Fighter Craft
- Thread starter Savar
- Start date
Michael Taylor
SOC-13
It's the only logical one to use. Just like CT, ship's boat skill/feat implies proficiency in sub-100 ton craft piloting. The key to a good fighter pilot in T20 might be high Dex/Int and ship tactics.
IMTU I added a feat for "fighter pilot" as one thing seemed to be lacking. Ace pilots get it automatically. Optional for Navy, Marine, COAC and other appropriate disciplines.
Feat: Fighter Pilot
Effect: -5 penalty for attempting multiple actions during a vehicle or space combat round.
Without Feat: -10 penalty
This makes a one man fighter more effective. Later on it allows a wing leader to use Pilot, Gunnery and Leader for only a cumulative -10 rather then -20. Considering a fighter pilot wants to be doing MANY things (sensors, comms, astrogation as well as the above) it also makes sense for a two (or more) man fighter.
Feat: Fighter Pilot
Effect: -5 penalty for attempting multiple actions during a vehicle or space combat round.
Without Feat: -10 penalty
This makes a one man fighter more effective. Later on it allows a wing leader to use Pilot, Gunnery and Leader for only a cumulative -10 rather then -20. Considering a fighter pilot wants to be doing MANY things (sensors, comms, astrogation as well as the above) it also makes sense for a two (or more) man fighter.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Considering, that in T20, all small craft must have a bridge and all small craft bridges have 2 seats, there is no single seat fighter in T20.
You may only need a crew of one, but to be truly effective you need a minimum of a Pilot and a Gunner.
For all of the above reasons that is why my Eagle class heavy fighter has 4 seats. (Because you can't fight a fighter effectively with just two people, and you certainly can't effectively fight a squadron with only two people per fighter.
You may only need a crew of one, but to be truly effective you need a minimum of a Pilot and a Gunner.
For all of the above reasons that is why my Eagle class heavy fighter has 4 seats. (Because you can't fight a fighter effectively with just two people, and you certainly can't effectively fight a squadron with only two people per fighter.
Bah!
Only 4?
I have 8 man fighters. Commander, Pilot, Gunner, Loader, Engineer, Sensors (x2), Comms. Admittedly its in 60-90 dTon AWACS craft.
As for one man fighters... well, that I tweak as well. When the bridge is less then 4dTon its a one man fighter, with facilities for only one person. Only really valid for sub-20dTon craft. At 10dTon the extra 2 dTon help in making a worthwhile craft.
Actually answering the original question, yes the feat to fly fighters is Vehicle Proficiency (Ships Boat).
Only 4?
I have 8 man fighters. Commander, Pilot, Gunner, Loader, Engineer, Sensors (x2), Comms. Admittedly its in 60-90 dTon AWACS craft.
As for one man fighters... well, that I tweak as well. When the bridge is less then 4dTon its a one man fighter, with facilities for only one person. Only really valid for sub-20dTon craft. At 10dTon the extra 2 dTon help in making a worthwhile craft.
Actually answering the original question, yes the feat to fly fighters is Vehicle Proficiency (Ships Boat).
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
I was under the impression that it is pick the best one of the two.
G'day Bill,
I wasn't expecting to see a freeform absolutist on a forum such as this one. This is afterall a site dedicated to a specific roleplaying system.
The original poster has even gone to the coutesy of posting into a subsection of this site dedicated to the particular flavour of this system that they are asking about.
Being critical about T20 seems a little odd in this case. Much like a radical atheist posting on a religious forum.
That said the flaws in the system that you point out are integral to that particular system. And while they certainly are flawed, they are certainly a decent stab at creating a method of describing a character.
Apologies for being somewhat offtopic.
I wasn't expecting to see a freeform absolutist on a forum such as this one. This is afterall a site dedicated to a specific roleplaying system.
The original poster has even gone to the coutesy of posting into a subsection of this site dedicated to the particular flavour of this system that they are asking about.
Being critical about T20 seems a little odd in this case. Much like a radical atheist posting on a religious forum.
That said the flaws in the system that you point out are integral to that particular system. And while they certainly are flawed, they are certainly a decent stab at creating a method of describing a character.
Apologies for being somewhat offtopic.
M
Malenfant
Guest
Bill has some rather extreme views about what he thinks roleplaying should be, and when he finds something he disagrees with, he tends to pile on the bile and vitriol. Yesterday he chewed someone out who asked for some references from the T20 book by saying he should just "act like a GM" and make it up himself, which wasn't remotely helpful at all. It seems fairly clear that he hates T20 though.
He's also factually wrong about Feats. They're not an 'evolutionary holdover' like levels and classes, they're a fairly new concept introduced in D&D3e. And his "final analysis" is nothing of the sort, it's just his opinion on the subject.
EDIT: I think of Feats as being "Manoeuvres" or "Tricks" that you can do, that go beyond using skills normally. That's what they basically are in D&D anyway, but T20 doesn't quite follow that (neither does D20 Modern, actually) and gets a bit confused about things.
He's also factually wrong about Feats. They're not an 'evolutionary holdover' like levels and classes, they're a fairly new concept introduced in D&D3e. And his "final analysis" is nothing of the sort, it's just his opinion on the subject.
EDIT: I think of Feats as being "Manoeuvres" or "Tricks" that you can do, that go beyond using skills normally. That's what they basically are in D&D anyway, but T20 doesn't quite follow that (neither does D20 Modern, actually) and gets a bit confused about things.
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
Feats should be feats. And Feats, don't fail me now! Seriously, I look at them as "pre-programmed" skill tricks that the character has practiced at developing in his chosen profession (or character class, if you will). I see nothing wrong with this. Even for the most "mundane" PC or NPC. I'd hire the guy with the "Cut through Red Tape" Feat any day of the week, even if it gives him a +1 or +2 at best to do his thing.
I think this works best in a Supers setting, especially if it encourages the PCs to expand on thier powers by adding special combat moves that stand them out from the herd.
It also adds a level of functionality and choice of action for the PC beyond: "I Shoot!"
I think this works best in a Supers setting, especially if it encourages the PCs to expand on thier powers by adding special combat moves that stand them out from the herd.
It also adds a level of functionality and choice of action for the PC beyond: "I Shoot!"
COACC is Close Orbit and Aerospace Command and Control. Basically the Air Force of TL 9+, or anyone who has space-capable fighting craft (as a technical issue, several Earthly nations, such as the U.S. and Japan, could - have the technological capacity for - this now; whether they should or not is another topic, i.e. my Space Initiative in Random Static).
You're close, Mal. Feats were introduced in the AD&D 2E Player's Option: Skills and Powers book. They just were called powers. And weren't very detailed. But you could have Alertness or Two-Handed Fighting or others in that system if you took the option.
Ugg, it's been a long week. Between my Dad going into the hospital, and my modem going out from a thunderstorm, I've had a bit of Internet withdrawl. Logging on at my brothers for the first time since monday.
Hope everyone's good,
Dameon
M
Malenfant
Guest
Ok, how about "formalised" in D&D3e then
Sorry about that. Yeah, I like what they did with it - but I think of it more as streamlined. Modularized (if that's even a word). D&D3E/d20 has very clearly defined goals and rewards.
Dameon
Dameon
