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: 1583746" data-attributes="member: 2374"><p>It doesn't have to be that complicated really. Let's say you have x number of Engine levels providing y speed points. You divide this total by your hit dice to find maximum speed. This is all worked out during vehicle construction. Then for each Engine level you have, you need 1 Power unit. So if you only divert half this number of Power units to the engines, you can only move at half your maximum speed. Or something like that. How maneuverability would fit in, I don't know yet.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I already did that a long time ago. You can find it at <a href="http://www.msu.edu/~reesmatt/Cosmo5.rtf" target="_blank">http://www.msu.edu/~reesmatt/Cosmo5.rtf</a></p><p></p><p>One thought I had the other day is that maybe we should change the scale to 1-10 so that 0 really does represent NO tech/magic. (So the maximum spell level you can cast is equal to the magic level - 1.) If we did that, we wouldn't have to add 1 to the tech/magic level when calculating movement points etc..</p><p></p><p>If you're planning to ignore magic/tech potential and just use magic/tech achievement levels, then just change the formula I suggested earlier so that magic engines/power/fuel etc. use the sqaure of the magic achievement level, just like technological components use the sqaure of the tech achievement level.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The reason I specifically avoided that was because it requires you to decide what spell a particular type of component uses, which in turn requires you to define <em>how</em> that component works. No room for variation. I don't mind that with special components that have a specialized purpose, but I thought for the general component types (engines, power, weapons, etc.) you wanted to leave it open-ended. Also, if you use the regular rules for pricing wondrous items, then you have to factor in caster level as well. Also, using the magic achievement level instead of the spell level allows you to reflect that "this culture is more magically advanced than that one, so it can build magic devices more cheaply."</p><p></p><p>I like your idea on how to handle the pricing of tech items, though.</p><p></p><p>Wyvern</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wyvern, post: 1583746, member: 2374"] It doesn't have to be that complicated really. Let's say you have x number of Engine levels providing y speed points. You divide this total by your hit dice to find maximum speed. This is all worked out during vehicle construction. Then for each Engine level you have, you need 1 Power unit. So if you only divert half this number of Power units to the engines, you can only move at half your maximum speed. Or something like that. How maneuverability would fit in, I don't know yet. I already did that a long time ago. You can find it at [url]http://www.msu.edu/~reesmatt/Cosmo5.rtf[/url] One thought I had the other day is that maybe we should change the scale to 1-10 so that 0 really does represent NO tech/magic. (So the maximum spell level you can cast is equal to the magic level - 1.) If we did that, we wouldn't have to add 1 to the tech/magic level when calculating movement points etc.. If you're planning to ignore magic/tech potential and just use magic/tech achievement levels, then just change the formula I suggested earlier so that magic engines/power/fuel etc. use the sqaure of the magic achievement level, just like technological components use the sqaure of the tech achievement level. The reason I specifically avoided that was because it requires you to decide what spell a particular type of component uses, which in turn requires you to define [i]how[/i] that component works. No room for variation. I don't mind that with special components that have a specialized purpose, but I thought for the general component types (engines, power, weapons, etc.) you wanted to leave it open-ended. Also, if you use the regular rules for pricing wondrous items, then you have to factor in caster level as well. Also, using the magic achievement level instead of the spell level allows you to reflect that "this culture is more magically advanced than that one, so it can build magic devices more cheaply." I like your idea on how to handle the pricing of tech items, though. Wyvern [/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