Tigrean's page

Tigrean wrote:

David knott 242 wrote:

Tigrean wrote:

Ok I'm going to put my two cents in here: First of all the axial tilt of Verces would at least be close to 90 degrees off from earth's tilt in order to maintain a stable livable band like they describes Verces. Meaning the only way seasons would change in the livable belt is by proximity of the sun. If it had a tilt like earth the livable belt would move constantly and also would not define tidally locked because different sides will face the sun.

That 90 degree angle most definitely would not work. The direction in which the axis of a planet points varies only slowly over the course of centuries, so a planet tilted at an angle of 90 degrees would have one pole pointed at the sun at one point in the year and the other pole pointed at the sun half a year later. The only axial tilt that works given the information we have is a relatively low one (say, 0 to 10 degrees at most) that severely limits how much the angle of sun exposure changes over the course of the year.

Ok I was thinking that what defines a normal axis would be Perpendicular to the sun which would define 0 degrees -|- = 0 degrees. so I was thinking -- would = 90 degrees so I apologize if I got that wrong. but you get the idea to be tidally lock, one pole would have to always face the sun because if it didn't then the livable belt would shifting all the time which would make it a normal day and night cycle on the planet which it doesn't have that, if it did wouldn't be defined as tidally locked.

That's completely wrong. On a tidal locked planet the planet needs the same time to complete a rotation as it needs to complete its orbit around the sun. The Moon is a very good example for atidal locked satelite.

Oh right, I forgot that the planet would have to rotate to maintain the same side to the sun. So it would be almost at a perfect 0 degree tilt to be tidally locked. So it would a have a slow rotation speed depending on how long a full orbit around the sun. Though without a fast rotation the magnetic field that protects the planet from solar radiation would be rather weak.

Tigrean wrote:

Ok I'm going to put my two cents in here: First of all the axial tilt of Verces would at least be close to 90 degrees off from earth's tilt in order to maintain a stable livable band like they describes Verces. Meaning the only way seasons would change in the livable belt is by proximity of the sun. If it had a tilt like earth the livable belt would move constantly and also would not define tidally locked because different sides will face the sun.

That 90 degree angle most definitely would not work. The direction in which the axis of a planet points varies only slowly over the course of centuries, so a planet tilted at an angle of 90 degrees would have one pole pointed at the sun at one point in the year and the other pole pointed at the sun half a year later. The only axial tilt that works given the information we have is a relatively low one (say, 0 to 10 degrees at most) that severely limits how much the angle of sun exposure changes over the course of the year.

Ok I was thinking that what defines a normal axis would be Perpendicular to the sun which would define 0 degrees -|- = 0 degrees. so I was thinking -- would = 90 degrees so I apologize if I got that wrong. but you get the idea to be tidally lock, one pole would have to always face the sun because if it didn't then the livable belt would shifting all the time which would make it a normal day and night cycle on the planet which it doesn't have that, if it did wouldn't be defined as tidally locked.

Ok I'm going to put my two cents in here: First of all the axial tilt of Verces would at least be close to 90 degrees off from earth's tilt in order to maintain a stable livable band like they describes Verces. Meaning the only way seasons would change in the livable belt is by proximity of the sun. If it had a tilt like earth the livable belt would move constantly and also would not define tidally locked because different sides will face the sun.

Tigrean wrote:

So far from what I'm reading here in the post, I really like the Drow. I see nothing wrong with have one of the few remaining Matriarchal societies still existing in this setting. Beside some inetersting things can happen when females have such power. Now if you excuse me my Drow Mistress requests me to return to bed.

It's not that they are matriarchal so much as there are no truly patriarchal societies. We have matriarchies and then equal societies. I just dislike the double standard.

My reply wasn't meant to be serious though it is true I do like the Drow, and how their society works. They make good villains because of this. As for playing Drow I do play a Drow but generally does not stay in the Drow society because I like playing good aligned characters, really doesn't work well in that particular society. Now what I do like with Starfinder is that now you have them reaching out weather it is because beliefs have change or just to spite their elven brethren. Within this new reach out you quite possible could have a Drow corporation that does things for the good of more then just their own. Not all capitalist are evil and I really hate that particular stereotype that seams to be going around.

So far from what I'm reading here in the post, I really like the Drow. I see nothing wrong with have one of the few remaining Matriarchal societies still existing in this setting. Beside some inetersting things can happen when females have such power. Now if you excuse me my Drow Mistress requests me to return to bed.

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Still doesn't explain why the fighter is okay at shooting at other fighters but when confronted with a creature with a far lower speed ceiling and the same size (or even bigger), can now suddenly only wildly and ineffectively spray fire in its general direction. The logic simply doesn't flow even if you do hand wave away the damage scale codes.

How about "Its one friggin' book, with a finite page count, they can't account for every possible scenario and aspect of the setting in the first book"?

Lol, that is true. I just wanted to prove a point you can work within the rules for the scenarios they keep bringing up. I like the way it separates the two aspects and if you are an intelligent and creative GM you can work with the rules they have in place and make it believable. This also really solve many balancing issues that would come up if you made straight conversion rules like how Palladium did. So much imbalance with their games using SDC and MDC for their robotech and Rift ones.

Tigrean wrote:

Ok so creature size and ship cross paths some but again there is a difference on what materials make a creature and what makes a starship. Nature does things differently then how "man" makes things. Creatures that did not evolve in space would be different then if they did. So again weather the size cross in some way does not define the same material needed to make a starship that has to survive the rigors of space travel. You would not make a "space fighter" the same way as you would make a "terrestrial fighter".

Not for nothing, but I think it's important to be consistent when taking the assumptions of the game into consideration. You don't build a space monster "differently" because it has a different make up. What material a ship is made out of compared to a monster makes no mechanical difference, as they take up a hex space, move a number of hexes a round, and possesses hull points, such as an Oma, just like any ship does in space. The only difference is they decide to allow the monster to have mounted spacecraft weaponry or not, or at least an imitation of such and just as effective, such as the Novaspawn, such as an Endbringer Devil.

Tigrean wrote:

Again there are rules in Starfinder that explain why a creature could jump to different places in the solar system. The Creature goes into a different plain of existence to travel that distance that is similar to the Drift plane. So that ability is kind of moot. The Endbringer I don't know the stats for it because I don't have AA yet but I know earlier in the thread someone stated it has to transform to into space flight so when it transforms it alters it state down to the molecular structure making his material as dense as what some starship material revamp his circulatory system to manifest the amount of energy needed to power a ship category weapon. Again I may be understanding it wrong but with the info that I have I can only come up with a theory. Also Magic is a viable reason in starfinder not a cop out reason, so if it

...

Rule that I'm talking about is Drift, The Drift Plane is what starships use and it is described as connected to the Prime material plane similar to how the shadow plane is connected. In the core rules it talks about plane jumping however brief it was. So a creature that can travel throughout the solar system in 1d6 hours could be using the shadow plane, or Astral Plane to do so, or somehow is able to go into the Drift plane which only technology should have access to according to the CRB.

As for the Endbringer it is just Paizo using the mechanic they created to balance the game. All in all the rules are still left to interpretation of the GM in the end. Perhaps when it goes terrestrial the armor that protected in space has to be moved so it can walk and attack like a character. Which leave weak points where character weapons can bypass the "Ship" armor.

Still doesn't explain why the fighter is okay at shooting at other fighters but when confronted with a creature with a far lower speed ceiling and the same size (or even bigger), can now suddenly only wildly and ineffectively spray fire in its general direction. The logic simply doesn't flow even if you do hand wave away the damage scale codes.

For a Conundrum like that it would be how the GM decides how to do it. For me with in the rules I would say because the shape of a creature is different from a starship shape, also the material of the creature is not something ship target sensors are programmed to detect which would make it difficult to target said creature then targeting another man made fighter. I would allow the science officer make a life science roll to see if they can use the life form sensors of the ship to target said creature. And if successful then they could do the normal amount of damage converted to HP instead of hull points. The game still allows the GM to do what they think is fair and just for the game they are conducting if the rules are cloudy in the situation.

Tigrean wrote:

Ok here is my question to this. If the system was done lets like Palladium games where they added MDC which is kind of what the side bar in the core rules kind of identifies (ship weapon damage is = to 10X roll in personal damage)then what stops a character from taking his tiny space craft into a dragons den for example and using the ship weapons to defeat a CR 20 dragon for example, in a Tier 1 or 2 ship: which equates in the SF Core to a level 2 party. Personally I think the fact that they say ships can't attack players or players can't attack ships with personal weapons is a balancing mechanism. Trust I deal with players that would actually do this, heck I had a player able to take down a Star Destroyer in a Z-95 headhunter in base d20 Star Wars because he understood the rules presented in starship combat.

**Warning Science below this**

No I must say there is a flaw comparing a M1 or an F16 to an actual starship. First of in empty space it truly isn't empty. You have micro-meteors that travel 100k to 1m miles per hour or faster that the naked eye can't see so just imagine how thick and type of material would need to be used to try to stop something going that fast. The reason our solar system doesn't see a lot of this happening is because Big Brother Jupiter has a high enough gravity to either pull them into it or alter the trajectory enough to keep it from impacting earth's area, though there are instances that the international space station is hit by these Micro-meteors. Earth also has a magnetic field that and atmosphere that protects us as well so we don't this happening while we are on earth. If the ship isn't armored enough to stop that a bullet sized Micro-meteor could completely destroy a ship with only a hole the size of a centimeter. I don't think we could ever make weapon that could emulate what these Micro-meteors can do without a very strong power source.

In conclusion I think how the game designers kept character and ship combat separate simplifies and

...

Again there are rules in Starfinder that explain why a creature could jump to different places in the solar system. The Creature goes into a different plain of existence to travel that distance that is similar to the Drift plane. So that ability is kind of moot. The Endbringer I don't know the stats for it because I don't have AA yet but I know earlier in the thread someone stated it has to transform to into space flight so when it transforms it alters it state down to the molecular structure making his material as dense as what some starship material revamp his circulatory system to manifest the amount of energy needed to power a ship category weapon. Again I may be understanding it wrong but with the info that I have I can only come up with a theory. Also Magic is a viable reason in starfinder not a cop out reason, so if it is magical flight so be it, because starfinder has magic.

Tigrean wrote:

Ok here is my question to this. If the system was done lets like Palladium games where they added MDC which is kind of what the side bar in the core rules kind of identifies (ship weapon damage is = to 10X roll in personal damage)then what stops a character from taking his tiny space craft into a dragons den for example and using the ship weapons to defeat a CR 20 dragon for example, in a Tier 1 or 2 ship: which equates in the SF Core to a level 2 party. Personally I think the fact that they say ships can't attack players or players can't attack ships with personal weapons is a balancing mechanism. Trust I deal with players that would actually do this, heck I had a player able to take down a Star Destroyer in a Z-95 headhunter in base d20 Star Wars because he understood the rules presented in starship combat.

Pretty sure that is the exact point Paizo was trying to make with the strict segregation. The problem is, they made a goof in that tiny starships (fighters) roughly equate to gargantuan personal scale creatures. This creates a fairly huge break in suspension of disbelief for many since you have lone fighters who can dogfight with each other till the cows come home, but now can't target a dragon exactly the same size because they can't and the fighter for some reason is working on mega-damage scale while the dragon isn't. That's the real rub that I myself have with the system as broken down. If Starships (and starship scaled critters) were as a rule no smaller than a kilometer and fighter/bomber squadrons were abstract weapon types (individuals could be a monster fairly easily) you'd probably see a lot less complaining about the segregation. The issue is at the moment the scales have a point where they mix so to speak and that causes people to arch eyebrows.

Ok so creature size and ship cross paths some but again there is a difference on what materials make a creature and what makes a starship. Nature does things differently then how "man" makes things. Creatures that did not evolve in space would be different then if they did. So again weather the size cross in some way does not define the same material needed to make a starship that has to survive the rigors of space travel. You would not make a "space fighter" the same way as you would make a "terrestrial fighter".

Ok here is my question to this. If the system was done lets like Palladium games where they added MDC which is kind of what the side bar in the core rules kind of identifies (ship weapon damage is = to 10X roll in personal damage)then what stops a character from taking his tiny space craft into a dragons den for example and using the ship weapons to defeat a CR 20 dragon for example, in a Tier 1 or 2 ship: which equates in the SF Core to a level 2 party. Personally I think the fact that they say ships can't attack players or players can't attack ships with personal weapons is a balancing mechanism. Trust I deal with players that would actually do this, heck I had a player able to take down a Star Destroyer in a Z-95 headhunter in base d20 Star Wars because he understood the rules presented in starship combat.

**Warning Science below this**

No I must say there is a flaw comparing a M1 or an F16 to an actual starship. First of in empty space it truly isn't empty. You have micro-meteors that travel 100k to 1m miles per hour or faster that the naked eye can't see so just imagine how thick and type of material would need to be used to try to stop something going that fast. The reason our solar system doesn't see a lot of this happening is because Big Brother Jupiter has a high enough gravity to either pull them into it or alter the trajectory enough to keep it from impacting earth's area, though there are instances that the international space station is hit by these Micro-meteors. Earth also has a magnetic field that and atmosphere that protects us as well so we don't this happening while we are on earth. If the ship isn't armored enough to stop that a bullet sized Micro-meteor could completely destroy a ship with only a hole the size of a centimeter. I don't think we could ever make weapon that could emulate what these Micro-meteors can do without a very strong power source.

In conclusion I think how the game designers kept character and ship combat separate simplifies and balances the game system. They offered a very simple system for those who want to combine two combats to also maintain a balance of the game.

I will play a Pony, enough said... Seriously I would do that or create a space drow, Really haven't decided yet plus don't have the book ether.