Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Of Ships and The Sea

Interesting. There's an old AD&D 2e "blue book" with that title: Of Ships and the Sea

 

[Derren]

Destroying the helm seems a bit too easy, but there seem to be no long term problems having a destroyed helm and weapons can apparently fire in all directions.
Wind plays too little of a role.
Giving ships attribute scores, half of them 0, seems clunky. Same to having their attack scores fixed instead of dependent on the crew.
And the names of the officers seems to be too modern for the ships presented, especially the definition of Quartermaster.

Also, no rules for boarding.

 

[DQDesign]

They did it partially with SCAG, and interestingly the parts they playtested have been better received in the long run. I think it is no accident that it is post-SCAG that they changed their methodology, and stopped outsourcing these books for that matter.

You asked, so I answered.

I don't see the fluff part of SCAG as bad, I find it better than the thoroughly-playtested crunch. And I liked the days in which wotc partnered with Kobold Press and Green Ronin, for me was like "we know we can't manage something larger-than-life like the d&d brand only by ourselves, so we team up with special friends in order to do that in the best way". But it's only my opinion, obviously.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't see the fluff part of SCAG as bad, I find it better than the thoroughly-playtested crunch. And I liked the days in which wotc partnered with Kobold Press and Green Ronin, for me was like "we know we can't manage something larger-than-life like the d&d brand only by ourselves, so we team up with special friends in order to do that in the best way". But it's only my opinion, obviously.

Don't get me wrong, I like SCAG just fine. But it did get a mixed reception, which prompted procedural changes.

 

[robus]

Interestingly the latest episode of Critical Role explores life (and roles) on board a sailing ship:

[video=youtube_share;nsmHNxJZSSM]https://youtu.be/nsmHNxJZSSM[/video]

 

[DQDesign]

He didn't project a date

as I said, no reliable plans.

 

[Parmandur]

as I said, no reliable plans.

I mean, it's reactions like we get on here that they don't let us know about unsolidified plans. Mearls screwed the pooch a bit by telling us too much, frankly.

 

[DQDesign]

Don't get me wrong, I like SCAG just fine. But it did get a mixed reception, which prompted procedural changes.

The procedural changes are what I can't understand. why the reaction to mixed reviews is deciding not to work together with partners? in which survey did they ask this? I would have answered that the problem would be another, not the presence of partners in the development.

why the reaction to mixed reviews is selling 'early preview', not complete settings in pdf (delaying their completion sine die)?

did they really think that those choices improve their brand management?

I can't figure how.

 

[DQDesign]

unsolidified plans

wait, weren't you saying they have good plans for years?

anyway, 'unsolidified plans' sounds to me very strange, something like 'transparent opacity' or 'lowly highness' XD

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I think ship parts and weapons should be modular to some degree, as a ship that's a focus in a campaign that belong to a party of PCs, replacing and upgrading parts is probably something that PCs would want to do.

 

[Parmandur]

wait, weren't you saying they have good plans for years?

anyway, 'unsolidified plans' sounds to me very strange, something like 'transparent opacity' or 'lowly highness' XD

Being flexible and open to change and delay is a good quality in planning. If they stuck yo plans they recognized as problematic...well, that's what happened in 3.x for one thing.