Re: Planetary Size under 3rdEd?

I disagree.
If I was up in wildspace circling around earth in a galleon and then the
next week I've stopped off over Venus to replenish my air supply, I just
don't think that they size difference is enough that you would notice.
Enough that they are both effectively 'blue', ignoring the fact that earth
is literally blue of course.

That and some sort formalized size fits nicely in those question marks on
the sheet that Dreamer posted up.

On 6/3/06, Nils Jeppe <nils@???????????.de> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 3 Jun 2006, Olander wrote:
>
> > I like sizes cause they look good on a standardized sheet. It gives you
> a
> > sense of range.
> >
> > I mean yes, its easy to describe a color as reflecting at 663 THz but no
> one
> > knows what that means. You could also say that a color is about the same
> > color as the sky on a clear day. Its much simpler to just say Color:
> Blue.
> > Sure its inexact and covers a range.. but it works
> >
> > Similarly you could say that earth is 12,745 (approx) km in diameter..
> but
> > if you say that Medium sized planets are 11,000 - 13,000 (as an example
> > range) are medium sized planets it makes for better comparison on a
> quick
> > reference. You don't have to call it 'About the same size as earth'..
> its
> > just Size: Medium
> >
> > And yeah, I like the Fine -> Medium -> Colossal range because they're
> known
> > quantities in 3e. They don't mean the same thing when compared to
> creatures
> > or weapons.. but players at least understand the range and how they
> interact
> > relatively.
>
> With colors, fine variations aren't really noticed. You're comparing
> apples and oranges. And I think I didn't get across what I meant. I didn't
> mean you shouldn't use "descriptive statements" to descibe planets. I'm
> saying that to define these in a formal system is silly.
>
> Let me try again.
>
> Take an asteroid, a sun, a rocky planet (Earth) and a gas giant (Jupiter).
>
> Which of these is small? Which one is big? It's one huge mess of relative
> statements. And if you classify Earth as a "medium" planetary body, then
> what's a comet? And an asteroid? Say that tiny chunk 5m across that just
> ripped apart your ship? "Microscopic"?
>
> You'd need to differentiate between all of them. Which is easy enough to
> do. "Small asteroid" is smaller than a "Small sun". But then you'd need
> to define size ranges for all possible types of items that your players
> could run across.
>
> Or just skip the formal system and keep going, because it just isn't worth
> the hassle.
>
> That's why (imo) the original spelljammer used the lettered scale. And the
> lettered scale is just superfluous - Instead of saying "it's a size A
> asteroid", and having to remember that size A is, what, 1-10 km in
> diameter, you might as well just say "it's a 5 km asteroid". Plus,
> depending on what you're going to do, there's a huge difference between
> 1km and 10k or between 10000 and 19999km. You'll need the numbers anyway.
>
> And of course the characters should never get exact measurements unless
> they take the time to obtain them. That goes without saying. But for a
> stats sheet, an actual numeric value serves just fine IMO. You just don't
> gain anything from a formal system of size categories. The universe just
> has too much different stuff in it.
>
>
> - Nils
>
> ********************************************************************
> The D&D Homepage: http://www.wizards.com/dnd
> The Spelljammer Homepage: http://www.spelljammer.org
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@??????.???????.com
> with UNSUB SPELLJAMMER-L in the body of the message.
>