Hopes for Spaceships


General Discussion

101 to 150 of 225 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Terquem wrote:
TheAlicornSage wrote:
How about starship design rules? Star wars the first d20 version had an awesome book for designing and modifying starships. I even used it as a base for one of my earlier starship minis games.
I prefer Traveller, both LBB2 and HG

I have no idea what any of that means.


Terquem wrote:
TheAlicornSage wrote:
How about starship design rules? Star wars the first d20 version had an awesome book for designing and modifying starships. I even used it as a base for one of my earlier starship minis games.
I prefer Traveller, both LBB2 and HG

Ad Astra recently had a Kickstarter campaign to convert Traveller ships to Squadron Strike. SqSt is different* from the earlier Traveller ship combat systems. Based on my limited experience, it is flexible and versatile enough to be interesting.

*in my humble opinion, better, but your mileage may vary, as always.


Starship combat in original Traveller was clunky, though I hear that T5 is cleaner (and still maintains the role of missiles, which were always a favorite in the old versions of the game).

Traveller was the first SciFi RPG released to the general public, following D&D by one year.

it had a different approach to the RPG concept of its time in that there was not a character progression system such as "levels" and it was assumed that your character progressed, earned rewards, that were in the game itself and not a meta-game concept (you became a more successful pirate/trader/mercenary etc.)

When supplemental books such as Mercenary (B4) and High guard (B5) came out in 1980, it introduced more complex character creation rules which were a lot of fun to joke about at the time, particularly because if you pressed your luck too severely there was a good chance your character would die during character creation

Oh and it was also often referred to as the "Geriatric Role Playing game" as most characters started play in their mid forties to late fifties in age.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheAlicornSage wrote:

"Earthican"

Proper term here is Terran.

Not in Pathfinder. Terran is already taken as a proper noun for the language of the elemental plane of earth. Stop being so Earthican-centric!

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheAlicornSage wrote:

You are forgetting the language.

When speaking english the term is Terran. Now if they take and make a word in their own language with a root based on the word "Earth" with whatever affixes or changes according to their own linguistic rules, that is something quite different.

I'm not forgetting the language at all. In modern day English, Earthling is a perfectly valid word for someone from Earth, and probably used more often than Terran.

More importantly, language is morphic, it changes over time with use. I was reading an article over the weekend that some linguists predict that the use of texting, twitter, etc is leading to the death of the period, which has been around for thousands of years. In far less time words are created, added to language, and then no longer used and become an archaic word. There's no reason to think Earthican won't be a word used in the future to describe someone from Earth. I've seen sci-fi fiction using other words such as Earther. The simple fact that a word IS used makes it a valid word. With fiction, if the author (or in this case game designers) write that aliens call people from Earth Eathicans, then that's what the correct usage is. Just like in Planescape the lingo of the setting had characters using old out of use Victorian era slang, that by definition was the correct usage for that setting.

There's even a chance that in the future Earthlings will be called Petunia Clippings, for reasons I can't begin to fathom. And if that happens, it is the correct word.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JoelF847 wrote:
There's even a chance that in the future Earthlings will be called Petunia Clippings, for reasons I can't begin to fathom. And if that happens, it is the correct word.

Oh no, not again. {makes Perception check vs. stealthy falling whales}


On the one hand, I like the idea of being able to visually identify a spaceship's culture of origin. On the other, depending how closely form follows function, a spaceship might just look like a spaceship because that's what a spaceship has to look like to work as a spaceship.

I'd love a setting where the longer lived races (elven lifespan in PF) haven't bothered to invent FTL drives because solar sails can get you to 0.5c, and that's not an unreasonable amount of travel time to someone with a lifespan of 354 to 750 of your earth years. Of course, PF space elves would probably all just wear slippers of spider climb instead of inventing artificial gravity; I suppose they'd need velcro, though.

I guess I'm saying I'd whole heartedly approve if each race/culture/whatever-futuristic-distinction had unique designs when they first reached space, but got assimilated into the Absolom Station galactic standard before too long.


Elven spacefarers reminds me: I wonder if vrock-powered spaceships are still going to be a thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Naal wrote:
Elven spacefarers reminds me: I wonder if vrock-powered spaceships are still going to be a thing.
Wei Ji wrote:

"That's a bit of a problem, Captain. I'm not one to tell you aboard your own vessel how things should work, but Vrock Containment Drives have been proven to be exceptionally dangerous over time. They weather down the containment housing and it leads to systematic failures of the vessel that they are attatched to, even with extreme precautions."


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Naal wrote:
Elven spacefarers reminds me: I wonder if vrock-powered spaceships are still going to be a thing.
Wei Ji wrote:

"That's a bit of a problem, Captain. I'm not one to tell you aboard your own vessel how things should work, but Vrock Containment Drives have been proven to be exceptionally dangerous over time. They weather down the containment housing and it leads to systematic failures of the vessel that they are attatched to, even with extreme precautions."

So the ship periodically undergoes a complex refueling where they cut the old generator out of the ship, dump it into a local star and slap; in a new ones. Every few years it is a small price to pay for such an otherwise reliable power source. Every spent drive does the multiverse just a little bit of good too...


I would love to see ship sizes on a separate chart to what is currently used for monsters, but remains compatible. So no exponential penalty to AC, but rather a linear progression dependant on the total volume(?) of the ship. Size bonus to hit shouldn't apply to ship's weapons though.
A Huge personal craft can have AC 8 (+armor? maybe only against physical attacks, as per PF). An enemy trying to hit gets the usual linear penalties for distance, making the small craft a very hard target at a distance.
Compare it to a 200' long cruiser. PF caps at colossal at -8, but extending the table...
Actually I am completely wrong here. Checking the glossary, "Space" is an abstraction but the actual height/length of the object doubles too. Starfinder should extend the table and include all the grades in between. "Space" should be left off the table in lieu of "Volume", more useful for fitting out the ship's rooms, etc.
Your 200' cruiser would have an entirely reasonable size mod of -12 or -13 depending on rounding. AC -2 compared to AC 8 is 50% easier to hit and that's just a small cruiser. Imagine the penalties on destroyers, carriers, artificial not-a-moons. Starbases, planets and Suns can have realistic AC values too!

Somewhat related to the issues previously mentioned (top of page 2) of magic creating perpetual motion and disobeying mechanics.
How about wear on components as they are used so that free energy abuse never occurs? For simplicity this could instead apply when the equipment is overused, but in that case free energy shenanigans would persist.
Then you have to pay not only for fuel but also for maintenance. Ships under maintenance is a trope often seen in sci-fi, and keeping ships grounded (or stationed) even for a few minutes provides a perfect opportunity for infiltration based games.
Maintenance costs can disincentivise combat even in cases where one ship has the clear advantage. A destroyer might have to spend more on maintenance after obliterating a small mining ship that it gains.
I'm sure the designers can figure out the specifics of how magic can cause wear. Could even be something minor like space dust scraping against the hull/shield.

I also vote for customization. Minmaxers still have a "min" that can overcome them.

For everyone saying that's too complex: it gets done once or twice per campaign. It's well worth the effort.


Anyone play FTL. I kind of hope startships play out like they do in that game.


Since magic has come up several times...
Going back to the old Planescape system, magic works in subtly different ways on different planes. Even in current Pathfinder rules, there are (rough) game mechanics for high- and low-magic regions that players may have to interact with. In the GM Guide, if I recall, there are rules for setting up nul-magic planes. Planet-hopping adventurers/cultures will want to keep track of what areas are which.

What I'm getting at is that sure, one can have a high level of arcane gadgetry and flash that bend and/or break the laws of physics, but if those same arcana are prone to fizzing out or going haywire just because you've traveled to a different planet, you need to have plenty of mundane gear to fall back on. What was if Han said? "Nothing beats a good blaster at your hip, kid."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JOSEPH CALLAWAY wrote:

Since magic has come up several times...

Going back to the old Planescape system, magic works in subtly different ways on different planes. Even in current Pathfinder rules, there are (rough) game mechanics for high- and low-magic regions that players may have to interact with. In the GM Guide, if I recall, there are rules for setting up nul-magic planes. Planet-hopping adventurers/cultures will want to keep track of what areas are which.

What I'm getting at is that sure, one can have a high level of arcane gadgetry and flash that bend and/or break the laws of physics, but if those same arcana are prone to fizzing out or going haywire just because you've traveled to a different planet, you need to have plenty of mundane gear to fall back on. What was if Han said? "Nothing beats a good blaster at your hip, kid."

Just three movies before he gets ran through by a guy with a bunch of angst and mystic mumbo jumbo using a light saber.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm hoping that the grays make an appearance in Starfinder. They're the most classic of aliens and I'd love to see them.


Freehold DM wrote:

Anything not Firefly-related.

Cuz hurling a spear through a ship is stupid.

Although it did make me laugh.

I was the only one in the theatre laughing.

It was pretty much a canon-fired harpoon. Ergo...not that stupid at all.

Reavers are cannibals after all. Not much point in blowing dinner up.


Abraham spalding wrote:
JOSEPH CALLAWAY wrote:

Since magic has come up several times...

Going back to the old Planescape system, magic works in subtly different ways on different planes. Even in current Pathfinder rules, there are (rough) game mechanics for high- and low-magic regions that players may have to interact with. In the GM Guide, if I recall, there are rules for setting up nul-magic planes. Planet-hopping adventurers/cultures will want to keep track of what areas are which.

What I'm getting at is that sure, one can have a high level of arcane gadgetry and flash that bend and/or break the laws of physics, but if those same arcana are prone to fizzing out or going haywire just because you've traveled to a different planet, you need to have plenty of mundane gear to fall back on. What was if Han said? "Nothing beats a good blaster at your hip, kid."

Just three movies before he gets ran through by a guy with a bunch of angst and mystic mumbo jumbo using a light saber.

AND THEN mister mumbo jumbo guy survives a blaster shot from a blaster that literally throws people it hits around.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:

Anything not Firefly-related.

Cuz hurling a spear through a ship is stupid.

Although it did make me laugh.

I was the only one in the theatre laughing.

It was pretty much a canon-fired harpoon. Ergo...not that stupid at all.

Reavers are cannibals after all. Not much point in blowing dinner up.

it was pretty stupid. For reasons mentioned above.

That said I'm all for washing the spears.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know it's a long shot, but maybe we could get a legendary/famous ship named after Mike McArtor or Steve Russell?

Liberty's Edge

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
I know it's a long shot, but maybe we could get a legendary/famous ship named after Mike McArtor or Steve Russell?

What a great idea!


I'm not overly concerned about ship combat. I'd rather it feel like a home and base of operations. A lot of the iconic ships we all remember from movies/tv didn't get into that many battles and we still loved them.

From a realistic point of view, you would have to be in a very extreme situation before you'd take your one ship, your home, into combat.


Freehold DM wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:

Anything not Firefly-related.

Cuz hurling a spear through a ship is stupid.

Although it did make me laugh.

I was the only one in the theatre laughing.

It was pretty much a canon-fired harpoon. Ergo...not that stupid at all.

Reavers are cannibals after all. Not much point in blowing dinner up.

it was pretty stupid. For reasons mentioned above.

That said I'm all for washing the spears.

Interesting factoid. The Apollo 11 Lunar Module's hull was flimsy enough that you could punch through it. So harpoons aren't stupid if the intention is to grapple the ship... or take out the pilot if you're aiming at the command module.


In D6 Star Wars, we had one player as the pilot, one player as the gunner and one player manning the shields when the whole system was opposed roles.

For that matter we did something similar during the Jade Regent Caravan fights. One rolling the attacks, one running the Hit points, one rolling the damage. made it a bit more inclusive then just one player vs the DM while the rest watched time tick by...

HOPEFULLY, the space combat isn't TOO realistic. I want ships like the Enterprise and Millenium falcon that can get damaged and then get repaired... but I REALLY don't want everything to be like X-wings where they explode and die with simplistic ease. Let's get the 'home base' aspect. That D6 Star Wars game?? A few bad shield rolls and we lost the ship in the first combat. VERY frustrating. (And yes, I know the enterprise blows up occasionally, but it also sticks around for many years between explosions too... )


1 person marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:


HOPEFULLY, the space combat isn't TOO realistic. I want ships like the Enterprise and Millenium falcon that can get damaged and then get repaired... but I REALLY don't want everything to be like X-wings where they explode and die with simplistic ease. Let's get the 'home base' aspect. That D6 Star Wars game?? A few bad shield rolls and we lost the ship in the first combat. VERY frustrating. (And yes, I know the enterprise blows up occasionally, but it also sticks around for many years between explosions too... )

Unless of course it's an Abram's Enterprise. But seriously I think Viacom has a rule in that they blow up an Enterprise every three years.. kind of like the average life span of a Doctor's regeneration.

But the two are very different. The Millenium Falcon looks like someone was using it as a frying pan in a greasy spoon alternating between cooking with it, and bashing heads of droids. Wheras Picard would take his Enterprise right back to Starbase for repairs if he so much as scratched the paint.

Which brings me to what I really hated about Voyager. That ship would get extremely messed up, but be brand spanking new at the beginning of each episode. That ship should have been more like the Equinox.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:


HOPEFULLY, the space combat isn't TOO realistic. I want ships like the Enterprise and Millenium falcon that can get damaged and then get repaired... but I REALLY don't want everything to be like X-wings where they explode and die with simplistic ease. Let's get the 'home base' aspect. That D6 Star Wars game?? A few bad shield rolls and we lost the ship in the first combat. VERY frustrating. (And yes, I know the enterprise blows up occasionally, but it also sticks around for many years between explosions too... )

Unless of course it's an Abram's Enterprise. But seriously I think Viacom has a rule in that they blow up an Enterprise every three years.. kind of like the average life span of a Doctor's regeneration.

LOL To be fair, I was annoyed at them blowing it up too... but then I remembered that Shatner blew up his in the third movie too... so can't get too annoyed ;)

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


But the two are very different. The Millenium Falcon looks like someone was using it as a frying pan in a greasy spoon alternating between cooking with it, and bashing heads of droids. Wheras Picard would take his Enterprise right back to Starbase for repairs if he so much as scratched the paint.

Which brings me to what I really hated about Voyager. That ship would get extremely messed up, but be brand spanking new at the beginning of each episode. That ship should have been more like the Equinox.

It's been a while since I've watched anything with Voyager... but I'm having a hard time thinking of the engineer?? Someone like Scotty I could see repairing a ship with roll of duct tape and willpower... Laforge? Not so much... but Voyager? I'm having trouble remembering any notable Engineering staff... they must have been there?!?

Either way, I'm hoping that whether you fix it on the road, or take it to a space station... the ship HP aren't a major debilitating factor. Our D6 Star Wars game was VERY similar to Firefly... though about 6 years BEFORE Firefly (still waiting on my royalties...) Smuggler crew with a constant drive to keep the ship going, and the damage it took was way too frequent... the cost to repair was WAY too much... It resulted in a very crippled gaming experience.


phantom1592 wrote:
LOL To be fair, I was annoyed at them blowing it up too... but then I remembered that Shatner blew up his in the third movie too... so can't get too annoyed ;)

Shatner actually did in TWO Enterprises, he set up the Enterprise-A to be destroyed in his ghost-written work, "Ashes of Eden". So if we count, Kelvin and Prime timelines, that means Kirk has three such notches on his belt, to Riker's only one.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Wheras Picard would take his Enterprise right back to Starbase for repairs if he so much as scratched the paint

In fairness, the Enterprise D didn't have much paint on the outside, so those scratches usually came from several decks having been blown through and someone's artwork ruined after some yellow-shirted redshirt ensign got between it and a doomed console.

As for Voyager... You'd think someone would eventually notice they'd been supposed to run out of shuttles and torpedoes several seasons earlier, and would've proceeded to take advantage of the infinite amount by adding more launchers everywhere and sending more of those redshirts they somehow replenished in on shuttles for even more torpedo fire all over.

Plus it would also fit in with the game's canon, given the T6 version's rather popular as a shieldless torpedo boat with them old consoles...


To be fair, it was noted that most components could be replicated at the expense of energy, and any jury-rigging was thus temporary until a "proper" could be replicated. Thus, given time and a little power, the outside if the ship would be all brand new hull plates, tge old damaged ones probably recycled in the reverse process of replicators.


Numerous materials could not. Technically this includes (very oddly) the casing for torpedoes (really, the casing? not even the warp-sustainer or anything of the sort?), Dilithium which was in short supply (shuttles have M/AM cores too), and those neural gelpacks would have to be grown manually though the needed materials can probably be replicated.

But my point was rather that if you're not going to be running out anytime soon, you should probably be using them a little faster than "maybe just one if we're about to die otherwise"


Ah, but my point was that they could be running short and still possibly look nearly new every episode if the parts that can't be replicated are mostly hidden parts.

Torpedo casings likely need to be transparent from the interior to it's own sensors, stealthy from the exterior to enemy sensors, tough enough to handle general space particles at high speeds without a deflector, not hinder the intended explosive effect from the interior, and potentially include some form of shield weakening effect on shields it strikes.

That is a lot of requirements that apply to torpedo casings that the general skin of a starship does need to meet.

Also, the original estimate for the journey back to federation space was 75 years. Even if the supply level would be considered plenty plus excess for a 15 year solo trip, they'd still be considered extremely short for a 75 year trip especially if the ship was designed as expected to have a couple overhauls during that period that it suddenly isn't going to get.


I can imagine space aliens having a 'kangaroo' moment when they ask us the name of our homeworld is.

"What is the name of your homeworld, human?"
"Oh, that's Earth."

And that's why aliens call our home Odatserth.


phantom1592 wrote:
HOPEFULLY, the space combat isn't TOO realistic.

By way of a supporting anecdote, after a gruelling few sessions of the Aliens RPG the tattered remnants of the Colonial Marine squad managed to get back to their cruiser alive. This despite fighting both xenomorphs AND corporate marine forces!

The players breathed a sigh of relief and charted a course away from the ongoing corporate space battle - only to have a beam crit go straight through the hypersleep area of the ship instantly vapourising everyone aboard. Otherwise the ship was fine and continued on its programmed course.

So, yeah. I guess what I'm saying is: the Pheonix Command system (or its derivatives) style combat isn't really befitting of a Space Fantasy game.


Woooow. What happened there?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ships. Well if they aren't of the Spelljammer variety based (very loosely) on water-based vessels flying through space, I would hope for the Star Wars/Star Trek variety where science, reason, and careful design are thrown to the winds in preference for cool factor and aesthetic whim.

Or better yet, something new and surprising (but still cool).

If the game came with stats for the Liberator (from 1970/80s BBC sci-fi show Blake's 7, for younger readers) I'd be happy. Ecstatic. Classic "characters fly an alien ship they barely understand". Adventures abound right outside your cabin door. It was also a character in its own right.


I just want to throw these ideas out here. In a nutshell, imagine ships being custom-designed from front to back.

In one of my sci-fi settings, the vast majority of starships are pencil-shaped; basically a very thin cylinder with a conical bow and blunt at the other end. This shape is preferred for FTL because it minimizes drag and relativistic radiation at high sublight velocities, and because hyperdrive field geometries really, really hate to be stretched out along more than one axis at a time (the so-called 'field geometry problem').

The other advantage to this design strategy is modularity. All but the smallest or most specialized starships are built out of modules, like the different stages of a rocket stack but designed to stay bolted together for the duration of a mission. If a module has become damaged or (worst case) completely severed, a competent crew can disconnect from the damaged module (or the pieces of it) and rebuild the ship by bolting the undamaged parts back together--even in deep space, so long as the attitude controls on both sections of the ship are operational.

Each module serves at least one specific function: habitat, power plant, weapons array, hanger bay, medical bay, command, communications, engineering. Most modules have a primary function and at least one or two secondary functions; for example a module may boast an array of external weapons but also have supplementary power plant and minimal crew quarters.

All modules are also designed to interface with adjacent modules (regardless of function) to transmit power and network signals throughout the ship. Life support systems, however, are usually self-contained within each module to minimize bleed-out of O2 or water stores from hull breaches. Modules route almost all essential shipwide systems through the center space, with concentric rings of compartments and multiple decks surrounding the core. The outermost layer consists of at least the following: armor, breach-sealing mechanisms, energy shield emitters, artificial gravity (or antigravity) emitters, and redundant power/network cabling.

As well, the design of modules requires that crewmembers be able to traverse the ship with optimal efficiency; all hatches and hallways must be designed to match up with adjacent modules. As a result, it truly does not matter, from a logistical point of view, in what order a ship's modules are connected. There are few practical constraints: the conical shield must be in front and at least one stardrive section must be last. It is preferred (but not essential) that the power plant be no more than one module distant from the aft, and that the command module be at least the second if not third module from the bow.

The simplest configuration consists of four modules: the conical shield and aft propulsion modules, a power plant (or engineering) module, and a command module. Everything else is gravy, either adding extra functionality or providing redundancy.

This design strategy easily scales upward. The difference in displacement between a frigate and a capital ship may be the difference between a pen and a closed umbrella. Smaller ships may be a few dozen or a few hundred feet long, with no more than three to five decks. A capital ship easily stretches over one if not two or three miles in length, with more than one or two dozen decks.

Not all modules are created equal. Besides the differences in size and mission requirements of different vessel classes, every shipbuilding company and state military has its own proprietary design specifications. Modules from different manufacturers are usually not interchangeable, although there is a niche market for "module adapters" but the reliability of such hardware is questionable at best.

Some companies' products are more common or popular than others. It is difficult, but not impossible, to locate "generic" knockoffs of some of the more common designs. Because modules are intended to function more or less as a self-contained "black box" (encapsulated), A company trying to clone a specific module model does not need proprietary information on (say) power plants, weapons systems, or energy shields is not needed; only data on its I/O interfaces with other modules.

The more advanced races have solved the field geometry problem. The chief benefit of this is that ship layouts aren't confined to a sequential 'train' of modules. With more advanced conical shield designs, branching modules can be added, allowing T intersections, X's, triangle intersections, 3-axis intersections, and so on, allowing specialized modular components to be added on perpendicularly to the starship's radial axis.

One of the simplest of such advanced configurations is a docking intersection, which would allow a smaller ship (such as a gunboat or an FTL shuttle) to ride 'piggyback' on a mothership, possibly boosting the mothership's power generation and defenses while attached.

Another possible use is the attachment of a heavy weapon platform, perhaps as a aingle-use item or with limited ammo, allowing (say) a frigate to hit like a missile cruiser for a few rounds of combat.

It is possible to use many such modules to build an entire space station out of nothing but starship modules. Such ad-hoc settlements are often inhabited by spacers (persons whose bodies cannot survive outside a microgravity environment), interstellar traders, mercs, scoundrels, survivalists, and the occasional personality cult.


I'd rather not do scifi ships. It takes place in Golarion which means magic is still there. So I'd prefer truly magical ships, with spells doing all the work, such giving gravity, recycling air/water, making the ship move, etc.

If they do truly sci-fi stuff, I'd rather it be a completely different setting with no magic (but leaving the rules compatible so both fantasy and scifi can be mixed by the gms if desired).


Matthew Shelton 1975 wrote:

I just want to throw these ideas out here. In a nutshell, imagine ships being custom-designed from front to back.

In one of my sci-fi settings, the vast majority of starships are pencil-shaped; basically a very thin cylinder with a conical bow and blunt at the other end. This shape is preferred for FTL because it minimizes drag and relativistic radiation at high sublight velocities, and because hyperdrive field geometries really, really hate to be stretched out along more than one axis at a time (the so-called 'field geometry problem').

The other advantage to this design strategy is modularity. All but the smallest or most specialized starships are built out of modules, like the different stages of a rocket stack but designed to stay bolted together for the duration of a mission. If a module has become damaged or (worst case) completely severed, a competent crew can disconnect from the damaged module (or the pieces of it) and rebuild the ship by bolting the undamaged parts back together--even in deep space, so long as the attitude controls on both sections of the ship are operational.

Each module serves at least one specific function: habitat, power plant, weapons array, hanger bay, medical bay, command, communications, engineering. Most modules have a primary function and at least one or two secondary functions; for example a module may boast an array of external weapons but also have supplementary power plant and minimal crew quarters.

All modules are also designed to interface with adjacent modules (regardless of function) to transmit power and network signals throughout the ship. Life support systems, however, are usually self-contained within each module to minimize bleed-out of O2 or water stores from hull breaches. Modules route almost all essential shipwide systems through the center space, with concentric rings of compartments and multiple decks surrounding the core. The outermost layer consists of at least the following: armor, breach-sealing mechanisms, energy shield emitters, artificial...

I like this idea. Mass Effect used something similar on a smaller scale as an excuse to reuse the same tilesets for basically all ship dungeons. you had skeletal frames for ships that dictated their overall size and hooked up mission based modules to make whatever kind of ship you wanted. I would like to see a lot of premade ships in the core book and then one or two "flavors" of modular ship options to allow some basic customization in the core book. hopefully Starfinder will eventually have its own "Highguard" book dedicated to new ships and custom ship rules.


TheAlicornSage wrote:

I'd rather not do scifi ships. It takes place in Golarion which means magic is still there. So I'd prefer truly magical ships, with spells doing all the work, such giving gravity, recycling air/water, making the ship move, etc.

If they do truly sci-fi stuff, I'd rather it be a completely different setting with no magic (but leaving the rules compatible so both fantasy and scifi can be mixed by the gms if desired).

Those could exist too. Magic, alchemy, steampunk, and "true" science are supposed to be coexisting in other respects. Magic will still be rare, limited to specific 'gifted' or 'chosen' persons to use, and can break the rules of nature in ways that science can't. True science can be used by anyone with training but it's harder for one person to improve on significantly (whereas a caster can solo-research brand-new spells without anyone's assistance). Alchemy and steampunk are somewhere between the two.


Why would magic be rare? All magic requires is training, therefore anyone can learn.

A medival society can get by with making such magic rare because education is hard to come by anyway, but a post industrial space faring society woukd require higher education for even the "peasant" folks, therefore, magic would not be able to be kept secret to the elite without an omnipresent and very oppresive government, which would make doing things like space travel not only rare but limited to the highly educated elite and very likely everyone on board would at least the basics of magic, science, and any other jobs.


It may just be presented as something lost during the Gap, people know of magic but dont remember quite what it is capable of if you fully invest into it so most people pass it off as not on par with what can be achieved with technology. Although for me looking at the two games as a continuous whole, i wonder how they came about mass technological revolution with magic as ever present as it has been.

You know, from what i gather from Star Wars canon these days, just about anyone *could* dedicate themselves to learning to force and accomplish some supernatural feats. Basically anyone considered exceptionally lucky is unknowning tapping into the force to influence events in their favor already. The fact that no one in the universe ever picks up an interview with the creative director of the franchise and learns this though means there is wide spread disbelief in the existence or capabilities of the force and everyone just uses blasters instead of laser swords. The same could be happening in Starfinder.


I'd still say it's far more likely that much of what magic lost is simply now well enough understood that you don't need to be a wizard anymore.

"The process by which we harness the ambient energy to create light is taught to first graders"

"We managed to automate the production of force micro-missile sidearms (formerly wands of magic something). Technically each of these factory robot arms has craft wands and just enough levels in sorcerer. How? How should I know? Something about billions of lines of code and snorting coke at applesoft..."


TheAlicornSage wrote:

I'd rather not do scifi ships. It takes place in Golarion which means magic is still there. So I'd prefer truly magical ships, with spells doing all the work, such giving gravity, recycling air/water, making the ship move, etc.

If they do truly sci-fi stuff, I'd rather it be a completely different setting with no magic (but leaving the rules compatible so both fantasy and scifi can be mixed by the gms if desired).

Would it really make much difference? On one hand you have sci-fi technobabble about activating shields and thrusters and working laser beams... using basic skills to activate them

On the other you have a ship that's a magical item with essentially giant wands of Magic Missle, Haste and Flight that you use UMD to activate...

it's an old adage about advanced science being indistinguishable from magic... but mechanically it'd be about the same thing.

Personally, i'd like the system to be able to fulfill both quotas. The true wizard warships powered by magic, and the technological advances that have duplicated what magic could do for people who don't want to play wizards...


In star wars, how strong one is in the force is not training, it is related to midichlorians, therefore, more than mere training is required.

That said, I have heard of characters the were "not force sensative" and still trained to use the force, but because their connection was so weak, they didn't have the power to do more than minor tricks.

The era of empire also is a time of decline for stories of the force because the empire actively hunted them, therefore, force users who were already rare, became much more so and those remaining actively hid themselves, therefore leading most to think the force is fakery.

The fact that the jedi (the only galactic wide known group of force users) were semi-religious in appearence, means it would be even easier to simply believe they used trickery.

This doesn't hold up for starfinder though.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
TheAlicornSage wrote:
All magic requires is training, therefore anyone can learn.

Is that right? I didn't realise there was a canonical position on that.

I've always assumed it required natural aptitude as well as instruction, purely because that seems more prevalent in the fantasy novels I've read. (And that aptitude is generally rare in games I run).


I present wizards and bards who learn their craft rather than being chosen.

"the ambition and the intellect to rise above the common folk to grasp true might. Such is the path of the wizard."

AKA, ambition and intellect are the factors that allow wizards to discover the mysteries of the universe. Just like a scientist. And like science, once discovered, such things can be taught, intellect trained, ambition, well ambition is required to truly excel at any craft, but like any craft, the basics can be learned and utilized by anyone with effort.

Much like in the ancient world where scholars with intelligence and ambition discovered/created mathematics, philosophy, and thoeries on how the world worked and used those ideas in the real world. I.E. using steam power to open and close doors automatically, a real device used in the past.

In those days, such people were rare like wizards in fantasy books, yet in modern day, the basics of what they used, to do those marvels are taught to everyone in elementary school.

Sorcerers on the other hand, require something innate, though them using spells for something innate always rings false to me, especially being the same spells as the wizards use.

Additionally, a world where magic exists, the scientists would not separate magic and non-magic in their world view, rather studying magic would be as much a science as studying anything else about the functioning of their universe. Their equivelents to reletivity, quantum mechanics, and string theory, would all incorporate magic as just another force affecting the universe. This would trickle down to the basic science taught in schools.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
TheAlicornSage wrote:

I present wizards and bards who learn their craft rather than being chosen.

"the ambition and the intellect to rise above the common folk to grasp true might. Such is the path of the wizard."

AKA, ambition and intellect are the factors that allow wizards to discover the mysteries of the universe. Just like a scientist. And like science, once discovered, such things can be taught, intellect trained, ambition, well ambition is required to truly excel at any craft, but like any craft, the basics can be learned and utilized by anyone with effort.

I don't read it the same. I take study as a necessary but not sufficient condition to become a wizard.

I seem to remember a character in one of the PF Tales books (Nightglass maybe?) who couldn't master wizardry no matter how much effort they put in. I'm also thinking along the lines of being able to represent a story like Pug's early training in Feist's books.


mechanically, anyone can multiclass into a caster level at any time.

At the same time, if you don't have an intelligence (or whatever) of 10+ spell level, you can't cast spells.

This is one of those grey areas that really boils down to whatever fluff you want to attach to it.


TheAlicornSage wrote:
Why would magic be rare? All magic requires is training, therefore anyone can learn.

That's not quite true. Wizard magic is powered by Intelligence, bard and sorcerer magic is powered by charisma, druid and cleric magic by wisdom. If you don't have at least a 10 in the key ability, you can't make it work at all.

Among the great unwashed masses, having at least a 10 or 11 in a key ability is not uncommon, but not universal. Having at least a 10 in at least one mental ability gives you the potential to develop magic of any kind. But still not universal. Character generation for Pathfinder is full of selection bias on purpose; it is designed to generate an exceptional character nearly every time. It's easy to lose sight of that.

If we assume picking a character at random from the entire population of a given race uses the 3d6 x 6 method, then the bell curve for a given ability tops out around 10-11 (before racial adjustments), with a mean of 10.5. There is a portion of the population who has below-average (< 10) stats in all mental abilities. These individuals cannot develop magic "out of the box" at all, and would have to really work hard to gain enough levels just to get a +1 to put somewhere.


On the contrary, any stat, including intelligence, can be trained up, both in the implied game universe and mechanically.

Also, npcs are suposed to generally be equal to 3 point buy, which would up the stats they use and need, and in a society of higher education, intellect would be one of those improved stats.

" who couldn't master wizardry no matter how much effort they put in."

So what? How does this equate with magic requiring something unnatural?

There are people in the real world who can't learn relatively simple things, like reading/writing, even when capable of great intellect in other cases.

Would you claim literacy as requiring something rare, unnatural, and requiring more than mere training even in the general sense?


Actually wouldn't that only change the threshold/qualitative-value for what a 10 int represents?

101 to 150 of 225 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Starfinder General Discussion / Hopes for Spaceships All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.