Spelljammer ship statistics. - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Spelljammer ship statistics.

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Xorial
Dec 27, 2005 10:47:19 I know how everybody like to try & convert the old 2e way of using Tonnage to build & stat out ships. The main problem is that judging by previous "official" conversions, as seen in Spider Moon in Polyhedron/Dungeon and the adventure that ties into Lords of Madness , seen here , we have to assume that any new ships stats are going to more closely resemble the stats for ships as in Stormwrack and the airships in Eberron. I was wondering if anybody has thought of doing that type of conversion? I plan of working on it some after the New Year, but wouldnt mind seeing if anybody else has done that.

As a side note, I have a copy of Airships coming to me from Amazon.com, so this whole discussion may be a lost cause, lol.
#2
nightdruid
Dec 29, 2005 6:31:41 I did mess with it a bit earlier in the year. Overall, I wasn't very happy with the results. Thing about sectional-hp is that it makes things overly complex, and forces ships to "shrink" to keep the number of sections down. For example, if you notice the ships from Stormwrack are pretty small (usually much smaller than their listed size in the DMG), and the spelljammers that have appeared in web-enhancements have had their size halved. For really big ships, like the nautiloid or hammership, they more resemble mobile dungeons rather than ships you could blow out of the sky, because the number of sections is so great (aka nautiloid from the LoM web enhancement is treated more like a dungeon rather than a ship).

Another thing to consider is the size requirements of 3e seige weapons. Most would have a difficult time fitting on any standard spelljammer, and if you halve the scale of most ships (ala the web enhancements), you would be able to only mount very, very small weapons. Certainly nothing powerful enough to put more than a ding in another ship (damage for seige weapons being WAY too low to be useful).

Anyways, just some of the things I discovered while working on it.
#3
Xorial
Dec 29, 2005 14:32:50 I finally got my hands on a copy of Stormwrack so I see what you mean, but that would be the nature of spelljamming. Looking at the hull section statements, it seem that it would blend really well with the Airships book from Bastion Press. I have a copy on order, but wont get it till the end of January. But, what I have read of it at the stores, it uses air tons, which, if I remember right, is basically a hull section: 10ft x 10ft x 10ft. I know that you end up with a large number of hull sections, but lets face it, a big ship is a big ship. It got out of hand in Spelljammer, anyway, with them assigning a tonnage that didnt even reflect their own rules for vessel size. If you use the rules, an elven armada was WAY bigger than 100 tons. Most large vessels would be better treated as a mobile dungeon anyway. Ship to ship combat was an hours long affair in the heyday of sailing ships, with cannon. I guess that is why they made gunpowder in the Spidermoon article more prevelant than in 2e Spelljammer.
#4
nightdruid
Dec 29, 2005 15:09:09 IIRC, Airships is much closer to SJ "classic" than stormwrack. Each 10x10x10 section = 1 hull point, which when you do the math, basically matches most SJ ships (with a few oddball exceptions, which were always oddball exceptions).

The Armada has always been a poor example...it was just so out of line with everything else that the only real way to explain it FR High Magic (which came about a few years after SJ came out ). Its a cool ship, regardless.

As far as big ships go, I think the "breaking point" of obscenely long battles is much lower with sections vs. hull points, especially if you strictly follow the seige weapon rules.
#5
Xorial
Dec 29, 2005 19:03:10 I never really got into running ship to ship combats, except to encourage characters to go away or to draw them in. I thought that the hull points were, hate to say this in a fantasy game, unrealistic. When I did run the combats, I preferred that you had to get lucky, or took a long time, to do real damage. I have read books dealing with ship to ship actions in the 1600s, around the time of the 30 Years War, were the actions were well into one hour before sinificant damage was being dealt to the enemy. Thats why I dont allow the use of catapults in spelljammer. It is a ballistic attack, with an arcing trajectory. That wont work in space. All craft were using ballistae or cannon/bombards. More of a direct fire weapon. With Spidermoon making the helm produce air, it does allow the proper size crews for ships, which would make a proper broadsides a workable action in Spelljammer.
Besides, to disable a ship, you just need to destroy 25% of the hull sections.
#6
Xorial
Dec 29, 2005 19:16:56 Another thing, the main rason that real naval battles directed the majority of their attacks at the rigging is that was the quickest way to disable a ship. Like it says in Stormwrack, which should apply to Spelljammer as well, you need to make it a boarding action as soon as possible, just like the old pirate movies.
#7
zombiegleemax
Jan 05, 2006 8:32:56 I still dream of d20modern-like vehicle conversion. If you plan on statting things out, might as well make them action packed in the spirit of 3rd edition. Anything else is just as good if you improvise it

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Xorial Dec 27, 2005 10:47:19	I know how everybody like to try & convert the old 2e way of using Tonnage to build & stat out ships. The main problem is that judging by previous "official" conversions, as seen in Spider Moon in Polyhedron/Dungeon and the adventure that ties into Lords of Madness , seen here , we have to assume that any new ships stats are going to more closely resemble the stats for ships as in Stormwrack and the airships in Eberron. I was wondering if anybody has thought of doing that type of conversion? I plan of working on it some after the New Year, but wouldnt mind seeing if anybody else has done that. As a side note, I have a copy of Airships coming to me from Amazon.com, so this whole discussion may be a lost cause, lol.
#2 nightdruid Dec 29, 2005 6:31:41	I did mess with it a bit earlier in the year. Overall, I wasn't very happy with the results. Thing about sectional-hp is that it makes things overly complex, and forces ships to "shrink" to keep the number of sections down. For example, if you notice the ships from Stormwrack are pretty small (usually much smaller than their listed size in the DMG), and the spelljammers that have appeared in web-enhancements have had their size halved. For really big ships, like the nautiloid or hammership, they more resemble mobile dungeons rather than ships you could blow out of the sky, because the number of sections is so great (aka nautiloid from the LoM web enhancement is treated more like a dungeon rather than a ship). Another thing to consider is the size requirements of 3e seige weapons. Most would have a difficult time fitting on any standard spelljammer, and if you halve the scale of most ships (ala the web enhancements), you would be able to only mount very, very small weapons. Certainly nothing powerful enough to put more than a ding in another ship (damage for seige weapons being WAY too low to be useful). Anyways, just some of the things I discovered while working on it.
#3 Xorial Dec 29, 2005 14:32:50	I finally got my hands on a copy of Stormwrack so I see what you mean, but that would be the nature of spelljamming. Looking at the hull section statements, it seem that it would blend really well with the Airships book from Bastion Press. I have a copy on order, but wont get it till the end of January. But, what I have read of it at the stores, it uses air tons, which, if I remember right, is basically a hull section: 10ft x 10ft x 10ft. I know that you end up with a large number of hull sections, but lets face it, a big ship is a big ship. It got out of hand in Spelljammer, anyway, with them assigning a tonnage that didnt even reflect their own rules for vessel size. If you use the rules, an elven armada was WAY bigger than 100 tons. Most large vessels would be better treated as a mobile dungeon anyway. Ship to ship combat was an hours long affair in the heyday of sailing ships, with cannon. I guess that is why they made gunpowder in the Spidermoon article more prevelant than in 2e Spelljammer.
#4 nightdruid Dec 29, 2005 15:09:09	IIRC, Airships is much closer to SJ "classic" than stormwrack. Each 10x10x10 section = 1 hull point, which when you do the math, basically matches most SJ ships (with a few oddball exceptions, which were always oddball exceptions). The Armada has always been a poor example...it was just so out of line with everything else that the only real way to explain it FR High Magic (which came about a few years after SJ came out ). Its a cool ship, regardless. As far as big ships go, I think the "breaking point" of obscenely long battles is much lower with sections vs. hull points, especially if you strictly follow the seige weapon rules.
#5 Xorial Dec 29, 2005 19:03:10	I never really got into running ship to ship combats, except to encourage characters to go away or to draw them in. I thought that the hull points were, hate to say this in a fantasy game, unrealistic. When I did run the combats, I preferred that you had to get lucky, or took a long time, to do real damage. I have read books dealing with ship to ship actions in the 1600s, around the time of the 30 Years War, were the actions were well into one hour before sinificant damage was being dealt to the enemy. Thats why I dont allow the use of catapults in spelljammer. It is a ballistic attack, with an arcing trajectory. That wont work in space. All craft were using ballistae or cannon/bombards. More of a direct fire weapon. With Spidermoon making the helm produce air, it does allow the proper size crews for ships, which would make a proper broadsides a workable action in Spelljammer. Besides, to disable a ship, you just need to destroy 25% of the hull sections.
#6 Xorial Dec 29, 2005 19:16:56	Another thing, the main rason that real naval battles directed the majority of their attacks at the rigging is that was the quickest way to disable a ship. Like it says in Stormwrack, which should apply to Spelljammer as well, you need to make it a boarding action as soon as possible, just like the old pirate movies.
#7 zombiegleemax Jan 05, 2006 8:32:56	I still dream of d20modern-like vehicle conversion. If you plan on statting things out, might as well make them action packed in the spirit of 3rd edition. Anything else is just as good if you improvise it