|
Post by trebormills on Aug 14, 2012 9:51:41 GMT -6
Looks pretty good so far...of course I have a but....Im not sure I will not house rule the following instantly
Wisdom grants extra languages Damage bonus I assume is for all class, not just fighters Optional thief is simple but not compelling. Id rather ignore the thief or make a more Greyhawk style one
Im interested to read why certain decisions where made on the above as they are not sitting comfortably with me at the mo.
Feedback from me is positive having said the above
ps Negative xp bonus is harsh -10/-20 (didnt like it ODnd or B/X either) I personally prefer the ADnD only get bonus rule from PH
|
|
|
Post by verhaden on Aug 14, 2012 10:00:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by trebormills on Aug 14, 2012 10:01:12 GMT -6
Nice link I shall mine it for understanding
EDIT> That link makes a lot of sense out of the optional thief... I guess the granularity of a 1d6 roll makes it feel like the thief doesn't really gain much by advancing a level. May as well be a fighter and get Armour, fighting etc bonus. I do agree that a thief needs to be good at stuff or else why bother anyway. I like the Thief skills as "Saving Throw" table from the link
|
|
|
Post by Haldo Bramwise on Aug 14, 2012 10:05:08 GMT -6
Simon will have to give specifics, but we decided to emulate the earliest version of the Thief class rather than the Greyhawk one.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 14, 2012 10:18:23 GMT -6
Why is it Dwarfs instead of Dwarves? Some sort of anti-Tolkien sentiment at play?
|
|
|
Post by trebormills on Aug 14, 2012 10:24:16 GMT -6
Why is it Dwarfs instead of Dwarves? Some sort of anti-Tolkien sentiment at play? I assume its that way cos Tolkien likes Dwarves and therefore his estate may sue people when they steal his stuff or are deemed to have
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2012 16:31:10 GMT -6
Why is it Dwarfs instead of Dwarves? Some sort of anti-Tolkien sentiment at play? Ah, you made me Google search a post I made on old Usenet back in 1995. From my October 9, 1995 post:
|
|
|
Post by Ynas Midgard on Aug 14, 2012 16:54:59 GMT -6
English orthography is a rather eccentric one; I am not surprised by the fact that within its framework, the singular-plural pairs "dwarf-dwarfs" and "knife-knives" are possible. I, however, am still going to use "elves" and "dwarves", not only because I feel it being more in line with other similar cases, but also because it better reflects my pronunciation.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 14, 2012 17:24:33 GMT -6
Thanks for the feedback all. This is as good a place as any to comment and discuss... in fact, that is what this sub-forum is for. I will explain how we arrived at our decisions to the best of my ability, but I'm not going to attempt to justify anything or convince anyone. As we all know, it's impossible to meet everyone's expectations perfectly, since different folks have different expectations. We simply made the best decisions we could make. So, in answer to a few of the specific questions.... Im not sure I will not house rule the following instantly House ruling is a good thing, it's intended that you will house rule... that's a big part of the D&D experience Wisdom grants extra languages Damage bonus I assume is for all class, not just fighters Optional thief is simple but not compelling. Id rather ignore the thief or make a more Greyhawk style one Regarding wisdom, it is stated in the 3LBBs that wisdom is as intelligence, and therefore it adjusts number of languages as does intelligence. One might also argue that without this the wisdom ability serves almost no purpose. Regarding the strength bonus to damage, originally we had it as an optional "EGG house rule" (seeing this is reportedly how EGG played it in the early days). However, we eventually had to cut all "EGG house rules" for space reasons -- thinking that these might be presented in a supplement of their own one day. However, as the relationship between size/strength and damage is strongly implied throughout the 3LBBs, and DD is actually derived from the d20 SRD system, it felt right to leave in the adjustment for high strength. Regarding the thief, there are a lot of people who don't like the thief, which is why it is optional. There are also a lot of people, including EGG, who do like the thief, which is also why it is optional. Regarding the simplistic implementation, that was intentionally done for several reasons including: 1) it doesn't presuppose the pivotal shift to percentage based skill systems, and 2) it leaves it wide open for the referee to house rule and make it his own edit: grammar edit: spelling
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 14, 2012 17:28:42 GMT -6
Why is it Dwarfs instead of Dwarves? Some sort of anti-Tolkien sentiment at play? It's definitely not any anti-Tolkien sentiment... I'm a huge Tolkien fan, in fact. This choice was based purely on research into the more "correct" *cough* spelling. When this turned out to be a reasonably complicated area (as others have posted), we decided to go with "dwarfs" as one small way in which DD differentiates itself from other games. Even though it is a clone, it still needs to be its own identifiable product.
|
|
|
Post by trebormills on Aug 14, 2012 18:30:08 GMT -6
Thanks for the replies I found the thread linked by Verhaden very useful for seeing some of thought that may have gone into the DD Thief rules. Nice ideas and I agree with much of it. But it doesn’t seem to work for me mentally, of course actual play always help clarify your mind. I see what your driving at re wisdom but it seems wonky to me.
I think its a good idea not to try to please everyone! Im liking what i see so far and it looks like a fun take on ODnD with the d20 SRD
|
|
|
Post by mgtremaine on Aug 15, 2012 8:10:34 GMT -6
Check the Thief XP chart level 2 does that say 1,500 and should read 2500 or are my eyes going?
-Mike
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Aug 15, 2012 8:19:11 GMT -6
Curious on the dwarf detecting ability is it automatic? or is there a d6 roll involved for that also?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 15, 2012 16:13:01 GMT -6
@mike, that one is typo that will get corrected. Thanks! bestialwarlust, an individual referee can rule otherwise if he pleases, but essentially yes. A dwarf notices these things just by passing nearby, as per the 3LBBs.
|
|
|
Post by llenlleawg on Aug 16, 2012 9:38:17 GMT -6
Two quick and easy to fix errors I noticed:
(1) In the section on Clerics, the word "forbade" should be "forbidden" (i.e. "In performing their duties clerics are allowed shields and any armor but are forbidden the use of edged or piercing weapons.") Forbade is the preterite (e.g. I forbid today, and I forbade yesterday.); forbidden is the passive participle (e.g. What I forbade yesterday is still forbidden today.)
(2) In the section on Dwarfs, the word "expecting" should be "excepting" (i.e. "Dwarfs are fighters excepting they are the only characters..."), since I presume the idea here is that Dwarfs are in every respect fighters except for the facts that only they make full use of the +3 hammer.
|
|
|
Post by mgtremaine on Aug 16, 2012 9:48:36 GMT -6
See what I mean about many eyes if the pdf's go out before the print order you'll get lots of fixes... I know it's John's call. -Mike
|
|
|
Post by trebormills on Aug 16, 2012 10:05:22 GMT -6
(2) In the section on Dwarfs, the word "expecting" should be "excepting" (i.e. "Dwarfs are fighters excepting they are the only characters..."), since I presume the idea here is that Dwarfs are in every respect fighters except for the facts that only they make full use of the +3 hammer. shouldn't it be "except that" Ill have to look for typos as the thief xp issue and item 1 and 2 totally flew by me as I wasn't reading that closely
|
|
|
Post by llenlleawg on Aug 16, 2012 11:29:16 GMT -6
(2) In the section on Dwarfs, the word "expecting" should be "excepting" (i.e. "Dwarfs are fighters excepting they are the only characters..."), since I presume the idea here is that Dwarfs are in every respect fighters except for the facts that only they make full use of the +3 hammer. shouldn't it be "except that" Ill have to look for typos as the thief xp issue and item 1 and 2 totally flew by me as I wasn't reading that closely Indeed, stylistically I would prefer "except that." My point here was that I suspect the text meant to read "excepting [that]" and "expecting" slipped in by mistake (a rather easy mistake to make, and also very easy to overlook in the editing process).
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 16, 2012 17:05:20 GMT -6
Two quick and easy to fix errors I noticed: (1) In the section on Clerics, the word "forbade" should be "forbidden" (i.e. "In performing their duties clerics are allowed shields and any armor but are forbidden the use of edged or piercing weapons.") Forbade is the preterite (e.g. I forbid today, and I forbade yesterday.); forbidden is the passive participle (e.g. What I forbade yesterday is still forbidden today.) (2) In the section on Dwarfs, the word "expecting" should be "excepting" (i.e. "Dwarfs are fighters excepting they are the only characters..."), since I presume the idea here is that Dwarfs are in every respect fighters except for the facts that only they make full use of the +3 hammer. llenlleawg, thanks -- I'll check the final copy @everyone -- where were you guys when we were begging for proofreaders months ago? ;D
|
|
|
Post by trebormills on Aug 16, 2012 18:41:15 GMT -6
sadly i was moving house at the time and as such totally out of the loop. I'm available for any freebies ;D
Looking forward to more updates etc
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Aug 17, 2012 3:31:57 GMT -6
The cover of the final release will read: Dlvng Dippar
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 17, 2012 7:50:03 GMT -6
I guess, to me, dwarfs just makes me think of people with dwarfism, whereas dwarves makes me think of the mythological smiths. I realize that is only true inside my head, but just offering the feedback. Also, OSRIC does use dwarfs, so it would not be unique to Delving Deeper, just FYI.
|
|
|
Post by trebormills on Aug 17, 2012 19:53:57 GMT -6
erratta sacks and backpacks hold 30 ilbs but listing with prices shows sack large as 40 ilbs small sack also disagrees with itself EDIT> I see im only 3 days late to that party. i blame a lack of sleep it being almost 4:20 am and I didnt get much sleep last night either
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 17, 2012 20:27:45 GMT -6
erratta sacks and backpacks hold 30 ilbs but listing with prices shows sack large as 40 ilbs small sack also disagrees with itself Thanks trebormills, we already caught that one
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 18, 2012 8:14:30 GMT -6
I guess, to me, dwarfs just makes me think of people with dwarfism, whereas dwarves makes me think of the mythological smiths. I realize that is only true inside my head, but just offering the feedback. Also, OSRIC does use dwarfs, so it would not be unique to Delving Deeper, just FYI. I agree. I much prefer dwarves to dwarfs.
|
|
|
Post by Haldo Bramwise on Aug 18, 2012 20:40:03 GMT -6
So, using "dwarfs" might be considered morally wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 18, 2012 22:29:34 GMT -6
LOL! Well… Are you growing a beard any time soon, John?
|
|
|
Post by Haldo Bramwise on Aug 19, 2012 13:27:50 GMT -6
LOL! Well… Are you growing a beard any time soon, John? Van d**e
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2012 14:17:33 GMT -6
That wild, wacky board censoring software is at work again! ;D
|
|
|
Post by ravenheart87 on Aug 24, 2012 7:31:14 GMT -6
I like it so far. I hope we're going to get some cool supplements after it's out.
|
|