[5E] Saltmarsh - Attacking Ship Components - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12
  1. #11
    Member
    Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)

    Melkor's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Middle Earth
    Posts
    758
    I think what I was getting at is quite a simple concept overall LordEntrails.

    There doesn't seem to be any mechanical reason to attack the main body of a ship.

    Additionally, it would seem like it would be harder to target most of the components than it would to target the main body (with the exception of unfurled sails) - But this is not the case based on most of the components Armor Class compared to the AC of the main body.

    In my games, I will likely say that targeting a component other than the body (with the exception of the unfurled sails) is at Disadvantage. Of course, this can be countered by the Officer "Take Aim" action in the book.
    XP Sword of Spirit gave XP for this post

  2. #12
    Member
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)



    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Online
    Posts
    1,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Melkor View Post
    There doesn't seem to be any mechanical reason to attack the main body of a ship.
    Agreed, and I believe that it is supported both with historical fact and role playing reasons that no point in going for the hull. Do you want there to be a mechanical reason for attacking the hull?

    Additionally, it would seem like it would be harder to target most of the components than it would to target the main body (with the exception of unfurled sails) - But this is not the case based on most of the components Armor Class compared to the AC of the main body.
    Think of the size of most of the components on a ship, they are roughly the same size or larger than a character or monster. So if a commoner is AC 10 to damage standing on the deck of a ship, why so surprised or put off that to hit the helm is AC12 (or whatever)?

    And again, sure, it's really easy to hit the hull of the ship, that's not what AC is telling you, AC is what you have to roll to not only hit, but to do damage. So yes, it is very easy to target and hit the hull of the ship, but it is much harder to damage it because it is designed to be resistant to damage.

    Personally I think the hull should have immunity to piercing (from range weapons but not melee like a pick), and the sails resistance to piercing but vulnerability to slashing. Or something (its hard to forget the 3.x mentality). But, then I have to step back and ask myself, does that add to the fun?

    Another example, take a wooden target backstop. It is really easy to hit with an arrow or a thrown knife. Maybe AC2, cause it's really hard to miss with either of those weapons. But, I can hit it 10,000-20,000 times before it is beyond use. So do I give it 10000x3.5=35,000hp? Yea no, because if I take an ax to it, I can damage it pretty quickly (no more than 6 hits) so something like 30hp. I could give it immunity to piercing, but that doesn't work either, because if I hit my backstop with a ballistae, it's probably 1 or 2 hits before it's destroyed.

    The whole purpose of that example is to say that you have to make situational rulings, and not worry about every little detail. Every detail, and a mechanical rule for it generally doesn't add to the role playing fun. It can add to the intellectual fun of figuring it out, but not to the fun for everyone sitting about the table. (imo one big reason 5E has taken off in the wider pubic where 3.x did not.)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •