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.
Yeah, that's my view too.
Actually wouldn't that only change the threshold/qualitative-value for what a 10 int represents?
Ah, but if that was the case then the requirement for casting magic would adjust as well. After all, if someone of average int could cast a spell, then when that average goes up, obviously those who used to cast cantrips can obviously still do so since their int didn't actually go down despite becoming sub-average. Therefore, you'd either need to adjust spellcasting requirements or do as I suggested using the in-built rules and guidelines to represent.
Yeah, that's my view too.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.
Um, so how does matter to whether magic requires more than training?
Besides, int 11 isn't hard or difficult to obtain for even npcs.
Though obviously, you are one of those who sees the world as built on the system mechanics. I am the opposite, I see the system as a rough representation of the world (built to represent many similar worlds) with a few things bent away from how the game world works to achieve certain gamist goals the designers had, such as a nominal leaning towards that so called "balance" that many players find important for some odd reason. These bent away aspects should not be construed as being normal for the world. Determining what these bent away parts are comes from paying attention to what the various mechanics actually represent (if anything), the written fluff, and the implied similarities to the basic expectations of the audience based on real world experience (I.E. juggling 16 rings takes a lot more skill than an average person could even hope to match.).
I don't really understand what you mean by that.
I consider whether magical ability does or does-not require an innate talent to be a flavor decision. I was curious whether there was some official word on the subject.
Depends on what you consider official, but according to fluff attached to the rules, there is no reason at all to think that magical ability requires more than training save for church related divine magic which requires granting by a god (a special requirement of golarion but not the core rules.).
Depends on what you consider official, but according to fluff attached to the rules, there is no reason at all to think that magical ability requires more than training
I appreciate that nowhere does it say "there's also some mystical something-or-other that you need" I just thought from your initial comment that there was somewhere saying "anyone can learn magic with sufficient training". As I read it, the DM can go either way (which is good, in my mind - since restrictions are ultimately the source of any interesting story, so it just gives more potential stories).
It does imply at multiple points though that training is all that is needed. Wizards aren't special people, instead they are "intelligent" people. Bards aren't born, they are "skillful enough to discover [untold wonders]."
Sorcerers "sorcerers look within themselves for arcane prowess" which is the thing that differentiates sorcerers from wizards. It is the fact that they have innate magic that makes them different. If any arcane caster required innate magic to cast spells, then there wouldn't be anything special about a sorcerer having innate magic, rather instead, if innate magic was a requirement for spellcasting, the difference between sorcerers and wizards would be all about methodology rather than sorcerers utilizing the innate magic since in that case all casters would be utilizing innate magic.
If a flower is the same color as the sky, and the sky is blue, do I really need to explicitly say what color the flower is?
As for more potential stories, that is just silly. There is no requirement what-so-ever that gms must follow any fluff in any rulebook. In fact, 3.x repeatedly and strongly encouraged molding the mechanics to the world, to change the rules if it suited the world/story better. For example, Golarion has such a change, saying clerics must get their spells from a god and no other source (though if I recall this was because they forgot to change that in the core rules).
However, the fluff of the pathfinder book was built with golarion in mind, so unless there is something put out to counter the fluff in the book, the book is the source to follow.
Yeah, whatever. I don't think it's silly. Thanks for your opinion.
Silly isn't bad, it just isn't serious.
For other potential readers, a better way to phrase my point,
Potential for stories is not limited nor enhanced by rules, rather the potential for stories comes from the creativity of those creating the story. The rules are about interacting with that story, not creating it.
Hence, making the rules fit the story. That is presumably why the 3.x books are loaded with encouragement for adjusting and adapting the rules.
If you go changing the story because of the rules, then obviously you aren't taking the story very seriously, (hence me calling it silly earlier).
The story is what you tell after the events and about the events. The game is where how those events turn out is decided. You might make rules to fit a setting, and that's been done very successfully in places, but if you have a story you want to tell then the rules need to be reflect that and make sure it plays out along the lines you want.
Which is rarely what I want from any RPG.
The story is the events, not the telling of events, and the game is taking part in those events. The story world is the way things work in the fiction of the story.
I'm not entirely sure what you are not wanting from rpgs, but it sounds to me like you expect changing rules to be used for railroading, but it isn't railroading to say "the best humans can jump about 35' and you're character is human, therefore, you're character can't jump 50'." If having rules that support that kind of statement is undesirable, then why play a system all about supporting such statements? That is what it means to be casually simulationist. Of course, as the rules of the fictional differ from reality, the rules should fit the statements that would fit the world.
Since rpgs are interactive, generally with the advantage of not having every possible choice explicitly laid out beforehand, we need a basis for determining what choices are or are not allowed. There are 3 basic and common methods,
First, the original method is to develop a concept of the world using reality as a base and establishing how the world differs from reality and it operates. This is the best option for encouraging high amounts of creativity while maintaining consistency and versmilitude.
Second, focus only the current events and the impact choices have on the players experience, particularly the emotional aspect, such as coolness factor or humor. This method doesn't maintain consistency very well but is very good for doing those movie moments of chandelier swinging and villian monologuing without players woorying about how it totally doesn't make sense.
Third, enforce boardgame like rules. This removes a lot of creative options, and in fact this basically makes the story itself play second fiddle to the challanges the player face and try to overcome. This is good for those who care about doing well in the game and wanting to win.
out of tkme, i'll be back with how that relates to my point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wasn't this thread about space ships?
Yeah, that's my view too.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.
Um, so how does matter to whether magic requires more than training?
Besides, int 11 isn't hard or difficult to obtain for even npcs.
Though obviously, you are one of those who sees the world as built on the system mechanics. I am the opposite, I see the system as a rough representation of the world (built to represent many similar worlds) with a few things bent away from how the game world works to achieve certain gamist goals the designers had, such as a nominal leaning towards that so called "balance" that many players find important for some odd reason. These bent away aspects should not be construed as being normal for the world. Determining what these bent away parts are comes from paying attention to what the various mechanics actually represent (if anything), the written fluff, and the implied similarities to the basic expectations of the audience based on real world experience (I.E. juggling 16 rings takes a lot more skill than an average person could even hope to match.).
I'm the type that sees a difference between RAW and home rules. It's perfectly legitimate to say that in your world, magic is something special and unique and only the special and unique characters can use it.
Those are house rules though. Per RAW, you simply have to chose to multiclass into any class you want... and a LOT of them give you casting ability. In fact I think the purely martial classes at this point are in the minority. Those that do NOT let you cast... You can still grab traits and feats and things like that that still give you a some magical talent.
For those who don't even do THAT... UMD lets you fake it pretty well with a decent role.
There are some DMs that want you to study for years before you can cast a spell.. or take a language.. or find a trainer for a new feat. Those are also house rules not supported by the actual rules. Per the actual rules the moment you gain the xp, you gain whatever level/skills/feats you want and instantly get them. You still have to spend the hour preparing your new spells... but you don't need 14 years learning it in wizards tower... nor do you have to be from a specific bloodline touched by special mutant magic powers... Unless your a sorcerer, that's pretty much exactly what those are...
Now in OUR games, we do impose a few restrictions on things and our characters are always 'working toward' their next level and languages and class with some backstory in there to round them out.
However, for better or worse, the game itself does not require such things. They keep it very vague and leave that kind of fluff to individual tables. learning magic is pretty much the same as learning Evasion or disabling devices. It's just an ability attached to a class.
I remember 2E was a lot more stringent on multi-classing and 'aquiring' things like that. Bladesingers for example needed about 50 years of training for the very basics of the style... but by pathfinder they cut that stuff out.
Yeah, that's my view too.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.
Um, so how does matter to whether magic requires more than training?
Besides, int 11 isn't hard or difficult to obtain for even npcs.
Though obviously, you are one of those who sees the world as built on the system mechanics. I am the opposite, I see the system as a rough representation of the world (built to represent many similar worlds) with a few things bent away from how the game world works to achieve certain gamist goals the designers had, such as a nominal leaning towards that so called "balance" that many players find important for some odd reason. These bent away aspects should not be construed as being normal for the world. Determining what these bent away parts are comes from paying attention to what the various mechanics actually represent (if anything), the written fluff, and the implied similarities to the basic expectations of the audience based on real world experience (I.E. juggling 16 rings takes a lot more skill than an average person could even hope to match.).
I'm the type that sees a difference between RAW and home rules. It's perfectly legitimate to say that in your world, magic is something special and unique and only the special and unique characters can use it.
Those are house rules though. Per RAW, you simply have to chose to multiclass into any class you want... and a LOT of them give you casting ability. In fact I think the purely martial classes at this point are in the minority. Those that do NOT let you cast... You can still grab traits and feats and things like that that still give you a some magical talent.
It maybe wasn't apparent, but although I like the idea that magic requires a certain mysterious something to it - that is purely flavor, in my view. I don't consider it a houseful because it has effectively no mechanical impact.
If a player wants to multiclass into a casting class, it just means they have that mysterious je ne sais quoi.
The reason I like it is that it's one more potential constraint (which is what I think makes interesting stories). I can have a villain with a high intelligence, lots of wealth and all the time in the world who never managed to learn magic and is bitterly opposed to all wizards as a consequence (for example). I don't think it's useful to use it as a limitation on the players (who are by assumption exceptional), but on the world.
The discussion is on a tangent but not entirely unrelated. The level of magic and its accessibility may dictate the kind of ships.
In broad terms one could use three categories of ships, dictated largely by the games approach to tech:
1. Hard - Highly technical, practical and trying to function according to believable science. e.g. "2001: A Space Odyssey", "2010", "Interstellar"
2. Soft - Look technical but any science is largely hand-waved or just techno-babble. e.g. "Star Trek", "Star Wars"(?),
3. Fantastic - Could look like anything. No attempt to function according to any recognisable science at all. "Spelljammer", "Dr Who", "Farscape", "Stargate"(except the Human ships), "Guardians of the Galaxy", "Forbidden Planet", "Gundam"
The line between 2 and 3 is pretty fuzzy but if there is a lot of magic involved it will result in ships at the extreme of 3. If anyone who studies hard is capable of magic, that makes it just an alternative to engineering, which will result in flying couches, houses, biomechamagical unicorns and who-knows-what.
I'll have to see, of course, but my gut feel is that hard science doesn't really mesh well with fantasy/magic (then again, as per the tangent, I see magic as decidedly non-scientific by nature).
I'm kind of hoping for a 2.5 on your scale, I think. Both in spaceship design and more broadly.
I'll have to see, of course, but my gut feel is that hard science doesn't really mesh well with fantasy/magic (then again, as per the tangent, I see magic as decidedly non-scientific by nature).
I'm kind of hoping for a 2.5 on your scale, I think. Both in spaceship design and more broadly.
Yeah, I kind of hope for a combination. Even if they keep the flying Pirate ships in space away from the USS Enterprises, I'd hope for rules for both. Similar to how Golarion has so many different genre's all mashed up on one continent making an awesome toolbox for any table.
I don't really see 2 and 3 working TOO well together... but at the same time the Enterprise met the giant floating head of Lincoln... so what the heck! Bring on the space fantasy :D
I wonder about ship sizes. Will the available campaign technology/technomancy support ships from a tiny one-man speeder to a supercarrier, or are there practical limits to what can be built or operated? For example, if there are no large ships (arbitrarily set the limit to a space equivalent of a frigate/galleon/destroyer/corvet), then:
1. There is less need for superheavy weapons that could accidentally vaporize a smaller craft (the player characters). The players would be less likely to possess weapons that can be used to bypass problems by simply atomizing them. These weapons could still exist, but could not be installed in a typical craft either because of size, energy, or side effect considerations. "Space forts" become somewhat practical, and now someone has to infiltrate then instead of just bombarding them.
2. Transportation of troops or cargo is harder, giving smaller groups (the player characters) more influence. Instead of carrying 10,000 grunts to deal with a problem, a team of less than a dozen is the norm. When mass deployment of troops or firepower is not an option, even smaller operators can thrive.
3. Crewing ships is easier. You don't need 300 redshirts and an equivalent of the Leadership feat to crew your cruiser. A smaller crew would also remove beam spam (which can become a chore) from combat, assuming that every weapon needs a gunner. Assembling an experienced crew becomes easier, as you only need a few hardened spacers instead of an academy that churns out 2,000 middies to crew the dreadnought Vainglorious.
4. Instead of upgrading to a larger ship, upgrading the existing ship becomes an option. Customize it to match party capabilities or treat it as a character that can be equipped according to mission specs. This can make it more unique and interesting.
5. Smaller ships can be subjected to a lot of stuff. They can be landed in small clearings, hidden in caves, swallowed by space whales, easily damaged to herd the players, easily repaired by conveniently located supplies, docked, impounded, surrounded, enveloped by energy fields, driven through collapsing portals, chartered or purchased without too improbable amounts of currency, or nimbly flown between the chaotically bouncing asteroids.
Alternatively, larger vessels may exist, but are either very clumsy, slow, limited, or expensive because the technomancy that makes smaller craft so good does not scale up well, or at all. Nothing says that all Starfinder ships need to behave exactly alike. Perhaps the small craft are technomagic and require specialized crews, while the larger craft depend on more mundane physics and handle the boring background stuff.
Okay, sorry for the wait,
>"Since rpgs are interactive, generally with the advantage of not having every possible choice explicitly laid out beforehand, we need a basis for determining what choices are or are not allowed. There are 3 basic and common methods,
First, the original method is to develop a concept of the world using reality as a base and establishing how the world differs from reality and it operates. This is the best option for encouraging high amounts of creativity while maintaining consistency and versmilitude.
Second, focus only the current events and the impact choices have on the players experience, particularly the emotional aspect, such as coolness factor or humor. This method doesn't maintain consistency very well but is very good for doing those movie moments of chandelier swinging and villian monologuing without players woorying about how it totally doesn't make sense.
Third, enforce boardgame like rules. This removes a lot of creative options, and in fact this basically makes the story itself play second fiddle to the challanges the player face and try to overcome. This is good for those who care about doing well in the game and wanting to win."
When you make or play a game, these methods determine how you prioritize and look at solving gameplay issues as well as designing rules.
For method one, the World-Based method, the rules are generally designed to represent the fictional world or at least a common way for things to work across similar worlds, leading to the casually simulationist rulesets like 3.x. For handling gameplay issues, story generally trumps rules leading to a houserule, because the rules are supposed to represent the fictional world and thus when the rules fail to match the fictional world, they are generally desired to be changed to fit, though exceptions are generally accepted for other gameplay goals, such as to obtain the benefits of classes despite the recognition that classes give a limitation not actually in the fiction of the world (whether that trade-off is good or not is opinion). Rules and rulings are looked at in the light of "does it makes sense in the workings of the world?"
The second method, the experience-based method, the rules are generally light-weight and are more about a player impacting the story, such as the new ffg star wars game with their storytelling dice, where a player can literally change or add to the world to aid them or make something totally cool happen, no worries about plausibility in the fictional world. Again, this method generally goes for story trumps rules, but more often for rulings and looked at in the light of "how does this impact the story flow/potential and awesomeness factor?"
The third method, I usually call it the mmo method or the gamist method. In this method, the story is just a backdrop, something to tie the encounters together. Player agency is very important, as are the standing rules, and rules trump story, because the entire point for players of this method is to conquer encounters, to win, to kill, to manipulate, or otherwise to basically exercise control of the game world via the rules to achieve success. Metagaming is far more acceptable, worrying about a mere +1 bonus, holding out of character tactical discussions every round, and of course the expectation that character won't get in the way of doing the "smart move" in any encounter. Rules are designed for balance, filling roles, and establishing a tactical feel to the game, for example 4e. Rules generally don't involve the more narrative based aspects of the game, and when they do, it is usually adding a win-fail to situations.
So, some games have design aspects from different methods, usually because the designers are building from what they know rather than purely on what is good for their design goals. For example, attribute-skill systems are commonplace and I've seen some use them simply because they never experienced anything differentand thus it never occurred to them to try something different.
Aside from this effect, which can often be seen as conflicts in the system design, the design can usually be analyzed to see what is trying to be achieved with it.
For example, dnd 3.x is clearly method 1, as can be seen from both all the detailed environmental effects and circumstantial modifiers as well as all the encouragement to change things to suit each particular game. 4e makes a nice contrast, and represents method 3 as everything is forced into a very rigid, balanced structure and reminds me a lot of mmos. 4e also leaves narrative details of aspects outside encounters mainly to the gm (some players say they like it because it is less restrictive, but of course, generally only a player that feels rules trump story, or is afraid of taking charge of the game, would find rules restrictive.)
In any case, Pathfinder was based on 3.x, therefore, it is designed for method 1 (though some elements imply that the PF designers were leaning towards method 3), therefore, for the most part we can infer elements of the world based on the rules as representing that world even when not explicitly stated.
This inference is basic logic. As an example, imagine two platforms on an invisible teetter-totter(ttr for short). We can't see the ttr, but we can figure out what it is by pushing on one platform and seeing it affect the other one. We could even figure the exact pivot point through a few different methods, such as trying various weights on the platforms or studying the motion of the platforms.
Similar analysis allows one to see aspects of the game that weren't explicitly declared, as well as giving insight to the designers, particularly where the system becomes inconsistant.
It is thus combining this logical analysis and the fact that d20 is casually simulationist at it's core that we can say certain things about the world of golarion, with at least some certainty, that weren't explicitly stated.
In this particular case, the fact that magic requires only training, but some creatures have an inherent something that makes it easier, is one of these things that can be readily inferred as part of golarion.
======
Note, although I called them each "a method" in the singular sense, it is more like method groups. Also, a game system can have multiple methods applying to the various mechanics, but they usually don't mesh well, and players coming from various methods easily have play issues.
"2: The only issue here without a good reason preventing it, is that other than putting all your eggs in one basket there's every reason to just make a bulkier transport; so this is where the limitation is most critical."
Actually, there are some situational reasons not to.
Firstly, if you scale up a ship to twice the length, it weighs 8 times the mass, which means the frame actually needs even more mass devoted to structural reinforcement and other similar scaling issues. Yes, if every shipping trip has a full load, it is generally cheaper to ship in bulk, but the ships and infrastructure have aspects that can be either cheaper or more expensive, usually the latter. Thus it only becomes feasible to take on the greater expense to ship in bulk, if there is enough shipping to actually be consistantly shipping massive amounts of stuff.
If only small amounts are moving along any particular route, then it is actually better to use ships sized appropriately to the amount of shipping.
Thus sending 10 thousand troops can actually cost more than ten times the cost of sending only sending 1 thousand (of course, this assumes you can't simply retrofit a ship that happens to be big enough for other reasons). Thus it boils down to the question, "is the cost per soldier less, to make them elite enough to equal 10 soldiers, or to send 10 times the soldiers?" Of course, there are costs aside from money, such as time it takes to become useful.
This concept of differing costs, in this case post battle recovery cost, can be seen in the Homeworld game where swarms of small craft are more effective in combat, but since repairing ships is free and usually faster than building new ships, larger ships are cheaper in both money and time to recover to full strength after the battle.
So, to make large ships rare, just remove the reasons for large ships. Make interplanetary portals, the fees are high, but are per container regardless of mass, thus, for bulk, it is cheaper to use the portal, but small ships exist because they are cheaper for small shipments or passengers and they can go straight to the destination instead of routing through the portals, and small ships can go places without a portal. Creating portals might also be highly expensive, making it so places with only small amounts of trade not worth the expense.
"However, any backwards compatibility with pathfinder puts blocking things here at great risk; all the various travel methods and magic could easily mean there's a simple way around any size or mass or travel limitations. Thus, it's important that the system be allowed back its claims."
One thing I think might be a good idea here, is for "anywhere on the same plane" spells to be limited to a single planet, say 10 thousand miles or so.
It could reasonably be passed off as ancient people not realizing what lay beyond the planet never discovered the actual range limits of those spells, thus falsely believed the ranges to be unlimited.
Starflight?
I am tired of splats with mechanics. I don't mind additional character options, but as far as I'm concerned, the core book should hold all actual mechanics, if you really need new mechanics, they should be added to the core book.
I shouldn't have to buy a bunch of random stuff just to know about starflight.
Ranting over,
I'm not overly worried about backwards compatibility, especially with supplements (I might be alone in considering supplements less than secondary to core, and optional).
Also, there are different levels of compatibility, and I certainly don't mind a few minor things being altered to make starfinder stand up better.
...3d20 days anywhere in the galaxy...
Wow. That's fast. I wonder what the transit time for hyperspace is going to be.
3d20 days anywhere in galaxy?
There is something severely wrong with that.
What would it take say 50 days to go 5 lightyears on one trip yet take 3 days to 5000 lightyears the next trip?
Definitely wrong.
Also, as methods I mentioned earlier go, this isn't method 1 but they should have made a method 1 mechanic (since you know, d20 is primarily a method 1 system).
Gravity wells? Dark matter? Intergalactic highway construction slowing down traffic?
The problem is competing philosophies I think.
For example, one of the guys working on (I believe anyway) babylon 5, said that the speed of the ships was the speed of the plot. Basically, fast enough or not fast enough, as the plot required.
Such a philosophy though is inherently incompatible with a philosphy of, the world works like this, and these workings may affect the story.
A cutter, to my current understanding, is not only smaller than a shuttle, but not big enough to even sleep on much less live on. They are for moving a couple people, a dispatch, or something of that sort from one ship to another, or to shore. Akin to a small rowboat, or a rickshaw.
A shuttle is for moving moderate quantities of cargo or passangers to a ship. Not designed for long term, but potentially with enough space to retrofit for that for 2-4 people. Akin to large row boat or a wagon.
Neither would be designed for long distance travel.
Neither freighter nor explorer give an indication of size. If ships get classes of the sort characters do, these would be that, applicable to any size of craft (large enough to incorporate long distance drives).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I may embellish a little, you've got a good start.
Three categories of ship classes: minor, major, and capital.
Ships come in a range of sizes.
Fine ships barely have room for a small or medium humanoid and just enough life support to survive for (at most) 24 hours. personal boarding pods, mobile infantry descent capsules, cargo transfer pods, and the like fit this category.
Diminutive ships are slightly more self-sufficient, able to keep a single person alive in austere conditions for several days. Escape pods, lifeboats, cutters, commercial auto-taxis, and squad boarding pods fit in this category.
Tiny ships can support one or two persons comfortably with recycling to survive for an extended period (minimum three months) without resupply. Tiny ships generally do not have enough incidental cargo space for other than a single backpack per person.
Small ships can support at least four to six persons for three months without resupply. Small ships and greater usually have enough room to permit cargo or additional passengers to be loaded.
Medium ships can support at least ten to twelve persons for at least three months without resupply.
Large ships can support at least twenty to twenty-four persons, etc.
Huge ships can support at least forty to fifty persons, etc.
Gargantuan ships can support at least eighty to one hundred persons, etc.
Colossal ships can support multiple hundreds (no upper limit).
MINOR SHIP CLASSES
Fighter: Short-range combat craft designed to intercept other minor ships, especially other fighters, bombers, and boarding pods.
Bomber: Short-range combat craft designed to intercept and destroy major and capital ships. Bombers rely on speed, maneuverability, and swarming tactics for success.
Drones: (Normally) unmanned ships designed to intercept and destroy high-value targets by kamikaze attack. Drones are built for speed, explosive impact, and not much else.
Shuttle/Cutter: Noncombat craft designed to transport a small number of personnel and/or light cargo over a very short range (ship to ship, ship to station, or ship to surface). Shuttles explicitly carry no armaments, while cutters are military or security-oriented and may be equipped with light anti-ship defenses and personal arms only. Shuttles and cutters do not have FTL.
Courier: Craft optimized for maximum possible speed with minimal space for personnel or cargo; a high-speed light transport. Useful for medical evacuations, military reconnaissance, etc. Light couriers do not have FTL, while heavy couriers do. Various law enforcement and frontier patrol organizations use lightly-armed courier ships called interceptors for tracking and running down fugitives, pirates, and other persons of interest.
Gunboat: Very light warship with short-range armaments, useful for police and private security interdiction as well as for military use. Gunboats can fight defensively against bombers and fighters but do not last long against major or capital warships. Unlike corvettes, gunboats do not normally have FTL.
Corvette: Similar in size to a gunboat but but better armed and designed to engage both minor and major ship classes. Corvettes can fight more offensively than gunboats in large 'deep water' naval battles.
MAJOR SHIP CLASSES
Destroyers are lightly armed, armored, fast warships designed to escort capital ships and sometimes commercial freighters and transports. Their speed allows them to defend against or intercept gunboats and other minor warships.
Frigates are similar in tonnage to destroyers, but sacrifices speed for better armor and weapons. Frigates are capable or bringing down even capital ships in large numbers.
Freighters & Transports come in many types and are designed primarily to ferry cargo over a moderate to long distance.
Light freighters are fast but cannot carry lots of heavy or bulky items.
Heavy freighters have more cargo space and often carry armaments strong enough to resist low-level piracy and boarding parties.
Starliners (commercial) prioritize passengers over cargo
Transports are military troop carriers similar to starliners but must also accommodate military gear and supplies.
Q-ships are a special class of major warship, disguised for stealth to pass as a nondescript freighter or transport of similar size, but carrying specialized mission-specific hardware.
Surveyors or science ships are light or middleweight noncombat ships designed for scientific pursuits. Sensors and laboratories are given the most attention, with crew comforts and leisure a distant second. Light surveyors do not have an extended range or much versatility; middleweight surveyor ships can travel further and are equipped with one or more ancillary craft, normally customized couriers or cutters. These are used for scientific excursions into areas too hazardous or impractical for the mothership to venture into.
CAPITAL SHIP CLASSES
Cruisers are a middleweight warship, designed with a balance between weapons, armor, and speed. Light cruisers carry medium range armaments and moderate armor; heavy cruisers carry long-range weapons and moderate armor.
Command cruisers are a special subtype of medium warship which prioritizes and defensive systems & armor over offensive capabilities. Command cruisers typically contain sophisticated communication facilities.
Battleships are heavy warships prioritizing heavy weapons over armor and speed, designed to destroy fleets of enemy capital ships.
Dreadnoughts demand even heavier weapons and long-range firepower with minimal armor or speed, essentially acting as 'glass cannons'. Dreadnought-class warships are used for orbital bombardment of enemy military (or civilian) installations in orbit and even planetside.
Carriers are middleweight to heavy warships designed to ferry, launch, and support a large number of minor combat craft, whether fighters, bombers, couriers, gunboats, interceptors, or drones. "Missile cruisers" are a specialized carrier-type loaded mainly with drones, which might be used offensively against enemy warships or as a defensive platform to escort friendly capital ships.
Pathfinders are enormous self-sufficient starships with FTL designed for traveling a long distance from sources of resupply. They incorporate facilities and systems to help their crew and passengers to "live off the land". Pathfinders have a virtually unlimited range and extremely long service life, Pathfinders are usually deployed to explore beyond known space, seek out distant civilizations, or establish new colonies out on the frontier.
I don't really agree with your ship sizes being based on consumables capacity (how long some number of people can survive on it). This can change for any particular size depending on all kinds of factors, thus giving wildly different sames identical "sizes" that really shouldn't be considered the same.
Also, I prefer size names to not be specific (instead being rough estimates, too rough even for mechanics), and certainly not following the fine to colossal thing (which was not a good design in the first, but for creatures where it almost always was some size interacting with medium, it's flaws rarely came into play, something that can't be relied on for ship sizes).
For my system for example, each size category is a number primarily, which each size having twice the volume of the previous size, and thr mechanics are based on the number of size categories different two ships/creatures are, thus mechanics can equally handle any size or size difference.
This allows my system to handle everything from Halo's (the game series) drop pods to the Death star, or even Starkiller base from the disney Star wars film, and everything in between.
Classes should be centered around ability type mixes/ratios. Weapons, maneuverability, primary acceleration, cargo, life support, crew/automation, etc, as these ratio sets can reasonably be applied to various size of ships without regard to specific size or general size.
For example, a class might have weapon power and armor as primary ability types, this class applied to a fighter sized ship givex a heavy fighter or bomber, but can also be applied to a capital sized ship to give a battleship.
Alternatively, a class might focus on maneuverability and targeting, which applied to the same fighter size can be a good intercepter, or applied to a capital ship makes for a good destroyer.
Or even a class about speed and sensors, which for a fighter size makes a good short range scout and patrol craft which could easily double as a courier, while for a calital ship makes a good survey and exploratory craft or long range scout.
Given that there is no such thing as a "standard sized ship that will be 90% of all ships owned or encountered by pcs with other sizes being more common the closer they are to that standard size", this is a much better and more flexible design.
======
Also, looked it up, a cutter is a small single mast sea vessal designed for speed. Interestingly contrary to the use I've seen in sci-fi in which a cutter is generally the smallest parasite craft and often lacking even orbit-to-surface/surface-to-orbit capability.
Nothing explicitly military about either use of the term, and in fact, in the fictions I've read the term (most recently in David Weber's Honorverse series), they are either unarmed or armaments are not specified (and not used).
So I am a bit curious where the whole military thing is coming from.
I was thinking more of a Coast Guard cutter which wikipedia says is at least 65 feet or more in length and has permeanent crew and accomodations.A cutter, to my current understanding, is not only smaller than a shuttle, but not big enough to even sleep on much less live on. They are for moving a couple people, a dispatch, or something of that sort from one ship to another, or to shore. Akin to a small rowboat, or a rickshaw.
Huh, you ninja'd me, but also, I didn't see the coast guard cutter in my google search. Funny how that works.
Edit, could always use the "single horse sleigh" definition. :)
If I may embellish a little, you've got a good start.
Three categories of ship classes: minor, major, and capital.
Ships come in a range of sizes.
Fine ships barely have room for a small or medium humanoid and just enough life support to survive for (at most) 24 hours. personal boarding pods, mobile infantry descent capsules, cargo transfer pods, and the like fit this category.
Diminutive ships are slightly more self-sufficient, able to keep a single person alive in austere conditions for several days. Escape pods, lifeboats, cutters, commercial auto-taxis, and squad boarding pods fit in this category.
Tiny ships can support one or two persons comfortably with recycling to survive for an extended period (minimum three months) without resupply. Tiny ships generally do not have enough incidental cargo space for other than a single backpack per person.
Small ships can support at least four to six persons for three months without resupply. Small ships and greater usually have enough room to permit cargo or additional passengers to be loaded.
Medium ships can support at least ten to twelve persons for at least three months without resupply.
Large ships can support at least twenty to twenty-four persons, etc.
Huge ships can support at least forty to fifty persons, etc.
Gargantuan ships can support at least eighty to one hundred persons, etc.
Colossal ships can support multiple hundreds (no upper limit).
MINOR SHIP CLASSES
Fighter: Short-range combat craft designed to intercept other minor ships, especially other fighters, bombers, and boarding pods.
Bomber: Short-range combat craft designed to intercept and destroy major and capital ships. Bombers rely on speed, maneuverability, and swarming tactics for success.
Drones: (Normally) unmanned ships designed to intercept and destroy high-value targets by kamikaze attack. Drones are built for speed, explosive impact, and not much else.
Shuttle/Cutter: Noncombat craft designed to transport a small number of personnel...
I like it. I like it a lot.
Why? What do you like about it? Why does it seem better than the alternative I presented? How would you handle the problems I mentioned about it?
Seriously. I'm looking for an honest answer, however critical or vague it might be. It'll help in design both for starfinder and my own system.
If I may embellish a little, you've got a good start.
Three categories of ship classes: minor, major, and capital.
Ships come in a range of sizes.
Fine ships barely have room for a small or medium humanoid and just enough life support to survive for (at most) 24 hours. personal boarding pods, mobile infantry descent capsules, cargo transfer pods, and the like fit this category.
Diminutive ships are slightly more self-sufficient, able to keep a single person alive in austere conditions for several days. Escape pods, lifeboats, cutters, commercial auto-taxis, and squad boarding pods fit in this category.
Tiny ships can support one or two persons comfortably with recycling to survive for an extended period (minimum three months) without resupply. Tiny ships generally do not have enough incidental cargo space for other than a single backpack per person.
Small ships can support at least four to six persons for three months without resupply. Small ships and greater usually have enough room to permit cargo or additional passengers to be loaded.
Medium ships can support at least ten to twelve persons for at least three months without resupply.
Large ships can support at least twenty to twenty-four persons, etc.
Huge ships can support at least forty to fifty persons, etc.
Gargantuan ships can support at least eighty to one hundred persons, etc.
Colossal ships can support multiple hundreds (no upper limit).
MINOR SHIP CLASSES
Fighter: Short-range combat craft designed to intercept other minor ships, especially other fighters, bombers, and boarding pods.
Bomber: Short-range combat craft designed to intercept and destroy major and capital ships. Bombers rely on speed, maneuverability, and swarming tactics for success.
Drones: (Normally) unmanned ships designed to intercept and destroy high-value targets by kamikaze attack. Drones are built for speed, explosive impact, and not much else.
Shuttle/Cutter: Noncombat craft designed to...
I think this is over complicated.
You really only need three size classes: Fighter, Corvette, Capital. And it makes no sense to tie a size category to it's life support system.
I don't really agree with your ship sizes being based on consumables capacity (how long some number of people can survive on it). This can change for any particular size depending on all kinds of factors, thus giving wildly different sames identical "sizes" that really shouldn't be considered the same.
I based ship size on crew capacity because keeping people alive in space is the one thing that (the vast majority of) starships have in common.
A medium humanoid needs O2, water, nutrition plus a certain balance of environmental conditions to stay alive in space for more than a few minutes. (Racial norms could vary by size in terms of rate of consumption.)
All shuttles won't be created equal, all frigates won't, all fighters won't, all carriers won't. Ship sizes as with creature sizes are a range between some minimum and maximum. I don't expect to ever see a gargantuan bomber or a diminutive battleship.
Anyway, have we seen whether Starfinder has starships build and piloted by races of unusual size? (i.e. smaller than Small or bigger than Large)
...If I may embellish a little, you've got a good start.
Three categories of ship classes: minor, major, and capital.
Ships come in a range of sizes.
Fine ships barely have room for a small or medium humanoid and just enough life support to survive for (at most) 24 hours. personal boarding pods, mobile infantry descent capsules, cargo transfer pods, and the like fit this category.
Diminutive ships are slightly more self-sufficient, able to keep a single person alive in austere conditions for several days. Escape pods, lifeboats, cutters, commercial auto-taxis, and squad boarding pods fit in this category.
Tiny ships can support one or two persons comfortably with recycling to survive for an extended period (minimum three months) without resupply. Tiny ships generally do not have enough incidental cargo space for other than a single backpack per person.
Small ships can support at least four to six persons for three months without resupply. Small ships and greater usually have enough room to permit cargo or additional passengers to be loaded.
Medium ships can support at least ten to twelve persons for at least three months without resupply.
Large ships can support at least twenty to twenty-four persons, etc.
Huge ships can support at least forty to fifty persons, etc.
Gargantuan ships can support at least eighty to one hundred persons, etc.
Colossal ships can support multiple hundreds (no upper limit).
MINOR SHIP CLASSES
Fighter: Short-range combat craft designed to intercept other minor ships, especially other fighters, bombers, and boarding pods.
Bomber: Short-range combat craft designed to intercept and destroy major and capital ships. Bombers rely on speed, maneuverability, and swarming tactics for success.
Drones: (Normally) unmanned ships designed to intercept and destroy high-value targets by kamikaze attack. Drones are built for speed, explosive impact, and not much else.
Shuttle/Cutter: Noncombat craft designed to...
I must disagree. This is defined enough to keep confusion and arguing at the table to a minimum.