Jump to content

cbullard

HERO Member
  • Posts

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cbullard

  1. Thank you, and I agree that it seems wrong (thus the reason for this post asking how others handle it). I could even see it being allowed to purchase munitions-as-vehicles, such as missiles for a vehicle's launchers, especially when you have to replenish those after a fight. Otherwise, munitions are too expensive to fire. ("Wow, I got 5 experience points for that scenario! Now I only need 25 more before I can replace ONE of the AIM-7 Sparrow missiles I fired!") AIM-7 Sparrow missile (UV pp. 131-132). Base cost: 150 Purchased as a vehicle: 150 / 5 = 30 Purchased as a vehicle-for-a-vehicle: 30 / 5 = 6 I could see justification for them being automatically replaced in between scenarios, like bullets for a gun, arrows for a quiver, or just about any sort of charges. Maybe you pay full price for them at vehicle creation/upgrade, but not every time you have to reload one.
  2. A long time ago, in theaters far, far away... hordes of sci-fi geeks gathered to watch the "final" *cough, cough* chapter of the galactic war that had been raging for years as Darth Vader and his Emperor tried to eliminate the Rebel Alliance once and for all. "Return of the Jedi" is celebrating its own 40th birthday by returning to Terrestrial cinemas. It will be re-released on April 28 and run through Star Wars Day, May 4. https://www.starwars.com/news/swce-2023-return-of-the-jedi-40th-anniversary May the Fourth be with you!
  3. And they even have a theme song, done by Duran Duran!
  4. [Moving thread here from Star Hero forum, since it pertains to more of a "superheroic" game level.] I'm curious -- how does your table handle the "vehicles for vehicles/bases" rules when designing bases or vehicles? Some thoughts... At one end of the spectrum, "The Ultimate Vehicle" includes an example of an elevator on p. 167 as a vehicle. This seems unnecessary to me: surely an elevator or a turbolift can be considered "everyvehicle/everybase" equipment? As a more central position, that same book describes defining missiles as vehicles, and gives examples of various types of munitions-as-vehicles on pp 130-133. These would in turn be carried by a larger vehicle. At the other end of the spectrum, we get into something that would be permitted under the rules but could become abusive, IMO: having these secondary vehicles be fully-functional vehicles in their own right. So you might end up with something like Battlestar Galactica, which served as a carrier for quite a few Viper fighters. This would mean you could purchase the Galactica at 1/5 cost, since it is a vehicle... then have Galactica "buy herself" one or more Vipers, again at 1/5 cost, which means whoever built Galactica is actually paying only 1/25 cost for the Vipers. Vipers Sale, 96% off, today only! ;-) But a Viper isn't intrinsically tied to Galactica, you say? I agree. A missile isn't intrinsically tied to the vehicle that launches it, either. A lifeboat also isn't intrinsically tied to the vessel that carries it, yet that "...is perhaps the best example..." according to "The Ultimate Vehicle" p. 166. Let's scale up. Enterprise-D with her separate saucer section. Wouldn't this sort of arrangement let you put all of your "expensive" items into the "subordinate" vehicle and get your Galaxy-class cruiser much more cheaply? Or consider any deep space vessel with all those systems that have to be duplicated for close-proximity and mega-range use -- Radar, HRRP, weapons, scanners, and/or whatever else you want to equip your ship with. Why not put the proximity versions on board your "primary" vessel, and the mega-scale/mega-range versions onto a secondary hull? The two can travel together for zipping over to the Talos system, but the secondary hull would handle subspace communications back to Earth, keeping an eye on that unstable star in the next solar system, etc. while the primary hull is orbiting the planet Talos IV and doing detailed sensor studies of the planet, or even making a landing if it is called for. Even if you split your point costs right down the middle between the two hulls, you're still getting your ship at a 40% discount vs buying it as one ship. How do you guys handle this at your tables? Is there anything in RAW that would prevent the sort of "ship discounts" I've mentioned here? Thanks, and have a great day!
  5. > "Star Hero is normally a heroic game so characters usually purchase equipment including ships with cash instead of points. So, how you build a vehicle or base really does not matter that much." That is true, and an aspect I had not considered. Thank you for the reminder. I suppose my question would be more appropriate to one of the superheroic game forums. I was thinking in terms of the "general setting" (i.e. scifi, space travel, etc) and failed to take the "power level" into consideration when I posted the question to this group. Again, thank you for reminding me, and I will move the post to another group. Have a great day!
  6. [EDIT: Someone has rightly pointed out that this discussion would be more appropriate for another forum, so I will be re-posting it there. Please disregard the post. Thank you.] I'm curious -- how does your table handle the "vehicles for vehicles/bases" rules when designing bases or vehicles? Some thoughts... At one end of the spectrum, "The Ultimate Vehicle" includes an example of an elevator on p. 167 as a vehicle. This seems unnecessary to me: surely an elevator or a turbolift can be considered "everyvehicle/everybase" equipment? As a more central position, that same book describes defining missiles as vehicles, and gives examples of various types of munitions-as-vehicles on pp 130-133. These would in turn be carried by a larger vehicle. At the other end of the spectrum, we get into something that would be permitted under the rules but could become abusive, IMO: having these secondary vehicles be fully-functional vehicles in their own right. So you might end up with something like Battlestar Galactica, which served as a carrier for quite a few Viper fighters. This would mean you could purchase the Galactica at 1/5 cost, since it is a vehicle... then have Galactica "buy herself" one or more Vipers, again at 1/5 cost, which means whoever built Galactica is actually paying only 1/25 cost for the Vipers. Vipers Sale, 96% off, today only! ;-) But a Viper isn't intrinsically tied to Galactica, you say? I agree. A missile isn't intrinsically tied to the vehicle that launches it, either. A lifeboat also isn't intrinsically tied to the vessel that carries it, yet that "...is perhaps the best example..." according to "The Ultimate Vehicle" p. 166. Let's scale up. Enterprise-D with her separate saucer section. Wouldn't this sort of arrangement let you put all of your "expensive" items into the "subordinate" vehicle and get your Galaxy-class cruiser much more cheaply? Or consider any deep space vessel with all those systems that have to be duplicated for close-proximity and mega-range use -- Radar, HRRP, weapons, scanners, and/or whatever else you want to equip your ship with. Why not put the proximity versions on board your "primary" vessel, and the mega-scale/mega-range versions onto a secondary hull? The two can travel together for zipping over to the Talos system, but the secondary hull would handle subspace communications back to Earth, keeping an eye on that unstable star in the next solar system, etc. while the primary hull is orbiting the planet Talos IV and doing detailed sensor studies of the planet, or even making a landing if it is called for. Even if you split your point costs right down the middle between the two hulls, you're still getting your ship at a 40% discount vs buying it as one ship. How do you guys handle this at your tables? Is there anything in RAW that would prevent the sort of "ship discounts" I've mentioned here? Thanks, and have a great day!
  7. For those who want to create "realistic" alien worlds, there is an excellent computer program called "World Builder," originally written by Stephen Kimmel and published in Creative Computing back in June 1983. It was updated and translated from BASIC into Perl in 2008 by a gentleman named David Myers.
  8. A few differences I've noticed (many have been mentioned already): * missiles are rocket-propelled through the air while torpedoes are propeller-driven through the water. * missiles are subject to counter-fire. Technically there ARE anti-torpedoes but these are not terribly common. * missile guidance systems are not generally detectable by common senses (radar, heat-seeking, etc). torpedoes are guided by wire or by sonar, and sonar can be heard without special equipment. * missiles are generally carried externally on hardpoints, while torpedoes are usually in internal tubes. This could affect original firing direction and could also mean that the external missiles might be subject to being directly targeted by the enemy. I can think of one way to handle the difference, depending on how your group handles FTL. If you have a separate "dimension" for subspace, maybe have torpedoes travel through that other dimension (harder to detect, locate, destroy) while missiles travel through normal space? Even if you don't make them any faster than the missiles, it adds a definite "flavor" difference between them.
  9. On the subject of Trek, what about the "toys"? Based on what we saw on the various Trek shows, what is reasonable damage for a hand phaser/disruptor or rifle version of same? What about ship's phasors/disruptors/photon torpedos, etc? Some of the range info I can get from sites like Memory Alpha, but they'd be little help for weapons, shields, etc.
  10. Normally I would disagree with you about it being "too much detail" for the system. If that level of detail is what a particular table enjoys, they should be able to go for it! Unfortunately, in this case, it IS too much detail for the system to support. Especially when it comes to things like vehicles and the size/mass needed for vehicular components, the system totally breaks down. :-(
  11. cbullard

    Sensors

    A sensor-suite setup I used for a star-faring vessel, based loosely on Trek. Sensor suite overall done as an Environmental Control, each done as a Detect A Large Class Of Things, Increased arc of perception 360*, Discriminator, Analyze, Targeting, Affected as more than one sense (Sight), OIF Bulky, Extra time (only to activate) EC: Science Scanners Astrometric Scanner - Provides info on any and all bodies in space, such as planets, moons, stars, asteroids, nebulae, black holes/quasars/pulsars, etc. Energy Scanner - all forms of energy and radiation, such as power sources, gravitational effects, "radar"/scanner/sensor beams, "radio"/communication waves, magic, psionics, energy-based powers, thermal, electrical, magnetic, chemical, sonic, nuclear, solar, or other forms of energy Dimensional/Translocative Phenomena Scanner - other-dimensional beings/materials/phenomena, temporal phenomena/disturbances/anachronisms, translocative phenomena such as teleportation, wormholes, extra-dimensional movement, dimensional/temporal instabilities/disturbances, and FTL phenomena such as trips traveling at warp speeds, etc. Planetary Scanner - geological, atmospheric, meteorological, oceanographic, environmental, planetary conditions, population centers, tech levels, etc. Biological Scanner - Detects life signs as well as any other specific races/species for which the scanners have data, specific individuals for which the scanners have data, etc. See Ultimate Vehicle p. 143 Physical Scanner - any physical substance for which the scanners have data, automata, electrical/electronic systems - detect presence if deactivated, detect function if active Vehicular Scanner - presence/status/type of vehicular traits and systems, such as weapons, engines, communications, scanners/sensors, shields/force fields/force walls/etc., armor, missile deflection, other offensive or defensive systems
  12. Wouldn't Starfleet security personnel in later series be the equivalent of the Macos? Tasha Yar and Worf from TNG, and an loooong line of redshirts from TOS, all of whom provided both onboard security (including armed guard duty on the bridge at times) and landing party cannon fodder.... I mean, protection.
  13. I disagree. In "Charlie X" Roddenberry himself played the voice of a chef who reported to Kirk that there were real turkeys in the ovens.
  14. You're correct, thank you!
  15. How can you reasonably reflect the amount of knowledge held by an AI with Eidetic Memory (or a PC, for that matter)? Trying to account for all the different areas of knowledge they've been exposed to, or could have researched during non-adventuring time, rapidly becomes a huge hole to pour points into. Yet to say that they only have access to those knowledge areas they've paid points for is to reduce the Eidetic Memory talent to "they can remember those things that happen during active gaming sessions." 5th Ed rulebook pg. 461 describes the ECSP-7000 Shipboard Computer. Among its attributes are three Entertainment Skills: Popular Movies 8-, Popular Music 8-, and Video Games 8-. The text describes these as "entertainment programs represent[ing] a dreary, small selection of movies, music, and games (it has only an 8- chance of having any particular item)." Meaning it has a database of movies, music, and games that is only somewhat loosely defined. Maybe we could do an AI's information-based KS's in this same way. Let's say we give our AI a KS and just call it "Knowledge Database" at 11-. Any purely-informational question might be applied against that. Captain: I don't recognize that ship on our screen. Computer, can you identify it? [AI rolls a 7] AI: That appears to be a Targathian scouting vessel. However, the engine nacelles look to've been replaced with larger Demosian models, so the vessels is probably faster than the typical Targathian scout. Captain: Every Targathian ship I ever saw back during the war was decorated with bird motifs. This one has what appears to be a large feline. Computer, what can you tell me about groups using that particular feline motif? [AI rolls a 12] AI: I'm sorry, I have no information on that. The same AI could be queried about recipes for the world's greatest chocolate mousse. However, even if it had the recipe, this does not mean it can make the mousse itself. It would have a huge amount of information, but not necessarily the skills to effectively put that information to use. If you wish, you could list specific knowledge areas once they have been determined to be in the database (i.e. successful roll) or that have been explicitly added. What do you think of this approach? How have you handled Eidetic Memory in your games?
  16. Why swords (or other bladed weapons) in sci-fi settings? I'll just go with a comment from one of Terry Pratchett's books: "His gun will run out of bang before my knife runs out of sharp."
  17. Yeah, that would have been fun to see! Maybe get dance-trained or gymnastics-trained actors to play them, to better convey that feline grace and power of movement? As for the legal battles, just change the name. It's not like SFB, Niven, Cherryh ("Chanur" series), or any of the others have a copyright on the idea of feline humanoids.
  18. In NextGen, yes. In TOS, no. In "Space Seed," we see the effect of the tractor beam as the Botany Bay stops tumbling and moves into line with the Enterprise, but we don't see the beam itself. "Moving into line" could have been a matter of perspective, with the Enterprise changing her own alignment, but that would not apply to stopping the tumbling. https://youtu.be/IGT9qf9lODM?t=37 In Star Wars, no. When the Death Star captures the Millenium Falcon in its tractor beam, there is no visible source. https://youtu.be/JGp_5gOww0E?t=89 Cool idea!
  19. Huh... yeah, I agree -- clear as mud. Oh, well.
  20. Yeah, off the top of my head I don't recall any of the ships that could go Spd 31, shields at full, all weapons charged, etc. And no, I knew they didn't have to fire, I just didn't remember that they were only able to fire on the tractoring ship. For energy weapons, that doesn't make sense to me, Either that, or you should also be able to fire drones/launch shuttles/etc towards them. A Gorn CA with Type R's? No thank you!!!
  21. Oh, yes, I used to be massively hooked on SFB, although I haven't played it in ages. As I recall, they really did the Gorns a disservice with their weaker plasma torpedoes. I thought there was a severe restriction on the speed of the objects you could attach a tractor beam to? Is my brain making stuff up again? And yeah, I can understand the tractored ship not being able to fire drones or launch shuttles/fighters. I can even see where they might WANT to fire all their energy weapons at the tractoring ship, but I don't see any reason why they should HAVE to do so. Hmmm... my old SFB set is still sitting right there on my shelf. Maybe I should dig it out again, and at least go through some of the solo scenarios...
  22. Aquaponics should work very well for that, too, although the water weight could be an issue. Still, if you're talking about a colony ship, this could help keep several of your plant varieties readily available for planting upon arrival. (or kill them off in a ship-wide blight, too) According to some looking around (I won't dignify it by calling it "research") a few years ago, one person's food supply for a year can come from an aquaponics setup of 25 sq ft. I think that must have been a typo and they meant 25 ft sq. But if that is accurate, then the only extra thing you would need to haul would be food for the fish.
  23. I agree, you need to be able to move that much mass, which in a 1G gravity well is the same as weight. Of course, that applies no matter what method you're using. And honestly, to me that makes perfect sense. To me, no matter what form your "tractor beam" takes, your ship's engines should have to be able to carry that load. It would completely blow my suspension of disbelief to see an X-Wing or the Millenium Falcon towing a Cruiser, for example. Gorn Anchor? No, I've never heard of it. What is that, please?
  24. Thank you for pointing out these out. You raise very good concerns. For the "range of self" restriction -- I'm afraid I'm not sure of the 6e wording, as I only have the 5e books. For 5e, the wording is: "Generally speaking, characters cannot make [Self-ranged] Powers work at Range, nor can they apply the Area Of Effect Advantage to let others use the Power at the same time they do (that requires the Usable On Others Advantage, unless the GM gives permission otherwise).... Generally speaking, characters can make these Powers work at Range by applying the Ranged (+½) Advantage." (5e, p.101) If nothing else, I can also see some GMs agreeing to place it under a "rule of cool" umbrella regardless of what edition is used at that table. It gives a different flavor and significantly different ramifications to something that has become a bit of a SciFi trope. In my example, I also applied the "Increased Maximum Range" advantage. Whether this was allowed, and to what extent, would be a GM call. I did it in this case to make the two powers being discussed be as much of an "apples to apples" comparison as I could manage. And no, this option doesn't prevent the target from moving, it only prevents it from moving relative to you. Yes, this certainly means your ship could (and in many cases certainly would) be dragged along with whatever you're attaching to. That initial moment of contact could be a bit bumpy for those on your ship, too! For it to be otherwise, your pilot/flight officer would have to match vectors with the object -- essentially the same as a docking maneuver. Thank you for the input!
×
×
  • Create New...