Search SJML Archives! (Powered by Google)

Previous Message: Corsair - d20 Supplement
Next Message: Re: Ship Sizes Published vs. Calculated
Month Index: April, 2007


From:     Charles Taylor <nerik@?????????.?????.??.uk>
Date:     Tue, 3 Apr 2007 20:37:50 +0100
Subject:  Re: Ship Sizes Published vs. Calculated
As a follow up, what are people's viewss on how for 'fix' the ship 
size discrepancies?

1) Ignore the problem (say "a wizard did it")
2) Re-scale ships to match existing tonnages (this invalidates many of 
the existing deck plans)
3) Re-define the ton:
  3a) To 50 cubic yards (half current)
  3b) To 1000 cubic feet (or a 10' x 10' x 10' cube) (like Hackjammer)
  3c) To the 'real world' value of 100 cubic feet (which throws values 
right off!)
None of these options will fix _every_ ship however
4) Switch from basing tons on volume, to basing them on mass or weight 
(like Champions of Mystara) - this makes a lot of sense, but would 
require a whole new way of estimating tonnage.
5) Something I didn't think of.

-- 
Charles
When you said he was acting odd, you did not specify "Miniature 
Spacetime Singularity" odd!


Previous Message: Corsair - d20 Supplement
Next Message: Re: Ship Sizes Published vs. Calculated
Month Index: April, 2007

SubjectFromDate (UTC)
Ship Sizes Published vs. Calculated    Charles Taylor    01 Apr 2007 16:52:36
Re: Ship Sizes Published vs. Calculated    Charles Taylor    03 Apr 2007 19:37:50
Re: Ship Sizes Published vs. Calculated    Paul Westermeyer    04 Apr 2007 22:57:43

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