Previous Message: Re: Why Tradesman need large cargo space
Next Message: Re: Crystal Shell behaviour proposal
Month Index: June, 2006
From: Olander <olander@?????????.net> Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 16:43:43 -0400 Subject: Re: Planetary Size under 3rdEd?
Shifting slightly. Where did the numbers to go along with the lettering scheme come from. I flipped back and forth all through my concordance and lorebook and couldn't find it. Practical planetology maybe? Also.. earth doesn't actually fall into type E.. earth is a small F. On 6/4/06, Loki <george.williams.iv@?????.com> wrote: > > I do not think that there is any need to change the size charts used > in the original set. This is not something that 3.5 has an official > stance or ruleset for and the old breakdown is integrated into many > house rules and such that are up on BTM. It is simple and it works. > There is a certain point where overmuch attention to detail can create > mechanics that drag. We all have rules we simply do not use out of > hand in our games because they slow things down and create unhappy > players (these differ from group to group) > > In short I do not think its broke so we shouldn't need to fix it... > -loki > > On 6/4/06, Nils Jeppe <nils@???????????.de> wrote: > > You still didn't get it. I give up. > > > > > > On Sat, 3 Jun 2006, Olander wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > ******************************************************************** > > 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. > > > > > -- > George "Loki" Williams, writing and other abberrations > PEACH- Please Examine and Critique Honestly > > Section Manager http://www.planewalker.com > > Writer/Developer http://www.spelljammer.org > > Planejammer- Loki's d20 Site > http://planejammer.blogspot.com > Subscribe Via Email:http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=48209 > > Humid City > http://humidcity.com > http://www.myspace.com/humidcity > http://community.livejournal.com/humidcity > > New Orleans Podcasts > http://neworleansoralhistory.blogspot.com > Subscribe Via Email: http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=48211 > > ******************************************************************** > 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. >
Previous Message: Re: Why Tradesman need large cargo space
Next Message: Re: Crystal Shell behaviour proposal
Month Index: June, 2006
| Subject | From | Date (UTC) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planetary Size under 3rdEd? | Dreamer | |||
| Re: Planetary Size under 3rdEd? | Adam Miller | |||
| Re: Planetary Size under 3rdEd? | Olander | |||
| Re: Planetary Size under 3rdEd? | Night_Druid | |||
| Re: Planetary Size under 3rdEd? | Nils Jeppe | |||
| Re: Planetary Size under 3rdEd? | Olander | |||
| Re: Planetary Size under 3rdEd? | Nils Jeppe | |||
| Re: Planetary Size under 3rdEd? | Olander | |||
| Re: Planetary Size under 3rdEd? | Jeff Stembel | |||
| Re: Planetary Size under 3rdEd? | Nils Jeppe | |||
| Re: Planetary Size under 3rdEd? | Loki | |||
| Re: Planetary Size under 3rdEd? | Olander | |||
| Re: Planetary Size under 3rdEd? | Jeff Stembel | |||
| Re: Planetary Size under 3rdEd? | Olander | |||
| Re: Planetary Size under 3rdEd? | Jeff Stembel |