View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
JT Swift Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 10 Oct 2009 Posts: 132 Location: Austin Texas
|
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I always use the capital ship called shot chart from page 47 of the Rules Companion. It had modifiers for hitting beam weapons, missile weapons, engines, targeting systems, etc.
IIRC it just had a die code for each part of the ship. I just subtract the code from the hull dice )to represent this small system being weaker then the entire ship). I also add the same modifier to the attackers difficulty to hit (to represent the added difficulty for hitting at smaller target). For the targeting rolls I use different color dice for the bonus to the dodges. That way its easy to see if you hit the gun, or just the ship, or missed entirely.
I've found this works so well that I now use the chart for other scale factors. Like if someone wants to use their blaster rifle to shoot out the engin of a landspeeder. _________________ - J.T. Swift
For Everything about the TARDIS check out
http://www.whoniverse.net/tardis/
For all things Gallifreyan check out
http://meshyfish.com/~roo/index.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bren Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010 Posts: 3868 Location: Maryland, USA
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
That sounds interesting. Would you provide an example of how it works? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JT Swift Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 10 Oct 2009 Posts: 132 Location: Austin Texas
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well I use a slightly simpler version then the official rules.
In the chart they have seperate modifies to hit and to damage. I use ONLY the modifies for hitting column. But I apply that to both the attackers difficulty AND the defenders hull/sheild roll.
So if I was aiming at Hull the chart says 0D. So no changes to anything.
But if my PC says he wants to take out a Turbolaser I look at the Weapon (beam) section and it says -3D.
So I add 3D to the target's evade for the purpose of hitting that turbolaser. I use different colored dice for that extra 3D so that I can see if they hit the gun or just the ship or missed entirely.
Then, if they did beat the increased diff, I subtract 3D from the hull/sheilds of the ship to find the hull of that turbolaser. Then roll damage as normal.
The hit modifier part of the chart reads...
Hull 0D
Sublight engines -2D
Maneuver -3D
Fire Control -4D
Weapon (beam) -3D
Weapon (Missile) -2D
Command -4D
Vital Location -2D
I've found this can be used for vehicles at other scale factors quite nicely.
When the players say they want to torpeado a ISD's Bridge I have something to use. But 4D off the bridge Hull and Sheilds still doesn't make the attack all that likely [especially if one used the Rule Companion version of the Die Limiting Codes like I do!!]
And the Vital Location option allows for easy rule mechanics for the vulnerable points that Nebulon B, Strike Cruisers, and Corellian Corvetts have all been stated in the text to have. _________________ - J.T. Swift
For Everything about the TARDIS check out
http://www.whoniverse.net/tardis/
For all things Gallifreyan check out
http://meshyfish.com/~roo/index.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
garhkal Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 14034 Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Would they need any skills in ship lore to know where those 'weak spots' are? _________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bren Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010 Posts: 3868 Location: Maryland, USA
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JT Swift wrote: | The hit modifier part of the chart reads...
Hull 0D
Sublight engines -2D
Maneuver -3D
Fire Control -4D
Weapon (beam) -3D
Weapon (Missile) -2D
Command -4D
Vital Location -2D |
Thanks. This seems useful and simple without being too overpowering.
garhkal wrote: | Would they need any skills in ship lore to know where those 'weak spots' are? | That seems reasonable or maybe tactics. I could also see this being included in a briefing (based on some NPC's knowledge). I'd also let the commander make a roll in combat and then command/inform the group (squadron, fleet, etc.) "Concentrate your fire on the Nebulon-B's waist!" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jmanski Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: Kansas
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think Tactics fits the bill nicely. _________________ Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bren Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010 Posts: 3868 Location: Maryland, USA
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jmanski wrote: | I think Tactics fits the bill nicely. | I usually try to be nice to the players when they are trying to be clever, so I would probably let them use either skill. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jmanski Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: Kansas
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
True. One must positively reinforce good behavior so it continues. _________________ Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
garhkal Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 14034 Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jmanski wrote: | I think Tactics fits the bill nicely. |
I don't. Just being tactically minded won't tell you the weak spots to hit on a ship you don't know the tech specs on..
So i might say scholar: capital ship technology or Scholar: Space ship tech would have to be known (and rolled for, for each ship you wish to learn a weak spot on), say diff 20+
Quote: | True. One must positively reinforce good behavior so it continues. |
I don;t see it as negatively reinforcing good behavoir, but showing that good ideas must be born from good knowledge. _________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bren Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010 Posts: 3868 Location: Maryland, USA
|
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
garhkal wrote: | jmanski wrote: | I think Tactics fits the bill nicely. |
I don't. Just being tactically minded won't tell you the weak spots to hit on a ship you don't know the tech specs on..
So i might say scholar: capital ship technology or Scholar: Space ship tech would have to be known (and rolled for, for each ship you wish to learn a weak spot on), say diff 20+ |
Nor does scholarly reading of datacards about ships tell you the best way to destroy them. That seems more a military than a scholarly knowledge subset to me. I would presume that the big brains in the Alliance would be trying to figure out how best to destroy or disable Imperial vessels and would then share that knowledge with the Alliance Navy and Starfighter forces. That's why tactics makes sense to me. But as I said, I'd likely make it easier to figure this out than harder so someone playing a character with starship knowledge would have a chance to figure stuff like that out. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
garhkal Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 14034 Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps it should be both.. Scholarly knowledge to know WHERE to hit it, tactics to tell how. _________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bren Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010 Posts: 3868 Location: Maryland, USA
|
Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
garhkal wrote: | Perhaps it should be both.. Scholarly knowledge to know WHERE to hit it, tactics to tell how. | You could do that.
I wouldn't since it's harder to have and roll two skills than just one and I don't really want to make it harder to get the tactic to work. So I would go with rolling whichever appropriate the skill the PCs have. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009 Posts: 2460
|
Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
garhkal wrote: | jmanski wrote: | I think Tactics fits the bill nicely. |
I don't. Just being tactically minded won't tell you the weak spots to hit on a ship you don't know the tech specs on..
So i might say scholar: capital ship technology or Scholar: Space ship tech would have to be known (and rolled for, for each ship you wish to learn a weak spot on), say diff 20+ |
I disagree. Knowledge of tactics would include how vehicles are deployed, which in turn gives some insight into how they should logically be deisigned, thereby giving some idea as to where the weak spots are.
Case in point, anyone with knowledge of tanks know that the weak spots are the bottom, top and rear. The places where they are least likely to be fired at.
Now that knowledge is very general, and won't help much with a specfric model of tank, but the general theory holds true. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
garhkal Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 14034 Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am basing my pov on my mil experience. Part of being a good tactical commander for us Seabees, is not just knowing what to do, when, but how.. part o that is keeping up with the latest tech.. _________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Esoomian High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 Posts: 6207 Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So wouldn't the required skill then be something like Capital Ship repair? _________________ Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.
Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|