Re: First look at Leroy's 3rdEd SJ combat system

I reckon his system works dead well as far as skill and feats go, the
only think I didnt like is that ships weapons are still not
representative of their size (ie, a 1 ton weapon does NOT take up that
much room on a ship, etc) and that despite his spatial tons being
smaller, all ships in his system seem to work out smaller aswell :S 
For the most part I think it works, and having things like pilot,
operate rigging, and so on and so forth really add specific individual
skills that allow PCs and NPCs to take a bigger role in the general
workings of a ship.  These were the main attractions for me, I dont
think I could ever go back to a system wherein every given pilot has
the exact same measure of skill in brief combat rounds.

Tilaurin.

On 5/7/06, Dreamer <dreamer@??????.?????.??.uk> wrote:
> I was interested to look at this, and a lot of work has obviously
> gone into it.  This looks like a good compromise between the
> 3rdEd individual combat system, and the SJ ship combat rules.
>
> Please take what I say with a pinch of salt, as I am not a war
> gamer, and have only rarely played in games involving ship-to-
> ship combat.  And, I've always DM'ed such combats on a very
> abstract level.
>
> I know I am taking a risk here, as I have criticised in some
> considerable detail the bits that I think I know something about,
> but this should be taken in the spirit of supplying some
> hopefully useful feedback to what looks like a well-designed
> system.
>
>
> Starting from a general viewpoint, ship-to-ship combat looks like
> combat between several different military units, each one of
> which is forced to stay together as a group.
>
> In principle the attack and defence should be similar to combat
> between several groups of individuals, who have restricted
> movement, though in theory they can move in 3-D.
>
> The ships will provide cover, and the relative velocity of the
> various groups (ships) should be considered.
>
>
> The basic structure of Leroy's combat system looks sound, though
> I have not yet compared it with the original SJ rules.  It seems
> to handle a lot of the 3rdEd combat concepts quite well.
>
> However, I am unsure about the ship's hit point rules, as I would
> prefer to stay with hull points if possible.  Also, it would be
> preferable if the ship size groups were just an extension of the
> creature size groups, rather than just a related system.
>
> As a side issue I looked at Leroy's 3rdEd Helm specs, which are
> not really needed to make sense of the combat rules.  While these
> are interesting and consistent I feel they move further away from
> the existing SJ helms than is desirable for a straight
> conversion.
>
> Skills are added by this system: Operate Rigging (Dex, Trained
> Only), and Pilot Spelljammer (Int, trained Only).  I am not sure
> these are a good idea, as there is always the risk of skills
> dilution, which has plagued some games systems.  For someone to
> be a sailor the skills Climb, Jump, Spot, Use Rope and Profession
> (sailor) already exist (see NPC Classes: Commoner), and look
> sufficient.  For someone to pilot a helm just being a spellcaster
> is supposed to be enough; possibly Concentration would help to do
> difficult things.  If you want to know all the little tricks of
> using a helm probably Profession (spelljammer helmsman) would
> help.
>
> Feats are also added by this system, which appear to mostly
> involve ship weapons.  The existing way to use these is
> Profession (siege engineer), (see Seige Engines).  Other Feats
> look like they are reasonable extrapolations of the standard
> Feats, such as Weapon Focus.  As a matter of design preferance
> I'd avoid adding new Feats where there are existing game
> mechanics (unless you believe them to be completely inadequate),
> or new Feats where an existing one would do.  Extending Skill
> Focus so its +2 bonus applies to groups of skills, but only
> onboard a specific type of ship, might be a good idea.
>
> Rigging Crews seem a little too good for the sort of sailors
> listed in CoAS.  Green sailors should have the skills of whatever
> Commoner background they come from - they are not even sailors.
> Average sailors at least have (space) sailing experience, and can
> be assumed to have spent at least one Commoner level doing this;
> they have at least got Profession (sailor).  Trained sailors are
> 'veterans of many voyages', and can be assumed to be at least 3rd
> level Commoners.  Crack sailors can be assumed to be Trained
> sailors who have Skill Focus for a specific type of ship.
>
> It should be noted that CoAS allows crews to become experienced
> quite quickly, faster than DMs might hand out XP to crews of
> Commoners.
>
> Weapons appear to have been done in considerable detail, but I've
> not studied these carefully.
>
> Looking at the Ship Size table maybe ship sizes should be named
> by their minimum tonnage: T1, T3, T7 (Medium), T15, T31, T63,
> T127; where the number is a power of 2, minus 1.  The modifiers
> are then +2 and +1 for T1 and T3 respectively, and -1, -2, -4 and
> -8 for T15 to T127 respectively.  The advantage of this is that
> the name contains some information on the ship, you can work out
> the name pretty quickly, and it should be easy to learn the
> modifiers, or at least quickly work them out and jot them down.
>
>
> In summary, with a quick skim, this looks like a well worked-out
> combat system, though it goes into more detail than I would
> probably use.  If the issues with regard to Skills and Feats, and
> crew abilities, were modified I think this might make a good
> basis for a 3rdEd SJ combat system.  DMs who wanted to add more
> detailed Skills and Feats would then be at liberty to do so.
>
> Again, please note: I am not a wargamer, or DM of ship-to-ship
> skirmish warfare, which this system seems well suited for, and I
> may have misunderstood the reason why certain parts of the rules
> exist.
>
> --
> Dreamer
> dreamer@??????.?????.??.uk
> http://www.romsys.demon.co.uk/
>
> ********************************************************************
> The D&D Homepage: http://www.wizards.com/dnd
> The Spelljammer Homepage: http://www.spelljammer.org
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@??????.???????.com
> with UNSUB SPELLJAMMER-L in the body of the message.
>