D20 Future Q&A With Rodney "Moridin" Thompson and JD Wiker!!

[JDWiker]

1) The book is great. Where some people have complained about it being "skeletal," I think quite the opposite. I would call it "tight." You managed to cram alot of info in an astonishingly low number of pages. (For what we're planning on doing with it, check out my sig.)

I wasn't involved with the final assembly of the book, myself, but "tight" is a pretty accurate descriptor. They cut out *a lot.* Hopefully they left enough so that anyone with a little imagination can create any setting they like.

2) The hit point threshold system looks similar to what Goodman did with their Dragonmechs. I looked at it briefly awhile ago, but I think that's an alternative that at least has managed to find a foothold in the gaming community.

Here's the problem with a hit point threshold system (and I'm not saying I agree with it, only that this is how Wizards thinks):

It's not the way we do it. And if we change it for this system (starship combat), we have to change it for all our systems (personal combat, vehicular combat, psionic combat, and so on).

A fundamental flaw that has always existed in the d20 System (since the days of the white box) is that it built off the wargame model of "each unit can be killed with one hit, or at most, four." When you're dealing with a single model on the tabletop, with no more than 4 hit points, hit point threshold systems are not only unnecessary, but they add a level of complication for those poor wargamers who are trying to keep track of perhaps hundreds of models at the same time.

But when you add more hit points at each level, the abstract hit point system begins to unravel. Characters can survive often a dozen hits without losing effectiveness--a transparent fact at low levels, but increasingly obvious as the character advances in level. So, eventually, you get characters who can fall 20 stories, get up, and charge right into combat. It's ridiculous, but it's an artifact of the system, and even if Wizards wanted to change it, too many of the grognards would complain too loudly. (Personally, I think it's worth alienating the "1st Edition was the One True Edition!" crowd, but I don't call the shots at Wizards.)

Obviously, Wizards has toyed with a hit point threshold system before. Not only did Alternity include such a system, but Jonathan Tweet, the main 3.0 designer, designed Ars Magica, which uses not only a threshold system, but *fixed hit points.* (No "class," no "level," has more hit points than any other. The difference comes in how well characters can shrug off damage. But I digress.) So, clearly, it's something they *could* do, but choose not to.

3) Question: Whose idea was it for the quotes that begin each xenomorph entry? Did it come from Mutants & Masterminds? I think it's a great idea, really gives a feel for the aliens; we'll definitely be doing that in Dawning Star.

It's something Wizards has done many times before. Look at Xenoforms for the Dark*Matter setting, for example.

JD Wiker

 

[The_Universe]

I was looking over the starship combat system again, and it seems (based upon this second cursory glance) that a character's ranks in the Pilot skill have little to no bearing on the defense of the ship he or she is piloting. Although the Starship Dodge feat does have a requirement of a certain number of ranks in pilot, a +1 bonus to defense for ranks in pilot, no matter how high, seems a little weak.

On the other hand, Pilot does seem to have an effect on a pilots ability to evade obstacles and tractor beams. What's the philosophy (if you know it) behind allowing pilot to aid in the evasion of some such things, but not enemy weaponry?

It would seem to me that my ability in dodging fire as a person should have little bearing on how well I might be able to pilot a starship. While both certainly depend on manual dexterity, agility, and coordination, they are simply not the same thing.

Was there ever a system in the works that gave Pilot more bearing on a vessel's survivability?

As it stands, I see few reasons to put more than a few ranks in Pilot, ever...

 

[JDWiker]

I was looking over the starship combat system again, and it seems (based upon this second cursory glance) that a character's ranks in the Pilot skill have little to no bearing on the defense of the ship he or she is piloting. Although the Starship Dodge feat does have a requirement of a certain number of ranks in pilot, a +1 bonus to defense for ranks in pilot, no matter how high, seems a little weak.

On the other hand, Pilot does seem to have an effect on a pilots ability to evade obstacles and tractor beams. What's the philosophy (if you know it) behind allowing pilot to aid in the evasion of some such things, but not enemy weaponry?

It would seem to me that my ability in dodging fire as a person should have little bearing on how well I might be able to pilot a starship. While both certainly depend on manual dexterity, agility, and coordination, they are simply not the same thing.

Was there ever a system in the works that gave Pilot more bearing on a vessel's survivability?

Yes, and it got cut when they simplified the system, much to my chagrin (because I wanted Star Wars players to adopt it).

Wizards may present this as a web freebie at some point, but I'm going to risk their wrath by posting it here:

Jinking: As a move action, a pilot can move the ship erratically in order to present a more difficult target for attackers. The pilot makes a Pilot check. The result determines the bonus to the starship’s Defense. Unfortunately, the erratic movement also provides a penalty to any attacks made from the jinking starship.

This Pilot check is modified by the size of the jinking ship, as follows:

Size Modifier
Colossal –16
Gargantuan –8
Huge –4
Large –2
Medium +0
Small +2
Tiny +8
Diminutive +12
Fine +16

Pilot Defense Attack
Check Bonus Penalty
up to 9 +2 –4
10-14 +3 –6
15-19 +4 –8
20-24 +5 –10
25-29 +6 –12
30-34 +7 –14
35+ +8 –16

Evasive Action: Much like jinking, a pilot can make a Pilot check as a full-round action to add an even greater bonus to his ship’s Defense, at the cost of an even larger penalty to attack rolls. This Pilot check is also modified by the size of the ship. Adjust the Pilot check by the same size modifiers as for jinking.

Pilot Defense Attack
Check Bonus Penalty
up to 9 +4 –8
10-14 +6 –10
15-19 +8 –12
20-24 +10 –14
25-29 +12 –16
30-34 +14 –18
35+ +16 –20

Obviously, if you spend two move actions jinking, it's the same as taking evasive action--except for the attack penalty. But if you spend two move actions jinking, you have to take the better of the two results (so it makes more sense to just take evasive action).

JD Wiker

 

[The_Universe]

Yes, and it got cut when they simplified the system, much to my chagrin (because I wanted Star Wars players to adopt it).

Wizards may present this as a web freebie at some point, but I'm going to risk their wrath by posting it here:

Jinking: As a move action, a pilot can move the ship erratically in order to present a more difficult target for attackers. The pilot makes a Pilot check. The result determines the bonus to the starship’s Defense. Unfortunately, the erratic movement also provides a penalty to any attacks made from the jinking starship.

This Pilot check is modified by the size of the jinking ship, as follows:

Size Modifier
Colossal –16
Gargantuan –8
Huge –4
Large –2
Medium +0
Small +2
Tiny +8
Diminutive +12
Fine +16

Pilot Defense Attack
Check Bonus Penalty
up to 9 +2 –4
10-14 +3 –6
15-19 +4 –8
20-24 +5 –10
25-29 +6 –12
30-34 +7 –14
35+ +8 –16

Evasive Action: Much like jinking, a pilot can make a Pilot check as a full-round action to add an even greater bonus to his ship’s Defense, at the cost of an even larger penalty to attack rolls. This Pilot check is also modified by the size of the ship. Adjust the Pilot check by the same size modifiers as for jinking.

Pilot Defense Attack
Check Bonus Penalty
up to 9 +4 –8
10-14 +6 –10
15-19 +8 –12
20-24 +10 –14
25-29 +12 –16
30-34 +14 –18
35+ +16 –20

Obviously, if you spend two move actions jinking, it's the same as taking evasive action--except for the attack penalty. But if you spend two move actions jinking, you have to take the better of the two results (so it makes more sense to just take evasive action).

JD Wiker

*tears fill a young man's eyes* God bless us, EVERYONE!!

This is precisely what I wanted. Mr. Wiker, I should very much like to shake your hand, if we ever happen to be in the same place at once.

And now for a quick clarification: when jinking or taking evasive action, does the ship in question still move at its tactical speed? Or does it remain in the same "square" if evading/jinking?

 

[Olive]

Well I got the book last night, feeling a wee bit aprehensive after some of the criticism I have seen.

And I think it's great. It's a toolkit book no doubt, and a DM might have to do a whole lot more work for a campaign, but the basic tools are there.

Once combined with some of the answers in these threads, it's awesome. The space ship combat didn't annoy me much at all, the cyber gear is cool, the mutations are cool (although I'm looking foward to seeing a level adjustment chat as well, so as to not have to balance the points all the time...).

Over all I'm very happy, and my thesis will suffer for it.

 

[JDWiker]

*tears fill a young man's eyes* God bless us, EVERYONE!!

This is precisely what I wanted. Mr. Wiker, I should very much like to shake your hand, if we ever happen to be in the same place at once.

I just wish I'd known *sooner* that it wasn't going to be in the book (or, at least, that I'd realized that after I saw the proofs of the book). I've obviously had this a while, but I didn't want to "scoop" Wizards by posting it before they published it.

But since they didn't make it part of the book, well ...

And now for a quick clarification: when jinking or taking evasive action, does the ship in question still move at its tactical speed? Or does it remain in the same "square" if evading/jinking?

Ah, good point. My intention was that the ship continued to move. So it really should say "As part of a move action, ..." or "If the pilot does nothing except move the ship during a full round action, ..."

JD Wiker

 

[RodneyThompson]

Ah, good point. My intention was that the ship continued to move. So it really should say "As part of a move action, ..." or "If the pilot does nothing except move the ship during a full round action, ..."

I like the latter. Makes more sense, though one problem arises. On one-man ships, there's nothing really stopping you from just jinking every time you make a full-move, since you won't be taking any attacks anyways. Not really a problem, but it lessens the severity of the penalty.

 

[Furluge]

Well thanks for everyone's input, and clearly pointing out a hideously glaring error in my thought processes about that -5 business. Personally I'm very used to the idea of seperate weapon systems on a machine using a different attack roll for each weapon, without adding penalties for additional attacks, so.. oh well.

Also thanks JD for the input on the modifications. It does at least make things easier to write.

 

[Olive]

It does seem that way at first, but carefully read the list of bonus talents you get to choose from: they're all second-tier talents. Since you have to meet all the prerequisites for the talents you choose as a result of taking this feat, you've got to have the first-tier talents in the first place. So, in order to actually get the benefit of this feat, you've got to have at least 3 levels in the base class for the appropriate feat.

You sure about that?

The strong hero, Fast hero, dedicated hero and characmatic? check... but:

Tough hero? Well, the tough plus feat allows Energy Resistance and remain concious, talents with no pre-reqs and both from trees which you can get straight off...
Smart Plus allows savant and linguist, both 1st level talents.

I'm only just getting into d20M, so correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[theRogueRooster]

Because the basic calculation for the attack's bonus comes from the gunner's attack bonus, it's based on an actual person (or crew) firing the weapon. And as with other types of attackers (characters, creatures, and so on), additional attacks suffer a -5 penalty. (And a further -1 because the second attack has one less weapon in the battery.)

Does the additional attack penalty take into account multiple gunners or does it assume only a single gunner? If only a single gunner, do multiple gunners still receive the additional attack penalty? I'm having a hard time reasoning why a strike cruiser, with a crew of 160 able hands, has only one gunner manning the weapons at any given time.

-tRR