Split from from Spellship Trooper 5e conversion

Troll posts and threads that deserve to die will be moved here, instead of being deleted. This way, they will be preserved for administrative review later.

Split from from Spellship Trooper 5e conversion

Postby TBeholder » Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:17 pm

Spellship Trooper wrote:Spellship Trooper 5e conversion[/size]
See, this name invokes something more like... "Brothers! Like the frog which leaps! Forward!"
Spellship Trooper wrote: [*] to capture the flavor 5th edition
In which way this could possibly be a good idea?
Spellship Trooper wrote: [*] to design stable rules for ship combat
...at last. That's a great idea.
First of all: what levels of detail, both for ship and space parts of the model?
Anything for comparison as a baseline? "Attack Vector: Tactical"? "Alternity Warships"? "Leviathans"? "Champions of Mystara"?
Spellship Trooper wrote: [*] to make Sails have a purpose aboard ship
Uh, maneuverability? That is, mostly steering?
Spellship Trooper wrote: [*] To come up with a better name for non-magical engines which are clearly magical but lacks spelljammer capabilities
"Tactical"? "Local"? Or, to cover all types impractical for interplanetary travel... "Short-space" (as analogy to naval "short-sea vessel")?
Spellship Trooper wrote: [*] pie in the sky goal: to include something in the rule set for orbital drops ( given my obsession with Starship Troopers we really shouldn't be surprised)
Eh. Just a version of Feather Fall with lesser effect and much, much greater duration.
In absence of any flak or better AA weapons, there's absolutely no reason to not drop from a vessel high in air instead, however.
Spellship Trooper wrote: [*] pie in the sky goal: to write an adventure that partially showcase some of these rules in Forgotten Realms so it's kosher to put on the Dungeon Master guild
Ugh. FR is already used as dumping grounds. Please don't stoop to the level of common furries.


Admin Edit: Split from http://www.thepiazza.org.uk/bb/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15253
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." - Michele Carter
User avatar
TBeholder
Hill Giant
 
Posts: 489
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Chthonic Safety

Re: Spellship Trooper 5e conversion

Postby Jaid » Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:33 pm

right now, if he wants to publish the rules at all, the only chance is through DM's guild, because that's the only way to publish WotC's IP.

and right now, the only setting-related IP they're allowing is FR IP.

which means if he wants to get this published as spelljammer material instead of definitelynotspelljammer, it has to be realmspace at the moment.
Jaid
Fire Giant
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:26 am

Re: Spellship Trooper 5e conversion

Postby Spellship Trooper » Mon Feb 08, 2016 10:20 pm

TBeholder wrote:
Spellship Trooper wrote:Spellship Trooper 5e conversion[/size]
See, this name invokes something more like... "Brothers! Like the frog which leaps! Forward!"
Spellship Trooper wrote: [*] to capture the flavor 5th edition
In which way this could possibly be a good idea?
Spellship Trooper wrote: [*] to design stable rules for ship combat
...at last. That's a great idea.
First of all: what levels of detail, both for ship and space parts of the model?
Anything for comparison as a baseline? "Attack Vector: Tactical"? "Alternity Warships"? "Leviathans"? "Champions of Mystara"?
Spellship Trooper wrote: [*] to make Sails have a purpose aboard ship
Uh, maneuverability? That is, mostly steering?
Spellship Trooper wrote: [*] To come up with a better name for non-magical engines which are clearly magical but lacks spelljammer capabilities
"Tactical"? "Local"? Or, to cover all types impractical for interplanetary travel... "Short-space" (as analogy to naval "short-sea vessel")?
Spellship Trooper wrote: [*] pie in the sky goal: to include something in the rule set for orbital drops ( given my obsession with Starship Troopers we really shouldn't be surprised)
Eh. Just a version of Feather Fall with lesser effect and much, much greater duration.
In absence of any flak or better AA weapons, there's absolutely no reason to not drop from a vessel high in air instead, however.
Spellship Trooper wrote: [*] pie in the sky goal: to write an adventure that partially showcase some of these rules in Forgotten Realms so it's kosher to put on the Dungeon Master guild
Ugh. FR is already used as dumping grounds. Please don't stoop to the level of common furries.


Hi TBeholder,
I appreciate your interest in my project. I will do the best to answer some of your questions.

Sorry about the confusion with the title. in my haste to post I forgot to ensure my dictation software added the “ ‘s ”

I chose 5th edition because that is what I'm currently running, I'm also hoping that if I complete a conversion and send it to wizards, as well as prove my gaming acumen on the Dungeon Master's Guild I can be part of bringing Spelljammer to a new audience. if I could make some money along the way all the better. I also happen to like the way 5th edition runs. I hope that answers your question I guess I'm not really sure what you're asking. it sounds like 5th edition might not be your cup of tea and that's fine.


There's been some debate on this board and others About whether or not the sails fill with wind Or anything like that or whether or not the person sitting at the helm can steer. My goal is to clarify this with my rules.

The design goal as far as combat goes, is to emulate the swashbuckling and naval adventure genres. in that regard I mean I want to cover what a player can do on the ship, what an individual ship can do, And integrate the Ships into the unearthed Arcana battle system released for 5e.Hopefully, this would allow for both fleet command play and a mass battle scene similar to the Battle of Helm's Deep in the two towers. what I mean by this, is ultimately, I want to be able to run large mass battles without the heroes never feeling like they're not in the most important thing on the battlefield. as the Dungeon Master that's I feel that is my most important job when telling war stories. I want the rules to facilitate this so, even at fleet command levels my rules hopefully have a player first perspective or, at least, flagship first perspective.

I really like the term short space! I would really like to use this if you don't mind.

Jaid beat me to this.I'm sorry you don't like Forgotten Realms. I've read a good amount of Forgotten Realms lore and I can't remember any furries, Did I miss something?
Spellship Trooper
Goblin
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 11:39 pm

Re: Spellship Trooper 5e conversion

Postby TBeholder » Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:57 pm

Jaid wrote:right now, if he wants to publish the rules at all, the only chance is through DM's guild, because that's the only way to publish WotC's IP.
and right now, the only setting-related IP they're allowing is FR IP.
Hmm, at a closer look other selectable settings still have only WotC materials. My bad. Then again, it's "right now".

Spellship Trooper wrote: I chose 5th edition because that is what I'm currently running, I'm also hoping that if I complete a conversion and send it to wizards, as well as prove my gaming acumen on the Dungeon Master's Guild I can be part of bringing Spelljammer to a new audience. if I could make some money along the way all the better. I also happen to like the way 5th edition runs. I hope that answers your question I guess I'm not really sure what you're asking. it sounds like 5th edition might not be your cup of tea and that's fine.
It's applicable to any other edition, or any core at all. In that a core cannot have "flavor" in a good way. It can retain flattened flavor of something else that was in the box first (Greyhawk, for example), and it can add the taste of its own bugs and idiosyncrasies. Neither of those can improve something that has its own flavor - even with random salads like Spelljammer and Planescape it's "not worse" (again, Greyhawk) at best.
Spellship Trooper wrote:There's been some debate on this board and others About whether or not the sails fill with wind Or anything like that or whether or not the person sitting at the helm can steer. My goal is to clarify this with my rules.
Going with RAW, rigging + necessary crew gives maneuverability, while having rigging utterly destroyed and/or ship unmanned except helm drops maneuverability to some minimum value.
MC adjustments are additive, with very few exceptions.
IMO it follows that this minimum value is how much the helmsman can steer.
Spellship Trooper wrote: The design goal as far as combat goes, is to emulate the swashbuckling and naval adventure genres. in that regard I mean I want to cover what a player can do on the ship, what an individual ship can do, And integrate the Ships into the unearthed Arcana battle system released for 5e.Hopefully, this would allow for both fleet command play and a mass battle scene similar to the Battle of Helm's Deep in the two towers. what I mean by this, is ultimately, I want to be able to run large mass battles without the heroes never feeling like they're not in the most important thing on the battlefield.
Practically, the question is: are we to write off N structural hitpoints, and with C(Weapon) chance of a critical hit and K chance of this leading to loss 1 MC - or do we roll where it's hit, then look up what ship parts and crew members are here?
As to space (movement/arcs/everything) side, look AV:T (it's free), is this too detailed or not? More generally, SJ has hybrid of "inertial" and "hydrodynamic" movement as it is - do you want to retain it as is, or shift some element to either side? IMO interplay itself is interesting, but weapons could use a better ballistic model - after all, impact with debris depends on speed, why not to apply this to catapult stones and everything else? This would also make weapons differ more.
That sort of things.
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." - Michele Carter
User avatar
TBeholder
Hill Giant
 
Posts: 489
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Chthonic Safety

Re: Spellship Trooper 5e conversion

Postby Big Mac » Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:40 pm

TBeholder wrote:
Spellship Trooper wrote: [*] to capture the flavor 5th edition
In which way this could possibly be a good idea?


...and...

TBeholder wrote:
Spellship Trooper wrote: [*] pie in the sky goal: to write an adventure that partially showcase some of these rules in Forgotten Realms so it's kosher to put on the Dungeon Master guild
Ugh. FR is already used as dumping grounds. Please don't stoop to the level of common furries.


MODERATOR WARNING: We do not do "badwrongfun" and Edition Wars at The Piazza. If you don't like 5th Edition that's fine, but don't use this forum to insult those who do. And please don't insult furries either. This sort of snarkyness is not acceptable.
David "Big Mac" Shepheard
Newsflash!: The Piazza is moving!
Please join The Piazza's Facebook group, The Piazza's Facebook page and The Piazza's Google + community so that you can stay in touch.
Spelljammer 3E Conversion Project - Spelljammer Wiki - The Spelljammer Image Group.
Moderator of the Spelljammer forum. My moderator voice is green.
User avatar
Big Mac
Giant Space Hamster
 
Posts: 22130
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: London UK

Re: Spellship Trooper 5e conversion

Postby TBeholder » Thu Feb 11, 2016 3:45 pm

Big Mac wrote:MODERATOR WARNING: We do not do "badwrongfun" and Edition Wars at The Piazza. If you don't like 5th Edition that's fine, but don't use this forum to insult those who do. And please don't insult furries either. This sort of snarkyness is not acceptable.

Oh, my. So no common measure for whatever is shilled today? Referring to it in terms any less shiny than "BUT THE NEW CUCKA-COLA IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, IT MAKES YOU SHOOT SUNSHINE FROM BEHIND!" is verboten here?
I think my presence here is not desired by either side - what's with not having a tail to waggle. I thought it was a game forum and not a bordello. Departing to some or other place not (yet) corrupted more indecent than Reddit seems to be a sensible sol;ution to both our problems.
You know, back when Dragon Turtle banned me while hysterically defending w....erfox clone (the one flinging poo at Grenwood on multiple forums and wikis whenever the market demands), even with rambling PM and insistence that we are here all obligated to pretend we are idiots and the rest of the world does not exist? I thought you are not in the same boat. I'm sorry it was a mistake.
And capped with the dA litmus test, no less. Glad that you understand that a simple mention of furries is effectively an insult to them. Now try to not let your tail fall out when catering to the desirable target audience.
Farewell.
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." - Michele Carter
User avatar
TBeholder
Hill Giant
 
Posts: 489
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Chthonic Safety

Re: Spellship Trooper 5e conversion

Postby Jaid » Fri Feb 12, 2016 2:07 am

TBeholder wrote:
Big Mac wrote:MODERATOR WARNING: We do not do "badwrongfun" and Edition Wars at The Piazza. If you don't like 5th Edition that's fine, but don't use this forum to insult those who do. And please don't insult furries either. This sort of snarkyness is not acceptable.

Oh, my. So no common measure for whatever is shilled today? Referring to it in terms any less shiny than "BUT THE NEW CUCKA-COLA IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, IT MAKES YOU SHOOT SUNSHINE FROM BEHIND!" is verboten here?
I think my presence here is not desired by either side - what's with not having a tail to waggle. I thought it was a game forum and not a bordello. Departing to some or other place not (yet) corrupted more indecent than Reddit seems to be a sensible sol;ution to both our problems.
You know, back when Dragon Turtle banned me while hysterically defending w....erfox clone (the one flinging poo at Grenwood on multiple forums and wikis whenever the market demands), even with rambling PM and insistence that we are here all obligated to pretend we are idiots and the rest of the world does not exist? I thought you are not in the same boat. I'm sorry it was a mistake.
And capped with the dA litmus test, no less. Glad that you understand that a simple mention of furries is effectively an insult to them. Now try to not let your tail fall out when catering to the desirable target audience.
Farewell.


there's a difference between "i don't like <number> edition" and "nobody should like <number> edition, you are a bad person for liking it". likewise with settings; i might not particularly be a fan of the forgotten realms, but that doesn't mean i'm entitled to mock other people that do like the setting.

and no, you didn't just "mention" furries. you talked about stooping to their level. nobody talks about "stooping to the level" of something they respect, that's what you use when you're describing doing something you consider distasteful, offensive, crude, etc.

nobody is asking you to like what he's doing. they're telling you to be respectful.
Jaid
Fire Giant
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:26 am

Re: Spellship Trooper 5e conversion

Postby Ashtagon » Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:07 pm

TBeholder wrote:
Big Mac wrote:MODERATOR WARNING: We do not do "badwrongfun" and Edition Wars at The Piazza. If you don't like 5th Edition that's fine, but don't use this forum to insult those who do. And please don't insult furries either. This sort of snarkyness is not acceptable.


Oh, my. So no common measure for whatever is shilled today? Referring to it in terms any less shiny than "BUT THE NEW CUCKA-COLA IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, IT MAKES YOU SHOOT SUNSHINE FROM BEHIND!" is verboten here?


You misunderstand what "no badwrongfun" means. It's perfectly fine to say, for example, "I don't like BECMI because it forces elves to always be fighter-mages", or "I don't like AD&D becvause it has Strength penalties for female characters", or "I don't like 4e because I feel it's made classes too samey" or "I don't like 3e because it's a rules-bloaty hot mess". But whatever a case, give a reason for your dislike that is based on objective facts -- inform your audience about the product when you criticise it.

"I don't like $edition and you shouldn't either" is badwrongfun, and is discouraged here.


I think my presence here is not desired by either side - what's with not having a tail to waggle. I thought it was a game forum and not a bordello. Departing to some or other place not (yet) corrupted more indecent than Reddit seems to be a sensible sol;ution to both our problems.

You know, back when Dragon Turtle banned me while hysterically defending w....erfox clone (the one flinging poo at Grenwood on multiple forums and wikis whenever the market demands), even with rambling PM and insistence that we are here all obligated to pretend we are idiots and the rest of the world does not exist? I thought you are not in the same boat. I'm sorry it was a mistake.

And capped with the dA litmus test, no less. Glad that you understand that a simple mention of furries is effectively an insult to them. Now try to not let your tail fall out when catering to the desirable target audience.

Farewell.


It wasn't "a simple mention of furries". It was using furries as a model of something to be mocked that is problematic.

You need a short holiday from this site. If you choose to come back, please don't use minority groups as examples of things to be mocked.
Emma Rome, otherwise known as Ashtagon
Image
Overall site admin for The Piazza. My moderator colour is pink!
User avatar
Ashtagon
Hierarch
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 5:45 pm
Location: Hillvale, Isle of Dawn


Return to The Black Pudding

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest