UA 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

 

[cbwjm]

What deadlines are we even talking about and why would the DnD team even have to share them with us?

 

[lkj]

[MENTION=42037]Ik[/MENTION]j

one time one Italian Prime Minister said: "the difference between a project and a dream is respecting a deadline set in stone since the very beginning". is that a good approach? yes, imo.

Eugen Rochko, the founder and main developer of mastodon federated FOSS social network, regularly asks the users about their needs, and clearly and regularly states what is feasible, what is not, when and why. is that a good approach? yes, imo.

is opacity about deadlines (arbitrary? they choose them without caring about any other input, so they are arbitrary for us, not for them) and about the rational behind the development choices a good approach? no, imo. especially when that opacity is accompanied by a lot of (sometimes false) clues about the future and release dates announcements done when the printers are already rolling (and sometimes they have delays also in that case).

So we could go back and forth for a long time on this topic, but I don't really see that we'd get anywhere far (for either of us). Normally, I leave these discussions for others who find them more interesting. Responded on an odd whim earlier today.

So, lets just say we can agree to disagree. I think that they are doing just fine. You don't. Fair enough.

Cheers,
AD

 

[R_Chance]

A useful UA. For me at least Saves me some time and I can think of a lot that could be added (much of which is noted above - thanks!).

 

[DQDesign]

What deadlines are we even talking about and why would the DnD team even have to share them with us?

when will the official artificer arrive?
when will the wayfinder's guide be finalized and printed?
when will the official rules for psionics arrive?
when an original, not-mtg-recycled 5E campaign setting will be developed?
will be ever an official revised version of the ranger?
they leaked a photo of a developer's desk on which the greyhawk gazetter was in plain sight. when will 5E greyhawk arrive?
etc.

according to sources (en.wikipedia for example) development of 5E started at the end of 2011/start of 2012. after six years, is still too early to have answers to questions like that?

obviously they are not obliged to share anything, but obviously they can't convince me about having a good schedule and an amazing plan devised to achieve that schedule.

 

[Azzy]

when will the official artificer arrive?
when will the wayfinder's guide be finalized and printed?
when will the official rules for psionics arrive?
when an original, not-mtg-recycled 5E campaign setting will be developed?
will be ever an official revised version of the ranger?
they leaked a photo of a developer's desk on which the greyhawk gazetter was in plain sight. when will 5E greyhawk arrive?
etc.

according to sources (en.wikipedia for example) development of 5E started at the end of 2011/start of 2012. after six years, is still too early to have answers to questions like that?

obviously they are not obliged to share anything, but obviously they can't convince me about having a good schedule and an amazing plan devised to achieve that schedule.

Please threadcrap elsewhere.

 

[Azzy]

The rules for owning and making money off of a ship look really ill-thought to me. You get a complication if you roll a 1 on any of the 5d20 you roll for determining how much profit the ship makes in a month, and the best result is that you make no money that month, while you can also lose as much per month as you would 'normally' make for 1D6 months, lose your ship for d4 months, have your ship impounded, have you ship captured and have to recover it, or have your ship run off so you have to recover it, kill the crew, and hire a new crew for about two months theoretical profit.

Unless I'm missing something, owning a ship is a massive money sink that often takes you away from your own objectives. It's basically impossible for it to actually profit you over the course of a year, and instead of getting to do adventures based around sailing your ship to interesting places, you're burning money probably stuck rescuing your ship over and over again. If you want a campaign based around constantly saving your own ship then this system is for you!

Yeah, there's a 25% chance that something goes badly. maybe if they changed it to a roll of 2 ones. That'd lower the chance for such disaster significantly.

 

[DQDesign]

Please threadcrap elsewhere.

is it a personal problem for you? are you part in the delays? do you feel guilty?

 

[Azzy]

is it a personal problem for you? are you part in the delays? do you feel guilty?

Really? I mean, really? Look, you obviously have some axe to grind. So, please start a discussion thread about it and leave those of us that want to discuss the topic of this thread to do so in peace.

 

[DQDesign]

Really? I mean, really? Look, you obviously have some axe to grind. So, please start a discussion thread about it and leave those of us that want to discuss the topic of this thread to do so in peace.

[MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] started complaining about the absence of the artificer in this UA, not me. I just followed the path.

You should read the threads you post in before tagging other users legitimate opinions as 'crap'.

once you'll be polite you'll be left in peace.

 

[Morrus]

Knock it off, folks. This isn't Kindergarten.

 

[Remathilis]

Do you think they went with Wisdom (Nature) and Intelligence (Medicine) for hazards as an intentional "skills with different ability scores" check or did the just forget the fact normally medicine is keyed of wisdom and nature intelligence?

 

[bergec]

Do you think they went with Wisdom (Nature) and Intelligence (Medicine) for hazards as an intentional "skills with different ability scores" check or did the just forget the fact normally medicine is keyed of wisdom and nature intelligence?

I think it is intentional. The Wisdom (Nature) roll involves perception of the natural hazard rather than analysis while the Intelligence (Medicine) roll involves applying medical knowledge instead of treatment.

 

[robus]

If anyone wants music to go with their high seas adventures the Assassin's Creed IV Black Flag soundtrack is a pretty good option.

Edit: surprisingly the whole thing (as a single unit) is available on YouTube:

[video=youtube_share;JYVMnLUZu9Y]https://youtu.be/JYVMnLUZu9Y[/video]

 

[OB1]

Unless I'm missing something, owning a ship is a massive money sink that often takes you away from your own objectives.

No better description of owning your own boat has ever been made!

It's basically impossible for it to actually profit you over the course of a year, and instead of getting to do adventures based around sailing your ship to interesting places, you're burning money probably stuck rescuing your ship over and over again. If you want a campaign based around constantly saving your own ship then this system is for you!

Exactly! That's why smart adventurers rent ships when they need them to fulfill an objective instead of purchasing one out-right. When you own your own ship it is your whole life and it's own adventure, so you better be sure that's what you want!

 

[Jester David]

[MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] started complaining about the absence of the artificer in this UA, not me. I just followed the path.

Okay, since you brought me into this...

Yeah, I'd like an official artificer. And sooner rather than later. Ditto psionics. But I'd also like them to be good.

when will the official artificer arrive?

You mean, when are they going to release the FREE class to Unearthed Arcana?
I think this that's a big reason for the delay. The artificer doesn't fit into their planned publishing schedule, so work on it (and the psion) always gets bumped when they're busy with projects where they have to meet a deadline. Which is probably always.

when will the wayfinder's guide be finalized and printed?

Let's see... following the UA they'll add the artificer. And likely get feedback for 2-6 months on the class. Do some more internal playtesting. Likely eight months at least. (Testing a class is hard, especially when you need to also test three to six subclasses at the same time.)
Then they'll order some print proofs from DMsGuild. Fix errors and order a second proof. That'll take another month at least. So likely 9-10 months after the artificer is released on UA.

Or you can send the PDF to Lightning Source and get it the minute the artificer is released. Heck, you can take the existing UA version and send it there RIGHT NOW and get a similar product in a couple weeks.

when will the official rules for psionics arrive?

When it is done. See above.
It is annoying we've had to wait four years so far. Which is actually about as long as it took in 2e. (It was one year in 3e and two years in 4e.)

However, there is a version out already. (Two actually.) But they took a lot of feedback and people weren't happy, so they went back to the drawing board. So if you want/need it, there's something you can use in your game.

I'm pretty happy with the loose design they did during the Mike Mearls' Happy Fun Hour sessions. But it still takes a long time to fully design, balance, and test a class like that.

But, again, the absence of a planned book always makes this a back burner project.

when an original, not-mtg-recycled 5E campaign setting will be developed?

Probably never.
Campaign settings are lower selling books, as most people homebrew. And fewer people still will buy a new campaign setting they have no affection for. And it will just upset the fans who do want a beloved existing world.

If you need a new world... go 3rd Party. There's almost two-dozen.
After all, why does it need to be official? Campaign settings should be 90% fluff, so it's not like the more experienced design chops of the WotC will have an impact.
I'd recommend Kobold Press' Midgard. Because it's massive, extremely well done, and super professional. And you can comfort yourself with the reminder freelance designer superstar Dan Dillon did much of the crunch, and he was also someone WotC picked to write Dungeon of the Mad Mage.

will be ever an official revised version of the ranger?

Also probably never.
(Well... unless you could the UA version. Which is still 100% official.)

Jeremy Crawford has been pretty vocal that making one and suggesting the possibility was a mistake. And that more than enough people play the ranger and enjoy it.

they leaked a photo of a developer's desk on which the greyhawk gazetter was in plain sight. when will 5E greyhawk arrive?

They're probably working on that for the DMsGuild as well, akin to Eberron. So, again, when it's ready.
(Or that was for someone's homegame...)

according to sources (en.wikipedia for example) development of 5E started at the end of 2011/start of 2012. after six years, is still too early to have answers to questions like that?

Yes. Because:

obviously they are not obliged to share anything,

Just because they're not sharing their schedule, doesn't mean they don't have one.
Again and again the fans have shown WotC that it's a bad idea to say too much too soon. Because we get super upset when expected books are "cancelled".

but obviously they can't convince me about having a good schedule and an amazing plan devised to achieve that schedule.

Why would they have to?
Why does convincing you they have a schedule help them in any way, shape, or form?

They do three hardcover books a year while synergizing with a video game, two miniature companies, two VTTs, and a character builder. They know how to schedule and get those books out on time. Which is more impressive than you might think: every single 3PP gets books out at least a month late. The PDF of Kobold Press' Creature Codex reached me only a few weeks late, and that was positively early. Heck, even Paizo regularly blows deadlines.

They're just not going to lock them into making some content with an arbitrary deadline to release free content on their website to test for a book they're not excited to make just to meet some fan mandated quota on the number and type of classes in the game.

I do want the artificer. It'd be great for my homebrew campaign setting. And I'd like a list of subclasses, so I can poke away at flavouring them for my world. But I plan on playing 5e for years to come. So having a brand new class to renew my interest in a year or two will be fine.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Do you think they went with Wisdom (Nature) and Intelligence (Medicine) for hazards as an intentional "skills with different ability scores" check or did the just forget the fact normally medicine is keyed of wisdom and nature intelligence?

Probably intentional. We have to remember that Mike & Co. occasionally add things into the playtests that are not "normal"... not because they mess up, but because they want us to think about doing things "abnormally" and whether we're okay with it. By doing this alternate ability score bit, they are asking us to comment whether we like the idea or would rather just stick with the default 5E rule for one score / one skill.

I think people sometimes get way too hung up on wanting everything in a playtest document to be "absolutely correct!" from the get-go so that they can just use these playtest rules as-is without having to "fix" them... which is not what these are for. It the same reason why they release playtest docs wiithout having "the math" necessarily correct... because as they say, fixing the math is the easiest thing to do and what they can do right before they declare the product done. But yet folks on the boards still constantly complain and say stuff along the lines of "How can they release such shoddy work?!? Give the game to a company that cares!"

It's kind of ridiculous that people still don't realize this.

 

[guachi]

I applaud the existence of the UA. It's a breath of fresh air to get some new rules like this. Reminds me of the downtime activities UA that I liked so much (and said so in the feedback I gave).

Basically, anything that's DM centered that allows and facilitates new ways of playing the game with some kind of rules as an aid to the DM. Dms benefit and, therefore, players benefit.

Fun!

Except there are some cringeworthy rules in the UA as others have noted. I'll have to make sure than any criticisms I make in the feedback aren't there to scuttle (see what I did there?) the idea of ship rules, but to make them better so we can use them.

 

[AmerginLiath]

I’m going to have to reread through this again in more detail, but I like the gist of it on a first quick scan, both in terms of basic ideas and what it covers. I’ve been in a number of games involving ships and different games/editions vary in how they try to create variant systems to describe them — ending up with lots of extra complexity. I like the idea of treating ships as sort of creatures (almost like constructs which need outside propulsion) and would like to see this used in other areas of the game where weird descriptive subsystems are used (given the way that the six ability scores govern so much so directly in D&D generally and 5e specifically — and how that allows quick creation of ships on the fly via 3d6 rolls or use of arrays).

My first thought actually, given the use of ability scores for ships, was the ongoing jokes back when Envoy Warforged (and their Integrated Tool ability) were introduced about building Transformers by taking advantage of Land Vehicles and Sea Vehicles both being treated as tool proficiencies. Here we see how one could convert a character’s own ability scores into vehicular ability scores when doing that!

 

[jgsugden]

This article says airships travel at 9 MPH. In prior editions, the airships moved at between 20 and 24 MPH. 9 MPH is just shy of 80 feet per round - meaning that thy're slower than your average barbarian. I'd prefer the faster speed.

 

[Azzy]

is it a personal problem for you? are you part in the delays? do you feel guilty?

This article says airships travel at 9 MPH. In prior editions, the airships moved at between 20 and 24 MPH. 9 MPH is just shy of 80 feet per round - meaning that thy're slower than your average barbarian. I'd prefer the faster speed.

We really need to keep a list of issues, potential issues, and perceived issues for reference for when the survey on this opens up.