Re: Spelljammer Construction System (Part II)

    Due to the holiday season my reply is a bit late...

Wilson, M.D. meandered fecklessly...

[ a lot of stuff on the differences between a light
and medium catapult snipped, due to the fact I
use my own weapons stats and really have nothing
to add]

> >> Anyway, I'd probably recommend 2500 gp
> >> or so per weapon mount; most listed ships only have 2 or 3 weapons on
> >them,
> >> instead of the 5 to 10 this system allows them. We need something to
> >> explain the difference.
> >
> >    Do you mean 2500 gp to mount a weapon off-deck?
> >Seems very extreme.
>
> I meant for every weapon mount on the ship, whether it's included in the
> frame tonnage or not.
>
> Yes, it is rather high, higher in fact than the cost of the weapon.
> Compared with helm costs, though, it's rather low. Also keep in mind that
a
> Merchant (from the CSFH) can pull in 1500 gp or so a week with a
Tradesman,
> assuming that there's more than one port within a sphere. But with costs
> like that, merchant ships and such are going to mostly eschew weapons
> (having maybe 1 or 2), leaving the "armored porcupine" look for the
warships.

    Don't get me wrong, I am not a realism freak.  But how do you justify
a cost of 2500 gold to mount a weapon on a deck?  Although a fee for
using a crane or a wagon to get it on, plus a fee for bolting it to the
deck
seem reasonable, 2500 gold is just way too much.  For 2000 you could
have a wizard teleport the thing onto your deck!
    As for the Tradesman, the reason he does not add lotsa weapons
is because these weapons require men and shot to use.  Extra men
require space and support crew, which means the ship can carry less
goods.  Plus paying and supporting all the extra crew takes money!
Not to mention the air problems that come with having lotsa men on
board.

> Of course, if you were _trying_ to increase the numbers of weapons
carried
> by everyone, great. I was simply proposing a mechanism to explain the low
> weapon usage in the original boxed set ships (I think the hammership had
4)
> relative to what they are allowed.

    I wasn't trying, nor did I achieve that, at least not relative to the
WCC.
I allow for the same number of weapons that the WCC does, I just
penalize for extra weapons in a different way.
    Besides, I don't think the SJ boxed set rules for additional weapons
are any more penalizing, especially to warships.  1 ton less cargo
for each additional weapon beyond those listed, regardless of size?
Sounds like no big deal to a Hammership looking for a fight.
    Actually, for a larger warship, it  seems less penalizing!  It would
allow them for a large number of large weapons without ever worrying
about the penalties I assign in my system for having weapons off decks
or inside the ship!  A Hammership has space for 30 tons of cargo, and
I think most could sacrifice 7 tons without a problem.  With that, they
could have 10 large catapults on board!  In my system 10 catapults
would require the ship to mount some of them off deck, taking the
penalties, or use up lotsa cargo space.  3 large catapults use up
12 tons of cargo space!

>
> >    The old system always let a ship mount one-half
> >of the ship's tonnage in weapons on the deck.  In the
> >WCC system a Hammership could have 15 medium
> >catapults on its deck!  So there is no real difference
> >here.
>
> In the only system, though, they took up cargo space. (Again, I don't
have
> the WCC.) So I guess this "fix" is not specific to your system.

    I assume "only" was meant to be "old."
    See above.

> There was a
> post a week or so ago about a group of players who wanted to mount about
12
> extra ballistas on an Octopus. I wouldn't mind this, except that it's not
> logical that no one else would be doing it if there's practically no
cost.
> Even mind flayer nautiloids usually only carry 5 heavy weapons.

    And in my system mounting 12 extra ballistas would draw a variety
of penalties, since the Octopus would have Partial covering and thus
far less space for weapons on decks.
    The old SJBS system would, IMHO, penalize the ship even less!

> >    IMHO, if a person wants some semblance of consistency
> >in their SJ games with regards to ships, they should find
> >a ship design system they like, mine, the WCC, their own,
> >whatever, and redesing all the ships they use in their
> >campaigns with it.
>
> Quite right. Once we do have a Version 1.0 ;) I will take some time out
and
> do this.

    If you are still interested, I could e-mail you 1.0 when it is done.
    Again, thanks for the feedbank.  Although it seems we certainly
disagree with each other on a few things, these conversations
do make me think some of my decisions over, which is a good
thing... :)


Leroy Van Camp III
malacoda@???????.com
owner-mystara-l@????.com
ICQ #4253672

"You know, not kneeing you in the groin is a constant struggle."
			MST3K