New PHB6 (it's on the way)

[DMSamuel]

Well, I'm at work, so if the postal delivery person shows up with my copy it will be a surprise when I get home. But of course, all I can think about is whether or not they've shown up yet or not...

[Snoring Rock]

Postal stake out:

Stupid little dog is back. I may hose the planter off.

I saw some shorts so tight I have no ides how she got them on. No sign of the letter carrier anywhere. I wonder if it takes longer to run the route when you have a package to deliver. Yes, I said run the route. Letter carriers should run not walk; especially when I am waiting for my PHB 6th Printing.

Looks like that little dog is back again. This mason jar may be handy.

[Snoring Rock]

Here comes the postal delivery person! She is getting out of the jeep. Here comes the bag over her shoulder. Closing the door. Here she comes, closer, closer. I hear the box open, getting out of my chair...

Fumble with the door, get it open, reach in mail box...

A bill. Just a bill. No package from TLG. All day staring longingly out the window. Open the bill. Oh, great its my Discover card statement. Hmmm....there seems to be a charge for TLG for a kickstarter on there.

D'oh!

[DMSamuel]

A bill. Just a bill. No package for TLG. All day staring longingly out the window. Open the bill. Oh, great its my Discover card statement. Hmmm....there seems to be a charge for TLG for a kickstarter on there.

D'oh!

haha - that is the ultimate ironic tease!

[Andrew]

Any word on how many have been shipped out yet?

[Lord Dynel]

Well, for what it's worth, I haven't got mine either. I've got my Free RPG Day one to hold me over, but I'm trying not to futz with that one too much. So I remain hopeful, on this day before a government holiday, that it'll arrive!

[Arduin]

It just arrived! Looks very nice. A real professional piece of work.

[zacharythefirst]

I really, really hope mine is here this weekend. I think my wife is getting tired of me asking if I received any packages in the mail!

[TheMetal1]

No PHB 6th printing yet. Waiting expectantly.

[tylermo]

I've had mine for a short while. Looks fantastic. It makes me long for the new M&T and CKG. Was nice to see that they added needed info (for newbies) about lowering the challenge level for easier tasks.

[gabriellyon]

Has anyone gotten the leather bound copy yet? If so can you post any pics or comment on it? Thanks.

[moriarty777]

BAH! Try waiting when you know it won't ship till EVERYTHING is ready to go. International backers kind of get shafted in that regard. It's not TLG's fault of course but it's frustrating nonetheless.

I only hope that everything is ready by GenCon -- it would be nice to have TLG in their booth having all three core books, in color and ready for sale, when D&D 5th will only have the PHB (and the Start Box) available.

M

[Traveller]

Gen Con is next month. I sent my final edits of Monsters & Treasure to the guys last week and haven't received the CKG yet to go through. There's no way all three books will be ready before Gen Con though I do believe they'll have enough time between now and August 14th to get Monsters & Treasure laid out, proofed, printed and bound.

[moriarty777]

Gen Con is next month. I sent my final edits of Monsters & Treasure to the guys last week and haven't received the CKG yet to go through. There's no way all three books will be ready before Gen Con though I do believe they'll have enough time between now and August 14th to get Monsters & Treasure laid out, proofed, printed and bound.

Honestly, I suspected the three wouldn't be there (but I had hoped since I will be at GenCon this year). With GenCon just over a month away, the M&T might be a stretch depending on where the color work is at -- unless the color work was already done. But hey, two out of three ain't bad.

M

[Sir Ironside]

BAH! Try waiting when you know it won't ship till EVERYTHING is ready to go. International backers kind of get shafted in that regard. It's not TLG's fault of course but it's frustrating nonetheless.

I've made arrangements to have my Aihrde Kickstarter be shipped with the 3 sisters (Both at the $99 level.) to hopefully reduce the cost of shipping.

So imagine my wait time.

[moriarty777]

BAH! Try waiting when you know it won't ship till EVERYTHING is ready to go. International backers kind of get shafted in that regard. It's not TLG's fault of course but it's frustrating nonetheless.

I've made arrangements to have my Aihdre Kickstarter be shipped with the 3 sisters (Both at the $99 level.) to hopefully reduce the cost of shipping.

So imagine my wait time.

I feel and truly understand your pain. I was really taken aback at the shipping for the Codex Nordica (I was at the top tier and it was $57 US to ship). I know Steve was optimistic on getting the Aihdre stuff done very soon (which is why it was listed as an add-on option) but, well, it's been a couple years or so.

I pre-ordered that sucker ages ago and the only small mercy I have is that the shipping is already paid for on that.

Who knows... maybe we'll all be surprised in the coming months.

M

[tylermo]

Fingers crossed for M&T at GenCon. The phb and m&t are crucial for C&C game play. Having those two books at GC would be enough, if possible.

[Traveller]

They do have one major dilemma on their hands regarding the monsters, having to do with XP. Steve and I have been having discussions about the XP of monsters, because I went through every monster in the book and figured its XP by the RAW. The end result is that some 80-90% of the monsters are either undervalued or overvalued, some of them significantly.

The dilemma is this: do the Trolls play it safe and stick with the numbers they've been using since the beginning, or do they correct those numbers and risk upsetting a segment of the fanbase worried that the new printings will introduce significant rule changes?

[kreider204]

They do have one major dilemma on their hands regarding the monsters, having to do with XP. Steve and I have been having discussions about the XP of monsters, because I went through every monster in the book and figured its XP by the RAW. The end result is that some 80-90% of the monsters are either undervalued or overvalued, some of them significantly.

The dilemma is this: do the Trolls play it safe and stick with the numbers they've been using since the beginning, or do they correct those numbers and risk upsetting a segment of the fanbase worried that the new printings will introduce significant rule changes?

To my mind, that's errata correction, not rules change. On the other hand, I don't really track XP that closely, so I'd personally find that the least important thing in a new printing.

[moriarty777]

Yeah, I'm with kreider204 on this one. XP is a number and during the course of an adventure or just the time it takes for a character to level up, many sets of XP contribute to that. It would not bother me one bit to have this change in place. Honestly, if this hadn't been pointed out, I honestly think it would have been a while before anyone really noticed. Of course, it's all relative -- people may notice if something like a Skeleton changed from 10+1 to 100+1 experience.

M

[DMSamuel]

I concurr - this is just about the least troubling change that could be made and wouldn't bother me at all.

[Arduin]

Gen Con is next month. I sent my final edits of Monsters & Treasure to the guys last week and haven't received the CKG yet to go through. There's no way all three books will be ready before Gen Con though I do believe they'll have enough time between now and August 14th to get Monsters & Treasure laid out, proofed, printed and bound.

I'd rather have it done correctly than quicker...

[serleran]

They do have one major dilemma on their hands regarding the monsters, having to do with XP. Steve and I have been having discussions about the XP of monsters, because I went through every monster in the book and figured its XP by the RAW. The end result is that some 80-90% of the monsters are either undervalued or overvalued, some of them significantly.

The dilemma is this: do the Trolls play it safe and stick with the numbers they've been using since the beginning, or do they correct those numbers and risk upsetting a segment of the fanbase worried that the new printings will introduce significant rule changes?

I once posted the average XP gain for every monster listed in M&T, calculated per the power tiers, and I recall dragons being worth a stupendous amount... but, there are several ways to determine XP per RAW as well, such as "per spell" or "has any spell." The last time I looked, it was silent, and if doing it "per spell," one yields quite a lot more.

In either case, I would prefer that the powers are more easily identified. Or, my alternative:

XPs are the experience points earned for defeat of the monster, determined per monster, and then equally divided among survivors; the listed value will be for the average specimen. There exists a calculation method for this, so those who want to create their own, or modify existing monsters, can do so. That information is provided:

Monster HD / Core XP / XP per HP / Per Special (Minor) / Per Special (Major)
0 – 1 / 10 / 1 / 5 / 10
2 / 25 / 2 / 10 / 20
3 / 50 / 3 / 20 / 30
4 / 75 / 3 / 30 / 50
5 / 100 / 4 / 50 / 75
6 / 150 / 4 / 75 / 150
7 / 225 / 5 / 150 / 300
8 / 500 / 5 / 300 / 500
9 – 10 / 750 / 7 / 500 / 750
11 – 12 / 1000 / 10 / 750 / 1000
13 – 14 / 1500 / 15 / 1000 / 1250
15 – 16 / 1800 / 20 / 1250 / 1500
17 – 18 / 2500 / 25 / 1500 / 2000
19 – 20 / 3000 / 30 / 2000 / 2500
21+ / 4000 / 35 / 2500 / 3000

Core XP: the base amount of experience points awarded, to which all other adjustments are added.

XP per HP: an amount of experience gained for each hit point of the defeated monster; essentially, multiply this value by the HP total and add to the Core XP.

Per Special (Minor): gained per ability the monster has (and used) that can be classified as minor, which includes but is not limited to – high intelligence (anything above average); any spell (not per spell) use of a defensive nature of 3rd level or lower; multiple attacks (four (4) or more per round); high armor class; per special damage attack not classified as major, including hug, rake, and the like; multiple movement methods used in combat with effectiveness; minor regeneration (less than 3 HP per round); per special defense not classified as major such as resistance (not an immunity) to an attack form; ability to attack at range, whether with natural or manufactured (equipment) means.

Per Special (Major): gained per ability the monster has (and used) that can be classified as major, which includes but is not limited to – major special attack forms such as level drain, paralysis, petrification, or poison; breath weapon; spell resistance; instant kill attack such as swallow whole; spell use (but not per spell) of offensive nature regardless of level, or of defensive magic of 4th level and greater; massive damage attack which is defined as any single attack capable of inflicting at least twenty (20) damage, two attacks able to deal thirty (30), three that can deal thirty five (35), or any combination that can deal forty five (45) or greater; regeneration at 3 or more HP per round; immunity to an attack form such as fire, cold, or acid.

[Arduin]

The dilemma is this: do the Trolls play it safe and stick with the numbers they've been using since the beginning, or do they correct those numbers and risk upsetting a segment of the fanbase worried that the new printings will introduce significant rule changes?

My view is that the rules should be internally consistent. It is proper errata procedure to correct the XP of monsters to match the stated formula for monster XP calculation.

I want the fanbase to 100X. Having a tight rule set will contribute to further growth. In any industry the underdog has to do it better than the big guys.

[Warunsun]

To my mind, that's errata correction, not rules change.

I agree fully here. Please incorporate the errata and fix discrepancy across all Three Sisters. The main reason I backed the Kickstarter was to get the three books "in harmony" with each other. Thanks for your efforts.

[Sir Ironside]

To my mind, that's errata correction, not rules change.

I agree fully here. Please incorporate the errata and fix discrepancy across all Three Sisters. The main reason I backed the Kickstarter was to get the three books "in harmony" with each other. Thanks for your efforts.

I agree with this and everyone's statement about the issue. I thought the idea behind the 3 sisters was to make them the best possible books that they could be. Making the XP values right seems to jive with this goal.

[dachda]

To my mind, that's errata correction, not rules change.

I agree fully here. Please incorporate the errata and fix discrepancy across all Three Sisters. The main reason I backed the Kickstarter was to get the three books "in harmony" with each other. Thanks for your efforts.

Agree!!

[Traveller]

For the record, I pointed out the XP of monsters last year in the C&C Rules Are Incomplete thread. I can understand Steve's concerns here, but like everyone else I see this as error correction and not a rule change. That is why, having already done the work on the monster XP for each and every creature, including dragons, I submitted them. At the same time, I did make some small clarifications to the specials and the XP table itself.

My change to Type I was to replace the part about unique abilities with non-magical special abilities. The former usage implies that no other creature could have such an ability. While the language of the current Type I special allows the CK to infer what "unique" abilities are from the context, changing it makes it explicit what is meant.

Changes to Type II were a bit different. The portion that says, "...damage of 4d6 or more from a single attack..." was changed to "...maximum damage of 24 or more points in a single attack...". If wondering why such a change was made, look at the stone giant. Its rock throwing ability does 3d10 per attack. So based upon the original entry, does the stone giant get the special or not? It does fewer dice of damage than stated in the entry, but each die is larger. Changing it to a maximum damage value eliminates this problem. Now, all that's necessary is to know is that the stone giant can do a maximum of 30 points of damage in a single attack. Since 30 > 24, it gets the special.

Type III was little more than a wording change, in that I changed "...and spell use of 8th level and higher (or equivalent)" to "...and spells or spell-like abilities of 8th level or higher. For this one, again the idea was to clarify that spell-like abilities also count. The original language was a bit vague on that point.

One other issue that became apparent with the XP was with the dragons. By the RAW, there's no way to figure out the XP total of a dragon that has more than 20HD. While I think the intent here was to leave it up to the individual CK, the problem comes in when you have "see page 6" in each dragon entry for XP value, and no guidance on how to figure things out. So I submitted an edit to the chart, adding a new +1HD row below the rest of the chart.

All of this, plus correcting the XP values to actually use the rules in the book, goes a long way towards making the game more "noob friendly" and more self-contained.

P.S. I didn't use serleran's work to do this. I generated my own notes, which I plan on making public once the book is printed. While I know most of you handwave experience anyway, there's that subset of people who like to adhere to the RAW for one reason or another. If you're creating an adventure for example, and you have a unique monster not found in any of the monster tomes, it might be a good thing to figure the XP by the RAW.

[Arduin]

That is why, having already done the work on the monster XP for each and every creature, including dragons, I submitted them. At the same time, I did make some small clarifications to the specials and the XP table itself.

Thanks a million for all your work on this. It'll go a long way to helping the quality of the product.

[Buttmonkey]

I, too, would like to see the XP values and tables updated as discussed above. That strikes me as an errata issue, not new rules. In particular, cleaning up the XP values would almost certainly help new gamers or at least new players to C&C. Early on I recall doing the math myself for a book monster, comparing that to the official XP value, and becoming very confused about why the numbers didn't match. Was there an error in the book or was I misapplying the XP table? If that sort of thing can be avoided by tweaking the table and values, then it should be done.