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
Spring break = finish writing full rules
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: 182405" data-attributes="member: 2374"><p>I guess I wasn't very clear on what I was asking. My concern is that, since by your system it's to the pilot's advantage to minimize his speed, the distance traveled while landing will be the same no matter how long the runway is. Therefore the length of the runway has no impact on the landing. Sure, you could represent this by adding a bonus to the Pilot checks for longer runways, but this seems rather artificial if the actual distance traveled doesn't change.</p><p></p><p>How's this for a solution: for each additional round the pilot spends landing, he gains a bonus to the landing check, provided the runway is long enough to handle the full movement of the vessel over the course of that many rounds. The damage from a failed landing check is also reduced by a certain proportion for every extra round taken. The pilot must declare how many rounds he is taking *before* the check is made, since if a crash does occur it will usually be at the beginning of the landing (although you could also roll dice to see how far the vessel gets, if so desired). If the runway is too short, the vessel crashes automatically at the end of it.</p><p></p><p>This is only an option for vessels traveling at a speed better than 0, but perhaps those with a speed of 0 should get a flat bonus to landing checks to represent the fact that it's much easier to set down a hovering vessel than to land while moving rapidly forward.</p><p></p><p>Again, I don't think you quite understand what I was getting at. My point was that, all else being equal (including size), a vessel with a higher maneuverability should not only be able to turn more *without* making a check, but should have an easier time making *additional* turns of any given magnitude.</p><p></p><p>As for the handling modifier, I thought we'd agreed that it would be used to represent the difficultly of operating a vessel's controls, independent of size or maneuverability. If you want to change it, that's okay, as long as we're both clear on what the handling modifier means.</p><p></p><p>Wyvern</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wyvern, post: 182405, member: 2374"] I guess I wasn't very clear on what I was asking. My concern is that, since by your system it's to the pilot's advantage to minimize his speed, the distance traveled while landing will be the same no matter how long the runway is. Therefore the length of the runway has no impact on the landing. Sure, you could represent this by adding a bonus to the Pilot checks for longer runways, but this seems rather artificial if the actual distance traveled doesn't change. How's this for a solution: for each additional round the pilot spends landing, he gains a bonus to the landing check, provided the runway is long enough to handle the full movement of the vessel over the course of that many rounds. The damage from a failed landing check is also reduced by a certain proportion for every extra round taken. The pilot must declare how many rounds he is taking *before* the check is made, since if a crash does occur it will usually be at the beginning of the landing (although you could also roll dice to see how far the vessel gets, if so desired). If the runway is too short, the vessel crashes automatically at the end of it. This is only an option for vessels traveling at a speed better than 0, but perhaps those with a speed of 0 should get a flat bonus to landing checks to represent the fact that it's much easier to set down a hovering vessel than to land while moving rapidly forward. [B][/B]Again, I don't think you quite understand what I was getting at. My point was that, all else being equal (including size), a vessel with a higher maneuverability should not only be able to turn more *without* making a check, but should have an easier time making *additional* turns of any given magnitude. As for the handling modifier, I thought we'd agreed that it would be used to represent the difficultly of operating a vessel's controls, independent of size or maneuverability. If you want to change it, that's okay, as long as we're both clear on what the handling modifier means. Wyvern [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Hosted Settings
The Cosmonomicon
Spring break = finish writing full rules
Top