Last Saga preview: what's D&D's Starship Combat?

Green Knight said:
Iterative attacks is what really kills mounted combat. The whole point of being mounted is mobility, whether you're charging with a lance or firing a bow. But if you're mobile, then you're not getting your iterative attacks.
If you're a ranged guy, you're getting iterative attacks (albeit at a penalty).

If you're a melee guy, you're getting double or triple damage (lance and/or Spirited Charge).

What kills mounted combat is things like fireballs and 10th-level fighters readying 50-hp attacks... since those things are what kills mounts. Mounted combat works well at lower levels and if you're a paladin, otherwise mounts are too fragile compared to the riders.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Klaus said:
I'd equate dragons to flying siege engines, in a scale above regular mounts (wether flying or not).

One of the key ideas in early Dragonlance conceptualization of warfare and so forth was that dragons were the equivalent of gunships (armed helicopters). Author and designer Doug Niles has a keen interest in the military and he saw a lot of the engagements in the War of the Lance as being similar to the conflicts in Korea and Viet Nam in terms of applied technology (which in this case was replaced by magic etc).

I think the starfighter analogy works well for smaller/younger dragons. The bigger the dragon of course the greater the effect on the battlefield; a great wyrm red dragon isn't a starfighter any more, he's a cruiser. The Dragon Overlords of recent Dragonlance history would almost be the equivalent of star destroyers; Malystryx has a CR in the 50's.

Cheers,
Cam
 

Wow. Lots of good things here.

I never considered the influence on DND in those terms before, re: Plane Sailing, and how Conan, et al, ended up leading armies. Happened in Amber as well, which I think is listed as an influence in the 1E DMG. Very interesting. Thanks!

To the OP, I think there are a LOT of things like starship combat in 3.x.

Mounted Combat (Feats) - As others have said. However, I am going to make it more generic and say Feats in general. While some have use most of the time, any of them could be too specific in the right situations. For example, creation feats are no good if the campaign doesn't allow the time/gold/xp for them. The chain to Whirlwind attack is no good if lots of foes aren't attacking, etc.

Certain spells - This is tough. Some spells are useful but still meant for mass combat, like Meteor Swarm. Death Spell is the same. Cloudkill always sounds neat but an equal CR won't be much effected. etc. I am not arguing that they are still effective. I just know that when I was playing DND, I grabbed any and every spell I could but always ended up using the same twelve spells over and over.

Prestige Classes - The idea of them, as I understand it, was to fill a specific niche. So, already they are specific in *some* way. I think the really good ones are the ones that are specific in ways that allows them to be useful in more situations. So, Loremaster is a good specific one that allows use in potentially many areas. But I am sure there are others that aren't, and I am no expert on them. In general, though, I am sure that if the campaign went in a different direction from the prestige class, it won't be as helpful.

DR - 3.5 seemed to go the way of starship combat. When it was a nice, simple #/+# it was generic. When it went to bludgeon, silver, magic, good, etc., it seemed to make it like the fighter had to carry a dozen different types of weapons, of different plusses and materials, to be effective. Don't get me wrong. I liked some of the specifics, like silver for lycanthropes and bludgeoning for skeletons to name a few, but think they should have had a "plussed" equivalent as well.

Magic Items - I think the magic item compendium talked about the "big six" categories that are always useful. So, assumably before then, anything that wasn't in the "big six" would be niche. Decanter of endless water, ring/helm/gauntlets of swimming, vest of escape, and I am sure there are more.

I personally am excited about the Saga rules. This is something that might bring me back to using d20. I am of the opinion that d20 is still too rooted in wargaming and I want my games to be about the heroes, not the armies. That's me and my style, though, and that's not for everyone. But making the game more about the individuals is a good thing, imo.

Take care.

edg
 


Airship combat (obviously ;) ).

Mounted combat, especially with exotic (flying or swimming) mounts.

FREAKING TRAPS. Yeah, yeah, they're 'integral to the game' - but they are exclusively the province of one character in almost every party, they're a huge pain, and the numbers in which they appear in adventures are often ludicrous. Sadly, I don't think the Saga rules fix this particular issue.
 

MoogleEmpMog said:
FREAKING TRAPS. Yeah, yeah, they're 'integral to the game' - but they are exclusively the province of one character in almost every party, they're a huge pain, and the numbers in which they appear in adventures are often ludicrous. Sadly, I don't think the Saga rules fix this particular issue.

Hmmm. That's an interesting one.

What about any rogue skill use? If there is only one rogue and every door is locked, every hallway trapped, that puts the spotlight all on one character.

What about tracking? If it happens for too long (whatever that is), is it too exclusive to a Ranger or Druid?

What about a situation of Arena combat? Hmmm. What about anti-magic or dead-magic areas? I know DMs who have used that when they think the casters are "too powerful."

Good thoughts.

edg
 

Zaruthustran said:
I think it's a good idea to translate commonly-used PC resources so that they work with uncommonly-encountered situations.
Definitely, and the current system fails to take this design guideline into account throughout the skill system -- separating Knowledge: Nature from Survival/Wilderness Lore; Knowledge: Arcane, etc. from Spellcraft; Profession from Craft; etc.
 

Remove ads

Top