Hey all!

Since Fully Operational is now out, and the starship crafting rules are more than just a Jawa's heat-induced hallucination, I just wanted to poll and see how everyone is looking to implement them in their games? I've noticed that the crafts necessary to do most things require significant (read weeks to months to years) of downtime depending on options chosen. This can be a challenge, and definitely will need players and GMs to manage expectations and figure out what works best for their game.

I'm still digesting, but it looks like the rules work best for anything sil 4 or lower. I'm curious why you seem shocked that it would take weeks or months to build a ship. Even the biggest can be done under a year by these rules. Heck, IRL, big ships can take a decade or more. Building a kilometer long battleship isn't like assembling a blaster, it takes time.

43 minutes ago, Ahrimon said:

I'm still digesting, but it looks like the rules work best for anything sil 4 or lower. I'm curious why you seem shocked that it would take weeks or months to build a ship. Even the biggest can be done under a year by these rules. Heck, IRL, big ships can take a decade or more. Building a kilometer long battleship isn't like assembling a blaster, it takes time.

I'm not surprised at all at the crafting time requirements. I'm curious as to how different GMs are thinking of working in the downtime without trashing their stories if a PC wants to do this type of crafting due to the lengthy down times involved.

Ah, I misunderstood. The games I've played in always included space for several months of downtime between chapters. But, I can see a player in a fast paced game getting frustrated due to the pacing.

I was thinking of maybe having players create a new ground fighting vehicle on behalf of the Rebel Alliance. It would make sense for the players to have that sort of downtime if the Alliance wanted them to have build something. It might also give them a sense of pride to see their own design adopted en masse by Rebel forces. I also like reading about WWII tank designs and the different design philosophies adopted by the participants, so that could be fun to see implemented.

6 minutes ago, Darth Ferrum said:

I was thinking of maybe having players create a new ground fighting vehicle on behalf of the Rebel Alliance. It would make sense for the players to have that sort of downtime if the Alliance wanted them to have build something. It might also give them a sense of pride to see their own design adopted en masse by Rebel forces. I also like reading about WWII tank designs and the different design philosophies adopted by the participants, so that could be fun to see implemented.

I like this kind of approach. I think you would need to set up the campaign such that the party goes on missions to require the raw materials and resources to craft the vehicle, and maybe to acquire attachments to arm and outfit the vehicle as well. It should be Central to the overall story and enable later missions once it is complete.

Following the tank example, say the PCs build a more effective tank prototype than the Rebellion currently can field. They are now the primary armored support for Alliance light raids until the Alliance can field whole battalions, at which point the PCs would take over command of the battalion since they have the most experience with the weapon system. Or if my personal preference of capital ships, the Shipwright/Rigger builds a custom, maxed out CR90 or equivalent, and the Alliance assigns them special ops missions similar to Battlefront II type raids because they have the speed and maneuverability of a freighter but the hitting power and survivability of a frigate. The challenge on the GM would be to work in the other party member Duties, Obligations, and Moralities, and provide them with specific rewards so they don't feel ignored while the Shipwright builds the vehicle.

9 minutes ago, AeroEng42 said:

I like this kind of approach. I think you would need to set up the campaign such that the party goes on missions to require the raw materials and resources to craft the vehicle, and maybe to acquire attachments to arm and outfit the vehicle as well. It should be Central to the overall story and enable later missions once it is complete.

Following the tank example, say the PCs build a more effective tank prototype than the Rebellion currently can field. They are now the primary armored support for Alliance light raids until the Alliance can field whole battalions, at which point the PCs would take over command of the battalion since they have the most experience with the weapon system. Or if my personal preference of capital ships, the Shipwright/Rigger builds a custom, maxed out CR90 or equivalent, and the Alliance assigns them special ops missions similar to Battlefront II type raids because they have the speed and maneuverability of a freighter but the hitting power and survivability of a frigate. The challenge on the GM would be to work in the other party member Duties, Obligations, and Moralities, and provide them with specific rewards so they don't feel ignored while the Shipwright builds the vehicle.

I like this. In addition to gathering raw materials and resources, the PCs could also do information gathering: visiting a variety of Rebels on different worlds to figure out what they feel would be ideal in a tank (or in your case, a capital ship). Then perhaps liberating a factory or two that can produce the parts for these things. Maybe brokering a trade deal with an independent faction for resources. Perhaps stealing the necessary armaments from an Imperial production facility. All of that can provide non-crafter PCs opportunity for enjoyment. This campaign is basically writing itself now!

Yep! That's the idea exactly. It should be pretty easy to introduce plot hooks and opportunities to shine for the non-crafter PCs.

I'm playing in an Edge campaign, and we've been working towards this since Fully Operational was announced. Whilst we aren't exactly on schedule, we have arranged contacts regarding use of a space dock and droid manufacturers who will build to our specifications (and then have their memories wiped). I imagine that once we have come up with a design we'll probably build pieces over time, maybe sourcing more exotic parts in adventures, or just killing time whilst the droids do the grunt work with other endeavours.

Having my players already achieved a dry dock workshop where craft can be done, and the parts and crew necessary, I am going to say that some of the time needed already done. Moreover, some requirements can be bought already assembled with higher price.

On 4/3/2018 at 12:19 PM, AeroEng42 said:

I like this kind of approach. I think you would need to set up the campaign such that the party goes on missions to require the raw materials and resources to craft the vehicle, and maybe to acquire attachments to arm and outfit the vehicle as well. It should be Central to the overall story and enable later missions once it is complete.

Following the tank example, say the PCs build a more effective tank prototype than the Rebellion currently can field. They are now the primary armored support for Alliance light raids until the Alliance can field whole battalions, at which point the PCs would take over command of the battalion since they have the most experience with the weapon system. Or if my personal preference of capital ships, the Shipwright/Rigger builds a custom, maxed out CR90 or equivalent, and the Alliance assigns them special ops missions similar to Battlefront II type raids because they have the speed and maneuverability of a freighter but the hitting power and survivability of a frigate. The challenge on the GM would be to work in the other party member Duties, Obligations, and Moralities, and provide them with specific rewards so they don't feel ignored while the Shipwright builds the vehicle.

"Speed an maneuverability of a freighter" sounds possibly a lot worse than a frigate

5 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

"Speed an maneuverability of a freighter" sounds possibly a lot worse than a frigate

How is a silhouette 5, speed 4, handling 0+ ship with maxed out weapons worse than a frigate? When I say speed and maneuverability of a freighter, I mean a YT-2400 kind of freighter, not a bulk freighter. Sure, you might not be able to mount quite as many turbolasers as a Neb-B, but you could get close with a maxed out CR90, and would generally have an easier time hitting and evading other ships.

1 hour ago, AeroEng42 said:

How is a silhouette 5, speed 4, handling 0+ ship with maxed out weapons worse than a frigate? When I say speed and maneuverability of a freighter, I mean a YT-2400 kind of freighter, not a bulk freighter. Sure, you might not be able to mount quite as many turbolasers as a Neb-B, but you could get close with a maxed out CR90, and would generally have an easier time hitting and evading other ships.

Well I did say "possibly" you weren't clear on the type of freighter, the yt-2400 is a rather specific version that defies the conventions, if if we skip bulk cruisers entirely, a yt-1300 has -1 handling, and both have only 3 speed (in the range of a frigate), and a ghtroc has -2 handling and a yt-1200 only has speed 2 and -1 handling. So like I said "possibly" worse than a frigate. Especially if it's the ir-3f light frigate which is speed 4 as a sil 5 ship (I don't think it deserves the name frigate, as a cr90 would out gun it)

This is perhaps a little specific for the original topic of this thread, but I figured it was in the same general vein, so please forgive me if this is too far out of place:

Has anyone considered how the Elegant Design option for spending Advantage on the Frame construction step works? I know the book says you decrease silhouette by 1, but is that all you do, or do you change all of the base stats to the template 1 silhouette below the one you crafted? As an example, if you craft a Corvette but choose Elegant Design, do you still have a Corvette with HT of 45 and all its other specs and speed limit, just with silhouette 4 instead of 5? Or do you now have a Freighter with all of its specs? I imagine the former option, which would mean only a select few templates actually want to use Elegant Design, correct?

Edit: After thinking about it some more, what I might do is say the Elegant Design benefit only affects attack difficulty, allowed maneuvers, Max speed the vehicle can achieve, and any attachment stats that scale with silhouette (including engines and hull). Narratively, it means the frame is maybe more streamlined than boxy and more structurally efficient so the craft can fly faster and maneuver better and is harder to hit. But it can still mount weapons that the original silhouette could handle, and if the original silhouette was 5 or better, it can still use the Barrage attacks, provided it meets the speed requirement. This would be how to make a gunship. Start with a Corvette and get elegant design to make it silhouette 4. You can then perform all the silhouette 4 or less maneuvers and fly at speed 4, but you can mount light turbolasers and still go to to toe with capital ships. What does everyone think?

21 hours ago, AeroEng42 said:

This is perhaps a little specific for the original topic of this thread, but I figured it was in the same general vein, so please forgive me if this is too far out of place:

Has anyone considered how the Elegant Design option for spending Advantage on the Frame construction step works? I know the book says you decrease silhouette by 1, but is that all you do, or do you change all of the base stats to the template 1 silhouette below the one you crafted? As an example, if you craft a Corvette but choose Elegant Design, do you still have a Corvette with HT of 45 and all its other specs and speed limit, just with silhouette 4 instead of 5? Or do you now have a Freighter with all of its specs? I imagine the former option, which would mean only a select few templates actually want to use Elegant Design, correct?

Edit: After thinking about it some more, what I might do is say the Elegant Design benefit only affects attack difficulty, allowed maneuvers, Max speed the vehicle can achieve, and any attachment stats that scale with silhouette (including engines and hull). Narratively, it means the frame is maybe more streamlined than boxy and more structurally efficient so the craft can fly faster and maneuver better and is harder to hit. But it can still mount weapons that the original silhouette could handle, and if the original silhouette was 5 or better, it can still use the Barrage attacks, provided it meets the speed requirement. This would be how to make a gunship. Start with a Corvette and get elegant design to make it silhouette 4. You can then perform all the silhouette 4 or less maneuvers and fly at speed 4, but you can mount light turbolasers and still go to to toe with capital ships. What does everyone think?

If I was a stickler for RAW I wouldn't allow it. I think that you keep everything in the original template that doesn't directly mention silhouette. Anything that does mention silhouette uses the silhouette you get AFTER elegant design.

5 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

If I was a stickler for RAW I wouldn't allow it. I think that you keep everything in the original template that doesn't directly mention silhouette. Anything that does mention silhouette uses the silhouette you get AFTER elegant design.

That's what I figured most would say and was probably the intention of the devs, but if that's the case, then I can only see two instances you would ever want to use that. First, turning a freighter into a beefy Starfighter, and second, turning a Starfighter into a beefy combat airspeeder. Other than those two cases, it seems to hurt you a lot more than any benefit you might gain. Am I wrong in that interpretation?

3 minutes ago, AeroEng42 said:

That's what I figured most would say and was probably the intention of the devs, but if that's the case, then I can only see two instances you would ever want to use that. First, turning a freighter into a beefy Starfighter, and second, turning a Starfighter into a beefy combat airspeeder. Other than those two cases, it seems to hurt you a lot more than any benefit you might gain. Am I wrong in that interpretation?

Add turning an airspeeder into a beefy iron man suit. The reverse is true though, there is plenty of reason to upsize ships (dramatically smaller crews)

Just now, EliasWindrider said:

Add turning an airspeeder into a beefy iron man suit. The reverse is true though, there is plenty of reason to upsize ships (dramatically smaller crews)

I suppose that could work, though it's sort of a gray area between starship and armor crafting rules, but I could see that.

For the reverse, the lower crew count is definitely a benefit, but per RAW currently you will have below average capacity and hull trauma threshold, and for larger ships may take a hit in Max allowed speed after crafting. But most importantly, you will have below average hardpoints than if you had started at that silhouette in the first place. Yes, the lower silhouette may be easier, but you would have to roll really well or have lots of ranks in Intellect and Mechanics to get the Advantage to break even, I think.

This whole exercise seems to just highlight why we need those house rules crafting rules. There seems to be no real chance in making something as good as already available in the books, let alone better.

8 minutes ago, AeroEng42 said:

I suppose that could work, though it's sort of a gray area between starship and armor crafting rules, but I could see that.

For the reverse, the lower crew count is definitely a benefit, but per RAW currently you will have below average capacity and hull trauma threshold, and for larger ships may take a hit in Max allowed speed after crafting. But most importantly, you will have below average hardpoints than if you had started at that silhouette in the first place. Yes, the lower silhouette may be easier, but you would have to roll really well or have lots of ranks in Intellect and Mechanics to get the Advantage to break even, I think.

This whole exercise seems to just highlight why we need those house rules crafting rules. There seems to be no real chance in making something as good as already available in the books, let alone better.

You can make a kick *** star fighter and freighter. But replacing the hull on an existing ship let's you make something really kick as too. For example start with an ir-3f light frigate (speed 4 sil 5, 3 armor, no hyperdrive, extreme sensors, great shields) and strip of the hull and add a fully molded way upgraded sleek carapace and you can get it up to armor 6, handling 3, and effectively gain 3 hard points, one of which has to be spent immediately and a hyperdrive fits the bill.

It's how I get my steamship by RAW, the lancer craft pursuit craft from no disintegration becomes my favorite sil 4 using the same trick (although I'd put the enhanced capacity hold on itl

Background: My players are going to start using the ship crafting rules soon to create some "salvage pods" to go in a Wayfarer with retro-fitted cargo bay. Most likely, they're looking at building small, highly maneuverable starfighters with a hope to get the "elegant design" result to reduce the silhouette to 2. They're mainly for salvage operations and impromptu fighters, like the pods mentioned with the Deep Space Recovery Vessel in Special Modifications.

Question: If Elegant Design reduces "the craft's silhouette by one," when you get to table 3-10: Assembling Vehicles and Starships, do you use the original "Frame Silhouette" of 3 or the new "Craft Silhouette" of 2. I know it's seems like semantics, but there's a huge jump between 1,000 and 10,000 for extra supplies.

Given their intent to create these types of ships (which I think is cool for the campaign) and the fact that they're not abusive players, I'm inclined to go with the Craft's Silhouette for Table 3-10. I can't find any rule to support either option, so does anybody have any thoughts?

14 minutes ago, OriginalDomingo said:

Background: My players are going to start using the ship crafting rules soon to create some "salvage pods" to go in a Wayfarer with retro-fitted cargo bay. Most likely, they're looking at building small, highly maneuverable starfighters with a hope to get the "elegant design" result to reduce the silhouette to 2. They're mainly for salvage operations and impromptu fighters, like the pods mentioned with the Deep Space Recovery Vessel in Special Modifications.

Question: If Elegant Design reduces "the craft's silhouette by one," when you get to table 3-10: Assembling Vehicles and Starships, do you use the original "Frame Silhouette" of 3 or the new "Craft Silhouette" of 2. I know it's seems like semantics, but there's a huge jump between 1,000 and 10,000 for extra supplies.

Given their intent to create these types of ships (which I think is cool for the campaign) and the fact that they're not abusive players, I'm inclined to go with the Craft's Silhouette for Table 3-10. I can't find any rule to support either option, so does anybody have any thoughts?

Use the new, the prices on core systems are intentionally low so that the assembly stage can scale the costs to the size of the ship.

I'm somewhat confused about how weapon installation works under the crafting rules, so I'd appreciate some guidance. When assembling, for instance, a Sil 8 Destroyer, you start with 17HP. You install a 3HP engine and a 5HP hull, leaving 9HP. Is that the sum total of HP for adding weapons? Should one stack a load of weapons onto a single HP, or do you ignore the HP rules for the installation of weapons? How would the hive mind handle this one?

46 minutes ago, ColonelCommissar said:

I'm somewhat confused about how weapon installation works under the crafting rules, so I'd appreciate some guidance. When assembling, for instance, a Sil 8 Destroyer, you start with 17HP. You install a 3HP engine and a 5HP hull, leaving 9HP. Is that the sum total of HP for adding weapons? Should one stack a load of weapons onto a single HP, or do you ignore the HP rules for the installation of weapons? How would the hive mind handle this one?

That's the sum total of HP for all attachments, including weapons.

As you can

1 hour ago, ColonelCommissar said:

I'm somewhat confused about how weapon installation works under the crafting rules, so I'd appreciate some guidance. When assembling, for instance, a Sil 8 Destroyer, you start with 17HP. You install a 3HP engine and a 5HP hull, leaving 9HP. Is that the sum total of HP for adding weapons? Should one stack a load of weapons onto a single HP, or do you ignore the HP rules for the installation of weapons? How would the hive mind handle this one?

25 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That's the sum total of HP for all attachments, including weapons.

As you can see there are problems with the official starship crafting rules, the nubian design Collective's whole vehicle crafting handbook is intended to address that with the minimum necessary departure from RAW. Thread of the same name is where you can provide feedback/input.