Originally posted by BlackJaw
I see a problem with the draft's direct use of the DMG manuverablity ratings... They are all based on a 5' standard. If simply keep them how they are, then realy large vessels will need to move an entire 5 or 10 feet before they pull turns, and with about 30 feet they could turn all the way around!
The DMG's system is also a bit to complex to use all the time anyways.
I've made both of those arguments before. I DO NOT recomend that system for consistent or wide spread application of flight in a setting or game. They very much need to be cleaned up/simplified and more important still, reworked for our scale. My thoughts on the subject can be found here: http://www.enworld.org/messageboards/showthread.php?s=&threadid=400
I'm not sure what you mean about the 5' standard, since I changed all references to distance from absolute measurements to fractions of the ship's current speed. That way, it works out the same regardless of what movement scale you're using, and the faster a ship is going, the harder it is for them to make sharp turns. Perhaps you overlooked that change.
I'm not married to the DMG system, though; if someone offers a better system I'm quite willing to accept it. However, I think we should at least keep the same categories for maneuverability, even if we redefine how they operate, for the sake of compatability.
At any rate, in spite of the fact that the tactical combat system is the central part of the Cosmonomicon, it's actually the part that I'm least interested in detailing myself. Consequently, I haven't gotten around to reading the ideas you listed in the other thread (though I do have them saved on my hard drive for future perusal).
ALSO: You mentioned my HD/ship size listing. You'r right, it is a bit off. I think I based it off a Dragon article on monster design, and simply took their advice on construct HD by size. Keep in mind you were also using 5 hd for a large craft... I used 5 HD for a large object (as in the standard D&D size, not your vessel size system which would make it 4 sizes larger then large, and therefore more then 5 HD) I didn't say my system was perfect, or good... I was just saying a way to make it work. The exact size to HD ratio is not yet finalized.
I realize that your suggestions were just off-the-cuff. My comments in relation to them were just an observation, not a criticism. If you'll look at the stat block, however, you'll see that the example ship I gave was Tiny, which converted to the monster size scale translates as Large.
Be careful with a size type "slide." It can make things confusing as what you mean by a huge ship, and a huge dragon can be confusing. Also, at some point people will want to shoot at a non-vessel from their vessel (or vice versa) and then it can become annoying. I much prefer the Dragon star system which is just an extention of the standard size system instead of a name-shift like you and Starwars use.
The reason I chose the scale I did is because a spaceship that's large compared to a human is tiny in relation to other spaceships, and I think the labels should reflect that. The problem with the DragonStar system is that Colossal I, Colossal II, etc. are bland and not especially intuitive. But I realize that this is a matter of taste, and I don't want to be dictatorial about it. If I see a general consensus in favor of the DS system or something similar, I'll make the change. Until then, however, I'd rather leave it as it is.
As for the issue of people firing from the deck of a vessel, my system does provide a side benefit: it compensates for the change in distance between combatants. The size modifiers to AC are meant to reflect the fact that a large creature is a bigger target; however, when you're using a 30-ft grid it changes things. (Though I realize that range increments do account for this problem somewhat, they're designed for personal weapons, not ship weapons.) The same thing applies in reverse; it should be really hard to hit a human-sized target with a cannon at a hundred yards, and redefining humans as Fine simulates this.
I am a fan of a component system for ship construction. I found the alternity system for that topic very fun and allowed for a large and diverse number of crafts. It would be the most fun for me to work on.
By all means, go ahead. I have plenty of ideas of my own, of course, but this is definitely a case of "the more the merrier". Here's a suggestion for some categories of components:
Control
Propulsion
Navigation
Life Support
Weapons
Defenses
This is not an exhaustive list, and of course you're free to come up with your own if you prefer, but it would be wise to have some sort of classification system to make it easier to compile everyone's ideas when it comes to the final draft.
Wyvern
