Chapter 5 Update

[Sidran]

Deleted by....

 

[BlackJaw]

you probably should have posted this vehicle construction topic seperatly instead of under the topic on "chapter 5, settings"

Just seemed a little out of places given our current thread.

Anyway, I'll respond in a new post.

 

[Wyvern]

Its a matter of physics

Since everything is made of moving atoms that are never at rest we are considered liquids

Of course everything is made of moving atoms. The only time atoms don't move is when they are at "absolute zero" (which is never, AFAIK). The definition of a liquid is *not* being made of moving atoms, it's a state in which the atoms are bound loosely enough to "flow" but not so loosely that they diffuse away from each other (thus forming a gas). See www.dictionary.com/search?q=liquid and www.infoplease.com/search.php3?query=liquid&in=all.

By your definition, everything in the known universe would be a liquid, which would make the distinction between solids, liquids and gases meaningless.

Over time glass will gather at the bottom of a window paine, anyway it was a physics philosophy.

I wondered if that's what you were referring to. Read math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glass/glass.html.

Wyvern

 

[Wyvern]

"crossovers between environments"... so we should also have atmosphere to vacuume rules? does that work (it isn't exactly a border line between the two... not like water to air is)

Well, when I mentioned crossovers between environments, I wasn't specifically referring to borders between them. I just mean that the rules should be designed to allow a player to figure out whether his airplane will operate in vacuum, or his spaceship will work underwater, etc., and if not, what happens to it. Also what happens when you take your vessel to a cosmos with a different magic or tech level.

However, as far as boundary lines go, you're right: under normal circumstances the border between atmosphere and vacuum would not be a distinct line. Even if you had force fields holding in the air somehow, they wouldn't interfere with your vision, so you don't have cover bonuses like you do with fluid-air or fluid-vacuum interfaces. The rule about water boundaries giving a cover bonus is not my idea, it came straight from an issue of Dragon. (Only problem is, I don't have that issue, and I'm not sure whether I got the numbers right.)

So do we assing a bunch of tech rattings to a vehicle, or are we expected to keep tech rattings for every device/component on a vehicle. I've been making vehicle rules so that you add all the components togeather to get final stats, much like adding gear and levels to a character. If a series of sub-tech and sub-magic levels for a dozen or more items is needed, and skill checks are needed on all of them from time to time, then we got an overly clunky system. I suspect what we need to do here is strip it down. An individual vehicle should have tech rattings for itself, and maybe each weapon gets its own tech/magic ratting.

The method I had in mind was simply to take the highest tech and magic levels for all components of a vehicle and let those be the overall levels for the vehicle. Each vehicle stat block should still have a complete listing of components, so that you can look them up to see what kinds of tech or magic are used, and figure out which specific components fail if you enter a cosmos with an insufficient tech or magic level.

My problem with your "caster level" system is that
1) not all magic spells have a spicific caster level. some spells have more then one caster level.

I don't get what you mean. Could you give me an example? If you're simply referring to the fact that most spell effects scale in one way or another by caster level, I know this; that was the whole point of including the caster level penalty.

Thus I asked, if an effective caster level is reduced to 0 or bellow, then the spell doesn't work... if that is the case, then a -1 penalty to caster level means level 1 wizards/etc can't cast anything.

I've already acknowledged that this is a problem, and I'll let you know when I come up with a solution. I may just add a clause stating that this is an exception to the minimum caster level rule.

Also there are a few rare spells in the PHB that don't really use the caster level for anything (other then say Save DCs) Generaly they either work, or don't. I think Harm and disintegrate are like that.

I checked and you're right about Harm. The range of Disintegrate is determined by caster level. Anyway, I don't see this as a problem.

IDEA: What if we increase the casting atribute requirment for spells? normaly you have to have INT 10 + spell level to cast a wizard spell, CHA for bards and sorcs, WIS for most divine casters, etc. We could increase this ratting as magic levels go down, so 10 + spell level + 1 in tech 8 (or what ever)....

That's a brilliant idea. I think I'll still require some kind of check (maybe a caster level check instead of a Spellcraft check) to cast spells higher than the magic potential, but your idea will work fine for spells lower than the potential. I might also lower the save DC's correspondingly to further increase the uncertainty of magic. (After all, even at 1st level it's rare to find a spellcasting PC without a score of at least 16 in their key stat, so they still wouldn't be affected in a cosmos with a mid-level magic potential.)

My confusion over the Anti-Magic and Anti-Tech chapter is that you placed both the information on anti-magic/tech and the information on civilizations that are just bellow the potential tech ratting in the same place. It was confusing because the two don't seem directly connected. I'd make those two seperate paragraphs:

Okay, I can do that.

You may also want to considering changing from "null-tech/magic" to some other term, and null would seem to indicate "magic or tech is nullified" which means the same as anti-magic or anti-tech. No other term jumps to mind off-hand I'm afraid.

I can't think of a good one off-hand either, but if I do I'll change it.

The more I think about gravity the less I like the system of using gravity levels instead of just assigning gravity "rattings" much like wind. (page 87 DMG) off the top of my head:
"None*, minor, light, standard, strong, severe, Crushing*" Less math, more modifiers is generaly the way to go.

Point taken. I'll see what I can come up with.

We might be able to get away with have this temperature section smaller. Just the bit about offsetting the base temperature and the table(s)?

Hmmm... which part are you suggesting I cut out? If you mean the detailed description of effects at different levels, I think we need that, because I didn't put *everything* in the table. It doesn't list the save DCs, for example, nor does it mention the check to avoid falling unconscious at intolerable temperature levels.

OGC/D20 compliance...
yah we might want to change refrences to "core book" and the like as you mentioned.

The thing is, I don't *want* to unless I have to. "Core rulebook II" and so on just sound awkward to me; I'd much rather be able to write "DMG". Besides which, I've already done it that way and would rather not have to change it. I think this is a call that Darrin should make, since he's the one who's going to be "publishing" the finished product.

Anyhow, with luck I'll have time this weekend to incorporate the changes you suggested, and also finish updating the character creation chapter. Thanks for your feedback!

Wyvern

 

[barsoomcore]

Wyvern: Wow! Great stuff!

Looks like you and BlackJaw have already sussed out the details but I just wanted to add one comment:

I think it's important to try and strip as many of our own preconceptions about the kinds of worlds DMs are going to be creating as possible. Statements like:

Antitech zones are exceedingly rare, though null-tech zones are found more often, usually on worlds where sentient life has only recently appeared. On the other hand, antimagic zones are fairly common in some multiverses, and null-magic locations even more so.

Are kind of pointless and potential sources of confusion for DMs who are trying to pull actual rules out of this document. There's no content to this stuff and so it just clutters up the documents.

I think the sparser and more rules-rich we make this, the more useful and powerful it will be.

It's not a criticism of style, I hope you realise. It's not that I think the writing is bad -- I'm just concerned with keeping it as tight as possible.

I'm a born editor -- I'm never happy unless I'm crossing stuff out.

 

[Wyvern]

Chapter 5 update

Sorry it's been so long since I last posted (though I'm not alone in that). The last couple of weeks have been especially busy. Anyhow, the latest revision of Chapter 5 is up, at the same URL as above. Notable changes from the previous version include:

- Revamped rules on the effects of magic and tech potentials, as per BlackJaw's suggestions.

- Slight changes to the rules for antimagic and antitech zones, as per barsoomcore's suggestions, including renaming "null-magic" and "null-tech" to "magicless" and "techless".

- A new paragraph on how the temperature rules apply to the Monster Manual's "Climate/Terrain" listing.

- Reworded gravity rules and the addition of a quick-reference chart. I couldn't bring myself to delete all references to absolute gravity values, but I changed most of them to say "every level" instead of "every 0.2 G". This made the rules for long-term Strength changes much clearer, IMO.

- Reworded rule regarding the effect of gravity on falling damage (which I realized was vague and potentially illogical).

- Reduction of the maximum gravity limit from 300% of the racial baseline to 200%, mainly because the chart of gravity levels would have been seriously lopsided otherwise. However, I also spread out the subdual damage more evenly (1d4 per hour at 200% and 1d4 per minute at 300%, +1d4 per additional 100% increase). Previously it jumped from no damage at 280% to 2d4 per minute at 300%.

That's about it, aside from cosmetic changes such as switching the last two sidebars around (to match the order they're referenced in) and adding more contractions (something I tend to neglect when writing) to make it sound less stilted. Chapter 6: Character Creation will follow soon, though I'm not making any promises about when, 'cause I know I won't be able to keep them.

Wyvern

 

[Wyvern]

Temperature effects

I realized today that I'd made a rather major blunder in composing the temperature charts; I'd forgotten to double the degree range in converting from Celsius to Farenheit. When I went to make the change, I also realized that I'd made the range a bit too large, since "intolerable" heat worked out as 80 degrees Celsius (or 190 Farenheit) and up. To fix the problem, I've changed the steps from 10, 20, 40, 60 to 10, 20, 30, 40, and corrected the numbers on the chart. (I also decided to change the damage from intolerable heat or cold from subdual to regular damage.) If you've already downloaded the revised draft I posted on Friday, you'll need to download it again to get the latest version.

Wyvern

 

[barsoomcore]

Sorry, Wyvern. After my lackadaisical approach to your work previously, for whatever reason, I've taken out my fine-tooth comb and gone at this document more carefully. So here's a partial list of stuff I'm thinking. I'll complete my run-through another time.

The first question to answer is what the scale of your campaign setting is.

Rather than "campaign setting" we ought to say "cosmos". A campaign may include multiple cosmoses. Cosmii?

As mentioned previously, there are three types of medium which combat using the Cosmonomicon rules can occur in.

I think that the rules should very clearly describe each type. A separate entry for each, with whatever duplication is required so that each one individually contains all the information it needs to. Somebody should be able to look at the entry for "Air" and get all the info there is without having to refer to anything else.

An air medium and a vacuum medium work the same in terms of rules except for the effects of a hull breach, as described in the chapter on combat.

Hull breaches are not described in the combat section. They ought to be described here, or possibly in vehicle descriptions, since only certain vehicles will be subject to such things. Hull breaches will be different in different media, even for the same vehicle, so I think the details ought to belong in each of the medium types. A hull breach in a fluid medium will be very different than one in a vacuum medium.

vehicles that are designed exclusively for a fluid medium

That is, vehicles that have a Swim speed.

Most ranged weapons have their range increments reduced by half.

Well, that will only be true of ballistic weapons -- that is, weapons that propel an object. Are rays ranged weapons? We ought to be specific here -- which weapons get their range increments reduced and which do not?

However, this is rare for magic potentials and even rarer for tech potentials.

How do you know? I think what needs to be said here is that whatever levels you apply in your cosmii, you need to record them exactly. If you want to vary the levels based on specific types of magic or technology, go right ahead, but make sure you record each variation exactly.

The potential levels of a cosmos should be constant across the board unless there's a good rationale for some to be higher or lower than the rest.

This is the kind of thing I was talking about in my previous post. I mean, what this is saying is, "Levels should be constant unless they're not." Which supplies very little information to DMs trying to extract from this document what they need to do to build their cosmos.

The whole "Magic and Tech Levels" section ought to be more structured. It should start off with "Potential Levels" and explain those, including Rigid and Flexible Potentials. Then "Acheivement Levels". Then "Defining Magic Levels" and finally "Defining Tech Levels". That should cover everything. Then it's clear where everything is and what you need to refer to to answer questions.

temperature and gravity are given in increments of 5°C (~10°F) and 0.2 G respectively

Except that it appears temperature is given in increments of 10º in the chart following.

The "intolerable" levels are measured relative to a race's baseline tolerance level rather than an individual's level. Thus, a character who's acclimated to cold conditions and has the Cold Tolerance feat will still take damage in intolerably cold conditions, although they'll only suffer a -2 penalty to dice rolls.

There seems to be a lot of rule information in these two sentences and it's not clear what's being said. The first sentence implies that a character's personal acclimitization is not considered when judging the intolerance level. I'm not sure what that means, actually, but I assume it means that a -40º difference is always intolerable, no matter how acclimatized I may be. Previously it was said that I could acclimatize myself to a different level by spending two months living in it, so this is a bit of a surprise.

But the second sentence introduces a new feat I've never heard of and then draws a distinction between taking damage and condition penalties. We haven't yet been presented with rules that make clear which applies to what, so I'm at a loss here. What are the rules for damage vs. penalties? And acclimitization versus intolerable conditions? This is all very unclear.

And where did that feat come from?

I do have a bit of trouble believing that -40º C weather will kill a normal human being in a minute. Having walked to school in -40º C weather on a regular basis I can say that while it's no picnic, it certainly won't kill you in 60 seconds. This seems to be a new rule that expands from the DMG set of cold and heat effects. It's clearly derived from the heat rules on abysmal heat but I don't think that -20º C counts as the cold version of hell. Not when Calgary goes to -40º.

 

[Wyvern]

Rather than "campaign setting" we ought to say "cosmos". A campaign may include multiple cosmoses. Cosmii?

Actually, campaign setting is what I meant -- because part of determining the scope is deciding whether you're going to have one cosmos or many.

I think that the rules should very clearly describe each type. A separate entry for each, with whatever duplication is required so that each one individually contains all the information it needs to. Somebody should be able to look at the entry for "Air" and get all the info there is without having to refer to anything else.

Well, the "As mentioned previously" bit is a leftover from when I thought that medium rules would be covered in the chapter on combat. Anyhow, I'll see what I can do about separating them. Adding the rules for the effects of hull breaches in fluid and vacuum media will help make each section more substantial.

That is, vehicles that have a Swim speed.

Good point. I'll reword the sentence to make note of that.

Well, that will only be true of ballistic weapons -- that is, weapons that propel an object. Are rays ranged weapons? We ought to be specific here -- which weapons get their range increments reduced and which do not?

How about "thrown and projectile weapons"?

How do you know? I think what needs to be said here is that whatever levels you apply in your cosmii, you need to record them exactly. If you want to vary the levels based on specific types of magic or technology, go right ahead, but make sure you record each variation exactly.

This is the kind of thing I was talking about in my previous post. I mean, what this is saying is, "Levels should be constant unless they're not." Which supplies very little information to DMs trying to extract from this document what they need to do to build their cosmos.

I included this for two reasons: a) to discourage people from making things needlessly complicated, and b) to emphasize that if magic or tech levels are uneven, there should preferably be a specific, in-game rationale for it. I'll remove the comments about the rarity of it, though (since as you said, that's up to the GM to decide).

The whole "Magic and Tech Levels" section ought to be more structured. It should start off with "Potential Levels" and explain those, including Rigid and Flexible Potentials. Then "Acheivement Levels". Then "Defining Magic Levels" and finally "Defining Tech Levels". That should cover everything. Then it's clear where everything is and what you need to refer to to answer questions.

Okay, I'll take a whack at it and see what I can do.

Except that it appears temperature is given in increments of 10º in the chart following.

That's a typo. The chart is correct. The base increment should be 10ºC (20ºF).

There seems to be a lot of rule information in these two sentences and it's not clear what's being said. The first sentence implies that a character's personal acclimitization is not considered when judging the intolerance level. I'm not sure what that means, actually, but I assume it means that a -40º difference is always intolerable, no matter how acclimatized I may be. Previously it was said that I could acclimatize myself to a different level by spending two months living in it, so this is a bit of a surprise.

But the second sentence introduces a new feat I've never heard of and then draws a distinction between taking damage and condition penalties. We haven't yet been presented with rules that make clear which applies to what, so I'm at a loss here. What are the rules for damage vs. penalties? And acclimitization versus intolerable conditions? This is all very unclear.

You're right, it is confusing. I'll try to come up with something better when I have more time to think about it.

I do have a bit of trouble believing that -40º C weather will kill a normal human being in a minute. Having walked to school in -40º C weather on a regular basis I can say that while it's no picnic, it certainly won't kill you in 60 seconds. This seems to be a new rule that expands from the DMG set of cold and heat effects. It's clearly derived from the heat rules on abysmal heat but I don't think that -20º C counts as the cold version of hell. Not when Calgary goes to -40º.

Well, 1d6 damage per minutes doesn't necessarily equate to "dead in 60 seconds". More importantly, you've overlooked the part where it says that warm clothing can increase the effective temperature by up to 40ºC. (Do you think it should be 60º?) A person going out in -20º weather wearing only a shirt and pants is going to start suffering from hypothermia before very long.

Wyvern

 

[barsoomcore]

Good to see you, Wyvern. I'm still planning to provide you with more feedback. Stand by.

How about "thrown and projectile weapons"?

That sounds like it covers it pretty well.

I included this for two reasons: a) to discourage people from making things needlessly complicated, and b) to emphasize that if magic or tech levels are uneven, there should preferably be a specific, in-game rationale for it. I'll remove the comments about the rarity of it, though (since as you said, that's up to the GM to decide).

I think you're right to want to discourage people -- or at least make sure they understand how complicated it can get. Maybe an example is appropriate here.

Well, 1d6 damage per minute doesn't necessarily equate to "dead in 60 seconds".

If you're a first-level commoner it sure does.

More importantly, you've overlooked the part where it says that warm clothing can increase the effective temperature by up to 40ºC.

You're quite right, I did. Forgive me.

A person going out in -20º weather wearing only a shirt and pants is going to start suffering from hypothermia before very long.

They are indeed. And it's going to suck. A lot.