Search SJML Archives! (Powered by Google)

Previous Message: Re: Starcraft
Next Message: spelljammer-digest V1999 #51
Month Index: March, 1999


From:     Belon2@???.com
Date:     Wed, 3 Mar 1999 22:51:17 EST
Subject:  Re: Weapons proposal
Thanks for the insight Hemlock.

>> (SR 10 is 170 mph.)  The old system had heavy catapult stones traveling
1000
>> yards per minute or about 40 mph.  Rather easy to avoid even in a SR 3
ship.

>This is only true if you assume that the missile took the full round to
>travel.  It makes more sense, IMO, to boost the speed of the missile to 170
>mph or so, at least.  If catapult stones really went 40 mph, you couldn't
>hit anything traveling faster than SR 3 or so if it was running away from
>you.  (Unless you want to play with relative velocities, that is.) You'd
>also have to start keeping track of the SR of various weapons; a ballista
>bolt fired at a ship which then changed course would then have to
>automatically miss.

Exactly why I didn't like the old rules set up.  Under what I listed the
slowest weapon, a jettison had a speed under my option over 100 mph, or SR 6.
However I do like your own simplified version, simply assume most have at
least an SR of 12 or 200 mph each.  Realistically it could be even higher.
I'll think on that.

>> --Weapon THAC0 as listed is an atrocity of "Game balance" logic.  How is
one
>> ballista less likely to hit and penetrate the same ship as another down the
>> deck?  The only difference is in the weapons crew, or the guy who points
the
>> thing, just like any other missile weapon.
<snip>
>Hmmm.  Most weapons, then, will be firing at THAC0 20.  Of course, you might
>give them a small boost from the effective strength of the weapon.  This
>solution is not illogical; it's just that one nice thing about weapon
>THAC0 is that it allows a low- or non-leveled crew to be somewhat
>effective with large weaponry.  Even a heavy catapult is going to have a
>hard time taking down an umber hulk, but with weapon THAC0s you do have a
>fighting chance.  YMMV.

True, but from my point of view this is what I want.  For instance under my
option a 1st lvl warrior (assume Dex 12 no missile bonus) would have a THAC0
with any large weapon of 20 (since natural THAC0 is 20 at 1st lvl, with a -2
penalty for not being a weaponeer, which in my opinion should still be no
worse than 20, but you could even make it 22).  Attacking the much vaunted
man-o-war with an AR of 7, that means he could hit with a 13 or better (or a
15 if you opt for higher than 20 THAC0).  It wouldn't change until the warrior
reached 4th lvl then it woud be THAC0 17  -2 for no weapon training = 19,
against the ship 12 or better.  Remember most ships have AR of 4 or worse.  I
think the old system made it too easy to hit mobile ships with presumably 1st
or 2nd lvl warriors manning the weapons.  Now it places more emphasis on
hiring a weaponeer.  According to old rule a weaponeer gains a +1 to hit with
a large weapon, in effect giving him a +3 bonus over an untrained crewman of
the same level (from -2 penalty to +1 bonus, three steps).  Against that man-
o-war at 1st lvl the weaponeer is THAC0 20 + 1 for training = 19 against AR 7,
12 or better.  That's the equivalent of a 4th lvl fighter.  Now this also gets
back into the control of funds dilemma, hiring a weaponeer should be more
expensive than normal crew, I believe old rules recommended double or triple
pay.  I think it could even be higher with certain weaponeers that had higher
Dex scores and were naturally better shots.  It also allows some room for
heroic efforts by higher level PC's as they tend to be always several lvl's
above the crew.
  It's more dramatic when the elven archer of the party dashes through the
flames to the last loaded ballista and zeros in on the rapidly approaching
Locust before it slams into the ship and with own natural skill and ability
nails it to an asteroid, as opposed to having all the credit go to the weapon.
It may be a little more work, but I think personally the focus should be on
individuals and the PC's.
 Appreciate the comments though.  Made me stop and think about why I wrote it
like I did all those years ago.

                                                    Belon Lord,
                              Dusting off his archives and sneezing them
across the room


Previous Message: Re: Starcraft
Next Message: spelljammer-digest V1999 #51
Month Index: March, 1999

SubjectFromDate (UTC)
Weapons proposal    Whalejudge@???.com    27 Feb 1999 03:28:20
Re: Weapons proposal    S. Wilson    27 Feb 1999 06:18:06
Re: Weapons proposal    S. Wilson    27 Feb 1999 16:01:19
Re: Weapons proposal    Peter Mikelsons    28 Feb 1999 01:22:46
Re: Weapons proposal    Paul Arnold Stetzel    28 Feb 1999 18:26:15
Re: Weapons proposal    Belon2@???.com    01 Mar 1999 03:38:36
Re: Weapons proposal    S. Wilson    01 Mar 1999 06:44:57
Re: Weapons proposal    the Falcon    01 Mar 1999 12:06:13
Re: Weapons proposal    Belon2@???.com    04 Mar 1999 03:51:17
Re: Weapons proposal    rupert smith    04 Mar 1999 11:41:30
Re: Weapons proposal    S. Wilson    05 Mar 1999 17:51:15
Re: Weapons proposal    Downer, Chris    10 Mar 1999 16:55:59
Re: Weapons proposal    S. Wilson    10 Mar 1999 20:27:00
Re: Weapons proposal    Static    10 Mar 1999 20:43:29
Re: Weapons proposal    S. Wilson    10 Mar 1999 22:33:00
Re: Weapons proposal    Static    11 Mar 1999 01:53:15
Re: Weapons proposal    JAMES B BRIGHT    11 Mar 1999 02:40:18
Re: Weapons proposal    rupert smith    11 Mar 1999 11:33:45
Re: Weapons proposal    Patrick Stutzman    11 Mar 1999 14:25:02
Re: Weapons proposal    Downer, Chris    11 Mar 1999 17:30:31
Re: Weapons proposal    Downer, Chris    11 Mar 1999 17:42:44
Re: Weapons proposal    rupert smith    11 Mar 1999 18:23:49
Re: Weapons proposal    S. Wilson    12 Mar 1999 21:39:59

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