ACKS v26 Rules Update

B-b-but ferrets and weasels are mustelids!
APM: Oh, oh, god.

Not to mention that ferrets are domesticated animals (specifically, domesticated polecats), which makes them an odd choice for a “giant” version of an animal. Might as well have giant chickens or giant basset hounds.
I should stop, right?

Put an entry in for badgers (approx as tough as 1.5 dogs), it’s the only mustelid you ever need :wink:
Well, unless you want a giant badger…

You know how great songs sound even better when you hear them in the right sequence.
I like how the way v26’s ordered makes hirelings seem more integral, not just an afterthought, and the way that combat is just a part of adventuring, not the sole focus like it is in most rulebooks where the combat chapter is straight after chargen. This really drives the point home about the breadth of possibilities ACKS offers.

OK, so joking aside, does putting ferret and weasel under Rodent, Giant really upset you guys? It makes the monster section much cleaner. What about “Varmint, Giant?” instead of “Rodent, Giant”? Ferrets are varmints, aren’t they?!
James: I had Raccoon Dogs in my OA campaign for many sessions before I realized they were actually Badgers.
Sean: Thanks for the kind words! I have to admit that you guys were right and I was wrong. The rules are much better organized now. Kudos to all the backers who insisted I create an Equipment section.

I read through (sorta) v26 once I spotted it was out (and after I’d put up my other epic proofreading posts) and like Sean I am stonkingly impressed with how much better it flows now. I’m also inordinately pleased that some (lots) of my suggestions have made it into the rules, for which I am very grateful on a ‘I’ve helped make this great’ sort of level. Hopefully everyone else will think it’s great too!

There’s no question the structure of the rules has been improved. As a designer, the “patron model” has been awesomely beneficial - I’ve never had the benefit of so many dedicated readers and reviewers during the writing process before.
And James, thank you for your egregiously detailed reviews of the text. That sort of thing is wildly helpful.

chuckle You realise that egregious has a generally negative meaning these days right? I can stop if you want :wink:

Bahahah, at least you didn’t criticize me for my lack of mustelidology.

You could go with “Vermin, Giant” for the heading, but the 3e people might think giant bugs should be in that category too. I was just ribbing you about the mustelids, but to be honest, if I was looking for weasel or ferret stats and didn’t already know where to find them, I would never think to look under “Rodent” because, well, they’re not.
I’m weird, though. Maybe most people really do associate them with rodents.

Huh. I’d really like to consolidate them to save space. :-
Giant Critters?
Giant Varmints?
Also, what do you think about combining Nixie (or Nyad) and Dryad into “Nymph” with two sub-categories, and Sprite and Pixie into “Faerie” with two sub-categories.

I think combining into ‘Nymph’ and ‘Faerie’ is a good idea, both in terms of presentation and an implied kinship. Nyad/Naiad works better than Nixie in this case.
Giant Varmints - sounds more like a mix of rodents/mustewotsits than the broader Vermin, and a little less Okefenokee-moonshiner-in-a-shack-a-cussin’ than Critters.

Can I suggest moving the rules on languages spoken out of the flow of the explanation of the Character Abilities (Intelligence) on page 12 (the block from “All character begin the game …” to “…and necromancers).”). While the Intelligence ability has an effect on languages, right now it breaks the flow of the explanation.
I think they would fit better in the chapter on Proficiencies (somewhere near the start), that location fits in nicely with the Language Proficiency as well.
Alternately, you could move them to either just above or below the section on Hit Points on page 13.

I endorse \the Varmints, Giant; Faeries; and Nymphs organization. This will make my life easier.
On an editing note (not strictly v26): there is no Initiative space listed on the ACKS character sheet.

Wow, does V26 read so much better! Great job Alex!
I see the sap has finally made it into the rules - however I find the sap rule kind of odd. Sap grants a +2 bonus to incapacitating someone. However, the standard rule of thumb is that using a lethal weapon to capacitate gives a -4 penalty to the attack throw. Would it not be better to state that the sap only suffers a -2 penalty instead of -4 to incapacitate, or that it suffers no penalty and actually gives a +2 bonus to the attack throw. They way it currently reads, it comes across as a little ambiguous in its intent.
Also, there is still one more thing I believe to be in the wrong place. The weapon range chart on page 101. I think it is more important for this to exist alongside the weapons in the new equipment chapter. Reason being, when choosing a ranged weapon, one of the determining factors is its range. In addition, it is not intuitive to look at “how to make a ranged attack” to find the range penalties for your weapon. I can’t stress my recommendation for changing this enough.
Does anyone else feel the same? :wink:
Never the less, kudos to you!
Edit: One last question - oil flask rules. It states you can pour oil into a square and torch it later. Is it meant to be poured into an empty square or can you pour it into an enemies square to have it lit later? One of my dastardly players hit upon the idea that you could pour oil into a spellcasters square and this forces the spellcaster to move instead of cast spells otherwise take fire damage for two rounds. I allowed it, but would like some clarification. Thanks.

see the sap has finally made it into the rules - however I find the sap rule kind of odd. Sap grants a +2 bonus to incapacitating someone. However, the standard rule of thumb is that using a lethal weapon to capacitate gives a -4 penalty to the attack throw. Would it not be better to state that the sap only suffers a -2 penalty instead of -4 to incapacitate, or that it suffers no penalty and actually gives a +2 bonus to the attack throw. They way it currently reads, it comes across as a little ambiguous in its intent.
APM: I think its important to phrase it as a bonus because that’s the only way to have it cleanly stack with the Incapacitate Combat Trickery proficiency.

Edit: One last question - oil flask rules. It states you can pour oil into a square and torch it later. Is it meant to be poured into an empty square or can you pour it into an enemies square to have it lit later? One of my dastardly players hit upon the idea that you could pour oil into a spellcasters square and this forces the spellcaster to move instead of cast spells otherwise take fire damage for two rounds. I allowed it, but would like some clarification. Thanks.
APM: You can pour it first and light it later!

Duskreign’s Minion here.
I am the dastardly player! Eat it Duskreign’s stupidly high level cleric/plot device that flamestriked me and then kicked our asses! Ha! :slight_smile:

I’m going to start a new v26 copy-editing thread later on, and transfer over all my outstanding issues from the v23 thread that either haven’t been changed already, or haven’t had an answer from Alex.
I’ve not gone through v26 looking for new stuff yet, just compared it against my notes from v23.

Also, what do you think about combining Nixie (or Nyad) and Dryad into “Nymph” with two sub-categories, and Sprite and Pixie into “Faerie” with two sub-categories.
Combining naiads, dryads, nymphs, etc., into an all-encompassing “nymph” category is both handy and historically fitting.
“Faerie” can cover everything from sprites and pixies to the Host of the Sidhe and Titania. It would be appropriate, but it might also imply a lot more. You could also call the little flyer-types all “sprites” to refer to pixies, sprites, and the traditional fairy.