[Spaceships] Interesting Piloting Techniques?

[Phantasm]

In the X-Wing series of games (and later adapted into one of the X-Wing novels), there was a maneuver called the "Wotan Weave" (officially a "Corkscrew Avoid") which you achieved by putting the starfighter into a spin while spiraling along the long axis while maintaining the same attack heading. (The strategy guides for X-Wing and TIE Fighter explained it as holding down the top button of the joystick while angling it to the forward-right corner, but I found I had to alternate the joystick from forward-right and rear-right to pull off; this was in the days of two-axis/two-button joysticks.)

Technically this could be an "evasive action" maneuver, but it's tough to pull off. What would be an acceptable penalty to have this as a Technique?

[ericthered]

This is more appropriate for planetary craft, but 'low flying' is probably a valid technique. Its a famously dangerous one, but fiction tends to love low-flying craft -- and there are sound reasons one would stay low to the ground. This is for rolls related to dodging stationary obstacles and correctly maintaining your altitude.

Note, skill or no, this is a dangerous thing to do.

I like the 'whale-jockey' idea, but its turning on red alarm lights in my head: specifically, what self respecting pilot of an unwieldy vessel doesn't take a technique that improves MOST of his rolls. I'm trying to come up with a line that seperates 'good pilot of clumbsy vehicle' from 'good at making clumbsy vehicles do amazing things', and not coming up with one.

I think Cockpit multitasking is a solid technique.

And yeah, when building techniques, remember that a character will only want one or two of them. A single technique should be broad enough to be used all of the time. It should also be narrow enough that not everyone wants it. its a hard balance.

[RogerBW]

Originally Posted by Krinberry

I think the problem is, you're basically saying you want a technique that buys off the actual physical problems that come with larger vehicles. The handling modifier goes lower and lower as ship size increases because that simply follows from physics - a larger ship has more inertia than a smaller one, which means it's going to require more complicated maneuvering controls to get it to do what you want.

Yeah, but higher piloting skills exist.

By banning the technique, you're saying that Pilot-14 guy can't specialise in big ships, and be just as good as Pilot-16 guy while driving a freighter but not so good with the small stuff. Which seems a shame.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I like the 'whale-jockey' idea, but its turning on red alarm lights in my head: specifically, what self respecting pilot of an unwieldy vessel doesn't take a technique that improves MOST of his rolls. I'm trying to come up with a line that seperates 'good pilot of clumbsy vehicle' from 'good at making clumbsy vehicles do amazing things', and not coming up with one.

I have a counterquestion for you:
What fighter mastering a Qian Kun Ri Yue Dao will not buy Exotic Weapon Training upon meeting the prerequisite?
What martial artists in a primarily kicking art (e.g Capoeira) will not raise the Kicking technique?
One trains with the specialisations one relies on.

[Krinberry]

Originally Posted by RogerBW

Yeah, but higher piloting skills exist.

By banning the technique, you're saying that Pilot-14 guy can't specialise in big ships, and be just as good as Pilot-16 guy while driving a freighter but not so good with the small stuff. Which seems a shame.

In the end it just depends how realistic you want, like I said at the very end of my post.

If you don't care that much about realism and physics (which, in a space opera game or anything with superscience, clearly isn't a major factor in the first place) then by all means, go for it - as I said before, at the end of the day if you and your table like it and it makes the game better, then full steam ahead. :)

It just doesn't make a lot of sense from a physics perspective, so folks who are trying to steer closer to hard science will probably want to avoid things like that.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Krinberry

It just doesn't make a lot of sense from a physics perspective, so folks who are trying to steer closer to hard science will probably want to avoid things like that.

Why? It's pretty much 'learn to be better at piloting in the narrow subset that represent compensating for the unwieldy ship' vs. 'learn to be better at piloting not just the big ships but also the small-and-nible ones of the same category'. It's like Exotic Weapon Training, the Kicking technique etc.

[RogerBW]

Originally Posted by Krinberry

If you don't care that much about realism and physics (which, in a space opera game or anything with superscience, clearly isn't a major factor in the first place) then by all means, go for it - as I said before, at the end of the day if you and your table like it and it makes the game better, then full steam ahead. :)

Physics has nothing to do with it.

What's so unrealistic or unphysical about allowing a Pilot-14 guy to get two levels in a technique about big ships specifically and fly them with effective skill 14, rather than forcing him to learn about all the different sorts of ships (i.e. go up to Pilot-16) to achieve the same goal? Because that's all that's on the table here.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by RogerBW

Physics has nothing to do with it.

What's so unrealistic or unphysical about allowing a Pilot-14 guy to get two levels in a technique about big ships specifically and fly them with effective skill 14, rather than forcing him to learn about all the different sorts of ships (i.e. go up to Pilot-16) to achieve the same goal? Because that's all that's on the table here.

I suppose my objection isn't about the two levels. two levels are fine. Its a bonus of plus six that I object to. and I'm not sure that four is good.

If you keep the technique properly limited I suppose it will work. I wonder if a flat limit of +2 is best or simply 'up to half of the penalty'.