Tom Kalbfus wrote: I don't know how you mass produce magic. Are their spellcasters on the assembly lines? Interesting notion. We know Androids are capable of learning magic and were produced as, more or less, slaves until fairly recently in the setting. Perhaps many Androids were built to be specific crafters who would stand at assembly lines supplying the magical portions needed to produce certain goods. It would be interesting as those items are either no longer manufactured or are far more expensive now and PCs would have a bit of a moral issue in if they would even use them. More likely, as magic has become so well know at this point in the setting that you could actually build a machine that uses magic itself in some specific and predetermined way. Basically advanced manufacturing tools would be considered minor artifacts in the days of Old Golarion.
Tom Kalbfus wrote: I don't know how you mass produce magic. Are their spellcasters on the assembly lines? Why not? I can build something (using the trap rules) that can spit out a given spell on demand, it shouldn't be that much harder to reconfigure that for emission at a crafting pace.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Tom Kalbfus wrote: I don't know how you mass produce magic. Are their spellcasters on the assembly lines? Have you noticed that it is only the PC classes and not the NPC classes that have been spoiled for Starfinder so far? We have no idea what the Starfinder equivalent of the Adept NPC class might be -- and there might be enough of whatever they are to put them to work on magical assembly lines.
NPC classes are Aristocrat, Middle Manager and Non-sapient robot. :P
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Torbyne wrote: NPC classes are Aristocrat, Middle Manager and Non-sapient robot. :P And, as anyone who works in a factory can attest, you do not have to be an android to be part of that third class. ;)
David knott 242 wrote: Torbyne wrote: NPC classes are Aristocrat, Middle Manager and Non-sapient robot. :P And, as anyone who works in a factory can attest, you do not have to be an android to be part of that third class. ;)
We were all of us cogs in a great machine which sometimes rolled forward, nobody knew where, sometimes backwards, nobody knew why.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Tom Kalbfus wrote: I don't know how you mass produce magic. Are their spellcasters on the assembly lines? Same way as anything else. You put people to work, and replace the replaceable bits with machines.
They've alluded that [magic item] crafting is a little different than it is in pathfinder, but that gear can be enchanted/infused with magic.
In a setting with multiple planets and populations in the millions and common place magic, that can be people's actual jobs. Bob goes into the factory with a couple dozen other NPC class technowizards and they make holy or outsider bane attachments for plasma cannons (as the attachments roll down the assembly lines), and those get shipped off to the stores like any other part. At the end of shift Bob and company go home, have dinner, go to bed, and repeat the next day.
There isn't anything particularly special or limited about magic in D&D (or Pathfinder) settings. There are daily limits on spells, but as long as you stick within those limits, it can be industrialized like any other resource or skill.
It may not be a romantic view of magic, but working a nine-to-five is a much safer career path than adventuring. And it works with the default assumption that the devs have described: that magic and tech are intermixed and generally assumed to be present. And given the mega city that exists along the twilight border on Verces, population for that sort of industrialized magic isn't a problem.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
There are all sorts of tech in Space Opera science fiction that could instead be attributed to magic, lets examine a few of them such as
Force fields
Artificial Gravity
Deflector Shields
"Light sabers"
FTL drives
Antigravity Vehicles
Reactionless thrusters.
The Force Fields I am thinking of are the ones that hold in Atmosphere when the hangar doors are otherwise open to spade, such as in Star Wars Star Destroyers, fighters and other spacecraft fly into and out o the hangers, while people on the deck in normal clothes work on other ships to get them flight ready, much as on the deck of an aircraft carrier. The force field which holds in this atmosphere could be magical instead of technological.
Artificial Gravity is a staple of most science fiction shows, as it gets them out of having to simulate weightlessness, it is hard to create technologically, such as through spinning, there are disadvantages to spinning a spacecraft for gravity, although this is more acceptable for a space station which doesn't have to maneuver as much. I'd have to say magical gravity is used for space ships, while large space colonies rely on spinning to create their gravity because its cheaper than enchanting these large hulls with magical gravity. Als Magical gravity on spaceships to a degree acts as "Inertial Dampeners" in that they allow for extreme maneuverings of spaceships, and accelerations that are much higher than 1 g while still allowing the crew to walk around normally within the spaceship instead of being strapped to acceleration couches all the time. This also allows for faster slower than light drives, one can accelerate more rapidly to relativistic velocities for instance, if the FTL drive isn't working, if you assume the ability to accelerate at 100 gs for instance, you can be traveling close to the speed of light within a week and take advantage of Einsteinian relativity to slow down the perceived time as experienced by the crew of the ship.
A Deflector Shield is nothing more than a magical deflection bonus applied to a ship's entire outer hull, I'd say to fully simulate Star Trek's deflector shield, some of he ships power is shunted aside to absorb a certain amounts of hit points per round to act as damage reduction as well. That way, a starship can absorb a direct hit without suffering any physical damage, the physics of this is speculative, so the deflector shield is partially magical instead, it also functions to protect the crew from solar flares and cosmic rays, as well as dust grains in space when the ship is traveling at high speeds.
An actual "Light Saber" would be hard o produce, they physics of light beams just don't work this way, beams of light pass right through each other, and they don't stop 1 or 2 meters from the handle of the "sword", instead they are magical power swords. Modern magical equipment often requires power inputs to augment their power.
FTL drives often require a lot of impossible technobabble in the standard science fiction shows, warping of space around a spaceship using antimatter regulated by dilithium crystals and so forth, most physicists say FTL travel is impossible as it would allow for time travel if applied consistently through all frames of reference. so here were are just calling it what it is, "Magic" although maybe in this setting we simply drop the science fiction technological trappings. Apparently there is parallel plane of existence which is not limited by the same speed of light or distance as is normal space. Just speculating here. The Drift is a sort of "hyperspace", the FTL drive, while partially magical, requires power inputs to get a starship there and back, as well as some material components called "fuel" which is expended with each jump to FTL, this is speculation on my part here.
Antigravity Vehicles are sometimes employed in science fiction, they repel off a planets gravity field, most scientists say it is eitherimpossible or requires something that has not been observed in the universe, negative matter/energy sometimes called Exotic matter. This is taken care of by the reverse gravity spell or some variation of it to accomplish flight.
Reactionless thrusters are what you need when you don't want to spend a ridiculous amount of fuel just maneuvering your ship around in space, this is a violation of Newton's third law of motion, just make it magical with power input requirements and we're on our way.
My biggest question is: Are spaceships getting stat blocks? Thanks.
Oooooh....and where will we find the list of Spaceship Buff Spells? ("Quick, It's an Abyssal Battlecruiser! Get Bob up here to cast Align Plasma Cannon! And for Saranrae's sake, someone get the cold iron slugs into the mass drivers!")
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Will the Core Rulebook have something reminiscent of a Starship Bestiary?
I ask because, unless the Alien Archive devotes a portion of its 160 page count to giving us a spread of starship combatants, it's going to be a little un-intuitive to pull enemies out of the adventure paths or create enemy ships for each encounter. I assume the Core Rulebook will give basic statblocks for each of the three classes of starships revealed so far that can serve as a template for creating more baddies. It'd just be cool to have a little more flavor. Would Vesk ships have more firepower than Pact World Alliance ships - which would have better shielding - while Shirren ships have better sensors and maneuverability? What about an Independence Day style mothership, or ships that gain bonus effects in fleet formations? I'd generally expect the Swarm and Dominion of the Black to have their own unique spacefaring vessels we could throw on the board.
I'm reasonably confident the answer is yes - I only ask because the Core Rulebook description only confirms sections for starship combat and customizing starships.
mellowgoth wrote: Oooooh....and where will we find the list of Spaceship Buff Spells? ("Quick, It's an Abyssal Battlecruiser! Get Bob up here to cast Align Plasma Cannon! And for Saranrae's sake, someone get the cold iron slugs into the mass drivers!")
From the most recent interview/youtube video i've seen it sounds like ship abilities will come mostly from the Ace Pilot Theme that any character can pick, so i dont think there will be many ship scale spells but some abilities that help ships out sound like they are in reach of any PC that wants them.
Opsylum wrote: Will the Core Rulebook have something reminiscent of a Starship Bestiary?
I ask because, unless the Alien Archive devotes a portion of its 160 page count to giving us a spread of starship combatants, it's going to be a little un-intuitive to pull enemies out of the adventure paths or create enemy ships for each encounter. I assume the Core Rulebook will give basic statblocks for each of the three classes of starships revealed so far that can serve as a template for creating more baddies. It'd just be cool to have a little more flavor. Would Vesk ships have more firepower than Pact World Alliance ships - which would have better shielding - while Shirren ships have better sensors and maneuverability? What about an Independence Day style mothership, or ships that gain bonus effects in fleet formations? I'd generally expect the Swarm and Dominion of the Black to have their own spacefaring vessels we could throw on the board.
I'm reasonably confident the answer is yes - I only ask because the Core Rulebook description only confirms sections for starship combat and customizing starships.
Yes, this is a very interesting point. We know that PCs will have customizable ships so we must have rules for how to do that but then we also have 3-4 major space faring factions whose ships should look and act unique, let alone other major powers that should have ships of their own. It would take a very robust ship building section with themed groupings to represent how different aliens buid their ships or a lot of beastiary space to get representative ships for all of those across multiple CRs.
I hope that Eoxian, Pact World, Vesk and Swarm ships dont all have the same shields, hull points and laser canons as each other... :(
This is very true. A constant issues I've had with games like Traveller/CE, Stars Without Number, M-Space, etc, is that there is a fairly limited amount of premade ships for use. Usually you have to find those with third party companies, but it'd be nice if there was a sort of bestiary for space ships. Call it the Shipyard or Fleet Log or something.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
How about calling it Jayne's Fighting Ships?
Bluenose wrote: nomotog wrote: Morgen wrote: How much do we know of spaceships so far? I haven’t read every post on the forum.
I’m just worried because they always seem to be either priced outside of any PC’s possible ability to buy, require some kind of extreme number of crew members that it removes some/all the ships out of most games or even without thousands of crew you need to have 4-6 PC’s specialized in just running it. It can really throw a wrench into things especially when players start to just steal them.
I’m just hoping that people are thinking about and looking at that. It’s hard enough to rope 4-6 people together as a unit without them needing to know how to use sensors or things after all.
For my take, they should only have small ships focused around catering to player teams. I think small PC-focused ships should be the primary concern, but there should also be some larger vessels. Yes to the Millennium Falcon, Serenity, T-65 X-Wings, Starbug and their like; but also yes to the SSV Normandy, USS Enterprise, Liberator and others. The Normandy is really not much bigger crew wise than a fully crewed serenity or falcon. Most of the normandy versions are sub 20 crew with some extra space for passengers. But yes I think a lot of focus on fighters to mid sized frigats/freighters/low end corvettes is likely what most players would have reason to interact with. Although something like an wing commander, robotech adventure based off some big capital ship and being an elite strike team can be fun too.
I am in favor of little ships in big ones.
For example in Farscape, Moya has a big hangar deck that fits plenty of shuttles and Aeryn's Prowler.
Battlestar Galactica has the Battlestar, and Vipers are launched from it. Cylons do this too.
There are tons of other examples, but if you have a bigger ship (maybe NPC-owned since PC's don't need all that space) than there should be a hangar deck where you launch fighters.
kaid wrote: Bluenose wrote: nomotog wrote: Morgen wrote: How much do we know of spaceships so far? I haven’t read every post on the forum.
I’m just worried because they always seem to be either priced outside of any PC’s possible ability to buy, require some kind of extreme number of crew members that it removes some/all the ships out of most games or even without thousands of crew you need to have 4-6 PC’s specialized in just running it. It can really throw a wrench into things especially when players start to just steal them.
I’m just hoping that people are thinking about and looking at that. It’s hard enough to rope 4-6 people together as a unit without them needing to know how to use sensors or things after all.
For my take, they should only have small ships focused around catering to player teams. I think small PC-focused ships should be the primary concern, but there should also be some larger vessels. Yes to the Millennium Falcon, Serenity, T-65 X-Wings, Starbug and their like; but also yes to the SSV Normandy, USS Enterprise, Liberator and others. The Normandy is really not much bigger crew wise than a fully crewed serenity or falcon. Most of the normandy versions are sub 20 crew with some extra space for passengers. But yes I think a lot of focus on fighters to mid sized frigats/freighters/low end corvettes is likely what most players would have reason to interact with. Although something like an wing commander, robotech adventure based off some big capital ship and being an elite strike team can be fun too. Yes please! robotech or just in general the party is a mercenary/sub contracted group for ground work on a much larger ship with a much larger mission. Let them earn a voice in where the capital ship goes :)
kaid wrote: Bluenose wrote: nomotog wrote: Morgen wrote: How much do we know of spaceships so far? I haven’t read every post on the forum.
I’m just worried because they always seem to be either priced outside of any PC’s possible ability to buy, require some kind of extreme number of crew members that it removes some/all the ships out of most games or even without thousands of crew you need to have 4-6 PC’s specialized in just running it. It can really throw a wrench into things especially when players start to just steal them.
I’m just hoping that people are thinking about and looking at that. It’s hard enough to rope 4-6 people together as a unit without them needing to know how to use sensors or things after all.
For my take, they should only have small ships focused around catering to player teams. I think small PC-focused ships should be the primary concern, but there should also be some larger vessels. Yes to the Millennium Falcon, Serenity, T-65 X-Wings, Starbug and their like; but also yes to the SSV Normandy, USS Enterprise, Liberator and others. The Normandy is really not much bigger crew wise than a fully crewed serenity or falcon. Most of the normandy versions are sub 20 crew with some extra space for passengers. But yes I think a lot of focus on fighters to mid sized frigats/freighters/low end corvettes is likely what most players would have reason to interact with. Although something like an wing commander, robotech adventure based off some big capital ship and being an elite strike team can be fun too. The Falcon operated with a crew of two, though I think that was too few and explains some of the maintenance issues. Serenity could certainly manage with a crew of six, and probably less. The Normandy SR-1 left twenty dead on Alchera, and that's with most of crew surviving. It's ten times the crew size of the small stuff that a PC group could manage without supporting NPCs.
Bluenose wrote: kaid wrote: Bluenose wrote: nomotog wrote: Morgen wrote: How much do we know of spaceships so far? I haven’t read every post on the forum.
I’m just worried because they always seem to be either priced outside of any PC’s possible ability to buy, require some kind of extreme number of crew members that it removes some/all the ships out of most games or even without thousands of crew you need to have 4-6 PC’s specialized in just running it. It can really throw a wrench into things especially when players start to just steal them.
I’m just hoping that people are thinking about and looking at that. It’s hard enough to rope 4-6 people together as a unit without them needing to know how to use sensors or things after all.
For my take, they should only have small ships focused around catering to player teams. I think small PC-focused ships should be the primary concern, but there should also be some larger vessels. Yes to the Millennium Falcon, Serenity, T-65 X-Wings, Starbug and their like; but also yes to the SSV Normandy, USS Enterprise, Liberator and others. The Normandy is really not much bigger crew wise than a fully crewed serenity or falcon. Most of the normandy versions are sub 20 crew with some extra space for passengers. But yes I think a lot of focus on fighters to mid sized frigats/freighters/low end corvettes is likely what most players would have reason to interact with. Although something like an wing commander, robotech adventure based off some big capital ship and being an elite strike team can be fun too. The Falcon operated with a crew of two, though I think that was too few and explains some of the maintenance issues. Serenity could certainly manage with a crew of six, and probably less. The Normandy SR-1 left twenty dead on Alchera, and that's with most of crew surviving. It's ten times the crew size of the small stuff that a PC group could manage without supporting NPCs.
Droid brain automation, boom and done!
Have the mechanic's AI move into the ship and control all of those fiddly little things like gravity and life support.
... Just realized that my first companion AI has to be named HAL.
Could probably use Mass Effect Andromeda's crew as a good size. Has a total of eleven people, and it means that you can interact with friendly NPCs along with your fellow PC adventurers.
For ship crews keep in mind that there is the bare minimum you need to run a ship, the comfortable number you need to run a ship on multiple shifts plus some spare crewmen for when someone is sick and then a yyugely massive number of crew to run the ship 24/7 plus conduct damage control in combat and repel boarders.
Bluenose wrote: kaid wrote: Bluenose wrote: nomotog wrote: Morgen wrote: How much do we know of spaceships so far? I haven’t read every post on the forum.
I’m just worried because they always seem to be either priced outside of any PC’s possible ability to buy, require some kind of extreme number of crew members that it removes some/all the ships out of most games or even without thousands of crew you need to have 4-6 PC’s specialized in just running it. It can really throw a wrench into things especially when players start to just steal them.
I’m just hoping that people are thinking about and looking at that. It’s hard enough to rope 4-6 people together as a unit without them needing to know how to use sensors or things after all.
For my take, they should only have small ships focused around catering to player teams. I think small PC-focused ships should be the primary concern, but there should also be some larger vessels. Yes to the Millennium Falcon, Serenity, T-65 X-Wings, Starbug and their like; but also yes to the SSV Normandy, USS Enterprise, Liberator and others. The Normandy is really not much bigger crew wise than a fully crewed serenity or falcon. Most of the normandy versions are sub 20 crew with some extra space for passengers. But yes I think a lot of focus on fighters to mid sized frigats/freighters/low end corvettes is likely what most players would have reason to interact with. Although something like an wing commander, robotech adventure based off some big capital ship and being an elite strike team can be fun too. The Falcon operated with a crew of two, though I think that was too few and explains some of the maintenance issues. Serenity could certainly manage with a crew of six, and probably less. The Normandy SR-1 left twenty dead on Alchera, and that's with most of crew surviving. It's ten times the crew size of the small stuff that a PC group could manage without supporting NPCs.
Interesting that you mention that. the falcon has a turret above and one below, it also has a pilot position and a navigator position. There was a scene where Han Solo was conducting repairs on the ship's hyperdrive while it was being fired upon by a Star Destroyer. So I guess Leia was also a pilot, or Maybe she was a gunner during the Empire Strikes Back?
I would assume that the Millenium Falcon is supposed to be crewed by 5, two gunners, a pilot, a co-pilot and an engineer. Under my assumptions above, i would say the ship can be minimally manned by 2 (In Episode VII with just two people they have trouble even getting the shields up and with just Hand and Chewie onboard they have to give up some functionality to man the guns) and optimally manned at 15 to provide multiple shifts for each position and the ability to have a few people down for recovery or conducting repairs without significant impact.
BretI wrote: How about calling it Jayne's Fighting Ships? Cobb's Compendium, perhaps?
...and on the most decrepit, gnome-patched spit-welded ship's page, a comment:
"A trader flies around in a ship like this, people know, he's not afraid of anything."
I'm actually reminded of a 3PP for Cepheus Engine that does a similar concept with their ships.
Torbyne wrote: I would assume that the Millenium Falcon is supposed to be crewed by 5, two gunners, a pilot, a co-pilot and an engineer. Under my assumptions above, i would say the ship can be minimally manned by 2 (In Episode VII with just two people they have trouble even getting the shields up and with just Hand and Chewie onboard they have to give up some functionality to man the guns) and optimally manned at 15 to provide multiple shifts for each position and the ability to have a few people down for recovery or conducting repairs without significant impact. 15 is pretty overkill. The thing with the gunner positions and maybe even the co-pilot (to a much lesser extent) is they'd don't have to be crewed 24/7. The gunner slots in particular would be filled by otherwise off duty crew only when something happened.
If it were a dedicated military attack ship, you might see your numbers, but for cargo or especially smuggling, 15 is way too many.
Loading down a cargo ship with extra people just isn't practical, even if they're time-sharing bunks (wherever those happen to be on the falcon). Really I'd say the optimal number is six, enough to have backups for engineer and pilot, 2 on guns when necessary, a co pilot, and someone in the 'communications/sensor' chair behind the pilot- where we see a random rebel in the attack on endor. But from a practical standpoint you'd wake those people up in a crisis, not strain resources (more life support, more food/water, less cargo) and ship space to have people standing around for hours.
Of course, this is only necessary because Lucas wanted to show the guns as ww2 bomber turret blisters. If it were practical and like most other ships in the SW universe, the guns would be fired from the cockpit, and an active duty shift would be 3 or 4.
I wonder what Han Solo did when one of his passengers was not Luke Skywalker, he has two gunner's positions and only one of him, and I'm sure Han does not always take passengers, so one of his guns would be unmanned. It was an interesting situation in the Empire Strikes back, when Lando was up too rescuing Luke from the underside of Cloud City, and I guess Chewbacca was flying the ship and Princess Leia was manning one of the gun turrets while Tie Fighters were closing in on their position. They never actually showed Leia in any of the gun turrets in any of the movies, but we'll just have to assume that!
Voss wrote: Torbyne wrote: I would assume that the Millenium Falcon is supposed to be crewed by 5, two gunners, a pilot, a co-pilot and an engineer. Under my assumptions above, i would say the ship can be minimally manned by 2 (In Episode VII with just two people they have trouble even getting the shields up and with just Hand and Chewie onboard they have to give up some functionality to man the guns) and optimally manned at 15 to provide multiple shifts for each position and the ability to have a few people down for recovery or conducting repairs without significant impact. 15 is pretty overkill. The thing with the gunner positions and maybe even the co-pilot (to a much lesser extent) is they'd don't have to be crewed 24/7. The gunner slots in particular would be filled by otherwise off duty crew only when something happened.
If it were a dedicated military attack ship, you might see your numbers, but for cargo or especially smuggling, 15 is way too many.
Loading down a cargo ship with extra people just isn't practical, even if they're time-sharing bunks (wherever those happen to be on the falcon). Really I'd say the optimal number is six, enough to have backups for engineer and pilot, 2 on guns when necessary, a co pilot, and someone in the 'communications/sensor' chair behind the pilot- where we see a random rebel in the attack on endor. But from a practical standpoint you'd wake those people up in a crisis, not strain resources (more life support, more food/water, less cargo) and ship space to have people standing around for hours.
Of course, this is only necessary because Lucas wanted to show the guns as ww2 bomber turret blisters. If it were practical and like most other ships in the SW universe, the guns would be fired from the cockpit, and an active duty shift would be 3 or 4. Its hard to tell where to draw the line with ships in a setting like this but i think that if the Millenium Falcon was being operated as a scout/enforcement ship it would be at that 15 crew mark. The 6 person crew you bring up is great for "casual" flying with occasional scuffles but wouldnt work if things really hit the fan. i was trying to get a few different marks on where an individual ship could fall out. What the movies only really hint at is that with the 2 man crew the Falcon normally has, it can never operate all of its systems at the same time and isnt even running with someone at the helm all the time. A party could try that but it seems to me the same as saying, "Nah, we dont need to stand watches when camping in the forsaken lands of crushed souls. We're good."
But then again if you are talking about cargo hauling or otherwise a for profit company than you want to get away with as minimal a crew as you can. I dont think PCs would go that route.
So somewhere between profit pinching hauling and military crew i could see a "private contractor" ship with a 6-8 person crew being a common set up. At least two shifts of pilot and navigator/coms operator/co-pilot plus a mix of engineer/mechanics and gunner/marines.
I think it does show though that even within the same size and class of ship you could have some pretty wild ranges in crew sizes.
There is also the level of automation that a ship can have. Earlier science fiction like Star Wars and Trek don't have a significant level of automation since that didn't fit the thoughts of science at the time. Especially Star Wars has a level of analogue tech (which I personally dig) that requires a person to run it. So ships like that would require a larger crew.
I like having the option to pay for automation for certain functions. Gunnery, Life Support, Engineering... things that you don't need a lot of people for. Maybe it costs less than hiring out a person, but you get a more limited use out of it. Or conversely, it costs more than hiring a person but there isn't a monthly salary/wage to pay the computer.
Odraude wrote: There is also the level of automation that a ship can have. Earlier science fiction like Star Wars and Trek don't have a significant level of automation since that didn't fit the thoughts of science at the time. Especially Star Wars has a level of analogue tech (which I personally dig) that requires a person to run it. So ships like that would require a larger crew.
I like having the option to pay for automation for certain functions. Gunnery, Life Support, Engineering... things that you don't need a lot of people for. Maybe it costs less than hiring out a person, but you get a more limited use out of it. Or conversely, it costs more than hiring a person but there isn't a monthly salary/wage to pay the computer.
You have no idea the nerve you have struck. I am perpetually bothered at the lack of automation in these iconic settings. Star Wars has it as an option that is used in some of the fringe material. Nothing that is canon anymore at least but there used to be some cool automated ships or things run by droids. The closest left are the droids that manned the guns on prequel era battleships that seemed at least as capable as organic gunners. Star Trek has played around with the idea a few times, usually as a monster of the week kind of episode. I think at least once a federation attack ship run by holographic AI decimated an enemy ship in Voyager... but that was Voyager and i hate you for making me remember that show exists ;P
Traveller has the option of computer control for systems but it was very expensive and at best got to the level of starting character competence if i remember right, effectively capping out at level 2 with no ability modifier compared to a PC who could expect 1-2 points from ability alone and an additional 2-3 points in something they were good at.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
The lack of automation is a relic of the time when the original movies were made. The impact of future technology on our everyday lives was tremendously underestimated back then.
David knott 242 wrote: The lack of automation is a relic of the time when the original movies were made. The impact of future technology on our everyday lives was tremendously underestimated back then.
Yup, i get that. And i also understand how current and future entries in the series will maintain that for internal consistency. (And because in star wars technology has effectively peaked and there are only minor things that technology can improve upon over the course of several thousand years.)
Doesnt mean it doesnt bother me though... :P
It's sort of oddly ironic that the only thing highly automated in Star Trek TOS, was war between planets...
An automated starship in Star Wars is a starship that is being piloted by a droid, something which occurred in the movie Rogue One!
Generally in Star Wars droids can fly ships (astromechs, droid fighters, K2) but their performance is inferior to a human (or whatever) pilot.
I noticed K2 didn't shy away from killing people. He was quite an effective combatant in fact, in contrast to C3P0.
Tom Kalbfus wrote: I noticed K2 didn't shy away from killing people. He was quite an effective combatant in fact, in contrast to C3P0. He was a hacked Imperial combat droid, and (speaking generously and vaguely) working for people who cared about results over... anything else.
3PO is a pretty low bar to set. What was surprising was it was light years more competent than any combat droid ever shown in any other SW movie.
Voss wrote: Torbyne wrote: I would assume that the Millenium Falcon is supposed to be crewed by 5, two gunners, a pilot, a co-pilot and an engineer. Under my assumptions above, i would say the ship can be minimally manned by 2 (In Episode VII with just two people they have trouble even getting the shields up and with just Hand and Chewie onboard they have to give up some functionality to man the guns) and optimally manned at 15 to provide multiple shifts for each position and the ability to have a few people down for recovery or conducting repairs without significant impact. 15 is pretty overkill. The thing with the gunner positions and maybe even the co-pilot (to a much lesser extent) is they'd don't have to be crewed 24/7. The gunner slots in particular would be filled by otherwise off duty crew only when something happened.
If it were a dedicated military attack ship, you might see your numbers, but for cargo or especially smuggling, 15 is way too many.
Loading down a cargo ship with extra people just isn't practical, even if they're time-sharing bunks (wherever those happen to be on the falcon). Really I'd say the optimal number is six, enough to have backups for engineer and pilot, 2 on guns when necessary, a co pilot, and someone in the 'communications/sensor' chair behind the pilot- where we see a random rebel in the attack on endor. But from a practical standpoint you'd wake those people up in a crisis, not strain resources (more life support, more food/water, less cargo) and ship space to have people standing around for hours.
Of course, this is only necessary because Lucas wanted to show the guns as ww2 bomber turret blisters. If it were practical and like most other ships in the SW universe, the guns would be fired from the cockpit, and an active duty shift would be 3 or 4. 15 is overkill because where are you going to get that many players. (Also giving everyone a turn and something important to do would be annoying :S)
David knott 242 wrote: The lack of automation is a relic of the time when the original movies were made. The impact of future technology on our everyday lives was tremendously underestimated back then.
Technically it happened a long long time ago...
Just saying. :p
nomotog wrote: Voss wrote: Torbyne wrote: I would assume that the Millenium Falcon is supposed to be crewed by 5, two gunners, a pilot, a co-pilot and an engineer. Under my assumptions above, i would say the ship can be minimally manned by 2 (In Episode VII with just two people they have trouble even getting the shields up and with just Hand and Chewie onboard they have to give up some functionality to man the guns) and optimally manned at 15 to provide multiple shifts for each position and the ability to have a few people down for recovery or conducting repairs without significant impact. 15 is pretty overkill. The thing with the gunner positions and maybe even the co-pilot (to a much lesser extent) is they'd don't have to be crewed 24/7. The gunner slots in particular would be filled by otherwise off duty crew only when something happened.
If it were a dedicated military attack ship, you might see your numbers, but for cargo or especially smuggling, 15 is way too many.
Loading down a cargo ship with extra people just isn't practical, even if they're time-sharing bunks (wherever those happen to be on the falcon). Really I'd say the optimal number is six, enough to have backups for engineer and pilot, 2 on guns when necessary, a co pilot, and someone in the 'communications/sensor' chair behind the pilot- where we see a random rebel in the attack on endor. But from a practical standpoint you'd wake those people up in a crisis, not strain resources (more life support, more food/water, less cargo) and ship space to have people standing around for hours.
Of course, this is only necessary because Lucas wanted to show the guns as ww2 bomber turret blisters. If it were practical and like most other ships in the SW universe, the guns would be fired from the cockpit, and an active duty shift would be 3 or 4. 15 is overkill because where are you going to get that many players. (Also giving everyone a turn and something important to do would be annoying :S) True, there is the gamist side of the debate as well, and when viewed in that light, the troubles of the Millennium Falcon in the movie could stem from not all players making it to the session and the GM wants to push ahead with it anyways.
Have they listed the available roles/functions of ship combat anywhere? i come up with five pretty common ones and maybe double up a few for larger groups?
- Gunner
- Commander
- Tactician (Sensors and Targetting)
- Engineer
- Pilot
Roll Pilot and Commander into a single role and maybe tactician and engineer into a single as well for smaller groups?
Spunds about right, although I suspect the "tactical station" will be more focused on operating the deflector shields if they are following the Star Trek rpg model. Additional players = additional gunners.
Fardragon wrote: Spunds about right, although I suspect the "tactical station" will be more focused on operating the deflector shields if they are following the Star Trek rpg model. Additional players = additional gunners. You could also call that position the "system operatote" but i would see it as the one to find hiding targets, lock on for weapon bonuses, that kind of thing. I would think the engineer is the one who would find excess power to push to the shields or engines or, well, basically be the self buffer while the tactician is more of a debuffer.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
They have also said there are boons that all players have and you would choose which you use after the briefing. I wouldn't be surprised if one of those is a crew member to fill in an open position.
Velr-Fex wrote: My biggest question is: Are spaceships getting stat blocks? Thanks. Given that there seems to be starship combat options I would assume that starships will be getting full statblocks.
Torbyne wrote: Fardragon wrote: Spunds about right, although I suspect the "tactical station" will be more focused on operating the deflector shields if they are following the Star Trek rpg model. Additional players = additional gunners. You could also call that position the "system operatote" but i would see it as the one to find hiding targets, lock on for weapon bonuses, that kind of thing. I would think the engineer is the one who would find excess power to push to the shields or engines or, well, basically be the self buffer while the tactician is more of a debuffer. If I remember FASA Star Trek, the roles where something like this:
Helm: moves ship on hex grid (as directed by captain). Skill rolls for tighter turns, etc. May also fire phasers and photon torpedos on ships without a seperate Gunnery officer (i.e fewer players).
Navigation/Science/Comms (may be split if more players): allocates power to shields (6 shields, 1 for each hex face), detects cloaked enemies, opens hailing frequences to accept surrender.
Engeneering: allocates power between helm, weapons and shields (power becomes limited as the ship takes damage). Repairs damage. Skill rolls for repairs or to squeeze more power from engines.
Captain: tells the other players what to do (in broad terms). Merged with Helm if only 3 players.
Medical officer (additional player): reduces damage to crew. Not relevant for Starfinder, where players won't have 400 red shirt NPCs.
Generally, you need at least 3 players and a GM. Although the GM will be in control of multiple ships, and so there needs to be a simplified system for them to use.
I often wondered how realistic is fixing the ship while it is under combat Imagine there are three bank robbers, one of whom is an auto mechanic, the cops are chasing them, one of the bank robbers is shooting at the cops that are chasing them, the other is driving the car, and while they are trying to escape the police, the car suddenly starts experiencing mechanical trouble, the third bank robber who is an automechanic says, "I'll fix it," while the car does a hairpin turn, he climbs out the window and asks the driver to pop the hood.
Space combat tends to be based more on naval combat. Which can last hours or days, and there is certainly time for running repairs. And on large vessels many crew members to repair the ship.
To piggy back on Fardragon's comment, if the players are all in fighters or gundams or something similar than, yeah, it is impractical to climb out and start whacking things back into place but as they mention, large ships duking it out can last for a very long time. Even modern engagements can take place over a long enough time that the crew can bring systems back online, patch holes in the sides of ships and in general negate a lot of the effects of an attack. (Now a large salvo of anti-ship weapons or enough torpedoes to actually crack a ship in half would be a different story but we dont see too many attacks of that scale in the real world. The South Korean Navy is the only one i could think of off the top of my head that has lost a ship in such an event, most other engagements had enough time for damage control to factor in.)
|
