|
Anachronistic Adventurers: The Enforcer
Skilled at the use of force, calm under fire, and able to adapt and overcome, the enforcer is the epitome of the modern combatant: soldier, mercenary, SWAT operative, mafia hit man, or even martial arts champion. As adept with the tools of personal combat as most people are with the TV remote, the enforcer is comfortable with anything from an M1911 to a mini-gun.
Or, when stranded in a primitive land and being rushed by orcs, a morningstar.
The modern combatant stuck in a primitive, fantasy-themed world is a common trope in adventure fiction, especially the "planetary romances" of early fantasy. Each volume in the Anachronistic Adventurers series examines a modern character type in relation to a typical fantasy setting, complete with classes, equipment, feats, and other relevant rules.
Anachronistic Adventurers : The Enforcer is 19 pages long (1 cover page, 7 pages of the enforcer class and it's archetypes, 4 pages of firearms and alternate firearms rules, 2 pages of feats and feat-design explanation, 4 pages on Progress levels and Progress Level Proficiency, and 1 page of credits), and represents the first in a line of PDF products given rules for modern adventurers in a more primitive but fantastic setting.
I had to stop myself from jumping up and down as I read this...*starts download from dungeon a day*
So, I like it, I like the product line, and I am almost certainly replacing a playtest gunslinger npc with this class. Also, it is a near spot on toolset for creating many of the characters needed for a campaign in Stephen King's the dark tower series which has long been a goal of mine.
I will admit that I would have prefered a little more in the way of set abilities (rather then everything being a choice), but it seems that modern inspired products require that level of flexibility. I am not sure how I feel about the anacronistic archetypes being spread throughout multiple products. I sincerley hope that each product is strongly themed, so we dont end up with the mess that was Saga Edition's talents being scattered accross a ton of books with no clear indicator of what book had options for what kind of character.
3+int skills... Interesting. Since this is presumably setting neutral I assume this isnt meant like d20 modern's odd skill totals are with the presumption the character is human? Or is that the case?
Does the movement in Duck provoke attacks of opportunity?
I dont particularly like the Precision Attack Talent. I have always felt feats and abilities like this should be far more limited, or else it invalidates strength based characters. Dex is already an especially valued ability score, allowing such easy access to replacing strength for damage seems unreasonable to me. I probably would remove this talent if one of my players wanted to use the class.
Minor nitpick, there isnt really an obvious divide from where the class description stops (after Enforcement) and where the archetypes begin (with combatant) besides the different font for the first Archetype name.
On Page 8 the second part of cross training has me confused.
"At 9th, 14th, and 17th level, the prize fighter
gains an additional +1 inherent bonus, applied
to whatever ability score is lowest at the time
this benefit is gained. If this would result in the
prize fighter having two +1 inherent bonuses to
the same ability score or a +1 and a +2, or a +1
and a +3, instead the higher inherent bonus is
increased by 1."
I just dont follow what you are trying to say here.
Burst Fire on Page 12:
Why on earth did you choose CMB/CMD for this? Why should a T-Rex be harder to hit by a burst of fire because it is the size of a house and because it is incredibly strong? This just doesnt make any sense to me.
At higher levels this will become more or less worthless as it is nearly impossible to keep pace with CMD's with your CMB.
Avoidance:
So, when you take improved avoidance your ac bonus is 4+1/2 BAB and Superior Avoidance is 8+1/2 your bab? Is that correct?
Also I am not sure I agree with the idea that this needs to be a feat tax in order to maintain balance. The first feat is inferior to a monks wisdom bonus, and is only slightly surpased by Improved and superior avoidance. I think it would have made more sense to allow players to choose between avoidance and armor proficiencies at level one, maybe even improved avoidance and superior armor. Sure they dont have to spend resources on armor, but chances are they have to manage extremely costly or unavailable firearm resources, so that evens out.
Also I understand the need to inflate firearms prices in a fantasy setting, but if the characters are supposed to use them their cost especially at low levels has to be rational. DM's need some kind of guideline on their relative worth for characters intended to start with them.
It is mentioned that one of the intended tropes is the character that is transported to a fantasy setting with weapons in hand, but that is literally impossible unless the character starts at an extremely high level. None of the archetypes are listed as starting with any specific weapon, and given their starting gold and the price guidelines, they arent able to without the DM handwaving it. We need some kind of guidelines for that sort of thing, besides the 'guns are crazy rare oddities' that is assumed by most fantasy settings.
Overall I like this product and what it is trying to do and I look forward to the rest. But I am leery of the lack of structure to the class, and hope that isnt going to get worse as more products are released.
Edit:
I also have a couple questions about firearms. It isnt clear if the descriptions were cut or what have you, but do you intend to include special rules for things like shotguns or carbines? In addition while size is addressed, light, one-handed or two-handed is not addressed. Is there a meaning behind light, heavy and massive for revolvers, pistols and shotguns? Presumably all shotguns, carbines and rifles are two handed, but what about the pistols? How do they break down?
|
|
So, I like it, I like the product line, and I am almost certainly replacing a playtest gunslinger npc with this class. Also, it is a near spot on toolset for creating many of the characters needed for a campaign in Stephen King's the dark tower series which has long been a goal of mine.
Yeah, a lot of the playtest feedback and development commentary I've gotten on this class (and this whole product line) mentions using it for Dark tower games. Which is cool. I didn't originally have DT in mind when I started this, but I can see how it would work for that.
I am not sure how I feel about the anacronistic archetypes being spread throughout multiple products. I sincerley hope that each product is strongly themed
Certainly having very strong themes to the archetypes presented in each book is the plan. And I doubt we'll ever has as many Anachronistic Adventurer products as there are Star Wars Saga products. And of course if it does grow to such a number, we may compile and expand a lot of the material into one source.
The idea behind the modern archetypes is twofold. First, by balancing all the archetypes against each other, we make it easier to have ideas like army medics (enforcer + a future doctor archetype designed primarily for the in-development Academic class) and warrior-scientists (Academic class & combatant archetype). This creates a system where lots and lots of modern ideas can be created with relatively few rules modules, without telling players "you have to multiclass as a fast hero 2/strong hero 2/combat medic 1 to do that character idea."
Second, it means if you want to use our other archetype books, you can have a devil dog paladin, a knee-breaker inquisitor, and a blacksnake enforcer. That flexibility 9and easy way to mix modern and class class abilities for different campaigns and backgrounds) is just too useful to resict the archetypes to just one class.
3+int skills... Interesting. Since this is presumably setting neutral I assume this isnt meant like d20 modern's odd skill totals are with the presumption the character is human? Or is that the case?
The material is setting neutral (or as setting neutral as we could make it). The 3 skill points is the class base, a human enforcer adds +1 skill point/level to that, just like a human in every other class. An enforcer gets more skill points than a fighter, but not as many as a barbarian. There's no game balance reason why a class must have an even number of skill points at each level, and this number met my needs best in playtest.
Does the movement in Duck provoke attacks of opportunity?
Yes. It's also optional. You can move 10 feet when you use Duck, you are not required to.
I dont particularly like the Precision Attack Talent. I have always felt feats and abilities like this should be far more limited, or else it invalidates strength based characters. Dex is already an especially valued ability score, allowing such easy access to replacing strength for damage seems unreasonable to me. I probably would remove this talent if one of my players wanted to use the class.
All I can say is in playtest, the talent did not invalidate strength builds. For one thing the fact it can't be added to a 2-handed sword or greataxe keeps Strength the king of damage production.
On Page 8 the second part of cross training has me confused.
The character gets to boost his lowest physical stat. Since inherent bonuses don't stack, if he's already gained a +1 inherent bonus, rather than add a second +1 inherent bonus (which would have no effect), his +1 bonus becomes a +2.
"At 9th, 14th, and 17th level, the prize fighter
gains an additional +1 inherent bonus, applied
to whatever ability score is lowest at the time
this benefit is gained. If this would result in the
prize fighter having two +1 inherent bonuses to
the same ability score or a +1 and a +2, or a +1
and a +3, instead the higher inherent bonus is
increased by 1."
Burst Fire on Page 12:
Why on earth did you choose CMB/CMD for this? Why should a T-Rex be harder to hit by a burst of fire because it is the size of a house and because it is incredibly strong? This just doesnt make any sense to me.
It worked best in playtest. And there are plenty of comics and similar action adventure stories where an effort to take down a T-Rex with an uzi just seems to annoy the beast. In this case, CMD acts a lot like AC, it's not just a matter if the bullets from your burst fire hit, but how many shots were "effective," and massive, powerful monsters shrugging off such attacks both does not bother me, and kept the burst fire rules from being instant dragon-slayers, which was important for game balance.
Avoidance:
So, when you take improved avoidance your ac bonus is 4+1/2 BAB and Superior Avoidance is 8+1/2 your bab? Is that correct?
Noting that the 1/2 your BAB cannot exceed 4, yes.
Also I am not sure I agree with the idea that this needs to be a feat tax in order to maintain balance. The first feat is inferior to a monks wisdom bonus, and is only slightly surpased by Improved and superior avoidance. I think it would have made more sense to allow players to choose between avoidance and armor proficiencies at level one, maybe even improved avoidance and superior armor.
That made multiclassing into another class that had such proficiencies waaay too attractive. I played with these numbers and options a lot, and every other way of doing it allowed some playtester to make a broken character.
Also I understand the need to inflate firearms prices in a fantasy setting, but if the characters are supposed to use them their cost especially at low levels has to be rational. DM's need some kind of guideline on their relative worth for characters intended to start with them.
It's up to a GM to decide how to handle the question of allowing an enforcer to start with firearms. The costs are a realistic look at their value. Since many home campaigns allow players to start with one magic item, or start games at higher levels, GMs can decide if they want to set things up so an enforcer can start with one. If other characters aren't getting a similar gear advantage, the enforcer *shouldn't* start with one of these firearms.
I also have a couple questions about firearms. It isnt clear if the descriptions were cut or what have you, but do you intend to include special rules for things like shotguns or carbines?
There is no plan to add any more special rules than already exist. The main differences are range mod, damage, and if they have the burst quality.
In addition while size is addressed, light, one-handed or two-handed is not addressed.
Projectile weapons in Pathfinder are not defined as light, one-handed or two-handed. If you look at "Projectile Weapons" on page 141 of the core rulebook, you'll see the baseline assumptin is a projectile weapon requires 2 hands unless its description says other wise. Therefore the rules in AA: The Enforcer on page 10 under "Firearms" (‘Firearms are a subcategory of projectile weapons. Unlike the typical projectile weapons of the core rules, many firearms can be used one-handed. For purposes of these rules all pistols can be used one-handed, and carbines, rifles and shotguns can be used one-handed with a –4 penalty to attack rolls.') covers everything you need to know about use.
Kolokotroni wrote:
I dont particularly like the Precision Attack Talent. I have always felt feats and abilities like this should be far more limited, or else it invalidates strength based characters. Dex is already an especially valued ability score, allowing such easy access to replacing strength for damage seems unreasonable to me. I probably would remove this talent if one of my players wanted to use the class.All I can say is in playtest, the talent did not invalidate strength builds. For one thing the fact it can't be added to a 2-handed sword or greataxe keeps Strength the king of damage production.
What do you mean? I dont see why it doesnt work with say an Elven Curveblade? There arent alot of 2handed finessable weapons, but they do exist.
Kolokotroni wrote:
Burst Fire on Page 12:
Why on earth did you choose CMB/CMD for this? Why should a T-Rex be harder to hit by a burst of fire because it is the size of a house and because it is incredibly strong? This just doesnt make any sense to me.It worked best in playtest. And there are plenty of comics and similar action adventure stories where an effort to take down a T-Rex with an uzi just seems to annoy the beast. In this case, CMD acts a lot like AC, it's not just a matter if the bullets from your burst fire hit, but how many shots were "effective," and massive, powerful monsters shrugging off such attacks both does not bother me, and kept the burst fire rules from being instant dragon-slayers, which was important for game balance.
While it is true the t-rex wont go down, it isnt because it is big and strong, it is because it has natural armor, dr, and a ton of hd. It breaks the cohesiveness of the system. For instance a human dragon disciple shouldnt be any more bullet resistant then a human monk, but his beefed up strength means burst fire doesnt work as well against him.
I'll have to run some numbers and do a little play testing but I may just replace this with a version from d20 modern slightly modified.
Kolokotroni wrote:
Also I am not sure I agree with the idea that this needs to be a feat tax in order to maintain balance. The first feat is inferior to a monks wisdom bonus, and is only slightly surpased by Improved and superior avoidance. I think it would have made more sense to allow players to choose between avoidance and armor proficiencies at level one, maybe even improved avoidance and superior armor.That made multiclassing into another class that had such proficiencies waaay too attractive. I played with these numbers and options a lot, and every other way of doing it allowed some playtester to make a broken character.
How attractive did it really make it? I mean it adds to dexterity bonus, so that means armor's will put caps on it right? I think just putting progressive dex requirements on this would have done more then enough to discourage it's use with overlapping armor (that or restricting it in armor).
Kolokotroni wrote:
Also I understand the need to inflate firearms prices in a fantasy setting, but if the characters are supposed to use them their cost especially at low levels has to be rational. DM's need some kind of guideline on their relative worth for characters intended to start with them.It's up to a GM to decide how to handle the question of allowing an enforcer to start with firearms. The costs are a realistic look at their value. Since many home campaigns allow players to start with one magic item, or start games at higher levels, GMs can decide if they want to set things up so an enforcer can start with one. If other characters aren't getting a similar gear advantage, the enforcer *shouldn't* start with one of these firearms.
So you think a light revolver worth the same as a Masterwork Composite Longbow with a +4 strength rating? And that its amunition its ammunition is worth 120 times as much? That seems rather inflated given its actual in game worth dont you? Certainly some of the Higher pl weapons are rather valuable, but the basic ones, light automatic, light revolver, these seem pretty close to the value of what a longbow in terms of what they can actually do.
Also I noticed another minor nitpick. In the weapons chart, presumably the value in the dmg column for sight and laster sight should be moved to the range column.
Kolokotroni wrote:
In addition while size is addressed, light, one-handed or two-handed is not addressed.Projectile weapons in Pathfinder are not defined as light, one-handed or two-handed. If you look at "Projectile Weapons" on page 141 of the core rulebook, you'll see the baseline assumptin is a projectile weapon requires 2 hands unless its description says other wise. Therefore the rules in AA: The Enforcer on page 10 under "Firearms" (‘Firearms are a subcategory of projectile weapons. Unlike the typical projectile weapons of the core rules, many firearms can be used one-handed. For purposes of these rules all pistols can be used one-handed, and carbines, rifles and shotguns can be used one-handed with a –4 penalty to attack rolls.') covers everything you need to know about use.
I know that normally projectile weapons are two handed, but I presumed that for firearms, particularly pistols, exceptions would be made like there is for the light crossbow and hand crossbow.
I think for my purposes I will distinguish in a similar way between light, heavy and massive pistols (light - counts as a light weapon for 2weapon fighting, heavy pistol counts as light but at an additional -2, and massive -4 penalty and counts as one handed if used in two weapon fighting.
Aaaaaand SGG sneaks into the modern-ruleset arena!
:thumbsup:
Aaaaaand SGG sneaks into the modern-ruleset arena!
:thumbsup:
Sneaks? Seems like they lined up an invasion army a while back then got sidetracked due to funds and other projects (I'm looking at you dungeon a day).
|
|
Kolokotroni wrote:
I dont particularly like the Precision Attack Talent. I have always felt feats and abilities like this should be far more limited, or else it invalidates strength based characters. Dex is already an especially valued ability score, allowing such easy access to replacing strength for damage seems unreasonable to me. I probably would remove this talent if one of my players wanted to use the class.All I can say is in playtest, the talent did not invalidate strength builds. For one thing the fact it can't be added to a 2-handed sword or greataxe keeps Strength the king of damage production.
What do you mean? I dont see why it doesnt work with say an Elven Curveblade? There arent alot of 2handed finessable weapons, but they do exist.
All I can say is in playtest, the talent did not invalidate strength builds. For one thing the fact it can't be added to a 2-handed sword or greataxe keeps Strength the king of damage production.What do you mean? I dont see why it doesnt work with say an Elven Curveblade? There arent alot of 2handed finessable weapons, but they do exist.Sorry, by 2-handed sword I specifically meant the greatwsord, not all sword that happen to require 2 hands.
It worked best in playtest. And there are plenty of comics and similar action adventure stories where an effort to take down a T-Rex with an uzi just seems to annoy the beast. In this case, CMD acts a lot like AC, it's not just a matter if the bullets from your burst fire hit, but how many shots were "effective," and massive, powerful monsters shrugging off such attacks both does not bother me, and kept the burst fire rules from being instant dragon-slayers, which was important for game balance.While it is true the t-rex wont go down, it isnt because it is big and strong, it is because it has natural armor, dr, and a ton of hd. It breaks the cohesiveness of the system. For instance a human dragon disciple shouldnt be any more bullet resistant then a human monk, but his beefed up strength means burst fire doesnt work as well against him.
I'll have to run some numbers and do a little play testing but I may just replace this with a version from d20 modern slightly modified.
Again, in my playtests, this is the answer that worked best. I know it bends the logic some, but that happens with most game rules at some point. For example, if Strength adds to attack rolls in melee because you can punch through armor, why do you still get your Strength bonus against targets with no armor or natural armor (or similar defensive bonus)? If Strength helps you hit for any other reason, why doesn't a composite longbow with a Strength bonus add the Strength modifier to attack rolls and damage? There's no good answer other than game balance, and that same reason drove me to use CMB/CMD, as it's fast, uses numbers already on a character's sheet, and works well in play.
That made multiclassing into another class that had such proficiencies waaay too attractive. I played with these numbers and options a lot, and every other way of doing it allowed some playtester to make a broken character.How attractive did it really make it? I mean it adds to dexterity bonus, so that means armor's will put caps on it right? I think just putting progressive dex requirements on this would have done more then enough to discourage it's use with overlapping armor (that or restricting it in armor).Progressive Dex requirements puts it out of reach of the modern characters who need it most, which doesn't solve the character concept problem. Giving it out free immediately has people arranging to have access to mage armor and shield and gets broken very, very quickly.
Obviously play style can affect what seems reasonable. But all other answers got badly broken very quickly by multiple playtesters, so this is the solution I felt I had to go with.
So you think a light revolver worth the same as a Masterwork Composite Longbow with a +4 strength rating? And that its amunition its ammunition is worth 120 times as much?Yes. Unreservedly, absolutely, unequivocally yes. It's not just about damage. It's about damage, using just 1 hand, as a move action, with critical hit confirmation rolls against touch AC. There isn't even a hint of concern in my mind that I priced these items too high.
I know that normally projectile weapons are two handed, but I presumed that for firearms, particularly pistols, exceptions would be made like there is for the light crossbow and hand crossbow.Exceptions are made. You just quoted the section of the rules that says pistols can be used 1-handed, carbines, rifles and shotguns can be used 1 handed with a -4 penalty to the attack roll.
Certainly having very strong themes to the archetypes presented in each book is the plan. And I doubt we'll ever has as many Anachronistic Adventurer products as there are Star Wars Saga products. And of course if it does grow to such a number, we may compile and expand a lot of the material into one source.
I said it elsewhere, but I want to go on record here as well.
THIS. And make it available in softcover!
Sneaks? Seems like they lined up an invasion army a while back then got sidetracked due to lack of patronage funds and other projects (I'm looking at you dungeon a day).Aaaaaand SGG sneaks into the modern-ruleset arena!
:thumbsup:
FIFY.
I, for one, embrace our new overlords. I still sigh from that only meeting a 1/10th of the mark (as I am sure you are IIRC you were one of the six if you know what I mean.
Sneaks? Seems like they lined up an invasion army a while back then got sidetracked due to lack of patronage funds and other projects (I'm looking at you dungeon a day).Aaaaaand SGG sneaks into the modern-ruleset arena!
:thumbsup:FIFY.
I, for one, embrace our new overlords. I still sigh from that only meeting a 1/10th of the mark (as I am sure you are IIRC you were one of the six if you know what I mean.
Yep, I was, it was a shame, but not everything goes the way you want it to. And I dont think they are the new overloards, but they certainly struck a blow with this product.
hmmm, I just thought of another question. To firearms count as a single weapon group for the purpose of weapon training? My initial thought is to split them up into pistols and longarms, but I couldnt find anything in the pdf to support it.
Yep, I was, it was a shame, but not everything goes the way you want it to. And I dont think they are the new overloards, but they certainly struck a blow with this product.
True. Wishful thinking on my part. I just want someone to assume the mantle and have the community embrace it as a somewhat-formal-standardization as a means of a building blocks for other things.
So far, the only company that has managed to pull that off effectively with a niche product is DSP with Psionics Unleashed.
I'm trying to be optimistic, K. Operative word is trying. :)
Well I have no doubt that SGG could pull off an effort the way dreamscarred did, but I understand it didnt make business sense given their situation. We shall see what comes of this new product line.
To that end Owen, if you dont mind me picking your brain a little, I was looking at the Super Genius Martial Archetypes, and had a thought of using the weapon champion archetype with the enforcer. Do you think it would be too powerful to add burstfire to the list of manuevers a weapon champion can add to with 'weapon advantages'?
|
|
And of course if it does grow to such a number, we may compile and expand a lot of the material into one source.I said it elsewhere, but I want to go on record here as well.
THIS. And make it available in softcover!
That's the hope. :)
hmmm, I just thought of another question. To firearms count as a single weapon group for the purpose of weapon training? My initial thought is to split them up into pistols and longarms, but I couldnt find anything in the pdf to support it.
That's a great question, and one I admit we'll have to tackle at some point. There are a few ways it could go.
First, I'd say by RAW you just can't use weapon training with firearms, since there's no firearms weapon group listed. I don't know that this would be the best option, though it does have the effect of making fighters less dangerous with modern weapons which some groups might prefer.
The second option would be to lump all firearms together into one category. Like you, I think this might be a bit much.
Third, some kind of break-out. I'd be tempted to make it pistols, shotguns, and carbines and rifles. But without a longer list of firearms, that might be too specialized. I certainly think pistols and longarms is a solid and balanced option. Having fired shotguns and rifles I knee-jerk against making them one category, but this might be a place where my sense of how the rules should model reality needs to take a back-seat to good rule design for the game.
To that end Owen, if you dont mind me picking your brain a little, I was looking at the Super Genius Martial Archetypes, and had a thought of using the weapon champion archetype with the enforcer. Do you think it would be too powerful to add burstfire to the list of manuevers a weapon champion can add to with 'weapon advantages'?
Given that normally you get to add it to a small set of maneuvers, I think allowing burst fire as a single maneuver you could increase with Weapon Advantage is fine. Neat idea, even!
hmmm, I just thought of another question. To firearms count as a single weapon group for the purpose of weapon training? My initial thought is to split them up into pistols and longarms, but I couldnt find anything in the pdf to support it.That's a great question, and one I admit we'll have to tackle at some point. There are a few ways it could go.
First, I'd say by RAW you just can't use weapon training with firearms, since there's no firearms weapon group listed. I don't know that this would be the best option, though it does have the effect of making fighters less dangerous with modern weapons which some groups might prefer.
Fighters maybe, but Combatant Archetype Enforcers should be able to take weapon training(through combat training) in Firearms in my opinion.
The second option would be to lump all firearms together into one category. Like you, I think this might be a bit much.Third, some kind of break-out. I'd be tempted to make it pistols, shotguns, and carbines and rifles. But without a longer list of firearms, that might be too specialized. I certainly think pistols and longarms is a solid and balanced option. Having fired shotguns and rifles I knee-jerk against making them one category, but this might be a place where my sense of how the rules should model reality needs to take a back-seat to good rule design for the game.
My knee jerk is similar, but d20 modern made a similar distinction if I remember correctly, and probably for good reason. I've fired all of the available categories and aside from the 'point at the thing you want to die' method, they are very very different weapons. A colt revolver and a glock 18 have very little to do with eachother.
However are they really more different then the comparative difference between a rapier and a star knife (light blades), or a hand axe and an orc double axe? How about a whip and a morning star? The weapon groups are already pretty arbitrary, mostly like you said, for the sake of game design.
IME, while there are differences between firing a revolver and firing a semiauto pistol, once you spread it out over a 6-second round they are effectively the same skill. Shotguns and rifles fall into this same frame - there are differences, but are minute enough to disappear when considered in a six-second-round framework.
|
|
Fighters maybe, but Combatant Archetype Enforcers should be able to take weapon training(through combat training) in Firearms in my opinion.
I agree with you on what's a good idea. I was just starting with the raw answer, which in this case I think is a bad one.
My knee jerk is similar, but d20 modern made a similar distinction if I remember correctly, and probably for good reason.
[snip]
However are they really more different then the comparative difference between a rapier and a star knife (light blades), or a hand axe and an orc double axe?
I have a lot less experience with an orc double axe than a shotgun (grin), but that's still a really good point.
I think I'd settle on pistols and longarms being the two categories. I'll see about starting an errata list.
Another one is up over at DTRPG/RPGNow...
Link to the review at RPGNow.
Thanks - I *knew* I was forgetting something... the LINK! sheesh...
:thumbsup:
As I mentioned to Megan in another thread, I'm trying to do a better job of writing reviews of the products I buy, especially if they have no reviews yet, so that the karma builds up for the day *I* have a product out there.
Someday...