| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:47 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
We have some house rules as part of a complete set adapted from combat flight sims I was doing some work on.
We have ECM phases, BVR and CWC ranges, we use full avionics sets depending on the build of starfighter (the main difference is the assumption higher tech levels just miniaturise and automate complex avionics management).
So we run starship combat in general much more like an RPG'd flight and sea battle combat simulator. Auxiliary systems, target locking, damage control, we like to RP it all.
On the shields, for smaller craft like starfighters we allow doubling up shields on any arc, but default coverage is only one arc. Standard coverage maybe on all arcs, but doubling is only on one arc too.
For larger craft like cruisers default coverage is all arcs, whilst shields maybe doubled on any arc but it is called simply something like "reinforce the starboard shields" rather than actually "double the starboard deflector shields"
On starfighters when you take out a die of shields it hurts the deflector generators. On a capital vessel it just hurts the generators on one fire arc.
So you can double up shields basically, on one fire arc. You can also get full shields on every fire arc. Both those two things often require skill rolls however. So does recovering shield dice loss of course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:56 pm Post subject: Re: Active vs. Passive Shields |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | atgxtg wrote: | | I'm not fond of this variant either. What I forsee is that a snug fighter or g\freighter would be able to "bounce" Death Star weaponry with a good enough roll. |
I don't forsee that for two reasons: (1) Given the 18D scale difference the Death Star can't hit a starfighter with it's superlaser |
Not often. Although it could hit the ship or planet that the starfighter in on, and technically, if the fighter had it shields up, then it could try to defend with "active shield use"
| Quote: |
and (2) Properly scaled and adjusted I think this should be at least as much of a nonissue as a concern that a starfighter could blow up the Death Star (and I don't mean with the old thermal exhaust port shot) by getting a lot of sixes on the wild die. |
I'd be more concerned about Force Points ere. FPs can double the shield skill dice, but the damage is set by weapon (and scale). And the 6D scaling difference between Starfighters and Capital scale ships would be easily offset with 3D of skill and a FP.
| Quote: |
Sure it has a probability > 0 but statistically the odds are extremely small and I would expect the GM would overrule the result in any event. |
I would expect the GM [b]not[/b] to overrule the dice result. In fact, if he did, I (and most of the other gamers I know) would quit the ame and never play when that Gm was running.
If the GM "overrules" the dice, then there is no point in making the rolls in the first place, is there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:58 pm Post subject: Re: Active vs. Passive Shields |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | I'd be more concerned about Force Points ere. FPs can double the shield skill dice, but the damage is set by weapon (and scale). And the 6D scaling difference between Starfighters and Capital scale ships would be easily offset with 3D of skill and a FP. |
Depends on how the rules work. I wouldn't mind a starfigher scale ship with strong shields like say the Millenium Falcon being able to take a 5D capital scale turbolaser hit without becoming toast. That is 11D starfighter scale. Maybe cCrashing the shields and rattling the ship around for one hit seems about right. The next hit, though will be fatal. I'm not really intending for an X-wing to be able to shrug off a 10D capital scale turbolaser.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Sure it has a probability > 0 but statistically the odds are extremely small and I would expect the GM would overrule the result in any event. |
I would expect the GM not to overrule the dice result. In fact, if he did, I (and most of the other gamers I know) would quit the ame and never play when that Gm was running.
If the GM "overrules" the dice, then there is no point in making the rolls in the first place, is there? |
Your comment presumes the rules are either sacrosanct or perfect. The rules are not perfect. I think we can all agree on that. And, since you and I are willing to modify them, they are not sacrosanct. So sure, I think there is a point to rolling and to very rarely overruling the roll when it leads to an overwhelmingly silly or otherwise unpalatable result. Statistically unlikely but silly results don't improve the game from my point of view. If you are saying that they improve the game for you and your friends and that you would prefer that a character who rolled a huge string of sixes with his blaster pistol would actually blow up a Star Destroyer or even the Death Star itself in your campaign. You are certainly entitled to your point of view, but my POV is that such a result is silly and undramatic and is based on a statistically freakish result exploiting a known flaw in the RAW and the result should be overruled. Perhaps not so suprisingly, my players seem ok with the way I GM.
In our campaign, we house ruled that weapons do a maximum of 2x maximum normal rolled damage. So a 4D blaster pistol cannot do more than 2x4x6=48 points of character scale damage no matter how many sixes are rolled on the wild die. No chance for a PC to destroy the Death Star with a blaster pistol. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:24 pm Post subject: Re: Active vs. Passive Shields |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Depends on how the rules work. |
Indeed. But with a straignth skill roll, or skill vs damage, skill becomes too dominant, since it increases while damage is fixed. You will see results similar to 1E chases, where a skilled pilot can outrun a Awing in a paper airplane.
| Quote: |
I wouldn't mind a starfigher scale ship with strong shields like say the Millenium Falcon being able to take a 5D capital scale turbolaser hit without becoming toast. That is 11D starfighter scale. Maybe cCrashing the shields and rattling the ship around for one hit seems about right. The next hit, though will be fatal. I'm not really intending for an X-wing to be able to shrug off a 10D capital scale turbolaser. |
I wouldn't mind that either. What I would mind is Pcs shrugging off the hits because they have a high shield skill.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Your comment presumes the rules are either sacrosanct or perfect. |
Nope,. it presumes neither. It does presume that the Gm is supposed to run fairly.
If the Gm is going to overrule the dice, then there is no point is rolling them in the first pace. Much better to just tell the players flat out that he won't allow their fighter to take out a capital ship than to allow it but veto it when it comes up.
|
So sure, I think there is a point to rolling and to very rarely overruling the roll when it leads to an overwhelmingly silly or otherwise unpalatable result. Statistically unlikely but silly results don't improve the game from my point of view.[/quote]
Then why permit a game mechanic that allows them? if you have a problem with statistically freakish results, then why allow the wild die mechanic in the first place?
Or do you only overrule some freakishly silly results?
| Quote: |
If you are saying that they improve the game for you and your friends and that you would prefer that a character who rolled a huge string of sixes with his blaster pistol would actually blow up a Star Destroyer or even the Death Star itself in your campaign. You are certainly entitled to your point of view, but my POV is that such a result is silly and undramatic and is based on a statistically freakish result exploiting a known flaw in the RAW and the result should be overruled. Perhaps not so suprisingly, my players seem ok with the way I GM. |
I'm not saying such results improve the game. I am saying that they are a necessarily eveil of randomization, and part of what keeps the game from being boring. What keeps the game exciting is the possibility that the players can fail and the random dice rolls are what make that possible. Just like PC death. No good Gm really wants to kill off one or more player characters, but that risk is what keeps the game exciting.
But in order for random results to be acceptable, they must be applied fairly. If the Gm is going to step in any change any result, for any reason, it will have an impact on the game. And eventually the players will question why a Gm will overrule X, but not Y.
| Quote: |
In our campaign, we house ruled that weapons do a maximum of 2x maximum normal rolled damage. So a 4D blaster pistol cannot do more than 2x4x6=48 points of character scale damage no matter how many sixes are rolled on the wild die. No chance for a PC to destroy the Death Star with a blaster pistol. |
That is a decent house rule, and I would be okay with that. What I would NOT be okay with is a GM arbitrarily saying, on the fly, that my excellent damage roll doesn't mean squat because he doesn't like the outcome.
If the Gm wasn't going to allow my PC a chance to take out the Death Star, he shouldn't have gone through the motions of rolling damage and Hull STR in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
