Starship Combat Optional Rule - Targeting Subsystems - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Starship Combat Optional Rule - Targeting Subsystems

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
nix4
Feb 25, 2009 8:31:57 Here is a house rule we cooked up last week and I wanted to share it with the community and see what you guys thought and gain some insight.

These rules came about because the players wanted to disable a enemy ship and not destroy it, and the enemy ship had TONS of hit points and it would drag game play out for a few hours. So instead, these rules would allow fast moving fighters or smaller ships to take out vital components and allow the ship to be disabled.

The flavor is star wars like...meaning, you need small fast moving ships to protect bigger ships from getting hen pecked by fighters.

Size Differential
If an attacking starship is two size categories larger than its target then it cannot target sub-systems. Starships smaller than their target can target various sub-systems in an attempt to disable a starship rather than reduce it to 0 hp.

(This is to allow fighters to have an active role in taking out bigger ships, and to prevent big ships from disabling small fighters..which shouldn’t happen)

Steps to target and disable a sub-system

1- Sensor Lock Check: A computer-user skill DC 15 is required to lock on to any sub-system aboard a starship. This is a move equivalent action and can be jammed or countered by the same methods starships use for targeting..
2- Pilot Skill Check: Some maneuvering is required in order to maintain lock on a starships sub-systems. This check is easier or harder based on the size differential of the attacking ship versus the defending ship.
3- Disabling the sub-system: Once the sub-system is locked on, and the pilot has it in view and can maintain the lock then the attacking starship can attempt to destroy the sub-system thereby disabling that function of the defending starship. The hit points required to disable the sub-system is 25% of the defending starships total hit points. The sub-system still retains the hardness and armor values.

Size Differential Pilot Skill Check DC TABLE:
(a chart showing what pilot DC is necessary to get lock on a sub system based on size of attacker and defender)

Sub-System Table:
(Expanded details on hp for various systems if the 25% rule isn’t popular. Listing of engines and various components and their hitpoints)

Specialized Starship Components:
(Additional hardware that can be bought to help disable ships, such as specialized computers that target sub-systems faster or easier.)
#2
backstabbist
Feb 25, 2009 9:57:17 I dont think it should be limited to small ships targeting big ships.
The Size Modifier is suposed to take care of that.
I fail to see how Shore Batteries targeting a carrier are less apt at targeting a subsystem at a given range than a Fighter at the same range.

The reason Attack Fighters work is that the weapons they carry are capable of outright killing a ship: WW2 Torpedo bombers had the firepower enough that if just 3 Fighters hit then even the bigest ships were at risk of sinking... 5 torpedo hits was a death sentance including battleships. Currently, we dont have F14's running in to get close enough to strafe a ship with their 20mm, they fire a couple missiles from far away... the same missiles a cruiser would use as primary antiship attack.

Again, play any WW2 film and note how the planes attacking ships didnt use their 20mm/7mm to try to kill the ship- looking at the 17" thick armor on the con tower of the Iowa I would have to say the fighters were worthless ... AFTER they shot theit ship killing torpedos / 500lb/1000lb bombs .
#3
nix4
Feb 25, 2009 10:50:47 Right, but this isn't WW2. The flavor I was going for was star wars like in that the small ships have a tactical role on the battlefield.

This is in many ways an electronic grapple check in order to lock on a vital component. This can be stopped by various means by the defending ship but its assumed in this setting that bigger guns cannot track vital components since they are armored and lack the fine tracking to do so, unlike fighters or smaller more maneuverable ships.

Also fixed batteries simply lack this ability.
#4
shinobi_guyver
Feb 25, 2009 11:31:17 So you're basically saying that larger guns on bigger ships (as well as fixed batteries) are not as precise as fighters and similar ships/weapons and your houserule is to reflect that in your campaign.

Big ships/guns can explode the crap out of other ships/vehicles, and smaller/more maneuverable ships/fighters can more easily target critical spots, disabling them or whatnot.

Sounds like you complicated "Called Shot" a bit.

:\
#5
backstabbist
Feb 25, 2009 12:23:37 Sure,
Small ships do have a role on the battlefield.

Just not agaisnt capitol ships
without the appropriate CapBuster ordinance.

Fighters had six to ten 5" Rockets, and they were horrible against a battleship.
OR, if they knew they were going up against capitol ships they would take a single Torpedo or BigBomb. Same with modern fightercraft: if the mission is to engage captitol ships they load up a pair of antiship missiles rather than carry the Hydra70 RocketPod.

Simple solution is to add a Future ship weapon called the Torpedo,
that can be taken as a weapon system like a ParticleGun or PlasCanon.
Single fire, 1ammo, 500' RI, and (25/50/100)d20 Ignore40Hard

Again, I wouldnt go anywhere near trying to say Fighters have batter scanners than capitol ships or shore batteries at the same range, or have a better chance of a crit than larger ships turrets.... based on the target being bigger that the shooter: Will Cruisers get to snipe the subsystems of Carriers?

Another solution is to dump the crazy big sized ships altogether.
They are way to far outclassing the fighters, and stop making sense past Medium size cause the guns armor and ToHits dont scale. Just use the Ultralight Light Medium weight ship sizes, and fix the number of guns so battleships dont use the same guns a a PT boat.
but where the PT could have A 40Bofors, a battleship had 80 of them
.... plus 20 "destroyer" 5"guns... plus them 9 giganto mains>

The batle bridge of a battleship was behind a 17thick door that opened to the standard decks of the con tower. The con had thicker armor than the Turrets, and they had thicker armor than the Hull, and the hull was belted by 10" and 12" thick armor. "Something Vital" is not left out laying on the deck exposed, and it takes a Critical hit to accomplish the goal of Dropping one down the stack or Below the turret but above the deck.

It is a no brainer to know that dropping one down the stack will cripple the ship... but that is hard to hit... like Natural20 hard rather than just saying you scanned exactly where the hard to hit thing is.

Perhaps you should ditch the d20 style of 99%dead is still 100%Operational core concept,
and take up a more BattleTech style of every hit damages a system, and operational ability drops with each lost system... Kill 3 of the 4 engine rooms and it goes 1/4 speed etc.

But there was a reason we made Batleships:
They were darn near impervious to smaller guns. Is it fair to the destroyer that the battleship can engage from beyond its range with guns that are 1 hit kills? Well... yes. That is why nobody would ever consider Destroyer vs Battleship a fair fight.

Please dont come up with a method to balance PTs and Destroyers to have fair fights with battleships.

If Heavy & Superheavys are too big for your Fighter based campaign,
just say the largest ships are Mediumweight
and adjust the nominal roles for smaller ships: What was a lightweight Destroyer will be a cruiser, and use the Corvette as a destroyer, make heavy Escorts the destroyers and create two intermediate ships (Escort and Gunboat) bigger than fighters
#6
nix4
Feb 26, 2009 7:01:43 I made these rules to solve an issue with the d20 future starship combat rules. Which as we play d20 modern/future we are finding many issues and poor quality assurance / testing.

Regardless, In the setting I created fighters would be used to get more accurate shots on larger ships since they could out maneuver and bring to bear their weapons with more accuracy in the heat of battle.

The idea of an electronic grapple rule essentially is what it is. The pilot being forced to maintain his pilot skill grapple and shooting down ship components at short range. A sufficiently larger ship would not be able to bring its guns to bear as they are not designed to shoot things off their own hull.

I created these rules for that idea.

As for a called shot? where does it detail that in the d20 books for starship combat?? I don't believe I saw any rules for that.

Personally, I feel this is a solid concept and the sub-system targeting can be twarted via countering the fighters systems and potentially breaking its "grapple", though the ships size modifer would make this very difficult. Which is why the defending ship would need drones or its own fighters to defend itself from small fast moving targets.

This is also the same concept used in battlestar galactica now that I think of it.
#7
backstabbist
Feb 26, 2009 10:39:52 Battleships dont dodge & weave to get out from attacks from fighters,
they have small pintels and crewguns like 20oli's and 40Bofors for the rapid targeting of fighters & gunboats. Then, as a final defense there are an whole lotta 50cal as "Point Defense System".

One of the big problems with the d20Future ship designs
is they didnt make bigger guns for bigger ships,
and they somehow left off 90% of the guns of a battleship. If I ask you if a battleshipship should have
a) 8 or 9 units of "ExtraHeavy ParticleBeam" <20d8>
b) 20 units of HeavyNeutronguns
c) 80 units of FusionBeam
d) ALL of the above plus tubs of crewserve guns like 4d8 LasMG

the obvious answer is D, but WoC chose A.
Because in the shipyards the guys at the drafting tables will ask each other-

"If battleships used to have all these DestroyerGuns and EscortGuns along with the Mains, why are we not putting any on... effectively cutting 60-80% firepower off the ship?"
I dunno. Maybe the brass wants to lose a bunch of ships due to ignoring lessons learned in history
"You mean the way they added a whole lot extra 40mm to existing ships in the middle of WW2 to meet the new air threat of Fighters... but with the current use of Fighters we are removing the 20 destroyer and 80 escort guns?
Its just like how we have to stop putting the 17" thick armor on the battlebridge and just use the same 3" stuff we have protecting the ships laundry. But hey, now we dont have to hang that frickin 17"thick door from the tower to the glass bridge

Why would any military want to build a battleship in a system that allows a couple fighters to kill it without torpedos or bombs. The key to fighters taking on ships of the line is they have to carry the single big ordinance to do more than scratch the paint of a battleship.

Callshot to Weapon is a hard thing to pull off:
It was either the NJ or MightyMo that had a plaque under a gouge in the turret armor-
This is the dent made by a japanese 5" gun.
So it is still not a matter of hitting the called shot Weapon or Bridge, it is trying to get thru the 140% Turret Armor or the 170% BridgeDoorArmor. A fighter could just sit on the deck and empty its guns at one spot on that turet, and not interfere with the operations of that turret. The fighter still needs a 500lb bomb to do anything to thet called target turret, and that is a single/pair special ordinance like a torpedo..... heck, normal fighters couldnt carry a torpedo, they had to make slightly bigger TorpedoBombers or DiveBombers to carry ordinance effective against capitol ships.

If you add HeadShots to your ship fights,
no military in the universe would make anything larger than a lightweight sized Strike Carrier.
The reason to make big ships was to use really frickin big guns on them, guns that d20Future dont have.
Then they knew those big boats would be expensive to replace and built armor into them to actually bounce off shots from Destroyers and LtCruisers... again, d20Future puts the same armor on a Scout as a Battleship, and scouts should not be bouncing off shots from LtCruisers

hmmmm, where the heck is that picture of the 17" door...
#8
nix4
Feb 26, 2009 10:52:33 Despite all of that, the rules I provided were an attempt to target specific systems on a larger ship in order to disable it rather than reduce the 6000 hp to 0 and put the ship in a "disabled" state.

I'm not really concerned with the methods and reasons why wizards did what they did with the starship combat as it stands. Its what I have and its simple enough for me to use and understand.

Now I agree if you are looking to do large scale ship combat or simulate a more realistic naval/space combat situation these rules are down right awful.

But, I'm a fan of cowboy bebop and star wars and like to recreate that look and feel in space.

So there are no called shots, nor should there be. Thats why I created this system for a skilled pilot to out maneuver a larger ship and maintain close range lock on a system in order to better disable a ship. Granted, there are risks, if they loose their lock they would no longer be "grappling" and could be open to fire by the defending ship.

I have yet to test these rules but I suspect I will get to it this week and see if it flies or not. I came here to see if there were issues with my rules as I posted them but I haven't found any feedback along those lines.
#9
backstabbist
Feb 26, 2009 15:09:04 They already have rules for disabling ships without blowing them up,
by hitting a critical component.
On a Ship, that would be something like the Engine,
and on a Dragon it would be the Head
so use the scanners to try to locate the head and take the HeadShot, or
use the scanners to try to locate the ~~head~~ Engine and take the ~~HeadShot~~ EngineShot.
However, you have it setup so the party can take a headshot on the villian, but the villians cant take headshots on the party, by your size requirement.

Its just a round about way to achieve HeadShot effect on ships,
rather than using a more reasonable sized enemy ship that doesnt need fudge rules to make them easier to kill with ~~low level~~ LightWeight guys

If you want to fight Colossal Dragons,
dont attack with 20 Orcs, use 10 Ogres with several class levels.
If you want to fight a 20000hp capitol ship,
dont use fighters, use a bunch of Destroyers. Or stat up a CapBuster torpedo that Always rolls on the Optional Critical Hit Table

If the party has a bunch of fighters,
dont send them up against a Battleship... send them against a Destroyer or LtCruiser

OPTIONAL CRITICAL HIT RESULTS
A critical hit with a starship weapon normally multiplies the weapon’s damage. The GM may opt to use a randomized critical hit resolution system instead: Whenever a critical hit is scored, the attacker rolls percentile dice and consults Table: Optional Critical Hit Results to determine the effects of the critical hit on the target.

Table: Optional Critical Hit Results
d% Roll Effect(s)
01–35 Normal critical hit
36–50 Normal critical hit, crew casualties
51–55 Severe critical hit, artificial gravity disabled
56–60 Severe critical hit, crew casualties
61–65 Damaged system: comm system
66–70 Damaged system: defense system
71–75 Damaged system: engines
76–80 Damaged system: sensors
81–85 Damaged system: targeting system
86–90 Damaged system: weapon
91–95 Destroyed defensive system
96–100 Destroyed weapon

Normal Critical Hit: Roll critical hit damage normally.

===================

Know what,
I presented the info I wanted to give you.
If you need to institute a headshot rule to make big ships valid targets for small ships in your campaign.... if that is what you want then run with it and have fun.
Its a game, play with the rules you guy enjoy the most.
I used to golf with a group that allowed you to buy more Mulligans with a rounds of beer.... we did it cause we had fun doing it
#10
nix4
Feb 26, 2009 15:14:17 Ah okay didn't know of the optional critical hit table...now thats something I'll have to bring into consideration.

Thats for the info.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 nix4 Feb 25, 2009 8:31:57	Here is a house rule we cooked up last week and I wanted to share it with the community and see what you guys thought and gain some insight. These rules came about because the players wanted to disable a enemy ship and not destroy it, and the enemy ship had TONS of hit points and it would drag game play out for a few hours. So instead, these rules would allow fast moving fighters or smaller ships to take out vital components and allow the ship to be disabled. The flavor is star wars like...meaning, you need small fast moving ships to protect bigger ships from getting hen pecked by fighters. Size Differential If an attacking starship is two size categories larger than its target then it cannot target sub-systems. Starships smaller than their target can target various sub-systems in an attempt to disable a starship rather than reduce it to 0 hp. (This is to allow fighters to have an active role in taking out bigger ships, and to prevent big ships from disabling small fighters..which shouldn’t happen) Steps to target and disable a sub-system 1- Sensor Lock Check: A computer-user skill DC 15 is required to lock on to any sub-system aboard a starship. This is a move equivalent action and can be jammed or countered by the same methods starships use for targeting.. 2- Pilot Skill Check: Some maneuvering is required in order to maintain lock on a starships sub-systems. This check is easier or harder based on the size differential of the attacking ship versus the defending ship. 3- Disabling the sub-system: Once the sub-system is locked on, and the pilot has it in view and can maintain the lock then the attacking starship can attempt to destroy the sub-system thereby disabling that function of the defending starship. The hit points required to disable the sub-system is 25% of the defending starships total hit points. The sub-system still retains the hardness and armor values. Size Differential Pilot Skill Check DC TABLE: (a chart showing what pilot DC is necessary to get lock on a sub system based on size of attacker and defender) Sub-System Table: (Expanded details on hp for various systems if the 25% rule isn’t popular. Listing of engines and various components and their hitpoints) Specialized Starship Components: (Additional hardware that can be bought to help disable ships, such as specialized computers that target sub-systems faster or easier.)
#2 backstabbist Feb 25, 2009 9:57:17	I dont think it should be limited to small ships targeting big ships. The Size Modifier is suposed to take care of that. I fail to see how Shore Batteries targeting a carrier are less apt at targeting a subsystem at a given range than a Fighter at the same range. The reason Attack Fighters work is that the weapons they carry are capable of outright killing a ship: WW2 Torpedo bombers had the firepower enough that if just 3 Fighters hit then even the bigest ships were at risk of sinking... 5 torpedo hits was a death sentance including battleships. Currently, we dont have F14's running in to get close enough to strafe a ship with their 20mm, they fire a couple missiles from far away... the same missiles a cruiser would use as primary antiship attack. Again, play any WW2 film and note how the planes attacking ships didnt use their 20mm/7mm to try to kill the ship- looking at the 17" thick armor on the con tower of the Iowa I would have to say the fighters were worthless ... AFTER they shot theit ship killing torpedos / 500lb/1000lb bombs .
#3 nix4 Feb 25, 2009 10:50:47	Right, but this isn't WW2. The flavor I was going for was star wars like in that the small ships have a tactical role on the battlefield. This is in many ways an electronic grapple check in order to lock on a vital component. This can be stopped by various means by the defending ship but its assumed in this setting that bigger guns cannot track vital components since they are armored and lack the fine tracking to do so, unlike fighters or smaller more maneuverable ships. Also fixed batteries simply lack this ability.
#4 shinobi_guyver Feb 25, 2009 11:31:17	So you're basically saying that larger guns on bigger ships (as well as fixed batteries) are not as precise as fighters and similar ships/weapons and your houserule is to reflect that in your campaign. Big ships/guns can explode the crap out of other ships/vehicles, and smaller/more maneuverable ships/fighters can more easily target critical spots, disabling them or whatnot. Sounds like you complicated "Called Shot" a bit. :\
#5 backstabbist Feb 25, 2009 12:23:37	Sure, Small ships do have a role on the battlefield. Just not agaisnt capitol ships without the appropriate CapBuster ordinance. Fighters had six to ten 5" Rockets, and they were horrible against a battleship. OR, if they knew they were going up against capitol ships they would take a single Torpedo or BigBomb. Same with modern fightercraft: if the mission is to engage captitol ships they load up a pair of antiship missiles rather than carry the Hydra70 RocketPod. Simple solution is to add a Future ship weapon called the Torpedo, that can be taken as a weapon system like a ParticleGun or PlasCanon. Single fire, 1ammo, 500' RI, and (25/50/100)d20 Ignore40Hard Again, I wouldnt go anywhere near trying to say Fighters have batter scanners than capitol ships or shore batteries at the same range, or have a better chance of a crit than larger ships turrets.... based on the target being bigger that the shooter: Will Cruisers get to snipe the subsystems of Carriers? Another solution is to dump the crazy big sized ships altogether. They are way to far outclassing the fighters, and stop making sense past Medium size cause the guns armor and ToHits dont scale. Just use the Ultralight Light Medium weight ship sizes, and fix the number of guns so battleships dont use the same guns a a PT boat. but where the PT could have A 40Bofors, a battleship had 80 of them .... plus 20 "destroyer" 5"guns... plus them 9 giganto mains> The batle bridge of a battleship was behind a 17thick door that opened to the standard decks of the con tower. The con had thicker armor than the Turrets, and they had thicker armor than the Hull, and the hull was belted by 10" and 12" thick armor. "Something Vital" is not left out laying on the deck exposed, and it takes a Critical hit to accomplish the goal of Dropping one down the stack or Below the turret but above the deck. It is a no brainer to know that dropping one down the stack will cripple the ship... but that is hard to hit... like Natural20 hard rather than just saying you scanned exactly where the hard to hit thing is. Perhaps you should ditch the d20 style of 99%dead is still 100%Operational core concept, and take up a more BattleTech style of every hit damages a system, and operational ability drops with each lost system... Kill 3 of the 4 engine rooms and it goes 1/4 speed etc. But there was a reason we made Batleships: They were darn near impervious to smaller guns. Is it fair to the destroyer that the battleship can engage from beyond its range with guns that are 1 hit kills? Well... yes. That is why nobody would ever consider Destroyer vs Battleship a fair fight. Please dont come up with a method to balance PTs and Destroyers to have fair fights with battleships. If Heavy & Superheavys are too big for your Fighter based campaign, just say the largest ships are Mediumweight and adjust the nominal roles for smaller ships: What was a lightweight Destroyer will be a cruiser, and use the Corvette as a destroyer, make heavy Escorts the destroyers and create two intermediate ships (Escort and Gunboat) bigger than fighters
#6 nix4 Feb 26, 2009 7:01:43	I made these rules to solve an issue with the d20 future starship combat rules. Which as we play d20 modern/future we are finding many issues and poor quality assurance / testing. Regardless, In the setting I created fighters would be used to get more accurate shots on larger ships since they could out maneuver and bring to bear their weapons with more accuracy in the heat of battle. The idea of an electronic grapple rule essentially is what it is. The pilot being forced to maintain his pilot skill grapple and shooting down ship components at short range. A sufficiently larger ship would not be able to bring its guns to bear as they are not designed to shoot things off their own hull. I created these rules for that idea. As for a called shot? where does it detail that in the d20 books for starship combat?? I don't believe I saw any rules for that. Personally, I feel this is a solid concept and the sub-system targeting can be twarted via countering the fighters systems and potentially breaking its "grapple", though the ships size modifer would make this very difficult. Which is why the defending ship would need drones or its own fighters to defend itself from small fast moving targets. This is also the same concept used in battlestar galactica now that I think of it.
#7 backstabbist Feb 26, 2009 10:39:52	Battleships dont dodge & weave to get out from attacks from fighters, they have small pintels and crewguns like 20oli's and 40Bofors for the rapid targeting of fighters & gunboats. Then, as a final defense there are an whole lotta 50cal as "Point Defense System". One of the big problems with the d20Future ship designs is they didnt make bigger guns for bigger ships, and they somehow left off 90% of the guns of a battleship. If I ask you if a battleshipship should have a) 8 or 9 units of "ExtraHeavy ParticleBeam" <20d8> b) 20 units of HeavyNeutronguns c) 80 units of FusionBeam d) ALL of the above plus tubs of crewserve guns like 4d8 LasMG the obvious answer is D, but WoC chose A. Because in the shipyards the guys at the drafting tables will ask each other- "If battleships used to have all these DestroyerGuns and EscortGuns along with the Mains, why are we not putting any on... effectively cutting 60-80% firepower off the ship?" I dunno. Maybe the brass wants to lose a bunch of ships due to ignoring lessons learned in history "You mean the way they added a whole lot extra 40mm to existing ships in the middle of WW2 to meet the new air threat of Fighters... but with the current use of Fighters we are removing the 20 destroyer and 80 escort guns? Its just like how we have to stop putting the 17" thick armor on the battlebridge and just use the same 3" stuff we have protecting the ships laundry. But hey, now we dont have to hang that frickin 17"thick door from the tower to the glass bridge Why would any military want to build a battleship in a system that allows a couple fighters to kill it without torpedos or bombs. The key to fighters taking on ships of the line is they have to carry the single big ordinance to do more than scratch the paint of a battleship. Callshot to Weapon is a hard thing to pull off: It was either the NJ or MightyMo that had a plaque under a gouge in the turret armor- This is the dent made by a japanese 5" gun. So it is still not a matter of hitting the called shot Weapon or Bridge, it is trying to get thru the 140% Turret Armor or the 170% BridgeDoorArmor. A fighter could just sit on the deck and empty its guns at one spot on that turet, and not interfere with the operations of that turret. The fighter still needs a 500lb bomb to do anything to thet called target turret, and that is a single/pair special ordinance like a torpedo..... heck, normal fighters couldnt carry a torpedo, they had to make slightly bigger TorpedoBombers or DiveBombers to carry ordinance effective against capitol ships. If you add HeadShots to your ship fights, no military in the universe would make anything larger than a lightweight sized Strike Carrier. The reason to make big ships was to use really frickin big guns on them, guns that d20Future dont have. Then they knew those big boats would be expensive to replace and built armor into them to actually bounce off shots from Destroyers and LtCruisers... again, d20Future puts the same armor on a Scout as a Battleship, and scouts should not be bouncing off shots from LtCruisers hmmmm, where the heck is that picture of the 17" door...
#8 nix4 Feb 26, 2009 10:52:33	Despite all of that, the rules I provided were an attempt to target specific systems on a larger ship in order to disable it rather than reduce the 6000 hp to 0 and put the ship in a "disabled" state. I'm not really concerned with the methods and reasons why wizards did what they did with the starship combat as it stands. Its what I have and its simple enough for me to use and understand. Now I agree if you are looking to do large scale ship combat or simulate a more realistic naval/space combat situation these rules are down right awful. But, I'm a fan of cowboy bebop and star wars and like to recreate that look and feel in space. So there are no called shots, nor should there be. Thats why I created this system for a skilled pilot to out maneuver a larger ship and maintain close range lock on a system in order to better disable a ship. Granted, there are risks, if they loose their lock they would no longer be "grappling" and could be open to fire by the defending ship. I have yet to test these rules but I suspect I will get to it this week and see if it flies or not. I came here to see if there were issues with my rules as I posted them but I haven't found any feedback along those lines.
#9 backstabbist Feb 26, 2009 15:09:04	They already have rules for disabling ships without blowing them up, by hitting a critical component. On a Ship, that would be something like the Engine, and on a Dragon it would be the Head so use the scanners to try to locate the head and take the HeadShot, or use the scanners to try to locate the ~~head~~ Engine and take the ~~HeadShot~~ EngineShot. However, you have it setup so the party can take a headshot on the villian, but the villians cant take headshots on the party, by your size requirement. Its just a round about way to achieve HeadShot effect on ships, rather than using a more reasonable sized enemy ship that doesnt need fudge rules to make them easier to kill with ~~low level~~ LightWeight guys If you want to fight Colossal Dragons, dont attack with 20 Orcs, use 10 Ogres with several class levels. If you want to fight a 20000hp capitol ship, dont use fighters, use a bunch of Destroyers. Or stat up a CapBuster torpedo that Always rolls on the Optional Critical Hit Table If the party has a bunch of fighters, dont send them up against a Battleship... send them against a Destroyer or LtCruiser OPTIONAL CRITICAL HIT RESULTS A critical hit with a starship weapon normally multiplies the weapon’s damage. The GM may opt to use a randomized critical hit resolution system instead: Whenever a critical hit is scored, the attacker rolls percentile dice and consults Table: Optional Critical Hit Results to determine the effects of the critical hit on the target. Table: Optional Critical Hit Results d% Roll Effect(s) 01–35 Normal critical hit 36–50 Normal critical hit, crew casualties 51–55 Severe critical hit, artificial gravity disabled 56–60 Severe critical hit, crew casualties 61–65 Damaged system: comm system 66–70 Damaged system: defense system 71–75 Damaged system: engines 76–80 Damaged system: sensors 81–85 Damaged system: targeting system 86–90 Damaged system: weapon 91–95 Destroyed defensive system 96–100 Destroyed weapon Normal Critical Hit: Roll critical hit damage normally. =================== Know what, I presented the info I wanted to give you. If you need to institute a headshot rule to make big ships valid targets for small ships in your campaign.... if that is what you want then run with it and have fun. Its a game, play with the rules you guy enjoy the most. I used to golf with a group that allowed you to buy more Mulligans with a rounds of beer.... we did it cause we had fun doing it
#10 nix4 Feb 26, 2009 15:14:17	Ah okay didn't know of the optional critical hit table...now thats something I'll have to bring into consideration. Thats for the info.