D&D 5E SJ Ship to Ship Battles (& Vehicle Rules in General)

[Hussar]

Odd. I've literally now run combats using the rules from the set RAW with zero issues. The rules are perfectly functional as-is. You may not like their lack of complexity or verisimitude, but they do, in fact, work. And work well.

Well, really, there’s pretty much zero difference between his two systems. The Spelljammer system is basically a cinematic system which some basic guidelines that heavily leans on the table to make it work.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Odd. I've literally now run combats using the rules from the set RAW with zero issues. The rules are perfectly functional as-is. You may not like their lack of complexity or verisimitude, but they do, in fact, work. And work well.

Did you not have players try to directly target NPCs with the siege weapons? If so, did you just let them, or tell them no? Howabout targeting weapons? Did you make them roll anything to maneuver the ship, or just let them do it? Did they do a boarding action? Did they fire spells/ranged weapons ahead of time?

I'm just curious, because I don't doubt that it can be done, but I'd be a bit surprised to find that you didn't have to come up with some stuff on the fly. It's possible that you just had a better idea of how you wanted to run it than I did going in. I thought I understood the rules until the rules met the players.

 

[Hussar]

I suppose a simpler answer is to just say no. You cannot target specifics with siege weapons, only the ship. Would make it a lot simpler.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I suppose a simpler answer is to just say no. You cannot target specifics with siege weapons, only the ship. Would make it a lot simpler.

Sure would! I'm not used to saying "no" to things that are allowed, as far as I can tell, by the rules, though. Now that we've discussed it, I'll probably do it (I definitely will at long range). It would be nearly as weird to have NO ONE damaged by siege weapons as it is to have ONLY NPCs damaged by them... I'll probably come up with something.

 

[Negflar2099]

Did you not have players try to directly target NPCs with the siege weapons? If so, did you just let them, or tell them no? Howabout targeting weapons? Did you make them roll anything to maneuver the ship, or just let them do it? Did they do a boarding action? Did they fire spells/ranged weapons ahead of time?

I'm just curious, because I don't doubt that it can be done, but I'd be a bit surprised to find that you didn't have to come up with some stuff on the fly. It's possible that you just had a better idea of how you wanted to run it than I did going in. I thought I understood the rules until the rules met the players.

Honestly maybe I'm not understanding the issue here but how is this different then when players say they want to shoot someone in the head to them take them out in one hit or slice their legs off so they can't run? To echo what someone else said that is not what D&D does. It's not the system for that. To be honest though I'm not sure ship weapons are accurate enough to hit individual targets like that anyway. Not when they're moving around like crazy. To me that's beyond even disadvantage. Then there's the what's good for the PC goose is good for the DM gander. If individual NPC could be hit by siege level weapons that goes both ways.

All that said I agree that the Spelljammer combat system as written is more bare bones than a skeleton at a nudist colony. I highly suggest looking at the Wildjammer rules someone came up with a while back:


It still doesn't allow the sort of precise targeting you want (unless you level up as a gunner) but it's pretty dang good.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Did you not have players try to directly target NPCs with the siege weapons?

Yes

If so, did you just let them, or tell them no?

Rules As Written. Page 24 specifically states that the "weapons can aim and fire at any target within range" NPCs are targets within range. Therefore, yes. And the enemy did so in turn. Why would I not let them do so?

Howabout targeting weapons?

Rules As Written. Page 24 specifically states that the "weapons can aim and fire at any target within range" Weapons are targets within range. Therefore, yes. And the enemy did so in turn. Why would I not let them do so?

Did you make them roll anything to maneuver the ship, or just let them do it?

Rules as Written. Page 24 specifically states that the ship can be moved up to its maximum speed. The NPC on the spelljammer helm (they were passengers who had hired the ship going to go from Point A to Point B) moved the ship up to its maximum speed on its turn. This caused no issues and needed no rolls. Why would it need rolls?

Did they do a boarding action?

Yes. The ships got within 5 feet and they jumped aboard the other vessel, following Rules As Written.

Did they fire spells/ranged weapons ahead of time?

Yes. Rules As Written specifically allows, and even encourages this, in the "Shipboard Weapons" sidebar on Page 25. One group commandeered a weapon, while the wizards slung spells.

I'm just curious, because I don't doubt that it can be done, but I'd be a bit surprised to find that you didn't have to come up with some stuff on the fly. It's possible that you just had a better idea of how you wanted to run it than I did going in. I thought I understood the rules until the rules met the players.

It was fun, easy, and needed no further rules. Yes, more complexity could be added to the system. But it doesn't need to have it added...

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yes

Rules As Written. Page 24 specifically states that the "weapons can aim and fire at any target within range" NPCs are targets within range. Therefore, yes. And the enemy did so in turn. Why would I not let them do so?

Rules As Written. Page 24 specifically states that the "weapons can aim and fire at any target within range" Weapons are targets within range. Therefore, yes. And the enemy did so in turn. Why would I not let them do so?

Rules as Written. Page 24 specifically states that the ship can be moved up to its maximum speed. The NPC on the spelljammer helm (they were passengers who had hired the ship going to go from Point A to Point B) moved the ship up to its maximum speed on its turn. This caused no issues and needed no rolls. Why would it need rolls?

Yes. The ships got within 5 feet and they jumped aboard the other vessel, following Rules As Written.

Yes. Rules As Written specifically allows, and even encourages this, in the "Shipboard Weapons" sidebar on Page 25. One group commandeered a weapon, while the wizards slung spells.

It was fun, easy, and needed no further rules. Yes, more complexity could be added to the system. But it doesn't need to have it added...

I hope you recognize that a lot of your post was unnecessarily lecture-y (not to mention repetitive) for a friendly conversation on the subject. I am aware of the rules as written. But no matter - I am glad to hear that you and your players enjoyed it without any trouble.

Myself, I ran another encounter with it tonight. I didn't implement any house rules. I still found it pretty unsatisfying. I dunno, it just ran a little long and was a little boring. (And this is with me pulling out all the stops with ambience and descriptions. It's not terrible or anything, it's just not great. YMMV.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I hope you recognize that a lot of your post was unnecessarily lecture-y (not to mention repetitive) for a friendly conversation on the subject. I am aware of the rules as written. But no matter - I am glad to hear that you and your players enjoyed it without any trouble.

Myself, I ran another encounter with it tonight. I didn't implement any house rules. I still found it pretty unsatisfying. I dunno, it just ran a little long and was a little boring. (And this is with me pulling out all the stops with ambience and descriptions. It's not terrible or anything, it's just not great. YMMV.

I'm 100% aware of the tone. I've seen the "ship combat rules are incomplete" argument so many times, as well as actually getting pushback against saying they aren't elsewhere that it seems necessary to be very firm in my stand.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'm 100% aware of the tone. I've seen the "ship combat rules are incomplete" argument so many times, as well as actually getting pushback against saying they aren't elsewhere that it seems necessary to be very firm in my stand.

Fair enough. One word of advice though: We are not a hive-mind. It is uncivil to treat others as if they are part of some group that opposes you.

This thread, for example, is about discussing it, because I had a real problem at a real table, and with brand new players (AND I am an extremely experienced DM. Weekly games for 35 years).

This is not "I read the rules and I don't like them, so I am going to join a group to bash them on the internet."

That said, your feedback is welcome and noted. Glas to know that someone found them easy and workable by RAW. I wasn't sure it was possible. Now I know that it is, it changes my view a little.

I honestly couldn't tell how the designers could be running their own games using these rules without noticing problems. I guess they did it however you did. Good to know.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Honestly maybe I'm not understanding the issue here but how is this different then when players say they want to shoot someone in the head to them take them out in one hit or slice their legs off so they can't run? To echo what someone else said that is not what D&D does. It's not the system for that. To be honest though I'm not sure ship weapons are accurate enough to hit individual targets like that anyway. Not when they're moving around like crazy. To me that's beyond even disadvantage.

That's how I felt about it, but the rules explicitly allow it. (Or at least apear to).

It's the question I have, really. RAW allows it, as our friend Demetrios so forcefully points out. But is it RAI? I see two ways to run it that would cause "no issues". 1) RAW, and either everyone hides with full cover or is killed by mangonel fire and you shrug and move on. OR 2) You assume that "Targets" is only referring to "Target Ships" (and/or perhaps seige weapons as well) and you batter away at each other until you board, and then run "normal" D&D combat.

It still doesn't allow the sort of precise targeting you want (unless you level up as a gunner) but it's pretty dang good.

"You want"? I think you misunderstand me. I am not LOOKING for precise targeting. It is already there. It's part of my confusion.