CKG in the fall

Dangersaurus · Post by **Dangersaurus** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 7:18 am

serleran wrote:
Heh, I believe everyone who was around remembers why the 1st print PHB was so "sloppy." Its called bowing to the wishes of the audience and rushing the book to print.

Thanks Serleran! This was my point! Please, TL, don't rush the book to print, give it a good solid thacking with your best editor, rules lawyer and proofreader.

...or to restate from my first post on the subject:

Please please please, take your time. Have someone (and not a fan or someone who worked on it) give it a critical proofread.

The stuff about the PHB and M&T is a tangent, but I get very defensive when I'm handwaved with "it's minor stuff" - when it is really and truthfully not all that minor... from a guy who was basically making the same point just last week.

Quote:
This has happened to other companies, but that's ok. Its not a defense, but a truth: mistakes happen, they either get fixed, or they get ignored. At least, of anything, you can be glad the mistakes TLG has made are being addressed. Most companies have one run of any product... so any problems are just there, always. TLG is on the 3rd run of the PHB and each printing has gotten better: what more do you want, or expect? Would it make you feel better if TLG were like TSR of 2e days and simply reprint the book without caring it had problems, like entirely missing pages or charts (and yes, 2e PHB, I'm looking at you)? Its saying something about the product -- people want it, at least enough to warrant it still getting printed. This can only mean one thing -- C&C is a success, warts, nodules, hairy spot growths, and all. But, it says more about the company: they want their fans to be happy, and they show a marked interest in seeing what the fans have to say, even going so far as to host these very forums and beg you to criticize them (WotC, for example, can't stand being told they made a mistake; go ahead and try to tell them they screwed up and see how long the thread lasts.)

I've seen plenty of people criticize WotC and not get shut down... by WotC. Of course, their overzealous message board regulars and freelancers jump down on anyone who raises a critical point. Hmmm.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:46 pm

Hehe, some of us like to argue...

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:33 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
Dangersaurus wrote:
Page 123 of the PHB agrees, while page 50 of the PHB (2nd print) disagrees.

Not anymore.

So are you saying the errata that said to add INT or WIS bonus to SIEGE checks to overcome SR isn't in the third printing?
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:49 pm

Treebore wrote:
So are you saying the errata that said to add INT or WIS bonus to SIEGE checks to overcome SR isn't in the third printing?

When putting in the errata I checked on the official ruling. I was told to change the relevant text to reflect an unmodified roll. So I did.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Buttmonkey · Post by **Buttmonkey** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 6:02 pm

Personally, I can live with the errata -- it can always be corrected with an errata sheet. What drive me insane are the constant spelling and grammar errors. Someone needs to teach the Trolls' proofreader(s) how to use apostrophes! (among many other spelling/grammar rules)

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:11 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
When putting in the errata I checked on the official ruling. I was told to change the relevant text to reflect an unmodified roll. So I did.

Hmm. Well, guess it will become a house rule rather than an errata rule.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:21 pm

Treebore wrote:
Hmm. Well, guess it will become a house rule rather than an errata rule.

I use something like a C&C-ized magic resistance from the AD&D book myself. But I know how folks like 'official' answers.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:22 pm

I've been telling people for years its unmodified... but, did you listen? No! Well, fie on you! Fie! I said... fie.

*feels justified after so many hours of of not* hehe

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:28 pm

serleran wrote:
I've been telling people for years its unmodified... but, did you listen? No! Well, fie on you! Fie! I said... fie. *feels justified after so many hours of of not* hehe

Well, there are ways you also said you wrote up some of the Monsters, that still aren't in the rules.

Plus this was included in the errata list Trav made up and I never heard anything saying his errata wasn't official. Meaning from Steve, or Davis, whom even you have said have the final word over you.

Besides I use SR pretty much as written and have found the "errata rule" to be a nice help to spellcasters against SR.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Fizz · Post by **Fizz** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:29 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
I use something like a C&C-ized magic resistance from the AD&D book myself. But I know how folks like 'official' answers.

But isn't C&C magic resistance just the same as AD&D magic resistance, rounded to the nearest 5%? Statistically speaking, i mean.

-Fizz

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:45 pm

Fizz wrote:
But isn't C&C magic resistance just the same as AD&D magic resistance, rounded to the nearest 5%? Statistically speaking, i mean.

-Fizz

Statistically yes, but the roll is modified after a fashion.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Fizz · Post by **Fizz** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:04 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
Statistically yes, but the roll is modified after a fashion.

I thought we just established that it was unmodified. AD&D magic resistane was just a percentage. C&C is an unmodified roll on a d20. What's the difference besides the die-type used?

-Fizz

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:18 pm

AD&D MR was not unmodified. The difference between level / HD mattered. In C&C, it does not. A single HD creature with a SR of 4 still has a 25% against a 423578643265436576439875th level caster, whereas, in AD&D, that same would be not 25% (more like negative something.) This means, in C&C, SR is more powerful because it always matters. It also means, a very lucky roll can allow a low level caster to hurt even those who are otherwise untouchable... and, it means if you're allowing over a 19 SR, there's something wrong.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:50 pm

Fizz wrote:
I thought we just established that it was unmodified. AD&D magic resistane was just a percentage. C&C is an unmodified roll on a d20. What's the difference besides the die-type used?

-Fizz

No we didn't. I said the C&C roll was unmodified. I also said I use something like the AD&D system, which, while it is a percentage, is still modified by a couple of factors.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:07 pm

serleran wrote:
AD&D MR was not unmodified. The difference between level / HD mattered.

That depends on the edition of AD&D. 2nd edition didn't operate that way, it had a base percentage regardless of HD/LVL difference.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:10 pm

Thats one thing I hope C&C stays away from, making creatures immune to stuff. Highly resistant is cool/good, but total immunity is the first step to an ubalanced game, especially at high levels.

Like 3E at Epic level play. Creatures were immune to 3, 4, 5, or all energy types, and poison, and disease, and infinitum, to where Epic level spellcasters were practically useless.

Plus my Warcraft Warlock (which essentially a summoner) was so useless at 48th level I quit the game in disgust. Took a lot to convince the DM it wasn't his fault, its the broken rules of Epic play that screw the mage.

Had to point out he was using monsters from their books (WOTC's), as written, that was so broken. The only problem I had with the DM was to house rule the Epic levels to make them playable for all classes, rather than the "Superman" fighter classes. He wouldn't do it. Had to go by the rules as written.

So stay away from "invulnerabilities and Immunities as much as possible. Have them be specific as possible, and only one to three per creature type. Any more than that the game gets ludicrous.

Preferably stick with "nullifies X amount of damage" from "X" type of attack."
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Fizz · Post by **Fizz** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:51 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
No we didn't. I said the C&C roll was unmodified. I also said I use something like the AD&D system, which, while it is a percentage, is still modified by a couple of factors.

Yes, i know what you said. I wasn't disagreeing. I was using `we' in a general sense. I've known for a long time it was unmodified.

Clearly you've been asked that question too many times...

DangerDwarf wrote:
That depends on the edition of AD&D. 2nd edition didn't operate that way, it had a base percentage regardless of HD/LVL difference.

Ah, i must've been thinking of 2nd Ed, which is where most of my AD&D experience is.

-Fizz

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:17 pm

Quote:
That depends on the edition of AD&D.

What? Two editions? What? You crazy!

Hehe, sorry, when people say AD&D, I just assume 1st... since they'd otherwise say something like 2nd edition, which is rather funny: most people don't refer to AD&D2E as AD&D... but anyway, its been too long since I opened a 2e book, so you might be right, and I don't care one way or the other, but I know 1e worked on level variance for MR and I was dang sure 2e did too.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:19 pm

Fizz wrote:
Clearly you've been asked that question too many times...

Ya.. 5 years of shell shock...
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:22 pm

No, no, the question that gets asked the most is probably something like: how do I convert XYZ to C&C? and its usually some sort of monster or half-idea (I say that because the asker only wants part of something converted, like certain d20 skills, or specific feats, and not the all-or-nothing.) Yeah... those questions come a lot, but they're fun to answer, because one can usually just say: see here.

Tadhg · Post by **Tadhg** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 12:22 am

Sorry, I just have to jump in here and mention . . that I'm excited and ready for AC&C!
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 1:02 am

[quote="Rhuvein"]Sorry, I just have to jump in here and mention . . that I'm excited and ready for AC&C! [/quote

That'll be out after the next Big Bang.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley