Re: 3e SJ combat and needed stats

In <URL:news:local.spelljam> on Fri 12 May, Loki wrote:
> On 5/10/06, Dreamer <dreamer@??????.?????.??.uk> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I think that we should go with a sidebar that reccomends these as
> optional rule systems and notes additions to each for SJ play. I think
> it is questionable whether we could reprint sizeable chunks of
> products currently on the market.

That makes sense.


> I think that vehicle stat blocks are pretty consistent in the info
> they contain (at least in the WOTC products). We simply need to add in
> a few details (i.e. helms- would fill the same stat block space as
> oars/sails but have all the SJ data in the helm description.

If we can re-use existing system, that seems to be good.

What sort of rules books would we expect people to need to play/
ref SJ under 3rdEd?

It would be preferable if the basic D&D 3rd Edition rules plus
our SJ conversion was all you needed.


> > 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.
>
> Agreed.
> 
> > > 2) the d20 future rules give all ships perfect
> > > manueverability, a distinct break from SJ feel.
> 
> So we make a notation that if using these rules you will need to add
> in the optional MC class rule to preserve the feel.
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> That comes under the heading of a new ruleset. Everything in 3.5/d20
> modern uses standard hit points. I agree that it is not a change I am
> a huge fan of.

This comes into the balance that needs to be struck between the
existing SJ rules, and 3rdEd.  I think we should use as much of
the SJ stats as we can, but we don't want to interfere with
people's use of any standard 3rdEd mechanics.

Using hull points greatly simplifies the Hardness rules as well,
typically meaning you either subtract zero or one hull points
from damage done, in the draft combat notes that I hacked
together.


> > > So I'll try to use overall 'fastplay' hitpoints for ships.  The
> > > rest of this info applies regardless.
> 
> From Leroy's system?
> 
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> Good system!
> 
> > Are you suggesting this as inspiration, or are you suggesting we
> > contact Mongoose Publishing with an eye to using their rules?
> 
> I would think that going with a competitor's works would quite
> possibly rile up WOTC. Listing that (and Aether and Flux, and wahtever
> else) in the sidebar I suggested for optional Ship Combat sytems would
> be more than okay.

That sounds good, we certainly don't want to upset WotC.


> <snip>
> I like your ramming/crashing rules. Very fine start.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I just do not like opening up helms to non spell casters. It goes very
> much against the grain of the original system. I know that this is one
> of the ongoing arguments I have seen periodically resurface on the
> list over the years and do not want to start a flame war. May I
> suggest that this sort of helm be inculded as a sidebar/option?

I am not in any way suggesting that we change who can use which
helm.

Just that all the helms that currently allow non-spellcasters to
operate them (Series, Pool, Orbus, Furnace, Artifurnace and
Lifejammer) fall under the same skill system, and that
non-spellcasters use Cha as the relevant stat for helm piloting.

For example, the head Mind Flayer in the Series Helm (probably
the one with the highest Cha), the Beholder bossing the Orbus
around, etc, none of whom are spellcasters, would all have a helm
pilot skill which was Cha-based.



> > > Ship weapons: double reload time, keep crew requirement
> >From Stormwrack, eh? I like thse moree myself.
> 
> <snip siege weapons>
> 
> > 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.
>
> Agreed. Range increments should be extended from groundling ranges,
> although I would be very careful with it. I will also throw my vote
> behind the style side of the style vs. physics argument. If it were
> real physics there would not be crystal spheres, gravity planes, etc.

The mechanics that I looked at involved taking the 2ndEd SJ
maximum range in wildpace, and diving this by ten to get the
Range Increments, which is compatible with how Range Increments
work for missile weapons under 3rdEd.

I haven't tried to playtest this, though; the initial numbers
didn't look too bad.


> > Seige weapons in the DMG specifically disallow adding the BAB.
> <Snip>
> 
> > The DMG under Seige Weapons suggests that Profession (seige
> > engineer) gives the right skills.
>
> Thats what I have used in my campaigns and it seems to work well
> without adding a huge amount of bookkeeping (or mucking down combat)
> 
> George "Loki" Williams

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