|
Post by CSP Kris on Jan 5, 2011 0:03:35 GMT
OK, I've tried it with the sketches and it doesn't look all that good, so I think I'll go with a colour monster face for now: So yeah, I know they're far from perfect - but hopefully they are better than what I had got before.
|
|
|
Post by colinchapman on Jan 5, 2011 21:37:08 GMT
It's definitely an improvement in any case. If you make the orc face entry in the Bestiary in the same style, you'll create uniformity of style too, and then use something to replace the orc face on page 48.
Colin
|
|
|
Post by colinchapman on Jan 5, 2011 21:53:12 GMT
As a note of disagreement, on page 37 it states that a character can ignore distractions (such as being suddenly blinded, wounded, or disarmed) with a successful Persistence test. That's one thing that always struck me as bonkers in D&D3.Xe too; simply put, it doesn't matter how good you are at ignoring outside distractions, if you get walloped with a sword, or otherwise clearly injured, you ain't going to be casting a spell. There's simply no chance at all that anyone could persist to mutter an incantation through such an event. Even ignoring the shock and pain, you get physically battered and jolted in a severe way making incantations and gestures impossible. It's one thing to ignore the confusion, noise, and chaos around you, but another thing entirely to someone cast a spell when their own body is impacted. Plus, if you can't even cast a spell while moving faster than a slow walk as the rules say, I'd presume it's because jogging is even enough to make spellcasting impossible. If it's impossible when jogging, how much more impossible would it be if someone drop kicks the caster in the face?
I'd change the last paragraph in column 1 of page 37 to the following modified version from the Sorcery rules: "Distractions or attacks on the spellcaster as he casts will either automatically ruin the spell (if the spellcaster is blinded or disarmed, or suffers any damage) or require Persistence tests to maintain concentration on the spell."
cheers! Colin
|
|
|
Post by colinchapman on Jan 5, 2011 22:25:13 GMT
Okay, some more errata (this time working from the back of the book to alleviate boredom):
Page 71, 1st column, Walking Dead, 1st para.: "so" should be "to".
Page 69, 1st column, Sorcerers, 1st para.: "were once" should be "once were".
Page 68, 2nd column, Orcs, 1st para.: "are latest abomination" should be "are the latest abomination".
Page 64, 2nd column, Demons, 1st para.: "human-like" makes them sound too human, so maybe use "humanoid" instead?
Page 62, 1st column, Magic Items format title: "format" should be "Format".
Page 62, 1st column, Magic Items format, Background: Change to "Details of who created it and why, and any significant owners and events in its history.
Page 61, 1st column, Using The Monster List, 1st para.: Change "lithe" to lither".
Page 61, 2nd column, The Horde Rule, 3rd para.: Change "if then suffer" to "if they suffer".
Page 61, 2nd column, The Horde Rule, 4th para.: Delete "in".
Long day at work today (staff meeting after school), so not so much editing done tonight, sorry. Pages 38-60 of this skim-edit left to do.
Colin
|
|
|
Post by colinchapman on Jan 6, 2011 22:03:38 GMT
First, one I missed:
Page 25, 1st col, Armour: Change "piece" to "type" because AoS doesn't deal with armour pieces, using armour suits instead.
Now, on to the others:
Page 38, 1st col., Touch: "using a Unarmed" should be "using an Unarmed".
Page 38, 2nd col, 3rd bullet: Change "Otherwise once the spell is cast the charm is dispelled." to "Otherwise, the item must be re-enchanted after a single use."
Page 39, 2nd col, Demoralise: Change "run" to "flee".
Page 40, 2nd col, Fire Blade: Add "melee" between "this weapon". Otherwise, there's nothing indicating it's strictly for melee weapons only, and it could be used for missile weapons as well which would make Fire Arrow redundant.
Page 41, 2nd col, Mobility: Add a full stop to the end of the sentence.
Page 45, 1st column, Casting Time, last para.: Change to "Distractions or attacks on the spellcaster as he casts will either automatically ruin the spell (if the spellcaster is blinded or disarmed, or suffers any damage) or require Persistence tests to maintain concentration on the spell."
Page 47, Create Spell Matrix: Currently, this could be used to double the armour points of a suit of armour, making it game unbalancing (for one casting you could automatically make a mail hauberk AP 10 *and* give it an attached sorcery spell!). You might want to add a note that it can't be used on armour, or that it doesn't double the AP of armour.
Page 47, 2nd col, Dominate (Species): Again, another potential game breaker as there's nothing indicating that a dominated creature couldn't simply be ordered to kill themselves. Either the spell should fail immediately given a suicide command, or it should enable another attempt to resist the spell at the very least.
If you agree with the two above point, you're going to need some more text space, in which case deleting the orc pic on page 48 should give you enough.
Pages 52-60 to do tomorrow night.
Colin
|
|
|
Post by CSP Kris on Jan 7, 2011 11:33:10 GMT
Just to let you know, I'm planning to get most of this errata done over the weekend - so hopefully that'll mean that a proper 'version 1' (or 1st edition, or whatever you want to call it) will be appearing soon.
I'd also like to repeat my earlier thanks for this - and if there is anything (within my limited capabilities) that I can do for you, please don't hesitate to ask.
|
|
|
Post by wulfgar22 on Jan 7, 2011 13:40:22 GMT
First of all, I'd also like to say 'great game'. You've done a grand job and I'm really hoping to be able to pick this up in print at some point!
Secondly, I'd like to agree with Colin in that I think you'd be better off just ditching the art altogether. For me, I find that there is just no need for art in RPG books unless it is really good quality and evocative. If it doesn't add anything why bother? This is especially true in a world that mirrors Middle-Earth as everyone has a very clear picture of the land, people and races. Besides, the book is well laid out and crisp in its presentation. Just my thoughts.
Look forward to seeing v1!
|
|
|
Post by colinchapman on Jan 7, 2011 21:25:03 GMT
Just to let you know, I'm planning to get most of this errata done over the weekend - so hopefully that'll mean that a proper 'version 1' (or 1st edition, or whatever you want to call it) will be appearing soon. I'd also like to repeat my earlier thanks for this - and if there is anything (within my limited capabilities) that I can do for you, please don't hesitate to ask. You're more than welcome, mate; it was the least I could do to support the project, and if I had the time I'd do a stylistic edit for you too. Still, this should catch the majority of obvious editing issues and help polish the final product. Actually, there is something you can do; carry on producing great work. Although 95% of folks will never express any gratitude for pretty much anything on the internet, rest assured that there are those of us out here who truly appreciate your efforts. cheers! Colin
|
|
|
Post by colinchapman on Jan 7, 2011 22:00:07 GMT
Now, on with the final push!
Firstly, addressing an earlier issue:
Page 47, Create Spell Matrix: Perhaps the easiest approach would be to some something vague and handwavy such as "the spell increases the resilience of the item somewhat" or simply remove any mention of it making items tougher altogether. Just a suggestion.
And now for the rest:
Page 52, 1st col, A Note on GM Prep: "GM's" should be "GMs", "PC's" should be "PCs" and "NPC's" should be "NPCs".
Page 52, 2nd col, Preparation: "PC's" should be "PCs".
Page 54, 2nd col, 3rd para: "PC's" should be "PCs".
Page 55, 1st col, Improving Characteristics: You might want to clarify here that improving a characteristic also increases all associated skills.
Page 55, 1st col, Table 8.1: Add the percentage sign to the +2d4 and +1d4.
Page 56, 2nd col, Fatigue, 1st para: Change to "Combat, sprinting, climbing, and swimming against a strong current, are all examples of activities that can fatigue and tire a character."
Page 56, 2nd col, Effects Of Fatigue: Change "sluggish," to "sluggish - ".
Page 57, 2nd col, 1st para: "succeeds a daily" should be "succeeds at a daily".
Page 58, 2nd col, Fire & Heat: Change "chainmail" to "mail". Calling something chainmail is like saying chainchain.
Page 58, 2nd col, Poison: "wrong doers" should be "wrongdoers".
Page 60, 1st col, Additional Info On Diseases, 1st para: "its" should be "their".
Page 60, 2nd col, The shakes: "flu like" should be "flu-like".
Going back a bit:
Page 31, 1st col, Critical Hits, 4th para: Change "chainmail" to "mail".
One final suggestion: A common problem in fantasy RPGs is that the 1m-long, straight-bladed, double-edged, one-handed sword is often called a "longsword", when in fact it is simply a "sword" or "arming sword" (most folk called it the former). A "longsword" is actually what most gamers call a "bastard sword" and is used two-handed. You might want to break free of that misconception (a D&Dism) and replace all instances of "longsword" with plain old "sword" instead. Just a thought.
And that, matey, is that. If at any point you want me to look over other AoS volumes, just drop me an e-mail and I'll be happy to oblige.
cheers! Colin
|
|
|
Post by CSP Kris on Jan 8, 2011 11:43:02 GMT
Regarding the sword dilemma...
Yeah, unfortunately that's the way a lot of games handle longswords, and no matter how much it grates, it's how it is commonly understood.
However, what I had thought of doing was changing the entry of 'bastard sword' to longsword and then changing 'longsword' to broadsword perhaps (seeing as how Viking swords are a spatha or 'broad blade' ...even though the term 'broadsword' probably wasn't used until much later - but it is a fantasy world after all).
Not a perfect solution perhaps, but maybe it's a reasonable compromise.
- - -
Regarding 'Great Attack'
Rather than limiting it to swords, axes, and maces, I'm thinking of limiting it to medium (and above) sized weapons -OR- two handed weapons only (any thoughts anyone?)
- - -
Regards casting spells & distractions...
I would like characters/monsters to be able to ignore distractions - even if the chance of doing so is very slim. So perhaps changing it to a hard (-50%) roll instead would be a more suitable option - just so that there is a slight chance that someone just might be able to pull it off (or waste fate points trying).
|
|
|
Post by colinchapman on Jan 8, 2011 13:45:22 GMT
However, what I had thought of doing was changing the entry of 'bastard sword' to longsword and then changing 'longsword' to broadsword perhaps (seeing as how Viking swords are a spatha or 'broad blade' ...even though the term 'broadsword' probably wasn't used until much later - but it is a fantasy world after all). Not a perfect solution perhaps, but maybe it's a reasonable compromise. Sounds like a good compromise to me and neatly sidesteps the issue of perpetuating the myth. - - - Regarding 'Great Attack' Rather than limiting it to swords, axes, and maces, I'm thinking of limiting it to medium (and above) sized weapons -OR- two handed weapons only (any thoughts anyone?) Hmm, as it stands, the main advantage of a single-handed weapon is that it can be used in conjunction with a shield. Of course, that also means that you can use a weapon-shield combo for two weapon fighting. The only benefit two-handed weapons have at the moment is generally higher damage. I'd say restrict Great Attack to two-handed weapons to help further balance them against weapon-shield combinations. That way, if you want versatility in terms of protection and possible extra attacks, you can use a one-handed weapon and shield, but if you simply want raw damage potential you go two-handed. Great Attack for two-handed weapons only would enforce that distinction nicely. - - - Regards casting spells & distractions... I would like characters/monsters to be able to ignore distractions - even if the chance of doing so is very slim. So perhaps changing it to a hard (-50%) roll instead would be a more suitable option - just so that there is a slight chance that someone just might be able to pull it off (or waste fate points trying). Yeah, if it's possible at all when you're physically impacted, it should be at a hefty penalty so making it hard to do when you're struck sounds like a good idea. cheers! Colin
|
|
|
Post by CSP Kris on Jan 8, 2011 16:28:02 GMT
Here's my thoughts on the 'questionable' areas.
Great Attack: This attack may be attempted with a two-handed weapon, but only if the attacker has sufficient room to wind up for a really forceful blow. The attacker gains a +25% to attack, does maximum damage modifier damage, but loses his reaction for that combat round.
Dominate: (additional paragraph) However, the dominated creature will not normally perform any action that would obviously cause itself physical harm - not unless the result of the Persistence test is a fumble.
Casting Spells (innate): Distractions, or attacks on the caster as he casts, may ruin the spell unless the caster passes a Persistence test to maintain his concentration. The difficulty of this test is largely left to the GMs discretion (for example, taking any damage might be a hard -50% test).
Casting Spells (sorcery): Distractions, or attacks on the caster as he casts, may ruin the spell unless the caster passes a Persistence test to maintain concentration on the spell. The difficulty of this test is largely left to the GMs discretion (for example, being suddenly blinded might be a normal test, whereas suffering a major wound would probably be impossible).
(I basically have more room for examples in the sorcery section - and I'm kinda leaving it to the GM to make the actual ruling based on his/her own preferences and common sense)
|
|
|
Post by colinchapman on Jan 8, 2011 17:47:10 GMT
Those all sound good to me, mate. By the way, if you've got any forthcoming files that need a look over, send 'em my way (oaklynx at yahoo dot co dot uk), especially if they're not formatted pdfs yet; it'd make the editing much faster if I can simply apply the edits to the raw text as I go along.
cheers! Colin
|
|
|
Post by CSP Kris on Jan 8, 2011 23:33:53 GMT
For me, I find that there is just no need for art in RPG books unless it is really good quality and evocative. If it doesn't add anything why bother? For the most part the images have been included to aid formatting - though I personally find that it also helps to break up large chunks of text (though that's just my opinion ). Hopefully nothing that's in v1 will be too horrid (or make anyone's eyes bleed ;D ), but yeah - the pieces that remain are mainly to help things start on new pages/columns or to fill up empty spaces, etc.
|
|
|
Post by smay63 on Sept 14, 2011 9:10:54 GMT
Just a note to say that AoS is an enjoyable RPG. My friends and I had our first try last week, and had fun with it. I GM'd, while they created an Elf mage and a Human warrior. A brief skirmish at Aramdol ruins turned into a hasty retreat as one of them fumbled his stealth roll (rolled 100!). Alerted EVERYONE in the vicinity.
But they came away with a few goodies. Now they're eager for next time we meet so they can 'recon' Aramdol again, hopefully to find some more loot.
Afterthought: Good artwork scattered throughout. The charts come in handy. Nice to print off (not ink heavy, thankfully like some others).
|
|