# D20 Future Q&A With Rodney "Moridin" Thompson and JD Wiker!!



## The_Universe (Aug 6, 2004)

Hey gang! Rodney Thompson, "Moridin" on these boards, has agreed to answer question about the recently released _D20 Future. _Since Rodney has been kind enough to agree to answering questions, let's keep it polite (not generally a poblem hereabouts)  . 

I'll begin with a few questions of my own: 

1) Of the Campaign Models included in the book, which did you feel were an absolute necessity for D20 Future. 

2) The Cybernetics section of the book has already been criticized as being a little skeletal, and short. Can we expect a longer supplement in the future? 

3) In conjunction with your work on this book, you have also mentioned that you're working on a complete D20 Future campaign setting. Now that _this _book is released, can you tell us more about _that _one? 

4) You've had some well-recieved work in both the D20 Star Wars and Stargate RPGs. How much have those two settings influenced both the "crunch" and "fluff" of D20 Future? 

5) Do you know the Muffin Man?


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 6, 2004)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> 1) Of the Campaign Models included in the book, which did you feel were an absolute necessity for D20 Future.




It's hard for me to say. All the ones that made the cut are really just different aspects of what everyone views science fiction as. I only wrote 4 of the 8 that were inlcuded (Genetech, Mecha Crusade, From the Dark Heart of Space, The Wasteland); the others were written by JD Wiker. I can say that my favorites are probably From the Dark Heart of Space and Bughunters. There are also several more that were cut from the book that I hope eventually make it into a web enhancement, but I can't say for certain whether or not that will happen. I do know that there are web enhancements on the way...



> 2) The Cybernetics section of the book has already been criticized as being a little skeletal, and short.  Can we expect a longer supplement in the future?




I can tell you right now that I can't say anything about a future sourcebook along those lines, because I am but a simple unfrozen caveman freelancer who is not privy to such things. Again, JD wrote the Cybernetics section, but I'll answer in a way I think he'd approve of. The cybernetics section is, like so much of the rest of the book, a series of building blocks. Since there is a massive amount that you could do with cybernetics and only a limited amount of space, the basic building blocks were included that can be expanded upon to make more complex modifications. Also, anyone who thinks that the section on Cybernetics is skeletal has a strange definition of the word. There's a lot of great and original stuff in there -- just check out the luminous skin modification.



> 3) In conjunction with your work on this book, you have also mentioned that you're working on a complete D20 Future campaign setting. Now that _this _book is released, can you tell us more about _that _one?




I'm working on a _d20 Future_ campaign setting, it's true. It's a space Western setting heavily inspired by Joss Whedon's _Firefly_ but also memorable anime series like _Cowboy Bebop, Outlaw Star_, and _Trigun_. Additionally, it really emphasizes the themes and ideas presented by classical Westerns, and I drew heavily on everything from _The Magnificent Seven_ and _The Outlaw Josey Wales_ to _High Noon_ and _The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance_. Currently it's "in development" and looking for a publisher, but the project is both a campaign setting an a dumping ground for a lot of the stuff I wanted to include in this book but couldn't due to space reasons. Hopefully, if/when it is published both space Western fans and people who bought this book will find some use for it.



> 4) You've had some well-recieved work in both the D20 Star Wars and Stargate RPGs.  How much have those two settings influenced both the "crunch" and "fluff" of D20 Future?




Honestly, I tried to stay as far away from things found in those two settings as possible. I knew that it would be easy for me to fall into those trappings if I got started, so I tried to take an objective look at what science fiction really is. While certainly some staples from those genres will shine through, since the are sci-fi/space opera, for the most part I tried to compile a list of traditional sci-fi sources and took a long look at the kind of things they included. Stargate and Star Wars both have their own roleplaying games, both of which I love, and so I didn't see any need ot re-invent the wheel and put that kind of thing in here. Certainly, though, you could take what is in _d20 Future_ and recreate any setting, even those two. But rather than reverse-engineer from existing settings, I went for a basic building blocks approach.



> 5) Do you know the Muffin Man?




The Muffin Man?


----------



## The_Universe (Aug 6, 2004)

Moridin said:
			
		

> It's hard for me to say. All the ones that made the cut are really just different aspects of what everyone views science fiction as. I only wrote 4 of the 8 that were inlcuded (Genetech, Mecha Crusade, From the Dark Heart of Space, The Wasteland); the others were written by JD Wiker. I can say that my favorites are probably From the Dark Heart of Space and Bughunters. There are also several more that were cut from the book that I hope eventually make it into a web enhancement, but I can't say for certain whether or not that will happen. I do know that there are web enhancements on the way...



Okay--now I'm curious. Only four of the campaign options you wrote made it in. How many did you write? 

Secondarily, what is it that makes Bughunters and Dark Heart of Space your *favorites?*



			
				Moridin said:
			
		

> The Muffin Man?



 Yes. The Muffin Man.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 6, 2004)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Okay--now I'm curious. Only four of the campaign options you wrote made it in. How many did you write?




Whew, let's see. I can think of at least 2 off-hand (I don't have my original manuscripts with me) that didn't make it in. I know of at least one of JD's that didn't make the cut, and there may be more. 



> Secondarily, what is it that makes Bughunters and Dark Heart of Space your *favorites?*




Bughunters just because I'm a big fan of the _Alien_ movies, and I like the kind of high-action sci-fi it brings along. From the Dark Heart of Space was good because it gave me a chance to do something really different with the setting and I got to play with some cool themes. It's got a very different kind of villain and isn't really like anything we've ever seen before. And it has the potential to recapture some of that "sense of the unknown" that tends to get lost so often in sci-fi settings. I mean, when you can travel to other planets, you sort of get desensitized to the idea of something bigger than humanity. Well, the Void is bigger. Big enough to swallow you whole.


----------



## C. Baize (Aug 6, 2004)

Any chance we'll see those campaign models that didn't make the cut in some web enhancement or other?


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 6, 2004)

C. Baize said:
			
		

> Any chance we'll see those campaign models that didn't make the cut in some web enhancement or other?




I don't know, but I hope so. I really don't have any say in such things.


----------



## Flynn (Aug 6, 2004)

*Psionics Question*

Moridin,

First, thank you and JD Wiker for both of your hard work and efforts to bring this project to fruition. I know that I and many others will enjoy the fruits of your labors for years to come.

My question:
How are psionics handled in the D20 Future sourcebook? Are they on par with the power level and implementation of psionics in the D20 Modern sourcebook? Or are there variant rules that allow for a lower powered, more hard sci-fi approach?

Okay, so it's more than one question. My apologies, but I'm curious. Within the realm of SF, I prefer the approach that Traveller takes to psionics over D&D, and understandably, D20 Modern is simply D&D's psionics repackaged. Just trying to find out if I can use the D20 Future rules as they are, or if I need to check out other options for my own personal SF campaign.

Thanks in advance for your time,
Flynn


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 6, 2004)

Flynn said:
			
		

> My question:
> How are psionics handled in the D20 Future sourcebook? Are they on par with the power level and implementation of psionics in the D20 Modern sourcebook? Or are there variant rules that allow for a lower powered, more hard sci-fi approach?




Unfortunately, most of the psionics stuff got cut from the book. I don't know if it will ever see the light of day. You'll find some psionics material in there, but mostly dealing with technology that interacts with psionics. Hopefully, the psionics chapter will eventually become a web enhancement or even a sourcebook all its own.


----------



## BigFreekinGoblinoid (Aug 6, 2004)

Please excuse a simple question from the ignorant:

Is d20 Future like d20 Modern in that it presents all new classes etc... as a standalone game book, or does it use base classes from Modern & bulid on that? 

Thanks,

BFG


----------



## nobodez (Aug 6, 2004)

It's the second one, it uses d20M as it's core, and goes from there.

Now, for my question.

Have you thought about talking with The Game Mechanics for your additional stuff. I know I bought all their d20M stuff.

Also, what is your single favorite Feat, Advanced/Prestige Class, and AdC/PcC special ability?


----------



## d4 (Aug 7, 2004)

we might be needing errata already... 

on page 99 on the Meteoroid Encounters Table, the damage for the larger sizes of meteors is 1d65, 3d65, 6d65, and 12d65.

now, i think i've misplaced my d65, but even so, i'm assuming these should be 1d6 x 5, 3d6 x 5, etc.


----------



## Krieg (Aug 7, 2004)

Moridin said:
			
		

> I'm working on a _d20 Future_ campaign setting, it's true. It's a space Western setting heavily inspired by Joss Whedon's _Firefly_ but also memorable anime series like _Cowboy Bebop, Outlaw Star_, and _Trigun_. Additionally, it really emphasizes the themes and ideas presented by classical Westerns, and I drew heavily on everything from _The Magnificent Seven_ and _The Outlaw Josey Wales_ to _High Noon_ and _The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance_. Currently it's "in development" and looking for a publisher, but the project is both a campaign setting an a dumping ground for a lot of the stuff I wanted to include in this book but couldn't due to space reasons. Hopefully, if/when it is published both space Western fans and people who bought this book will find some use for it.



No question, just a note to any potential publishers.

*Print it and we will buy!*

I'd send Rodney a check today if I thought it would help...


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 7, 2004)

nobodez said:
			
		

> Have you thought about talking with The Game Mechanics for your additional stuff. I know I bought all their d20M stuff.




Oh, we've talked. But the secret inner workings of the publishing business are not for public consumption. The first rule of Professional Club is _do not talk about Professional Club_.



> Also, what is your single favorite Feat, Advanced/Prestige Class, and AdC/PcC special ability?




I like the Plus feats because they give me a chance to pick up abilities I would be missing out on thanks to jumping into advanced classes. For Advanced Classes, I like the Helix Warrior because she is essentially the "super soldier" of so much science fiction, like the recent series _Dark Angel_. As for special abilities...I like the Field Officer's Leadership ability, since it lets you do more than just "aiding another" when things go south. The ability to help out other comrades is sorely underused in this system...


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 7, 2004)

d4 said:
			
		

> we might be needing errata already...
> 
> on page 99 on the Meteoroid Encounters Table, the damage for the larger sizes of meteors is 1d65, 3d65, 6d65, and 12d65.
> 
> now, i think i've misplaced my d65, but even so, i'm assuming these should be 1d6 x 5, 3d6 x 5, etc.




Yeah, it's supposed to be d6 x 5. The way we have to format the multiplication sign is different from simply typing the letter x, so sometimes there are problems when converting to whatever software they use to lay these things out.

On the other hand, Chessex could make a mint making "starship damage dice." And you thought the d30 is bad, wait on the d65!


----------



## dekrass (Aug 7, 2004)

I have two questions.
How much space was spent on mutations?
How much was taken from Alternity for D20 Future? I loved that game!


----------



## Teflon Billy (Aug 7, 2004)

Hey rodney,

I actually had another thread opened for this,but then saw that you were answering questions here...so I decided I'd go to the horses mouth.

My question regards using D20 Future to mock up a *Firefly* game system. so without further ado...

Q: How well do you think D20 future would mesh with *Sidewinder: Recoiled*?

Keep in mind, it's not necessary to gush  "yes! it would be perfect!"...I'm buying d20 future no matter what, you are in no dnger of losing a sale


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 7, 2004)

dekrass said:
			
		

> How much space was spent on mutations?




The Mutations chapter is 10 pages long, but that won't tell you much. I tried to present a couple of different systems for generating mutations (random rolling, point buy, GM fiat, etc.) and then put in what I saw as the "essential" mutations. I also threw in a couple that just sounded fun and new.



> How much was taken from Alternity for D20 Future? I loved that game!




I personally don't own any of the Alternity books except for the Dark*Matter campaign setting so I really can't say. I know some of the aliens were from Alternity, and the concept of PLs, but beyond that you're better off asking JD or checking it out for yourself. Sorry!


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 7, 2004)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Hey rodney,
> 
> I actually had another thread opened for this,but then saw that you were answering questions here...so I decided I'd go to the horses mouth.
> 
> ...




Well, I wouldn't gush about it if I didn't think it would work, cuz then you'd find out what a jerk I really am.  As for d20F+SW:R, it sounds like a good combination. Keeping in mind that I don't own the SW:R PDF (waiting on Green Ronin's print version), I'd say that you could take any character creation stuff from SW:R and the tech from _d20 Future_ and be pretty much set up. You'd probably want to cook up some starship templates for the _Firefly_ universe (a pretty simple task, actually) and you'd need to generate NPC stats, but...it could be done. Really, though, all you'd need from d20F is the starships, some of the weapons (and you'll definitely want to check out some of the weapon gadgets), some gear, and then some of the gene therapy/scientific engineering stuff when you get into the whole thing with River and the Blue Sun corporation stuff. 

Now, obviously this is a topic near and dear to my heart. I've been working on the space western campaign setting I mentioned before and have dedicated a lot of attention to capturing its feel in a roleplaying game. But as I said, if you don't mind getting a little creative that sounds like the perfect combination for a _Firefly_ game...at least until my book comes out.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Aug 7, 2004)

Moridin said:
			
		

> ...Now, obviously this is a topic near and dear to my heart. I've been working on the space western campaign setting I mentioned before and have dedicated a lot of attention to capturing its feel in a roleplaying game. But as I said, if you don't mind getting a little creative that sounds like the perfect combination for a _Firefly_ game...at least until my book comes out.




RELEASE IT


----------



## d4 (Aug 7, 2004)

the mutation rules currently are based on Mutation Points -- pick a certain number of positive mutations, and then drawbacks of equal value and you've got a balanced character.

what if i don't want it to be balanced? how many Mutation Points would you estimate would be equal to a +1 Level Adjustment? 5? 10?


----------



## Fate Lawson (Aug 8, 2004)

Hey Rodney, Drop me a line. I'll see what I can do to get you a complimentary copy of S:R. 


tom@doghouserules.net


----------



## kinwolf (Aug 8, 2004)

*rule question*

Hi!

I've been reading through the spaceship module yesterday, great stuff!  But there is one rule that isn't clear to me.   Under Tactical Speed(page 114) it says that "A starship normally moves as a move action ,leaving an attack action, but it can use it's attack action as an extra move action, thus giving him 2."(not word for word, but clsoe enough.)

Now, in the same page, under Starship actions, it clearly states that a starship gets 2 move actions and 1 attack action and if the ship decide to not attack, it still only get 2 move actions.

Which rule is right?  1 move 1 attack that's interchangeable for an extra move, or 2 moves 1 attack not interchangeable?

Thanks and congrats on a great product(from what I read so far)  I hope many detailed campaign settings are following


----------



## The_Universe (Aug 8, 2004)

Back with more questions, this time a little more substantive.  

On page 103 of the manuscript in the description for transport booths, there appears to be a discrepency (or rather a lack thereof) in the descriptions for _Mass Transceivers (PL 7) _and _Drive Transceivers (PL 8).  _As far as I can tell, these two pieces of technology are identical.  Both appear to be able to transport their contents up to 1000 AU instantaneously. 

Am I missing something, or does transporter technology just not markedly improve between PL 7 and PL 8?

Thanks for answering our questions.  If you want to direct some of the other designers this way, I'm sure we'd be happy to have them, as well.     (Don't worry, you'll still be our favorite!)


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 8, 2004)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Back with more questions, this time a little more substantive.
> 
> On page 103 of the manuscript in the description for transport booths, there appears to be a discrepency (or rather a lack thereof) in the descriptions for _Mass Transceivers (PL 7) _and _Drive Transceivers (PL 8).  _As far as I can tell, these two pieces of technology are identical.  Both appear to be able to transport their contents up to 1000 AU instantaneously.
> 
> ...




I can answer the last one, I think, being a StarDrive geek. The former can only send info within a star system, while the latter can send info between star systems. (It's sort of like a drivesat, but without the 11 hour delay.)

Maybe someone can answer this question for me: tell me a little about energy weapons. Are they better? Do they require special feats to use? Can you Burst Fire with a laser (that doesn't make sense)? And do they have a high or low ammo capacity?

(Man I'm pathetic. It's 1:23 AM in Toronto and I'm desperately looking for D20 Future info.)


----------



## trancejeremy (Aug 8, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Maybe someone can answer this question for me: tell me a little about energy weapons. Are they better? Do they require special feats to use? Can you Burst Fire with a laser (that doesn't make sense)? And do they have a high or low ammo capacity?
> 
> (Man I'm pathetic. It's 1:23 AM in Toronto and I'm desperately looking for D20 Future info.)




No, they don't seem to need special feats. There is a feat for "Alien Weapon Proficiency", which lets you use alien weapons without a penalty. But for most, just the personal firearms feat.

Like Alternity (apparently), it uses "Progress Levels" to break up the weapons and gear. 

For Progress Level 6, you get the Laser pistol and Laser rifle, which do 2d8 and 3d8 damage, and have 50 shots.

For PL7, there's the "Concussion Rifle", which does 2d10+knockdown, a Plasma Pistol that does 2d10, and a Plasma Rifle that does 3d10. Ooh, and a "Rail Gun" that does 3d12.

Generally speaking, the pistols are all "S", while the rifles are all "A". Except the OICW, which for some reason is just "S"

PL8 has a Cryonic Rifle, a Distingrator, a Lightning Gun, a Pulse Rifle (basically a laser rifle), and Sonic Beam.

Actually, the list is mostly energy weapons. No needlers and no gyrojets


----------



## d4 (Aug 8, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> I can answer the last one, I think, being a StarDrive geek. The former can only send info within a star system, while the latter can send info between star systems.



that doesn't seem to be the case, since they both have identical ranges (1000 AU -- which is nowhere near far enough for interstellar distances).


----------



## Garnfellow (Aug 8, 2004)

*New Feats?*

So, are there any new feats in d20 Future?


----------



## kinwolf (Aug 8, 2004)

I was also wondering if there would be any web enhancement giving us a system  to build new ships from scratch and also easy rules to create planets ad clusters.

Thanks,
Kinwolf


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 8, 2004)

d4 said:
			
		

> what if i don't want it to be balanced? how many Mutation Points would you estimate would be equal to a +1 Level Adjustment? 5? 10?




Hm, that's hard to say. Let me think this one over a bit and get back to you (need to refresh my memory on the level adjustments in D&D first). It shouldn't be too hard to come up with a chart like that, though.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 8, 2004)

kinwolf said:
			
		

> Which rule is right?  1 move 1 attack that's interchangeable for an extra move, or 2 moves 1 attack not interchangeable?




The latter. The former is a holdover from the old starship rules.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 8, 2004)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Am I missing something, or does transporter technology just not markedly improve between PL 7 and PL 8?




That's a good question, and I'll have to get back to you with a longer answer. The short answer is that while 1,000 AU is the maximum range of the transporter at PL 7, 1,000 AU is a "high end" range in PL 8, meaning that it could be pushed harder and farther with some good technical skills (i.e. character skill checks). It's not made really clear in the text, but it's the difference between "this is the normal range" and "this is the maximum range.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 8, 2004)

kinwolf said:
			
		

> I was also wondering if there would be any web enhancement giving us a system  to build new ships from scratch and also easy rules to create planets ad clusters.




There may be one for planet generation, since I wrote a section on that that was cut from the book, but I can't say for certain. I do know that at least one web enhancement will be an entire, 16-page chapter that was cut from the book for space reasons that will make some cyberpunk fans really happy.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 8, 2004)

d4 said:
			
		

> that doesn't seem to be the case, since they both have identical ranges (1000 AU -- which is nowhere near far enough for interstellar distances).




Oh, I noticed from what you said; I think you did find an error there. (They both should not have the same numbers.)


----------



## Dacileva (Aug 8, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Oh, I noticed from what you said; I think you did find an error there. (They both should not have the same numbers.)




Another possibility, from another Star*Drive geek: In Alternity/S*D, a mass transceiver only functions while within a gravity well, and only into the same gravity well.  The drive transceiver would function even in deep space.


----------



## The_Universe (Aug 8, 2004)

Dacileva said:
			
		

> Another possibility, from another Star*Drive geek: In Alternity/S*D, a mass transceiver only functions while within a gravity well, and only into the same gravity well.  The drive transceiver would function even in deep space.



 Interesting.  But isn't 1000 AU _MUCH_ longer than the distance into and out of any gravity well?  I could be wrong, but isn't a thousand AU 1000 x the distance between the sun and the earth?  

Anyway, Moridin's answer is satisfactory for the moment, but if errata ever comes, you might want to alter that descritpion a bit.


----------



## Buddha the DM (Aug 8, 2004)

Moridin said:
			
		

> There may be one for planet generation, since I wrote a section on that that was cut from the book, but I can't say for certain. I do know that at least one web enhancement will be an entire, 16-page chapter that was cut from the book for space reasons that will make some cyberpunk fans really happy.




Sweetness.

Question on Bioroid & Bioreplica characters. Can they pick extra languages if they have a sufficiently high enough Int score?


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 8, 2004)

Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> Sweetness.
> 
> Question on Bioroid & Bioreplica characters. Can they pick extra languages if they have a sufficiently high enough Int score?




Yes, they can.


----------



## Buddha the DM (Aug 8, 2004)

Thanks for the answer.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 8, 2004)

A couple of balance problems cropped up, mainly involving stuff to do at 1st-level.



			
				WingsandSword said:
			
		

> The Heir occupation on p. 9
> 
> "As long as her Reputation Bonus is +1 or higher, an heir's wealth bonus can never drop below 10."
> 
> ...




Are we misinterpreting this one?

I'm not sure if the environmental feats I heard about actually exist (ones that boost Strength or give energy resistance), but they seem a lot better than talents. 

There are questions on two WotC threads: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=4151851#post4151851 plus http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=289059&perpage=30&pagenumber=1 and http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=289826


----------



## trancejeremy (Aug 8, 2004)

I have a starship question - was a section on "cinematic" starship drives cut out of the book?

I ask because the fastest starship drives (until PL9, which is too high for most games) in the book seem to be the 25x speed of light one, which as the chart in the book points out, would make it take 2 months to go to the closest star system.  Which would be too slow for anything but an "Aliens" style game. 

I was hoping for something of a "jump drive", a la Traveller (1 to 6 parsecs a week) or something akin to the speeds in Star Trek or H. Beam Piper's universe - about a light year a day or hour.  (I know there is a jump drive, but again, it's PL9 and not quite what I'm after)


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 9, 2004)

I have all the Alternity ship-building supplements, but couldn't find anything there on Babylon 5/StarCon-style Hyperspace travel.

By this, I mean you need a jump-engine to open a rift into another dimension, where you can travel faster (compared to the Prime). The journey is made as if you were flying in the Prime (it takes fuel, you can stay there as long as you want) except for the chance of getting lost. I do not mean that you can only jump exactly 0 light years through the other dimension, like the Alternity "Hyperspace" concept.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 9, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Are we misinterpreting this one?




Nope, that's correctly worded. But it's as it should be if you don't look at it from a purely mechanical viewpoint. It makes sense that an heiress should be able to get things for the party.



> I'm not sure if the environmental feats I heard about actually exist (ones that boost Strength or give energy resistance), but they seem a lot better than talents.




Well, a feat _should_ be better than a talent.



> There are questions on two WotC threads:




I'm doing good to keep track of just the threads on this forum, so my responses over there will be delayed. Feel free to point people to this thread for convenience's sake.


----------



## d4 (Aug 9, 2004)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> I ask because the fastest starship drives (until PL9, which is too high for most games) in the book seem to be the 25x speed of light one, which as the chart in the book points out, would make it take 2 months to go to the closest star system.  Which would be too slow for anything but an "Aliens" style game.



i'm going to be upping the speeds of hyperdrives also. i had already decided for my sci-fi setting that Earth-like worlds are on average about 200 light-years apart, and i don't want to have to role-play 8 year-long journeys just to hop over to the next closest world. 

in Star Wars, one can fly from the edge of the galaxy (Tatooine) to the core (Coruscant) in a matter of hours (or at most days)... either the Star Wars galaxy is much smaller than ours, or they're traveling at speeds of thousands of light-years per hour.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 9, 2004)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> I have a starship question - was a section on "cinematic" starship drives cut out of the book?
> 
> I ask because the fastest starship drives (until PL9, which is too high for most games) in the book seem to be the 25x speed of light one, which as the chart in the book points out, would make it take 2 months to go to the closest star system.  Which would be too slow for anything but an "Aliens" style game.
> 
> I was hoping for something of a "jump drive", a la Traveller (1 to 6 parsecs a week) or something akin to the speeds in Star Trek or H. Beam Piper's universe - about a light year a day or hour.  (I know there is a jump drive, but again, it's PL9 and not quite what I'm after)




I don't know if such a section was cut from the book, but I can say this: you can always change the PL of something. They are just general guidelines, not hard and fast rules. And while the travel times on the Fantastic Travel Times table do only go up to LSx25, this is just one example of how it could work. All you have to do is determine how fast jump drives go in your own campaign setting, and multiply by that. 

I know that's not an answer you were looking for, but realistically there's no way to have come up with every possible travel time chart for every type of space travel. That's going to be a campaign setting-dependent thing.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 9, 2004)

Moridin said:
			
		

> I don't know if such a section was cut from the book, but I can say this: you can always change the PL of something. They are just general guidelines, not hard and fast rules. And while the travel times on the Fantastic Travel Times table do only go up to LSx25, this is just one example of how it could work. All you have to do is determine how fast jump drives go in your own campaign setting, and multiply by that.
> 
> I know that's not an answer you were looking for, but realistically there's no way to have come up with every possible travel time chart for every type of space travel. That's going to be a campaign setting-dependent thing.




Oh, did I also mention that I'm a knucklehead? I just remembered the real answer to your question. Read the description of the Jump Gate technology again: it reduces all distances by a factor of 1,000. So, you travel at the speed listed on the Fantastic Travel Times chart, but the _distance_ is modified to be shorter. And if you don't like the idea of wormholes and such, just change "jump drive" to "warp drive" and have it take place in realspace. I knew that there was something to account for that speed of travel, I just couldn't remember what.


----------



## Apocalyptic Kitty (Aug 9, 2004)

Great book! Plenty of good material here to destroy perfectly good worlds with.

Just one question: where's the sathar?


----------



## Buddha the DM (Aug 9, 2004)

Second question Biodroid & Bioreplica hero characters.. Should they add in the skill bonuses granted to them from their sensor suite even though they aren't listed in the "racial" info block?


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 9, 2004)

Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> Second question Biodroid & Bioreplica hero characters.. Should they add in the skill bonuses granted to them from their sensor suite even though they aren't listed in the "racial" info block?




Yep. The racial info block is really more for saying "here's what's different from the information listed in the item's description."


----------



## Buddha the DM (Aug 9, 2004)

Ah ok.. Thanks again man.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 9, 2004)

d4 said:
			
		

> i'm going to be upping the speeds of hyperdrives also. i had already decided for my sci-fi setting that Earth-like worlds are on average about 200 light-years apart, and i don't want to have to role-play 8 year-long journeys just to hop over to the next closest world.
> 
> in Star Wars, one can fly from the edge of the galaxy (Tatooine) to the core (Coruscant) in a matter of hours (or at most days)... either the Star Wars galaxy is much smaller than ours, or they're traveling at speeds of thousands of light-years per hour.




www.stardestroyer.net - it's the latter.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Aug 9, 2004)

IYO: What would the PL of Starwars d20 be?

For example if you wanted to transplant some d20 future into swd20, or if you wanted to play swd20 using d20f instead of swd20?


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 9, 2004)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> IYO: What would the PL of Starwars d20 be?
> 
> For example if you wanted to transplant some d20 future into swd20, or if you wanted to play swd20 using d20f instead of swd20?




Hard to say. Most of the weapon tech would be around PL 7, but some of the starships tech would be PL8 or PL9. It's kind of a mix-and-match thing. Fortunately, the PLs are there just as guidelines and aren't what you'd call hard-and-fast rules.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 10, 2004)

Apocalyptic Kitty said:
			
		

> Great book! Plenty of good material here to destroy perfectly good worlds with.
> 
> Just one question: where's the sathar?




Oops, looks like I missed this one. Check the d20 Games forum, someone's working on a stat block already.


----------



## Dacileva (Aug 10, 2004)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Interesting.  But isn't 1000 AU _MUCH_ longer than the distance into and out of any gravity well?  I could be wrong, but isn't a thousand AU 1000 x the distance between the sun and the earth?
> 
> Anyway, Moridin's answer is satisfactory for the moment, but if errata ever comes, you might want to alter that descritpion a bit.



1 AU = the average distance between the sun and the earth.  And by "gravity well", I meant "anywhere within a single star's, or star system's, gravitic influence".  Shorthand, and potentially confusable, so I should have clarified.

Anyway, as I understand it, in Star*Drive, mass transceivers work (somehow) using the same reason that gravity within a single gravity field, no matter how large, appears to be able to propagate FTL.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 10, 2004)

Question about the Plus Feats-

Do you need a level of the class in question to take one of these?

In other words, could a Strong Hero 3 take Fast Plus with his 3rd level feat?

The lack or prerequisites seems to suggest that he could.

Chuck


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 10, 2004)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Question about the Plus Feats-
> 
> Do you need a level of the class in question to take one of these?
> 
> ...



It does seem that way at first, but carefully read the list of bonus talents you get to choose from: they're all second-tier talents. Since you have to meet all the prerequisites for the talents you choose as a result of taking this feat, you've got to have the first-tier talents in the first place. So, in order to actually get the benefit of this feat, you've got to have at least 3 levels in the base class for the appropriate feat.


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 11, 2004)

*May I Be of Assistance?*

I just discovered this thread, and Rodney pointed out that some of the questions come from the parts of the book that I worked on. So if you've got questions about vehicles, starships, mecha, traveler science, robotics, or cybernetics, I'll do my best to help out. (Just bear in mind that pretty much all of the starships chapter was rewritten after I turned it over.)


----------



## Olive (Aug 11, 2004)

JDWiker said:
			
		

> (Just bear in mind that pretty much all of the starships chapter was rewritten after I turned it over.)




Given that this seems to be one of the major bones of contention about the book I guess the questions are as follows:

1) Why?
2) By whom?
3) What did the original look like?
4) Are there plans to release the original in sme form?
5) Why do ships have non-location based hits? Would it have been worth bucking the trend and making ships have locations so that crits could have more effect/the sstem would modle sci-fi fiction/film by having the engines damaged etc?


----------



## Buddha the DM (Aug 11, 2004)

Is there any chance that we will get to see a starship design guide where we'll get to build a ship from scratch? If so, will it contain a walkthrough and a sample vessel to illustrate the process?


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 11, 2004)

Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> Is there any chance that we will get to see a starship design guide where we'll get to build a ship from scratch? If so, will it contain a walkthrough and a sample vessel to illustrate the process?




I'll put it on my "to-do" list, with a mutation point-to-ECL guideline chart that I promised earlier. I may have to wait on the MSRD update to make it net-legal, though...


----------



## Olive (Aug 11, 2004)

Moridin said:
			
		

> I'll put it on my "to-do" list, with a mutation point-to-ECL guideline chart that I promised earlier. I may have to wait on the MSRD update to make it net-legal, though...




Why not ask WotC to put it up on their site? then they would be supporting the book, and we'd get the info all official like. Even better, why not ask them to pay you to do a regular d20F column, which could include this stuff. Ghod knows we all appreciate support for some of the more specialised books.


----------



## Buddha the DM (Aug 11, 2004)

Moridin said:
			
		

> I'll put it on my "to-do" list, with a mutation point-to-ECL guideline chart that I promised earlier. I may have to wait on the MSRD update to make it net-legal, though...




Excellent. Thank you very much.


----------



## kinwolf (Aug 11, 2004)

I saw this question on the wizard board and I think it's a good one(meaning I am now asking myself the same thing  )

In the case of a battle btw starships, how do you determine how much XP was gained, if any.  And how do you distribute it among the PC? (Evenly, or a higher ratio for the pilot and gunner?)

Kinwolf


----------



## The_Universe (Aug 11, 2004)

While we're on the subject of starships, much has been made in other threads of the relative power of starship armor and weaponry. In some cases, the disparities are so great that it would be essentially impossible for starships to destroy each other in the span of a normal session, let alone a normal combat. Was this intentional?

A much longer discussion on the subject is happening here: http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97102&page=2&pp=20

However, I think the main argument/potential problem can be summed up here:



			
				D4 said:
			
		

> A battlecruiser needs 39 successful hits with its heavy particle beams to destroy a strike cruiser. it needs 79 successful hits to destroy another battlecruiser. (this doesn't count in extra damage from possible missile hits or critical hits, but it's also ignoring damage control.) that's just too long for me. i don't want to limit PC starship combat to fighters; i want them to get involved in capital ship fights too. and even 39 rounds of combat seems way too long for me to devote to taking out a single capital ship.


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 11, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> Given that this seems to be one of the major bones of contention about the book I guess the questions are as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 11, 2004)

kinwolf said:
			
		

> In the case of a battle btw starships, how do you determine how much XP was gained, if any.  And how do you distribute it among the PC? (Evenly, or a higher ratio for the pilot and gunner?)




Well, in the case of the _Star Wars_ starship combat system, you would use the ship's crew quality as a gauge for their Challenge Code. We can adapt that system somewhat, I think, to the _d20 Future_ rules:

Crew Quality	Challenge Rating
Untrained                1/2
Trained                    1
Skilled                     2
Expert                     4
Ace                         8

That would be my suggestion, anyway. Feel free to spread that around.

JD


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 11, 2004)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> While we're on the subject of starships, much has been made in other threads of the relative power of starship armor and weaponry. In some cases, the disparities are so great that it would be essentially impossible for starships to destroy each other in the span of a normal session, let alone a normal combat. Was this intentional?




Yes, though it looks like some of my original hit point figures have been bumped up somewhat.

One of the main complaints we heard about the _Star Wars_ starship combat systems was "It's too easy to destroy a Star Destroyer." And after seeing the rules in play for a few years, I had to concur. So I drew on the rules from Rich Baker's _Starships_ to create capital ships that would last longer than two rounds against a fighter squadron.

And look at it realistically: 39 rounds is just shy of four minutes. Four minutes to take out a capital ship? That's still a ridiculously short time, even for a battleship. Sure, 39 rounds takes a while to play out, but what's a good figure? Ten rounds? Twenty rounds?

Look at it this way, if it helps put it into perspective: A flight of four fighters is going to deal an average of about 270 points of damage per round (assuming one attack per round each). That means it will take them roughly 53 rounds (5 minutes and 18 seconds) to destroy a battleship (factoring in the battleship's hardness).

Do you really want a starship combat system in which four PCs in fighters can take out a battleship in 5 minutes?

I think the higher hit point totals are completely justified. If players disagree, well, they can always reduce the hit points.


----------



## The_Universe (Aug 11, 2004)

Thank you for the clarification.  The rules seem to fine to me, but it's become a relatively large controversy on the thread I mentioned.  

By no means does 5 minutes seem out of whack for the type of combat you're referring to.


----------



## Henry (Aug 11, 2004)

Ladies and Gents, it apparently never got noticed, but I'll go ahead and move this to the d20 Systems forums, since it's kind of in the wrong place.

Please Carry on! Great info thus far.


----------



## d4 (Aug 11, 2004)

JDWiker said:
			
		

> And look at it realistically: 39 rounds is just shy of four minutes. Four minutes to take out a capital ship? That's still a ridiculously short time, even for a battleship. Sure, 39 rounds takes a while to play out, but what's a good figure? Ten rounds? Twenty rounds?



i completely agree that from the point of view of "realism" (or verisimilitude, since we are talking about imaginary things here), four minutes is an incredibly short amount of time for a duel between two huge capital starships.

but 39 rounds could conceivably take several hours to play out at the game table. for me, playability always trumps realism, so i'd like a combat system that plays out a lot faster, even if that means space engagements are unrealistically short.




			
				JDWiker said:
			
		

> Do you really want a starship combat system in which four PCs in fighters can take out a battleship in 5 minutes?



5 minutes real-time or 5 minutes in-game-time? i think that combat should last about 20 minutes to a half-hour real time, and i don't particularly care how long (or short) that actually turns out to be in-game.




			
				JDWiker said:
			
		

> I think the higher hit point totals are completely justified. If players disagree, well, they can always reduce the hit points.



i was thinking of upping the weapon damage instead, but that amounts to the same thing. other than this area that i disagreee with, i'm really grooving on d20 Future, and i think you guys did a spectacular job.


----------



## Buddha the DM (Aug 11, 2004)

If non-heroic robotic characters can not have class levels then how are they supposed to make use of the Skill Web (PL 8) and the Feat Web (PL 8)? Both of the afformentioned items make reference to a robot having ordinary levels. But according to pg 177 this is not possible.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 11, 2004)

And this is why I like it when JD comes and helps me out. He has the answers I cannot provide!

*ALSO*: Could a moderator please change the title of the thread to "D20 Future Q&A With Rodney Thompson and JD Wiker" so that it doesn't looks like I'm hogging the show? JD's insight is at least as valuable as mine, if not more so.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 12, 2004)

JDWiker said:
			
		

> The short answer is "simplicity." Location-based hits slow down play. The longer answer is that Wizards' design staff are not big fans of hit locations, for a variety of reasons, though I'll grant that enough people want such a system that it could *at least* be done as an optional rule.



And what is *The Game Mechanics'* stance on hit locations?


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 12, 2004)

d4 said:
			
		

> but 39 rounds could conceivably take several hours to play out at the game table. for me, playability always trumps realism, so i'd like a combat system that plays out a lot faster, even if that means space engagements are unrealistically short.




Well, there's always the system from _Star Wars_--but if you don't own a copy of that, the simple fix is simply to cut the hit points down, though I don't recommend cutting them down to any lower than 1/10th the current totals.



			
				d4 said:
			
		

> 5 minutes real-time or 5 minutes in-game-time? i think that combat should last about 20 minutes to a half-hour real time, and i don't particularly care how long (or short) that actually turns out to be in-game.




Well, then, you're on one side of an argument that's been going on for years. Others prefer space combat to be more "realistic" (which is to say, within the context of starships that can perform combat maneuvers in the space of less than a minute). No single system is ever going to satisfy both camps. Fortunately, the system in _d20 Future_ can be easily adapted to suit either style (more or less).



			
				d4 said:
			
		

> i was thinking of upping the weapon damage instead, but that amounts to the same thing. other than this area that i disagreee with, i'm really grooving on d20 Future, and i think you guys did a spectacular job.




Thanks. I wish I could claim more credit for the starship combat system (or less credit, depending on the aspect in question), but I'm happy to take credit for the stuff that I designed that you like and that *wasn't* rewritten. ::grin::


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 12, 2004)

Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> If non-heroic robotic characters can not have class levels then how are they supposed to make use of the Skill Web (PL 8) and the Feat Web (PL 8)? Both of the afformentioned items make reference to a robot having ordinary levels. But according to pg 177 this is not possible.




I'm not sure I understand your question (partly because these feats weren't in my original design). Where does it state that non-heroic robot characters can't have class levels? My understanding is that they can't have *heroic* class levels, but can still have Ordinary class levels.


----------



## Furluge (Aug 12, 2004)

Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> If non-heroic robotic characters can not have class levels then how are they supposed to make use of the Skill Web (PL 8) and the Feat Web (PL 8)? Both of the afformentioned items make reference to a robot having ordinary levels. But according to pg 177 this is not possible.




I have a feeling that it was meant to say they cannot have character class levels but might have ordinary levels. (IE: The NPC class levels.)

Also as far as the starships go. I don't think their HP is too high, considering that more than one attack is allowed as part of the normal attack action and d4's example is of two ships not really suited for taking each other out, but that discussion is mainly all over that other page. (It's big.)

One thing I'd like to know, is the targeting system set up so that it can only apply to one attack per round? If so is the targeting system tied to a particular weapon, or do I just pick one each round? Can additional targeting systems be purchased to improve other weapons/additional weapons (That being if the computer isn't tied to a single weapon.), or is it always just going to be a one attack per round gets the targeting computer bonus deal?

And while people are asking about mutation points equal to ECL chart, I'd like to go a step farther and ask what amount of genetic engineering, cybernetic upgrades (perhaps not these so much as there's a high limit but still.), and robotic upgrades might constitute a level? I'm considering writing a campaign setting where high amounts of such modifications, usually by the power groups in the setting, will occur. Perhaps something more of a $ amount of things put into the character equals this much ECL?

How about a vehicle critical hit chart in the web-enhancement?

And I myself grew up on locational based damage points, but that being said I know how that can be a pain as well. I personally think that the critical hits table is a good compromise to that, it gives some of the feel of the advantages of getting just the /right/ spot without the bookeeping.


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 12, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> And what is *The Game Mechanics'* stance on hit locations?




I think I just gave it, actually.

Hit location charts are clunky, and slow down play. However, if you want them in your campaign, you can always adapt them from a book like _The Galactic Campaign Guide_ (which is for personal combat, not starship combat, but the principle is the same).

Still, my recommendation is not to do so: Applying a hit location system to personal, vehicle, or starship combat makes the game more lethal for PCs, and while some players prefer a more lethal system, it takes a lot of fun out of the game if your character gets killed by a lucky hit (when you, your vehicle, or your ship still had full hit points).

It also virtually *demands* a "called-shot" system, which makes armor virtually useless, because as soon as players realize they can take a chance on an instant kill, they start going for it, regardless of the penalty. And when they get enough of a BAB that the penalty isn't that much of a penalty anymore, combats become ridiculously short, and PC kills depressingly frequent.

It's a level of realism that takes the fun out of the game. And it's worse than the level of realism represented by starships with high hit point totals, because at least *that* rule doesn't come up in every combat.

I can't say for sure that this is the opinion of all of the GMs, but I can't imagine it's far off the mark. (You'll notice that we didn't like the idea enough to include it in _The Modern Player's Companion_, even as an optional rule.)


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 12, 2004)

Furluge said:
			
		

> I have a feeling that it was meant to say they cannot have character class levels but might have ordinary levels. (IE: The NPC class levels.)




That's my impression as well, but I want to be sure.



			
				Furluge said:
			
		

> One thing I'd like to know, is the targeting system set up so that it can only apply to one attack per round? If so is the targeting system tied to a particular weapon, or do I just pick one each round? Can additional targeting systems be purchased to improve other weapons/additional weapons (That being if the computer isn't tied to a single weapon.), or is it always just going to be a one attack per round gets the targeting computer bonus deal?




It applies to all of the ship's attacks, every round.



			
				Furluge said:
			
		

> And while people are asking about mutation points equal to ECL chart, I'd like to go a step farther and ask what amount of genetic engineering, cybernetic upgrades (perhaps not these so much as there's a high limit but still.), and robotic upgrades might constitute a level? I'm considering writing a campaign setting where high amounts of such modifications, usually by the power groups in the setting, will occur. Perhaps something more of a $ amount of things put into the character equals this much ECL?




I'm really uncomfortable with that idea, mainly because it doesn't make sense to me that the amount of cash a character has spent on himself changes his ECL. That's rather like saying that a character with heavy armor should be ECL +3 or whatever. I can see that logic for natural mutations (as opposed to genetic manipulations post-chargen), but purchasing cybernetics is no different to me than purchasing guns and armor.



			
				Furluge said:
			
		

> How about a vehicle critical hit chart in the web-enhancement?




You really should suggest that to Wizards.


----------



## HellHound (Aug 12, 2004)

Three Cheers for the "no hit locations" camp.

I've been playing a lot of CyberPunk 2020 lately and have been getting bummed out with the time it takes to calculate hits with autofire because of hit locations. Bleh.

Much happier with a no-location system.


----------



## Buddha the DM (Aug 12, 2004)

JDWiker said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I understand your question (partly because these feats weren't in my original design). Where does it state that non-heroic robot characters can't have class levels? My understanding is that they can't have *heroic* class levels, but can still have Ordinary class levels.




Taken from page 177: _"*Nonheroic robots don't get class levels.* However, they can recieve factory-installed skill and feat software, allowing them to emulate specific skills and feats as part of their programming..."_

Skill Web (PL 8; pg 186), and Feat Web (PL 8; pg 187): _"A feat (or skill) web allows *a robot with ordinary class levels* to gain feats (or skills) as normal for its class"_

These two things seem to be in conflict to me.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 12, 2004)

JDWiker said:
			
		

> I think I just gave it, actually.
> 
> Hit location charts are clunky, and slow down play. However, if you want them in your campaign, you can always adapt them from a book like _The Galactic Campaign Guide_ (which is for personal combat, not starship combat, but the principle is the same).
> 
> ...



I don't know. I've been a longtime _Trek_ fan to know it is fun to try and take down the enemy ship's shield generators or weapons system or their FTL warp engine. It also give an Engineer type character something to fix any damage suffered during the battle.

Not only that, it does build excitement. Medics tries to reduce the level of casualties, Damage Control tries to put out fires and whatnot, Helm tries to maneuver the (capital) ship, whereas the Security officer tries to build a defensive and offensive strategy based on the Captain's orders. IOW, I WELCOME that one extra level of realism in a sci-fi game.

That and the fact we don't know what the hell is Decipher going to do with _Star Trek_ (as well as _Lord of the Rings_) roleplaying game. They thought they could take on WotC in the RPG market as well as the TCG market, DESPITE that many of their games are from licensed IP NOT owned IP. They ended up biting more than they could chew (you try to dislodge a 2x4 stuck in your throat).


----------



## The_Universe (Aug 12, 2004)

Moridin said:
			
		

> And this is why I like it when JD comes and helps me out. He has the answers I cannot provide!
> 
> *ALSO*: Could a moderator please change the title of the thread to "D20 Future Q&A With Rodney Thompson and JD Wiker" so that it doesn't looks like I'm hogging the show? JD's insight is at least as valuable as mine, if not more so.



 Done!  (Although I am not a moderator!)


----------



## Holy Bovine (Aug 12, 2004)

I think my main problem with the starship combat as written is not so much the lack of hit location charts but the idea that a ship can 1000's of hp in damage  and still function at peak capacity.  Until that magic '0' is reached everything is working just fine.  That just doesn't seem to sit right with me.  Others will disagree but I feel something more was really needed here.  The optional critical hit chart is very good for this and would probably be a excellent place to start on an expansion of the damges a capitial ship can suffer.

On a positive note - d20 Future has a ton of excellent stuff in it - from radition & gravity rules (you wouldn't believe how much I appreciate those!) to the campaign synopsis and cybertech.  A very good job in a great many regards.  Thank you!


----------



## C. Baize (Aug 12, 2004)

JDWiker said:
			
		

> I think I just gave it, actually.
> 
> Hit location charts are clunky, and slow down play. However, if you want them in your campaign, you can always adapt them from a book like _The Galactic Campaign Guide_ (which is for personal combat, not starship combat, but the principle is the same).
> 
> ...




I have to disagree with almost everything JD says here... 
No offense, meant, of course.
I've been using a hit locations chart in game for going on 18 years. It's one quick extra roll, and from what I've seen it does nothing BUT enhance the fun of the combats. 

"Hit.. 12 points of damage."
"Hit .. 12 points of damage to his forearm, that's going to leave a mark!" 

How clunky is that?

JD did hit one thing right on the head, though... a lucky shot does have the potential to instakill. The players have ALWAYS taken this risk, rather than doing without the hit locations chart, regardless of the fact that it HAS in fact worked against them, a few times. 

Every party is different, and my hit locations chart isn't for every group, by any stretch of the imagination. 
What I'm saying here is that in the last almost 18 years since I created it, it has never significantly slowed play, and has enhanced the feel of combat, both by making it a bit more realistic, and in many cases leaving us laughing, afterward.  This has been in my experience. Others' experiences may certainly vary. 

For the most part, combats haven't been noticeably shorter, though it has happened a time or two... I like the cinematic feel of combat, so unless it's a serious wound or an instakill (quite infrequent, but it does happen), combat is all the same. 
PC kills are really not frequent, either... VERY infrequently is a PC killed because of the hit locations chart.

This isn't anecdotal, I'm not saying what I think would happen full of hyperbole or exaggerations... I'm speaking from my own experiences, only.


----------



## d4 (Aug 12, 2004)

JDWiker said:
			
		

> Well, there's always the system from _Star Wars_--but if you don't own a copy of that, the simple fix is simply to cut the hit points down, though I don't recommend cutting them down to any lower than 1/10th the current totals.



i think i've got everything you've written for Star Wars to date. 

i've also got d20 Mecha, so now i have 3 d20 mecha/vehicle/starship combat systems to choose from. 

edit: speaking of Star Wars, there's lots of good stuff in there to plunder for a d20 Future campaign. weapons, equipment, droids, aliens... i've been thinking about converting some of the Star Wars base classes into d20 Modern/Future advanced classes (specifically Fringer, Scout, Scoundrel, and Noble would be handy). most of the Star Wars prestige classes could be used as is with very little tweaking necessary.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 12, 2004)

C. Baize said:
			
		

> "Hit.. 12 points of damage."
> "Hit .. 12 points of damage to his forearm, that's going to leave a mark!"
> 
> How clunky is that?



Not clunky at all...but why do you need a hit location chart for that? Why can't that just be the normal description type stuff you use in combat? See, to me, hit points represent more than just how much damage you can take, encompassing everything from near-misses and glancing blows to actual physical damage. Otherwise, the HP increase as you gain experience makes little sense. Just because I've been in combat longer means my body can take more damage? Seems odd.

I agree with JD, though I _love_ a hit location chart for critical hits *only*. Otherwise, you have to add in things like called shot mechanics (open for abuse, as stated above) and then a constant breakdown of hit points into individual body/ship parts. That might be fine for a starship, but annoying for characters with dynamic HP totals. Add in annoyances like autofire aiming etc, and it really gets overly complex, especially for a fast-paced game. 

One point that I think is correct is this one:


			
				Holy Bovine said:
			
		

> I think my main problem with the starship combat as written is not so much the lack of hit location charts but the idea that a ship can 1000's of hp in damage and still function at peak capacity. Until that magic '0' is reached everything is working just fine. That just doesn't seem to sit right with me. Others will disagree but I feel something more was really needed here. The optional critical hit chart is very good for this and would probably be a excellent place to start on an expansion of the damges a capitial ship can suffer.



Bingo. I concur 100%. This is why I love a critical hit chart, but never use it in normal combat. And as the ship takes damage, all you need to do is make rolls on this chart. For example, a note that says "when a ship reaches 50%, 25%, 10%, and 5% hull points, roll on the critical hits table" suits me just fine. 

While I sympathize with *Ranger REG*'s desire to target ship components in combat, I don't think a distributed hull point system is the answer. After all, how would you cover all the possibilities? What's to say that one ship's shield generators don't take up 80% of its hull points, while another takes up a measly 10%? You can never cover all the possibilities like that. I have yet to find a suitable mechanic for targeting individual sections (such as Engineering, Bridge, etc.), though targeting individual weapon batteries, external shield generators, etc. is as simple as considering them individual targets with their own hull points, Defense, etc.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 12, 2004)

JD Wiker said:
			
		

> I'm really uncomfortable with that idea, mainly because it doesn't make sense to me that the amount of cash a character has spent on himself changes his ECL. That's rather like saying that a character with heavy armor should be ECL +3 or whatever. I can see that logic for natural mutations (as opposed to genetic manipulations post-chargen), but purchasing cybernetics is no different to me than purchasing guns and armor.



Well, I'll have to disagree with you a bit here. Armor does take feats - indeed, the Modern designers ensured that if you don't have the feat you will not get the entire Defense bonus (in addition to hosing your attack rolls), and there's no point of taking firearms without at least taking Personal Firearms Proficiency.

IMC I will probably make the standard ability to use cybergear take a feat*, with Cybertaker letting you expand the limit, so to speak. It's not a huge change, IMO, but it does ensure something other than Wealth is being used as a balance tool.

* I like the way the drawbacks work for the cybergear; since anyone with cybergear is vulnerable to electricity, there's not too much metagaming required on the part of the players or GM to attack this vulnerability. Then again, there is a piece of cybergear that removes this penalty entirely, and the malfunctioning cybergear won't be coming up too often. So, a feat.

Oh yeah, and I can't see how glowing skin should, for balance reasons, take up a cyberslot, so I'm changing that too


----------



## Furluge (Aug 12, 2004)

JDWiker said:
			
		

> It applies to all of the ship's attacks, every round.




Ok then could you explain something else to me then? The Strike Cruiser PL7 has the option of having one of a set of two batteries of weapons. Let's say for example we use it as written and we pick the first set of weapons for it. So it has a battery of 4 antimatter guns and a battery of 3 plasma missiles. The antimatter guns' listed attack bonus of +4 seems to be right, since this ship has -8 for colossal size, +5 for improved targeting computer, +4 for the gunners attack bonus. That gives us a total of +1. Now the battery configuration of the guns adds a +3 because there's 3 guns in the battery after the first, which added to our +1 gives us a +4, which is listed by the weapon. However on this same set of guns it lists the 3 plasma missiles as having a -2 bonus. Why? If the targeting computer works on all attacks then shouldn't it be at a +3 bonus? I came to my conclusion on the targeting computer after I noted that the plasma missles was down by 5, the bonus for the targeting computer. Is the attack bonus a typo in the book, or is there something else that is lowering the attack bonus for the battery of plasma missiles?





> I'm really uncomfortable with that idea, mainly because it doesn't make sense to me that the amount of cash a character has spent on himself changes his ECL. That's rather like saying that a character with heavy armor should be ECL +3 or whatever. I can see that logic for natural mutations (as opposed to genetic manipulations post-chargen), but purchasing cybernetics is no different to me than purchasing guns and armor.




Well perhaps I should explain, I'm beginning work on writing an adapataion of the online setting for a MUSH. The setting is focused around a series of factions. Characters can start in factions of their choice but some have different benefits. The more military of the factions modify new enlistees (cybernetics, genetic engineering, or robotics.) and in the case of the ones employing robots they're enhanced above the norm at the time of construction. However some of the organizations provide none of these benefits, and so I'm pondering writing these heavily modified specimens as if they're a seperate race with an ECL or I'm also considering representing this as PrC which represents enlistment which gives these benefits. I mean I suppose I could use the requistion method of awarding these things but then we have characters of the same level, one that's very weak and one that's obscenely strong from their modifications given at no cost to them. I've also pondered just allowing new characters that have belong to these organizations as part of their character to allow them X dollars worth of upgrades as part of creating their character. (Once again, to represent how much their organization has put into building/engineering them.) but shouldn't there still be some ECL attached, or should I just have the less fortunate faction players have to deal with always being unequal?



> You really should suggest that to Wizards.




Heh, how?



			
				Moridin said:
			
		

> Bingo. I concur 100%. This is why I love a critical hit chart, but never use it in normal combat. And as the ship takes damage, all you need to do is make rolls on this chart. For example, a note that says "when a ship reaches 50%, 25%, 10%, and 5% hull points, roll on the critical hits table" suits me just fine.




Yeah that does work out pretty well as it ensures that the critical hits to help make sure that damaged ships are slowly reduced in effectiveness. However perhaps I'm a bit more liberal in that I think there's no need and that if we just let critical hits happen (I guess I just like the idea of keeping those crits that important.), they'll reduce the ships effectiveness in combat on their own without needing an assured "critical hit as HP are lost mechanic". Of course that's just the way it seems to me, it'd have to be playtested to see how it works. (Perhaps if the threat range on all weapons were increased by one it'd make this just more likely enough.)

If you really want to make a ship be assured to lose effectiveness as time goes on rather than leaving it up to the critical hits you could just add a -1 for each 25% HP the ship loses, making it cumulative and stacking with everything else. It could represent the slow loss of crew and it still keeps the critical hits exciting.

Of course I /still/ think we're focusing too much on destroying the ships. I think it'd be more likely for the ships to retreat from battle when they're down by a margin of HP damage they can't seem to close in on. I mean think how long it takes to repair all those HPs of damage, and the $$. I mean why sit around when every turn you're always at a large HP deficit behind your opponent. Why wait to hit 0 HP?


----------



## d4 (Aug 12, 2004)

Furluge said:
			
		

> Is the attack bonus a typo in the book, or is there something else that is lowering the attack bonus for the battery of plasma missiles?



i'm assuming, that just like with characters, the primary attack is at full BAB, and the secondary attack is at -5.


----------



## Furluge (Aug 12, 2004)

d4 said:
			
		

> i'm assuming, that just like with characters, the primary attack is at full BAB, and the secondary attack is at -5.




Yeah that does seem to be the case, but it isn't mentioned, and it's something I think should be because remember with characters those additional attacks only come from Base Attack Bonus, but a ship has no BAB to be used to designate the # of attacks. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks of additional tacks not in "-5 per additional attack." and more along the lines of the multiple BAB bonuses we're used to seeing. Would have been nice to have that noted when the attack (ranged) action was said to allow multiple attacks per round.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 12, 2004)

Moridin said:
			
		

> Not clunky at all...but why do you need a hit location chart for that? Why can't that just be the normal description type stuff you use in combat? See, to me, hit points represent more than just how much damage you can take, encompassing everything from near-misses and glancing blows to actual physical damage. Otherwise, the HP increase as you gain experience makes little sense. Just because I've been in combat longer means my body can take more damage? Seems odd.



With regards to body hit locations, I'd rather leave that as a variant rules. Even I won't use it myself.




			
				Moridin said:
			
		

> While I sympathize with *Ranger REG*'s desire to target ship components in combat, I don't think a distributed hull point system is the answer. After all, how would you cover all the possibilities? What's to say that one ship's shield generators don't take up 80% of its hull points, while another takes up a measly 10%? You can never cover all the possibilities like that. I have yet to find a suitable mechanic for targeting individual sections (such as Engineering, Bridge, etc.), though targeting individual weapon batteries, external shield generators, etc. is as simple as considering them individual targets with their own hull points, Defense, etc.



To be honest with you, I too don't like the idea of distributing a ship's total hit points toward specific ship's functions or systems. That's too much calculating and bookkeeping, every time a general hit reduces the ship's total hit points, you have to randomly determine which systems' hit points go down too.

It's better to have the system itself have separate hit points, or better yet, something along the line of the Injury System (using ship's damage like OFFLINE, DAMAGED, DESTROYED, etc.). And that is something the Engineer can try to fix. ("Ye have mo' power, but da engine cannae take any mo' hit, cap'n!")


----------



## Olive (Aug 12, 2004)

Moridin said:
			
		

> And as the ship takes damage, all you need to do is make rolls on this chart. For example, a note that says "when a ship reaches 50%, 25%, 10%, and 5% hull points, roll on the critical hits table" suits me just fine.




This idea I like. I'll have to work one something like this for the game, if and when I run it...


----------



## d4 (Aug 12, 2004)

Furluge said:
			
		

> Yeah that does seem to be the case, but it isn't mentioned, and it's something I think should be because remember with characters those additional attacks only come from Base Attack Bonus, but a ship has no BAB to be used to designate the # of attacks.



well, note that creatures with multiple attacks (such as claw/claw/bite) that are not based on BAB also use the -5 penalty for secondary attacks.

you are correct that it isn't explicitly stated in the starship combat chapter, but it's a basic principle of d20 combat that secondary attacks are always at -5.


----------



## Brad Hindman (Aug 12, 2004)

Perhaps this is mentioned somewhere and I just missed it, but what happens if I have a gunner with iterative attacks.  Can she fire a ship mounted weapon more than once per round?


----------



## Justin D. Jacobson (Aug 12, 2004)

1) The book is great.  Where some people have complained about it being "skeletal," I think quite the opposite.  I would call it "tight."  You managed to cram alot of info in an astonishingly low number of pages.  (For what we're planning on doing with it, check out my sig.)

2) The hit point threshold system looks similar to what Goodman did with their Dragonmechs.  I looked at it briefly awhile ago, but I think that's an alternative that at least has managed to find a foothold in the gaming community.

3) Question: Whose idea was it for the quotes that begin each xenomorph entry? Did it come from Mutants & Masterminds?  I think it's a great idea, really gives a feel for the aliens; we'll definitely be doing that in _Dawning Star_.


----------



## C. Baize (Aug 12, 2004)

Moridin said:
			
		

> Not clunky at all...but why do you need a hit location chart for that? Why can't that just be the normal description type stuff you use in combat?



Certainly. I've played in games where this was certainly the norm, and they were fun enough, to be sure. 
I've found that my players like having that little bit of extra say in where things go, though. I haven't found any players, yet who have minded the one extra roll, for the extra fun.  
Everyone is different though. I encourage people to try a hit location chart, and see if it's good for them. If not, then they know it isn't, and they know why it isn't. If it is, then they have another dimension to the game.


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 12, 2004)

Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> Taken from page 177: _"*Nonheroic robots don't get class levels.* However, they can recieve factory-installed skill and feat software, allowing them to emulate specific skills and feats as part of their programming..."_
> 
> Skill Web (PL 8; pg 186), and Feat Web (PL 8; pg 187): _"A feat (or skill) web allows *a robot with ordinary class levels* to gain feats (or skills) as normal for its class"_
> 
> These two things seem to be in conflict to me.




Hm. To me, too. Looks like somebody added some rules to my text. In fact, taking a closer look at the Progit/Net/Web text (none of which I wrote), it appears that whoever wrote it completely disregarded the idea of maximum skill ranks.

Sadly, I don't know how to answer your question here. You should address this to Wizards of the Coast.

JD Wiker


----------



## jezter6 (Aug 12, 2004)

Disclaimer: I don't own d20 Future yet, and will likely wait for the MSRD update before I decide to purchase it if I do.

Here's my thoughts on the whole space combat and time issue. And it seams simple enough to implement.

So a round is six seconds in melee combat, but why not just say that 1 round of ship to ship combat takes 1 minute, or 30 seconds, or 5 minutes,  or whtever seems more appropriate. That way, even if you blow it away in 10 rounds, or 20 rounds, or whatever is appropriate for the HPs of the ship, that it would (in game terms) actually be 10 or 20 minutes, instead of 1 or 2 minutes.

Wouldn't that generally solve the problem of starship combat? So you lower the HP of the ships to a more reasonable amount of time to play out in real time, without making it seem like it took only a 30 second fight to blow down a battleship...

Sounds like an option that isn't really a rule-breaker but makes combat feel like it was more epic than it really was.


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 12, 2004)

Furluge said:
			
		

> Ok then could you explain something else to me then? The Strike Cruiser PL7 has the option of having one of a set of two batteries of weapons. Let's say for example we use it as written and we pick the first set of weapons for it. So it has a battery of 4 antimatter guns and a battery of 3 plasma missiles. The antimatter guns' listed attack bonus of +4 seems to be right, since this ship has -8 for colossal size, +5 for improved targeting computer, +4 for the gunners attack bonus. That gives us a total of +1. Now the battery configuration of the guns adds a +3 because there's 3 guns in the battery after the first, which added to our +1 gives us a +4, which is listed by the weapon. However on this same set of guns it lists the 3 plasma missiles as having a -2 bonus. Why? If the targeting computer works on all attacks then shouldn't it be at a +3 bonus? I came to my conclusion on the targeting computer after I noted that the plasma missles was down by 5, the bonus for the targeting computer. Is the attack bonus a typo in the book, or is there something else that is lowering the attack bonus for the battery of plasma missiles?




Because the basic calculation for the attack's bonus comes from the gunner's attack bonus, it's based on an actual person (or crew) firing the weapon. And as with other types of attackers (characters, creatures, and so on), additional attacks suffer a -5 penalty. (And a further -1 because the second attack has one less weapon in the battery.)



			
				Furluge said:
			
		

> Well perhaps I should explain
> 
> [snip]
> 
> (Once again, to represent how much their organization has put into building/engineering them.) but shouldn't there still be some ECL attached, or should I just have the less fortunate faction players have to deal with always being unequal?




My opinion is no, no more than there should be an ECL difference between 1st-level characters who have high Wealth scores, and 1st-level characters who have low Wealth scores.



			
				Furluge said:
			
		

> Heh, how?




Send email to Wizards' web team (you can generally find contact info on the web page), or post on their message boards.

JD Wiker


----------



## Buddha the DM (Aug 12, 2004)

JDWiker said:
			
		

> Hm. To me, too. Looks like somebody added some rules to my text. In fact, taking a closer look at the Progit/Net/Web text (none of which I wrote), it appears that whoever wrote it completely disregarded the idea of maximum skill ranks.
> 
> Sadly, I don't know how to answer your question here. You should address this to Wizards of the Coast.
> 
> JD Wiker




Alright thanks for at least reviewing my question.


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 12, 2004)

Justin D. Jacobson said:
			
		

> 1) The book is great.  Where some people have complained about it being "skeletal," I think quite the opposite.  I would call it "tight."  You managed to cram alot of info in an astonishingly low number of pages.  (For what we're planning on doing with it, check out my sig.)




I wasn't involved with the final assembly of the book, myself, but "tight" is a pretty accurate descriptor. They cut out *a lot.* Hopefully they left enough so that anyone with a little imagination can create any setting they like.



			
				Justin D. Jacobson said:
			
		

> 2) The hit point threshold system looks similar to what Goodman did with their Dragonmechs.  I looked at it briefly awhile ago, but I think that's an alternative that at least has managed to find a foothold in the gaming community.




Here's the problem with a hit point threshold system (and I'm not saying I agree with it, only that this is how Wizards thinks): 

It's not the way we do it. And if we change it for this system (starship combat), we have to change it for all our systems (personal combat, vehicular combat, psionic combat, and so on).

A fundamental flaw that has always existed in the d20 System (since the days of the white box) is that it built off the wargame model of "each unit can be killed with one hit, or at most, four." When you're dealing with a single model on the tabletop, with no more than 4 hit points, hit point threshold systems are not only unnecessary, but they add a level of complication for those poor wargamers who are trying to keep track of perhaps hundreds of models at the same time.

But when you add more hit points at each level, the abstract hit point system begins to unravel. Characters can survive often a dozen hits without losing effectiveness--a transparent fact at low levels, but increasingly obvious as the character advances in level. So, eventually, you get characters who can fall 20 stories, get up, and charge right into combat. It's ridiculous, but it's an artifact of the system, and even if Wizards wanted to change it, too many of the grognards would complain too loudly. (Personally, I think it's worth alienating the "1st Edition was the One True Edition!" crowd, but I don't call the shots at Wizards.)

Obviously, Wizards has toyed with a hit point threshold system before. Not only did Alternity include such a system, but Jonathan Tweet, the main 3.0 designer, designed _Ars Magica_, which uses not only a threshold system, but *fixed hit points.* (No "class," no "level," has more hit points than any other. The difference comes in how well characters can shrug off damage.  But I digress.) So, clearly, it's something they *could* do, but choose not to.



			
				Justin D. Jacobson said:
			
		

> 3) Question: Whose idea was it for the quotes that begin each xenomorph entry? Did it come from Mutants & Masterminds?  I think it's a great idea, really gives a feel for the aliens; we'll definitely be doing that in _Dawning Star_.




It's something Wizards has done many times before. Look at _Xenoforms_ for the _Dark*Matter_ setting, for example.

JD Wiker


----------



## The_Universe (Aug 12, 2004)

I was looking over the starship combat system again, and it seems (based upon this second cursory glance) that a character's ranks in the _Pilot _skill have little to no bearing on the defense of the ship he or she is piloting.  Although the _Starship Dodge _feat does have a requirement of a certain number of ranks in pilot, a +1 bonus to defense for ranks in pilot, no matter how high, seems a little weak.  

On the other hand, _Pilot _does seem to have an effect on a pilots ability to evade obstacles and tractor beams.  What's the philosophy (if you know it) behind allowing pilot to aid in the evasion of some such things, but not enemy weaponry?  

It would seem to me that my ability in dodging fire as a person should have little bearing on how well I might be able to pilot a starship.  While both certainly depend on manual dexterity, agility, and coordination, they are simply not the same thing.  

Was there ever a system in the works that gave _Pilot _more bearing on a vessel's survivability?  

As it stands, I see few reasons to put more than a few ranks in Pilot, ever...


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 13, 2004)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> I was looking over the starship combat system again, and it seems (based upon this second cursory glance) that a character's ranks in the _Pilot _skill have little to no bearing on the defense of the ship he or she is piloting.  Although the _Starship Dodge _feat does have a requirement of a certain number of ranks in pilot, a +1 bonus to defense for ranks in pilot, no matter how high, seems a little weak.
> 
> On the other hand, _Pilot _does seem to have an effect on a pilots ability to evade obstacles and tractor beams.  What's the philosophy (if you know it) behind allowing pilot to aid in the evasion of some such things, but not enemy weaponry?
> 
> ...




Yes, and it got cut when they simplified the system, much to my chagrin (because I wanted _Star Wars_ players to adopt it).

Wizards may present this as a web freebie at some point, but I'm going to risk their wrath by posting it here:

*Jinking:* As a move action, a pilot can move the ship erratically in order to present a more difficult target for attackers. The pilot makes a Pilot check. The result determines the bonus to the starship’s Defense. Unfortunately, the erratic movement also provides a penalty to any attacks made from the jinking starship.

This Pilot check is modified by the size of the jinking ship, as follows:

Size             Modifier
Colossal          –16
Gargantuan      –8
Huge              –4
Large              –2
Medium           +0
Small              +2
Tiny               +8
Diminutive      +12
Fine              +16

Pilot           Defense       Attack
Check          Bonus        Penalty
up to 9          +2             –4
10-14            +3             –6
15-19            +4             –8
20-24            +5            –10
25-29            +6            –12
30-34            +7            –14
35+               +8            –16

*Evasive Action:* Much like jinking, a pilot can make a Pilot check as a full-round action to add an even greater bonus to his ship’s Defense, at the cost of an even larger penalty to attack rolls. This Pilot check is also modified by the size of the ship. Adjust the Pilot check by the same size modifiers as for jinking.

Pilot        Defense     Attack
Check      Bonus       Penalty
up to 9      +4            –8
10-14        +6           –10
15-19        +8           –12
20-24       +10          –14
25-29       +12          –16
30-34       +14          –18
35+          +16          –20

Obviously, if you spend two move actions jinking, it's the same as taking evasive action--except for the attack penalty. But if you spend two move actions jinking, you have to take the better of the two results (so it makes more sense to just take evasive action).

JD Wiker


----------



## The_Universe (Aug 13, 2004)

JDWiker said:
			
		

> Yes, and it got cut when they simplified the system, much to my chagrin (because I wanted _Star Wars_ players to adopt it).
> 
> Wizards may present this as a web freebie at some point, but I'm going to risk their wrath by posting it here:
> 
> ...



 *tears fill a young man's eyes*  God bless us, EVERYONE!!

This is precisely what I wanted.  Mr. Wiker, I should very much like to shake your hand, if we ever happen to be in the same place at once.  

And now for a quick clarification: when jinking or taking evasive action, does the ship in question still move at its tactical speed?  Or does it remain in the same "square" if evading/jinking?


----------



## Olive (Aug 13, 2004)

Well I got the book last night, feeling a wee bit aprehensive after some of the criticism I have seen.

And I think it's great. It's a toolkit book no doubt, and a DM might have to do a whole lot more work for a campaign, but the basic tools are there.

Once combined with some of the answers in these threads, it's awesome. The space ship combat didn't annoy me much at all, the cyber gear is cool, the mutations are cool (although I'm looking foward to seeing a level adjustment chat as well, so as to not have to balance the points all the time...).

Over all I'm very happy, and my thesis will suffer for it.


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 13, 2004)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> *tears fill a young man's eyes*  God bless us, EVERYONE!!
> 
> This is precisely what I wanted.  Mr. Wiker, I should very much like to shake your hand, if we ever happen to be in the same place at once.




I just wish I'd known *sooner* that it wasn't going to be in the book (or, at least, that I'd realized that after I saw the proofs of the book). I've obviously had this a while, but I didn't want to "scoop" Wizards by posting it before they published it.

But since they didn't make it part of the book, well ...



			
				The_Universe said:
			
		

> And now for a quick clarification: when jinking or taking evasive action, does the ship in question still move at its tactical speed?  Or does it remain in the same "square" if evading/jinking?




Ah, good point. My intention was that the ship continued to move. So it really should say "As part of a move action, ..." or "If the pilot does nothing except move the ship during a full round action, ..."

JD Wiker


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 13, 2004)

JDWiker said:
			
		

> Ah, good point. My intention was that the ship continued to move. So it really should say "As part of a move action, ..." or "If the pilot does nothing except move the ship during a full round action, ..."




I like the latter. Makes more sense, though one problem arises. On one-man ships, there's nothing really stopping you from just jinking every time you make a full-move, since you won't be taking any attacks anyways. Not really a problem, but it lessens the severity of the penalty.


----------



## Furluge (Aug 13, 2004)

Well thanks for everyone's input, and clearly pointing out a hideously glaring error in my thought processes about that -5 business. Personally I'm very used to the idea of seperate weapon systems on a machine using a different attack roll for each weapon, without adding penalties for additional attacks, so.. oh well.

Also thanks JD for the input on the modifications. It does at least make things easier to write.


----------



## Olive (Aug 13, 2004)

Moridin said:
			
		

> It does seem that way at first, but carefully read the list of bonus talents you get to choose from: they're all second-tier talents. Since you have to meet all the prerequisites for the talents you choose as a result of taking this feat, you've got to have the first-tier talents in the first place. So, in order to actually get the benefit of this feat, you've got to have at least 3 levels in the base class for the appropriate feat.




You sure about that?

The strong hero, Fast hero, dedicated hero and characmatic? check... but:

Tough hero? Well, the tough plus feat allows Energy Resistance and remain concious, talents with no pre-reqs and both from trees which you can get straight off...
Smart Plus allows savant and linguist, both 1st level talents.

I'm only just getting into d20M, so correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## theRogueRooster (Aug 13, 2004)

JDWiker said:
			
		

> Because the basic calculation for the attack's bonus comes from the gunner's attack bonus, it's based on an actual person (or crew) firing the weapon. And as with other types of attackers (characters, creatures, and so on), additional attacks suffer a -5 penalty. (And a further -1 because the second attack has one less weapon in the battery.)




Does the additional attack penalty take into account multiple gunners or does it assume only a single gunner?  If only a single gunner, do multiple gunners still receive the additional attack penalty?  I'm having a hard time reasoning why a strike cruiser, with a crew of 160 able hands, has only one gunner manning the weapons at any given time.

-tRR


----------



## edventure (Aug 13, 2004)

*Jinking and Evading*



			
				JDWiker said:
			
		

> Ah, good point. My intention was that the ship continued to move. So it really should say "As part of a move action, ..." or "If the pilot does nothing except move the ship during a full round action, ..."
> 
> JD Wiker




Do you mean adapting them this way:

Jinking: As part of a move action, a pilot can move the ship erratically in order to present a more difficult target...

Evasive Action: Much like jinking, a pilot does nothing except move the ship as a full-round action to add an even greater bonus to his ship’s Defense...

Edit:To address Moridin's concern you could also limit the distance traveled by 10% and 15% respectively.  That way if you want to go full speed "you know what" to the wall you can.  Or if you want to evade you can do that too.


----------



## thol (Aug 13, 2004)

I know the book is a building block for more advanced stuff which is great. At any time did you consider a more advanced look at how different technology is dependent others?

Did you consider how a civilization who functions on realistic space travel (ala Alien) might not have developed laser weapons, even though it might be in their PL?

Or how mileau like Star Wars or Star Trek have pretty consistent use of certain types of technologies? Star Wars ships use Ion cannons and everyone uses Blaster pistols. Their technology level is sufficient to support plasma weapons or proton weapons, but they are not used.

I guess this is more of an abstract thought than a hard question.

What I would love to see is a more in-depth look at weapon technologies. Like a listing of each classic type of weapon and its place in science-fiction campaigns. 

For example, listing all the major types of weapons possible realistically or semi-realistically (such as laser, maser, blaster, proton, plasma, ion, gauss, neutron, sonic, advanced projectiles, etc.) and telling which type fits into what kind of PL and what kind of campaign. Also some info on what weapons would exist based on the other technology in the campaign, which weapons might coexist, what types would be interchangable, and what types would develop exclusively.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 16, 2004)

thol said:
			
		

> I know the book is a building block for more advanced stuff which is great. At any time did you consider a more advanced look at how different technology is dependent others?
> 
> Did you consider how a civilization who functions on realistic space travel (ala Alien) might not have developed laser weapons, even though it might be in their PL?
> 
> ...



That really sounds interesting and useful. 

Back to Space Combat rules: 
I did also thougt about making space combat rounds longer than 1 ground combat round. The main advantage of the current system is the possiblity to mix space combat with "onboard" combat. That`s really a nice possiblity - imagine MejDarhar Warriors transmitting on the bridge of a Confederation Milky Way class star ship "corporation" - the Feygon tactical officer uses his personal plasmarifle to attack the invaders, while at the same time attempting to target the enemies attack fighters... 
But this situation might come up as often as the situation where you decharge all your plasma batteries at the tough hero - never.
So, using different scales (both in space, time and damage) would be more useful. 
If the combat situations actually mix, you could make the controlling of a ship a fullround action that needs to be repeated for 10 rounds (depending on the length of the round), and for each round you do something else the character takes a penalty to his checks at the end of the 10 rounds you resolve the space combat with the penalties determined in the meanwhile. The effects of the starship combat would apply in the next 10 ground combat rounds (if there are any effects that aren`t instantenous. 

What I also prefer is the possibilty of all characters to somehow affect the space combat, even if they are not trained pilots. Aid another isn`t that much. Spellcasters are useless most the time in space (except for a Cat´s Grace or similar spells that might boost the pilots or gunners abilities a little). 
One option I recently considered was allowing a character to take the damage the ship originally would have taken. 
So, if (on the new damage scale for space ships) the ship took 20 points of damage, the character could declare to take the damage instead (or maybe only half of the damage) - that would be exactly what you see in movies and series -  when a crewmember on the bridge is killed be an exploding console,  he just sacrificed himself to avoid severe damage to the ship. (And when the Captain does it, he is just thrown out of his chair, because he has more hp  )
This option would only be available to (acting) characters on the bridge or in the cockpit, not to passengers or regular crewmen.

ADDENDUM: 
For hit locations:
I think it might be interesting to allow this in space combat, because it fits one of my favorite sci-fi universe - in Startrek they always aim at certain systems to speed up the fight without having to kill all crewmen of the enemy ship (being good and all that).
I wouldn`t attempt to split the hp on the targettable systems.
My take is: 
Either you attack the ship directly, and this just deals hp damage. 
If you target a specific system, the damage is applied to the ships general hp and the specific systems hp. The hp of the system are probably somewhat in correlation to the total ship hp (maybe x % of the hull hp), but if you add all the hp of the vital systems together, you don`t get to 100 % of the ships hp, but probably a lot more (anything above 100%)
To balance this, targeting a specific system must be more difficult than the standard attack, and the ship cannot be destroyed or fully disabled just because one system was destroyed (unless this would deal enough damage to the ship to destroy it anway.)
Other possible balance options could be:
o Damage to specific systems is somehow reduced (depending on scale, by half or one damage die or any other number)
o Critical hits are only possible when attacking the ship, not when a system (or the critical damage would have a notably different and weaker effect)
o If you consider using MDT for space ships (however you adjucate this), it wouldn´t apply to specific systems, only for the base hull frame. (Similar to the critical damage rule above)
o Excess damage does not harm the ship (so the damage when destroying a specific system can never exceeds the systems hp - so maybe destroying all 60 Turbolasers on a Stardestroyer wouldn´t really be effective if each only had 2hp, while the weapon damage would be 2d6 points)


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 16, 2004)

*thol*, while all that stuff would be cool, you could write an entire book about the theoretical development of all the technologies in there and not have any room for game mechanics. There are simply too many possible combinations when theoretical tech is involved.


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 16, 2004)

theRogueRooster said:
			
		

> Does the additional attack penalty take into account multiple gunners or does it assume only a single gunner?  If only a single gunner, do multiple gunners still receive the additional attack penalty?  I'm having a hard time reasoning why a strike cruiser, with a crew of 160 able hands, has only one gunner manning the weapons at any given time.




It assumes "one" gunner--that gunner being "the ship's crew."

It *is* a strange concept, but that's apparently a concession to the "treat starship combat like personal combat" system simplification that Wizards chose to use.

JD


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 16, 2004)

edventure said:
			
		

> Do you mean adapting them this way:
> 
> Jinking: As part of a move action, a pilot can move the ship erratically in order to present a more difficult target...
> 
> Evasive Action: Much like jinking, a pilot does nothing except move the ship as a full-round action to add an even greater bonus to his ship’s Defense...




More or less, yes.



			
				edventure said:
			
		

> Edit:To address Moridin's concern you could also limit the distance traveled by 10% and 15% respectively.  That way if you want to go full speed "you know what" to the wall you can.  Or if you want to evade you can do that too.




If you want to do that, feel free. Personally, I think it will bog combat down a bit too much, as everyone stops to calculate the new, reduced speed.

JD


----------



## The_Universe (Aug 16, 2004)

Here's a general question: 

Aside from campaign settings, can we expect to see any supplements for D20 Future (Wizards or 3rd Party) in the relatively near future that either of you can speak of?  

Obviously, there's a lot to be expanded upon.  D20 Future is a fantastic toolkit, but in this thread alone there have been enough rough ideas to fill several other books of nearly the same size!  

Partially just curious, and partially because my money YEARNS to be spent on such things.  An Arms and Equipment Guide or any number of other similar things would be awesome, as would an expansion of the starship rules/lists of even more starships!


----------



## Olive (Aug 17, 2004)

Ok, now that the boards are back and I've had some time to look over the book, I've got a couple of questions for you guys:

1) How is boarding handled? Presumably a ship has to be grappled by another first? Then what?

2) I'm completely confused about the cost of adding extra gear to a existing ship. Do I take the DC, calculate the cost of the gear it currently has in dollars and remove that from the base purchase DC, and then add the new gear fromt h template? Or what? What about the pricing on things like extra cargo capacity? Or the conversion of existing cargo space to hidden cargo space like is described in Moridin's article about ship templates from  _Dungeon_?

I have others but I'm at work and so can't remember them...


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 17, 2004)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Aside from campaign settings, can we expect to see any supplements for D20 Future (Wizards or 3rd Party) in the relatively near future that either of you can speak of?




My understanding is that Wizards has no plans to expand on the _d20 Future_ product, except perhaps as web enhancements.

I know that a number of third-party publishers have stepped forward to say that they intend to create products using the _d20 Future_ SRD (when it's released). The Game Mechanics is not among those publishers (yet).

JD


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 17, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> 1) How is boarding handled? Presumably a ship has to be grappled by another first? Then what?




Then the GM makes it up. As far as I know, there's no system for boarding, partly because there are so many options (blow open the hatch, cut through the hull, override the airlock code, short-circuit the lock mechanism, chew through the portholes ...)



			
				Olive said:
			
		

> 2) I'm completely confused about the cost of adding extra gear to a existing ship. Do I take the DC, calculate the cost of the gear it currently has in dollars and remove that from the base purchase DC, and then add the new gear fromt h template? Or what? What about the pricing on things like extra cargo capacity? Or the conversion of existing cargo space to hidden cargo space like is described in Moridin's article about ship templates from  _Dungeon_?




For questions like this, I wish they'd kept my system. It still wasn't perfect, but it had more detail than the existing ship-construction system.



			
				Olive said:
			
		

> I have others but I'm at work and so can't remember them...




Ask 'em quick. I'll be going to Gen Con on Wednesday morning, and not returning until the following Wednesday night (which means I won't get back to the ENWorld message boards until at least Thursday).

JD


----------



## Laslo Tremaine (Aug 17, 2004)

I actually find this thread to be a bit depressing.  I try not to bash WotC, and while I like d20 Future for the most part, it _does_ feel a bit skeletal at times.

Then when I see things like this...



			
				JDWiker said:
			
		

> Yes, and it got cut when they simplified the system, much to my chagrin



... stated a number of times in this thread. It just gets me down.

d20 Future has a noticeably lower page-count than either d20 Modern or Urban Arcana.  Why were all of these things cut?  Is there some reason that they could not have upped the page-count?
 :\


----------



## trancejeremy (Aug 17, 2004)

Well, d20 Future is $5 cheaper than d20 Modern or Urban Arcana. I personally would rather have had a 300 page, $40 book than a $35 224 page, but...


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 17, 2004)

Laslo Tremaine said:
			
		

> d20 Future has a noticeably lower page-count than either d20 Modern or Urban Arcana.  Why were all of these things cut?




Various reasons, mainly dealing with page count (which I address below). My "simple" starship rules, in the spirit of full disclosure, came in at around 100 pages. I warned Chris about the size of that section as soon as I could, and while he seemed not terribly put-out by it, he did let me know that there was a chance that a lot of it could be cut. When it was finally cut, they cut much deeper than I thought they would, to the point where the current rules make, in my opinion, a fine miniatures game, but don't mesh well with an RPG.



			
				Laslo Tremaine said:
			
		

> Is there some reason that they could not have upped the page-count?
> :\




There are three reasons: man-hours, scheduling, and solicitations.

If they had upped the page count, it would have meant that the editors, layout people, and art directors would have had to increase their budgets for the project, which would have meant a lower profit margin on the book. Not a big deal if they raise the price, but that brings up the other two problems.

Adding man-hours increases the time it takes to finish the product, and that seriously affects Wizards' schedule. They only have so many people to do design, editing, layout, art, typesetting, and imaging, and their schedules are tight. That would have pushed back not just _d20 Future_'s, but every other product in the hopper. Now, they might have just moved _d20 Future_ much further back to an open space further down the schedule, instead of pushing everything back, but that relates to the third problem.

Products like this are solicited at least 6 months in advance, meaning that the distributors expect them at a certain time, as well as at a certain price, and they budget for that time and price accordingly. If the product arrives significantly late, it means they don't ship to the retailers on time, which means that they don't collect their money from the retailers on time. And if Wizards had upped the price, they would have had a minor uproar from the distributors *and* the retailers, who would suddenly have had to pay a higher-than-advertised price for the product.

JD


----------



## dekrass (Aug 17, 2004)

The genetic engineering and nanites seem very similar in effect to cyberware, but no pricing guidelines are given. It would be helpful to have guidelines on things like cost to go with the time and research requirements. 
Has any thought been put in this direction, or is it assumed to be too campaign specific?


----------



## Olive (Aug 17, 2004)

JDWiker said:
			
		

> My understanding is that Wizards has no plans to expand on the _d20 Future_ product, except perhaps as web enhancements.
> 
> I know that a number of third-party publishers have stepped forward to say that they intend to create products using the _d20 Future_ SRD (when it's released). The Game Mechanics is not among those publishers (yet).




That's not surprising... I'll tell ya what tho, I'm pretty sure that the 100 page starship document you originally wrote would sell like hotcakes! Is it legally wizard's, or do you still have the rights to it? I really do hope that TGM can come together with some d20 Future stuff, cos I'll be up for buying it! A future player's companion would be fantastic, as would a more complete starship construction system.



> Then the GM makes it up. As far as I know, there's no system for boarding, partly because there are so many options (blow open the hatch, cut through the hull, override the airlock code, short-circuit the lock mechanism, chew through the portholes ...)




Cool.



> For questions like this, I wish they'd kept my system. It still wasn't perfect, but it had more detail than the existing ship-construction system.




As we all do... but you got any advice?



> Ask 'em quick. I'll be going to Gen Con on Wednesday morning, and not returning until the following Wednesday night (which means I won't get back to the ENWorld message boards until at least Thursday).




I'll do my best, but I guess if I miss ya, I'll miss ya! Have a good time and thanks for all your help!

One I did remember is about the advanced classes and their BaB progression: why are the future AdCs better at fighting than similar modern AdCs?


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 17, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> That's not surprising... I'll tell ya what tho, I'm pretty sure that the 100 page starship document you originally wrote would sell like hotcakes! Is it legally wizard's, or do you still have the rights to it? I really do hope that TGM can come together with some d20 Future stuff, cos I'll be up for buying it! A future player's companion would be fantastic, as would a more complete starship construction system.




Legally, it belongs to Wizards.



			
				Olive said:
			
		

> As we all do... but you got any advice?




Nothing that doesn't boil down to "design it from scratch."



			
				Olive said:
			
		

> One I did remember is about the advanced classes and their BaB progression: why are the future AdCs better at fighting than similar modern AdCs?




Search me.

JD


----------



## Olive (Aug 17, 2004)

JDWiker said:
			
		

> Legally, it belongs to Wizards.




Bummer... so little to no chance of it being released by you then?



> Nothing that doesn't boil down to "design it from scratch."




Ok...



> Search me.




Is that because you didn't do the AdCs, or because they were changed by wizards?

BTW, thanks again for answering all our questions. I guess it's a bit frustrating having a book you wrote be changed as much as it was, and knowing you had a system in there to start with...


----------



## theRogueRooster (Aug 17, 2004)

JDWiker said:
			
		

> When it was finally cut, they cut much deeper than I thought they would, to the point where the current rules make, in my opinion, a fine miniatures game, but don't mesh well with an RPG.




I worry about how interesting (or more precisely, how _uninteresting_) starship combat will be using D20 Future rules.  As it stands, I see no incentive to do anything other than move into range of an enemy ship and fire all my weapons every round until one of us blows up.  All ships, even superheavies, can stop and turn on a dime, and can accelerate from zero to tactical speed (or even cruising speed) in a single round.  Weapons can fire every round and in all directions, removing any interesting tactical decisions involving timing or the lining up of a shot.  It bothers me that the Mecha chapter contains a more detailed movement system (in the form of different maneuverability classes and three-dimensional movement while flying) than the chapter on Starships.

In the starship construction rules the choice of weapons is a one-size-fits-all affair, with only a few of the ultralight ships being too small to mount some of the larger weapons.  The artificial limit to the number of weapon mounts available on a ship is set up in such a way that a  Light ship has the same number of weapon mounts as a Superheavy.  For an example, compare the 450-ft length Destroyer to the 2,750-ft length Dreadnought.  They both can install at most 8 beam, projectile, or missile weapons.  And since one size does indeed fit all, they choose from the same weapon list.

Mix in the fact that unless you are the pilot or the gunner, you're relegated to Aid Another action for the duration of the combat and you are left with a ruleset devoid of any interesting choices or decisions to make.

The _really_ bothersome thing is that I can catch glimpses of some great potential in the ruleset that promises to have been a lot of fun had Wizards not watered it down to the point of being a lengthy and uninspired dicefest.

-tRR


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Aug 17, 2004)

Bugger bugger bugger bugger bugger.

I hate having to house-rule things.  But what the starcraft combat rules seem to have turned into is NOT something I want to play.  At all.

I wasn't hoping for a revisitation of Alternity's "Warships", but something with some of the same high points ... one of the major ones being important tasks for different PCs as "members of the crew" to play.  That's going to be a major part of my Sci-Fi campaign model.  So if everybody but the pilot has nothing to do but "Aid Another", then all that tactical ship combat will be less than fun.  Not all of us want to play Star Wars Dogfighter, some of us want to play Space Navy.

--fje


----------



## Olive (Aug 17, 2004)

JDWiker said:
			
		

> For questions like this, I wish they'd kept my system. It still wasn't perfect, but it had more detail than the existing ship-construction system.




Sorry, but thinking about it, this doesn't really help...

Perhas the question really should of been - how do I work out the purchase DC of a template on a ship?

Is the answer 'start from scratch'?


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 17, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> Bummer... so little to no chance of it being released by you then?




No chance at all. It belongs to Wizards now.



			
				Olive said:
			
		

> Is that because you didn't do the AdCs, or because they were changed by wizards?




I did a handful of AdCs: the Bughunter, the Dimension Ranger, the Concord Administrator ... and I think that's it.



			
				Olive said:
			
		

> BTW, thanks again for answering all our questions. I guess it's a bit frustrating having a book you wrote be changed as much as it was, and knowing you had a system in there to start with...




Not really, no. They asked for a "simple" system, and mine wasn't simple enough. Honestly, I wanted it to not only serve as the starship combat system for _d20 Future_, but I wanted it to fill some gaps in the system for _Star Wars_ (mainly to do with starship construction). But having things changed in the editing/development process is part and parcel of game design. I think the subject was just too big to give it a good treatment in a book this size.

JD


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 17, 2004)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> I wasn't hoping for a revisitation of Alternity's "Warships", but something with some of the same high points ... one of the major ones being important tasks for different PCs as "members of the crew" to play.  That's going to be a major part of my Sci-Fi campaign model.  So if everybody but the pilot has nothing to do but "Aid Another", then all that tactical ship combat will be less than fun.  Not all of us want to play Star Wars Dogfighter, some of us want to play Space Navy.




Coincidentally, the rules I wrote were a melding of the _Warships_ and _Star Wars_ rules (the latter encompassing "Heroes as Crew" rules, so that all the players had something to do, if they wanted something to do, in a starship combat).

JD


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 17, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> Sorry, but thinking about it, this doesn't really help...
> 
> Perhas the question really should of been - how do I work out the purchase DC of a template on a ship?
> 
> Is the answer 'start from scratch'?




Sadly, I just don't know how to answer this; I didn't design the template system, and I wasn't included on the design process. So I don't know how it works. Rodney might have a better idea.

JD


----------



## Acid_crash (Aug 17, 2004)

I read this thread and I feel a little upset and pissed that Wizards would advertise and tell us for a year about the book, tell us who's writing it (you two are really good writers and I applaud everything you two have given us) so we get excited, and deliver a book that just seems so half-*ssed done that it makes me wonder if they are going the way of TSR (I can dream    ).

I wanted this book, but I'm not going to buy it.  After reading on here that Wizards cut so much out that would have made it a much more useful book, and then looking at the size compared to d20 Modern and Urban Arcana (now talk about a almost pointless book in comparison to d20 Future)...they dropped the ball on this one.  

Hearing that this is the ONLY book they are going to produce for the line, and they aren't planning on any more d20 Modern books coming out, it's like...I don't know how to really express it without using fowl language.

Aside from the rant, I do have a question:

Why don't you guys write your own d20 Future book and provide us with the book that this one would have been in the first place and show Wizards just how good a book like this one could have been?


----------



## The_Universe (Aug 17, 2004)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> I read this thread and I feel a little upset and pissed that Wizards would advertise and tell us for a year about the book, tell us who's writing it (you two are really good writers and I applaud everything you two have given us) so we get excited, and deliver a book that just seems so half-*ssed done that it makes me wonder if they are going the way of TSR (I can dream    ).
> 
> I wanted this book, but I'm not going to buy it.  After reading on here that Wizards cut so much out that would have made it a much more useful book, and then looking at the size compared to d20 Modern and Urban Arcana (now talk about a almost pointless book in comparison to d20 Future)...they dropped the ball on this one.
> 
> ...



 Although no one would doubt that there could have been more in the book, as someone who has purchased it, I can say with some certainty that it is definitely worth owning.  

There's a lot of great material in the book, and you *not* buying the book isn't going to send any message to WoTC, or Hasbro.  On the other hand, if the book sells *well*, providing Wizards with a good return on their investment, it's entirely possible that we'll see more.  

At the very least, the more copies of D20 Future are in the hands of players and GMs, the more likely 3rd party publishers are to bring own products to support it, as well.  

Take a look at the book, and THEN decide whether to buy it.  Don't cheat yourself in an attempt to stick it to the MAN!


----------



## Sketchpad (Aug 17, 2004)

Personally, I'd like to see WotC take JD's construction system and release a dual statted book for SW and D20F


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 17, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> Sorry, but thinking about it, this doesn't really help...
> 
> Perhas the question really should of been - how do I work out the purchase DC of a template on a ship?
> 
> Is the answer 'start from scratch'?




Ack, sorry, I missed this one. 

There are two ways you can approach it. If you are talking about purchasing the templated ship from scratch, you can simply purchase all the components of the ship, including the upgaded ones. If you're applying the template's upgrades to an existing ship, however, you need only make Wealth checks on the individual components being upgraded.

The other option is to take each component, convert it to a dollar value, total that up, and then convert back to a Purchase DC.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 17, 2004)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> Why don't you guys write your own d20 Future book and provide us with the book that this one would have been in the first place and show Wizards just how good a book like this one could have been?




Well, I do plan on including a lot of stuff that I felt was left out of the book in any book that I can con a publisher into putting out...but as any writer can attest, selling a publisher on a book is not an easy task.

Also, I'd like to address some concerns and a general attitude around here that has me a bit worried. I know everyone is upset that you're hearing JD say that his starships section was heavily altered, and you've probably heard me say something I wrote was cut a couple of times. The fact of the matter is that this process occurs on every book, it's just that we are (for right or wrong) giving you a bit of a peek behind the scenes of this process. There was a ton of stuff cut out of the first book that JD and I collaborated on, the _Hero's Guide_ for the Star Wars RPG. Some of it eventually saw its way into free web enhancements; some of it didn't. The point is, you shouldn't think that this was some special case where evil, moustache-twirling villains at WotC decided to screw us poor, benvolent authors and their malleable fan base over. It's just a normal part of the editing process.

Secondly, don't count out the possibility of support from WotC. I have been told that an entire 16-page chapter that I wrote will be appearing as a free web enhancement sometime in the near future. Additionally, while I haven't heard anything in any official capacity, it wouldn't surprise me to hear WotC is planning on increasing its support for Modern/Future in the next 2 years at all. They've been doing well financially, and have even hired on new members for it's R&D staff (a contrast to the job cuts of two and three years ago). 

Also, I think it's totally unfair to call the book half assed. I mean, while the starship combat system might be different from what JD wanted and sections were cut, the fact of the matter is that it's still so jam-packed full of mechanics and ideas that you're going to have a hard time convincing me that it's anything but a solid book. I knew this problem was going to crop up when we were writing it, though. I did the whole gear chapter, and as I'm going through there I'm realizing that there's no possible way I could please everyone with it. I couldn't include every single gun, armor, or piece of gear. So I create the gadget system in order to expand on it. Still not enough. I'm going through, trying to hit my word count, realizing I'm having to make hard choices on what I'm gong to include. The truth is that science fiction is just too big for any one book to adequately cover. All it can do is lay down a solid foundation for you to build on, which I defy anyone to tell me this book doesn't do.

I'm not ranting or tooting our own horns here, but I think there's been too much focus on what's not in the book and not enough on what is. And now I'll go back to being your Future Q&A slave!


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Aug 17, 2004)

Moridin said:
			
		

> I like the latter. Makes more sense, though one problem arises. On one-man ships, there's nothing really stopping you from just jinking every time you make a full-move, since you won't be taking any attacks anyways. Not really a problem, but it lessens the severity of the penalty.



When using the drive skill in standard modern, dont you loose the distance you can move when you do stunts and evasive actions and such?

Jinking and evading implies moving the ship, another or alternate balance point to that could be decreasing how far the ship can move when evading or jinking.

For example, a Jink is a small sudden and short movement. And Evade is a larger sweeping longer movement. (Obviously a jink would take half as much movement as an evade).


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 17, 2004)

Cut or not, d20 future is the most inspiring thing I've read in some time. Fantastic work, guys. I'm sorry that more of the original text didn't make it in, but I love what's there. This book is definitely worth the money.

I noticed that there is a table missing from the last chapter (table 13-5, I think)  where alien weaponry is detailed. Could you please give us the missing details for the weapons in question? Thanks!


----------



## The_Universe (Aug 17, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Cut or not, d20 future is the most inspiring thing I've read in some time. Fantastic work, guys. I'm sorry that more of the original text didn't make it in.
> 
> I noticed that there is a table missing from the last chapter (table 13-5, I think.) I haven't yet gone over this thread in detail; if you haven't yet done so, could you please give us the missing details for the weapons in question? Thanks!



 Here here!


----------



## theRogueRooster (Aug 17, 2004)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Although no one would doubt that there could have been more in the book, as someone who has purchased it, I can say with some certainty that it is definitely worth owning.




I completely agree.  Although it's pretty clear I'm underwhelmed by what is left of the starship chapter, the rest of the book is really good.  Really, really good.  I particularly like the Gadget and Mecha rules.

I think that a lot of folks, myself included, have a pet aspect of sci-fi that they'd like to see "just so."  It's our _precious_.  For some it's mecha, for others it's cybernetics.  For me, it's starships.  In hindsight, there's just no way that every aspect of sci-fi could be covered as indepth as everyone would like in the page count available.

Don't let one aspect of D20 Future that some find lacking keep you away from the other material that is worth the price of the book.  And keep your fingers crossed that Wizards finds it in their heart to release a web enhancement for this book.  Lots and lots of web enhancements.

-tRR


----------



## FolcoTook (Aug 17, 2004)

theRogueRooster said:
			
		

> I think that a lot of folks, myself included, have a pet aspect of sci-fi that they'd like to see "just so." It's our _precious_.



Yes! I think that hits it exactly. And I will "house rule" the parts that are too near and dear to me (using the existing rules as a guideline), but the rest will work for me just fine as is.

That said, I'd still love a web enhancement on starships. 

-FT


----------



## Katowice (Aug 17, 2004)

Maybe they could include the "expanded" starship rules in the d20Future SRD.


----------



## Acid_crash (Aug 17, 2004)

Okay okay, you guys win...I'll check the book out when I see it and make a final decision at that point to either buy it or chuck it.  I do apologize for my earlier comments, I was just bummed about what I was reading.  I shouldn't let that stop me from checking the book out and deciding if I would find it useful or not.


----------



## trancejeremy (Aug 17, 2004)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> Okay okay, you guys win...I'll check the book out when I see it and make a final decision at that point to either buy it or chuck it.  I do apologize for my earlier comments, I was just bummed about what I was reading.  I shouldn't let that stop me from checking the book out and deciding if I would find it useful or not.





While I'm not saying you shouldn't buy the book, I would strongly suggest you get it online at a large discount.  

Why? Well, let me plug a draft of a review of d20 Future which sums up my likes and dislikes of the book.

http://www.geocities.com/nofrills_reviews/d20future.htm


----------



## Peterson (Aug 18, 2004)

*Questions?*

Oh, I have questions - lots and lots of questions.

Unfortunately, until I really get a chance to read this book and digest its contents, I'm not going to post any of them.

However, I need to express something - something I just need to get off my chest before I start trolling on the 3.5 WotC boards.    

I love D20 Future.  I love D20 Modern.  The folks who have wrote these two books (along with Menace Manual, Weapons Locker, Urban Arcana, and any others I may have missed) have done an excellent job.

D20 Future - in my simple opinion - is worth far more than I paid for it (full book price), primarily because it was a tool kit and not a campaign setting.  While I would love to see WotC (and 3rd party companies!) come out with dedicated Campaign Settings, I'm very happy that they didn't try to "force" their idea of a Sci-Fi setting down my throat the first time out.  Immensely happy.

The way the book was formatted, the artwork, the mechanics - all very well done.  Maybe not the way I would have done it, but darn it all - very well done and definately something to work with.  I love that the book can be used as a "basis" for the things I want to do in Sci-Fi games.

Finally, despite all rumors (or truths) that WotC will (or will not) support D20 Future, we have to realize and appreciate that we have two of the *writers* here, answering our questions and listening to our compliants.  A better form of Customer Service I really couldn't imagine (save maybe for tons of free stuff!  but that's just greedy).

My extreme thanks to JD and Rodney for taking non-paying time out of their busy, and professional, lives to give us - the customers and (speaking for myself here) fanboys - a chance to give first-hand feedback and get our "near-as-possible official" answers.

Just speaking my mind - not trying to step on toes.

Peterson


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 18, 2004)

A quote from that review:



> One thing that irked me, is that a sidebar takes a cheap shot at Isaac Asimov's 3 laws of robotics. It says they are simplistic and not realistic, maybe so, but it doesn't provide any evidence to back that assertion up. Plus, it fails to mention that they were essentially a literary device - pretty much all of his robot stories are either based on them, either being experiments in logic (figuring out just how his robots would obey this laws) or actually pointing out the problems in the laws (by robots acting weird). The ideas it suggests are even sillier - giving robots a sense of morality.




"Cheap shot?"

Looks like I trod on someone's sacred cow.

JD Wiker


----------



## Olive (Aug 18, 2004)

Moridin said:
			
		

> Ack, sorry, I missed this one.
> 
> There are two ways you can approach it. If you are talking about purchasing the templated ship from scratch, you can simply purchase all the components of the ship, including the upgaded ones. If you're applying the template's upgrades to an existing ship, however, you need only make Wealth checks on the individual components being upgraded.
> 
> The other option is to take each component, convert it to a dollar value, total that up, and then convert back to a Purchase DC.




Ok. So what about components like the covert cargo space on your Dagger-class template from Dungeon?

While you're looking at ones you missed, it would eb great if you could answer my questions about plus feats and advanced class BaBs as well. Thanks, I really appreciate all of the work you guys are doing in the thread... 



			
				JDWiker said:
			
		

> "Cheap shot?"
> 
> Looks like I trod on someone's sacred cow.




Especially since you basically do admit that they were a literary device...

Anyway, like everyone else, I love the book. The sticking point is that the campaign I want to run involves the PCs being hired onto a small smuggler, and, after a few adventures, taking the ship over. I'm finding the process of stating the ship up a frustrating one...

The first 3rd party publisher that puts out a good book on starship construction and combat is going to have it sell like hotcakes!


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 18, 2004)

*Okay, That's Me*

I'm off to Gen Con in the morning, so you won't be seeing responses to posts until at least next Thursday, maybe next Friday.

Hope to see some of you there! If you're in attendance, drop by the Green Ronin booth (where I'll be, most of the time) and say hello.

JD


----------



## Malacoda (Aug 19, 2004)

*Wait For the SRD*



			
				trancejeremy said:
			
		

> While I'm not saying you shouldn't buy the book, I would strongly suggest you get it online at a large discount.



I concur with this. I would say that you should wait for the d20 Future SRD to be posted after Gen Con, then decide if you want to own a hardback version.

Heck, if the SRD contains the parts I find worth while, I might sell you mine.


----------



## Davelozzi (Aug 19, 2004)

I don't have at this point that weren't already answered earlier in the thread, but I just wanted to chime in and say that I'm really enjoying the book and appreciate the additional feedback.  Great job, guys!


----------



## Furluge (Aug 21, 2004)

If JD and Moridin would like to take the time to list some of the major items that were cut out of the book (like the starship combat rules.) that they think were really great it'd make it really easy on the rest of us to mail/post to WOTC to put them into a web enhancement.

Just a list (and maybe short descriptions) now, makes it much easier to copy and paste if it's all in one list.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 24, 2004)

Furluge said:
			
		

> If JD and Moridin would like to take the time to list some of the major items that were cut out of the book (like the starship combat rules.) that they think were really great it'd make it really easy on the rest of us to mail/post to WOTC to put them into a web enhancement.
> 
> Just a list (and maybe short descriptions) now, makes it much easier to copy and paste if it's all in one list.




I couldn't do that without a massive time investment that I just don't have the space for right now. To go over a manuscript and every inch of the book would take me a couple of days. Besides, anything that's cut from a book might potentially show up in a sourcebook later should they choose to support the line, so technically we're really not supposed to be talking about that kind of thing due to NDAs.

Oh, and I'm back from GenCon.


----------



## 0-hr (Aug 24, 2004)

JDWiker said:
			
		

> A quote from that review:
> "Cheap shot?"
> Looks like I trod on someone's sacred cow.



Actually, this was only one of several sidebars (cloning being another that comes to mind) where I got the sense of the author being preachy and judgemental. It struck me as rather out-of-place and unproffessional in an otherwise excellent (if short) book.   :\


----------



## Furluge (Aug 24, 2004)

Moridin said:
			
		

> I couldn't do that without a massive time investment that I just don't have the space for right now. To go over a manuscript and every inch of the book would take me a couple of days. Besides, anything that's cut from a book might potentially show up in a sourcebook later should they choose to support the line, so technically we're really not supposed to be talking about that kind of thing due to NDAs.
> 
> Oh, and I'm back from GenCon.




Well I just assumed you had an idea in mind of what areas that were cut (Like the old starship combat rules.) that you thought should have been in. Considering there's been several references to such things surely you two have some short, small list in mind?

Plus it need not be a disccusision, just a small list of items would be good.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 24, 2004)

Welcome back, Moridin!

You probably missed it in the pre-GenCon rush. Any chance of getting the missing Table 13-5?

Thanks!


----------



## Peterson (Aug 24, 2004)

*Don't think I'll get lynched, but not caring if I do...*

Rodney,

The Gadget rules rock!

Thank you, thank you.

I so missed my customization rules from Star Wars....while this is different, its definately just as good (in my book) or possibly better (I'll know after playing some)!

Again, thanks.  Oh, and your D20 Future Storyhour-blog-thing needs updating, cause I was just getting into it!  

Peterson


----------



## RodneyThompson (Aug 24, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Welcome back, Moridin!
> 
> You probably missed it in the pre-GenCon rush. Any chance of getting the missing Table 13-5?
> 
> Thanks!




There is no table 13-5; that's a typographical error. It should say "13-2" which is on page 214. That's where the Fraal weapons are.


----------



## edventure (Aug 24, 2004)

Peterson said:
			
		

> Oh, and your D20 Future Storyhour-blog-thing needs updating, cause I was just getting into it!




Seconded!!


----------



## C. Baize (Aug 25, 2004)

Moridin said:
			
		

> There is no table 13-5; that's a typographical error. It should say "13-2" which is on page 214. That's where the Fraal weapons are.



Fair enough.... how about that Atmospheres table?


----------



## ChrisWaller (Aug 25, 2004)

I'm going to add my thanks as well. Its great to have this kind of support from the designers. You guy's are doing wonders for customer relations.
Okay, obligatory flattery aside, I've got another question...

The vehicles section gives a size code instead of a weight limit for the cargo capacity of each vehicle. Have I missed something? Is this explained elsewhere?


----------



## Buddha the DM (Aug 25, 2004)

If a character somehow manages to get the Data Archive cybernetic implant at first level would that mean that an occupation would grant a +1 to whatever the player choose as their occupation skills?


----------



## Olive (Aug 27, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> Ok. So what about components like the covert cargo space on your Dagger-class template from Dungeon?
> 
> While you're looking at ones you missed, it would eb great if you could answer my questions about plus feats and advanced class BaBs as well. Thanks, I really appreciate all of the work you guys are doing in the thread...




Hey Rodney!

Now you're back, any chanc of a response to these three questions?

Thanks! And add me to the list of people who want to know what happened to that story hour?


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 27, 2004)

Ki Ryn said:
			
		

> Actually, this was only one of several sidebars (cloning being another that comes to mind) where I got the sense of the author being preachy and judgemental. It struck me as rather out-of-place and unproffessional in an otherwise excellent (if short) book.   :\




The point of that sidebar was to make clear that Asimov's laws of robotics are simplified expressions of complex programming, not actual coding. No such code exists in any technology we currently have that approaches artificial intelligence, nor is it likely to. If you do a Google search for Asimov's laws of robotics, you'll find plenty of essays deconstructing the three laws and pointing out why they couldn't really work.

JD


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 27, 2004)

ChrisWaller said:
			
		

> I'm going to add my thanks as well. Its great to have this kind of support from the designers. You guy's are doing wonders for customer relations.




Hey, you're welcome.



			
				ChrisWaller said:
			
		

> The vehicles section gives a size code instead of a weight limit for the cargo capacity of each vehicle. Have I missed something? Is this explained elsewhere?




Hm. Apparently that was another section that got cut from the final product.

Cargo is rated by size rather than weight because vehicles don't have a Strength rating (and therefore a carrying capacity), but it's sometimes important to know just how large an item (or items) will fit in a vehicle's cargo compartment.

JD


----------



## JDWiker (Aug 27, 2004)

Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> If a character somehow manages to get the Data Archive cybernetic implant at first level would that mean that an occupation would grant a +1 to whatever the player choose as their occupation skills?




Hm. Yes. If you get a cybernetic implant at 1st level, you'd get the +1 bonus to the occupation-based skill you chose.

JD


----------



## Buddha the DM (Aug 27, 2004)

JDWiker said:
			
		

> Hm. Yes. If you get a cybernetic implant at 1st level, you'd get the +1 bonus to the occupation-based skill you chose.
> 
> JD




Thanks for the answer.


----------



## Dismas (Aug 30, 2004)

One thing I am having trouble getting my head around is type Vs size.

I can have 16 Fast Freighter (Utltralight / Colossal) in the same space as 1 Bulk Frieghter (Mediumweight / Colossal) even though, stat wise, they are the same size (Colossal).


----------



## Olive (Aug 31, 2004)

Dismas said:
			
		

> I can have 16 Fast Freighter (Utltralight / Colossal) in the same space as 1 Bulk Frieghter (Mediumweight / Colossal) even though, stat wise, they are the same size (Colossal).




While I think they should have either given new size scales, or just redone the size system for ships like in SW, I think the idea is that above a certain size it doesn't matter as it doesn't get any easier to hit.

If it fills your screen, it fills your screen, regardless whether it continues for another 100ft or 10,000 ft to either side.


----------



## kingpaul (Aug 31, 2004)

*Planetary adaptation*

Forgive me if this has come up before...I couldn't find it if it has.

This feat can be taken more than once at 1st level. While it doesn't explicitly state that some adaptations are incompatible, common sense would say that they are.  Opposites, IMO, are:

Barren and Water
Cold and Hot
Dark and Hot (I'm assuming the heat is caused by a blazing sun)
High-G and Low-G

Is there an official ruling on this? Are my assumptions correct? Thank you for your time.


----------



## Chaldfont (Aug 31, 2004)

*Rules for "being spaced"*

Does D20 Future have rules for being chucked out of an airlock without a space suit?

Hehe, this is my gold-standard for scifi rpgs. So few of them have rules for this.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 31, 2004)

Chaldfont said:
			
		

> Does D20 Future have rules for being chucked out of an airlock without a space suit?
> 
> Hehe, this is my gold-standard for scifi rpgs. So few of them have rules for this.




Absolutely!

Failing to hold your breath results in unconsciousness, followed by dropping to -1 hit points the next round, then -10 hp the round after.

If you hold your breath, you suffer Constitution damage as your lungs are damage. Don't hold your breath in a vacuum. (You're messed up either way.)

Making matters worse, if you hold your breath anyway, after three rounds you must make a Con check (DC 20) or suffer "the bends" (stunned... duration ends when you're put into a normal pressure for some time).

There are also rules for being blown out of a hole in the ship. It's nasty when the rip is the same size as you are; you take damage from being squeezed through the fragmented metal, and then you're ... outside.


----------



## The_Universe (Aug 31, 2004)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Forgive me if this has come up before...I couldn't find it if it has.
> 
> This feat can be taken more than once at 1st level. While it doesn't explicitly state that some adaptations are incompatible, common sense would say that they are. Opposites, IMO, are:
> 
> ...



I would imagine Dark and Hot could be compatible - either because of a very geologically active world, or perhaps a colony burrowed deep beneath a planet's crust, or something...not every planet has to be settled above ground, after all...


----------



## Pbartender (Aug 31, 2004)

Any prognosis as to when the MSRD will be updated with the D20 Future rules?

I know, for me at least, that the MSRD was instrumental in me deciding to buy the D20 Modern book.


----------



## Chaldfont (Aug 31, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Absolutely!
> 
> Failing to hold your breath results in unconsciousness, followed by dropping to -1 hit points the next round, then -10 hp the round after.
> 
> ...




Nice. Simpler and more lethal than the rules in Dragonstar, IIRC. I can't wait to space a PC. Have you seen the Cowboy Bebop episode where Spike goes EVA without a space suit?


----------



## Davelozzi (Sep 1, 2004)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Any prognosis as to when the MSRD will be updated with the D20 Future rules?
> 
> I know, for me at least, that the MSRD was instrumental in me deciding to buy the D20 Modern book.




I heard somewhere (probably earlier in this thread) that WotC planned to have it added to the SRD shortly after release, but "no promises" on a specific date.  So hopefully, any day now, if not probably within a month or so.


----------



## Knight Otu (Sep 1, 2004)

I've come across this post from Andy Smith:



> I was going to hold off until I had an actual release date, but since you're all anxious I thought I'd drop in and let you know that I've finished the Future SRD. As soon as I find out when it'll be online I'll let you know.
> 
> The following are NOT going to be released as Open Content:
> Everything in the Campaigns chapter
> All aliens from the Xenobiology chapter


----------



## Gomez (Sep 1, 2004)

I have a question.

 Looking over the _Everybody's Human _ section on page 15. It states that the advanced classes have the human extra skill points and the extra feat (for being human) built into them. I just don't understand this. How can a advanced class have the human extra feat at first level "built" into it?


----------



## Olive (Sep 1, 2004)

Thanks for the Andy smith quote KO. No surprises there...


----------



## apoc527 (Sep 2, 2004)

You know...

Many of us have Star Wars d20...

Many of us likely have Warships (and it's available for free on www.alternity.net, so if you don't have it, you also don't have an excuse!).  

As Mr. Wiker said, "design it from scratch."  Well, there's no reason why WE, as the fans, can't go ahead and design a more detailed starship construction/combat system using these as ideas.  Heck, I bet the d20 Future rules (which BN.com STILL has yet to get to my house darn them) will provide a fine starting point.  

One thing that always struck me as funny is SOME fans' dependence on the "professionals."  Guess what--all those guys (and no offense meant of course), WERE ALL "JUST FANS" like us at some point.  I think I even remember when Moridin was just the unpublished webmaster for a large Star Wars gaming site.  

All I'm saying is this: if we, the fans, want a more detailed space combat/starship construction system, all we need do is make one up ourselves.  Plenty of people in this hobby have extensive experience with PDF software...we could even "publish" it as a freebie online somewhere (though admittedly my knowledge of the law in this area is still somewhat lacking).  

Perhaps I'll start a new thread here once I get my d20 Future book and see if I can't get something going.  

Who's with me?


----------



## Olive (Sep 2, 2004)

apoc527 said:
			
		

> Who's with me?




I'm certainly into doing some conversion on the Warships book to D20 Future. I don't have the starwars book tho. And I know nothing about alternaity.

But it all seems fairly straight forward.

The problem with this sort of thing is that everyone will come at it from a different perpective. Personally I want a more detailed construction system, but I'm more or less happy with the basics of the combat system (witha  few house rules to do with HP loss leading to crit table rolls like Moridin suggested, as well as maybe a few other things).

Similarly, I'd want it to shoehorn more or less into what is there in d20 Future already. For example you should be able to build the ships described in the Future book with a more detailed construction system.

Othes will want different things.

However, the system should be more or less modular. You should be able to build rules that work together as options, rather than requiring a more complex combat system to make sense of the construction rules.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Sep 2, 2004)

Gomez said:
			
		

> I have a question.
> 
> Looking over the _Everybody's Human _ section on page 15. It states that the advanced classes have the human extra skill points and the extra feat (for being human) built into them. I just don't understand this. How can a advanced class have the human extra feat at first level "built" into it?




Sounds like a typographical error to me -- probably someone was cutting and pasting a template and forgot to remove that part.


----------



## The Black Kestrel (Sep 13, 2004)

I've got a couple of questions. 

1. What ssumptions did you make for Crew Quality, i.e. class levels, ability array and feats?
2. Do these same assumptions apply to the Driver and Gunner Autocomps? 

Thanks


----------



## JDWiker (Sep 15, 2004)

The Black Kestrel said:
			
		

> 1. What ssumptions did you make for Crew Quality, i.e. class levels, ability array and feats?
> 2. Do these same assumptions apply to the Driver and Gunner Autocomps?




Unfortunately, this is another case where my original design was rewritten, so I'm afraid I can't answer this one.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 16, 2004)

> 1. What ssumptions did you make for Crew Quality, i.e. class levels, ability array and feats?
> 2. Do these same assumptions apply to the Driver and Gunner Autocomps?



I think there is no assumption about Class levels and ability scores behind it. It is basically copy & pasted from the Starwars Crew Quality rules. 
I don´t like it - it might be simple, but it is problematic the moment characters from the ship crew become important outside the ship.

A method with a base in the rules would probably look like this:
Crew Quality ranges from 0 to 10. Attack Bonus is 3/4 (round down) of CQ, Skill Bonus Quality +3, except for 0, in which the bonus is -4 for attack and +0 for Skill Bonus. (This would be the values if the main operation crew would consist of heros with levels equal to the quality that have the skills maxed and all prerequisite feats, and no abilty bonus)
And than, an even better method might use rules similar to the town creation rules in D&D to generate the crew of the ship, if it ever becomes interesting. 
(Like in the old Buck Rogers game where the characters always hoped they would be boarded so they could go and kill the enemy crew)


----------



## Upper_Krust (Sep 16, 2004)

I have a brief question.

Hand Grenade = 5d6 damage (avg. 17)
1 Megaton Nuke = 16d8 damage (avg. 72)

How far did WotC bend, not only the laws of physics, but also their own d20 rules to get that Nuke damage?

Surely by using the x8 Mass* = x1.5 (base) damage rule inherant in d20, the weapon damages are easy to determine. Explosive yield would also be increased in the same manner.

*equivalent to +1 size category.

Assuming the hand grenade has approximately 125g of TNT (for simplicities sake) a 1 Megaton explosion is effectively 11 size categories larger. Which (assuming a 5d6 base) means the damage should actually be 240d6 (or 24d6 x10 if you prefer: avg. 840).

So how did WotC end up with 16d8?


----------



## deranged DM (Sep 16, 2004)

Simple. IIRC, the nuke damage you are quoting is in space. Much of the physical damage caused by a nuclear weapon on a planet is caused by overpressure and shock - you know, where the superheated ATMOSPHERE expands rapidly, driving a shock wave that knocks things down, etc.

Unfortunately, in space, there is nothing to cause overpressure, launch rubble, cows, etc. All you get is thermal bloom, any surviving case fragments, and lots of radiation. Hence, significantly less damage (except maybe on a direct, penetrating hit prior to detonation). If the nuke makes hull contact before detonating, you MAY get pressure effects and spalling inside the target. Radiation isn't too big a deal, though, unless the hull is breached - as anything travelling in space had best be hardened against rads anyway...

I would recommend different damage for airbursts.


----------



## Peterson (Sep 16, 2004)

Anyone else notice the Fighting Space/Reach of the Large-sized Weren?

Just curious if this is correct.

Peterson


----------



## Upper_Krust (Sep 16, 2004)

Hi deranged DM! 



			
				deranged DM said:
			
		

> Simple.








			
				deranged DM said:
			
		

> IIRC, the nuke damage you are quoting is in space.




Correct.



			
				deranged DM said:
			
		

> Much of the physical damage caused by a nuclear weapon on a planet is caused by overpressure and shock - you know, where the superheated ATMOSPHERE expands rapidly, driving a shock wave that knocks things down, etc.




Well 50% of the energy is blast, 35% thermal radiation and 15% nuclear radiation (inc. EMP damage).

However even assuming 16d8 represents only the thermal radiation its still way down from 84d6 (35% of 240d6).



			
				deranged DM said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, in space, there is nothing to cause overpressure, launch rubble, cows, etc. All you get is thermal bloom, any surviving case fragments, and lots of radiation. Hence, significantly less damage (except maybe on a direct, penetrating hit prior to detonation). If the nuke makes hull contact before detonating, you MAY get pressure effects and spalling inside the target. Radiation isn't too big a deal, though, unless the hull is breached - as anything travelling in space had best be hardened against rads anyway...
> 
> I would recommend different damage for airbursts.




We can easily determine:

120d6 blast
84d6 heat
36d6 radiation


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 16, 2004)

JDWiker said:
			
		

> Because the basic calculation for the attack's bonus comes from the gunner's attack bonus, it's based on an actual person (or crew) firing the weapon. And as with other types of attackers (characters, creatures, and so on), additional attacks suffer a -5 penalty. (And a further -1 because the second attack has one less weapon in the battery.)




JD, sorry to quote you since I understand that the starship rules were heavily modified after you wrote them (and there are other people who have said that first) but the general rule that attackers suffer a -5 penalty on secondary attacks has a *really important* exception.

Specifically those creatures with more than one consciousness (Hydra) don't suffer any penalty for more than one attack, and indeed can even make a full attack after moving.

Besides which, a creature with two claws and a bite for whom the claws are its primary weapon will make two claw attack at full BAB and then a bite attack at -5. Two claw attacks at full BAB.

In the light of this, even in this starship combat system which I'm disappointed with I'm surprised to not see warships being treated in at least the same kind of way as that.

Ah well, not to worry.


----------



## deranged DM (Sep 16, 2004)

Hi yourself!
 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hi deranged DM!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And that is where I get annoyed with the rules. Whyfor are we tossing around megaton nukes, anyway? Kiloton yields would be quite adequate...

84d6 still seems too much, but I do agree with you that 16d8 is a bit wussy for a megaton nuke.


----------



## JDWiker (Sep 17, 2004)

deranged DM said:
			
		

> And that is where I get annoyed with the rules. Whyfor are we tossing around megaton nukes, anyway? Kiloton yields would be quite adequate...
> 
> 84d6 still seems too much, but I do agree with you that 16d8 is a bit wussy for a megaton nuke.




I'd have to agree that the numbers seem too low--and, for the most part, I'm the one who put them in there. The idea was that they would be commensurate with the rest of the starship weapons, but other factors were supposed to make them more efficient.

For example, the revised starship rules leave out the fact that damage is doubled in the initial blast radius (600 feet for low-yield nukes, 3 miles for high-yield nukes), normal for a certain radius beyond that, and halved for a certain radius beyond that.

Makes them *a little* better, and certainly better than just throwing three hand grenades, but I'll take at least part of the blame for not assigning higher damage numbers, even without the doubling.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Sep 17, 2004)

deranged DM said:
			
		

> Hi yourself!








			
				deranged DM said:
			
		

> And that is where I get annoyed with the rules. Whyfor are we tossing around megaton nukes, anyway? Kiloton yields would be quite adequate...




Well, anyone familiar with contemporary science fiction television and movies knows that spacecraft can routinely take that sort of punishment...

eg. Star Trek photon torpedoes and quantum torpedoes are in the multi-megaton range, and it always takes multiple blasts to defeat the ships shields and even with shields down such ships can often withstand a number of direct hits before being destroyed.

eg. In (The New) Battlestar Galactica, the Galactica is seen taking a nuke hit and suffers minimal damage. The Galactica has no force field tech.

eg. The Star Destroyers in Star Wars have Turbolasers that deal damage in the multi-megaton range (Light Turbolasers) and Gigaton Range (Heavy Turbolasers). 

...thats why we are talking about it. 



			
				deranged DM said:
			
		

> 84d6 still seems too much, but I do agree with you that 16d8 is a bit wussy for a megaton nuke.




Well 84d6 is the proper figure*, personally I think it looks a bit low, but then you have to remember that d20 damage escalates at a very slow rate.

*Given the 5d6 damage grenade represents 125g TNT.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Sep 17, 2004)

Hi JD! 



			
				JDWiker said:
			
		

> I'd have to agree that the numbers seem too low--and, for the most part, I'm the one who put them in there.




Well at least you are honest. 



			
				JDWiker said:
			
		

> The idea was that they would be commensurate with the rest of the starship weapons, but other factors were supposed to make them more efficient.




I see this as an indictment of all the weapons though - not just nukes. I'll try and explain below.



			
				JDWiker said:
			
		

> For example, the revised starship rules leave out the fact that damage is doubled in the initial blast radius (600 feet for low-yield nukes, 3 miles for high-yield nukes), normal for a certain radius beyond that, and halved for a certain radius beyond that.
> 
> Makes them *a little* better, and certainly better than just throwing three hand grenades, but I'll take at least part of the blame for not assigning higher damage numbers, even without the doubling.




Here is how I see modern and future weaponry and armour being properly rated according to the d20 fundamental rule that: 

x8 mass (or one size category) = x1.5 (base) damage.

Now in d20 Future we are also told that each Progress Level can reduce the size of previous PL equipment by one category and maintain the same power output.

So reverse engineering that law and we can estimate that the same peice of equipment will be (roughly) x1.5 more effective (either weaponry or armour) for each Progress Level increase.

Case Study: 1 - Melee Weapons.

PL 2: Greatsword = 2d6
PL 3: Mercurial Greatsword = 2d8
PL 4: ? (Okay I haven't worked this one out yet) = 4d6
PL 5: 2-H Chainsaw = 4d8
PL 6: 2-H Vibroblade = 8d6
PL 7: 2-H Monoweapon = 8d8
PL 8: 2-H Beamsword = 16d6
etc.

Case Study: 2 - Missile Weapons.

PL 1: Shortbow = 1d6
PL 2: X-Bow, Longbow = 1d8
PL 3: Heavy X-bow = 2d6
PL 4: Arquebus = 3d6
PL 5: Assault Rifle = 4d6 (5.56mm) 5d6 (7.62 mm)
PL 6: Laser Rifle = 6d6 (or 7d6)
PL 7: Plasma Rifle = 8d6 (up to 11d6)
PL 8: Pulse Rifle = 12d6 (up to 15d6)
etc.

Case Study: 3 - Explosives

PL 1: Greek Fire = 1d6
PL 2: ? = 1d8
PL 3: Bomb (Gunpowder) = 2d6
PL 4: Dynamite = 3d6
PL 5: Fragmentation Grenade = 4d6 (or 5d6)
PL 6: Concussion Grenade = 6d6 (or 7d6) 
PL 7: Gravitic Grenade = 8d6 (up to 11d6)
PL 8: Thermal Detonator = 12d6 (up to 15d6)
etc.

Case Study: 4 - Armour 

PL 2: Platemail (Heavy) = +6 (L/M/H = +1/+3/+6)
PL 3: Full Platemail (Heavy) = +8 (L/M/H = +2/+4/+8)
PL 4: ? (L/M/H = +3/+6/+12) 
PL 5: Kevlar Vest (Light) = +4 (L/M/H = +4/+8/+16) 
PL 6: ? (L/M/H = +6/+12/+24)
PL 7: ? (L/M/H = +8/+16/+32)
PL 8: Clone Trooper Armour (Medium*) = +24 (L/M/H = +12/+24/+48)
etc.

*If we assume (non-powered) Heavy Armour affects mobility then Clone Trooper Armour is at best Medium.

This can also be applied to Vehicles.

eg. M1A2 Abrams (Huge: Heavily Armoured PL 5) = +32

eg. Imperial Star Destroyer (Colossal++++++: Heavily Armoured PL 8) = +1536

Maybe I should write an article on this for Dragon Magazine.


----------



## The Black Kestrel (Sep 17, 2004)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> ...Here is how I see modern and future weaponry and armour being properly rated according to the d20 fundamental rule that:
> 
> x8 mass (or one size category) = x1.5 (base) damage.
> 
> ...




While in general I agree with what you've written I think you've missed a couple of points. One bullets weight a hell of a lot less than the projectiles you mention in PL 1-4. They rely on the kinetic energy imparted by the great speed at which they travel vice thier mass. Again melee weapons are similar, thier ability to do damage is a function of thier mass, configuration and speed with which they are wielded (user's strength). I think you are overly optimistic on the increasing damage potentials on personal-scale weapons especially kinetic based ones. The two most promising technologies for PL 6, Electro-thermal (aka Electro-chemical) and Magnetic Accelerator technologies  currently only provide an increase of 20-50% (50% being theoretical right now) in energy imparted to the projectile. As technology advances you may want to limit your increases to the 25% category. 

On armor I think you missed a major factor: Hardness! I personally have issues with a Defense of 1536 like you suggest for a Star Destroyer. The Abrams +32 Defense truly applies only to the frontal arc, where rounds impact on the heavily armored and sloped glacis. On it's side and rear arcs it is far less armored.

As an addenda the formula for nuke damage in d20 Mecha agrees quite nicely with your damage estimation for a low yield tactical kiloton nuclear warhead (1.8 Kt to be precise). A 200 Kt nuke does 234d20 and a 1Mt nuke does 351d20.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 17, 2004)

Black Kestrel, I think that the main point that UK is making is unrelated to "real life" issues that you mention.

Rather he is taking some of the general principles given in the d20 rules and then extrapolating back from them.  Essentially that each increase in PL would be expected to add 50% to the potential damage output. Put in raw figures:

PL  average damage (from 1d6 base)
1 = 3.5
2 = 5.25
3 = 7.9
4 = 11.8
5 = 17.7
6 = 26.6
7 = 39.9
8 = 59.8
9 = 89.7

or
PL  average damage (from 2d6 base)
1 = 7
2 = 10.5
3 = 15.8
4 = 23.6
5 = 35.4
6 = 53.2
7 = 79.7
8 = 119.6
9 = 179.4

Cheers


----------



## Upper_Krust (Sep 17, 2004)

Hi BK! 



			
				The Black Kestrel said:
			
		

> While in general I agree with what you've written I think you've missed a couple of points.




Quite likely - as Plane Sailing was kind enough to point out I was really just commenting on the general principle of damage. Something that could be used as a framework upon which to base weapon (and armour) scaling on both a Size and Progress Level basis. 



			
				The Black Kestrel said:
			
		

> One bullets weight a hell of a lot less than the projectiles you mention in PL 1-4. They rely on the kinetic energy imparted by the great speed at which they travel vice thier mass. Again melee weapons are similar, thier ability to do damage is a function of thier mass, configuration and speed with which they are wielded (user's strength). I think you are overly optimistic on the increasing damage potentials on personal-scale weapons especially kinetic based ones. The two most promising technologies for PL 6, Electro-thermal (aka Electro-chemical) and Magnetic Accelerator technologies currently only provide an increase of 20-50% (50% being theoretical right now) in energy imparted to the projectile. As technology advances you may want to limit your increases to the 25% category.




Remember that those technologies are in their infancy so its not unreasonable to suggest a performance boost of +50% on the previous Progress Level. We are not talking about experimental weapons but rather standard issue military hardware.

Also remember that PL is more of a grey scale than purely black and white. 

eg. If we attribute 4d6 to a modern Assault Rifle and presume 6d6 for a similar sized PL 6 weapon then at some point in the interim someone will develop a 5d6 weapon. You have already noted that infant tech is 25% better so we already have that 5d6 catered for.



			
				The Black Kestrel said:
			
		

> On armor I think you missed a major factor: Hardness!




I didn't miss it, I blatantly ignored it - as I didn't want to dilute the discussion at this juncture.



			
				The Black Kestrel said:
			
		

> I personally have issues with a Defense of 1536 like you suggest for a Star Destroyer.




Nevertheless you see the logic in it? This is wholly consistent with what we know about Star Destroyers.



			
				The Black Kestrel said:
			
		

> The Abrams +32 Defense truly applies only to the frontal arc, where rounds impact on the heavily armored and sloped glacis. On it's side and rear arcs it is far less armored.




Assuming Full Platemail (Heavy Armour to be more specific) is 1/4 inch thick at the strongest point the +32 defensive bonus relative to 1 inch thick plating. However the Abrams probably has this at its weakest point with about 2-4 inches on the front slope making it a possible +64-128.

Its notable the Abrams own main armament is pretty much ineffective against another Abrams tank.



			
				The Black Kestrel said:
			
		

> As an addenda the formula for nuke damage in d20 Mecha agrees quite nicely with your damage estimation for a low yield tactical kiloton nuclear warhead (1.8 Kt to be precise). A 200 Kt nuke does 234d20 and a 1Mt nuke does 351d20.




Thats definately more like it!

The thing is, if you start from a logical base you can't go wrong at any point. But once you start bending the physics you get some really bizarre results (hence the 16d8 1 MT nuke damage).


----------



## edventure (Sep 17, 2004)

Just an FYI folks.  WOTC has posted Moridin's chapter on VRNet on their website.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20modern/article/20040914a


----------



## Morgenstern (Sep 19, 2004)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Case Study: 2 - Missile Weapons.
> 
> PL 1: Shortbow = 1d6
> PL 2: X-Bow, Longbow = 1d8
> ...




While all of these are way more interesting than I would have thought, I think that this one is flawed - you base should probably be more like 1-2 points of damage from tossing a very small rock, possilby 1-3 if we're thinking sling (hand held tool to launch said rock). Otherwise you iss out on some of those tech leves having actually been aplied to miniturization rather than increasing damage output. Bullets are small, and that makes them easier to transport - a very desirable characteristic often glossed over by gamers . You step all of the above down by two levels, and I think you might have more senseible and more playable numbers .


----------



## The Black Kestrel (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Krusty! Been a busy weekend else I'd have replied sooner. 


			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Quite likely - as Plane Sailing was kind enough to point out I was really just commenting on the general principle of damage. Something that could be used as a framework upon which to base weapon (and armour) scaling on both a Size and Progress Level basis.




The principle I agree with, my point was to show that the principal needs to take technological progress into account as well, not to invalidate it.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Remember that those technologies are in their infancy so its not unreasonable to suggest a performance boost of +50% on the previous Progress Level. We are not talking about experimental weapons but rather standard issue military hardware.




I knew the 50% was going to come back and bite me in the butt. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Nevertheless you see the logic in it? This is wholly consistent with what we know about Star Destroyers.




Nope, IIRC X-wings and other Rebel star fighters do a good job of taking out Star Destroyers. Eggshells with howitzers is generally how I view Star Destroyers



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Assuming Full Platemail (Heavy Armour to be more specific) is 1/4 inch thick at the strongest point the +32 defensive bonus relative to 1 inch thick plating. However the Abrams probably has this at its weakest point with about 2-4 inches on the front slope making it a possible +64-128.
> 
> Its notable the Abrams own main armament is pretty much ineffective against another Abrams tank.




Actually the Abrams frontal armor is the equivalent to approimately 900mm RHA (2.95 feet of armor-grade steel). There _are_ weapons that can penetrate the Abrams frontally but they are few and far between. Almost all the Abrams kills in OIF were either mobility kills or from side or rear shots. So the +32 is for the front with a +21 or +22 for the sides. Personally I prefer Hardness for vehicles as tanks and APCs are big targets and easy to hit, slightly more difficult to penetrate and damage. 

The reproductions of plate armor tend to hover in the 16 gauge area though I don't know what that would be in inches or centimeters.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Sep 20, 2004)

Hey guys, if you don't mind starting another thread if you want to have a discussion about weapon damages, that would be great. I would like to keep this thread for direct Q&A only, because it makes it much easier to track posts that I need to answer. Thanks guys!


----------



## Morgenstern (Sep 20, 2004)

Fair enough .

Can either of you explain to us the reasoning behind the cyberware penalties? Do I understand correctly that you can have a number of implants equal to your Con mod (the stat that's already one of if not the best in the game )? And each implant beyond that causes level drain (!!)? It would appear one of the most effective torture techniques in the game is now to snatch somebody and put some chrome in them?

From a balance standpoint, are cybernetic implants _really_ equivalent to a level in benefit? If so, then you are entitled to +X levels worth of benefit from your Con bonus? If not, why such a savage penalty?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Sep 20, 2004)

Hi Morgenstern! 



			
				Morgenstern said:
			
		

> While all of these are way more interesting than I would have thought, I think that this one is flawed - you base should probably be more like 1-2 points of damage from tossing a very small rock, possilby 1-3 if we're thinking sling (hand held tool to launch said rock). Otherwise you iss out on some of those tech leves having actually been aplied to miniturization rather than increasing damage output. Bullets are small, and that makes them easier to transport - a very desirable characteristic often glossed over by gamers . You step all of the above down by two levels, and I think you might have more senseible and more playable numbers .




Remember that the above case studies were simply off the top of my head to illustrate how the scaling works. Glad you find it interesting, although it was never intended to be the definitive list, that would take a little more research and development. But I hope people get the crux of what I was trying to say.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Sep 20, 2004)

Hello there! 



			
				Moridin said:
			
		

> Hey guys, if you don't mind starting another thread if you want to have a discussion about weapon damages, that would be great. I would like to keep this thread for direct Q&A only, because it makes it much easier to track posts that I need to answer. Thanks guys!




Sure no problem. 

Black Kestrel - I will reply to your above post in this thread:

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=100444&page=5


----------



## JDWiker (Sep 21, 2004)

Morgenstern said:
			
		

> Fair enough .
> 
> Can either of you explain to us the reasoning behind the cyberware penalties? Do I understand correctly that you can have a number of implants equal to your Con mod (the stat that's already one of if not the best in the game )? And each implant beyond that causes level drain (!!)? It would appear one of the most effective torture techniques in the game is now to snatch somebody and put some chrome in them?
> 
> From a balance standpoint, are cybernetic implants _really_ equivalent to a level in benefit? If so, then you are entitled to +X levels worth of benefit from your Con bonus? If not, why such a savage penalty?




Lord ... yet another thing they changed from my original turnover. I never mentioned anything about negative levels in regard to cybernetics.

Sigh.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 21, 2004)

Morgenstern said:
			
		

> Fair enough .
> 
> Can either of you explain to us the reasoning behind the cyberware penalties? Do I understand correctly that you can have a number of implants equal to your Con mod (the stat that's already one of if not the best in the game )? And each implant beyond that causes level drain (!!)? It would appear one of the most effective torture techniques in the game is now to snatch somebody and put some chrome in them?
> 
> From a balance standpoint, are cybernetic implants _really_ equivalent to a level in benefit? If so, then you are entitled to +X levels worth of benefit from your Con bonus? If not, why such a savage penalty?




Some of them are. I would have preferred if cybergear had used a cyberpoint system instead of the current system - more like mutations. I don't see how bioart is worth the same amount as a piece of cybergear that gives you DR 4/-, which just happens to be better than _three_ Tough talents that you need to be 7th-level to get.

And yes, the torture angle works perfectly, if you're a fan of the GAP series.

I think any useful piece of cybergear (eg one that gives you bonuses to skills or combat values) should require you to take Cybertaker in the first place to give you the Con +1 pieces.


----------



## Robbert Raets (Sep 21, 2004)

Hey! Have you guys figured that LA out yet?

 My best guess is +1 = 11 Mutation Points!


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 21, 2004)

I saw +6 MP = +1 LA getting thrown around a lot.



			
				JD Wiker said:
			
		

> Lord ... yet another thing they changed from my original turnover. I never mentioned anything about negative levels in regard to cybernetics.




What was the original penalty?


----------



## Gilwen (Sep 29, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> I saw +6 MP = +1 LA getting thrown around a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> What was the original penalty?




*BUMP* 
I would also like to know what the orginal penalty was and the rationale behind it.
Thanks,
Gilwen


----------



## Olive (Sep 29, 2004)

I'm also wondering if there's going to e more web enhancements... cos two so far has been great!


----------



## JDWiker (Oct 8, 2004)

Gilwen said:
			
		

> *BUMP*
> I would also like to know what the orginal penalty was and the rationale behind it.




Sorry ... got busy and lost track of this thread.

The original penalty was that each replacement made you lose  Constitution--the larger the replacement, the larger the loss. It also went with a corresponding "miss chance" for attacks that might have hit the cybernetic component instead (thus damaging the part, and not damaging the wearer).

This is a simplification of the rules, so try not to read too much into how it worked. It's probably not an ideal solution--but I certainly like it better than the negative level thing.

JD


----------



## RodneyThompson (Oct 8, 2004)

As for more enhancements, I don't know. There's still stuff cut from the book that hasn't made it into an enhancement, but that's not to say it ever will.

This thread is like a zombie -- it cannot be killed by conventional weapons!


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Oct 8, 2004)

JDWiker said:
			
		

> The original penalty was that each replacement made you lose  Constitution--_the larger the replacement, the larger the loss._



Now th is is interesting. Did different pieces of cybergear take up different amounts of cybertolerance? I'm just not seeing how gear that gives you DR 4/- should have the same effect (and cost the same) as gear that makes you glow.


----------



## JDWiker (Oct 9, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Now th is is interesting. Did different pieces of cybergear take up different amounts of cybertolerance? I'm just not seeing how gear that gives you DR 4/- should have the same effect (and cost the same) as gear that makes you glow.




I didn't design any cybergear that makes you glow. The rules I designed for the drawbacks of cybergear were about body parts, not just fancy doodads. Like I said, dont try to read too much into a couple of sentences of explanattion.


----------



## Olive (Oct 9, 2004)

Moridin said:
			
		

> As for more enhancements, I don't know. There's still stuff cut from the book that hasn't made it into an enhancement, but that's not to say it ever will.




Thanks Moridin


----------



## ukgpublishing (Oct 13, 2004)

*D20 Future Ship Construction Advice.*

Hi All

Looking for a few tips for starship designs that 'break' the rules.

The design document is fine for a single deck ship which has a front and rear. However I have recently converted a 16 deck carrier, which when you calculate the length from top to bottom is only 294 feet long, the decks are hexagonal and range between 80 feet wide to 40 feet wide. 

My problem is that officially the ship is in the light category, I would have put it into the upper end of medium or heavy. The rules fail badly when you have this ship configuration. The best idea I can come up with is to measure the decks side by side to get a 'length'. Thoughts

Thanks

John


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 14, 2004)

Thanks again for this thread, guys.

Moridin and JDWiker - if you were going to run a d20 Future campaign, what are the (say) five house rules you would choose to use for your own home game compared to the rules as printed in the book? Feel free to list any number of them, but I'm really curious how you would customize the game based on feedback you've received.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Oct 15, 2004)

I don't know that I really use many house rules in my games, but there are some things I've altered. For one, I've got a list of maneuvers that can be used during starship combat (things like jinking, split-s, etc.) to provide certain bonuses during combat. We use an expanded list of actions for different characters to perform during space combat as well (referring to the crew's actions). Uhm, that's about it, other than to have created new gear and gadgets for my home games.


----------



## Buddha the DM (Oct 15, 2004)

*Moridin:* Would you be willing to share your new gear and gadgets with us in a new thread if your schedule allows it?


----------



## Olive (Oct 15, 2004)

In addition to the extra crew actions... that would be awesome.


----------



## Buddha the DM (Oct 22, 2004)

What would happen to a robot if you tried to transplant its brain before its body was destroyed? Would it still lose the point of Charisma?


----------



## JDWiker (Oct 23, 2004)

Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> What would happen to a robot if you tried to transplant its brain before its body was destroyed? Would it still lose the point of Charisma?




No. It's the destruction of the robot's body that causes the loss of Charisma, not the transplant procedure.


----------



## Buddha the DM (Oct 23, 2004)

Great. Thanks for the answer, Mr. Wiker.


----------



## Ymdar (Oct 30, 2004)

Are we going to see more mutations?
Or expanded mutations rules? (whatever it could be)


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Nov 2, 2004)

Hey guys. Sorry its taken so long to arrange but its finally here. The d20 future chat!
Rodney Thompson and Christopher Perkins on November 16th at 9:00pm EST in #d20-modern on chat.psionics.net


----------



## Wycen (Nov 12, 2004)

I'm curious if there is a suggestion on scale of weapons/damage from 1 category to another.  I saw the stuff about grenade vs. nuke warhead, but I think that was more about the damage of a nuke, not starship weapons versus smaller scale vehicles.

I guess from reading the mecha section and comparing mech armor to vehicle armor that personal, vehicle, and mecha weapons and armor are all on the same scale.  

But then you get to starships and I just can't believe a ship mounted laser will only do 6d8 to a hovertank or even worse unlucky groundpounder.


----------



## elforcelf (Nov 14, 2004)

Do like Spelljammer did.Starship weapons do 10 times damage to the smaller scale stuff.And small scale stuff do one tenth as much damage to large scale stuff.elforcelf.


----------



## kingpaul (Nov 15, 2004)

Was there going to be a portion detaling boarding actions?


----------



## SeemosYantra (Sep 20, 2012)

(I know this thread has been inactive for a long while, but I guess I can give it a try...).

First of all, I want to thank both Mr. Thompson and Mr. Wiker for the amazing work they did on the d20 Future book and all the other books where their hands have been. It is, truely, a great honor for me to be able to direct some words to the people that actually make the stuff that has become my life when everything else failed craptastically. So, for them, really and sincerely: thank you, you simply don't know how many minds you are allowing me to open.

Okay, with that out of my chest, my question is one that seems to be haunting some other fellows around and with which I stumbled yesterday out of mere curiosity while checking something completely unrelated, and here is the thing:

*Where ARE the Psitech weapons, items, armors?*

I mean, I have found the small list of Psitech Gadgets in d20 Future Tech, but I have never seen anywhere a list of Psitech items, weapons, armors or whatever like... anywhere. Someone mentioned that there is a gadget that replaces normal ammo with Power Points and thus turns the item in Psitech, but I didn't found such a gadget either. Other person said there are "basic" Psitech items in the core d20 Modern book, but I didn't found anything. Is this one of the stuff that didn't made it in the book? (Wouldn't surprize me after reading all what have been left out, which TRUELY surprized me).

Is, naturally, not a matter of life or death but... It really got me wondering. In advance, thanks for taking your time in reading this. I truely appreciate it.


----------

