New Unearthed Arcana 11-12-18

[Unoriginal]

On the subject of the crew: if you have a crew that is better at sailing than the typical commoner crew, you can just augment their quality score.

[Lombra]

I’m kind of... Augh. I’ve been writing a seafaring campaign for months, to begin play as soon as the musical I’m in ends, and being downtrodden over the total lack of shipping and seafaring rules, sought better alternatives and developed my world around their use. Now this comes out two weeks before I can begin play???

Better start reading, I guess...

Nothing prevents you from using the rules you came up with, just because it's published by the designers it doesn't mean that it's better than your own rules for your game.

[Misterwhisper]

Great, but not every ship has the distinction of carrying PCs. NPCs don't have feats or PC class features, so no Sharpshooter, Eldritch Spear or Repelling Blast (and if you put something to take cover behind on your ship, you don't have to worry about the later two). Spellcasting NPCs still exist, but that Firebolt-totting mage has 120' range, has to deal with the ships moving at 35' per turn (double that if they move towards each other), has to cause 100 damage to take out the sails, then the same to the oars, and can't damage the hull at all. Longbowmen are better, because you can get more of them than spellcasters, but again, the hull on a warship has damage treshold 20 and 500 hit points. Siege weapons can do that, but they can be destroyed, and would be priority target for the enemy... you can take out the means of propulsion, you can take out the weapons, but you can't really sunk the ship, so the combat would end in both sides crippling and then frowning on each other without the ability to hurt the other ship.

Besides, ships are expensive... you'll want to take it for yourself, and unless you're lucky enough to pack really powerful mage, you can't do that at range.

Your first point is exactly the problem, the ships without the PCs won’t have those kinds of things more than likely, but the PCs will. No normal ship with just normal npc crew will ever have a slightest of a chance.

I was just using cantrips any level 1 could have, it is even worse as spell levels go up.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Your first point is exactly the problem, the ships without the PCs won’t have those kinds of things more than likely, but the PCs will. No normal ship with just normal npc crew will ever have a slightest of a chance.

I was just using cantrips any level 1 could have, it is even worse as spell levels go up.

Here's the the thing. With firebolt, at level 1, you just can't do enough damage to even kill the sails before it gets in range even with spell sniper.

You deal 5.5 DPR if everything hits, and you have 7 turns (240 ft at ~30 ft/turn). That gives you 38.5 damage. Warship sails have 100 HP.

In Tier 2, you deal 77 damage (still assuming everything hits). Still not enough.

In Tier 3, you deal 115.5 damage, which is enough. If everything hits. But that's only the sails, it can still move under oars with only slightly diminished speed. And you can't scratch the hull.

And the opponent's siege weapons have been bombarding you since the beginning (close range 200, far range 800). The ballistae have range 120/480, so you're taking fire from those as well. And those can break your hull just fine.

Your assumptions are faulty.

[Misterwhisper]

Here's the the thing. With firebolt, at level 1, you just can't do enough damage to even kill the sails before it gets in range even with spell sniper.

You deal 5.5 DPR if everything hits, and you have 7 turns (240 ft at ~30 ft/turn). That gives you 38.5 damage. Warship sails have 100 HP.

In Tier 2, you deal 77 damage (still assuming everything hits). Still not enough.

In Tier 3, you deal 115.5 damage, which is enough. If everything hits. But that's only the sails, it can still move under oars with only slightly diminished speed. And you can't scratch the hull.

And the opponent's siege weapons have been bombarding you since the beginning (close range 200, far range 800). The ballistae have range 120/480, so you're taking fire from those as well. And those can break your hull just fine.

Your assumptions are faulty.

Don’t target the ship, target the grunt crew.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Don’t target the ship, target the grunt crew.

Can't. Not by the rules, anyway. They're subsumed into the "ship" creature entirely. If you're going to go that route, hitting a target like that at those distances with the cover they have (they're not standing in the open), they're at +5 AC and you have disadvantage. Good luck with that. Oh, and most have total cover from you--they're inside the hull.

[Misterwhisper]

Can't. Not by the rules, anyway. They're subsumed into the "ship" creature entirely. If you're going to go that route, hitting a target like that at those distances with the cover they have (they're not standing in the open), they're at +5 AC and you have disadvantage. Good luck with that. Oh, and most have total cover from you--they're inside the hull.

Which is another reason the rules don’t work, you can’t tell a player they can not shoot an enemy standing on a ship they they can see just because they are the crew.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Which is another reason the rules don’t work, you can’t tell a player they can not shoot an enemy standing on a ship they they can see just because they are the crew.

They're an abstraction for game purposes. Not a simulation. Nothing in 5e is a simulation. And if you're going the simulation route, I think you drastically underestimate how hard it is to hit a moving target, on a moving target, while you're on a moving platform, at extreme range. Note that they're moving in 3D with irregular pitching and rolling and so are you. And there's lots of wind in the way. +5 AC and disadvantage (3/4 cover + disadvantage) is an underestimate. And you still can't hit most of the crew, because they're not out on deck or behind pavises (basically moveable walls).

Invoking simulation is always the wrong thing to do when saying something's easy, because it isn't. It's actually harder than the game mechanics make it out to be, because the game wants you to do cool things.

[Misterwhisper]

They're an abstraction for game purposes. Not a simulation. Nothing in 5e is a simulation. And if you're going the simulation route, I think you drastically underestimate how hard it is to hit a moving target, on a moving target, while you're on a moving platform, at extreme range. +5 AC and disadvantage (3/4 cover + disadvantage) is an underestimate. And you still can't hit most of the crew, because they're not out on deck or behind pavises (basically moveable walls).

Yes I know how hard it is, I also know in 5e the rules don’t care.

[Pelle]

Wow, that was convenient. Yesterday's session ended with the party having plans of aquiring a ship to start a voyage. I don't like all the ideas here, and will not use so much of it, but it's good for inspration. The travel speeds look much faster than in the PHB/DMG, for example.

[JackPhoenix]

Which is another reason the rules don’t work, you can’t tell a player they can not shoot an enemy standing on a ship they they can see just because they are the crew.

Why would you tell them that? There's nothing in the UA saying you can't target the crew, if it's visible. If they aren't, you can't target them, and they'll get cover as normal... that doesn't need to be in the UA, PHB (and DMG) explains that part of combat rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes I know how hard it is, I also know in 5e the rules don’t care.

You're trying to flip back and forth between simulation and "rules" at will, when it doesn't work that way. You can't do that. If you do simulation, you can't use the rules. If you use the rules, you have to forget the "reality." One or the other, not both.

Are the rules perfect? No. Especially not UA. Are they playable? Yes.

[Damon_Tor]

The complications for owning a ship are needlessly punitive. Every month you roll 5d20 and if any one of them rolls a 1 you get a complication. So every month there's a 20-25% (I don't feel like doing math) chance you get one of these.

Of the six complications, three of them remove your ship from your possession indefinitely. Another removes it from you for 1d4 months. Another removes it from you for 1d6 months and costs you a monthly fee equal to your normal income from that ship (can be mitigated by intervention). One of them simply means you get no income from the ship that month.

In other words, every month you own a ship, there is somewhere around a 10% chance you will lose the ship, requiring your direct intervention (ie, a quest) to get it back.

Why would you ever do this? A ship is a massive investment, but the odds are you won't even make it a year before it vanishes. I guess we just laugh because "lol, its just gold, who cares" but come on now.

[Pelle]

In other words, every month you own a ship, there is somewhere around a 10% chance you will lose the ship, requiring your direct intervention (ie, a quest) to get it back.

Why would you ever do this? A ship is a massive investment, but the odds are you won't even make it a year before it vanishes. I guess we just laugh because "lol, its just gold, who cares" but come on now.

I won't be using those rules myself, but I think the reason is that those rules are not for simulation. They are rather for generating 'fun' events so that you have interesting things happening in your game, producing adventures for you. I won't be needing that help, personally, my party has too much stuff they want to do already.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I won't be using those rules myself, but I think the reason is that those rules are not for simulation. They are rather for generating 'fun' events so that you have interesting things happening in your game, producing adventures for you. I won't be needing that help, personally, my party has too much stuff they want to do already.

And the complication tables (including in Xanathar's) are optional--they're designed to provide the DM with a source of "and then an interesting thing happens" if they want it.

Not to mention that ship-owning was very risky. Maybe not that risky, but when you have sea monsters...

[ErHo]

Great, now that Ive completed the coastal campaign and everyone is now landlocked.

Maybe I can have a boat battle on some rowboats

[Pelle]

And the complication tables (including in Xanathar's) are optional--they're designed to provide the DM with a source of "and then an interesting thing happens" if they want it.

Not to mention that ship-owning was very risky. Maybe not that risky, but when you have sea monsters...

Yeah, I was actually thinking about introducing an insurance offer in my game à la Braavos in Game of Thrones. It's essentially a wager, and the premium price should be the odds of shipwreck times the value of ship and cargo. Might become too high for a D&D game...

[JackPhoenix]

And the complication tables (including in Xanathar's) are optional--they're designed to provide the DM with a source of "and then an interesting thing happens" if they want it.

Not to mention that ship-owning was very risky. Maybe not that risky, but when you have sea monsters...

There's also the design philosophy of "Downtime activities shouldn't have better gains than active adventuring. It should lead to further adventures."

[Unoriginal]

The complications for owning a ship are needlessly punitive. Every month you roll 5d20 and if any one of them rolls a 1 you get a complication. So every month there's a 20-25% (I don't feel like doing math) chance you get one of these.

Of the six complications, three of them remove your ship from your possession indefinitely. Another removes it from you for 1d4 months. Another removes it from you for 1d6 months and costs you a monthly fee equal to your normal income from that ship (can be mitigated by intervention). One of them simply means you get no income from the ship that month.

In other words, every month you own a ship, there is somewhere around a 10% chance you will lose the ship, requiring your direct intervention (ie, a quest) to get it back.

Why would you ever do this? A ship is a massive investment, but the odds are you won't even make it a year before it vanishes. I guess we just laugh because "lol, its just gold, who cares" but come on now.

Well, you could say they went overboard with the complications.


More seriously, it's important they get feedback so that the penalties are a bit less extreme (or a bit less numerous).

On the other hand 5d20 gp a month + sea transport whenever you need it are pretty great benefits.

And the complication tables (including in Xanathar's) are optional--they're designed to provide the DM with a source of "and then an interesting thing happens" if they want it.

True, but most downtime activities have less important conplications.

Not to mention that ship-owning was very risky.

True. See "The Merchant of Venice" for one example.

There's also the design philosophy of "Downtime activities shouldn't have better gains than active adventuring. It should lead to further adventures."

True, but "your crew found an island/saw a sea monster/transported an exotic traveler/etc" sounds better than "your crew is pretty unreliable".

Interestingly enough, this downtime activity doesn't require much of your downtime. Once you have a crew, they deal with the coin-making on their own while you do other stuff.

[bc56]

I rather like this supplement.
It's definitely not perfect, but it's pretty clear what they intend.
Ships appear to be made to be moving terrain, with destructible terrain features which can be used as weapons, and to move the ship.
Presumably, you can't target the crew on certain stations, probably because a ballista or a helm provides cover.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There's also the design philosophy of "Downtime activities shouldn't have better gains than active adventuring. It should lead to further adventures."

This. For a game, that's good design as long as the penalties are calibrated properly.

Well, you could say they went overboard with the complications.


More seriously, it's important they get feedback so that the penalties are a bit less extreme (or a bit less numerous).

On the other hand 5d20 gp a month + sea transport whenever you need it are pretty great benefits.

True, but most downtime activities have less important conplications.

Agreed. Calibration is important here, as is risk. As you say, it's a downtime activity that happens whether you're adventuring or not (while most aren't). Thus, it should (in my eyes) be more risky to keep the expected returns on par.

[mephnick]

There's also the design philosophy of "Downtime activities shouldn't have better gains than active adventuring. It should lead to further adventures."

I'm glad they figured this out when making 5e and didn't spend much time on a crafting system. Crafting is the anti-thesis of adventure.

[Waterdeep Merch]

This UA is actually immediately helpful for me. I have a very military-oriented campaign where I've had to relegate naval warfare to the background until I figured out how to deal with them. This isn't perfect, but it's a great start.

These are sort of my favorite UA's, stuff that can work like an expansion to rules that don't presently really exist yet. Player options get all the hype, but these can define whole games when done well.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm glad they figured this out when making 5e and didn't spend much time on a crafting system. Crafting is the anti-thesis of adventure.

Crafting is for NPCs or to be brushed over in "downtime".

Don't get me wrong. When I play MMOs, I love crafting and usually try to pick up all the various things. But then I'm only wasting my time. Not table time.

[stoutstien]

Crafting is for NPCs or to be brushed over in "downtime".

Don't get me wrong. When I play MMOs, I love crafting and usually try to pick up all the various things. But then I'm only wasting my time. Not table time.

They could have made crafing at least possible for those of us that enjoy it. A week to craft a lv 1 scroll is a tad over kill

[Unoriginal]

They could have made crafing at least possible for those of us that enjoy it. A week to craft a lv 1 scroll is a tad over kill

Crafting is possible.

Also I recommend the Xanathar's rules for it.

[stoutstien]

Crafting is possible.

Also I recommend the Xanathar's rules for it.

I love the new crafting outlines in xans. Made my Gear Smith possible. I was pointing out crafting is a huge draw for some players due the fact it makes the game more immersive.
I don't want to return to the cure wand spam of 3x but capitalizing on the attunment limits a wand of grease with 1-3 charges a day would be a fun option

[TheYell]

Ships do not sneak up on people, you can see them coming from miles away, that just means whoever has the longest range wins.

Worthy of a thread of argument by itself. Apart from the Straits of Tsushima, usually better gunnery didn't win naval battles. And that includes Jutland.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Nothing prevents you from using the rules you came up with, just because it's published by the designers it doesn't mean that it's better than your own rules for your game.

I’m aware. It existing just means more competing standards, and the possibility that rules conflicts will occur between players who normally have an expectation of source primacy, and the rules I made up because of a lack of primary rules.

[FrancisBean]

There's also the design philosophy of "Downtime activities shouldn't have better gains than active adventuring. It should lead to further adventures."

That's exactly how it's happening in my current game. We now own an airship in Eberron. What we're really getting is enough income so we can ignore the minutia of lifestyle expenses (we all hate accounting!), along with a traveling base which lets us take on work anywhere we like. My DM and the group keep close contact on plot plans, so we know where it's going. We're mostly going to be hitting a lot of different location missions without much of in-between downtime.

Our DM will probably ignore all of the "hazards to ship" rolls. When we're on the ship, we'll probably get attacked by flights of dragons or what have you; when we're not there, it'll sail unhindered. It isn't realistic, but it's how things will likely go.