Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Grindhouse Edition Character Sheet Posted!

It's right there on download links area on the left.

It's pretty much just a minor update to the old sheet (once again by Jeremy Jagosz), with the back page cleaned up a bit and the front page now showing the updated Common Activities list (with neater graphics for the spellcasters).

If you see anything wrong with it, please let me know. :)


  1. This was true of the first one also, but there isn't a place to record what spells a M-U has in their spellbook.

  2. Any space left for that would be "dead space" for 5/7th of characters, and with well over 100 spells possible (and that's just from the official lists), no amount of space given would be enough for a MU or Elf with a long career.

  3. That is often why spells have their own sheet.

    Jim, I don't know what you want me to do with the magic-user and cleric spells illustration. I didn't know how to fill out that section on the old sheet and I still don't. Just tell me what you want me to do, it's driving me nuts!!!

  4. hehe. This one will be explained more in the character sheet recap pages in the new edition.

    Fill in one circle for every spell level you're able to cast, and note in the triangle just inside the dot which level it is. You do not have to start at the 12:00 position and subsequent levels do not have to be noted next to the previous. You do not have to go clockwise or counter-clockwise.

  5. Would I be correct to assume you want us to play the first "viable" character (i.e., with attribute bonuses totaling at or above 0) we roll up?

  6. What?!?!?! The 7 pointed star? Ominous. I'm rolling up a cleric, possible several. just in case...

  7. @ Jim

    A good point. When I started my recent campaign the firs thing the M-U's player asked was why the hell there wasn't a place for spells, so I thought I'd bring it up.

  8. Architecture?

    I'm an architect now? Horn-rimmed glasses and elbow patches?


    Also the skills are still missing the 'filled-in' dot - all characters start with one dot?

    Standard attack and parry should also have a dot.

    Get rid of architecture. It's crazy stupid.

    Oh, and that architecture skill... It's fucked.

  9. The dots should not be pre-filled in. Players should manually fill them in to be consciously aware of their abilities rather than just gloss over them.

    As for Architecture, it replaces the old Dwarf abilities. It isn't Dungeoneering or any sort of Underground thing, really, since it can be used outdoors. It isn't Craft or anything like that since it's all about determining the properties of what's there instead of making anything.

    It will be useful for determining the origins of structures as well as the soundness and properties of those structures. Faithful to the dwarf abilities and with a greater application, hopefully inspiring Referees to make the physical properties of their adventure locations more detailed and interesting (which they don't seem to have been inspired to do by dwarfs having those abilities...).

    I always played D&D thieves like Indiana Jones and not like a criminal, and the "professional adventurer" should be able to determine "who built this place," or at least "when," by a careful examination of the evidence.

    If you've got something better than Architecture but that still fits this concept, then out with it.

  10. masonry?

    does include craft, sure, but so does architecture. both don't fit the bill perfectly, but considering the dwarven ability applies to stone structures only then masonry might work better.

    or you could simply expand the scope of potential use and simply call it "lore" or "knowledge", applicable to anything a specialist might know stuff about (might also double as a "streetwise skill"). i don't think that would unbalance anything.

  11. Love the new Common Activities section, and the stars for spell levels are a great idea - evocative and functional. Only one gripe about the new sheet - it seems a bit rough, by which I mean low-res, as though it was exported to PDF using the "smallest possible file size" setting. This is particularly noticeable in the Encumbrance section on the back page. The Deluxe sheet is much cleaner in this respect.

    This is a little off-topic, but I've been a bit out of the loop - will there be an update document with the changes for those of us with the Deluxe Edition? I like the sound of the revisions you've made, judging by the character sheet anyway.

  12. Yeah, the sheet's a bit rough. The "real" file is 700k and I was trying to get it down somewhere near what the previous file was. I'll get it better sorted closer to release time, this is just so the Skype players have something new and shiny (er, fuzzy...) to use for the games.

    There will be a separate PDF detailing the rules changes, yes..

  13. A replacement for Architechture?

    Got to be 'Stoner'.

  14. Frankly, Architecture is fine, never mind Hogscape. The only other entirely fitting term is Structural Engineering, but that sounds too long-winded and anachronistic.

    Although, maybe Construction(s) or Building(s) could get a pass.

  15. You should correct the spelling for Mêlée (the accent on the second e is wrong on your sheet).

  16. I think Gregor's on the right track - Engineering would be apropos, I think. Doesn't have to be structural.

    (Although, since my father is a civil engineer, I'm suddenly envisioning dwarven adventurers conducting some of the soil stability analyses that he does...)

  17. >>You should correct the spelling for Mêlée (the accent on the second e is wrong on your sheet).

    Ah, thank you for catching that one. I'll get it fixed. Luckily it's spelled correctly within the rulebooks. :D

  18. Revised character sheet posted. It should be a smaller filesize (will look fuzzy onscreen but prints out fine on my side) and Mêlée should be fixed.

  19. The Surprise Chance square has always bothered me. On both sheets, it appears that the PC has a 4 in 6 chance to succeed. Having white dots represent the base 2 in 6 chance seems counter-intuitive. Either make it blank like the rest, or have 2 black dots! ;)

  20. I like Engineer or Engineering better as a skill name than Architecture, too. Strictly speaking, the architect just draws the building so that it is aesthetically pleasing to the client. Making sure it doesn't fall down (and making sure a mine doesn't collapse) is the engineer's job.

    Most of the really famous architects are also civil engineers. It's those engineering skills that put Frank Lloyd Wright and Santiago Calatrava in the top ranks of world architecture. If they had no engineering skills, they couldn't build their ideas in real life, and the only way they could get people to interact with them would be to run D&D.