Search SJML Archives! (Powered by Google)

Previous Message: Winged Mounts (fwd)
Next Message: Re: Flying mounts
Month Index: January, 1995


From:     Robert_Myers@???.??.?????.edu
Date:     Tue, 3 Jan 1995 15:51:27 -0500
Subject:  Re: Flying mounts
Joseph DuBois (scooby@?????????.com) made a good point about flying mount's
SR... You would be lucky to get one with an SR of even 1. So, they're
obviously best suited to close-in fighting... Nobody's mentioned yet how
effective they would be storming a space stronghold, or other slow moving
target, which is a lot of what the Navy uses aircraft for in reality.

I don't however understand Jeremy Pemberton's general opposistion to the
idea, ie:

>  Uhm.  For a single battle?  Do you realize what you are saying?  Lets
> continue with the griffin as an example...  the iny miny little griffin
> would have to be trained all the way to his adulthood and then he shall be
> able to go into that 'single battle', now it takes ages to train the thing,
> lots of money to train it too, not to mention to feed and all, so all this
> money and effort is thrown away 'during a single battle', nope, doesn't work

Aside from the fact that I think flying mounts are cool, I don't think they
unbalance the game (which automatically allows them in my book).

And, one griffin is still pretty formidable, close quarters. Not to mention
if you had about a dozen of them ... let's say hippogriffs though, since
they're more tractible, and let's say they're space-born so they can use
switching gravity planes, and lack of gravity, as effectively as a
character with Space Combat proficiency. I land on your deck with lets say
3-5 hippogriff-mounted warriors, while about that many zip all around and
rain arrows, or crossbow bolts, or small rocks on your deck. Doubt they'd
be to easy to nail with a ballista or catapult, and if they're armored
they're even harder.

And sure, some of them die, but some of them live. Not just a 'single
battle,' but a well trained fighting force, a-la "Battlestar Galactica."
Large "Mount-Carriers" would be support ships for a fleet, getting their
squadrons to the battle, and acting as support platforms for them. Smaller
ships might want to carry just one mount for short range recon, since
they're cheaper than helms (or should be).


"Oh, look. A deserted asteroid/wreck/floating object. Let's take the ship
right up next to it and investigate!"

"No, you fool! Take the hippogriff and fly in to look it over while we
stand back and cover you with the heavy weapons! No reason risking the
entire ship."

 I never liked using big new magic to do something that could be
accomplished with existing resources, which leads me to think flitters are
overpowered. A whole HELM to move _one_ guy around!? That thing could be
carrying an entire shipload of troops!

On another note, ask me about my idea for Gnomish diridgibles sometime. :>

--
   Robert (Rampant) Myers
Robert_Myers@???.??.?????.edu
Robert@????????.???.?????.edu
   Voice: (313) 577-7878
    Fax: (313) 577-6546


       Online Editor
  Assistant Systems Manager
       THE SOUTH END
   Wayne State University
       6001 Cass Ave.
     Detroit, Michigan
          48202




Previous Message: Winged Mounts (fwd)
Next Message: Re: Flying mounts
Month Index: January, 1995

SubjectFromDate (UTC)
Flying mounts    Robert_Myers@???.??.?????.edu    03 Jan 1995 00:51:39
Re: Flying mounts    Jeremy    03 Jan 1995 15:17:10
Flying mounts    Robert_Myers@???.??.?????.edu    03 Jan 1995 20:51:27
Re: Flying mounts    Jeremy    04 Jan 1995 01:17:56

[ SPJ-L@Cornell.edu ] [ Spelljammer@Leicester.ac.uk ] [ Spelljammer@MPGN.com ] [ Spelljammer-L@Oracle.Wizards.com ]