Many, me included, have complained about the starship and vehicles rules. Various minor fixes have been suggested, and even some very complicated substitutes.
However, they are often incomplete, self-contradictory, and leave holes in the system because they aren’t compatible with some of the remaining RAW.
I have completely rewritten the chapter, changing everything I thought needed changing and trying to synchronize everything.
I clearly label what is modified or brand new, for ease of study. Please give me any feedback you have, I want to polish this until it shines: Chapter VII: Starships and Vehicles Overhaul
Impressive body of work. I look forward to driving in and reviewing the material.
I have yet to read it in its entirety, but I especially like the idea of weapon targeting silhouettes. No more shooting at starfighters with heavy turbolasers.
Interesting work, I need to delve deeper into it. Question about the shielded/defense system. I understand the need for separation from a lore point of view. Mechanically if I read it correctly the only difference is that the shield value gives you a “Reflect/Parry-like ability”.
My question is wouldn’t be less complicated if the shield generators were simply another part of the ship instead of stats (giving bonus defense in all defense zones - which is modifiable with the angle deflectors maneuver) and simply stating that the Shielding ability is a “Active Shield Generator only” incidental.
I’d go that far that I’d make it a pilot only maneuver not an on attack activation, similar to evasive maneuvers. (Still would require active shield generator).
This way you don’t need a new line of stat, just another ship part. The attack roll calculation is still the same. And pilots/co-pilots have one more thing to do in combat.
Ships can only take 1 Pilot Only Maneuver per turn, except some small ships which can suffer 2 SS to take a second Pilot Only Maneuver.
Leaving that aside, I think you’re saying give them an “item” that provides +X Shields and the Shielded incidental?
Most of the time, it isn’t going to matter. Most ships only have Shields, making it very simple. So I think that the way I did it makes the most sense in almost all situations. Additionally, making it virtually identical to Parry/Reflect simplifies it for new players to understand and makes it part of the ship, meaning it doesn’t take anything from the action economy (aside from Angle/Boost Deflector Shields).
Also, it isn’t really a new line of stats. You’d just use the Defense section. The only time you’d need a distinction is with something like the Hammerhead Corvette, which (likely) has non-shield defense in the forward defense zone. In that case, I’d just note 1+X or whatever, X being the Shields.
Glad you like it!
Just to make sure it’s clear, though, it doesn’t prevent you from shooting at starfighters with heavy turbolasers, just makes it much harder to do so so that they aren’t just as good as dedicated anti-starfighter weapons.
But if you use 2 stats, all shipcards should include both, for sake of consistency, even if it’s 0. I just see it unnecessary, to make up a new stat from design point.
Or just leave the old stats and shields should be an on/off trait / part like the hyperdrive whether or not you can use the Shielded incidental (I like this new move). Just thinking about making it more streamlined.
The Shielded incidental needs to have a dynamic number to go along with it so that some ships can have more powerful shields than others.
I get what you’re saying about two stats, but I disagree.
- Changing this system (for the worse, in my opinion) isn’t worth making it fit with the basic ship sheets.
- It’s easy to adapt existing ship sheets to this method, by putting a backslash through the cell, writing X+Y, or various other methods. Or in the case of something like SWSheets, putting Defense in the appropriate “Defense” box and putting Shields in the “Current” box.
- For the vast majority of ships and vehicles, no distinction will be necessary.
- Finally, they are two sides of the same coin. Making them have similar effects but be recorded separately and differently would be an odd design choice.
Things I still have yet to do:
Interstellar Travel: I actually overlooked this on the initial release, but I have some fairly extensive figuring to do as I figure out travel times and such.
Tightening: Through play, I have noticed a few things that could do with some clarification or polishing, and some things that I really ought to adjust (such as some crits).
It will probably take me a little while to get around to these, but I do intend to. In the meantime, please do direct me to any mistakes, discrepancies, or vagaries that you happen across, in addition to any other comments you have.
Changed “Small Craft Combat: Dogfight” from:
On success, the pilot suffers no penalties. If he fails, he is forced to Decelerate, slowing by one speed. 2 Advantage grants a Boost to his next Piloting or Gunnery check, 2 Threat adds a Setback to his next Piloting or Gunnery check, Triumph may be spent to upgrade the Ability of his next Piloting or Gunnery check. If he generated a Despair, he suffers a Minor Collision with an opponent or obstacle, but if he failed the check, he suffers a Major Collision instead. At GM discretion, the collision may be with a friendly ship of silhouette 5 or more.
On success, the pilot suffers no penalties. If he fails, he is forced to take the Decelerate incidental, slowing by one speed. 2 Advantage grants a Boost to his next Piloting or Gunnery check, 2 Threat adds a Setback to his next Piloting or Gunnery check, and a Triumph may be spent to count as successfully performing Gain the Advantage on a ship that failed its Dogfighting check. If he generated a Despair, an opponent instead counts as successfully performing Gain the Advantage on him. Two Despair on a failed check may be spent to cause the acting character to suffer a Major Collision with an opponent or obstacle. At GM discretion, the collision may be with a friendly ship of silhouette 5 or more.
This is very interesting! A lot to digest… It looks like I have some reading to do. So far, it seems to address some serious issues, I’ll have to do some checking to see how it all interacts with the system in general. So far though, this is pretty solid!