Re: 3e SJ combat and needed stats

In <URL:news:local.spelljam> on Tue 09 May, Alexander James wrote:
> I expect we can all agree it would help our cause if we used
> the official WotC rules for our combat system: either
> Arms&Equipment vehicles, Stormwrack narrative combat, or d20
> Future spaceship combat rules.

This would be nice, but it depended on both whether we would be
allowed to publish something which quoted large chunks of these
rules, and how much we would have to change things like the sJ
ship stats.


> 1) a narrative system is good for groups that prefer their
> characters to matter - boarding actions are the interesting
> part.

I would certainly think it a good idea to include some sort of
narrative system, even if only as an add-on to using as much of
the existing SJ combat rules as possible.


> 2) the d20 future rules give all ships perfect
> manueverability, a distinct break from SJ feel.

It sounds as though it would be best to avoid these, then.


> 3) the Arms &Equipment vehicle rules use sectional hitpoints
> that get burdensome quickly.

I've seen lots of systems that get themselves in a real mess with
sectional hit point schemes - I think there is a lot to say for
the existing SJ hull point system.  One of its virtues is that
even though abstract it seems to give a good 'feel' to combat,
the ship slowly coming to pieces around you, and the numbers it
uses are in the easily human-managable range of one or two
digits.


> So I'll try to use overall 'fastplay' hitpoints for ships.  The
> rest of this info applies regardless.

What are these, please?


> For those who would prefer to keep hull points, see also
> Mongoose publishing's Seas of Blood that gives ships structure
> dice based on size and type.

Are you suggesting this as inspiration, or are you suggesting we
contact Mongoose Publishing with an eye to using their rules?


> For those who wish to capture vessels, I recommend the narative
> combat system be used.
>   
> 
> To fit with 3e combat systems: (many references to
> Stormwrack/Arms&Equipment Guide for similarities)
> 
> Speed: 1SR = 150ft move speed
> MC:  new manueverability
> Shiphandling check modifier (for narrative system, and
> ramming/crashing checks)

Sorry, I've re-formatted your table here, as it exceeded 80
characters, and I couldn't get the layout to look right, even
though I tried several different ways.

                    Check     Turn   Turn   Speed Change
MC  Name            Modifier  45deg  60deg  Space  Atmos  
A   aerial poor        +6       5     10     3SR   100ft*
B   aerial clumsy      +4      10     25     3SR    50ft*
C   nautical good      +2      30     40     2SR    20ft
D   nautical average   +0      60     75     2SR    10ft
E   nautical poor      -2     120    150     1SR     5ft
F   nautical clumsy*   -4     240    300     1SR     5ft

> notes: turn distance is the amount that must be moved between
> turns of 45 or 60 degrees (squares and hexes), ships still get
> a free turn at the end of the round.  Turning does not cost
> speed (as 3e), but it is noteworthy that the cost of turning in
> a 150' hex works out very close to the distance that must be
> travelled while making that turn when measured in much smaller
> units. 
> 'nautical clumsy' does not appear in the books, but is
> extrapolated from the others speed change is not listed for
> aerial manueverabilities, and is thus extrapolated since ships
> can't brake as fast as anything with wings. 

This looks interesting!

Could you please give us a worked example, that would make it
easier to understand exactly how this should work, please?


> Ramming and Crashing:
> a ram is now resolved by opposed SJPilot checks (plus
> shiphandling modifier), the attacker must at least match the
> defender's check to succesfully ram, head-on rams may still be
> responded to in kind.
>
> Crashes can be avioded by the helmsman making a SJPilot check
> (plus shiphandling) DC 15 Huge, 20 Gargantuan, 25 Collosal,
> 30 Collosal+, etc.
> 
> The damage is dependant on the speed and size of the active
> vessel, that being the ramming ship or the smaller in a crash
>
> large 1d6, huge 2d6, gargantuan 3d6, collosal 4d6, collosal+
> 6d6 per SR (or 10ft on water)
>
> a ramming ship takes only a quarter this damage (SJ rams are
> more integrated into the frame than nautical rams, which take
> half)
> 
> both vessels suffer Ship Shaken, and other crits as appropriate
> 
> new skill: SJPilot (trained only, Wis, see below) -
>     used to perform special manouevers while at the Helm
>     normal combat is a DC 10 standard action to maintain
>     control <untrained may do so as a full-round
>     action><trained can always take ten>
>     DC 15 move action to add a +2 dodge bonus to your ship's AC
>     (rises by +1 if you also have 5 ranks in
>     K(archetecture&engineering))
>   special: if you are a spellcaster with 5 ranks in
>     Concentration and are using a spell-draining (standard)
>     Helm, use your casting stat instead of Wis.
>     some specific Helms will use Dex as their prime stat
>     (theese are mostly non-magical)
>     synergy bonus from and to Prof(Sailor), and from Concentration

This sounds good, but I'd substitute the 'Helm Pilot' skill that
I proposed.

I used Cha as the stat for non-spelljamming helms used by
non-spellcasters as it is still a mental stat, and you are using
your mind to make the helm work, not your body and hence your
Dex.  Also, if you look at those sort of helms, they are mostly a
matter of controlling energy from others, sometimes a group, and
Cha seemed suitable for that.


> Ship weapons: double reload time, keep crew requirement

Why do you increase this over the Seige Weapon rules given in the
DMG?


> range increment of 'Range' x 30ft [the table presented is good
>     for balance, but not very sensible physics - heavy weapons
>     are only a tiny bit slower than light, there is that much
>     more force involved]
>     or balistae 150ft, catapults 100ft, bombards 50ft,
>     Jettisons 50ft, fire projector 100ft line the projectile
>     then moves 5 increments each round forever (except jettison
>     shot disperses after 10 increments)
>         once the projectile succeds on a touch attack against
>         an air envelope (one size larger than the ship), it stops.

That sounds reasonable, but I'd prefer a bigger Range Increment
for wildspace use.  Also, where it is a choice between physics
and keeping the spelljamming style, I'd recommend we stick with
the style, and game balance.


> Attack roll = crew leader's Bab+Int (balistae and fire
>     projectors use Bab+dex)    {balistae are mounted in such a
>     way that the weapon can be aimed by one man's strength,
>     most weapons require guesswork on pullies and wedges} -
>     since all weapons are actually direct fire they only need
>     to match the AC of the target
>     or just use Bab+dex for all attack rolls

Seige weapons in the DMG specifically disallow adding the BAB.

Even if you could add it, wouldn't that mean you need some sort
of weapon proficiency, or be at -4?  I don't think that having
each ship weapon as an Exotic Weapon needing a Feat is a good
idea, but that is the obvious thing - I'd prefer to avoid needing
a Feat to run ship's weapons effectively, at all.

The DMG under Seige Weapons suggests that Profession (seige
engineer) gives the right skills.

Is this changed in some WotC rules that I haven't read?


> Stray projectiles make attack rolls using only magic bonuses on
> the ammunition itself to hit any ship whose space they enter,
> the helmsman adds half his ranks in SJPilot as dodge bonus
> versus theese stray due to advance warning.
[snip]

This all looks interesting, but I'm afraid that I cannot read
your tables, below.


---

If you want things like this to be readable by e-mail, on a
mailing list which does not have HTML posts, you need to lay it
out in something like Notepad using (New) Courier font (non-
proportional), and make sure that your lines are wrapped
preferable no later than 72 characters.

Reading it, if your e-mail reader font is proportional, and you
cannot change it to a non-proportional one like Courier, is then
a matter of cutting and pasting the text into something that lets
you change the font.

The reason for wrapping at 72, rather than 80, characters is that
this allows people to comment on your text, putting the
traditional '> ' on the start of the line for each new set of
comments.  72 allows four sets of comments - more than this
makes it difficult to understand who said what.

If you have any problems, send me your text and I will try and
re-format it, and post it for you.

---

The problem comes from Microsoft and their e-mail policy.  They
broke the international e-mail standard of using a non-
proportional font and wrapping at 72 characters with Outlook and
Outlook Express, apparently because they saw e-mails as being
used for business letters, and didn't think Courier, rather than
say Times (Roman) font, looked smart enough.

This is also where the business of top-posting came from, as
Microsoft ignored wrapping so e-mail paragraphs flowed neatly -
again more suitable for business letters.  It used to be
possible, if you worked hard enough at changing the setting, to
make Outlook use Courier, wrap at 72 characters, and not do top-
posting, but I've not tinkered with this recently.

This may have suited e-mails for business, but meant that if
people wanted to send tables in non-HTML format, they couldn't
easily.  Also, top-posting makes it very difficult to comment on
individual parts of people's post when you reply to them.  It
also makes it difficult to collaborate on developing things like
games rules, as we are trying to do.

---

Sorry, I normally try and avoid commenting on posting style!

-- 
Dreamer
dreamer@??????.?????.??.uk
http://www.romsys.demon.co.uk/