New Frank & K Tome pdf

[koz]

"How Things Ought to Be" sounds pretty good.

[AlphaNerd]

Yeah, this is really why I only wanted to include things of the highest-caliber quality that weren't likely to get changes. The Tome isn't a wiki.

Then please, I'm open to suggestions. No hubris, no sarcasm.

Wondering what your thoughts are.

Also, while you're at it, would you mind looking at the source and seeing if you can fix some things? Or explain to me how the heck stuff happens?

I don't have any suggestions, either. The fact that I didn't want to play the "what gets included" moderator was one (of multiple) reasons that I (mostly) stopped contributing. I concur with the thought that only well-hashed out stuff be included, at least until source control becomes available and people can fix their own stuff (or anyone else who feels a need). Note, I don't have any experience with setting something like that up, but if you need to change the license (many sites have requirements) on the document, I'm probably willing to do that (for my share of the markup).

Do you have specific questions about what's going on in the LaTeX?

Also, remember that this is, essentially, supposed to be a book. There's no reason why we can't produce niche books to keep the main book uncluttered (though to my knowledge, no one has printed out a version yet). Also, since it's source is available, there's no reason an enterprising DM couldn't compile his own version with the PRCs and base classes that are available to his campaign. To that end, we (you) might want to release a "Kitchen Sink" edition and a "Core" edition.

Pretty good. What exactly is needed?

Basically, you turn text into marked-up text. But instead of using crtl-b to bold things, you type \textbb{text to be bolded}. If you've written HTML before you can do this. The best way is to find something similar (a spellcasting prestige class, for a spellcasting prestige class, for instance) and then just do all the things it does. Then, you need to compile it. That probably involves installing MikTeX (Windows free LaTeX) and possibly some packages (additional commands you can use). I use WinEDT to edit and compile the LaTeX (it's about the only shareware I've ever spent money on), though it is not required.

Once you get good at it, it should take around 1/2 hour to an hour for a prestige class at most. Feats would take like 5 minutes each.

When you're done, post here for inclusion (use the code tag). Ideally there'd be some source control where we all could check out files and make changes, but that takes work. Any volunteers?

[Aktariel]

Ah. Thank god. Finally done with the semester. Going to be busy as all hell the next few weeks though, so not much is apt to get done from my end.

AlphaNerd: Here's an example. the \babfeat command is well done, but it has no flexibility - the feat Painmonger, for example, has several sub abilities within each + ability, and there's no way to allow for that - indenting, tabulation, etc.

It also has no room for requirements, such as needing to fly for Aerial Assault, or having a natural weapon for INW, and I can't think of a way to add these in without breaking the existing command.


I've printed them out. Hardcopy reference for my players.

[AlphaNerd]

Well the non-answer is simply to make another command and use it.

I'm not sure it's possible, but there are \if \fi commands in TeX; if there is a \len command (I'm not aware of one), then you could make a command that encompasses both feats with and without requirements, but it'd likely be more work.

The only other option is to hack out something that works, and go with it. You can put more than just text into the parameters of the tags, maybe you can escape out of the structure, do what you want, and then come back into the structure. Or you just write it up ad-hoc in the same manner as the command and vow to change it as well if you ever change the way BAB feats are presented. I'm inclined toward the "make a new command" approach, as you may have been able to tell. But beware, you're only allowed 9 parameters, which makes Spheres a pain.

That was a long way to say, just hack it. We're (we'll, I'm) not trying to make an end-all-be-all command to make everything work or create a API that can be used to generate any D&D style book. I'm trying to create a document, and sometimes that means bending the rules about good style.

When you printed out the hardcopies, did you strip out the hyperlinks?

[Aktariel]

Just hack it.

Ok. I'll get around to that at some point. Time to dive deeper into LaTeX.

When you printed out the hardcopies, did you strip out the hyperlinks?

No. How would one go about doing that other than manually removing the links by hand?

[AlphaNerd]

I would probably issue a \renewcommand to change the hyperlink command to render normal text for the normal part.

If there was anything else that also might need changing, I'd consider defining a \ifbookmode or \ifpdfmode or something and using that to variably define commands as needed. Not 100% sure how you do that, but I think it's possible.

Or, for the lazy, just define the commands that are liable to change and then comment out the set that don't want. Put them near each other so that it's easy to configure.

[Surgo]

Can't Adobe Acrobat strip that stuff out anyway, no need to change the source?

[Judging__Eagle]

I'm going crazy. Doing too much in life, plus this. Additionally, this is starting to get out of hand - people suggest things, and I put them in, and then they change them, and I have to merge and track changes, and then incorporate suggestions, and the list of stuff to include keeps running out in front of what I can put in...

Yeah, this is really why I only wanted to include things of the highest-caliber quality that weren't likely to get changes. The Tome isn't a wiki.

I'm with Surgo, don't add things unless the boards as a whole have decided that something is good to go, and if the writer isn't happy with it or still wants/needs to modify it, let them do so before wasting your own precious time going back and forth formatting and re-formatting stuff.

You could have say, added the Bloodspiller class in the last build, but it seriously wasn't ready imo, so I asked you not to put it in. I think that's what Surgo is talking about. You need to have stuff that is completely finished and that the boards have given a close look at.

Also, the boards as a whole still can't decide what to do with "guys who live in forests", at all. We've got about 6 or 7 different classes made by at least 5 different members, and some abilities are good among them, and some aren't, so the jury for that is still hung. We could seriously write a chapter called "Rangers: Choose one, for your character." Seriously, each ranger you ever meet should be a different sort of person, be they an ascetic who lives in a mountain pass, or a jolly partyer that hangs out at an open-air tavern in the middle of the woods, or a wandering horseman or a half-elf that kills reckless spell-casters. Even Tolkien's world had more than one group of rangers. The north and the south

Some notes/corrections for the current build:

Berzerker has some errors in it, the MAIM! KILL! BURN! text at the end should read:

[Use Force if using 'Baskin Robbins' damage flavours (i.e. Holy, Anti-holy, Acid, Dope, Fire, Cold, Electricity, Sonic, Hedgehogs, Force etc.) or "Fire" if 'Sane' damage flavours are used.]

not

[Energy is ‘Baskin Robbins’ damage flavours (i.e. Holy, Anti-holy, Acid, Dope, Fire, Cold, Electricity, Sonic,
Hedgehogs, Force etc.) or “Fire” if ‘Sane’ damage flavours are used.]

Blade fighter's BaB pre-req should be +3, not +6.

I should also specify who I'm quoting in the Blade Fighter quote. I'm doing a bad quote of Duncan Idaho from Dune, in his advice to be willing to be practical, not techincally superior, in his fighting (and life in general).

For the next build, I'm pretty sure that Monster Rider and (Azerothian) Death Knight (when it gets some proper approval and vetting). Also, Bloodspiller is finished.

If anyone has concerns with Monster Rider, (azerothean) Death Knight, or Bloodspiller, please tell me. I tend to throw decent and bullshit abilities into a class at the same time, so sometimes it's a bit much, but no one tells me, so I'm not sure when I cross the line or not.

[Cynic]

Maybe we needing a vetting topic where we go through each item for inclusion. This way it becomes easier and really doesn't give any of the source builders a headhurt.

[Judging__Eagle]

I prefer that each submission gets vetted before being put onto a list for "stuff to add in the next version" or gets a thorough assesment and analysis before being suggested for vetting.

I'd also reccomend that the really wierd Combat feats that were added to be carefully re-examined, I don't think that they were given a close look at by anyone. Stuff like Sunderer should not be a part of the game, ever. I thought that we had agreed that breaking items was stupid, and shouldn't be done.

I'm also noticing some errors and omissions that I made in Berzerker. The Ferocious healing doesn't state how much fast healing the character gets, and Natural Wearer of armour should probably have something about not being fatigued if sleeping in armour.

Yeah, thorough assesment of each submission plus a review of some kind I think would be the minimum. Even if the submitter writes it up themselves, so long as it's a critical review and notices problems then the submission is probably on it's way to being representative of the boards.

Remember, we're trying to put together the best material that the boards has to offer. We should try to make that the goal. Not a kitchen sink.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

I created Sunderer, and used in in a game (for what it is worth) with a Samurai. The ability to attack through armor (shields) was actually fairly in-line with the samurai flavor set up in Terrible Blows. Character was already a disarm-master, so destroying weapons made little sense.

Do you feel that the balance is off, or that the Sunder combat action should never be allowed, or do you feel some other thing, or just not like it?

PS - I never thought it would be included in the pdf, but I feel it is an applicable feat in the same sense that the grapple-specific and bullrush-specific feats are applicable.

[Calibron]

In more vanilla DnD sundering is pretty much breaking your own stuff, but with BoG and the 8 item limit you can freely smash most enemy gear and never think twice; you don't need to gather up all the +2 swords you can get your hands on so you can hawk them to buy that swank new Amulet of Protection from Sucking and Dieing. Some of the coolest abilities in my recently made Oversized Weapon Fighting feat come from the collateral damage that comes from when you miss the enemy and destroy the scenery or your foe's gear. Not only that, but I personally use a house rule, that I recommend for any game, which let's you sunder natural weapons(making them non-functional until healed).

Maybe we needing a vetting topic where we go through each item for inclusion. This way it becomes easier and really doesn't give any of the source builders a headhurt.

Good idea.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

We could seriously write a chapter called "Rangers: Choose one, for your character." Seriously, each ranger you ever meet should be a different sort of person, be they an ascetic who lives in a mountain pass, or a jolly partyer that hangs out at an open-air tavern in the middle of the woods, or a wandering horseman or a half-elf that kills reckless spell-casters. Even Tolkien's world had more than one group of rangers. The north and the south

I actually feel that all of these are adequately represented by the current concept of "guy who hangs out in places, knows stuff about monsters, is good at killing monsters that he knows stuff about". The RP choices of "do you live in a mountain pass?", "do you throw parties in the woods?", "do you know about stuff because you wander around on horseback?", and "do you hate spellcasters?" can be handled via RP. Seriously, the North rangers took Hills terrain and the Horseback-Riding, and the rangers of the South took Forest terrain and Bow-Hunting-Skillz.

[zeruslord]

With a few terrain specialist feats and an animal companion-equivalent feat, a Tome Fighter or Barbarian has all the fighting style choices you could ever need. I actually favor having nearly all themed warriors being subsumed into a few basic mechanical models, a set of appropriate general feats, and possibly a few prestige classes.

[Prak]

an animal companion-equivalent feat

and once again I am reminded of my Acquire Familiar feat...

[Aktariel]

Now we're looking at... four editions. Core and Kitchen Sink, and Print and Electronic, and the mixes and matches of those.

That's kind of nuts to do all by hand. Either we need a new plan, or we need a new plan, and by that I mean either we need to have less editions, or we seriously need to set up some sort of system.

While I'm at it, Surgo or AlphaNerd: Suggestions for formatting the 25 Video Game Magic Items? Two columns? One? Bolding? Should I create a new command for items, like babfeat?

[Bigode]

We need one edition, like it was in Surgo's time: the non-retarded edition. Stop adding stuff that isn't perfect (as close to it as possible).

[Aktariel]

Tome v0.6 Build 27: Via MediaFire

Stripped down version. We're going back to this, and building on it slowly.

As always, Thoughts Comments Suggestions Rants or Questions?

[koz]

As always, appreciate the hard work you guys (you and Surgo) are putting in. I'd also like to echo Bigode here - let there be ONE edition, but let's try and MAKE stuff as good as it can be from the stuff this community has submitted. Like it or not, we have inherited this stuff from Frank and K now, and we need to keep it alive and write more material for it to keep it fun for everyone. Oh, and show WotC that unpaid designers can kick their ass into the next century.

[Surgo]

If 0.6 build 27 is the latest edition, can you please also upload the LaTeX sources so I can grab them?

[Aktariel]

Certainly.

I would ask that you keep me in the loop about changes and all - we're going to have to start running diffs again, aren't we?

Tome v0.6 build 27 source (zipped): Via MediaFire


Also, I'm sorry... We need a better title than "How Things Ought To Be."

[Bigode]

I disagree. But no one say I'm not giving alternatives: Book/Tome of Game Balance, something about it being the collected works of F&K, returning to the old standby of just listing the Tome titles (which I really don't know why was changed, BTW).

[koz]

"Tome of Game Balance" is a bit misleading. How about "The Balanced Fantasy System", or BFS? "System of Creative Storytelling", or SCS? Some sick weirdo in my brain wants me to call it "The Collected Wisdom of The Gaming Den"...

[Bigode]

"Tome of Game Balance" is a bit misleading. How about "The Balanced Fantasy System", or BFS? "System of Creative Storytelling", or SCS? Some sick weirdo in my brain wants me to call it "The Collected Wisdom of The Gaming Den"...

True. Though while BFS and SCS would be amusing, they're misleading as well, as there's no system core within (and I'm not getting the reference with the latter). "Collected Wisdom" might be the most hilarious by summarily ignoring SAME and TNE, among other stuff ... so, perhaps not one if those fits. "How Things Ought to Be", ironically, doesn't mislead by virtue of ... being vague in a sense, and thus keeps my vote (by fitting, not by being kinda vague). That, or just listing the individual works, or something newfangled that doesn't suck (which's the hard part).

[Aktariel]

It was changed because it was ungodly long, and a mouthful, and no one called the pdf "The Tome of Necromancy, The Tome of Fiends, etc"

So why keep it? I mean, my vote goes for "The Tome" as a working title, until something better comes along.