Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 7739598" data-attributes="member: 22424">Why would you think that? There's nothing in Spelljammer that doesn't work with AD&amp;D - which shouldn't be a surprise, given that it is an AD&amp;D setting. &quot;The mechanics should flow from the setting&quot; shouldn't be taken to imply simply throwing everything out - cut your cloth according to your desires.D&amp;D has a long and glorious history of ignoring inconvenient things that PCs might do - such as striding into the throne room and killing the king. And, indeed, it has a long history of ignoring the implications of flying fortresses - in addition to the aforementioned airships in Mystara and Eberron, Dragonlance has floating citadels and the Realms (and probably Greyhawk) has flying Storm Giant castles. Spelljammers in the atmosphere would just use the same systems as those game elements. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Alternatively, if you want to properly address it, there are ways - rule that Spelljammers in the atmosphere can only move vertically (as with levitate), or posit rapid response forces in local kingdoms... or just make it far more economical to just go adventuring rather than engage in petty destruction.Why would this be necessary? I mean, I get why people don't like the &quot;helmsmen lose their slots&quot; thing, but I don't understand why it simply can't work for Spelljammer. After all, there's at least one piece of evidence that suggests it probably does. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Eh. That's a criticism that can be leveled at almost every sci-fi series out there. It's surprisingly rare to see ships that don't have a clearly defined 'top', 'bottom', and 'sides', and correspondingly limited fields of fire.Basically, it's done that way because... well, because it's done that way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 7739598, member: 22424"] Why would you think that? There's nothing in Spelljammer that doesn't work with AD&D - which shouldn't be a surprise, given that it is an AD&D setting. "The mechanics should flow from the setting" shouldn't be taken to imply simply throwing everything out - cut your cloth according to your desires. D&D has a long and glorious history of ignoring inconvenient things that PCs might do - such as striding into the throne room and killing the king. And, indeed, it has a long history of ignoring the implications of flying fortresses - in addition to the aforementioned airships in Mystara and Eberron, Dragonlance has floating citadels and the Realms (and probably Greyhawk) has flying Storm Giant castles. Spelljammers in the atmosphere would just use the same systems as those game elements. :) Alternatively, if you want to properly address it, there are ways - rule that Spelljammers in the atmosphere can only move vertically (as with [i]levitate[/i]), or posit rapid response forces in local kingdoms... or just make it far more economical to just go adventuring rather than engage in petty destruction. Why would this be necessary? I mean, I get why people don't [i]like[/i] the "helmsmen lose their slots" thing, but I don't understand why it simply [i]can't[/i] work for Spelljammer. After all, there's at least one piece of evidence that suggests it probably does. :) Eh. That's a criticism that can be leveled at almost every sci-fi series out there. It's surprisingly rare to see ships that don't have a clearly defined 'top', 'bottom', and 'sides', and correspondingly limited fields of fire. Basically, it's done that way because... well, because it's done that way. [/QUOTE]

Verification