gather Pathfinder is one of the few RPG product mills/lines/etc. that makes money in a more conventional way rather than by kickstarting all their products and, maybe, having demo games at cons. When I heard people raving about 'gridless' play for D&D 5e, it caused me to cock an eyebrow for this exact reason. Paizo did a lot of work to poo poo all over 4e, and generally the terms you hear to score Paizo bingo are: 1. It requires the grid 2. It's like an MMO 3. Wizards aren't special 4. It doesn't feel like D&D. 5. WotC abandoned its true fans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
People also forget that D&D 3e was connected to the minis game Chainmail, and that D&D 3.5 was used to push the blind box D&D Miniatures (with 14 sets during the d20 era!). Similarly, blind box minis game Pathfinder Battles (with 10 sets plus over a half-dozen fixed boxes) keeps that notion alive for Paizo. For a game that supposedly doesn't need minis, they sure sell a lot of them!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
To this day I have no idea how you'd even run D&D combat without a grid. It would be madness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
It seems to work alright in D&D genre games like Old School Hack, but yeah, not with any actual D&D rules. "It's a minis wargame!" is just one of many edition war complaints against 4e that are technically true, but also true of 3e. Just like bad monster math, bad skill math, and way too many crappy player options mixed in with the good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Do you have any special memory or call out regarding Arduin Grimoire? That sounds interesting. If it's the same Arduin I'm familiar with, it's basically a 50-something page booklet full of crazy weird poo poo for OD&D. Highlights include the "Techno" character class that lets you build robots, lasers and spaceships once you hit high levels. Oh, and there's a critical hit chart that specifically mentions your butt getting torn off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:It seems to work alright in D&D genre games like Old School Hack, but yeah, not with any actual D&D rules. The 'zones' system from Old School Hack is something I've stolen and used in every other game I've run. (Shadow of the Demon Lord even has a supplement that includes rules for zone-based combat, and it's been working out great in my current game).
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
hyphz posted:I once GMed Spycraft for a trial one shot, which has the explicit vitality/wounds split for HP. I managed to confuse all the players by describing enemies dodging after successful hit rolls and had to explain several times that it was due to vitality reduction and how it otherwise wouldn't make sense that a guard could survive 5 bullets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:If it's the same Arduin I'm familiar with, it's basically a 50-something page booklet full of crazy weird poo poo for OD&D. Highlights include the "Techno" character class that lets you build robots, lasers and spaceships once you hit high levels. Oh, and there's a critical hit chart that specifically mentions your butt getting torn off. After reading Designers and Dragons, that sounds like the Arduin he's looking for. I think the two-word description of it is 'gonzo D&D' and that sounds about right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Nessus posted:My experience in games with that situation is that if you make it clear the guy got dongrazzled or put at a disadvantage in the course of evading or blocking all that poo poo, people digest it. Might just be my associates, though. I originally did, but it got silly when damage rolls got low and a guy took like 7 hits to kill, meaning he was flailing around like Jar Jar by the end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
hyphz posted:I originally did, but it got silly when damage rolls got low and a guy took like 7 hits to kill, meaning he was flailing around like Jar Jar by the end. Give everyone redshirt hirelings. Got a hit, but didn't cause meat damage? Looks like one of the hirelings played bodyguard again. Or play it like a JRPG or YGO!, where everyone has an HP counter floating somewhere around them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:If it's the same Arduin I'm familiar with, it's basically a 50-something page booklet full of crazy weird poo poo for OD&D. Highlights include the "Techno" character class that lets you build robots, lasers and spaceships once you hit high levels. Oh, and there's a critical hit chart that specifically mentions your butt getting torn off. My favorite part is how "high levels" is deadly serious since that game has levels going way up into the hundreds... If you're a human. He used the AD&D level caps pretty much as is. And then expanded them to 41 new races dear God I want that book I'm going to go check Amazon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
No more phone postin' for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Serf posted:To this day I have no idea how you'd even run D&D combat without a grid. It would be madness. Me neither, tbh. Played loads of 3.x and always with a grid. Like, how would you even do attacks of opportunity? Or backstab/flank with a rogue? Or even cast a fireball and know who it would hit?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Theatre of the mind combat is one of those stealth buffs / nerfs to wizards depending on how ornery the gm is. Without codified rules for the area of your slick spell it hits however many creatures the GM feels is reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
The Lemondrop Dandy posted:Me neither, tbh. Played loads of 3.x and always with a grid. Like, how would you even do attacks of opportunity? Or backstab/flank with a rogue? Or even cast a fireball and know who it would hit? You don't. It makes wizards even more powerful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
The Lemondrop Dandy posted:Me neither, tbh. Played loads of 3.x and always with a grid. Like, how would you even do attacks of opportunity? Or backstab/flank with a rogue? Or even cast a fireball and know who it would hit? Basically the dm just kept a mental map and everyone negotiated bullshit. Did the enemy try to pass a character based on the agreed upon dimensions of the battlefield? Opportunity. But was he really six feet away instead of five when he moved past? Sorry. Where can I put the fireball to maximize targets? Oh, you could get the three guys on the left or the bugbear and one of the goblins. It let people bullshit more interesting actions into the fight that 4e then actually made an official part of the game, as everyone I knew used it, but it was all fiat. Rather than embrace what 4e was trying to do as I did, all my friends complained that the fact that silly stunts were a part of the rules meant "imagination" was thrown out. marshmallow creep fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
 13th Age part 9: Dare you enter my magical realm? 13A's wizard and cleric are recognizable to anyone who played either class in 3e or 4e. Both of them were reasonably well-designed and well-liked classes that worked well in a vacuum - they remain so in 13th Age. Their shared problem in previous editions is that they were so versatile and powerful that they overshadowed other, narrower classes, even in those classes' supposed specialties. Most of their versatility was stripped simply by the fact that 13A is not an official edition of D&D. Both classes have much shorter spell lists, no "splat" material from supplemental books, fewer spell slots, and a reduced and 4e-like idea of what a spell should be able to accomplish. Clerics and wizards still have broad-based abilities to affect the setting through Ritual Casting, but they also come with practical advice on how to avoid letting magic bypass stories and challenges in unentertaining ways. They still have their broad, nearly unlimited scope - so much so that when other classes learn a generalist magical knack from a talent, it's almost always "you can use one cleric/wizard spell" - but now other classes also have broadly defined, narrative-shaping powers. Even so, they step on too-similar classes' toes, and have setting-defining powers tucked away in their class-specific lists. Cease's Incessant Posting Wizards are...wizards. They're the nerds of magic. Where sorcerers are explosive and random, wizards are consistent and predictable. For example, in contrast to sorcerers' Breath spells, wizards have Cyclic spells, which they can use at-will but only on even-numbered turns. Every spellcaster can cast Rituals if they have the feat - wizards not only have the feat, but can cast them faster. (It's not much of an advantage, since rituals don't normally have a set casting time.) Wizards also have lots of crease-marks from previous editions of D&D. Their cantrips - minor, non-standard utility spells with no combat impact - are limited to (Int mod) uses per five minutes, because people complained that unlimited use of cantrips in Pathfinder was somehow overpowered. But, other people liked at-will cantrips, so there's a talent to give that back (and allows players to heighten cantrips into larger spells in a freeform way that works just like Ritual Casting but doesn't actually refer to the Ritual rules at any point). Wizards get another free-form talent, Vance's Polysyllabic Verbalizations, and like most of the free-form talents, it's a cool idea with a terrible implementation. In return for taking the talent and adding a minor additional action cost, players must rename their spells to Dexter's Ridiculous Designations and get an additional freeform effect from the GM that may or may not be useful or good. The examples include NPCs babbling exposition, being taunted by spirits, or sleeping uncomfortably. There's no real reason players and GMs shouldn't just do this. It's a neat idea but it's out of place in the character building section - this is One Unique Thing territory. Familiars - technically a wizard talent, but sorcerers and rangers can take them too - aren't full-fledged NPCs in 13th Age. They only contribute meaningfully to the story as separate characters if it's narratively convenient or if you buy an ability to let them do so reliably. In combat, they hide and can't be targeted. They have their own sublist of purchaseable abilities, ranging front crunchy combat buffs (eg +1 to saves, or it poisons enemies when you hit with a melee attack) to loose, narrative abilities (eg flight, speech). The specific, fiddly, mostly combat-focused list of sub-talents seems unnecessary - "you have a rapport with a magical animal that can operate separately from you when necessary" would be fine! It would be a better-designed choice than many of the other open-ended narrative talents. It's not like wizards lack for open-ended utility, though. They get a special, flexible "Utility Spell" that they can prepare instead of a combat spell. They don't have to pick which utility spell it is until they cast the spell; so the slot could be Hold Portal or it could be Scrying, as needed. (This is a codification of a poorly documented 3e wizard trick: leaving spell slots "blank", to fill them with utility spells later in the day as needed.) This is a neat idea but, again, it's not clear why it's a wizard-specific idea. Why are these spells exclusive to wizards? (Or are they? It's not clear if other classes that can "borrow" wizard spells can use these spells.) Why does this system exist when it fundamentally overlaps with and recreates Ritual Casting? Why is Levitate a utility spell but not Flight? Why is Charm Person a regular spell instead of a utility spell, since it can't be used in combat? Between wizards superficially superior use of Ritual Casting, cantrips, utility spells, and talents like Vance's, the class has too many overlapping, pagechewing variations on "wizards do every magical utility thing you can imagine." Once you set aside the open-ended utility powers, wizards work more or less like sorcerers. They still have too few spells to fill up all their slots, they still slot a few large dailies and an at-will to fill up the rest of their actions. (Edition watchers will note that Magic Missile autohits, Sleep is not a first-level spell, and Invisibility lasts until attacking because lasting invisibility is specifically called out as a gamebreaker). Wizards still have save-or-die spells like Sleep and Hold Monster, but they only work on enemies with HP below a certain level-based threshold and allow a hard (16+) save after each round to break them. (Charm Person also works like this, but can't be used on creatures in combat.) Where wizards differ from sorcerers is that even their combat spells tend to be more varied in effect, so low-level spells aren't overshadowed by higher-level ones. While randomness is a sorcerer theme, wizards have spells that can be cast recklessly, out of of tradition. Fireball is an AOE spell that can cast extra enemies at the cost of hitting d4 allies in melee with those enemies. Meteor Swarm automatically does reduced damage to any allies in melee with its (many) targets. Also as a matter of tradition, wizard blasts do pure XdX damage, not XdX+(INT mod) damage like most classes' powers. This contributes to a problem with Evocation. Evocation is a wizard talent based on 3e's popular (if suboptimal) Maximize Spell feat. Once per battle, instead of rolling dice, a spell just does max damage. This means wizards do pretty ridiculous damage with their one big spell. It would probably be fine if it weren't for Force Salvo, a daily spell that shoots (1+INT mod) missiles at different targets and does fairly high damage. An Evocated Force Salvo hit just about one-shots any at-level or weaker enemy. Combine this with a Force Salvo feat that allows you to shoot missiles at a target until you hit it, the High Arcana talent which allows the wizard prepare a particular wizard spell in two slots (instead of every slot needing to be a unique spell), and the wizard ability to recharge daily spells when cast outside above ground - things get very silly very fast. Heinsoo issued a wishy-washy not-quite-an-errata for it. It's a classic situation of envelope-pushing options intersecting - Evocation and Force Salvo aren't quite gamebreakers on their own. With the exception of the curvebreaking Evocation/Force Salvo combo, there's nothing about wizards in and of themselves that is bad. The problem, as usual, is the constant need to reassure everyone that wizards can use magic as a one-stop-shop to solve every possible problem, and doing so by adding dozens of examples of specific problems magic can solve. It's obviously in response to criticism that the 4e wizard was too limited - but Backgrounds and Ritual Casting already fixed that. Someone here has to play one and it's not going to be me Clerics heal and buff the party and are super unexciting. They are similar to 4e clerics in that healing or buffing is not the main thing you spend your turn doing - you buff the group and also move around and attack like anyone else, all in the same turn. Like 4e clerics, they specialize in either bashing faces or shooting holy As I mentioned with the icons, the gods are a largely abstract presence in 13A by default. Cleric talents are domains that grant one-daily abilities and occasionally some other miscellaneous benefit. Domains returning for 13A is no surprise, since they're are the template for every class-specific customization option in D&D since 3e, but unlike other D&D games, domains aren't tied to specific deities. Domains aren't even tied to specific concepts: almost all of them have two, like "Life OR Death" and "Justice OR Vengeance". This helps somewhat to solve the problem with puppykicker domains: for example, 4e's Tyranny domain, which never quite made it clear why a penalty to saving throws or extra damage on attacks against enemies below half HP was something only evil gods granted. While you can always "refluff" these domains for a related concept - and 13th Age repeatedly encourages you to do so! - it helps that 13A avoids naming an ability "Domain: Impaling Babies On Spikes." To talk about clerics means you need to talk about healing. 13A has Recoveries, which are 4e's Healing Surges. X times per day, a character can take a standard action to heal Y HP. Both variables are based on your class, CON mod, and level. On top of this, the end of a game day - which may not be an actual 24 hours period - grants a full heal-up, which restores all HP. Clerics initially make recoveries more action efficient - all clerics can, twice a battle, let someone make a recovery without taking an action, and this Heal ability doesn't count against their limit of spells. At higher levels, clerics can cast spells that give people "free" recoveries that don't count against their daily limit, boost the effects of recoveries, etc. In 4e terms, cleric daily spells can give "surgeless" healing, but not a lot of it. Clerics aren't necessary to maintain the party against regular attrition. This pushes clerics into a sort of passive support role: they're capable holy warriors who inspire (read: buff and heal) allies with their holy presence. Most of their spells are buffs that can be cast "for power" - a large buff on a single ally that is not the cleric - or "for broad effect" - a smaller buff on several allies, which can include the cleric. While most of their spells are these split buffs, clerics have the tools to make spellcasting their main combat strategy in addition to the minor action heals and buffs: they have an at-will ranged magic attack (which uses WIS for to-hit rolls and damage), an at-will melee attack that grants someone an additional saving throw, and a handful of wizard-style magical blasts that also buff someone as a side effect. The biggest flaw is one imported from 4e: blasting and mixing it up in melee rely on different stats, so clerics are better off specializing in one or the other - and that's painful with such a narrow spell list. The rules for resurrecting the dead are crammed into a cleric spell, even though it's implied that more than just clerics can do this. Resurrection isn't hard and isn't risky, but it is limited: the spell can only be cast once per level, which means each cleric can only do it four times. Each time, the resurrection is tougher for both the cleric and the resurrected: if a cleric casts it a fifth time, they die. Everyone also has a similar quota of how many times they can be resurrected. This is a neat story idea, but the only reason that this is tied to the cleric is to maintain scarcity in a party - and it's not clear if leveling up without using up your rez quota wastes those resurrections. It's an explanation for why resurrection is rare in the setting: a common 3e criticism, where rich person should be unkillable. There's no discussion of alternate setting-based ideas of how resurrection works, however, and it doesn't mesh well with the earlier statement that not all people level up using PC-style classes. It also sucks that this extremely limited plot device is only one of two 7th level cleric spells! Clerics have outlived their strict necessity, but still work because people do want to play crusading holy warriors. Deus vult and whatnot. 13A lifts the 4e cleric, warts and all, and it works well enough. Beside the stat split between muscle and blaster clerics, their biggest problem is that they do everything paladins do, leaving them no conceptual room whatsoever. Like wizards and sorcerers, clerics suck up so much conceptual oxygen that paladins have no room to breathe. Next: I haven't had the occasion to practice this one. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Do you have any special memory or call out regarding Arduin Grimoire? That sounds interesting. I did this short post in the OSR thread... Humbug Scoolbus posted:What about the other games with the same basic engine of OD&D?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
 Godlike, Chapter VII: The Field Manual The titular “field manual” in this chapter is statistics and brief notes for the most common weapons and vehicles of the war. Godlike quickly points out that this is a game, games are for fun, and obsessing over weapon stats is not fun. Also that “effective ranges” are based on anecdotal evidence, and that a single book on WWII-era pistols can top 900 pages, so they can’t be perfectly accurate and inclusive. Just chill out. The listed materiel includes everything from small arms to tanks, but notably excludes planes. (Sorry Jef!) Although there are some famous flying Talents, I think the authors wisely decided that a game about air combat would have had to be, well, an entire game about air combat. I won’t copypaste endless stat-blocks; I assume that if you really want to argue the merits of .30-06 Springfield versus 7.92mm Mauser, you’re already doing that on another forum, hopefully not one dedicated to roleplaying games. Instead I will relate the notes, name examples, and share some general criticism. One general criticism is a lack of advice on how to handle troops, vehicles, and heavy weapons being on the battlefield at the same time. Sure, there are rules for taking cover, area damage, and the damage of things like tank guns, mines, and mortars. (Spoilers: you’re hosed.) And PCs can certainly fight back with Talent powers and anti-tank weapons. But determining if and when the PCs come under fire from tanks and shells is just sorta up to the GM. Since they’re so potent, it’s probably better to use them to control the scenario than to fight the PCs. (“You have to go this way, unless you can handle a rain of 8cm shells.”) My other general criticism is that while the book lists common equipment for each nation’s army, it often misses the forest for the trees by not explaining what was standard issue. For example, it lists several types of German and Japanese rifles, but the notes don’t make clear that Karabiner carbines and Arisaka rifles were their respective standard issue throughout the war. It also doesn’t discuss common tactics that the PCs might encounter. For example, Germans had superior machineguns but mostly bolt-action rifles, so their infantry doctrine used riflemen to support machinegun crews, while Americans used machineguns to support riflemen. I’m not a firearms buff, but I think this kinda stuff is interesting and relevant. Weapons in Godlike use a fairly elegant system for the ruleset: broad categories of weapon that do the same damage, which can be modified by the type of cartridge they use--if the GM wants to bother with that at all.  A note on mines: They kill you. A mine does 1 Killing to every location its Area Dice roll. Also, each odd die does 2 Killing to the left leg, each even die does 2 Killing to the right. You also take 4 Shock to every single hit location. Mines kill you. One specific factor to consider is that there’s essentially a hard separation between anti-personnel weapons and anti-materiel weapons. Godlike’s “mega-damage” mechanic is in Light Armor Rating, Heavy Armor Rating, and Penetration. Anti-personnel weapons, like machine guns and hand grenades, have a Penetration rating of 0-3. Tank guns, AA guns, and anti-tank weapons have Penetration ratings of 5-10. So if you’re playing a super-tough Talent, there’s a huge difference in point cost between being bulletproof and shell-proof. Godlike is not an extremely fine-grained system, but Penetration models the physics involved very well: you could be tough enough to laugh off a spray of .50mm machinegun fire, and a mortar would still blow you to pieces. Axis Weaponry Axis weapons were generally superior at the beginning of the war, and it took the Allies a long time to catch up. German tanks were superior to Allied tanks and almost immune to their anti-tank methods, while the Japanese had the best aircraft in the form of the Zero. But that superior technology came at a cost. While the Allies focused on mass production of rugged and reliable gear, the Axis focused on ambitious designs that were expensive, overcomplicated, and unrealistic, going back to the drawing board when designs failed. Nazi Germany invented a number of breakthrough technologies, including jet aircraft, guided missiles, effective anti-tank weapons, and assault rifles. But due to political and production issues, none of them made a major impact on the war. Third Reich Weapons German rifles had a good reputation. Although they produced some semi-automatic Gewehr rifles, the bolt-action Karabiner 98 remained standard issue throughout the war. All used 7.92mm ammo. German pistols ranged from the 1908 Luger to the Walther P38 and PP pistols that became standard midway through the war. (Lugers were popular targets for looting, and Germans who were aware of this often used them as bait for booby traps.) All used a 9mm cartridge. Germany also used 9mm submachine guns beginning early in the war, included the MP 18,34, 35, 38, and 40, which for game purposes only vary in their rate of fire (Spray rating). They began to use them more and more as they learned just how effective they were. While many nations used submachine guns, Germany eventually produced the world’s first assault rifle, the Sturmgewehr 44. It performed marvelously, but Hitler personally disliked the project, and it came too late to make a difference. German machineguns were a terror on the battlefield. The infamous MG 34 and MG 42 fired 7.92mm at withering rates of fire. (For some reason, the game describes them as “cantankerous,” but “Hitler’s buzzsaws” were quite reliable--they just fired so fast that they were made to have the barrel changed out in combat.) Germany also converted some aircraft/AA guns for infantry use. German anti-tank weapons weren’t the first to exist, but they were the first to be so effective that they changed tank tactics. The Panzerfaust was a one-use weapon, and so effective that Allied troops used captured Panzerfausts whenever they could. The Raketenpanzerbüchse and Panzerschreck were reusable weapons modeled after the American Bazooka, but more effective. German grenades came in several varieties, including variants on the Model 24, the WWI “potato masher” stick grenade. They also made varieties of incendiary and anti-tank grenade, which were not very effective against tanks. German mortars were also fearsome. The standard Granatwerfer models fired 5cm or 8cm shells, with a high rate of fire and easy portability via bipod mount. The Infantriegeschütz models were armored infantry support guns firing 7.5 or 15cm shells. German artillery guns were products of Hitler’s military buildup in the 30s. They were versatile, often converted to multiple roles. For example, the Flak 18 or “Eighty-eight” was an 88mm AA gun converted to a dreaded infantry anti-tank weapon. German mines saw heavy use in slowing the Allied advance into France. Mines like the Schwere Panzermine were effective against even the heaviest tanks. Germans also used several models of flamethrower, usually in urban fighting or against fortifications in Poland and the Netherlands. German tanks ruled the battlefield in the early days of the war. Fast and powerful light tanks enabled the success of Hitler’s blitzkrieg. But while the tanks kept getting better, culminating in the “King Tiger” Tiger II, they became less effective as armies explored anti-tank tactics and weapons. Germany also pioneered the use of tank destroyers--less versatile vehicles designed to destroy enemy tanks--starting with the light 6.6 ton Panzerjäeger and eventually the heavy armored 50-ton Jagdpanther. They also made many models of armored cars and half-tracks, which were integral to the tactics of generals like Rommel, anticipating a day when armored vehicles would totally replace infantry. Germany also used several types of ordinary car, from manufacturers like Volkswagen and Daimler-Benz, to ferry officers and special equipment. I only mention them to note that they provide no armor or cover, and that Rommel was injured by aircraft fire in a staff car, and that insane piece of poo poo Heydrich was assassinated by a bomb tossed into his open-top convertible. Japanese Weapons Cythereal graciously provided some notes on how Japanese military doctrine was based on superior range, firepower, and mobility, aimed at a fast and decisive victory in order to avoid a war of attrition that Japan could not afford. But while their aircraft and naval guns may have been superior, the same can’t be said of their forces on land. Most of their guns and vehicles were homemade imitations of Western designs. They were often outdated and underpowered, and designs that were effective came too late and in too little quantity. Japanese soldiers were armed with Arisaka rifles--long, unwieldy bolt-action rifles chambered in 6.5mm and, later, a 7.7mm modeled on the British .303. Their Nambu pistols were all chambered in an underpowered 8mm cartridge. Both series were based on pre-WWI German designs, so their standard-issue infantry weapons were practically stuck in the era of the Russo-Japanese War. Attempts to update their design produced things like the Model 26, a ripoff of a S&W revolver, and the 94 Shiki Kenju, a design so awful it could be accidentally fired by slapping its side. Japan didn’t develop a submachine gun until 1942, and their only model, the Type 100, was chambered in the Nambu 8mm cartridge and never saw widespread use. Japanese machineguns were also inferior to both German and Allied weapons. They fired the same 6.5mm or 7.7mm as their rifles, underpowered for a machinegun. The best Japanese anti-tank weapon was the Type 2, a rifle grenade that was a direct copy of a German model and could be fired from any Arisaka rifle. Their lone anti-tank rifle, the Model 97, was a 20mm gun that could only penetrate light tank armor. They also employed “human mine” suicide bombers who would throw themselves under a tank and detonate a backpack charge. Speaking of mines, they used several varieties, but were mostly known for their ingenuity in using mines and grenades to rig booby-traps for jungle combat. The Japanese also employed flamethrowers, but their models were relatively crude, unwieldy, and difficult to maintain. Japanese mortars were highly maneuverable. The Type 10 and 89 were just glorified grenade launchers, but could be easily carried and fired by one man. Even their heavier 70mm and 81mm were well-designed for ease of transport. Their artillery guns, with the exception of the excellent Type 98 20mm cannon, were mostly out of date and too expensive to manufacture in quantity. Japanese tanks were very effective...in China, against people with no tanks and no anti-tank weaponry. By Western standards, a Japanese light tank was no more than an armored car. Allied Weaponry Rather than cutting edge design, the Allies relied on massive production of simple but effective designs at the start of the war. Later, their innovative weapons design outpaced the Axis completely. U.S. Weapons With a centralized production base, the U.S. focused on high production of a small number of chosen designs. They also provided weapons to Britain and the Soviet Union, so American weapons could be found in use all over the globe. American soldiers carried the M1 Carbine or M1 Garand rifle, semi-automatic rifles firing the potent .30-06 cartridge. Many preferred the longer-barrelled Garand for its accuracy. Near the beginning of the war, some soldiers were still issued the bolt-action M1903 Springfield. American pistols comprised only a handful of models, and U.S. soldiers often stole prized enemy pistols. Standard issue included the Colt .45 M1911A, a gun so popular that it has replaced women in many gun nuts’ masturbation fantasies, and the S&W revolver in .380. The U.S. also dropped many single-shot .45 Liberators behind enemy lines; this was a single-shot gun to help resistance fighters kill a Nazi and take his gun. America produced several submachine guns, with the finely-made Thompson or “Tommy gun” the clear winner. It was very accurate, especially considering that it pumped out .45 rounds at a high rate of fire. It was also expensive to make, and most troops had to settle for the M3 “Grease Gun” or UDM42, metal-stamped weapons that were less accurate and reliable. American machineguns like the Browning Automatic Rifle and Browning M4 were man-portable, .30 guns used for infantry support. The larger Browning .50 M2 hit hard enough to attack airplanes and armored cars. American infantry also used 6cm and 8cm mortars which had a longer range than most of their enemies’. Americans invented the reusable anti-tank weapon, the “Bazooka.” The Germans used it as the model for their superior Panzerschreck. Americans used the M2 model flamethrowers to great effect in the Pacific theatre, where they were useful in clearing Japanese spider-holes and other emplacements. U.S. forces enjoyed great superiority in using artillery guns, with M-series and Howitzer guns ranging from 3.5” to 8” caliber. (Godlike notes a quote from Patton saying that American artillery won the war.) Some of these guns were also used as the main guns for tank destroyers. American tanks were considered inferior to German Panzers early in the war. They were often called “rolling coffins” because their armor offered too little protection against German guns. As the M3 “General Lee” was replaced by a series of M4 “Sherman” tanks with increasingly heavier armor and guns, the gap narrowed. The huge numerical superiority of their tank destroyers also countered the superiority of German tanks. The U.S. produced several varieties of armored cars and half-tracks, mostly used for scouting and support and armed with .50mm machineguns. For light vehicles, they relied on the Wily General Purpose Vehicle--the Jeep, that is. My grandpa fixed Patton’s Jeep once. U.K. Weapons The British Commonwealth was hard-pressed to produce enough weaponry to fight the Axis. After Lend-Lease, they used a great deal of American weaponry while also creating innovative designs to replace their outdated weapons and vehicles. The standard British rifles, the Lee-Enfield and No. 5 Mk 1, were bolt-action .303s with a poor reputation for unreliability and lousy sights. Many British soldiers used American rifles instead. British commandos also used the intriguing .45 De Lisle Carbine. Subsonic and with an integral suppressor, it was one of the quietest guns ever made. Their pistols were all .380 revolvers, including the Enfield, Webley, and S&W. British submachine guns were some of the best. The Owen, Lancaster, and the famous Sten gun were reliable 9mm guns with an impressive rate of fire. Their machineguns, on the other hand, ranged from the far-out-of-date Vickers Mk. 1 to cutting-edge man-portable guns later in the war. They had one flamethrower, the “Lifebuoy,” so called for its unique round rubber backpack tank. The British only had one anti-tank weapon, the PIAT. It used a coiled steel spring that was infamous for injuring the firer’s arm. But their 4.2 inch mortar was feared for its power and accuracy. Their artillery guns, ranging from 3 to 7.2 inch calibers, were also sturdy and powerful. Like American tanks, British tanks were too small and light to go head-to-head with German tanks at the start of the war. But they also developed stronger, heavier tanks like the Challenger and the Churchill “Crocodile.” One light tank, the Valentine, was modified to become the Archer, a very effective tank destroyer with a low profile. They used armoured cars like the Daimler and Humber models to great effect in the African campaign, attacking with machineguns and outrunning anything big enough to destroy them. Soviet Weapons The Soviet Union was a land of extremes, politically as well as environmentally. Their production was laser-focused on simplicity and reliability above all else. Anything that didn’t work was quickly discarded and replaced, and their weapons held up while German equipment froze and failed. Soviet soldiers carried Mosin-Nagant bolt-action rifles and carbines chambered in 7.62. The carbines were popular with cavalry troops (still employed to great effect as skirmishers and scouts). The semi-auto Tokarev SVT-40 also saw widespread use, but it never became standard issue because it was expensive and (by Soviet standards) complex and hard to maintain. Soviet Tokarev and Nagant pistols were straight copies of the Browning semi-auto pistol and Webley revolver, respectively. But unlike Japanese copies of Western weapons, these were quite rugged. Soviet submachine guns were cheap, reliable, powerful, and fast. (Another reason the SVT-40 project halted is the Soviets realized the efficacy of SMGs.) Soviet machineguns, however, lagged behind--literally. Early models weren’t man-portable, and many relied on a rolling carriage for mobility. The Soviets never had great anti-tank weapons...until they stole large numbers of German ones! Their own 14.5mm anti-tank rifles and anti-tank rifle grenades were not very effective. Also, for gently caress’s sake:  The Red Army made heavy use of mortars. Theirs tended to be heavy, but were still effective. They rarely made use of their ROKS-2 flamethrower, which was designed to look like a rifle so that its wielder wouldn’t be targeted until it was too late. Like other Allies, Russia’s tanks started out light and rapidly developed throughout the war. The light but slow T-26 gave way to much faster light tanks and eventually the IS-2 Josef Stalin, which could take on the best German tanks. They had one armored car, the BA-10, but most were destroyed early in the war with Germany and their role was taken over by light tanks. Next time on Godlike: How to run a Godlike Campaign.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Point of order, the Soviet T-34 was probably the best tank in the world when it was rolling out (though Soviet armor tactics were a different story). The Germans seriously considered just duplicating it instead of building the Panther. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
"Superior German technology" is one of the enduring stupid memes of WW2, especially when it comes to armor. The Nazis were goddamn lucky that the western powers and the Czechoslovakian leadership were too spineless to fight a real war at the time, since they desperately needed the Czechoslovak armament industry to fuel their expansionism and there was a real military they would have had to fight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
wiegieman posted:"Superior German technology" is one of the enduring stupid memes of WW2, especially when it comes to armor. The Nazis were goddamn lucky that the western powers and the Czechoslovakian leadership were too spineless to fight a real war at the time, since they desperately needed the Czechoslovak armament industry to fuel their expansionism and there was a real military they would have had to fight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
The Lemondrop Dandy posted:Me neither, tbh. Played loads of 3.x and always with a grid. Like, how would you even do attacks of opportunity? Or backstab/flank with a rogue? Or even cast a fireball and know who it would hit? I was in PBP game that tried to do gridless TOTM 4e. I was the defender, the group also had a rogue. We didn't even make it past the first combat because the party revolted and the DM disappeared, it was a soul crushingly miserable experience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
I can barely get my mind around mapless D&D, let alone gridless. Also IIRC German tanks sucked because the lacked a lot of the metal additives that made the armor toughen. The STUG troop carriers were apparently really good, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Point of order, the Soviet T-34 was probably the best tank in the world when it was rolling out (though Soviet armor tactics were a different story). The Germans seriously considered just duplicating it instead of building the Panther.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
The T-34 (and to some extent the KV tank) utterly defined the idea of where the tank belonged in warfare. When the Germans first encountered the T-34, it was faster, tougher, and better armed then all of their armor. If the Soviet military had not been a paper shell with an officer corp completely gutted by purges, and their doctrine had not been so consequently lacking, the initial invasion of Russia would have been very different. As it was, the Soviet approach of design for manufacturing rather than the over-engineered and unreliable pieces the Germans turned out won the war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
All I know about the Arduin Grimoire is that it has something about everything. It's like Dianetics for men.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
wiegieman posted:The T-34 (and to some extent the KV tank) utterly defined the idea of where the tank belonged in warfare. When the Germans first encountered the T-34, it was faster, tougher, and better armed then all of their armor. If the Soviet military had not been a paper shell with an officer corp completely gutted by purges, and their doctrine had not been so consequently lacking, the initial invasion of Russia would have been very different. As it was, the Soviet approach of design for manufacturing rather than the over-engineered and unreliable pieces the Germans turned out won the war. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 07:30
|
|
|
This is entirely unrelated to the current discussion but does anyone know where I can find any writeups describing how the magic system of Monte Cook's World of Darkness is broken? I read this abandoned FATAL and Friends review of it: http://projects.inklesspen.com/fatal-and-friends/piell/monte-cooks-world-of-darkness/ but it stopped before it got to rule breaking wizards in it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
 Aethera Campaign Setting Part Four - Classes III, Archetypes I, Yankees 0 Archetypes, for those without a solid working knowledge of Pathfinder, are collections of alternate class features that allow a given class to fulfill an alternate role or mix in another class without multi-classing or mucking about with prestige classes. Compared to 3.5, archetypes (or at least the focus on archetypes and favored classes rather than the mix of ACFs, prestige classes, multiclassing feats, and racial substitution levels) is one of the few things about Pathfinder that I think is a straight upgrade. At any rate, there are quite a few new archetypes available in Aethera. Alchemists have several new options, beginning with Bioengineer. They swap the alchemist's typical bomb-throwing ability for Summon Nature's Ally that spawns twisted biological horrors (applying the aetherwarped template), and at higher levels these summons can explode when they die. They also get a few bonuses against mind-affecting effects. Combat Medic, on the other end of the scale, turns the alchemist into an effective healer: swapping their bombs for healing stabs that get stronger and cleanse various effects as they level, and increasing their effectiveness with the Heal skill. The Wastelander adds a little bit of ranger and gunslinger to the mix, letting them scavenge up ammunition when they need it, and giving a limited selection of the ranger's favored terrains. We also add a pair of new alchemist discoveries. Aetheric Plasma Bomb makes an alchemist's bombs deal half fire/half electricity damage and affect incorporeal creatures. They also have a chance of inflicting aetherite poisoning. And Netherite Bomb makes bombs deal negative energy damage, but only against creatures with the aether subtype. They also function like Dispel Magic against aethertech devices.  Dammit, Moon Moon, you sundered the barriers of space and time again. The Rift Breaker is an arcanist archetype, who loses a bit of their generalist arcane power in order to focus on the elemental powers of the various planets, starting with a basic blast and moving to the main meat of the class, a lasting AoE that fires various effects based on their chosen element. There's not a whole lot of direct combat potential in the rifts, but they have a lot of battlefield control and indirect benefits. With this, plus the typical spells and everything else the arcanist gets, it strikes me as a nice, solid choice for a caster. Plus you can literally give someone a swirlie with a portal to the surface of the sun. Bards have three new archetypes. The Aether Weaver swaps the knowledge and songs the bard gets for a summoner's eidolon, which is summoned, altered, and boosted with various Perform skills. Any Perform skill, meaning a bard can literally tell a joke so bad the only one who laughs at it is someone he had to create himself. The eidolon is much more bardic than the summoner's combat-focused eidolon, aiding nearby allies and being able to use what few bardic performances the aether weaver has. The Warsinger was covered in the Early Access Guide, but they lose their softer songs in favor of firing off literal hot riffs, specializing in an elemental damage type and blasting people with it. The Vox Rider is a pirate radio DJ. Inspiring underclasses, undermining governments, revealing atrocities. She replaces most of her songs with the ability to copy-paste someone's d20 roll, induce bravery (+2 will saves) or fear, suppress charm or compulsion, gather crowds, provoke enemies to attack her, copy-paste spells cast near her, and shift the attitude of an entire crowd to helpful in regards to a chosen creature or organization. That last one lasts for multiple weeks (1 day per level, gained at 18th) and is viral, people under its effect who talk to others about it force Will saves to avoid passing it on. Very powerful, but it takes some setup and comes at 18th level, so maybe that's to be expected. Blue-Shifted, as mentioned previously, are Bloodragers who first came about from exceptional Infused test subjects, but are no longer limited to their ranks. Their rage is a little less powerful on the face of it, but it cloaks them in searing blue plasma. At first level, this just damages anyone touching or hitting them with their body, and it doesn't do much damage, but it scales with level, does half fire/half electricity and damages incorporeal creatures, and at higher levels it expands into a damaging aura. They also gain some significant benefits in regards to telekinesis: A telekinetic blast, increased saves, and a nearly-free use of telekinesis when they enter bloodrage. Brawlers have a couple new options, lifted from Overwatch, Destiny, and Mass Effect. That's not cynicism, I know the guy that worked on these archetypes, and he said as much. The Colossus is Reinhardt, although the Titan Defender from Destiny was a more prominent inspiration. They gain heavy armor, lose some weapon proficiencies, and swap some of the brawler's flexibility to manifest a telekinetic shield. At first this is just for themselves, but soon they can expand it to cover nearby allies, including an aethership they happen to be on. They can also punch with the shield, doing bonus damage and knockdown.  I have no jokes, but that's a very impractical gun. Titans were humanity's heavily-armored shock troops, mixing the brawler's hand-to-hand effectiveness with the devastating power of firearms. They're the ME2 Vanguard, that charges in with a shotgun and sends enemies flying. They get heavy armor and tweaked versions of the gunslinger's grit and deeds, can flurry with unarmed attacks and gunfire interchangeably, and get a lot better at charging, with a larger bonus to attack, bonus dice of damage, and better AC against their charge target. Cantors also get a few archetypes, because it doesn't make much sense to introduce a class and leave it overspecialized in comparison to all the others. The Divine Dancer loses all her divine performances, instead gaining a self-buffing dance that boosts attack, damage, saves, and skills; and gets a monk-like AC bonus that's technically a function of the dance as well. That plus uncanny dodge rounds out the changes, so the class still has verses, hymns, and spells. It feels like something of a front-line caster, but the bonuses are a little small for me to really accept it as a solid option. The Orthodoxist is a hard-line Hierarchy supporter, inspiring solidarity and quashing dissent. They must choose the fire, air, or aether hymn, but the features of those hymns change almost completely. Their divine performance only boosts Will saves instead of whatever the hymn does, they learn divination or enchantment spells instead of the spells from the hymn, and instead of the hymn's verse they gain Command upgrading to Suggestion. They also gain the clouded vision oracle curse. The Song Councilor is an erahthi cantor charged with safeguarding cultural relics and dealing with the Tritarchs. They focus on the dream or wood hymns, replacing the verse from those hymns with a soothing lullaby. They also gain the ability to transfer wounds from another creature, and invoke a chorus: One target gains temporary HP and an attack bonus, and allies can join the chorus to boost both things and add Fortitude and Will save bonuses. And rounding out the Cantor archetypes we have the Song Seeker, who is much more of a generalist. They do not specialize in a hymn, instead gaining multiple repertoire hymns and repertoire verses. They also gain the ability to mimic sounds, duplicate any performance ability they've witnessed in the past day, and use countersong to redirect a sonic or language-dependent effect instead of simply nullifying it. I really like this one, though I couldn't give you a solid reason why.  She is the very model of a modern major general. Possibly the only time boobplate is actually appropriate. Cavaliers get to be Aethertech Pilots. Anyone can learn how to fly and crew an aethertech vessel, but aethertech pilots bond with their chosen ship, gaining a speeder bike at 1st level instead of a horse or giant ostrich or what have you. They channel their social cavalier abilities through the aethership, being able to reroute power to weapons or apply teamwork feats over the radio. They also gain a unique flag or other emblem they can apply to their aethership, granting allied pilots and gunners a bonus to attack and eventually becoming legendary enough to impose a penalty to opposing aethership crews. Their ship is basically a stand-in for the standard mount, getting more HP, saves, natural armor, and upgrades to its base hull size; bonus slots for upgrades; easier control; the ability to reroll checks to fly or maintain it; and it gets harder to destroy, being able to land safely and keep functioning at 0 HP. It's also flavorfully quirky and works better when you kick it. Druids gain four new archetypes. The Aether-Touched Druid goes weird, focusing on interactions with creatures (and constructs) with the aether subtype, working it into all the druid's features: Basic interactions, summoning, and wild shape. They also add a number of telekinetic spells to their spell list. The Aethership Cultivator takes the erahthi talent for growing things and lets them grow spaceships. They get a slightly altered version of the Aethertech Pilot's bonded ship (The ship is a plant), learn to talk to it and other plant-based aetherships (resulting in a bonus to work on them), and they can rapidly and cheaply grow upgrades for plant aetherships. So cheaply that it may actually be a viable money-making scheme for players. The okanta have the Occult Druid, who works with the fey, losing a number of their straight nature-based abilities to boost things having to do with the fey: Summon lists, social interactions, and Sylvan as a language. They also gain an occult skill unlock, regardless of prerequisites. And the Symbiont Master again focuses on the erahthi talent for growing plants, although it doesn't seem racially restricted like the Aethership Cultivator. Symbiont Masters trade their animal companion for a plant symbiont, and gain a lot of feats and abilities related to using them without needing the prerequisites. We don't get full rules for symbionts in this section (Or the bonus symbiont feats, that all comes later), but we do get statblocks for the symbionts a master can use. There's some nice little boosts here, I'd be kind of interested to play one. Three archetypes for Fighters. Aether Soldier grants a free masterwork melee weapon made of aetherite and a wizard's arcane bond with it. They gain the Arcane Strike feat and can use it better than most of the mystic bathrobe men that take it. They also gain spell resistance at 19th level. Gravitic fighters learn about momentum and vectors, boosting their resistance to forced movement, damage with two-handed weapons, and attacks from higher ground. And Resonant Guards are a pop star's bodyguards/backup singers. They get Perform skills, and can harmonize with performance-based abilities, acting as a point of origin and being capable of keeping the song going if the bard is knocked out. While harmonizing, they can also boost the AC of the person they're harmonizing with. All told, some nice concepts, but still fighters. The Artillerist is a Gunslinger focused on aethership weaponry, although a lot of their abilities function with personal weapons, too. They gain some deeds related to automatic weapons and the ability to make called shots to parts of a ship and parts of the scenery. The Jump Trooper, meanwhile, is a gunslinger with an integrated goddamn jetpack.  They get a set of Iron Man palm thrusters (complete with chest reactor) surgically implanted at 1st level, a growing pool of fuel for them, and the ability to use the palm thrusters as guns. They gain some deeds related to flying and using the thruster guns. I like this one, because I like being able to do at first level anything that's usually relegated to a higher level.The Siege Walker approaches the heavy-armor-and-guns angle the Titan covers from the other end, being a Gunslinger focused on heavy siege weaponry. They're the now-classic third-person-shooter enemy, the big beefy guy in a riot suit waddling towards you with a minigun. They fulfill the entire role, being able to carry weapons with the stabilized property at half speed while firing them without penalty, make trip attacks with them, and reload them faster; while the beefy part comes into play with them being able to apply their armor AC versus firearm attacks and straight-up ignore being knocked prone or moved. And we finish up the gunslinger archetypes with the erahthi Thornslinger, who bonds with a symbiotic gun. It's a nice piece of kit, increasing its damage die over the thornslinger's career, and the thornslinger can take abilities to boost the capabilities of the thorns it fires instead of bonus feats. These abilities are things like rapid-growing vines, automatic fire, a poison gas cloud, or thorny caltrops. They also gain a few deeds to help them use their thorn gun better, or at least faster. The Tech Bonded Hunter turns the nature focus of the base class into a solid technological specialization. They lose Knowledge: Nature in exchange for Disable Device, Knowledge (Arcana) and Knowledge (Engineering). They cast arcane spells from the magus list instead of divine ranger/druid spells. And they have a little robot buddy. They learn to program their buddy with all kinds of nifty bonuses, from an integrated radio transmitter to first aid tools to a ranged attack that ignores most cover or concealment. Their most powerful ability is gained at 17th level, when they just get ignored by unintelligent constructs. There are a whopping five new archetypes for the Investigator, although they are all very simple changes. The Correspondent adds medium armor and swaps some rogue abilities for the useful kinds of bard song. The Mindspy casts psychic mesmerist spells and gets further hypnotic talents as they level up. The Mystic Detective adds some nonlethal weaponry to their proficiencies and are good at finding and fighting magic-users, specifically unregistered Akasaati magic users. The Prehistorian is very good at knowing history and can psychometrically read the history and function of ancient relics. And finally a Stellar Prospector can tell you which of them thar asteroids has aetherite in it, and otherwise gets some lackluster bonus feats and alterations to what they can use inspiration on. Except for the prospector, they're all decent options. And finally for this update, we come to the Kineticist. Kineticists are hard to understand at the best of times without having to worry about an archetype that fundamentally changes the way they play. The Aetheric Scion forges a close connection with the telekinetic element of aether, focusing on it to the exclusion of other elements. They have the ability to "exacerbate" the burn that kineticists normally take, taking more nonlethal damage and using that exacerbated burn to charge aethertech batteries, operate aethertech weaponry, and provide enhancement bonuses (and, later, abilities) to weapons and armor. It's a solid archetype, it changes the risk/reward dynamic that a kineticist has in an interesting manner. This section also provides new kineticist talents, focusing on the capabilities of aetherite (plasma generation, radioactivity, and teleportation), the other special materials available in the Aethera system, and some odd healing abilities designed to offset the slight lack of divine casters in Aethera (imitating a Restoration spell and a rapid-response Raise Dead).
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 08:54
|
|
|
clockworkjoe posted:This is entirely unrelated to the current discussion but does anyone know where I can find any writeups describing how the magic system of Monte Cook's World of Darkness is broken? I read this abandoned FATAL and Friends review of it: http://projects.inklesspen.com/fatal-and-friends/piell/monte-cooks-world-of-darkness/ but it stopped before it got to rule breaking wizards in it. If no one else offers up a better resource or specifics by tomorrow night, I'll dig up my copy and try. From memory, it mostly just boils down to recursively increasing bonuses until you have +20 to all actions permanently, which is hard but doable at like level 5 or something. That Old Tree fucked around with this message at 10:38 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 10:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
"Varies by individual" is the best part of that chart. We've got detailed statistics on how male humans are innately humbler than females, but vice versa for half elves. But man, if you want to know how well greater demons swim, it depends on the individual, buddy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Well, like, Asmodeus has a killer backstroke, but Orcus can barely doggy paddle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Indeed. But to be fair D&D 1e (which Arduin is really just a variant of rather than its own ruleset) basically set that standard. I'm amazed the spell page didn't feature Stafford's Star Bridge. It is indeed a reference to Greg Stafford. But it's also a big dig at him because Stafford declined to publish Arduin because: Humbug Scoolbus posted:The booklet itself is about 100 pages with no page numbering and a layout that makes a Palladium Book look well-organized. There were 3 Books in the initial series; The Arduin Grimoire, Welcome to Skull Tower, and Runes of Doom Stafford didn't really see it as publishable material (the sheer number of tables would give a typesetter nightmares, as this was before the days where computers were used for layout and publishing) and gave it back to him. The effects of Stafford's Star Bridge is that it create a bridge made of light and stars... Which promptly drops out beneath you. Also, re: Palladium - apparently, Kevin Siembieda did not use desktop publishing until the mid-2000s because, and this is according to Designers and Dungeons so there's at least some source corroborating this, he could do typesetting and layout by hand faster than any computer. It might explain a lot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
Charts like that have always been an embarrassment to the hobby.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
And here I thought that "-4 STR" was just an urban legend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 08:53 |
|
|
LuiCypher posted:Also, re: Palladium - apparently, Kevin Siembieda did not use desktop publishing until the mid-2000s because, and this is according to Designers and Dungeons so there's at least some source corroborating this, he could do typesetting and layout by hand faster than any computer. Bill Coffin in 2003 posted:Once Kevin's ready for layout, he prints out the whole mess and fires up his wax machine because he still puts these damned things together by hand. What's that? Desktop publishing software? Naw, he's faster without it! To his credit, he lays out the book in fairly decent time, but he also illustrates why all Palladium books have a simple two-column format. Kevin isn't going to cut columns to shape or deviate from formula because he might have to reflow a section of the book, and when he does, all those columns have to be standard or else none of it works. Where this really makes you want to bang your head against the tip of an artillery shell is when he lays out 80% of the book, discovers that he'd like to rename an alphabetically ordered item on page 5 and decides that it would be too much work to reflow the rest of the list. You know how every so often in a Palladium book you'll have a series of NPCs or OCCs or something and one of them is grossly out of alphabetical order? That's why. I used to think it was because Kevin couldn't read the alphabet. Now I know it's because he's truly, madly, deeply in love with putting books together in ways that even Monty Burns would decry as old-fashioned.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 15:37
|
|