| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1TheRealOrionMar 18, 2008 10:40:52 | Hi everyone, I was initially very excited when I found out that Future had zero-G combat rules, but it turned out to be a paragraph and a feat (Zero-G Training). Not enough "meat" for a rules junkie like me. So here's the original rules as written:
|
| #2corjayMar 22, 2008 20:31:40 | Actually, you would only be knocked back if the force exerted is less than the resistance. If the force is greater than the resistance, you will continue to move forward but at a rate equal to the force minus the resistance. So usually, you will not bounce backward if you knock into a non-moving object, as your momentum is transferred into the non-moving object and partially absorbed by your own body, moving the object and not much yourself, if at all. (See the Modified Bull Rush Rules above.) The energy transferred or canceled is subtracted from your momentum. |
| #3corjayMar 22, 2008 20:33:24 | Also, there's a matter of deflection toward a different direction. Even if you continue to move forward, you may end up moving in a slightly different direction. I think it would be a pain in the rear to create a mechanic that exactly represents these things. Instead, I would suggest a mechanic that abstracts these things, which I think is already expressed in the Attack Penalty. By the way, d20 Future incorrectly names it "Zero-G". There is no place in the universe that has "zero-G". No matter where you are, you're going to fall toward the center of the strongest pull of gravity. The correct term is "free-fall". You don't actually feel gravity unless your movement toward the center of gravity is affected by resistance of some sort. This creates the sensation of "zero-G" even though you're actually falling. |
| #4strange_personMar 26, 2008 22:32:33 | Rather than treating it as a fly speed, it might make more sense to say that things keep going in a straight line at a constant speed until something touches them, and have skill checks govern direction changes. Tumble, jump, climb might all be relevant, plus the occasional ranged touch attack to hit an attachment point with a hook on a cable, or to intercept someone in mid-air. Also, it's not d20, but it might provide some useful ideas: Mo-bag. |
| #5TheRealOrionMar 27, 2008 20:44:33 | You are the resurrectionist of threads! Thanks for the tips on physics, Carjay. That makes a lot more sense than what I thought. It looks like expanding Bullrush and/or knockback (of whatever flavour you like) is the way to go. What about this, though: two people are floating within melee distance and one of them kicks the other one in the stomach. Wouldn't both be pushed backwards because neither is "moored" to anything? |
| #6strange_personMar 28, 2008 10:07:53 | I'd resolve that with the Bull Rush rules to determine the distance between them at the end of the first round, and (assuming they're of approximately equal mass) split it between them equally. |
| #7corjayMar 31, 2008 20:13:38 | I think people are missing the art of narration in this situation. That attack penalty makes it harder to attack. So let's say you fail in your attack, the GM says simply "You overshoot your opponent and travel headlong into the far wall, taking [make roll] 3 damage." Or "You are unable to get a solid hit on your opponent and are deflected toward the front of the cabin as you spin uncontrollably. Make a check to regain control." If successful, the GM says, "Your strike hits and you do [makes roll] 9 damage to your opponent as you slam his soft flesh into the bulkhead. He shouts in pain." |
| #8TheRealOrionApr 06, 2008 23:49:27 | Sure, I'm a fan of GMing in full colour and that kind of thing makes a simple -4 to hit a lot more interesting, but I also think that that kind of thing should be backed up by rules with a little more detail to them. |
| #9strange_personApr 07, 2008 5:46:05 | That's why I linked to the mo-bag rules. It's an extremely simple and decently realistic system for governing movement and hand-to-hand combat in zero-g, so some of it might be adapted for use in the existing d20 combat rules. Rather than making it a flat -4 on all attacks, why not model it after the underwater combat rules in the SRD and have different attack and damage penalties for different weapons? Trying to hit someone with a club while doing angular-momentum calculations in your head seems like it would be a lot trickier than skeet-shooting at someone who's (at the moment) physically incapable of displacing their center of mass from it's current trajectory. How about this: the -4 penalty on attack rolls applies only to thrown and non-piercing melee weapons. Additionally, characters without the zero-g training feat deal half normal damage with any melee weapon wielded in both hands, and lose their dexterity bonus to AC while in mid-air. Part of zero-g combat training is learning how to contort yourself so that your center-of-mass is outside your silhouette. That makes guns too easy a choice, though. Maybe something like, untrained people using projectile weapons in zero-g need to spend a move action to switch between targets? |
| #10corjayApr 09, 2008 1:02:08 | I would say treat ranged combat as if you are moving, which you are. You're not generally going to be in a static position unless you have footing on a ladder or something. |
| #11corjayJun 30, 2009 23:15:00 | *poof* Resurrection! */poof* Half damage in melee unless the attacker has footing. Posted here because it's just a small piece of information related to this discussion that wouldn't be appropriate in its own thread. |