Might I suggest using the same artist for the various sections. For instance, it might be good to use the same artist for all of the racial drawings. Some of the styles seem to clash slightly IMO. I think the Dwarves, Elves, and Half-Orcs are very well done. The Halfling just seems out of place or at least of a different style. Also I've noticed that some art is reused in various places.
As the preface on the Credits page says, some of the art currently in the book is placeholder art. If you recall, earlier versions had preliminary sketches of the half-orc, and now we have the finals. In some cases, I don't even have the preliminary sketches, so I put in what I did have, until I get something more definite.
So, there will be more artwork and replacement of some of the existing artwork as things progress.
Page 18 - I still think Skill Ranks are too expensive at higher levels. Perhaps you could put in a note saying that if a GM wants their characters to advance faster to give out more CPs per level (20, 25, etc). Also several players have mentioned that there are lots of skills and not a lot of CPs to spend on them. None of my players have spent ranks on Standard Skills because they are even more expensive.
But before I make ANY changes to the upper level skill costs, I would like to see some folks try out different costs to see how it works out.
I would have no problems changing it to something a bit smaller, but as I said, it needs to be tested further.
And don't forget that one of the reasons for the increasing costs IS to slow development down at higher levels, so that we don't end up with ungodly skill bonuses.
Then again, we also have a limit of 1 rank per skill per level once that particular skill has a number of ranks equal to the Stat Value of the associated stat, so having smaller (but still increasing) costs might not be a bad thing.
What I would like to see is a separate thread discussing this, and putting out several ideas and trying them out to see what the results look like.
Page 19 -
Characters may always attempt to accomplish physical skills even if they do not have any ranks in the skill. When doing so, the TN of the task is increased by 5 points. Conversely, instead of raising the TN of the task, the GM could just assign a -5 modifier to the player's roll. Mental skills, such as the Lore skills, will have their TN increased by 10 (or have their roll modified by -10) when attempted without any ranks in the skill. Success in such cases indicates that the character may have heard somebody else talking about it without realizing it and was able to dredge up the memory.
I'm not sure if these are needed. If a skill has zero ranks and only has a stat modifier they already have a pretty low chance of succeeding at the task.
Attempting something with no training is always harder than with training. But then again, you may be correct in that I am letting my past influence me, and the goal of the system IS to have fun....
I will consider removing the modifier for the physical skills, and perhaps adding notes in the GM section about untrained skills being 1-2 more Difficult than for those who have training (i.e. leaving it up to the GM to decide, based on the situation).
Page 27
Major Adept
Cost: 25
Trainable: No
Description: This is the most powerful type of spell caster. Major Adepts have the lowest cost on all Codified spells, gaining a 2 Character Point discount on the cost of all Codified spells (i.e. if a Codified spell is listed as costing 5 CP, the Major Adept only pays 3 CP for it). Major Adepts start with a base of 10 + Magic Stat Bonus in Spell Points. A Minor Adept may upgrade to a Major Adept for a cost of 12 Character Points.
You seem to use the words Codified Spells more than you need to.
quite possibly....
Page 30, the last line of text for the Lute is below the picture, I think the last line should be above the picture.
will fix.... as it should ALL be on one side of image...
Page 30, the multi-tool has a negative 20 modifier if you use it as a weapon? Isn't that a bit of a steep penalty?
Oopsey... This item is actually based on part of an "Adventurer's Kit" that a GM I had while in the Army handed out to all PCs in his AD&D campaigns (I still have the printout he gave us -- I will post the whole kit in another thread). I later adopted it and was going to include it a certain project that you were a playtester for that never saw the light of day.
I cribbed that description for here (cause it IS such a cool tool), and missed adjusting
Page 30, shouldn't the quick release be listed in A.P.s instead of a percentage of the round?
yup, will fix....
Page 35
War Hammer - The War Hammer resembles a hammer on one side, with a single spike on the reverse, allowing the wielder to do either a crush or puncture critical at will, utilizing but a single skill. Dwarves are often fond of utilizing this as a thrown weapon as well.
Doing a Crush or Puncture Critical sounds like HARP or Rolemaster, is this left over from those games?
More like just a hold-over of terminology and habits of how I phrased things when writing for those games, since Novus doesn't actually have criticals.
However, Novus weapons DO have damage types, so the War Hammer can do either Bashing or Piercing damage.
Page 38
In an earlier section you mention that Initiative is a non-explosive roll, but in the initiative section you don't mention that. My players seem to like the dice exploding for initiative, and I agree with them.
Can you point out where I mention that it is non-explosive? I am willing to make it explosive, but don't want to make it implosive.
Page 41
Mark: "I want my character to run to the door,
kicking the rope into the hole for Andy's character
along the way, and drawing his sword at the same
time and then melee attack the Orcs with whatever
percentage he has left."
Instead of percentage shouldn't you use A.P.?
Good Point
