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 LIVE! 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
Latest version of combat & movement
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="BlackJaw" data-source="post: 79364" data-attributes="member: 888"><p>Yah, your right.</p><p></p><p></p><p>True, some weapons should allow the passenger's Dex bonus.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Hold on here, when would the gun use Wis?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Only as a modifier do to gun quality/type/etc. Some weapons are just more acurate etc. This might stack with a passenger's Dex if the weapon also allows Dex etc. Kinda like a Masterwork system or special materials system.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Only if you have a targeting system of some kind. Those systems would have a BAB, and an Intit modifier. In order to operate, a scanner operator has to designate a target an enemy to be shot at. EXAMPLE: Gorth is running a scanning console. He's already detected (spot/listen/search etc checks with the scanner system) 2 retro-fitted Trade ships approching. They are running silent with no transponder signals, a sign of pirate activity. Groth uses a move equivilent action to send the targeting information to the Targeting system. The targeting system is a good quality device. It has a BAB of +6/+1 so it can make two attacks. It is hooked into a Laser cannon that can fire 3 times a round, but because it only has a +6/+1 it can attack twice. When transfering targeting information to a system, you must designate which order. In this example, the first ship sent to the system will be attacked with +6, while the second ship sent to the system will be attacked at +1. The system will continue to target those crafts until target lock is lost (as in hiding, or destruction) or a sensor operator changes the auto-fire system. Essentialy an auto-fire system is a passenger that justs shoots at what some one else tells it to shoot at. In a fantasy system an autofire system might be a simple undead minion that can be commanded to run a gun or technological device in sci-fi settings. This isn't the best description I know.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That depends on the vessel hull type. A standard vessel would be an object, and have those properties, but a tree-ship or undead ship, would be diffrent. That's a vessel feature. OR I might through them out saying that the vessel is like Construct and takes damage as such. Plus vessels will generaly have damage reduction and impressive armor, if not sheild systems, so this may not be needed. It's balence issue in that respect.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Oops. Sorry. Your right.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I figure that's a function of a scanner system and operator. If you can feed better targeting information to a gunner, then you can increase his attack accuracey. BUT this system doesn't seem "realistic" in a fantasy/magic system. It might be possible in a highly magical setup. Not sure how to work this without making it to complex. I might just make a simple system that gives an attack bonus if attached to a weapon instead of a more complex scanner / gunner interaction.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is part of the problem I have with a "starwars" like system where both the bonuses and names slide. It requires two armor class systems. That's not so simple. It also requires I know what to do when a Dragon (which is both a vessel and a passenger) is attacked by an attack hellicopter and a paladin on a flying horse. I'm thinking about a new size system where the actual size modifier is the same, so the armor class number is the same. Just change the names. I'll explain in another post.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm worried about the way this effects combat. I may make some ships to easy to hit while others are to hard to hit. I know it makes sense. I need to do some play testing soon.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Actualy most crafts go out of control if un-piloted. That's why auto-pilot systems were invented. Early ones were just mechanical locks that held the stick in place. You can't just leave the stick of a craft and expect it to fly forward. Most crafts, especialy modern ones like spacecrafts, have advanced electronic systems that can pilot the vessel. Call this auto-pilot. Even a hovering craft will need something to keep it from drifitng or losing control. Hellicopters are extreamly nasty in this respect. Hovering can be done, but hellicopters will not defualt to it. But all this aside, the concept of letting a craft move without anyone flying it will result in a more complex set of rules being needed for combat. I don't want a craft to be able to move if no one is flying it (unless an auto-pilot system is used.) That opens the system for a lot of abuse.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I based the fortitude save on the concept of Con scores. The more I think about it the less I like it, But both Fort saves and an engineering modifier will be needed. I have some other ideas about this. What if Fort saves are made as a skill check by the "engineering" character. If there is no character working engineering, then it will be some sort of simple save. Simple as in some sort of basic modifier. Not sure how to determine that modifier yet, but oh well. This part needs work still.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No. some crafts maybe able to pull impressive manuvers but not be easy to fly. The opposite is also true. Maneuverability is what a Vessel can do with little effort. Doing more in the vessel requires a Stunt, which means a skill check, and that check may be hard or easy regardless of the maneuverablity class, although I might make it effect it. A Handling modifier may be determined through mathmatical system durring ship creations that could be affected by the final vessel's Maneuverability, but this is not the only thing to be calculated into it. This more or less goes in a ship constructions system.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Good ideas. A number of turns per move-actions is a great idea. Thanks!</p><p></p><p></p><p>Square systems are the standard. Hex grids would be nicer, and yes a point system is easier on a hex. Still I won't be even thinking about this optional concept untill we have a grid based system working. I'm still not sure I would point system hexagon. I think I'd just used hexagons with our current system. I don't think it would be very hard to work with that way actually.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BlackJaw, post: 79364, member: 888"] Yah, your right. True, some weapons should allow the passenger's Dex bonus. Hold on here, when would the gun use Wis? Only as a modifier do to gun quality/type/etc. Some weapons are just more acurate etc. This might stack with a passenger's Dex if the weapon also allows Dex etc. Kinda like a Masterwork system or special materials system. Only if you have a targeting system of some kind. Those systems would have a BAB, and an Intit modifier. In order to operate, a scanner operator has to designate a target an enemy to be shot at. EXAMPLE: Gorth is running a scanning console. He's already detected (spot/listen/search etc checks with the scanner system) 2 retro-fitted Trade ships approching. They are running silent with no transponder signals, a sign of pirate activity. Groth uses a move equivilent action to send the targeting information to the Targeting system. The targeting system is a good quality device. It has a BAB of +6/+1 so it can make two attacks. It is hooked into a Laser cannon that can fire 3 times a round, but because it only has a +6/+1 it can attack twice. When transfering targeting information to a system, you must designate which order. In this example, the first ship sent to the system will be attacked with +6, while the second ship sent to the system will be attacked at +1. The system will continue to target those crafts until target lock is lost (as in hiding, or destruction) or a sensor operator changes the auto-fire system. Essentialy an auto-fire system is a passenger that justs shoots at what some one else tells it to shoot at. In a fantasy system an autofire system might be a simple undead minion that can be commanded to run a gun or technological device in sci-fi settings. This isn't the best description I know. That depends on the vessel hull type. A standard vessel would be an object, and have those properties, but a tree-ship or undead ship, would be diffrent. That's a vessel feature. OR I might through them out saying that the vessel is like Construct and takes damage as such. Plus vessels will generaly have damage reduction and impressive armor, if not sheild systems, so this may not be needed. It's balence issue in that respect. Oops. Sorry. Your right. I figure that's a function of a scanner system and operator. If you can feed better targeting information to a gunner, then you can increase his attack accuracey. BUT this system doesn't seem "realistic" in a fantasy/magic system. It might be possible in a highly magical setup. Not sure how to work this without making it to complex. I might just make a simple system that gives an attack bonus if attached to a weapon instead of a more complex scanner / gunner interaction. This is part of the problem I have with a "starwars" like system where both the bonuses and names slide. It requires two armor class systems. That's not so simple. It also requires I know what to do when a Dragon (which is both a vessel and a passenger) is attacked by an attack hellicopter and a paladin on a flying horse. I'm thinking about a new size system where the actual size modifier is the same, so the armor class number is the same. Just change the names. I'll explain in another post. I'm worried about the way this effects combat. I may make some ships to easy to hit while others are to hard to hit. I know it makes sense. I need to do some play testing soon. Actualy most crafts go out of control if un-piloted. That's why auto-pilot systems were invented. Early ones were just mechanical locks that held the stick in place. You can't just leave the stick of a craft and expect it to fly forward. Most crafts, especialy modern ones like spacecrafts, have advanced electronic systems that can pilot the vessel. Call this auto-pilot. Even a hovering craft will need something to keep it from drifitng or losing control. Hellicopters are extreamly nasty in this respect. Hovering can be done, but hellicopters will not defualt to it. But all this aside, the concept of letting a craft move without anyone flying it will result in a more complex set of rules being needed for combat. I don't want a craft to be able to move if no one is flying it (unless an auto-pilot system is used.) That opens the system for a lot of abuse. I based the fortitude save on the concept of Con scores. The more I think about it the less I like it, But both Fort saves and an engineering modifier will be needed. I have some other ideas about this. What if Fort saves are made as a skill check by the "engineering" character. If there is no character working engineering, then it will be some sort of simple save. Simple as in some sort of basic modifier. Not sure how to determine that modifier yet, but oh well. This part needs work still. No. some crafts maybe able to pull impressive manuvers but not be easy to fly. The opposite is also true. Maneuverability is what a Vessel can do with little effort. Doing more in the vessel requires a Stunt, which means a skill check, and that check may be hard or easy regardless of the maneuverablity class, although I might make it effect it. A Handling modifier may be determined through mathmatical system durring ship creations that could be affected by the final vessel's Maneuverability, but this is not the only thing to be calculated into it. This more or less goes in a ship constructions system. Good ideas. A number of turns per move-actions is a great idea. Thanks! Square systems are the standard. Hex grids would be nicer, and yes a point system is easier on a hex. Still I won't be even thinking about this optional concept untill we have a grid based system working. I'm still not sure I would point system hexagon. I think I'd just used hexagons with our current system. I don't think it would be very hard to work with that way actually. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Hosted Settings
The Cosmonomicon
Latest version of combat & movement
Top