Wyvern
Explorer
I apologize for my long absence. There are several reasons for it: first off, after writing three chapters in as many months, I frankly felt kind of burned out on the whole thing. Secondly, I've had many other things to occupy my attention over the summer. Lastly, I didn't feel like digesting such a large chunk of aerial combat rules (which was never the part that I was most interested in, even though it forms the core of the project). However, out of a sense of obligation, I finally buckled down to it this past couple of weeks, and I have many questions, comments and quibbles on what you've come up with.
I'm most impressed with the work you've done in my absence, and I eagerly await seeing your completed vehicle design rules. (I'm sure I'll have lots of ideas for components to add.) Your dedication to this project puts me to shame. Also, I'm most impressed with barsoomcore's contribution; he wrote a much better introduction than I could have (my "Key Concepts" chapter was intended more to lay groundwork for us to build on than to introduce it to new readers anyway).
Now, as I mentioned, I have a lot to say about what you've written so far. This is going to become a very long post, but I don't really see any point in breaking it up into chunks. (You needn't read it all in one sitting, of course.) Some of the questions I have about your alpha rules aren't applicable to barsoomcore's revised draft, so I'll pass over them until such a time as they become relevant again.
-------------------
Note that while a vessel may have more than one set of controls, during each round it may have only one pilot.
I recall some mention being made at one point of rules for co-pilots. How about adding a rule that a co-pilot can use a move-equivalent action to make a cooperative Pilot check, given a second set of controls?
A flying creature automatically has ranks in Piloting equal to its Maneuverability rating...
Is this going to be replaced with a flat bonus? If so, I should point out that the racial bonus to Climb and Swim checks is +8, not +10 (MM p. 7). If you want it to be graded by maneuverability, I'd suggest a bonus equal to *twice* the M.R.
Vehicles: The pilot of a vessel is whoever is currently at the controls. A vessel may have more than one set of controls...
You need to change "vessel" to "vehicle" in these two sentences to avoid confusion.
Note that a vehicle, unlike a creature, cannot run or take a double move action.
How about adding a stunt called "Push it to the Limit" or something like that, which allows you to go above the maximum speed? Perhaps this could be contingent on having certain types of vessels, or certain components such as booster rockets.
The pilot (should that be different from the creature itself) cannot make the creature go faster by taking two steer a vessel actions.
I think this sentence is unnecessary, since you've already stated that "The pilot of a creature is *always* the creature itself" (my emphasis).
No single turn or slide may exceed the vessel's Max Turn rating, and all turns and slides combined may not exceed the vessel's Total Turn rating.
I would add to the end of this sentence: ", unless the pilot uses a Hard Turn stunt.
Each vehicle also has a Maximum Ability Bonus, which determines the highest ability bonus that may be applied to Piloting skill checks made in that vehicle, the vehicle's armour class and reflex saves.
Am I right in understanding that this rule is now gone? If not, how is the max. bonus determined: by size, maneuverability, or engine type? Also, is this meant to imply that vehicles which use Wis for Pilot checks also use it for AC and Reflex saves?
Note that in a gravity environment, a vessel gains a +1 circumstance bonus to any attack rolls made against an opponent at a lower altitude.
What's the rationale for this? I mean, it makes sense for archers firing from atop a hill to get a bonus, but not so much sense in a low-orbital dogfight using laser cannons. What about guided missiles? Do *they* get a bonus to hit if fired from a higher altitude?
A collision check is a Piloting skill check made against DC 10, modified by the other object's size modifier.
How is the size modifier determined? If you just take the AC/attack mod from the chart, larger objects are going to have a *lower* DC. Did you mean to use the *inverse* of that number (i.e. positive becomes negative and vice versa)?
If there is more than one object in the square, the DM should determined randomly which object the pilot's vessel is on a collision course with.
Shouldn't you add the size mods for all objects in the square to the collision check to represent the greater difficulty of avoiding multiple objects? Of course, if some objects have negative size modifiers, this logic breaks down. Maybe you should use the highest size mod, plus one for every additional object in the square.
If the target object is a vessel, the pilot of that vessel may make [a] collision check of his own.
Does this require the pilot to use an action? Should it?
Refer to the Vessel Size chart in Chapter One to determine collision damage.
What if a Huge vessel hits a Tiny one? Is the damage the same for both? I don't think it should be; rather, I think damage should be determined by the size class of what you hit (or were hit by). If you use the same damage for both vessels, you get illogical results. If the damage is determined by the smaller of the two, a Tiny vessel takes no more damage from hitting a Huge vessel than another Tiny one. If the larger of the two, a Huge vessel takes as much damage from hitting a Tiny vessel as another Huge one.
The colliding vessel gets no saving throw.
I think that, unless the vessel is out of control or deliberately ramming the other vessel, it should get a saving throw too. This represents the pilot desperately trying to minimize the damage by turning the vessel so it impacts at a less-vulnerable point. This shouldn't come for free, though; it would require at least a move-equivalent action, and possibly a stunt. (I'd advise against the latter, though, because a collision involves enough dice rolls as it is.)
If a collision occurs head-on between two moving vessels (that is, the struck vessel moved at least one square last round)...
This is ambiguous. What if the struck vessel was moving *away* from the one that struck it? Then it's a rear-end collision, not a head-on one. I think you should specify that the struck vessel moved towards the striker (within a 45 degree angle).
If the collision occurs with the ground or a ground-based object, all damage is tripled.
So what's the size modifier for the ground?
Spiraling: When a vessel with a fails to travel its Minimum Speed...
With a what? Did you mean to type "with a Minimum Speed"? If so, I think you can just cut that and say "When a vessel fails to travel its Minimum Speed..."
...it begins to spiral. Such a vessel is plunging earthward at great speed.
I agree with BlackJaw's idea of replacing "spiral" with "plummet" or somesuch. "Spiral" just doesn't fit when describing a vessel falling headfirst towards the ground.
If she rolls less than 20 but more than 10, her vessel will turn only 135 degrees on this turn. If she rolls less than 10 her vessel will turn only 90 degrees.
I'm a bit befuddled by your calculations here. When you say that the vessel turns only 90 degrees on a roll of less than 10, that's *in addition to* the 90-degree turn she already made, right? Since her Max Turn is 90 degrees and her Total Turn is 180 (less 90), she can make another 90-degree turn with no penalty. So far, so good. And the DC for a 135-degree turn would be 10 (+5 for exceeding the Max Turn, and +5 for exceeding the Total Turn). This agrees with what you said too. I guess what I'm trying to get at is, I can follow your math when I break it down like this, but it's not intuitive that, for instance, there's no difference between a roll of 11 and a roll of 19. I don't know what to suggest as a solution, though. Maybe you just need to explain it in a bit more detail.
[Dive Attack] does not make use of the Turn Modifier.
Shouldn't more maneuverable vessels have an easier time pulling off a dive attack?
If instead of a gremlin on the wing, it had been a NPC secured with a rope and grappling hook, the check would have been a Climb check, with bonuses for the hook and rope.
So what if they don't have a rope? Can they still make a Climb check, just without the bonus? How do you decide when to make a Climb check and when to make a Balance check? What about a sailor hanging onto the railing of a sky-galleon? Does that count as a Climb check, since it's Str-based? Or can he choose to make a Climb *or* Balance check, whichever is better? What about objects? Do they shake loose automatically?
The base DC for [Landing] is DC 20.
BlackJaw set this at 10, and you've raised it to 20, which seems a bit high to me. How about splitting the difference and making it DC 15? Ditto for Taking-Off checks: make it DC 10.
Also, I think that you should put the Landing and Taking-Off stunts next to one another.
The pilot must end his action by dropping another altitude category in order to touch down. The round after touchdown a vessel must travel its Minimum Speed in a straight line.
Am I to understand this as taking two rounds, then? One to touch down and one to stop? How does this jive with the rules for extended landings? I think it makes more sense to make landing a full-round action; touchdown at the end of the pilot's first action and then use the second action to move minimum speed.
The landing vessel touches down at the end of the last round, and must then travel its Minimum Speed in a straight line just as described above.
Is this *in addition to* the distance travelled while landing? Because if so, then the vessel really moves at least three times its minimum speed (twice in the air, once on the ground). Again, I think it would be better to say that the pilot touches down in the middle of his run. The landing check is made on touchdown, and if it's failed, the vehicles crashes right there. Otherwise it moves its minimum speed for the rest of the round(s) with no further incident unless an obstacle appears (or the pilot misjudged the length of the runway), in which case another Pilot check is needed to avoid crashing at that point.
Vessels with a Minimum Speed of zero cannot gain this bonus.
I'd be inclined to give them a flat bonus (say +5) to take-offs and landings to compensate for this lack and to reflect the fact that you're much less likely to crash if you're not moving forward at a rapid pace.
If at any point during an extended landing, the pilot changes his mind and wishes to abandon the landing attempt...
What if the pilot tries to make a pre-emptive landing earlier than planned? Is this treated as a normal landing check without the bonus, or is there an additional penalty?
Failing [a Complex Stunt] does not worsen a vessel's armor class, although it can result in loss of control.
Under what circumstances?
The Piloting skill check DC to regain control is 20.
While this makes sense if the vehicle is really "out of control", it seems too high for cases where the vehicle is simply "uncontrolled". For example: Joe Bloe is flying a tramp freighter from Earth to Saturn and gets up to take a leak. His ship has no autopilot and his co-pilot is off-duty and asleep in his bunk. Since Saturn is still three hours away, the ship just continues traveling on course in a straight line. When Captain Bloe comes back in five minutes, he shouldn't have any trouble taking over the controls again. How do you simulate this sort of situation?
Also, you haven't really covered the issue of when a vessel might lose control (during a failed dive attack, for instance), or what the consequences are of an absymal failure on a Regain Control check (e.g. plummeting).
If at any point during an extended take-off, the pilot changes his mind and wishes to lift off immediately...
What about an aborted take-off? I'd be inclined to allow it with no check so long as the pilot hasn't lifted off yet and the runway is long enough to taxi to a halt, but you should make this explicit.
-------------------
On the subject of guided weapons: I like your second idea (ranged touch attack to "lock on", Reflex save to reduce damage), but there are a few minor changes I'd suggest:
1) I think a Spot check would only be used to target guided weapons in special cases. Most guided weapons would have an inherent attack bonus.
2) The vessel's Reflex save should be modified by its armor bonus. (Armor doesn't make it harder to get a lock on a vessel, but does make it harder to damage it.)
3) Do you think that the pilot of the targeted vessel should be required to use a stunt in order to make a save? Or maybe the save is rolled automatically, but the pilot can sacrifice one of his actions for his next turn in order to add his Pilot ranks to the save. This could apply to saves vs. collisions as well as vs. guided weapons.
On vehicle construction, I think you've done a great job so far (and I like the sail/blimp idea!), though I have one minor quibble: as written, it sounds like hardness is determined by hull size instead of hull material. Surely this is just a misunderstanding on my part? The statement in question: I'll go with a "Small vessel," which would be a Gargantuan Creature by normal sizes. That's 32’-64’ feet of vehicle. This also means the vehicle has a Hardness of 15, and could have Hit Dice between 16 and 31.
Also, are you going to cover the topic of critical hits on vehicles? Or have you decided that they're immune to crits, like constructs?
-------------------
Moving on to the subject of character creation:
Wyvern did a the sections for setting use, etc and one of the things he did that I was never happy about, was bring a lot of less then useful PrCs into the setting. Even worse, those PrCs where from other people and sites and not his own work, or have all that much to do with flight.
I don't know why you're calling two prestige classes "a lot". Although I agree that the dragon knight doesn't really fit; I only included it because I think it's cool and I felt like we needed more than just one prestige class. I never did get around to e-mailing the creator, and I agree that it would be rather ungracious to co-opt his class without asking him first. I wouldn't be at all upset if you threw it out. On the other hand, the skydancer is my own invention and I think it's perfectly appropriate for inclusion in the Cosmonomicon, in the sample settings chapter if nowhere else. I don't know why you think it's so setting-specific, since it could potentially be used in any fantasy setting with flying ships (which is a large portion of our target settings).
I think that a pilot class of some kind is essential for the Cosmonomicon, but I'm not particularly attached to the Dragonstar version. You made some mention of a pilot prestige class; I'd like to see what you had in mind. As far as OGC issues go, I really do think that the parts I included are "fair use" under the OGL. Ditto for the feats. (After all, one of the stipulations of the OGL is that you have to allow other people to use some of your ideas.) If you're that worried about it, I could try to get in touch with the authors and get their permission, but I can't be bothered if you're not going to include it anyway.
I included the mechanist because it seemed like an important accompaniment to the technology rules. On the other hand, many high-tech d20 settings already have their own version on the class, which would render my version redundant. On the third hand, people using the Cosmonomicon in high-tech settings of their own design might be grateful for having access to such a class without having to purchase Dragonstar or Star Wars or make it up themselves. Again, as far as I can tell, what I wrote is not a violation of the OGL.
On the subject of the piloting skill and control feats: I admit that the system I designed is a bit limiting, but I don't know what you think would work better. There are basically only three other alternatives I can think of. One would be to have a separate Pilot skill for each different type of vehicle, but I suspect you would like that even less than requiring separate feats. The second would be to allow the Pilot skill to be used for any type of vehicle without penalty (barring tech-level penalties). This really offends my sense of realism; someone who's trained exclusively as a helicopter pilot is just not going to be able to operate an airliner with the same ease, let alone a sailboat. The third possibility is to model it on the Ride skill and have a pilot pick one "favored vehicle", suffering a penalty when piloting any other type. However, this is not really functionally different from having a single control proficiency feat under my system, only without the flexibility of being able to diversify your skill by adding more feats.
When it comes right down to it, most vehicles of a given broad type are covered by the same Simple control proficiency. The Complex control proficiency is mostly only used by specialized military or scientific vehicles, and the Exotic control proficiency is for alien vehicles or experimental prototypes. And it's not as if the system is without precedent; it's based directly on weapon proficiencies, and for much the same reason, although I varied the prerequisites and the penalties for non-proficiency for the sake of realism.
I'd like to know why you think Navigation should be a Wis-based skill. As I see it, navigating by the stars or with electronic instruments is a highly mathematical skill, and as such Int-based. Orienteering is a different skill which could be seen as either Int-based or Wis-based; it relies heavily on being aware of your surroundings, but it also makes use of maps, compasses and coordinates. Personally, I think this is what Intuit Direction should have been. Having two different Wis-based navigational skills just seems redundant to me.
You haven't said much lately about my chapter on world-design. Do you have issues with that as well which you haven't told me about, or are you planning to include it more-or-less as is? If references to Spelljammer concern you, they can easily be edited out. In fact, looking over what I wrote, there are several changes I'd like to make (but again, I'm not going to the trouble if you don't plan on using it). Incidentally, I finally came up with a question #10 for my list of 12:
10) What are the terrain and topography like? Is is flat or mountainous? Is it a barren wasteland, or covered in verdant forests? The whole planet need not be the same, of course. In fact, global ecosystems are an unscientific stereotype that you may wish to avoid in sci-fi settings, though in a more fantastic setting there's no reason they couldn't exist.
One final note: way back when I joined this project, when there were still a much greater number of participants, I offered my services as a proofreader. That offer still stands (and I promise you, I really am good at it). I made several notes as I read through your alpha draft, but I won't bother you with them until you have something more "final". When that point arrives, there are two options: I could send you an itemized list of errata, or I could make the changes myself and send you a corrected draft. The latter requires much less effort from me and hardly any from you, but it requires that you trust me to know what I'm doing. So what do you prefer? (Either way, it would be helpful to have your e-mail address.)
Wyvern
P.S. The forum link on the Cosmonomicon front page still leads to the old forum location. Could you see about updating it?
I'm most impressed with the work you've done in my absence, and I eagerly await seeing your completed vehicle design rules. (I'm sure I'll have lots of ideas for components to add.) Your dedication to this project puts me to shame. Also, I'm most impressed with barsoomcore's contribution; he wrote a much better introduction than I could have (my "Key Concepts" chapter was intended more to lay groundwork for us to build on than to introduce it to new readers anyway).
Now, as I mentioned, I have a lot to say about what you've written so far. This is going to become a very long post, but I don't really see any point in breaking it up into chunks. (You needn't read it all in one sitting, of course.) Some of the questions I have about your alpha rules aren't applicable to barsoomcore's revised draft, so I'll pass over them until such a time as they become relevant again.
-------------------
Note that while a vessel may have more than one set of controls, during each round it may have only one pilot.
I recall some mention being made at one point of rules for co-pilots. How about adding a rule that a co-pilot can use a move-equivalent action to make a cooperative Pilot check, given a second set of controls?
A flying creature automatically has ranks in Piloting equal to its Maneuverability rating...
Is this going to be replaced with a flat bonus? If so, I should point out that the racial bonus to Climb and Swim checks is +8, not +10 (MM p. 7). If you want it to be graded by maneuverability, I'd suggest a bonus equal to *twice* the M.R.
Vehicles: The pilot of a vessel is whoever is currently at the controls. A vessel may have more than one set of controls...
You need to change "vessel" to "vehicle" in these two sentences to avoid confusion.
Note that a vehicle, unlike a creature, cannot run or take a double move action.
How about adding a stunt called "Push it to the Limit" or something like that, which allows you to go above the maximum speed? Perhaps this could be contingent on having certain types of vessels, or certain components such as booster rockets.
The pilot (should that be different from the creature itself) cannot make the creature go faster by taking two steer a vessel actions.
I think this sentence is unnecessary, since you've already stated that "The pilot of a creature is *always* the creature itself" (my emphasis).
No single turn or slide may exceed the vessel's Max Turn rating, and all turns and slides combined may not exceed the vessel's Total Turn rating.
I would add to the end of this sentence: ", unless the pilot uses a Hard Turn stunt.
Each vehicle also has a Maximum Ability Bonus, which determines the highest ability bonus that may be applied to Piloting skill checks made in that vehicle, the vehicle's armour class and reflex saves.
Am I right in understanding that this rule is now gone? If not, how is the max. bonus determined: by size, maneuverability, or engine type? Also, is this meant to imply that vehicles which use Wis for Pilot checks also use it for AC and Reflex saves?
Note that in a gravity environment, a vessel gains a +1 circumstance bonus to any attack rolls made against an opponent at a lower altitude.
What's the rationale for this? I mean, it makes sense for archers firing from atop a hill to get a bonus, but not so much sense in a low-orbital dogfight using laser cannons. What about guided missiles? Do *they* get a bonus to hit if fired from a higher altitude?
A collision check is a Piloting skill check made against DC 10, modified by the other object's size modifier.
How is the size modifier determined? If you just take the AC/attack mod from the chart, larger objects are going to have a *lower* DC. Did you mean to use the *inverse* of that number (i.e. positive becomes negative and vice versa)?
If there is more than one object in the square, the DM should determined randomly which object the pilot's vessel is on a collision course with.
Shouldn't you add the size mods for all objects in the square to the collision check to represent the greater difficulty of avoiding multiple objects? Of course, if some objects have negative size modifiers, this logic breaks down. Maybe you should use the highest size mod, plus one for every additional object in the square.
If the target object is a vessel, the pilot of that vessel may make [a] collision check of his own.
Does this require the pilot to use an action? Should it?
Refer to the Vessel Size chart in Chapter One to determine collision damage.
What if a Huge vessel hits a Tiny one? Is the damage the same for both? I don't think it should be; rather, I think damage should be determined by the size class of what you hit (or were hit by). If you use the same damage for both vessels, you get illogical results. If the damage is determined by the smaller of the two, a Tiny vessel takes no more damage from hitting a Huge vessel than another Tiny one. If the larger of the two, a Huge vessel takes as much damage from hitting a Tiny vessel as another Huge one.
The colliding vessel gets no saving throw.
I think that, unless the vessel is out of control or deliberately ramming the other vessel, it should get a saving throw too. This represents the pilot desperately trying to minimize the damage by turning the vessel so it impacts at a less-vulnerable point. This shouldn't come for free, though; it would require at least a move-equivalent action, and possibly a stunt. (I'd advise against the latter, though, because a collision involves enough dice rolls as it is.)
If a collision occurs head-on between two moving vessels (that is, the struck vessel moved at least one square last round)...
This is ambiguous. What if the struck vessel was moving *away* from the one that struck it? Then it's a rear-end collision, not a head-on one. I think you should specify that the struck vessel moved towards the striker (within a 45 degree angle).
If the collision occurs with the ground or a ground-based object, all damage is tripled.
So what's the size modifier for the ground?
Spiraling: When a vessel with a fails to travel its Minimum Speed...
With a what? Did you mean to type "with a Minimum Speed"? If so, I think you can just cut that and say "When a vessel fails to travel its Minimum Speed..."
...it begins to spiral. Such a vessel is plunging earthward at great speed.
I agree with BlackJaw's idea of replacing "spiral" with "plummet" or somesuch. "Spiral" just doesn't fit when describing a vessel falling headfirst towards the ground.
If she rolls less than 20 but more than 10, her vessel will turn only 135 degrees on this turn. If she rolls less than 10 her vessel will turn only 90 degrees.
I'm a bit befuddled by your calculations here. When you say that the vessel turns only 90 degrees on a roll of less than 10, that's *in addition to* the 90-degree turn she already made, right? Since her Max Turn is 90 degrees and her Total Turn is 180 (less 90), she can make another 90-degree turn with no penalty. So far, so good. And the DC for a 135-degree turn would be 10 (+5 for exceeding the Max Turn, and +5 for exceeding the Total Turn). This agrees with what you said too. I guess what I'm trying to get at is, I can follow your math when I break it down like this, but it's not intuitive that, for instance, there's no difference between a roll of 11 and a roll of 19. I don't know what to suggest as a solution, though. Maybe you just need to explain it in a bit more detail.
[Dive Attack] does not make use of the Turn Modifier.
Shouldn't more maneuverable vessels have an easier time pulling off a dive attack?
If instead of a gremlin on the wing, it had been a NPC secured with a rope and grappling hook, the check would have been a Climb check, with bonuses for the hook and rope.
So what if they don't have a rope? Can they still make a Climb check, just without the bonus? How do you decide when to make a Climb check and when to make a Balance check? What about a sailor hanging onto the railing of a sky-galleon? Does that count as a Climb check, since it's Str-based? Or can he choose to make a Climb *or* Balance check, whichever is better? What about objects? Do they shake loose automatically?
The base DC for [Landing] is DC 20.
BlackJaw set this at 10, and you've raised it to 20, which seems a bit high to me. How about splitting the difference and making it DC 15? Ditto for Taking-Off checks: make it DC 10.
Also, I think that you should put the Landing and Taking-Off stunts next to one another.
The pilot must end his action by dropping another altitude category in order to touch down. The round after touchdown a vessel must travel its Minimum Speed in a straight line.
Am I to understand this as taking two rounds, then? One to touch down and one to stop? How does this jive with the rules for extended landings? I think it makes more sense to make landing a full-round action; touchdown at the end of the pilot's first action and then use the second action to move minimum speed.
The landing vessel touches down at the end of the last round, and must then travel its Minimum Speed in a straight line just as described above.
Is this *in addition to* the distance travelled while landing? Because if so, then the vessel really moves at least three times its minimum speed (twice in the air, once on the ground). Again, I think it would be better to say that the pilot touches down in the middle of his run. The landing check is made on touchdown, and if it's failed, the vehicles crashes right there. Otherwise it moves its minimum speed for the rest of the round(s) with no further incident unless an obstacle appears (or the pilot misjudged the length of the runway), in which case another Pilot check is needed to avoid crashing at that point.
Vessels with a Minimum Speed of zero cannot gain this bonus.
I'd be inclined to give them a flat bonus (say +5) to take-offs and landings to compensate for this lack and to reflect the fact that you're much less likely to crash if you're not moving forward at a rapid pace.
If at any point during an extended landing, the pilot changes his mind and wishes to abandon the landing attempt...
What if the pilot tries to make a pre-emptive landing earlier than planned? Is this treated as a normal landing check without the bonus, or is there an additional penalty?
Failing [a Complex Stunt] does not worsen a vessel's armor class, although it can result in loss of control.
Under what circumstances?
The Piloting skill check DC to regain control is 20.
While this makes sense if the vehicle is really "out of control", it seems too high for cases where the vehicle is simply "uncontrolled". For example: Joe Bloe is flying a tramp freighter from Earth to Saturn and gets up to take a leak. His ship has no autopilot and his co-pilot is off-duty and asleep in his bunk. Since Saturn is still three hours away, the ship just continues traveling on course in a straight line. When Captain Bloe comes back in five minutes, he shouldn't have any trouble taking over the controls again. How do you simulate this sort of situation?
Also, you haven't really covered the issue of when a vessel might lose control (during a failed dive attack, for instance), or what the consequences are of an absymal failure on a Regain Control check (e.g. plummeting).
If at any point during an extended take-off, the pilot changes his mind and wishes to lift off immediately...
What about an aborted take-off? I'd be inclined to allow it with no check so long as the pilot hasn't lifted off yet and the runway is long enough to taxi to a halt, but you should make this explicit.
-------------------
On the subject of guided weapons: I like your second idea (ranged touch attack to "lock on", Reflex save to reduce damage), but there are a few minor changes I'd suggest:
1) I think a Spot check would only be used to target guided weapons in special cases. Most guided weapons would have an inherent attack bonus.
2) The vessel's Reflex save should be modified by its armor bonus. (Armor doesn't make it harder to get a lock on a vessel, but does make it harder to damage it.)
3) Do you think that the pilot of the targeted vessel should be required to use a stunt in order to make a save? Or maybe the save is rolled automatically, but the pilot can sacrifice one of his actions for his next turn in order to add his Pilot ranks to the save. This could apply to saves vs. collisions as well as vs. guided weapons.
On vehicle construction, I think you've done a great job so far (and I like the sail/blimp idea!), though I have one minor quibble: as written, it sounds like hardness is determined by hull size instead of hull material. Surely this is just a misunderstanding on my part? The statement in question: I'll go with a "Small vessel," which would be a Gargantuan Creature by normal sizes. That's 32’-64’ feet of vehicle. This also means the vehicle has a Hardness of 15, and could have Hit Dice between 16 and 31.
Also, are you going to cover the topic of critical hits on vehicles? Or have you decided that they're immune to crits, like constructs?
-------------------
Moving on to the subject of character creation:
Wyvern did a the sections for setting use, etc and one of the things he did that I was never happy about, was bring a lot of less then useful PrCs into the setting. Even worse, those PrCs where from other people and sites and not his own work, or have all that much to do with flight.
I don't know why you're calling two prestige classes "a lot". Although I agree that the dragon knight doesn't really fit; I only included it because I think it's cool and I felt like we needed more than just one prestige class. I never did get around to e-mailing the creator, and I agree that it would be rather ungracious to co-opt his class without asking him first. I wouldn't be at all upset if you threw it out. On the other hand, the skydancer is my own invention and I think it's perfectly appropriate for inclusion in the Cosmonomicon, in the sample settings chapter if nowhere else. I don't know why you think it's so setting-specific, since it could potentially be used in any fantasy setting with flying ships (which is a large portion of our target settings).
I think that a pilot class of some kind is essential for the Cosmonomicon, but I'm not particularly attached to the Dragonstar version. You made some mention of a pilot prestige class; I'd like to see what you had in mind. As far as OGC issues go, I really do think that the parts I included are "fair use" under the OGL. Ditto for the feats. (After all, one of the stipulations of the OGL is that you have to allow other people to use some of your ideas.) If you're that worried about it, I could try to get in touch with the authors and get their permission, but I can't be bothered if you're not going to include it anyway.
I included the mechanist because it seemed like an important accompaniment to the technology rules. On the other hand, many high-tech d20 settings already have their own version on the class, which would render my version redundant. On the third hand, people using the Cosmonomicon in high-tech settings of their own design might be grateful for having access to such a class without having to purchase Dragonstar or Star Wars or make it up themselves. Again, as far as I can tell, what I wrote is not a violation of the OGL.
On the subject of the piloting skill and control feats: I admit that the system I designed is a bit limiting, but I don't know what you think would work better. There are basically only three other alternatives I can think of. One would be to have a separate Pilot skill for each different type of vehicle, but I suspect you would like that even less than requiring separate feats. The second would be to allow the Pilot skill to be used for any type of vehicle without penalty (barring tech-level penalties). This really offends my sense of realism; someone who's trained exclusively as a helicopter pilot is just not going to be able to operate an airliner with the same ease, let alone a sailboat. The third possibility is to model it on the Ride skill and have a pilot pick one "favored vehicle", suffering a penalty when piloting any other type. However, this is not really functionally different from having a single control proficiency feat under my system, only without the flexibility of being able to diversify your skill by adding more feats.
When it comes right down to it, most vehicles of a given broad type are covered by the same Simple control proficiency. The Complex control proficiency is mostly only used by specialized military or scientific vehicles, and the Exotic control proficiency is for alien vehicles or experimental prototypes. And it's not as if the system is without precedent; it's based directly on weapon proficiencies, and for much the same reason, although I varied the prerequisites and the penalties for non-proficiency for the sake of realism.
I'd like to know why you think Navigation should be a Wis-based skill. As I see it, navigating by the stars or with electronic instruments is a highly mathematical skill, and as such Int-based. Orienteering is a different skill which could be seen as either Int-based or Wis-based; it relies heavily on being aware of your surroundings, but it also makes use of maps, compasses and coordinates. Personally, I think this is what Intuit Direction should have been. Having two different Wis-based navigational skills just seems redundant to me.
You haven't said much lately about my chapter on world-design. Do you have issues with that as well which you haven't told me about, or are you planning to include it more-or-less as is? If references to Spelljammer concern you, they can easily be edited out. In fact, looking over what I wrote, there are several changes I'd like to make (but again, I'm not going to the trouble if you don't plan on using it). Incidentally, I finally came up with a question #10 for my list of 12:
10) What are the terrain and topography like? Is is flat or mountainous? Is it a barren wasteland, or covered in verdant forests? The whole planet need not be the same, of course. In fact, global ecosystems are an unscientific stereotype that you may wish to avoid in sci-fi settings, though in a more fantastic setting there's no reason they couldn't exist.
One final note: way back when I joined this project, when there were still a much greater number of participants, I offered my services as a proofreader. That offer still stands (and I promise you, I really am good at it). I made several notes as I read through your alpha draft, but I won't bother you with them until you have something more "final". When that point arrives, there are two options: I could send you an itemized list of errata, or I could make the changes myself and send you a corrected draft. The latter requires much less effort from me and hardly any from you, but it requires that you trust me to know what I'm doing. So what do you prefer? (Either way, it would be helpful to have your e-mail address.)
Wyvern
P.S. The forum link on the Cosmonomicon front page still leads to the old forum location. Could you see about updating it?
