This is something that has been bugging me.  Pilot(Space) is the skill used to pilot starships of all shapes and sizes, from TIE's to tramp freighters, to Mon Cal star cruisers.  The devs decided that flying starships was substantially different enough from flying speeders that it required a separate skill.  And I agree with that.  But if it is that different, should we still be using the same attribute for both skills?

The crux of this problem, for me, is that I don't find hand-eye and full body coordination abilities (represented by the Agi attribute) are as relevant to piloting in space as are spatial perception, the ability to interact with the complex controls and feedback stimuli, and the ability to out-smart your opponent.  These latter qualities seem to fit better with the Cunning statistic that has been added to the game.  

I think Cunning (or even intelligence) is particularly more important than Agility for piloting capital ships.  But, Cunning is also important for flying space transports (e.g. the Falcon) or dogfighting starfighters.  I think that Stay on Target, Evasive Maneuvers, and Gain the Advantage would work well, flavor-wise, to use the Cunning attribute as well.

This would also help break Agi away from being such a "king" statistic in ranged and vehicular combat, which I think is a bit of a problem.

Probably gonna get a lot of disagreement/hate on this, but really felt I needed to voice an opinion on the topic in case anyone else out there was thinking the same thing.

-WJL

For anything up to about Tramp Freighter size (YT1300, Slave I, etc…) I see agility as the linked attribute as they fly like WWII fighters. Capital ships don't have a single pilot. I think that one should be a separate skill. Command/Knowledge (Tactics) for the bridge officer on duty and some other skill (maybe your recommendation of Pilot/Cunning).

I like Agility. 

To an extent, I could see there being three skills involved in flying a fighter - Flying with Agility, Shooting with whatever Perception is called and Tactics with Cunning.

(I was reading a book about Air Combat*, and it suggested that great fighter pilots tend to be short, mean spirited men with exceptional eyesight. I get the impression that being short and mean gave you the required aggression. And as we all know, the Red Baron was a mediocre pilot, but a very good shot.)

* http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fighter-Combat-Manoeuvring-Robert-Shaw/dp/0870210599/ This is apparently the bible for such things

 Reading the description of Cunning, I agree. I mean, just look at the adjectives used: creative, crafty, savvy; able to come up with short-term plans and tactics. Flying fighter, transports, and capital ships aren't about bodily coordination (reaction speeds), its about mental coordination (pro action speeds).

I understand why it's an Ag skill, because piloting has always been a Dex/Agi/Coordination/Etc skill—except in WEG Star Wars, wher piloting was under the Mechanical attribute, which was the vehicle usage attribute. But since FFG is doing all this cool new stuff with their SW game, they should seriously think about why skills are linked to certain characteristics, and if there is a better choice.

-EF

 EldritchFire gets its.

Thx man.

AluminiumWolf said:

They like short pilots because the distance from heart to brain is smaller, therefore travel time and distance for blood, from heart to brain, is shorter. It means you can take higher G-forces without passing out. It's the same reason women make good pilots, they just usually don't have enough muscle development when compared to men.

I quite like the idea of using Cunning for Pilot (space). While Agility makes sense for fighter pilots, it really doesn't make sense for larger ships. Cunning would be a great compromise, as long as we maintain one skill for all space-faring ships.

ItsUncertainWho said:

The book was definitely implying that having a severe case of Short Man Syndrome was a common feature of good fighter pilots.

--

This is the helm of a Seawolf class nuclear attack submarine:-

I still like the idea of actually flying a big ship being tied to agility. Parking something the size of a supercarrier is still the same as parking a car - you just need grace rather than speed.

I am kind of thinking of this- 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eOy2zCuUII (assassins creed 3 naval warfare - also Star Trek Bridge Commander)

No matter how big the ship, you still want a guy at the wheel with a light touch.

--

(Totally incidentally, here is a view of the control columns on the Falcon, on the grounds that I never noticed them and others might not have either:-

 )

I disagree, and think that Pilot (Space) should be an Agility skill, at least for craft that are operated by a single pilot or a pilot/co-pilot combo.

Going by the movies, starfighters are pretty much treated our real-world fighter planes, specifically WW2 dogfighting as Kallabecca noted.

Cunning is great for coming up with plans on the fly, but you need fast reaction times (Agility) to put those plans into motion before the other guy blows you out of the sky.

Now, that said, I could certainly see a caveat that when it comes to the larger ships (Star Destroyers, Mon Cal Cruisers, bulk freighters, etc) that require multiple people to steer, then it could be Cunning rather than Agility, since it's less about reaction time and more about coordinating the efforts of several (or dozens) of people at once.

Donovan Morningfire said:

I agree with all of this.

There is a persistent myth in the RPG community that being a good gymnast makes you a good marksman/boxer/swordsman/driver/pilot/pickpocket/locksmith. I don't see it going away anytime soon. 

The fist RPG I encountered, read, played and gamemastered was called DragonQuest, from SPI.

Amongst the primary characteristics of said old game there were two named Agility and Manual Dexterity.

I've read and played dozens of games since. So, I, at least, don't find myself a victim of such a persistent myth.

That said, I don't really think Cunning should replace Agility in freighter chases and dogfights, in this game.

Doc, the Weasel said:

That's probably more for a sake of simplicity/expediency from a game design perspective.  After all, why have two or three separate stats that have moderate areas of overlap when you can have just the one that covers both and make one less thing the player has to track/worry about?  The majority of those things you mentioned have a strong reliance on coordination and dexterity at their root (Characteristic), with the person's particularly training and experience (Skills) setting them apart.

I get the argument, and it makes sense… But by extension you could argue that ranged weapons might be an int skill (calculating angles, range, trajectory, etc) or that me lee should be agility and not brawn.

At the end of the day, I think it makes the most people happy being an agility skill; flying through the death star trench, navigating an asteroid field, or avoiding incoming fire all require as much of a steady hand as a clever plan.

However - what about a talent somewhere that allows a PC to use cunning instead of agility for piloting (space) when flying things over a certain size/silhouette?

@ AluminumWolf: I'm going to address your post(s?) first because I think its shows a substantial difference in who we think is responsible for piloting these ships.

AluminiumWolf said:

I think parking a supercarrier and a car are fundamentally different activities. The former does require hand-eye coordination. The latter, well, doesn’t. at all. Bringing in a supercarrier is done using thrusters and tugs, and knowing how and when to use power where. And “Grace rather than speed” to me implies something other than “twitchy agility hands” to me.

AluminiumWolf said:

The cited video has as much to do with this conversation as the “Why PC’s don’t run” thread you quoted elsewhere, which is practically nothing. What you posted is nothing more than a contrived minigame in a 3rd person combat game. If they made it that way to keep it fun in a game where fun had a particular context. You cite Bridge commander. I haven’t played it, but it seems it takes some amount of cunning to get your targets into firing positions, more so than quick fingers. Regardless, these video games are entirely different beasts than narrative RPGs.

AluminiumWolf said:

• OOD is responsible for the disposition of the entire ship, including safe navigation, as representative of the Captain.
• The Conning officer is responsible for directing the ships course by giving instructions to the helmsman.
• The Dive officer is responsible for directing the planesmen to set the ship’s trim (dive inclination) at the direction of the OOD or conning officer
• The helmsman sets the ships heading (direction) by the orders of the conn officer.
• The planesmen set the ship’s trim by the order of the dive officer.

I admit, there may be some glitches in the specific descriptions above, and I admit the closest I have to experience in this field is Wikipedia and The Bluejacket’s Manual (24th ed.), but the point remains:  The guys you say should “have a light touch”, the helmsmen and planesman, are not the ones responsible for sailing the ship!!!!

That sub is being sailed by the conning officer and OOD! And I think they guy deciding where the ship should go, how it should get there, and why its going there, should be considered the one to be “piloting the ship”, and doing all this doesn’t require any hand-eye coordination! It’s about moving into a superior tactical position.

Long story short: The Conning officer should be the one to make the Pilot roll.

A minor point here is that the helmsmen and planesmen are usually enlisted seamen, probably not above an E-6 (again, could be wrong), and usually the players are going to be at least junior officers on a ship crew. Better to give a boost die to ships with combat experienced or “light-touched” helmsmen.  There's also typically several of these "pilots", narratively it makes more sense for their commander to make the rolls.  The helmsmen really are just peons.

If you think ships like the Falcon are comparable, then you’re taking all of the jobs above (OOD, Conn, Helm) and smashing them into a single person. And I would view the majority of the “hard part” of flying being the OOD/Conn part of this:

• Where the ship going
• How the ship is getting there
• Why the ship is getting there

In response to your comments RE: fighters and dogfights. Well, yeah, there’s a manual for it because fighter pilots improve by studying, not by doing gymnastics. They hone their minds and learn to be aggressive. There is physical training for modern fighter pilots, but that’s largely to resist G-forces, which doesn’t have much place when your ship has artificial gravity to negate those g's.

It’s a little anecdotal to making my broader point, but if you want a great bit of “cunning-style” theory derived by fighter pilots on how to fighter pilots fight, read up on Col. John Boyd, USAF, and the OODA loop. This has been expanded WAY beyond fighter tactics, but it came from ol’ Genghis John. He’s also the reason the USMC has a “maneuver warfare” doctrine now.

-WJL

 It is probably worth noting that I can certainly see the argument for using cunning, I just think agility is cooler.

--

Er, I race sailing boats, or at least I do when the local lake isn't closed due to blue green algae, and I'd have said that winning races definitely depends more on cunning than agility, but I like to pretend that agility has more to do with direct boat handling. (I also like to pretend that my Dad, who I still sail with, is a better boat handler than I am, but doesn't have the killer instinct it takes to do well at racing). I guess making the boat go fast really depends on how you trim the sails and balance the weight in the boat, which isn't really agility. But still.

As to how this relates to bigger ships, well, on the one hand as a dingy sailor the sailing model in the Assassins Creed video sort of annoys me - I have bought and played and enjoyed sailing sims, and I like them to work properly. On the other hand, that video does look dead cool, and a realistic sim would likely be very, very inaccesible to people who are going to play the game. And I'd swear the assassins creed dude is using agility to steer his boat. And I think people are more likely to want to be the assassin that the real life Captain of a guided missile destroyer.

So, 

1: I think the assassins creed clip is more what we should be aiming for capital ship combat to feel like than a realistic simulation of anything

2: I like the image of the helmsman of a big ship needing to be a like a virtuoso pianist with a light touch who can, if needed, fly a Star Destroyer at flank speed through hole in an asteroid that is only a few tens of meters bigger than the ship.

(I also know nothing about the practice of steering a big ship - but here is a short video of a Cruise Ship captain who at one point talks about the various rotating propellers and bow thrusters that they use to control the ship at low speed-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caLtqYLYPkU )