User talk:Eiji-kun/Complete Transportation/Sky Vehicles/Components
Does a maximum speed refer to the speed it moves when it Runs, the speed it moves when it double moves or charges, or the speed it moves in a single move action? Also, did you know that a Clumsy creature's maximum turning rate is proportional to its speed? This means that any craft that flies as fast as a fighter jet will also be able to do enough wild spins and dives to make a bee jealous. Also, rocket propulsion allows you to go at Mach 13, which is about 4 times as fast as a Blackbird. Unless you have strict aerodynamics rules, I'm going to be using hit and run tactics to strafe you once per round from 70 miles away. --Foxwarrior 01:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Heh, I'm not done yo.
- Maximum speed will refer to the fastest your ship can go period. You don't quite move as creatures so, instantly moving and then stopping at the end of your turn. I'll address acceleration and how quick you can hit maximum speed later, but for the most part it is assumed that once you're in motion you will continue to be in motion until you stop. Good catch on the clumsy maneuverability thing, I'll have to fix that.
- The rocket one is intentional. If you're on a rocket, and you do nothing but accelerate in a straight line, yes you will eventually hit mach 13. Unless you think that's overkill, I don't mind dropping it down and forcing people to buy more than one rocket to reach that kinda speed. Yeah... yeah, I think I'll do that, that seems right.
- On strafting, I will be putting in rules about relative speed between two objects. Its to prevent that kind of nonsense and partly to close up some loopholes. The quick and dirty is that after a certain point you start getting miss chance, until you get 95% miss chance in respect to whatever you're shooting on the ground/enemy ship/flying Eiji Plushie. This applies the other way too, making "fly really damn fast" a valid defensive strategy. -- Eiji-kun 03:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'd prefer an attack penalty, actually. That way you still can't miss the moon. --Foxwarrior 05:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Hangar of Holding
This occupies a 1 foot thick, 10 by 10 foot portal. On the inside, however, is a 10' cube worth of space, perfect for storing a Large vehicle, but it can't store more than 2000 pounds. Multiple Hangars of Holding may be attached side-by-side: the depth of the interior is equal to the average between its height and its length, and the maximum weight capacity is additive.
Broken Condition: Every round, there's a 5% chance that the Hangar of Holding transforms into a rift to the Astral Plane, with a radius of 20', +5' for every additional Hangar of Holding.
Internal only; requires 100 component spaces; hardness 0; 100 hp; weight- 200 lbs (empty or full); 20000 gp
This occupies a 1 foot thick, 10 by 10 foot, double-sided portal, which functions much like the Hangar of Holding. However, when a manned vehicle enters from the docking side, the crew and passengers do not enter the Hangar, but instead appear on the loading side. When a creature enters the loading side, they find theirselves sitting in a seat of one of the vehicles inside the Hangar. If they visualize a specific seat, and that seat is not currently occupied, they will end up in that seat. If a creature puts items into the loading side while visualizing a storage compartment or other open space within the Hangar, the items will appear in that place.
Broken Condition: Every round, there's a 5% chance that the Handy Hangarsack transforms into a rift to the Astral Plane, with a radius of 20', +5' for every additional Handy Hangarsack.
Internal only; requires 100 component spaces; hardness 0; 100 hp; weight- 400 lbs (empty or full); 50000 gp
- A couple thoughts on these items, you seem to be low-balling the weight capacity of the hanger of holding, As is, one hanger can't fit a vehicle larger than something on the small side of large but such a vehicle has an upper weight of only 500 pounds, yet it would take 4 of these hangers of holding, to be able to fit something on the small side of huge (20'-20') at a cost of 80,000 gold pieces, and using up 80% of the internal component spaces of a battleship (Macro-fine). For 100 component spaces and 20,000 gold you could have a launch deck 40' wide by 50' long. Which presumably could store two or more huge vehicles on the deck. Now of course I know this stuff is preliminary, but mathematically as these items are now, I don't see why anyone would ever buy one of these hangers when the non-magical versions are currently far more efficient on gold and component space costs. Tunganation 19:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I have sat here thinking about this a little more, The intent is to make a hanger like this be useable to store ships, well this is magic so what do dimensions really matter. Make the cost of such a hold, and it's capacity easily scalable to the vessel it's built into. For example. You could make the hold use 10% of the component spaces of it's host vehicle, and be able to store (in an unmanned dormant state) a vehicle, or other item of cargo two sizes smaller than it's host vessel, it could hold 2 items three sizes smaller, 4 items that are 4 sizes smaller, 8, 16, 32, etc. A host vessel would be permitted to carry more such holds (making a carrier feasible) costing another 10% of internals each, and of course more gold. Perhaps the gold cost, could easily scale by charging the frame cost, or double the frame cost of the size class of the ship the hold is built into. As for what spell effect to use as the enchantment base, I would suggest Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion as a good basis for the hold's extradimensional capacity. Just my thought Eiji, I wouldn't want you to think that all I do is complain in your discussion areas. ;) Tunganation 19:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the component space costs were intended to be used after Eiji changed the component space values to consistently represent 1 cubic foot, since he said that was the intent at one point. I like your scalable idea though; my pricing was chosen to be somewhat more efficient than a Bag of Holding, but without scaling it becomes a bit irrelevant on all but the smallest of ships. I guess I should have signed the suggestions so you wouldn't be complaining at the wrong person, but luckily I see and know all. --Foxwarrior 19:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- I just remembered what I was (originally) shooting for... 5ft cubes being the vehicle spaces. That means a 10x10x10 hanger should be.... 8? Yes, thats about right. -- Eiji-kun 06:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)