Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Hosted Settings
The Cosmonomicon
Back at long last
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Wyvern" data-source="post: 357087" data-attributes="member: 2374"><p>Good to see that we're in agreement on most things. I'll stick to clarifying a few of my comments that apparently need it.</p><p></p><p>The main point of my question was to establish what row on the size chart you use to determine the damage from hitting the ground. I didn't know if it counted as colossal or if it had its own damage rating. On further consideration, though, I think it would be good to have some kind of stunt allowing a pilot to skim the ground. (Flying at 'low' altitude doesn't count because it doesn't incur any risk of crashing.) You might even go so far as to change the altitude rules to say that only vessels that are skimming the ground can make melee attacks against ground-based targets.</p><p></p><p>The reason I think maneuverability should affect a diving stunt roll is because a less maneuverable vessel would have a harder time pulling up at the end of the dive.</p><p></p><p>Well, it makes sense that a creature capable of hovering could land as a move-equivalent action, but does it make sense for helicopters? I've never flown a helicopter so I don't know how long it takes to land one.</p><p></p><p>What I mean is, what happens when a pilot begins to make an extended landing, but in a subsequent round something happens (the engines catch fire, the runway is blocked, or he realizes it isn't as long as he thought it was, etc.) that makes him decide to land *right now*? What bonus or penalty does he apply to the landing attempt? Does he get a partial bonus for an extended landing? Does he get a penalty? Or is it just treated as a normal landing?</p><p></p><p>What I was asking is, how do you tell whether you *do* lose control? "Might" doesn't tell me anything. How much do you have to fail the DC by? Or is it another case of "you're okay as long as you beat a DC of 1"?</p><p></p><p>Except that it's *not* an artform. At least not the kind of navigation that I'm thinking of (using a sextant, compass and star charts). You could almost make a better argument for engineering being an artform, because you're designing things. Any kind of nagivation that *is* Wis-based should be treated as an alternate interpretation of Intuit Direction (which I think was poorly-written to start with), otherwise you're creating redundant skills, which is a no-no in my book.</p><p></p><p>The thing to keep in mind is that any given campaign will probably only feature a few "types" of vehicles (in terms of the PCs actually flying them, that is), and any given person should realistically only be trained with one or two types, unless they've devoted themselves to mastering as many as possible (which is where the Pilot class comes in). Furthermore, the less important flight rules are to the setting, the less likely there will be a lot of different types of vehicles involved. That said, I think it's an excellent idea to provide a choice of different rules to use for different degrees of realism and complexity. I just ask that my rules be included as one of the options.</p><p></p><p>There were only one or two references to Spelljammer in the first place, and they're easily removed. In fact, since I've been making a few changes (mostly trivial) to my world-building chapter anyway, I think I'll just upload the revised, hopefully OGL-compliant version to my webspace. I'll let you know when I do, so you can use it to replace the version you already have.</p><p></p><p>As far as the content goes, there were three main parts to it: rules for tech and magic levels, rules for environmental effects (gravity, temperature, etc.) including underwater and vacuum rules, and guidelines for creating planets. I know you're not that interested in complicated rules for using technology, but if the Cosmonomicon is to fulfill its original goal of allowing interaction between vehicles from a variety of different campaign worlds, then some kind of tech rules *are* necessary.</p><p></p><p>Of course. At most I might make minor stylistic edits (add a word here, cut a word there) to make the text flow better. If that bothers anyone, then I could always ask permission before making such changes, but keep in mind that they wouldn't be anywhere near as major as the changes barsoomcore made to your original draft.</p><p></p><p>The thing is, until I see what you've already done, it's more likely than not that anything I suggest would be something you've already covered. Also, until I see exactly how your rules work, I wouldn't be able to give stats to my ideas without running the risk of conflicting with what you've written.</p><p></p><p>Wyvern</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wyvern, post: 357087, member: 2374"] Good to see that we're in agreement on most things. I'll stick to clarifying a few of my comments that apparently need it. The main point of my question was to establish what row on the size chart you use to determine the damage from hitting the ground. I didn't know if it counted as colossal or if it had its own damage rating. On further consideration, though, I think it would be good to have some kind of stunt allowing a pilot to skim the ground. (Flying at 'low' altitude doesn't count because it doesn't incur any risk of crashing.) You might even go so far as to change the altitude rules to say that only vessels that are skimming the ground can make melee attacks against ground-based targets. The reason I think maneuverability should affect a diving stunt roll is because a less maneuverable vessel would have a harder time pulling up at the end of the dive. Well, it makes sense that a creature capable of hovering could land as a move-equivalent action, but does it make sense for helicopters? I've never flown a helicopter so I don't know how long it takes to land one. What I mean is, what happens when a pilot begins to make an extended landing, but in a subsequent round something happens (the engines catch fire, the runway is blocked, or he realizes it isn't as long as he thought it was, etc.) that makes him decide to land *right now*? What bonus or penalty does he apply to the landing attempt? Does he get a partial bonus for an extended landing? Does he get a penalty? Or is it just treated as a normal landing? What I was asking is, how do you tell whether you *do* lose control? "Might" doesn't tell me anything. How much do you have to fail the DC by? Or is it another case of "you're okay as long as you beat a DC of 1"? Except that it's *not* an artform. At least not the kind of navigation that I'm thinking of (using a sextant, compass and star charts). You could almost make a better argument for engineering being an artform, because you're designing things. Any kind of nagivation that *is* Wis-based should be treated as an alternate interpretation of Intuit Direction (which I think was poorly-written to start with), otherwise you're creating redundant skills, which is a no-no in my book. The thing to keep in mind is that any given campaign will probably only feature a few "types" of vehicles (in terms of the PCs actually flying them, that is), and any given person should realistically only be trained with one or two types, unless they've devoted themselves to mastering as many as possible (which is where the Pilot class comes in). Furthermore, the less important flight rules are to the setting, the less likely there will be a lot of different types of vehicles involved. That said, I think it's an excellent idea to provide a choice of different rules to use for different degrees of realism and complexity. I just ask that my rules be included as one of the options. There were only one or two references to Spelljammer in the first place, and they're easily removed. In fact, since I've been making a few changes (mostly trivial) to my world-building chapter anyway, I think I'll just upload the revised, hopefully OGL-compliant version to my webspace. I'll let you know when I do, so you can use it to replace the version you already have. As far as the content goes, there were three main parts to it: rules for tech and magic levels, rules for environmental effects (gravity, temperature, etc.) including underwater and vacuum rules, and guidelines for creating planets. I know you're not that interested in complicated rules for using technology, but if the Cosmonomicon is to fulfill its original goal of allowing interaction between vehicles from a variety of different campaign worlds, then some kind of tech rules *are* necessary. Of course. At most I might make minor stylistic edits (add a word here, cut a word there) to make the text flow better. If that bothers anyone, then I could always ask permission before making such changes, but keep in mind that they wouldn't be anywhere near as major as the changes barsoomcore made to your original draft. The thing is, until I see what you've already done, it's more likely than not that anything I suggest would be something you've already covered. Also, until I see exactly how your rules work, I wouldn't be able to give stats to my ideas without running the risk of conflicting with what you've written. Wyvern [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Hosted Settings
The Cosmonomicon
Back at long last
Top