Where the 2ed Hammership looks like this
The 3rd ed looks like
Which looks nothing like a Hammerhead Shark.
The 2ed Tradesman
The 3ed one
2ed Dragonship
3ed one
2ed Dreadnaught
3ed version
2ed Nautiloid
The difference is admittedly more subtle but still unnecessary in the 3ed one (extra fins).
The 2ed Man-o-War
has the same deckplans as the 3ed Warbird
Then there is the Arrowing. Why they thought that the elves needed yet another design is beyond me but here is a 3e only design that is pointless and does not really follow the previous designs used by the elves/
Finally, there is the quintessential Neogi (2e) ship the Deathspider
Which for 3ed they decided to transfer over to the Drow and (at least in 2002) they dropped the Neogi altogether.
All 3ed pictures are from an insert to Polyhedron magazine from 2002.
TR
As some of you know I am somewhat sniffy about the version of Spelljammer that appeared for the 3rd edition of D&D when compared to the original 2nd edition version. While I have no problem with the rules being updated to fit into later editions of the game there were things that I felt went just too far. For example the ship designs as follows.Where the 2ed Hammership looks like this
<Hammership 2e pic>
The 3rd ed looks like <Hammership 3e pic>
Which looks nothing like a Hammerhead Shark.The 2ed Tradesman
<Tradesman 2e pic>
The 3ed one <Tradesman 3e pic>
2ed Dragonship <Dragonship 2e pic>
3ed one <Dragonship 3e pic>
2ed Dreadnaught <Illithid Dreadnought 2e pic>
3ed version <Illithid Dreadnought 3e pic>
2ed Nautiloid <Nautiloid 2e pic>
The difference is admittedly more subtle but still unnecessary in the 3ed one (extra fins). <Nautiloid 3e pic>
The 2ed Man-o-War <2ed Man-o-War pic>
has the same deckplans as the 3ed Warbird <3e Warbird pic>
Then there is the Arrowing. Why they thought that the elves needed yet another design is beyond me but here is a 3e only design that is pointless and does not really follow the previous designs used by the elves. <3e Arrowing pic>
Finally, there is the quintessential Neogi (2e) ship the Deathspider
<2e Neogi Deathspider pic>
Which for 3ed they decided to transfer over to the Drow and (at least in 2002) they dropped the Neogi altogether. <3e Drow Deathspider pic>
All 3ed pictures are from an insert to Polyhedron magazine from 2002.
TR
<quote end>
So are you keeping the 2e ship designs?
Actually there is one 2e ship I wouldn't include (if it was entirely up to me) and that is the clipper. The reason I wouldn't include it is because of the level of technology needed to build them. They were a product of the industrial revolution and (at least in the case of the Cutty Sark see sikipedia entry) featured a lot of large iron parts that couldn't be made in a smithy.
TR
)) entry.TR
I would prefer to do so for myself but as I am not the one doing the serious modelling I don't think it is up to me, all I can do is make a plea to person doing that and at the moment I think we have enough ship designs to make interesting sj modules (both pw and sp). I beleive that a walkable deck system is being developed. But I'll talk more about this in a different discussion thread.Actually there is one 2e ship I wouldn't include (if it was entirely up to me) and that is the clipper. The reason I wouldn't include it is because of the level of technology needed to build them. They were a product of the industrial revolution and (at least in the case of the Cutty Sark see sikipedia entry) featured a lot of large iron parts that couldn't be made in a smithy.TR
I have a question
So are there no planets or whatever in the Spelljammer setting that have achieved Industrial Revolution standard technology?
TR
Not that I am aware of. That said, I am dealing with what are termed the known spheres. Outside of this grouping (of 20+ spheres) there may be. But if there are beings with this capability they do not appear to have made contact. Anyway this would be bringing Spelljammer into the realm of steampunk as opposed to the D&D magic we are familiar with.TR
Ok. Thanks for clarifying that.
What gets me is why the illustrator wanted to make all the large ships look like flying cities! But then I saw what they had done to Illithids and Drow (Never mind the colour look at those ridiculous ears)
TR
The confusion arises because in the May 2002 issue (151) of Polyhedron, (aka Dungeon issue 92) published by Paizo, there was a 49 page (inc 4 whole page illustrations, plus various in the body of the article illustrations roughly equivalent to another 5 pages) article entitled "Spelljammer: Shadow of the Spider Moon" by Andy Collins. This detailed a (of necessity) small campaign setting for the d20 system (ie *not* D&D). Between Andy Collins and the editor of Polyhedron Eric Mona, they agreed to drop the parts of the original Spelljammer that they didn't like such as the whole of the cosmology (crystal spheres etc.) and any monster that wasn't in the monster manual. To quote mr. Mona (when describing the flak he recieved for his comments in the previous issue) -
"I decided to take an irreverent approach, mentioning that Andy’s version of Spelljammer dispensed with some of the “sillier” spects of its venerable predecessor, the AD&D Spelljammer setting that came out in 1989.
Specifically, I referred to the Spelljammer race of hippopotamus-headed gun lovers as “goofy hippo men,” and to the “crystal sphere” fantasy cosmology of the original setting as “wonky.” Perhaps worst of all, I celebrated the fact that Shadow of the Spider Moon contained no giant space hamsters."
Apparently missing the Monty Python references (Wooly Rupert from sj - Spiky Norm from mp, the name of the meat of giant space hamsters being Spa'Ham - mp "spam, spam, spam"). Also there were some factual mistakes (as opposed to anything sj) contained in said article.
Whether or not the fact that Dragonlance was not part of WoTC's D&D in 2002 (it was re-introduced in 2003) had any bearing or that everything had to be deathly serious I don't know but they also dropped the Krynnish gnomes.
A couple of links follow. The first is to the pages on Andy Collins that deal with Spider Moon. There are 3 web pages that explain the creation of the Article, the first of which "Why Spelljammer" explains a lot.
http://www.andycolli...Spelljammer.htm
The second is a link to the wikipedia page for Spelljammer that has a publication timeline on it.
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Spelljammer
Finally if anyone is interested in the Spider Moon setting, Paizo still sell this particular back issue in pdf format (which is what I bought).
TR
-----
Having now got my hands on Spider Moon and looking around the internet I have discovered some things that you may see as a bit of a bombshell. Spelljammer 3e is a total misnomer. There is no 3e Spelljammer. Spelljammer is/was a D&D setting. For the entirety of it's life 3e (including 3.5) had zero Spelljammer material published for it. In 4th edition Wizards of the Coast have only published a small section of the Manual of the Planes (or whatever they called it) that deals with Spelljammer.
<quote end>
Well, that's for the better :-) We only need to cater for the 2e stuff and treat the Spider Moon addendum as optional content or inspiration.
// END END END END //
Retour en haut
