Ship Weapons are annoying me... - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Ship Weapons are annoying me...

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
jaid
Aug 09, 2007 17:37:17 Just out of curiosity, has anyone else considered tweaking the old 2nd edition ship weapons?

in particular, i'm looking at the range on both the ballistas and catapults (heavy should be longer range imo) and the THAC0 on the catapults (why are the light catapults more likely to punch through armor, exactly?)... the heavy catapult, in particular, does less theoretical average damage as the target's AR improves (i know it's worse than a medium at AR 5, and at AR 0 i believe it's worse than a light catapult, though i'm not sure exactly where the turning point is since i only crunched the numbers for 10, 5, 0, and -5... not that -5 ever happens...) i suppose while i'm at it, the jettisons also get an honorable mention for randomly decreasing range as the weapon gets lighter (though quite frankly i'm not sure why anyone would use a jettison willingly anyways)

anyways, it made more sense to me that the heavier weapons should be shooting further. it also seems to me that a light catapult and/or ballista should be more suited for picking off closer threats like flitters or locusts loaded with greek fire rather than being good at picking off fortifications at extreme range. also add in the fact that a light catapult takes up 1 ton of weapons (heavy and medium take up 4 and 2, respectively) can fire in all directions (light and heavy catapults cost extra for that), and benefits the most from skilled crew and superior equipment (weapon loader doubles it's damage, and magical catapults get a huge boost to their average 2 hull point hits, with each plus being a 50% boost in average damage) while also being the cheapest of the catapults... (at least the light ballista isn't like that, although the medium benefits more from these things than the heavy also)... add in the crew requirements, and you're basically comparing 4 light weapons to 1 heavy (in fact, if you turret the heavy ones to match the natural ability of the light, it even costs about 4 times as much)

also, while i'm at it, has anyone considered having the ship's AR modified by maneuver class and ship's rating? i'm thinking of something along the lines of defining MC D to be the middle grounds, with a bonus to AR at MC B, (possibly one at A, undecided) and a penalty at MC F, (possibly one at G, which happens to be only possible from losing MC)? another possibility i've considered is 1 per point of ship's rating used in the turn, to a maximum value decided by your ship's MC. basically, it's bugging me a little that B is supposed to be better than C, but has no actual difference (other than it's a little bit closer to actually being better, and a little bit farther from actually being worse).

to be honest, as far as houseruling AR bonuses based on MC i might do it, but i have to admit that adding in a bonus based on SR looks like it might be too much work to change the AR every single round...
#2
nerik
Aug 10, 2007 5:59:42 I agree, Spelljammer standard weapons have always been a bit odd, yes, heavy weapons do more damage per hit, but have shorter ranges, slower rates of fire, and a worse THAC0! (and, to a certain extent, this has been perpetuated in Hackjammer). Reversing the range progression would go some way to solving this (giving a reason to mount heavier weapons).

As for MC adjusting AR, I believe that this is actually the case (but I think the rule was introduced in the War Captain's Companion), the modifiers are:

MC AR
A -3
B -2
C -1
D-G no modifier

Although adding a penalty for really bad MC would make sense.

Charles
#3
bigmac
Sep 17, 2007 17:35:46 My feeling is that the 2nd edtion ship combat rules felt too much like a wargame than a role playing game.

I would rather have a PC or NPC make attack rolls for the weapon, with the quality of the weapon (and number of crew helping to man the weapon) having some sort of positive or negative modifyer to the weaponeers attack roll.

If SJ combat worked more like that then NPC spacehands could take feats to boost their ability and make themselves more employable.
#4
jaid
Sep 17, 2007 22:07:35
I would rather have a PC or NPC make attack rolls for the weapon, with the quality of the weapon (and number of crew helping to man the weapon) having some sort of positive or negative modifyer to the weaponeers attack roll.

If SJ combat worked more like that then NPC spacehands could take feats to boost their ability and make themselves more employable.

well, a direct copy of 2nd edition would give us the ship weapons proficiency (which gives +1 to hit and makes the weapon require 1 less person to man) and the reloader NWP (which lets you fire more often).

it existed in 2nd edition as WPs and NWPs... as well as the spelljamming and spacemanship proficiencies (iirc) which allowed things to those who had it.

so certainly, it existed in 2nd ed.... it only makes sense that those would be converted to 3rd ed, and eventually 4th (once they make it, of course)...

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 jaid Aug 09, 2007 17:37:17	Just out of curiosity, has anyone else considered tweaking the old 2nd edition ship weapons? in particular, i'm looking at the range on both the ballistas and catapults (heavy should be longer range imo) and the THAC0 on the catapults (why are the light catapults more likely to punch through armor, exactly?)... the heavy catapult, in particular, does less theoretical average damage as the target's AR improves (i know it's worse than a medium at AR 5, and at AR 0 i believe it's worse than a light catapult, though i'm not sure exactly where the turning point is since i only crunched the numbers for 10, 5, 0, and -5... not that -5 ever happens...) i suppose while i'm at it, the jettisons also get an honorable mention for randomly decreasing range as the weapon gets lighter (though quite frankly i'm not sure why anyone would use a jettison willingly anyways) anyways, it made more sense to me that the heavier weapons should be shooting further. it also seems to me that a light catapult and/or ballista should be more suited for picking off closer threats like flitters or locusts loaded with greek fire rather than being good at picking off fortifications at extreme range. also add in the fact that a light catapult takes up 1 ton of weapons (heavy and medium take up 4 and 2, respectively) can fire in all directions (light and heavy catapults cost extra for that), and benefits the most from skilled crew and superior equipment (weapon loader doubles it's damage, and magical catapults get a huge boost to their average 2 hull point hits, with each plus being a 50% boost in average damage) while also being the cheapest of the catapults... (at least the light ballista isn't like that, although the medium benefits more from these things than the heavy also)... add in the crew requirements, and you're basically comparing 4 light weapons to 1 heavy (in fact, if you turret the heavy ones to match the natural ability of the light, it even costs about 4 times as much) also, while i'm at it, has anyone considered having the ship's AR modified by maneuver class and ship's rating? i'm thinking of something along the lines of defining MC D to be the middle grounds, with a bonus to AR at MC B, (possibly one at A, undecided) and a penalty at MC F, (possibly one at G, which happens to be only possible from losing MC)? another possibility i've considered is 1 per point of ship's rating used in the turn, to a maximum value decided by your ship's MC. basically, it's bugging me a little that B is supposed to be better than C, but has no actual difference (other than it's a little bit closer to actually being better, and a little bit farther from actually being worse). to be honest, as far as houseruling AR bonuses based on MC i might do it, but i have to admit that adding in a bonus based on SR looks like it might be too much work to change the AR every single round...
#2 nerik Aug 10, 2007 5:59:42	I agree, Spelljammer standard weapons have always been a bit odd, yes, heavy weapons do more damage per hit, but have shorter ranges, slower rates of fire, and a worse THAC0! (and, to a certain extent, this has been perpetuated in Hackjammer). Reversing the range progression would go some way to solving this (giving a reason to mount heavier weapons). As for MC adjusting AR, I believe that this is actually the case (but I think the rule was introduced in the War Captain's Companion), the modifiers are: MC AR A -3 B -2 C -1 D-G no modifier Although adding a penalty for really bad MC would make sense. Charles
#3 bigmac Sep 17, 2007 17:35:46	My feeling is that the 2nd edtion ship combat rules felt too much like a wargame than a role playing game. I would rather have a PC or NPC make attack rolls for the weapon, with the quality of the weapon (and number of crew helping to man the weapon) having some sort of positive or negative modifyer to the weaponeers attack roll. If SJ combat worked more like that then NPC spacehands could take feats to boost their ability and make themselves more employable.
#4 jaid Sep 17, 2007 22:07:35	I would rather have a PC or NPC make attack rolls for the weapon, with the quality of the weapon (and number of crew helping to man the weapon) having some sort of positive or negative modifyer to the weaponeers attack roll. If SJ combat worked more like that then NPC spacehands could take feats to boost their ability and make themselves more employable. well, a direct copy of 2nd edition would give us the ship weapons proficiency (which gives +1 to hit and makes the weapon require 1 less person to man) and the reloader NWP (which lets you fire more often). it existed in 2nd edition as WPs and NWPs... as well as the spelljamming and spacemanship proficiencies (iirc) which allowed things to those who had it. so certainly, it existed in 2nd ed.... it only makes sense that those would be converted to 3rd ed, and eventually 4th (once they make it, of course)...