Need help with starship sensors

[garrowolf]

I've gone through every game that I can find with D20 starships and I can't find a useful set of sensor DCs. I wanted something more about scanning for details then just if a ship is there or not. Something a little more Star Trek like in the details they can find.

Any ideas?

 

[the Jester]

I really think this would kind of have to be a general set of guidelines with specifics custom tailored to each adventure, given the diversity of technobabble that you see about sensors.

Maybe some kind of 'stunt' system where you could try to ascertain something via technobabble sensor use?

 

[Jack7]

I don't know exactly what you're shooting for GW but in Star Fleet Battles, both the tabletop game and the computer game, I have become quite good at using sensors to tell all kinds of things about enemy vessels, such as; how far along are weapons charged, what is shield strength, are they readying shuttlebays, are missiles about to be launched, are they employing ECM/ECCM, ship's crew and distribution (in case I want to board or plant transporter bombs), etc. (I do the same thing in D&D and a number of other games as well, if I can probe or find out information covertly or at a distance, I will.)

Several years ago I started using this tactic and have even designed new Federation sensor probes that are very efficient and accurate, and I now often use this tactic which gives me all kinds of fantastic and useful information on enemy vessels that I can use for plotting location, seeing if I should close or hold distance, when enemy weapons will be ready to fire, their energy output, how badly they are damaged, pinpointing where defenses are weakest, etc.

I even designed enemy sensor improvements for enemy ships, such as for the Kzin and Vagr to use if they wish, yet strangely enough my human opponents rarely employ "probing" as a fighting technique, even though it always gives me the tactical advantage and the only reason I ever lose a fight is due to being outnumbered and/or heavily outgunned. Even against much heavier ships using sensor and technological probing is the single best Intel and energy investment you can possibly make in defeating them. Yet most of my opponents rely upon "weaponry" and "power" rather than information. Yet information, properly used, is defiantly an awesome weapon and an extremely useful power.

Yet for some reason almost no one who fights me in a Star Fleet Battles wargame ever employs it. Or they only employ it sporadically, every now and again whereas I employ it often. (It's at the top of my "Command Action List" for any combat situation or exploration scenario.) My advice is get good sensors and probes (or design your own) and employ active probing and active sensing often and early, if you're not trying to use stealth or cloaking. It'll make you a much, much better combatant and often you'll know what your enemy is doing almost as soon as he does.

By the way if your enemy is using Stealth or Cloaking against you then active sensing is the way to fix em.

 

[garrowolf]

[MENTION=54707]Jack7[/MENTION] that is the kinds of things that I want to make available to the people who use my game system.

I was thinking of making it where you could negate an action by your enemy during combat by targeting a system and disrupting it.

I just need a list of things to scan for and what would be harder to scan for then others.

 

[Stormonu]

I think I would probably work it like a perception check that had x-ray vision. (I would think "seeing" through a wall would effectively add at least +25 to the DC, so a sensor would add that bonus to a Perception check)

Various devices could be implemented that impose penalties to the check.

1) Star Trek-like shields probably add +15 to +20 to the DC.
2) Scan Countermeasures would probably add between +5 to +15 based on the quality of the device (poor = +5, average = +10, superior = +15).



Some Base DC thoughts:

Life Signs: DC 5
Life Sign Class: DC 10 (mammal, insect, etc.)
Life Sign Type: DC 10 + racial CR (Klingon, Romulan, etc.)
Specific Individual: DC 20 + racial CR (Captain Kirk, human racial CR 1/2, so DC 21)

Presence of Weapons: DC 5
Weapons Powered Up/Down: DC 10
Weapon Type: DC to craft weapon
Weapons Targeting Whom: DC 15
Weapon Charge/Arm state: DC 15

Item Composition: As knowledge check

 

[Jack7]

I would suggest then developing your own system based on how your vessels move and operate and function.

You know one thing that occurs to me is this. When I started using active probing to determine what enemy ships were doing, and later when I gave similarly designed systems to enemy craft I expected my opponents to develop countermeasures against my probes.

It only makes sense right? You know enemy probes are tracking you and reading things about you so I expected my opponents to develop counter-probing systems similar to Electronic Counter-Counter Measure systems.

But they never did try to thwart me, just allowed themselves to be painted and read. But I did develop counter probing measures against them, but they so rarely used active probing and sensing I never felt the need to employ it, or even let it be known I had such systems.

But one thing you might consider is both General Systems and Targeted Systems.

General Systems would use probing to track multiple and general things about the enemy vessel, such as shield strength, power output, weapon locks, crew number, etc. General Systems wouldn’t interfere but would instead deliver information and Electronic Intel about the opponent.

Targeted systems would operate differently and would include both Ship based ECM, and probe or detachable systems.

Ship based ECM would be systems on board that would target specific systems on the enemy ship and attempt to disrupt them. Such as trying to give false sensor readings, displaced readings, jam communications, etc.

Detachable systems would be active probes that could be fired towards a enemy vessel, or wild weasel shuttle (jammed with ECM equipment, etc. – the job of which would be to disrupt enemy vessel systems and operations.

Years ago I developed a Stealth Federation vessel (it was a very small Cruiser) for espionage missions. It was very fast and had no cloaking device, but instead relied on what would be Federation versions of modern Stealth components – extremely reduced profile to enemy sensors, it could actively absorb (under the right conditions) even it’s own passive emissions, etc. was visibly detractive (not invisible but you had to get close to realize it was even a ship, it appeared from a distance to be comet-like), and so forth.

It had a Pod that sat under the cigar section and controlled and amplified most Stealth functions. But it could in some cases be detached and maneuver at sub-light speeds and in those cases it was an active probing system which also acted as a separate platform base for high-powered ECM functions. It would disrupt enemy sensors and even do things like scatter enemy transporter and tractor beams. It could send out several small probes which formed an ECM and ECCM net. It also had an on-board AI system, would self-destruct if captured or in danger of capture, and could make use of transporter bombs and lay mines on its own.

You might think about things like that, General and Targeted systems, as well as on-board and detachable systems, if you’re building your own Sensing and Sensory Disruption platforms.

Once you experiment around a little I think you’ll have a lot of fun with it and it’ll add a great deal of tactical enrichment to your game.

Good luck with it.

Let us know what you develop.

 

[Jack7]

1) Star Trek-like shields probably add +15 to +20 to the DC.
2) Scan Countermeasures would probably add between +5 to +15 based on the quality of the device (poor = +5, average = +10, superior = +15).

A good point. In the game I play both the sophistication of the equipment and the skill of the operator determine how well various actions work.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Any ideas?

You may want to borrow a couple of pages from Mutants & Masterminds 3rd Edition. Specifically the "Degrees of Success" mechanic and how easily that integrates with providing additional information. (M&M3 uses this for everything with great success; it's not always relevant to the check but it is a great guideline for when to give something extra to a spectacular check. It also highlights how big a modifier +/- 5 is in that system.)

Degrees of Success / Failure:
Each task has a DC. Meeting the DC is one degree of success - enough for a basic success. For every full 5 by which the DC is exceeded, you gain an additional degree of success. (DC to DC+4 is one degree; DC+5 to DC+9 is two degrees; DC+10 to DC+14 is three degrees; DC+15 to DC+19 is four degrees; etc.)
Failure to meet the DC results in degrees of failure. (-1 to -5 is one degree; -6 to -10 is two degrees; -11 to -15 is three degrees; -16 to -20 is four degrees; etc.)
A natural 20 on the skill roll automatically increases the degrees of success by 1; potentially turning a one degree failure into a one degree success.

Why does that matter? Because you can have extra effects at the various degrees.
Example: Demoralize (Intimidation) - Make an Intimidation check as a standard action. If it succeeds, your target is impaired (a –2 circumstance penalty on checks) until the end of your next round. With four or more degrees of success, the target is disabled (a –5 penalty) until the end of your next round.

So potential space sensor encounters can provide something like the following information:
1 degree of success = Ship present
2 degrees of success = Ship type; Shields up or down?
3 degrees = Weapons armed / disarmed
5 degrees = Identify specific individuals on board

Then you set the base DC as seems reasonable, with modifiers for range, debris (cover), natural or artificial jamming (concealment), quality of sensors, cloaking fields, and so forth.


Helpful?

 

[Lord Crimson]

So potential space sensor encounters can provide something like the following information:
1 degree of success = Ship present
2 degrees of success = Ship type; Shields up or down?
3 degrees = Weapons armed / disarmed
5 degrees = Identify specific individuals on board

I'd basically use something like this, myself. In fact, if ValhallaGH hadn't posted this, I was basically going to say the same thing (you big steam-stealing jerk! ).

I mean, that's basically what we get in most sci-fi isn't it? Whether the ship is present is almost a "passive" ability. But the specifics tend to be harder to get (depending upon plot reasons, usually).

 

[garrowolf]

Degrees of Success are an integral part of the Nexus system already. It is called Margin of Success in there.