Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Hosted Settings
The Cosmonomicon
Chapter Two revised
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Wyvern" data-source="post: 427546" data-attributes="member: 2374"><p>Here's my (belated) feedback on the latest revision of the rules. It may seem like I've still got a lot of nitpicks, but these are just working out the wrinkles. Overall, I'm very impressed with what you've written.</p><p></p><p>Starting at the top:</p><p></p><p><strong>Described head-on collisions</strong></p><p><strong>-- possibly not clear enough yet.</strong></p><p>Your description seemed perfectly clear to me. It's definitely much improved over the previous version.</p><p></p><p><strong>Solid surfaces deal double damage and liquid surfaces deal normal damage. This means we don't need to describe a special case for landing on water.</strong></p><p>This is a great way of handling it. However, I think we should still make note of the fact that some vessels can only land on water and others can only land on land. This should be a part of the vessel stat block, as in Spelljammer. Attempting a landing on the wrong surface will result in an automatic crash. Also, crashing on water will be followed by sinking.</p><p></p><p><strong>...it should be trivial to reassert control.... UNLESS a loss of control causes a vehicle to fail to travel its Minimum Speed.</strong></p><p>You ought to mention somewhere that the Minimum Speed requirement doesn't apply in zero-gravity conditions.</p><p></p><p><strong>...a pilot with only one rank can automatically land if he spends at least two rounds coming in (to gain a +4 bonus). Is that the idea?</strong></p><p>I hadn't considered it specifically in those terms, though that sounds reasonable. The reason I suggested DC 15 is simply because DC 20 seemed too high for landing, but DC 5 seemed too low for take-off, so I figured 15 and 10 would be a good compromise. I still think that the take-off DC should be 10, to make it easier than landing.</p><p></p><p><strong>Loss of control on a natural 1.</strong></p><p>There's one problem with this rule (which is the reason why I didn't suggest it myself); it means that all pilots, no matter what their skill level, suffer a 1 in 20 chance of losing control anytime they attempt a hard turn. Better to say that a natural 1 means that the pilot must make *another* Piloting check (or perhaps a Reflex save) at, say, DC 15 to avoid losing control.</p><p></p><p><strong>Even if the pilot takes two steer a vessel actions in one round, a vehicle cannot move any further than its Speed rating.</strong></p><p>I think this sentence is unnecessary, since you already said the same thing quite clearly in the previous paragraph, and the one before *that*.</p><p>I'd still like to see a stunt that allows the pilot to increase a vehicle's speed beyond its normal limit.</p><p></p><p><strong>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.</strong></p><p>I still think it would be a good idea to add ", unless the pilot uses a Hard Turn stunt."</p><p></p><p><strong>Vessels are considered to be at one of three altitudes: Low, Medium or High.</strong></p><p>I'd still like to see a rule allowing vessels to fly at "Ground" level, to simulate barnstorming and other such maneuvers. It wouldn't require an actual Stunt, just a collision check each round to avoid crashing. This would be an exception to the rule that you don't need to make new collision checks when moving between squares occupied by the same object.</p><p></p><p>I really like the way you decided to handle collision checks with multiple objects, by the way.</p><p></p><p><strong>A vessel that continues plummeting.... will take triple normal crash damage upon impact...</strong></p><p>What exactly does "triple normal" mean? Since crashing into the ground already inflicts double damage, does this mean that plummeting into the ground multiplies the damage by six? And if not, then what about plummeting into water? Does that also inflict triple normal damage?</p><p></p><p><strong>The pilot must use at least one more steer a vessel action to control the vessel [after landing]... (some vessels may require more actions, depending on the difference between their minimum speed and their Speed ratings).</strong></p><p>I think this would be clearer if you replaced "Speed ratings" with "current speed". Incidentally, this raises the question of acceleration and deceleration. It's hardly realistic for a ship of any maneuverability class to be able to stop on a dime. So how do you propose we handle this?</p><p></p><p><strong>On his next action, he travels 60 feet in a straight line and touches down right at the top end of the runway.</strong></p><p>The way this is written, it seems as though the length of the runway doesn't matter when making an extended landing, since you don't touch down until the last round. That's why, in my version of the landing rules, I stated that touchdown occurs midway through the landing attempt (however long it might be). I admit it wasn't very elegant, and it got messy when dealing with premature landings. However, I've come up with a better solution which results in almost the same effect, but is much clearer. Let's say that an extended landing requires the pilot to move down the runway in a straight line *after touchdown* for a number of rounds equal to the number spent landing. (Of course, adding acceleration/deceleration rules could complicate this, but we'd need to see how such rules actually turn out before thinking about a solution.)</p><p></p><p>Other than this, the take-off and landing rules are much improved. However, you forgot to mention hovering vehicles (those with a minimum speed of zero). As I said before, I think they should get a flat +5 bonus to take-off and landing checks if they spend a full round on them.</p><p></p><p>By the way, are flying creatures required to make take-off and landing checks too?</p><p></p><p><strong>Anyone or thing not secured on the vessel must make a Balance check to maintain their footing or a Climb check to retain their grip, depending on the situation.</strong></p><p>This could still use some clarification regarding which check to make when (i.e. do you have to have climbing gear to make a Climb check, or do you simply need something you can grab onto?). Also, what happens to unattended objects? Do they automatically fail their check?</p><p></p><p>Other miscellaneous questions/comments:</p><p></p><p>Can you take 10 on Hard Turn, Hard Climb, Shake Loose or Complex Stunt checks?</p><p></p><p>I think that the Hard Climb stunt would fit most naturally in-between Hard Turn and Dive Attack.</p><p></p><p>How do you suggest dealing with dives and climbs in a zero-gravity environment?</p><p></p><p>Wyvern</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wyvern, post: 427546, member: 2374"] Here's my (belated) feedback on the latest revision of the rules. It may seem like I've still got a lot of nitpicks, but these are just working out the wrinkles. Overall, I'm very impressed with what you've written. Starting at the top: [b]Described head-on collisions -- possibly not clear enough yet.[/b] Your description seemed perfectly clear to me. It's definitely much improved over the previous version. [b]Solid surfaces deal double damage and liquid surfaces deal normal damage. This means we don't need to describe a special case for landing on water.[/b] This is a great way of handling it. However, I think we should still make note of the fact that some vessels can only land on water and others can only land on land. This should be a part of the vessel stat block, as in Spelljammer. Attempting a landing on the wrong surface will result in an automatic crash. Also, crashing on water will be followed by sinking. [b]...it should be trivial to reassert control.... UNLESS a loss of control causes a vehicle to fail to travel its Minimum Speed.[/b] You ought to mention somewhere that the Minimum Speed requirement doesn't apply in zero-gravity conditions. [b]...a pilot with only one rank can automatically land if he spends at least two rounds coming in (to gain a +4 bonus). Is that the idea?[/b] I hadn't considered it specifically in those terms, though that sounds reasonable. The reason I suggested DC 15 is simply because DC 20 seemed too high for landing, but DC 5 seemed too low for take-off, so I figured 15 and 10 would be a good compromise. I still think that the take-off DC should be 10, to make it easier than landing. [b]Loss of control on a natural 1.[/b] There's one problem with this rule (which is the reason why I didn't suggest it myself); it means that all pilots, no matter what their skill level, suffer a 1 in 20 chance of losing control anytime they attempt a hard turn. Better to say that a natural 1 means that the pilot must make *another* Piloting check (or perhaps a Reflex save) at, say, DC 15 to avoid losing control. [b]Even if the pilot takes two steer a vessel actions in one round, a vehicle cannot move any further than its Speed rating.[/b] I think this sentence is unnecessary, since you already said the same thing quite clearly in the previous paragraph, and the one before *that*. I'd still like to see a stunt that allows the pilot to increase a vehicle's speed beyond its normal limit. [b]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.[/b] I still think it would be a good idea to add ", unless the pilot uses a Hard Turn stunt." [b]Vessels are considered to be at one of three altitudes: Low, Medium or High.[/b] I'd still like to see a rule allowing vessels to fly at "Ground" level, to simulate barnstorming and other such maneuvers. It wouldn't require an actual Stunt, just a collision check each round to avoid crashing. This would be an exception to the rule that you don't need to make new collision checks when moving between squares occupied by the same object. I really like the way you decided to handle collision checks with multiple objects, by the way. [b]A vessel that continues plummeting.... will take triple normal crash damage upon impact...[/b] What exactly does "triple normal" mean? Since crashing into the ground already inflicts double damage, does this mean that plummeting into the ground multiplies the damage by six? And if not, then what about plummeting into water? Does that also inflict triple normal damage? [b]The pilot must use at least one more steer a vessel action to control the vessel [after landing]... (some vessels may require more actions, depending on the difference between their minimum speed and their Speed ratings).[/b] I think this would be clearer if you replaced "Speed ratings" with "current speed". Incidentally, this raises the question of acceleration and deceleration. It's hardly realistic for a ship of any maneuverability class to be able to stop on a dime. So how do you propose we handle this? [b]On his next action, he travels 60 feet in a straight line and touches down right at the top end of the runway.[/b] The way this is written, it seems as though the length of the runway doesn't matter when making an extended landing, since you don't touch down until the last round. That's why, in my version of the landing rules, I stated that touchdown occurs midway through the landing attempt (however long it might be). I admit it wasn't very elegant, and it got messy when dealing with premature landings. However, I've come up with a better solution which results in almost the same effect, but is much clearer. Let's say that an extended landing requires the pilot to move down the runway in a straight line *after touchdown* for a number of rounds equal to the number spent landing. (Of course, adding acceleration/deceleration rules could complicate this, but we'd need to see how such rules actually turn out before thinking about a solution.) Other than this, the take-off and landing rules are much improved. However, you forgot to mention hovering vehicles (those with a minimum speed of zero). As I said before, I think they should get a flat +5 bonus to take-off and landing checks if they spend a full round on them. By the way, are flying creatures required to make take-off and landing checks too? [b]Anyone or thing not secured on the vessel must make a Balance check to maintain their footing or a Climb check to retain their grip, depending on the situation.[/b] This could still use some clarification regarding which check to make when (i.e. do you have to have climbing gear to make a Climb check, or do you simply need something you can grab onto?). Also, what happens to unattended objects? Do they automatically fail their check? Other miscellaneous questions/comments: Can you take 10 on Hard Turn, Hard Climb, Shake Loose or Complex Stunt checks? I think that the Hard Climb stunt would fit most naturally in-between Hard Turn and Dive Attack. How do you suggest dealing with dives and climbs in a zero-gravity environment? Wyvern [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Hosted Settings
The Cosmonomicon
Chapter Two revised
Top