Pg 110 - Structure Hit Point section contains the following sentence.
Movement is also affected in a similar manner when the number of rowers is reduced, such as when rowers are used to repair damage. For example, if 10% of the number of rowers are being used to repair vessel damage, the ship CAN move at -10% of its normal speed.
I believe the word CAN should be replaced with the workd WILL. Can implies it may move slower but I think the intent is that it does move slower.
p 50 - Still seems weird to me that Beast Friendship isn’t in the Explorer list
p 53 - Is the Construction proficiency necessary? What does it bring to the game that one rank of Engineering doesn’t? Likewise, Hunting, Foraging, and Tracking have a lot of overlap.
p 56 - Military Tactics: You said you were looking for a generic value for this talent. Perhaps a single rank allows a character to train men-at-arms into light infantry, two ranks to heavy infantry, two ranks and riding to cavalry… make it the profession skill for soldiers
p 59- Weapon finesse might also include Spears
Animate Dead: A 7th level cleric can make their animated dead permanent by using Bane to create unholy water. How does a level 9 mage do it?
“You cannot attack, then move; it’s always move, then attack.”
Not that I have a problem with this, per see, I was just curious why this is? If I can run up and stab someone, what is there that’s preventing me from stabbing someone and then running off? Especially if I kill the enemy – since a move and an attack action (if you will) are somewhat interchangeable, why can I cleave afterward (effectively another attack action) but not move?
Also, I doubt it, as it’s somewhat late in the process, but will the class creation guidelines be making an appearance in the book or will we have to wait for those in a supplement?
I also support Explorers getting Beast Friendship, and consolidating some proficiencies could help save space.
I believe the word CAN should be replaced with the workd WILL. Can implies it may move slower but I think the intent is that it does move slower.
APM: Thanks for catching that. Would you believe I actually am a bit stressed out about the can/will/may/could usage in the rules? Anybody else who notices vagaries in the usage please let me know.
p 50 - Still seems weird to me that Beast Friendship isn’t in the Explorer list
p 53 - Is the Construction proficiency necessary? What does it bring to the game that one rank of Engineering doesn’t? Likewise, Hunting, Foraging, and Tracking have a lot of overlap.
p 56 - Military Tactics: You said you were looking for a generic value for this talent. Perhaps a single rank allows a character to train men-at-arms into light infantry, two ranks to heavy infantry, two ranks and riding to cavalry… make it the profession skill for soldiers
p 59- Weapon finesse might also include Spears
APM:
p50 - by popular demand, it will be added
p53 - I’ll consolidate hunting and foraging into one proficiency called survival. I’ll consolidate construction into siege engineering and re-name it siege craft. Tracking is too useful for consolidation.
p56 - good idea
p59 - Spears are too powerful to allow use with weapon finesse. They are cheap, usable with one or two hands, can be thrown, can be set for charge, can attack from the second line, etc.
You cannot attack, then move; it’s always move, then attack."
Not that I have a problem with this, per see, I was just curious why this is?
APM: Because I think it makes the structure of the combat round simpler, better playing, and more balanced.
Due to the “engagement” rules, movement after attacking would only benefit characters in two circumstances; first, when they’ve killed all their opponents, and second, when they are using missile weapons.
With regard to allowing attack-then-move for missile weapons, it has the negative effect of allowing high initiative archers to fire without risk. For example, consider two archers facing off from across doorways 60’ apart and allowed to attack-then-fire. Archer A wins the initiative. He fires at Archer B and then moves. Archer B has no chance to return fire because Archer A has moved out of line of sight.
Even worse, imagine a two-man team; a mage with a wand of lightning bolts and a thief with a ring of telekinesis. The thief TKs the mage into the corridor. The mage uses the wand and then moves out of line of sight. Provided the mage only does the tactic on rounds when his initiative is higher than the enemies, he is never at risk. [The tactic doesn’t work nearly as well the other way around because the mage ends his turn stuck in the corridor. The soonest the thief can TK him out is the next initiative number, which represents a 16.6% additional chance that the enemy’s initiative number will come up.]
With regard to characters who have killed all their opponents, it would allow a character to, e.g., kill his opponents (through cleaving) and then, for instance, move 30’-40’ and engage a new set of opponents or retreat. This has the negative effect of making both Retreats/Fighting Withdrawals and Overruns less important.
It makes it much more difficult to keep opponents pinned down. For example, if the turn is move-then-attack, an enemy who kills his present opponents can be “pinned” in place by reinforcements that join the engagement later in the round. For example, if Fighter X kills 3 goblins engaging him on initiative 5, but then at initiative 4 3 more goblins rush forward, Fighter X will still be engaged on the next combat round. This is an important tactic for keeping fast, hasted, high-damage fighters in check.
Anyway, after playtesting various ways of playing the game, this was what we went with.
No, your reasoning is quite sound. I hadn’t considered the ‘attack then hide’ aspect of things before. Now that you mention it, I see that it would clearly a be mistake to do it otherwise. Thanks.
Some updates:
Construction: ELIMINATED
Manual of Arms: The character has the ability to train soldiers in military discipline, physical fitness, and weapon drill. If the character selects Manual of Arms once, he can earn 25gp per month training light infantry. It takes 1 month to turn raw recruits into light infantry. If the character also selects Riding, he can also train light cavalry (taking 3 months). If he also selects Weapon Focus (bows & crossbows), he can train crossbowmen (1 month), bowmen (2 months), or longbowmen (3 months). Manual of Arms combined with Riding and Weapon Focus (bows & crossbows) allows the character to train horse archers (6 months). If the character selects Manual of Arms twice, he earns 50gp per month and can train heavy infantry (1 month). Two ranks of Manual of Arms combined with Riding allow the character to train heavy cavalry (6 months). Two ranks of Manual of Arms combined with Riding and Weapon Focus (bows & crossbows) allows the character to train cataphract cavalry (12 months). The character can train up to 50 soldiers during each training period.
Military Strategy (G): The character has studied the art of war and the methods of the great captains. He can recognize famous historical battles, generals, and weapons with a proficiency throw of 11+. Forces under his command receive a +1 bonus to initiative rolls in mass combat. This proficiency may be selected multiple times, each time adding an additional +1 bonus to mass combat initiative, to a maximum of +3. [REPLACES Military Tactics]
Siege Engineering (G): The character is highly skilled in the construction and placement of temporary defensive works such as ditches, pits, fields of stakes, and simple wooden and earthen barricades. He also knows how to operate heavy war machines and siege engines such as ballistae, catapults, rams, bores, and siege towers. If the proficiency is taken a second time, then the character has the knowledge to construct heavy war machines, siege engines, and siege towers as well as use them.
Survival: The character is an expert at hunting small game, gathering fruits and vegetables, and finding water and shelter. The character forages enough food to feed himself automatically, even when on the move, so long as he is in a fairly fertile area. If he is trying to supply more than one person, he must make a proficiency throw (as described in Wilderness Adventures), but gains a +4 bonus on the roll. [REPLACES both Hunting & Foraging]
EXPLORER loses Hunting & Foraging, gains Beast Friendship and Survival
FIGHTER loses Construction & Hunting, gains Manual of Arms and Survival
VAULTGUARD loses Construction, gains Manual of Arms
CRAFTPRIEST loses Construction, gains Collegiate Wizardry
Wow… That’s a huge update. A good one though.
Great looking update, but I would suggest changing the starting proficiency for the Fighter template from Military Tactics/Strategy to Weapon Focus. Or perhaps blacksmithing. My two fighters each immediately asked to trade out that proficiency, since they spend numerous levels without any followers. If this proficiency is meant to also apply to group PCs accompanying the hero, then it might be more worthwhile at low levels - if this is the case though, then it should be added to the description of Military Strategy (it wouldn’t make sense with the name strategy then though). I suggest Weapon Focus because I think most players who pick fighters think it’s extra fun.
Longshanks, the default for fighters is Combat Reflexes as their class proficiency. Military Strategy is (was) their general proficiency, so it can’t be Weapon Focus.
That said, I changed their general proficiency to be Manual of Arms so that they can hire peasants for cheap and train them to be little mini-mercenaries. That’s useful for a low level fighter.
-Alex
What was the reasoning behind opening up the Cleric Turn Undead numbers?
Michael, I’m sorry, could you clarify what you mean by “opening up” the numbers?
For example, on the current (not updated since Aug 22) Reference Tables, 1st Level Clerics can’t turn wights. Now, in v32, Clerics turn wights on a 19+.
So, it used to be:
Skeleton 9+
Zombie 14+
Ghoul 19+
Now, it’s:
Skeleton 10+
Zombie 13+
Ghoul 16+
Wight 19+
Actually, looking back now it seems this update was made back in v27 (or earlier).
I’m still curious behind the reasoning.
(And, also, if someone could update the GM Reference Tables to reflect the latest version, that’d be awesome!)
MichaelPfaff - the thread where this was discussed is here.
There’s not an extensive amount of reasoning there, but I think there’s enough 
Ah, yes! That’s what I was looking for. Thanks!
Just wanted to weigh in; I think everything’s looking great so far - and, more importantly, we’re having a blast playing it!
The only thing I can think to add would be a table in the character creation section listing all the classes/races with their stat requirements and prime requisites, so you could tell, at a glance, which one your stats are best suited to, rather than flipping back and forth through the whole section.
Something like:
PRIME REQUISITE REQUIREMENT
FIGHTER STR None
MAGE INT None
ASSASSIN STR & DEX None
BARD DEX & CHA None
DWARF VAULTGUARD STR CON 9
ELF SPELLSWORD STR & INT None
When I was making my character, it was the one thing I really found lacking - especially when making five characters at once, as per the optional rules. Further, when we were making characters as a group, the first thing one of the other players asked me for was this exact information so he could make a table of his own on note paper. Then, when the third player finally arrived 20 minutes later, he took the ACKS print-outs and made a similar table on his own as well. So, I don’t know what others think but, at least in my group, this table would be a welcome convenience.
Also, while I was working on this sample table, I noticed Elves no longer have a stat requirement - is that correct? Don’t all demi-humans have a stat requirement? Isn’t that the main difference between them and the Humans, or is it just a Dwarf thing now (which, if the case, doesn’t make a lot of sense either, to have a requirement system in place, which only seems to affect one class - well two classes, technically, but you get the idea. Why Dwarves and no one else)? In fact, upon further investigation, it seems to have disappeared between version 27 and the current version. So, yeah, something else to potentially look into.
Well, it seems my table formatting failed, but I’m sure you get the idea nonetheless.