New Unearthed Arcana 11-12-18

[Daithi]

Of Ships and Sea: https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/UA_ShipsSea.pdf

Not my cup of tea, but others may enjoy it.

[Auramis]

I'm... oddly tickled by this one. I always like getting class options, but it's awesome to see the DMs getting love with this one. With the new book out, there's new subclasses and other cool stuff in there for people, so I'm quite pleased with this UA.

Especially since it's not another Eberron packet. :smallsmile:

[Dankus Memakus]

I'm generally agitated because I feel like the last couple have sucked and I really want a new artificer. After I read through it though I was less agitated. It's kinda near, just not what I wanted

[Kane0]

Neat! I did ship rules for my own table ages back, but nice to see the devs take a crack at it for comparison sake.

[Grey Watcher]

Dammit, I'm gonna have bits of HMS Pinafore stuck in my head all day.

[Misterwhisper]

Dammit, I'm gonna have bits of HMS Pinafore stuck in my head all day.

I have Pirates of Penzance stuck in mine.

Now I have one from Les Mis... look down...

[Sigreid]

Just skimmed so far, but I'm digging it.

[Lonely Tylenol]

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...

[guachi]

Of Ships and the Sea was a late 2e supplement from 1997. It was part of the Dungeon Masters line of books, the blue covered supplements. Only by that point, it wasn't a leatherette cover like the others.

[lianightdemon]

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...

Yeah really why didn't they release this for Tomb of annihilation which can require months at sea to get to from the sword coast. They even offer a ship as a reward.

[Tectorman]

Dammit, I'm gonna have bits of HMS Pinafore stuck in my head all day.

"Sing, Worf, sing!"

[Kane0]

On an unrelated note, i’m off to dig out my copy of black flag again

[Nifft]

Especially since it's not another Eberron packet. :smallsmile: Well the first sample ship is an Airship, so it's highly compatible with Eberron at least.


Dammit, I'm gonna have bits of HMS Pinafore stuck in my head all day. "... and so in matters Khorvairite, Xen'Drikish, or Everice,
I am the very model of a modern Cannith artifice."

https://image.ibb.co/fuw2LA/warforged-pirate-by-lucifersonofsatan-d82cppp.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

[Nosferatu]

I really liked the direction with this, in particular the simplicity and effectiveness of the stat blocks and also the rules for managing the ship outside of combat. A lot of it seems really sloppy to me though, such as:

1) In combat, the only difference between ships is their bonus to their initiative. You could have a crew of knights and a crew of kobolds, but unless you close to boarding, there isn't any difference between the two the entire rest of the time you're in combat.

2) In battle it doesn't matter how good any of your officers are, their abilities only affect the ship outside of combat. A champion as a captain and a goblin as a captain still have the same abilities in combat (until boarding).

3) Crew really doesn't matter in running a ship. You could have a crew of veterans or a crew of street urchins and they would run a ship the same way. Only matters what their quality is at, which in no way actually reflects their abilities and instead seems like crew morale and health, not their actual quality.

4) ...just no boarding rules, which I guess is fine since it's easy to make something up, but seeing as how they elected to go with medieval ships rather than later 17th/18th century ships, this is one of the biggest parts of ship combat and has basically been completely ignored in the supplement.

5) Inconsistencies in the officer positions descriptions and what they actually do. [Ex: Bosun description says they should have a good athletics skill, but that's the only time they mention athletics in the entire article. Surgeon description says they should have high intelligence and herbalism kit proficiency, yet again that's the only time they mention the herbalism kit (this is more forgivable since it can make healing potions which makes sense for the surgeon), but also the surgeon only makes two checks: one for hazards and one for plague, but eh plague uses wisdom, not intelligence. I can go on.]

This seems similar to their UA rules for mass combat, where though there are good ideas, the entire thing feels thrown together without much thought. While this is more usable, I wouldn't want to because they completely erase so many parts of what I feel is coolest about having a ship i.e. hand picking a badass crew, having PCs be crazy good officers, and generally just feeling proud of your ship and crew. Right now a ship and a crew is basically identical to any other.

[Joe the Rat]

I like the treatment of ship-as-creature, subsuming crew into a single turn. Components also gives inspiration for developing other large craft (or creature!) rules.

Automatically failing saves seems kind of off. Most mental status effects are covered by immunities, but toll the dead being a valid means of attack on a wooden vessel? Enh.

I will probbably blend this with other seafaring rules I've picked up.

[Unoriginal]

Well this will probably be useful for my Waterdeep campaign.

Time to swash our buckles.

[stoutstien]

I'm generally agitated because I feel like the last couple have sucked and I really want a new artificer. After I read through it though I was less agitated. It's kinda near, just not what I wanted
I'll wait for an artificer if they actually listen to play test and well completely rework it.

[JackPhoenix]

3) Crew really doesn't matter in running a ship. You could have a crew of veterans or a crew of street urchins and they would run a ship the same way. Only matters what their quality is at, which in no way actually reflects their abilities and instead seems like crew morale and health, not their actual quality.

Sure, because combat power is irrelevant to how well you handle a ship. There's no reason why veteran should be a better sailor than commoner... or pirate. We have stat blocks for those.


4) ...just no boarding rules, which I guess is fine since it's easy to make something up, but seeing as how they elected to go with medieval ships rather than later 17th/18th century ships, this is one of the biggest parts of ship combat and has basically been completely ignored in the supplement.

We already have those. It's the whole combat chapter of the PHB, potentially with your favorite mass combat rules mixed in, because you'd be running dozens of participants.

[jiriku]

Conveniently I have recently started running a shipboard campaign and we are just two sessions in, with the PCs soon to become officer's apprentices. We'll see how this fares during gameplay.

[Misterwhisper]

Sure, because combat power is irrelevant to how well you handle a ship. There's no reason why veteran should be a better sailor than commoner... or pirate. We have stat blocks for those.



We already have those. It's the whole combat chapter of the PHB, potentially with your favorite mass combat rules mixed in, because you'd be running dozens of participants.

The problem with ship combat is that there is no way it will ever happen in a realistic DND world.

Ships do not sneak up on people, you can see them coming from miles away, that just means whoever has the longest range wins.
Most valuable person on the ship would be the longbowman with Sharpshooter, or someone with Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Spear and repelling blast.

EB can't hurt the ship but it can easily send people overboard.

You think druids on land cause issues, put one in an ocean campaign.

There should be no boarding rules because nobody will be alive after getting within 600 feet of each other.

Where the common level 1 wizard can firebolt your ship/sails with almost no effort at all, what is the point.

To have an ocean based game you would have to change a lot of the base mechanics for it to ever make sense.

I will hire my nice crew of Envoy Warforged Artificers. The ship does not have cannons, but all the crew does, and they never sleep, and don't need rations or rest.

[stoutstien]

The problem with ship combat is that there is no way it will ever happen in a realistic DND world.

Ships do not sneak up on people, you can see them coming from miles away, that just means whoever has the longest range wins.
Most valuable person on the ship would be the longbowman with Sharpshooter, or someone with Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Spear and repelling blast.

EB can't hurt the ship but it can easily send people overboard.

You think druids on land cause issues, put one in an ocean campaign.

There should be no boarding rules because nobody will be alive after getting within 600 feet of each other.

Where the common level 1 wizard can firebolt your ship/sails with almost no effort at all, what is the point.

To have an ocean based game you would have to change a lot of the base mechanics for it to ever make sense.

I will hire my nice crew of Envoy Warforged Artificers. The ship does not have cannons, but all the crew does, and they never sleep, and don't need rations or rest.

Any captain worth his salt better have wards in place to counter spell casters. I could see a ward for boats/ ships that make them immune to spells below 5th lv.

[Gibby]

Hmmm i might be wrong bout this but it looks like the ships in this UA can be banished, could be pretty silly but i guess the dm would just have to say no to it.

[Misterwhisper]

Any captain worth his salt better have wards in place to counter spell casters. I could see a ward for boats/ ships that make them immune to spells below 5th lv.

That would be Legendary magic item level for a simple ship.

[Misterwhisper]

Hmmm i might be wrong bout this but it looks like the ships in this UA can be banished, could be pretty silly but i guess the dm would just have to say no to it.

Great way for a paladin to make an impression:

"I dub thee the WATERDAVIAN TITAN!|
Christens the ship with a bottle of champagne and uses banishing smite to make the whole thing disappear.
Turns to the crowd, "And that is what happens if you step out of line!"

Conquest Paladin. GAME

[Gibby]

Great way for a paladin to make an impression:

"I dub thee the WATERDAVIAN TITAN!|
Christens the ship with a bottle of champagne and uses banishing smite to make the whole thing disappear.
Turns to the crowd, "And that is what happens if you step out of line!"

Conquest Paladin. GAME

Or a spellcaster of your choice could banish a enemy ship and drop its entire crew into the water. Course' they would have to get pretty close for that to be possible but its still pretty wacky xD.

[Kane0]

But they aren't creatures. The spells would have to work on objects, despite them having 'creature' statblocks.

[stoutstien]

That would be Legendary magic item level for a simple ship.
The ship is the item.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

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.

[R.Shackleford]

Of Ships and the Sea was a late 2e supplement from 1997. It was part of the Dungeon Masters line of books, the blue covered supplements. Only by that point, it wasn't a leatherette cover like the others.

What I'm hearing is "spelljammer confirmed".

1: They need to iron out their ship mechanics.
2: They don't want to give it away so they use something mundane.
3: They use another 2e suppliment to mask their next big aetting, which is an update on a 2e setting.
4: ????
5: Spelljammer 2019

[Teaguethebean]

The artificer's alchemical acid doesn't do max damage because they aren't objects anymore lol

[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...:smallwink:

[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...:smallwink:

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...:smallwink:

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 (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png), 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.

[Tvtyrant]

That airship is cool and has legit drawbacks to make it not inherently better than a sailing ship. Essentially no cargo capacity, no damage threshhold, and if the elemental gets freed it crashes. Cool for adventuring but sky merchants are going to be rare unless they are delivering something vital like mail or diamonds.

I do wish there were some costs posted up, just for a general idea of how much it would cost an adventurer to acquire an airship or warship.

[Waterdeep Merch]

That airship is cool and has legit drawbacks to make it not inherently better than a sailing ship. Essentially no cargo capacity, no damage threshhold, and if the elemental gets freed it crashes. Cool for adventuring but sky merchants are going to be rare unless they are delivering something vital like mail or diamonds.

I do wish there were some costs posted up, just for a general idea of how much it would cost an adventurer to acquire an airship or warship.
Wizard Airship Mail Service (WAMS). Run by adventurers, for adventurers!

Divination will find you or your packages to be delivered, no matter where you are. Just leave your packages in a safe, easily-accessible location outdoors with a valid magic stamp or pouch of gold/gems for them to recover. You can track your packages with a sending spell. They use true sight to verify the recipient.

This is happening now.

[Tvtyrant]

Wizard Airship Mail Service (WAMS). Run by adventurers, for adventurers!

Divination will find you or your packages to be delivered, no matter where you are. Just leave your packages in a safe, easily-accessible location outdoors with a valid magic stamp or pouch of gold/gems for them to recover. You can track your packages with a sending spell. They use true sight to verify the recipient.

This is happening now.

That actually sounds like a super sweet Futurama style campaign. "Good news you are going to a sunny little doomed island to deliver a shipment of lobsters."

[JackPhoenix]

That airship is cool and has legit drawbacks to make it not inherently better than a sailing ship. Essentially no cargo capacity, no damage threshhold, and if the elemental gets freed it crashes. Cool for adventuring but sky merchants are going to be rare unless they are delivering something vital like mail or diamonds.

I do wish there were some costs posted up, just for a general idea of how much it would cost an adventurer to acquire an airship or warship.

Check PHB.

[Tvtyrant]

Check PHB.

Found it, thanks.

Listed right next to elephants costing 400GP. Time to get my warherd together.