My players are preparing the voyage with the Sea wyvern, and one of my players has had some nice ideas. He wanted to add 2 ballista's to the ship and then attach two ballista missiles to each other with a chain, so that they can be fired at once. The intention is that they go spinning through the air and get stuck in the rigging of an enemy ship. I know that this was done in the past with cannon balls (which were fired two at once from one cannon), but I was wondering what rules to use in this case. Would it be possible with 2 ballista's? How can 2 ballista's fire at once? Would you have to link the trigger mechanism of the two ballista's? Is there an attack penalty? Or does it take a high strength and/or a high dexterity to fire them? Would you use a special feat for this? And what damage would this do to the rigging of an enemy ship? Is this permanent damage or is it a type of temporary damage such as non-lethal damage?
Another idea he had is to use his whip to coil it around a mast or rigging of an enemy ship so that he can swing across to the enemy deck. How could this be done within the rules? I was thinking of use rope, but there is nothing in the rules even remotely referring to this possibility. If I give him a normal melee attack with his whip, this would be far too easy, since a ship is an untended stationary object (according to the rules in Stormwrack) and thus has a very low AC. And there would be some sort of jump check involved, otherwise his swing would fail and he would get trapped in the space between the two ships. And what damage would that do if he gets crushed between the ships for example?
Has someone dealt with similar ideas or similar rules in this adventure? If not, does anyone have any suggestions how to deal with this? Any suggestions are much appreciated.
In general I would ask the PC to make up the rules for he thinks how it should work and unless you see them as able to be abused go for it!
The thing is that this is a situation in which you as a DM can pull in a player into the fun of your game. Letting him do these type of things will excite the player and make for a more interesting game. Your only real job here is to look at the rules he comes up with (which I find are often harder than if I do them) and make sure there is no balance issue in the overall campaign.
Can him swinging over to another ship by himself, ala Indiana Jones style, really make a combat significantly easier for the PCs? Probably not. So have at it!
(I don't know much about ship rules in D&D, but I guess I would make the chain shot stuff in the same category... if it is used successfully is the game more fun or is it too easy? Unless it becomes too easy, let them do it!)
Sean Mahoney
That sounds like a good idea. The player plays a type of dashing hero who runs headlong into danger all the time. Swinging from ship to ship certainly suits that role. And so far his character has given rise to a lot of interesting scenes, also for the other players who get to save him all the time.
So I will suggest it to him and wait what he comes up with.
Though one thing with the whip is that it can easily get caught up in the rigging. That is why pirates used short swords (cutlasses) because longer weapons would be constantly snagged.
There are plenty of lines on your own ship that you could use to swing over to the other ship.
As for the double ballista, if you are using bolts it probably wouldn't be very effective. The chain would probably pull the arrows together. What you may want to do that would have the same effect as what the player is intending (a rigging/ mast attack weapon) is to use shot. Many ballista could be equipped to fire a bolt, or configured to fire a stone ball. Go to http://www.romanseas.com/roman_myths.html and myth #4 for an example of this. If a ballista can shoot a stone ball, it may well be able to shoot a bar shot (2 half balls with a bar in the center), or less likely a chain shot (2 balls with a chain). The chain shot wouldn't work as well because the barrel of the gun keeps both balls going in a forward motion, whereas the ballista would be like one pool ball hitting another, the moving one would stop and the stopped one would go.
Hradek
Though one thing with the whip is that it can easily get caught up in the rigging. That is why pirates used short swords (cutlasses) because longer weapons would be constantly snagged.
This is kind of a realism vs. fun kind of thing. Yes, you are absolutely right that a whip would be tough to use, but the concept is fun and makes for dramatic scenes. In my game I wouldn't let this be an issue getting in the way of someones fun and excitement. Some groups though would be so distracted by the unrealism of such a thing that they couldn't have fun... so I guess know your group.
The chain shot wouldn't work as well because the barrel of the gun keeps both balls going in a forward motion, whereas the ballista would be like one pool ball hitting another, the moving one would stop and the stopped one would go.
I am certainly no expert, but a balista is like a big crossbow and as such would not stop 'pushing' the balls as soon as one hit the other. Instead it would continue pushing both along a sloted channel and thus transfer the energy from the balista to the balls. While I would imagine it would not have the same range as a canon, it would work.
Sean Mahoney
I have read the rules in stormwrack. I guess the ballista could be replaced with something else, or the heavy mount could be a bombard. I will check once more what is possible.
As for the whip: this player is inventing all kinds of fun manoeuvres for his character to make him a swashbuckling hero. I think this is kind of fun and adds to the game. The fact that the whip can get caught in the rigging, could be offset by a penalty, e.g. a -2 or -4 circumstance penalty (e.g. as with shooting into melee). Then you get both the realism and the fun manoeuvre.
The trick is to make the fun manouevre so difficult that the player gets a real kick out of it when he succeeds, but not so difficult that he never uses it. If it is made too easy, it will take away from his satisfaction.
|
The real crux of the debate here, I think, is how much realism is the right amount. Some people are slaves to what is really possible, other people take more of a "Hollywood" approach in that some (all) of the details can be fudged if it makes for a better story.
Neither is right or wrong, it's just different ways to play it. A documentary is real but can be boring. "Pirates of the Carribean" was not terribly concerned with what was or was not possible, as long as it kept the story going. What kind of story are you telling?
If you want a "double barreled" ballista on your front deck that can fire two bolts attached by chain, you as the DM can allow that. If you want the guy to swing his whip around the ship at a -2 and not have to worry about silly details like ship's rigging, who are any of us to say you can't? Maybe on a natural one, they have a % chance of getting their whip stuck? That could make some interesting moments too!
I know as a player, I'd have a lot more fun in "Pirates of the Caribbean" than some moldy old documentary...but I know other players who wouldn't be able to enjoy it because they'd be saying "that's not realistic!" and pointing to the rules in the book and so on. For them, the added level of suspension of disbelief makes it tougher for them to get into the story. They have trouble picturing themselves in a world that just doesn't follow the rules. And obviously at a certain point I get to that too. A little suspension of disbelief is a good thing, but too much is not so good.
But every table is different -- Every DM and every group of PC's. You have to find that balance for your group and run with it.
Thanks for the comment. I understand your point. I think my campaign is somewhere in-between realism and the cinematic experience of "Pirates of the Caribbean". I think my other PC's will be OK with the rule of the whip as long as there is a chance to get stuck in the rigging (the failure on a 1 is a good idea and creates some exciting and fun moments). As for the ballistas: I have reconsidered this, since the two ballista's are not side by side, so that is not very realistic. However, I am thinking about having a heavy bombard in the heavy mount, and having them fire cannon balls which are linked by a chain, with a penalty on the attack for loss of accuracy. This was actually done in reality, so it would not affect realism. However, I have not decided yet about the bombard. It is not a war ship and I do not think Lavinia is the kind of person who wants a bombard on her ship. It is OK to have a little defensive capability, but a bombard is more like an open invitation to warfare if you shoot at another ship.
|
|
Thanks for the comment. I understand your point. I think my campaign is somewhere in-between realism and the cinematic experience of "Pirates of the Caribbean".
I'm with you, and I think that's probably where most people end up. Somewhere in between.
I think my other PC's will be OK with the rule of the whip as long as there is a chance to get stuck in the rigging (the failure on a 1 is a good idea and creates some exciting and fun moments).
Sure, glad you liked it. I don't typically deal with critical failures in D&D but I think in that case a fun exception could be made.
As for the ballistas: I have reconsidered this, since the two ballista's are not side by side, so that is not very realistic. However, I am thinking about having a heavy bombard in the heavy mount, and having them fire cannon balls which are linked by a chain, with a penalty on the attack for loss of accuracy. This was actually done in reality, so it would not affect realism. However, I have not decided yet about the bombard. It is not a war ship and I do not think Lavinia is the kind of person who wants a bombard on her ship. It is OK to have a little defensive capability, but a bombard is more like an open invitation to warfare if you shoot at another ship.
I agree with you mostly, but I will add that (depending on the specifics of your campaign), if the PC's are sailing the Sea Wyvern, it's THEIR ship, not Lavinia's...
She could, as their boss, express reservations about the idea of them mounting a bombard on their ship, but as far as real authority on the matter, hers is limited. I don't think she'd object with the idea to the point of actually threatening to FIRE the PC's for doing it (pun intended).
The rest of your logic there is sound, though. :)
Of course it is their ship, but it is Lavinia's mission.
The PC's have been pretty useful so far, so Lavinia will not fire them I guess (nice pun). But it is nice to let them negotiate a bit.
My PCs feel a little unsafe at sea. I play Savage Tide in my own homebrewn campaign and the PCs have drawn the attention of a mighty enemy with a warship. They fear that they will meet this enemy at sea, and are trying to get the sailing schedule for this ship in order to avoid it. If they negotiate with the right persons, they will probably be able to get the schedule and there is even the possibility to delay the enemy ship if they play their cards right.
I guess the bombard also gives them a feeling of safety in this respect.
|
|
Of course it is their ship, but it is Lavinia's mission. The PC's have been pretty useful so far, so Lavinia will not fire them I guess (nice pun). But it is nice to let them negotiate a bit.
Sure...never pass up an excuse for good roleplay. :)
My PCs feel a little unsafe at sea. I play Savage Tide in my own homebrewn campaign and the PCs have drawn the attention of a mighty enemy with a warship. They fear that they will meet this enemy at sea, and are trying to get the sailing schedule for this ship in order to avoid it. If they negotiate with the right persons, they will probably be able to get the schedule and there is even the possibility to delay the enemy ship if they play their cards right.
I guess the bombard also gives them a feeling of safety in this respect.
Props for creating the homebrew. I wish I had that kind of time! Mine is run in the Realms, but in this case it's so far south that it has very little bearing on anything, except that I have to say "Maztican" every time the adventure says "Olman", and of course pantheon conversion. Mainly I did it to make use of all those fun FR sourcebooks I have.
Anyway, being in a homebrew opens up options in terms of the bombard thing as well. Sounds like you have this all well in hand - best of luck to you and your intrepid adventurers as they attempt to avoid the enemy warship. :)
Thank you. So far this campaign has been great fun for everyone. Perhaps it is the best I have ever run.
The homebrew world is 21 years old (in real time) and got bigger and bigger in the course of my DM career. I started out with 3 countries.
It is fun because it has its own history now (and some older PCs have become NPCs, historical figures and even gods).