Concerns about ship sizes used by D20 Future

[Ranger REG]

I offered the following as an alternative:

Table: Starship Size (Optional)
======================================
Size   | Size         | Starship's
Class1 | Category     | Length
--------------------------------------
1      | Fine         | less than 0.1m
--------------------------------------
2      | Diminutive   | 0.1-0.3m
--------------------------------------
3      | Tiny         | 0.31-0.6m
--------------------------------------
4      | Small        | 0.61-1.2m
--------------------------------------
5      | Medium-size  | 1.21-2.4m
--------------------------------------
6      | Large        | 2.41-5m
--------------------------------------
7      | Huge         | 5.1-10m
--------------------------------------
8      | Gargantuan   | 10.1-20m
--------------------------------------
9      | Colossal     | 20.1-50m
--------------------------------------
10     | Ultralight   | 50.1-100m
--------------------------------------
11     | Light        | 100.1-250m
--------------------------------------
12     | Mediumweight | 250.1-500m
--------------------------------------
13     | Heavy        | 500.1-1,000m
--------------------------------------
14     | Superheavy   | 1-2.5km
--------------------------------------
15     |              | 2.5-5km
--------------------------------------
16     |              | 5-10km
--------------------------------------
17     |              | 10-25km
--------------------------------------
18     |              | 25-50km
--------------------------------------
19     |              | 50-100km
--------------------------------------
20     |              | 100-250km
======================================
1 Smaller ship gain +2 size bonus per size class difference of the bigger ship

Sorry I use metrics.

 

[Aussiegamer]

double post

 

[Aussiegamer]

Interesting scaling. Writes it down

And I see you went for the 2 size mod and not the doubling.

 

[Ranger REG]

Interesting scaling. Writes it down

And I see you went for the 2 size mod and not the doubling.

Meh. Didn't want to complicate the matter.

 

[genshou]

I would suggest a scale system. Say the current scale of fine thru colossal (ending at 128 ft.) is x1.

Start the next scale at 128 ft to 256 ft (doubling following sizes) and call that x2 fine. Continue until you hit x2 Colossal. The penalty for hitting things smaller that your scale is -16 and you recieve a -16 to your defense. Continue until you have enough scales to make you happy. You may need to adjust the upper end of colossal in x1 scale to fit your needs (e.g. 256 ft. instead of 128 ft ft.)

Admittedly this only scratches the surface and there is more to be fleshed out (how does scaling affect DR, hardness, damage etc). Hopefully you find this useful.

I think anything beyond a -8 size penalty to AC is under almost any circumstances counterintuitive–if you can't hit the broad side of a blue whale with an effective attack, you can't hit the broad side of anything! The larger size penalty to attack rolls makes sense. After all, starships aren't just sitting "motionless" in space. If it's hard to aim precisely enough to hit a 60-foot starship, imagine how hard it would be to aim for a mechanic working on the outside of the ship!

I like your scale, Ranger REG, but I'd like something I can use in conjunction with the current size category system, so I can figure out the difficulty to hit in those rare moments when a target smaller than Huge comes into play in starship combat.

As far as the idea of a size solution that still works with core d20 is concerned, The Black Kestrel has a good idea. I'll run a few numbers to see what I think of it. It's certainly a lot easier to use than my idea ("Now, what size does Huge become on the starship scale again?" becomes instead "Let's see... the ship is 400 feet, so that makes it x2 Diminutive. +4 bonus, but it becomes -16 against x1 size categories...")

 

[genshou]

I would suggest a scale system. Say the current scale of fine thru colossal (ending at 128 ft.) is x1.

Start the next scale at 128 ft to 256 ft (doubling following sizes) and call that x2 fine. Continue until you hit x2 Colossal. The penalty for hitting things smaller that your scale is -16 and you recieve a -16 to your defense. Continue until you have enough scales to make you happy. You may need to adjust the upper end of colossal in x1 scale to fit your needs (e.g. 256 ft. instead of 128 ft ft.)

Admittedly this only scratches the surface and there is more to be fleshed out (how does scaling affect DR, hardness, damage etc). Hopefully you find this useful.

1) In D&D, damage reduction does not change when a monster gains a size increase via HD advancement.
2) Hardness remains the same regardless of size (it's a property of the material's type, not the size). Iron and steel always have hardness 10, titanium always has hardness 20, etc.
3) Hit dice increase with size (as the d20 Future sample starships already do, but do an inadequate job of explaining the mechanics for).
4) For creatures, Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and natural armor also change as a creature advances in size.
5) Damage increases or decreases as outlined in tables which can be found in various places. A weapon which normally deals 16d8 damage would increase to 64d8 if it advanced four times in size category (16d8 > 32d6 > 32d8 > 64d6 > 64d8). Generally, ranged weapons don't advance in damage by advancing in size category unless other factors change with the weapon (ammunition calibur/size, energy output, etc.).

 

[Aussiegamer]

the -8 max rule is based on just looking at a stationary target only at short range, you have lots of condistional mods such as movement, range, cover, crew ability etc that need to be taken into account.

And thus just having a max of -8 seems a bit too easy.

 

[The Black Kestrel]

I think anything beyond a -8 size penalty to AC is under almost any circumstances counterintuitive–if you can't hit the broad side of a blue whale with an effective attack, you can't hit the broad side of anything! The larger size penalty to attack rolls makes sense. After all, starships aren't just sitting "motionless" in space. If it's hard to aim precisely enough to hit a 60-foot starship, imagine how hard it would be to aim for a mechanic working on the outside of the ship!

I disagree, much like Aussiegamer said, there are many factors that affect AC/Defense and attack rolls. Things like range increment, evasive maneuvers, speed etc. Some of these will obviously cancel each other out but, in the end huge objects are easier to hit than small objects.

1) In D&D, damage reduction does not change when a monster gains a size increase via HD advancement.
2) Hardness remains the same regardless of size (it's a property of the material's type, not the size). Iron and steel always have hardness 10, titanium always has hardness 20, etc.
3) Hit dice increase with size (as the d20 Future sample starships already do, but do an inadequate job of explaining the mechanics for).
4) For creatures, Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and natural armor also change as a creature advances in size.
5) Damage increases or decreases as outlined in tables which can be found in various places. A weapon which normally deals 16d8 damage would increase to 64d8 if it advanced four times in size category (16d8 > 32d6 > 32d8 > 64d6 > 64d8). Generally, ranged weapons don't advance in damage by advancing in size category unless other factors change with the weapon (ammunition calibur/size, energy output, etc.).

1. Not an issue I brought up.
2. You're right I can't argue against that from the way the rules describe hardness, though you would think that as your ship got larger you could mount superior/thicker/heavier versions of armor than something smaller.
3. I agree and it wasn't something I thought was an issue. It isn't too hard to figure out a hit die progression.
4. Not an issue I brought up..
5. See this is where we go into D20 Future design problems. Why do all starships mount the exact same class of weapons? Shouldn't bigger ships be able to carry larger "caliber" weapons thans ships smaller than them? If so why do all ships use the Starship Weapons table from D20 Future. I prefer the options presented in Ronin Art's Future firepower where there are multiple size classes of weapons and you have to be a minimum size to mount them.

I do appreciate the feedback

 

[Ranger REG]

I like your scale, Ranger REG, but I'd like something I can use in conjunction with the current size category system, so I can figure out the difficulty to hit in those rare moments when a target smaller than Huge comes into play in starship combat.

Like I said, I didn't want to complicate the matter. You can double the size penalty all you like but no matter how fast (under the current system) it is traveling, or how maneuverable (under the current system) it can be, or even how far (under the current weapon's range increment system) the humongous object, or how tough it is, with that much calculation, you're most likely to end up saying:

"Well, before my calculator blew up, it says the object has a total Defense of -125 ... so, all you need is a 2 to hit."

The same can be said in the opposite direction, only needing a 20 to hit (like you need to hit a particular quark particle of a particular atom, with a laser cannon).

 

[genshou]

[Font size increase added for emphasis]
I think anything beyond a -8 size penalty to AC is under almost any circumstances counterintuitive...

I never said anything about total modifiers, only the penalty to a creature or object's Defense based on size. Let's face it... an unattended object or structure has a Defense of 5 + size. So, a Colossal or larger building has a base Defense of 5 - 8 = -3. In order to miss with a ranged attack against this object, you'd have to either be carrying some serious penalties (possibly for range) or roll a natural 1. Imagine yourself adjacent to it and using a ranged weapon. That gives a +1 bonus to attack rolls (all ranged attacks against adjacent squares gain the benefit of the Point Blank Shot feat), so in order to hit with anything but a natural 1 you'd have to already have a -5 penalty to your attack roll. If you're carrying penalties like that and roll so low, you probably shouldn't be hitting anything of any size. Like I said, "If you can't hit the broad side of a blue whale, you can't hit the broad side of anything."

Of course, there are some exceptional circumstances that can negate this. For example, if you are on the inside of a gelatinous cube, a monster's stomach, a mountain, or a building, it's pretty hard to miss if you're not targeting a specific part of the interior.