Do I understand correctly that it is prohibitive to impossible for the larger starships to carry enough escape pods for their entire crew?
6 escape pods per expansion bay = 6 medium-sized people that can escape
Battleship 8 expansion bays = 48 escape pods if you use all of them and a minimum crew of 100.
Keep in mind that in starfinder, any suit of armor functions as an escape pod, minus the atmospheric reentry feature. After all, most ships tend to end up disabled and turned into drifting wrecks rather than exploding in special effects star wars style. There aren't any rules for ammunition explosions or reactors going critical, instead "If a ship is reduced to 0 or fewer Hull Points, it is disabled and it floats in its current direction of travel at a rate of half its speed until it is repaired, rescued, or destroyed. Crew members aboard such ships are not in immediate danger unless their life-support system is wrecked, but they might eventually die from starvation and thirst if they have no way to repair the ship." And if an enemy ship is still shooting a disabled target, well, they'll shoot at the escape pods too.
So, in the event of a space battle, an allied ship will search the wreck for armored up crew and take them on board via space walks or shuttlecraft instead of picking up hundreds of pods.
Also, in deep space, the pods have no means of propulsion, so they aren't really helpful unless you're near a planet. I'd assume they tend to be more for people who can't wear armor (children, or medical patients kind of thing) or for the large/medium drift freighter crew who knows they'll be operating in/near atmosphere a lot and values their lives over better profit margins.
Your concern bothered me as well when I first read the starship construction rules. It made it very had to imagine space travel being so ubiquitous but so potentially risky, but presumed safe.
But someone pointed out how easily protections are assumed to be built into even the simplest of armors in starfinder.
Then I started coming up with my own idea for escape 'rafts' that could be used in emergencies. As it turns out, they already exist but in a more generic nature.
For 50 credits for each you can have an emergency 'life raft' that will allow you to get in it and it inflate and hold 2 medium sized creatures(more credits listed as producing larger ones), protecting you from the ravages of vacuum and other basic dangers (as it is supposed to be similar to that provided by armors, probably small drifting shards, etc.) The thing is good for just under 7 days off one battery, for some extra money and perhaps weight that might be extended, or there might be a way to power it off the ship if the shell of the ship has any emergency power left to siphon off.
My version of the item I was working up included an emergency beacon, and the beacon's had a special ability to work in gestalt to have a greater range when more than one was within range of one another increasing the range of all of them collectively.
So if you consider the existence of emergency rafts like that in the halls or rooms, in addition to vacc suits/i.e. flight suits providing environmental protections. I imagine a few people in suits can service the needs of several sets of non-crew potentially in life-rafts shuttling new batteries to power their particular rafts, etc.
So as mentioned, the actual need for get in metal box and go drift into deep space with nothing but an inch or so of steel between you and the void, may be viewed as less useful than staying in the shell that is probably still several layers of metal and other materials, and hope that the larger object catches the attention of rescue teams.
The armor protections is a good point I hadn't thought of, after which I immediately thought of something like an interstellar liner, and then you guys mentioned the Hotelier Tent, which, at 50 credits, is easy to imagine being stocked all around said passenger liner for emergencies.
Between the two, now I'm almost wondering why you'd want escape pods at all. :) You did bring up one or two possible cases, though.
Thanks, you two!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would happily sign off on a house rule or errata that devoting one expansion bay to escape pods provides enough escape pods to handle up to the ship's maximum complement. Otherwise luxury liner starships in this galaxy are a fleet of Titanics waiting to happen; it's just not feasible to have enough escape pods for the really big vessels.
I would happily sign off on a house rule or errata that devoting one expansion bay to escape pods provides enough escape pods to handle up to the ship's maximum complement. Otherwise luxury liner starships in this galaxy are a fleet of Titanics waiting to happen; it's just not feasible to have enough escape pods for the really big vessels.
There's only two scenarios I can think of that you want to be off the ship, instead of in a shelter on a drifting wreck. The ship exploding and killing you if you stay on board, or the ship crashing into a planet and killing you if you stay on board.
I'm unconvinced jumping into pods with no propulsion of their own are going to save you from the shrapnel propelled by an explosion. Nevermind that starfinder ships tend not to explode, but turn into drifting wrecks.
In the case of the ship breaking up, away from a gravity well, each section of the ship is already it's own escape pod in terms of safety and rescue with the aforementioned shelters. Unlike at sea with a sinking ship, a drifting wreck isn't going to kill you, and in fact may provide much better shelter than a pod.
The only time you really need them, is when a ship would be in danger of falling into a (survivable) atmosphere. That's the titanic scenario that isn't protected against by current rules, bringing in a large+ ship designed for a multitude of passengers near a planet. Just note that escape pods still won't save you if you're crashing into a gas giant or some such thing.
And, I really don't think you need classic escape pods or a house rule, so much as survival compartments. Armored sections of the ship each designed to shelter and support some portion of a crew for a few days, and survive reentry if the ship breaks up and falls to a planet. Probably protected against radiation more than your basic hotelier.
It's just flavor, but it fixes most problems with not having escape pods, and helps out the warship by not having hundreds of holes in it's armor for escape pods to escape through.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd use house rules of escape pods having just enough thruster to stabilize (so you aren't tumbling tilt-a-whirl style until rescued) and just enough fuel to nudge you toward the nearest planet if you are in a system. Why not have the slowing mechanism be a buoyant helium balloon/paraglider. On a terrestrial planet a successful piloting roll improves the chance of landing on your preference of land or water, and if you fall into a gas giant, you might stabilize and float at some level and have a chance of rescue too.
In every show/game/movie I in which I have ever seen escape pods employed, the pods are invariably blasted to a safe distance from the ship, which is about to explode/be destroyed. Depending on the setting, these either then self-stabilize, and broadcast a distress beacon, or they automatically orient on the nearest rocky planet and give a short burst of acceleration in that direction, and are equipped to land safely. The later usually also have distress beacons.
So for game mechanics, it becomes a decision by the GM which type of pods exist in their world, or if both do and the second type costs a few more BP. Regardless, pods should be shot out from their ship a minimum of 5 hexes before stabilizing. If landing pods are used, they should then move at 1 hex/round toward the closest suitable planetary body (or moon).
In every show/game/movie I in which I have ever seen escape pods employed, the pods are invariably blasted to a safe distance from the ship, which is about to explode/be destroyed. Depending on the setting, these either then self-stabilize, and broadcast a distress beacon, or they automatically orient on the nearest rocky planet and give a short burst of acceleration in that direction, and are equipped to land safely. The later usually also have distress beacons.
So for game mechanics, it becomes a decision by the GM which type of pods exist in their world, or if both do and the second type costs a few more BP. Regardless, pods should be shot out from their ship a minimum of 5 hexes before stabilizing. If landing pods are used, they should then move at 1 hex/round toward the closest suitable planetary body (or moon).
My counter point summed up:
-Starfinder ships are almost never about to blow up for cinematic reasons.-Nine times out of ten, staying in the big ship is safer, more secure, and has a better chance of rescue than getting into a smaller ship.
-For that other situation, there are plenty of other solutions besides escape pods, even if they aren't as Micheal Bay as the pods are.
I get that for some people, the escape pod is iconic sci-fi and they want that in their game. I just like to look at alternatives, and for reasons why big ships don't carry them. House ruling them in for free is a perfectly fine option, I just like considering alternates.
The free option wasn't my proposal, mine was to suggest ways to make them practical, and indirectly, suggest that using them to bail before the ship is going to go boom is perhaps not the best idea. For myself, I'd think the notion that getting escape pods means that you have enough for everyone on board makes more sense, though if that is the direction people take, for cost/BP balance, it should be a system based on the size of the craft (which would mean that fighters could conceivably have a jetison-able cockpit a la modern ejection seats).
The free option wasn't my proposal, mine was to suggest ways to make them practical, and indirectly, suggest that using them to bail before the ship is going to go boom is perhaps not the best idea. For myself, I'd think the notion that getting escape pods means that you have enough for everyone on board makes more sense, though if that is the direction people take, for cost/BP balance, it should be a system based on the size of the craft (which would mean that fighters could conceivably have a jetison-able cockpit a la modern ejection seats).
There's also the consideration on warships, that having a hundred pre-made holes in your armor for escape pods to jettison through is not the best idea.
Though, a fighter having a re-entry capable survival system is a very different suggestion that I like. Though, I wonder at the game utility of making it a system, vs flavor based on fighter type? Like a BMC Mauler would have them, but a Necroglider would not.
There's also the consideration on warships, that having a hundred pre-made holes in your armor for escape pods to jettison through is not the best idea.
In keeping with theme, most warships that have life pods scattered across all decks have exteriors panels/hatches that move/open when the evacuate order is given.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's also the consideration on warships, that having a hundred pre-made holes in your armor for escape pods to jettison through is not the best idea.In keeping with theme, most warships that have life pods scattered across all decks have exteriors panels/hatches that move/open when the evacuate order is given.
And those tend to be weak points in the armor. Sure, they already have windows and hangar bays, but drilling hundreds of more hole and protecting them with an armored hatch is still adding a hundred or more weak points.
And those tend to be weak points in the armor. Sure, they already have windows and hangar bays, but drilling hundreds of more hole and protecting them with an armored hatch is still adding a hundred or more weak points.
Please explain to me how having the armored hull plates being able to move detracts from their defensive capacity while they are locked down in their standard placement.
The more rational problem with such a design is that battle damage could block the section from being able to move, or, if you are using the silly media idea of motors or hydraulics, the fact that if your ship is so damaged that must bail, the power for those systems will almost certainly not be available. The real world equivalent, the ejection seat, uses 'exploding bolt' principals, where the fastening mechanisms are quick release holds, with either compressed air, or a charge similar to those found in air bags, to blow off the cockpit hatch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And those tend to be weak points in the armor. Sure, they already have windows and hangar bays, but drilling hundreds of more hole and protecting them with an armored hatch is still adding a hundred or more weak points.Please explain to me how having the armored hull plates being able to move detracts from their defensive capacity while they are locked down in their standard placement.
The more rational problem with such a design is that battle damage could block the section from being able to move, or, if you are using the silly media idea of motors or hydraulics, the fact that if your ship is so damaged that must bail, the power for those systems will almost certainly not be available. The real world equivalent, the ejection seat, uses 'exploding bolt' principals, where the fastening mechanisms are quick release holds, with either compressed air, or a charge similar to those found in air bags, to blow off the cockpit hatch.
Armor being very thick, needing complicated and vulnerable hinges to move a door thicker than it is wide. That bit of armor being separated from the rest means that it can move easier than the armor around it when struck by a kinetic impact. The door being thinner than the armor around it (if applicable). Exterior damage/warping of the armor preventing escape pods from leaving through their designated channel, etc.
Sure, having explosive bolts to scuttle the ship and let the escape pods hidden within survive and get away from the debris sounds okay, but it also sounds just as bad as having the escape pods on the big ship to start with.
Alternative idea for a warship: the escape pod doesn't need a hole in the armor to launch, because the escape pod is actually *part* of the armor.
This is kinda the point I'm getting at. Instead of the ship having escape pods that blast away from a perfectly serviceable derelict, in the case of a ship about to enter an atmosphere it's not designed to, armored compartments meant for reentry/have enough padding/gravity tech to survive a crash on a planet and keep the crew around exist in the ship.
After all, that's the only situation I see pods/alternatives to just staying on the ship being useful. When the ship is going to crash into a survivable planet and can't make the landing itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm appalled at the uneconomic organizations spending money on escape pods rather than replacement crew. In a competitive galaxy, they are ngmi.
|
My own house rule is simply "every ship has enough escape pods for its normal crew compliment, for free, unless its otherwise intended to be a deathtrap". Escape pods don't serve to give the players an "unfair advantage", they serve to facilitate the GM telling stories. As such, they shouldn't need to be bought and paid for.
I do the same at my games, simply because Escape Pods are no benefit for the players. If the players have to use their escape pods, they already had a MAJOR loss (their ship including all their not carried items etc.). So I don't want to punish my players twice and escape pods are also a great start for a new adventure (survival, revenge, get a new ship to salvage the wreck of your old etc.).
P.S.: same for the self destruct system, for the same reason.^^
Once more, you open the door
and I'm glad that my black heart
necro graft will beat on and on
Space can touch me one time
I'll last her a life time
and never let go of the hull
Think about the lack of parachutes on commercial airplanes, or seatbelts on school busses. In both cases, the structural design is *intended* to compensate for or exceed the gains this equipment t would provide