D20 Future Q&A With Rodney "Moridin" Thompson and JD Wiker!!

[Olive]

I'll put it on my "to-do" list, with a mutation point-to-ECL guideline chart that I promised earlier. I may have to wait on the MSRD update to make it net-legal, though...

Why not ask WotC to put it up on their site? then they would be supporting the book, and we'd get the info all official like. Even better, why not ask them to pay you to do a regular d20F column, which could include this stuff. Ghod knows we all appreciate support for some of the more specialised books.

 

[Buddha the DM]

I'll put it on my "to-do" list, with a mutation point-to-ECL guideline chart that I promised earlier. I may have to wait on the MSRD update to make it net-legal, though...

Excellent. Thank you very much.

 

[kinwolf]

I saw this question on the wizard board and I think it's a good one(meaning I am now asking myself the same thing )

In the case of a battle btw starships, how do you determine how much XP was gained, if any. And how do you distribute it among the PC? (Evenly, or a higher ratio for the pilot and gunner?)

Kinwolf

 

[The_Universe]

While we're on the subject of starships, much has been made in other threads of the relative power of starship armor and weaponry. In some cases, the disparities are so great that it would be essentially impossible for starships to destroy each other in the span of a normal session, let alone a normal combat. Was this intentional?

A much longer discussion on the subject is happening here: http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97102&page=2&pp=20

However, I think the main argument/potential problem can be summed up here:

A battlecruiser needs 39 successful hits with its heavy particle beams to destroy a strike cruiser. it needs 79 successful hits to destroy another battlecruiser. (this doesn't count in extra damage from possible missile hits or critical hits, but it's also ignoring damage control.) that's just too long for me. i don't want to limit PC starship combat to fighters; i want them to get involved in capital ship fights too. and even 39 rounds of combat seems way too long for me to devote to taking out a single capital ship.

 

[JDWiker]

Given that this seems to be one of the major bones of contention about the book I guess the questions are as follows:

1) Why?

I was told that they had wanted something "simpler."

2) By whom?

Chris Perkins apparently did most of the rewriting. though I suspect he had a lot of input from the team responsible for designing the D&D miniatures rules.

3) What did the original look like?

More like the Star Wars starship combat rules.

4) Are there plans to release the original in sme form?

You'd have to ask Wizards of the Coast.

5) Why do ships have non-location based hits? Would it have been worth bucking the trend and making ships have locations so that crits could have more effect/the sstem would modle sci-fi fiction/film by having the engines damaged etc?

The short answer is "simplicity." Location-based hits slow down play. The longer answer is that Wizards' design staff are not big fans of hit locations, for a variety of reasons, though I'll grant that enough people want such a system that it could *at least* be done as an optional rule.

 

[JDWiker]

In the case of a battle btw starships, how do you determine how much XP was gained, if any. And how do you distribute it among the PC? (Evenly, or a higher ratio for the pilot and gunner?)

Well, in the case of the Star Wars starship combat system, you would use the ship's crew quality as a gauge for their Challenge Code. We can adapt that system somewhat, I think, to the d20 Future rules:

Crew Quality Challenge Rating
Untrained 1/2
Trained 1
Skilled 2
Expert 4
Ace 8

That would be my suggestion, anyway. Feel free to spread that around.

JD

 

[JDWiker]

While we're on the subject of starships, much has been made in other threads of the relative power of starship armor and weaponry. In some cases, the disparities are so great that it would be essentially impossible for starships to destroy each other in the span of a normal session, let alone a normal combat. Was this intentional?

Yes, though it looks like some of my original hit point figures have been bumped up somewhat.

One of the main complaints we heard about the Star Wars starship combat systems was "It's too easy to destroy a Star Destroyer." And after seeing the rules in play for a few years, I had to concur. So I drew on the rules from Rich Baker's Starships to create capital ships that would last longer than two rounds against a fighter squadron.

And look at it realistically: 39 rounds is just shy of four minutes. Four minutes to take out a capital ship? That's still a ridiculously short time, even for a battleship. Sure, 39 rounds takes a while to play out, but what's a good figure? Ten rounds? Twenty rounds?

Look at it this way, if it helps put it into perspective: A flight of four fighters is going to deal an average of about 270 points of damage per round (assuming one attack per round each). That means it will take them roughly 53 rounds (5 minutes and 18 seconds) to destroy a battleship (factoring in the battleship's hardness).

Do you really want a starship combat system in which four PCs in fighters can take out a battleship in 5 minutes?

I think the higher hit point totals are completely justified. If players disagree, well, they can always reduce the hit points.

 

[The_Universe]

Thank you for the clarification. The rules seem to fine to me, but it's become a relatively large controversy on the thread I mentioned.

By no means does 5 minutes seem out of whack for the type of combat you're referring to.

 

[Henry]

Ladies and Gents, it apparently never got noticed, but I'll go ahead and move this to the d20 Systems forums, since it's kind of in the wrong place.

Please Carry on! Great info thus far.

 

[d4]

And look at it realistically: 39 rounds is just shy of four minutes. Four minutes to take out a capital ship? That's still a ridiculously short time, even for a battleship. Sure, 39 rounds takes a while to play out, but what's a good figure? Ten rounds? Twenty rounds?

i completely agree that from the point of view of "realism" (or verisimilitude, since we are talking about imaginary things here), four minutes is an incredibly short amount of time for a duel between two huge capital starships.

but 39 rounds could conceivably take several hours to play out at the game table. for me, playability always trumps realism, so i'd like a combat system that plays out a lot faster, even if that means space engagements are unrealistically short.

Do you really want a starship combat system in which four PCs in fighters can take out a battleship in 5 minutes?

5 minutes real-time or 5 minutes in-game-time? i think that combat should last about 20 minutes to a half-hour real time, and i don't particularly care how long (or short) that actually turns out to be in-game.

I think the higher hit point totals are completely justified. If players disagree, well, they can always reduce the hit points.

i was thinking of upping the weapon damage instead, but that amounts to the same thing. other than this area that i disagreee with, i'm really grooving on d20 Future, and i think you guys did a spectacular job.