cbullard

3 hours ago, Steve said:

The only instances I can remember of this happening in the comics involved Spider-Man, who seems to get sick almost every winter, especially when he was a teen.

Yeah, the only other example that comes to mind would be more of a "Heroic" genre: Stargate/Stargate SG-1, where Daniel Jackson spent a good portion of his early screentime sneezing his head off.  They even made it into a plot point for a later episode, where the antihistamines he'd taken protected him from a disease ("The Broca Divide").

3 hours ago, Steve said:

How does that affect their abilities? Do they hide out until they recover or keep struggling to keep the city safe despite their illness?

An excellent question.  The rulebook occasionally mentions things like inflicting or curing a disease, but I don't see anything on how to judge the effects of a disease on a PC.

21 hours ago, Grailknight said:

Glad to see you back!

 

For movement at interplanetary distances, you going to want to look at the Megascale Advantage rules for movement. They change 1m. increments into kilometers and additional levels increase this by factors of 10 per step. It can still get rather pricey, but it is doable.

Thank you, it's good to be back!

And I agree, Megascale movement is definitely the way to go -- and yet they didn't do that in the example I mentioned.  On that part, I guess I was just firing Frustration Energy Bolts from my mouth (or fingers, in this case) ;-) about them including things that are supposed to be examples of how to do things where those examples are basically unworkable.

21 hours ago, Grailknight said:

For interstellar travel, you'd use the FTL Movement rules.

Yeah, I'm still doing some juggling to see if we want to use straight FTL, mega-scaled Teleport, or even Dimensional Travel.  (He's already told me we don't have stargates or wormholes.) 

I'm personally inclined to the greater flexibility of FTL, but I need to pin down the GM to see how far away the Shiar Empire is so I can know how many levels of FTL to buy in order to make the trip duration somewhere between "We'll be there in time for supper" and "We'll be there for Christmas... of 2025." ;-)

19 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Is the Nuclear Space Missile intended to be manned, or is it just a guided weapon? If the latter, it's a "vehicle" per system build rules, but not in-game use.

Well, I suppose it COULD be manned, in the same way that the WWII Japanese Zeros were, but like them it would be a suicide ride.  No, it's a "system build rules vehicle" but not a "in-game use vehicle."

19 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Also, is there anything about how the missile is described in terms of its function, for which N-CA/D would be necessary?

Not that I see, which puzzled me even more.  Although given how fast most real-world missiles accelerate I could certainly see a justification for N-CA/D for all but the largest of them.

Hey, there.  Back after a plague-induced hiatus from TTRPGs!

Superhero group is going to be doing some interplanetary stuff (think X-Men and the Shiar Empire, etc.) and yours truly has been tasked with designing the vehicle for Our Heroes to travel back and forth, etc.  
 

Looking at some of the stuff in "The Ultimate Vehicle," I'm hoping some of you have house rules that you've had a chance to work out and playtest, that you'd be willing to share so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel.

For example, for space travel, how do you guys handle movement?  Do you use the "constant acceleration"/Cumulative Advantage option they mention on p.87, or have you found something better?

I don't think the authors took the time to consider just how freaking BIG space is.  Either that, or they never bothered to actually look at what their own numbers mean.

Take the "Space Merchantman" on pp. 95-96.  For "In-System Maneuvering Thrusters" they've given this ship Flight 20 x4 non-combat.  The Merchantman has a Speed of 2, so a standard interpretation of Flight movement would mean it travels 80" on each of its 2 phases, or 160m every 12 seconds.  At that speed, it would take them 2.9 years to complete a single orbit around the Earth at the lofty altitude of 200km above the surface.

Using the "constant acceleration" option, a trip of that same distance would take about 3 hours if you wanted to stop at the end of the trip, or about 1.5 hours if you just wanted to keep going.  The acceleration wouldn't even be too bad: just 1.3Gs.  For three years, the passengers might get tired of that.  For 3 hours?  Not a big deal!

I'm also wondering if I'm misunderstanding something (probably!) or if there's an error in the text.

Ultimate Vehicle, p. 23 says: "Vehicles may buy the Rapid Noncombat Movement (+1/4) (Hero System 5th Edition, Revised, page 124) Advantage for their Movement Powers.  However, they may not buy the Combat Acceleration/Deceleration or Noncombat Acceleration/Deceleration Advantages to improve the number of inches they can accelerate/decelerate per hex"

But one of the examples, the Nuclear Space Missile on p. 132 includes this in the list of powers:

Engine: Flight 40", x1000 Noncombat, Non-Combat Acceleration/Deceleration (+1)

Doesn't that say, "Hey, you can't do this, but we're going to give you an example of doing it anyway"?  Or am I missing/misinterpreting something?

I hope this finds all of you well, and thank you in advance for any input you may have!

10 hours ago, assault said:

Short version: no double discount.

 

The smaller vehicles would either get the 1/5 for being components of the larger one or be built as separate vehicles depending mainly on readability.

 

No double dipping.

 

I have no idea if that is strictly RAW, but it is compatible with the general approach used in the rules.

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.

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!

On 1/22/2022 at 10:14 AM, steriaca said:

Union of the Snake. Perfect for CoIL and VIPER rejects.

And they even have a theme song, done by Duran Duran!

[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!

> "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!

[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!

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.

 

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.

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.

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. :-(

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 hours ago, Strand said:

The last time Star Trek was military in the strictest sense was Enterprise when they had the Macos  (Marines) on board. I haven't watched Discovery, so I have no clue about that show. But TOS has had it's share of civilians, even a Cook. I do remember an episode where Kirk et. al. were served real food. Please correct me if I am wrong I may be remembering the movies.

 

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.

8 hours ago, Sundog said:

Actually, I think it's on a space station. The TOS Enterprise definitely didn't have a cook.

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.

3 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

 

Thirty-eight minutes, actually .

 

https://stargate.fandom.com/wiki/Thirty-Eight_Minutes

 

You're correct, thank you!

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?

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."

On 1/18/2021 at 7:45 AM, archer said:

My Battletech mercenary group is named "Kzin Cousins" in honor of the Kzinti race and their emblem is a tiger's paw print.

 

I wish that Paramount could have used Kzinti but the legal battles surrounding THAT would have blown anyone's minds since they'd have had to deal with SFB and Niven (and maybe Niven's publishers).

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.

On 1/13/2021 at 9:55 AM, Tjack said:

   Why not?  You always saw them on Star Trek.  And it’s a limitation since it means you can’t do it secretly, or without say everyone on a nearby space station  or a third party spaceship knowing who’s moving what ship around.

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

On 1/16/2021 at 6:31 AM, archer said:

 

Workaround for that.

 

Give your ship megascale Stretching with an invisible power effect for it. 

 

Then buy the Clinging.  

 

If you want to have more than one target at once for your tractor beam, buy Extra Limbs.

 

< insert Klingon joke here >

 

Cling to the desired target with one limb. Cling to a nearby asteroids, planets, and/or ships with other limbs. 

 

Make the enemy ship have to tow everything along if it wants to get away. Or at least exceed your ship's STR.

Cool idea!

3 hours ago, Spence said:

 

Arrghhhh.... you made me look....

 

It is even a bit more complicated. 

 

Essentially here it is:

if a ship is tractored by another ship that is larger than it is, it can only fire at that ship if it wishes to fire.

if a ship is tractored by another ship that is equal in size or smaller their fire is not restricted to that ship.

if a ship is tractored by another ship that is a friendly ship their fire is not restricted to that ship.

While tractored a ship many only use directed energy weapons, not torpedoes, drones or launch/recover small craft.

 

As clear as mud as far as a reason.

 

Huh... yeah, I agree -- clear as mud.  Oh, well.

16 hours ago, Spence said:

 

But there is a practical limit on how fast a ship can go and still be able to raise shields, maintain ships systems and generate effective weapons fire.  

 

Sorry about that, I must have been unclear.  They never have to fire, but if they want to they can only fire on the vessel tractoring them. 

 

And I agree about the Gorn plasma.  But then imagine how much more nasty a Gorn heavy would be if it had type R's

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!!!

9 minutes ago, Spence said:

In SFB the Gorns are one of the powers.  They are not fast or nimble, but they make up any lack of finesse by being big and very very tough.  No starship wants to get within grips of a hostile Gorn warship.  In SFB, a ship that is tractored cannot launch missiles or small craft, but it can fire weapons with only restriction being they may only fire at the tractoring ship.  SFB is also a game that hinges on power management and you only have so much power to go around.  Since Gorns are slow and ponderous, a common tactic by other races is to make fast passes and wear them down from range.  Enter the “Gorn Anchor”.  As the enemy vessel makes its pass, a Gorn ships will divert all power to facing Shields, the Tractor Beam and Drives.  Lunge out and slap a tractor on the passing ship.  Once locked on, the Gorn then reverses drives and drags the target to a slow crawl while hunkered down behind its usually large reinforced shields.  This of course allows the other Gorn ships to waddle up and pound the former starship into scrap in short order.  Rinse, Repeat.   When a Gorn squadron or flotilla turtles up, it is very expensive proposition to try and engage them. Not to mention if you get too close you suddenly find yourself snared and shortly thereafter a cloud of expanding gas and debris.

 

The SFU has it's own RPG, several wargames and a really interesting history. 

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...