Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Hosted Settings
The Cosmonomicon
The Vehicle Construction System: Level based
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Wyvern" data-source="post: 1533307" data-attributes="member: 2374"><p><strong>checking in</strong></p><p></p><p>Sorry I haven't contributed in a while. My internet access has been more limited lately, and when I did get around to checking in, I was daunted by the length of the new posts in the forums. It's taken me a couple of weeks to find the time to read through them, but now I'm up to speed again.</p><p></p><p>When I first read your idea of using "classes" to build vehicles, it wasn't to my taste, but as you went into more detail on how it would work, it began to grow on me. In truth, it doesn't seem that different from the previous system (which I liked just fine, incidentally, as far as the overall design was concerned; most of the problems were in the details), rewritten so that it flows better. The basic idea is the same: you get a number of "slots" for components equal to the vessel's hit dice, which is dependent on its size. The most complicated part was (and still is, it would appear) the calculation of power, speed, maneuverability and lift. Otherwise, it was quite straightforward, which makes me wonder if this "point-based" version that you talked about was a derivative of the slot-based system which I never saw.</p><p></p><p>Some questions came to mind as I was reading through the new ideas. First of all, aside from the various components, what stats would be advanced by the various "classes"? ("Emphasis" sounds strange to me; I think "function" or "focus" would be a better name, but that's just my personal preference.)</p><p>- Hit dice, I agree, should depend on the base type of the vehicle.</p><p>- Skill points are a non-issue in the case of vehicles that lack Intelligence scores, but what about those few that *do* have them? How many should they get? Would it be determined by "class" or by base type (all the base types you listed get 2+Int points per level).</p><p>- Base attack bonus, IIRC (it's been awhile since I read the combat rules) depends on the person firing a weapon, not on the vehicle it's in. What about "natural" weapons, though, such as rams? Is the BAB for those weapons intrinsic to the ship? If so, is it determined by the base type or by the "class" of the ship?</p><p>- Saving throws: it looks like you're also using base type as a determinant for saving throws. Again, I have no problem with this.</p><p>- Feats have been replaced by "special features".</p><p></p><p>The main thing I disagree with is the idea that all the "classes" should gain the benefits of the other classes at a slower progression. In particular, I don't think that classes other than "Weapons" should get weapon slots. Otherwise, how do you build a vehicle without weapons? I'm also wondering about engines. Do all "classes" give a number of points to be distributed among speed, maneuverability, and lift, or do you only get these from levels in the Engine class?</p><p></p><p>This leads to the next question, which is how size affects speed. Realistically, a large vessel ("large" in a comparative sense, not the d20 sense) should need a greater number of additional engines than a smaller vessel to achieve the same increase in speed or maneuverability. In the last version of the rules, this involved a table. Is that still the case?</p><p></p><p>In the same way, a large vessel needs proportionately more fuel, life support, and crew quarters. I can see a case being made that these should be "built-in" features of all the classes in the same way that hit points are, but I didn't like the fact that devoting one special feature slot to "extra fuel" grants the same benefit regardless of the size of the vessel. Also, how do you deal with ships that don't need fuel or life support, such as sailing vessels? Perhaps the easiest method is to count them as a percentage increase to the base cost of the vessel. (This also allows for ships that use higher-grade fuel to pay a higher percentage in exchange for better fuel economy.) As far as crew quarters are concerned, perhaps a ship that only needs a skeleton crew, such as a freighter, can trade crew space for cargo space, fuel tanks or other components.</p><p></p><p>The last topic that I want to raise is tech levels. It might seem that this would be better dealt with after the basics have been nailed down, but I have an idea on how they could be incorporated into the core design in order to reduce complexity later on. These are just some ideas from the top of my head, understand, not a fully fleshed-out ruleset.</p><p></p><p>My basic idea is that each component should have a base cost associated with a base tech level. If you build a vehicle using components with a tech level *lower* than the current achievement level of your home cosmos, you get them at a reduced cost (say -20% at -1 level, -50% at -2 levels). This should bottom out at -2 levels; in the modern day, a catapult probably isn't any cheaper than a cannon. You can also buy "state-of-the-art" components one level higher than the norm at twice the base cost, but only if the GM rules that they're available.</p><p></p><p>(For magical components, where cost is often directly proportional to the spell level, the above would not apply. Instead, the best method would probably be to give all the costs at achievement level 9, which is the D&D standard, and then increase them accordingly for lower achievement levels.)</p><p></p><p>The point of this rule is to represent in a simple fashion the fact that the production costs of new technologies decreases as they become more commonplace. You can also modify it for technologies that exist at multiple levels of sophistication across several tech levels, such as rocket engines or guns. With engines, for example, you get a certain number of points <em>per tech level</em> to allocate to speed, maneuverability, and lift. In the case of weapons, you might have a table showing the basic stats (damage, range, accuracy mod) at each tech level. The base cost of the component <em>at your own tech level</em> would be a constant regardless of tech level, but you could "downgrade" by purchasing inferior components at a reduced cost. (Is that clear enough?)</p><p></p><p>Wyvern</p><p></p><p></p><p>P.S. One last minor quibble: I don't like the way you've defined "decks". Besides the fact that decks aren't enclosed in all ships, I don't see the point of making it a special component. If you want a co-pilot station, just make that a component in its own right.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wyvern, post: 1533307, member: 2374"] [b]checking in[/b] Sorry I haven't contributed in a while. My internet access has been more limited lately, and when I did get around to checking in, I was daunted by the length of the new posts in the forums. It's taken me a couple of weeks to find the time to read through them, but now I'm up to speed again. When I first read your idea of using "classes" to build vehicles, it wasn't to my taste, but as you went into more detail on how it would work, it began to grow on me. In truth, it doesn't seem that different from the previous system (which I liked just fine, incidentally, as far as the overall design was concerned; most of the problems were in the details), rewritten so that it flows better. The basic idea is the same: you get a number of "slots" for components equal to the vessel's hit dice, which is dependent on its size. The most complicated part was (and still is, it would appear) the calculation of power, speed, maneuverability and lift. Otherwise, it was quite straightforward, which makes me wonder if this "point-based" version that you talked about was a derivative of the slot-based system which I never saw. Some questions came to mind as I was reading through the new ideas. First of all, aside from the various components, what stats would be advanced by the various "classes"? ("Emphasis" sounds strange to me; I think "function" or "focus" would be a better name, but that's just my personal preference.) - Hit dice, I agree, should depend on the base type of the vehicle. - Skill points are a non-issue in the case of vehicles that lack Intelligence scores, but what about those few that *do* have them? How many should they get? Would it be determined by "class" or by base type (all the base types you listed get 2+Int points per level). - Base attack bonus, IIRC (it's been awhile since I read the combat rules) depends on the person firing a weapon, not on the vehicle it's in. What about "natural" weapons, though, such as rams? Is the BAB for those weapons intrinsic to the ship? If so, is it determined by the base type or by the "class" of the ship? - Saving throws: it looks like you're also using base type as a determinant for saving throws. Again, I have no problem with this. - Feats have been replaced by "special features". The main thing I disagree with is the idea that all the "classes" should gain the benefits of the other classes at a slower progression. In particular, I don't think that classes other than "Weapons" should get weapon slots. Otherwise, how do you build a vehicle without weapons? I'm also wondering about engines. Do all "classes" give a number of points to be distributed among speed, maneuverability, and lift, or do you only get these from levels in the Engine class? This leads to the next question, which is how size affects speed. Realistically, a large vessel ("large" in a comparative sense, not the d20 sense) should need a greater number of additional engines than a smaller vessel to achieve the same increase in speed or maneuverability. In the last version of the rules, this involved a table. Is that still the case? In the same way, a large vessel needs proportionately more fuel, life support, and crew quarters. I can see a case being made that these should be "built-in" features of all the classes in the same way that hit points are, but I didn't like the fact that devoting one special feature slot to "extra fuel" grants the same benefit regardless of the size of the vessel. Also, how do you deal with ships that don't need fuel or life support, such as sailing vessels? Perhaps the easiest method is to count them as a percentage increase to the base cost of the vessel. (This also allows for ships that use higher-grade fuel to pay a higher percentage in exchange for better fuel economy.) As far as crew quarters are concerned, perhaps a ship that only needs a skeleton crew, such as a freighter, can trade crew space for cargo space, fuel tanks or other components. The last topic that I want to raise is tech levels. It might seem that this would be better dealt with after the basics have been nailed down, but I have an idea on how they could be incorporated into the core design in order to reduce complexity later on. These are just some ideas from the top of my head, understand, not a fully fleshed-out ruleset. My basic idea is that each component should have a base cost associated with a base tech level. If you build a vehicle using components with a tech level *lower* than the current achievement level of your home cosmos, you get them at a reduced cost (say -20% at -1 level, -50% at -2 levels). This should bottom out at -2 levels; in the modern day, a catapult probably isn't any cheaper than a cannon. You can also buy "state-of-the-art" components one level higher than the norm at twice the base cost, but only if the GM rules that they're available. (For magical components, where cost is often directly proportional to the spell level, the above would not apply. Instead, the best method would probably be to give all the costs at achievement level 9, which is the D&D standard, and then increase them accordingly for lower achievement levels.) The point of this rule is to represent in a simple fashion the fact that the production costs of new technologies decreases as they become more commonplace. You can also modify it for technologies that exist at multiple levels of sophistication across several tech levels, such as rocket engines or guns. With engines, for example, you get a certain number of points [i]per tech level[/i] to allocate to speed, maneuverability, and lift. In the case of weapons, you might have a table showing the basic stats (damage, range, accuracy mod) at each tech level. The base cost of the component [i]at your own tech level[/i] would be a constant regardless of tech level, but you could "downgrade" by purchasing inferior components at a reduced cost. (Is that clear enough?) Wyvern P.S. One last minor quibble: I don't like the way you've defined "decks". Besides the fact that decks aren't enclosed in all ships, I don't see the point of making it a special component. If you want a co-pilot station, just make that a component in its own right. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Hosted Settings
The Cosmonomicon
The Vehicle Construction System: Level based
Top