The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Rules for Flame Weapons
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules -> Rules for Flame Weapons Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 12245
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Then it would not work. What i put in for dousing one's self was for that specific flame unit.. IT might work with others.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12494
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, based on the discussion so far, here is a stat write-up for a flamethrower:

Type: Flamethrower
Scale: Character
Skill: Firearms: Flamethrower
Ammo: 25 (bottle) or 100 (fuel backpack)
Range: 3m-15m/30m/50m
Auto-Fire: 2D (sustained burst uses 1 charge per pip of auto-fire dice used)
Blast Radius (by target range): 0m/1m/3m/5m
Damage (by range): 6D/5D+2/5D/4D (physical)
Special:Flamethrowers have the potential to set their targets on fire, inflicting damage in subsequent combat rounds. Figure damage as normal, then compare the result to the following chart:
    0-3 = Singed (treat as Stunned, no further damage)
    4-8 = Aflame (takes 3D* damage per round until extinguished) (Easy)
    9-12 = Burning (4D* per round) (Difficult)
    13-15 = Immolated (5D* per round) (Heroic)
    16+ = Incinerated (Dead)
    *plus any Auto-Fire dice that was added to the Damage roll on the initial shot.

Notes:
-Vulnerabilities: Species with body fur tend to be more vulnerable to flame weapons, as hair and fur catch fire more easily than bare skin. Species with light and/or partial fur receive a -2 penalty to their Strength roll to resist flame damage, while species with thick and/or shaggy fur receive a -1D penalty. Droids and other inorganic species receive a +1D bonus to Strength to resist damage.

-Effects of Fire on Living Beings: A character who is Aflame or worse must roll Willpower against the Difficulty value in parenthesis at the end of each entry in the above list.
    Success = The character can ignore the fire and act normally (subject to standard damage penalties) while still aflame.
    Failure by 10 or less = The character can take no action other than attempting to put out the flames.
    Failure by more than 10 = The character is panicked and makes a minimum High Speed move in a random direction. He is unable to attempt to fight the flames, but his comrades may attempt to tackle him and extinguish the flames themselves.

-Extinguishing Fire: Characters who are Aflame or worse have two options.
    1). They may ignore the fire and take damage as normal. However, the fire will still make an automatic damage roll once per round, which the character can not dodge or otherwise react to. However, if the character takes no damage for 2 consecutive rounds, the fire burns out on its own.
    2). The character may attempt to put the fire out. This requires an Easy Dexterity check against the Difficulty in parenthesis at the end of each entry on the Special Damage chart. A character's comrades may assist in beating out the flames, with each helper adding 1D to the character's Dexterity roll. Application of water or some other form of fire extinguisher adds an additional 2D to the Dexterity roll.


Thoughts?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 12245
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i am down with that...
Though it would suck for a target if say the mix was made using some sodium/magnesium or other substance that flairs up even more under the application of water.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12494
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
i am down with that...
Though it would suck for a target if say the mix was made using some sodium/magnesium or other substance that flairs up even more under the application of water.


True, but I think I'll leave that for rare and exotic variations of flame weapons.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Esoomian
High Admiral
High Admiral


Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6176
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd reduce the difficulty for the willpower test for any panic based rolls for any species in fully enclosed armour, any species that doesn't breathe (such as some varients of the Gands) or with any sort of fire resistance.

I'd also say that the autofire dice could be used to negate the effects of cover as flamethrowers (especially in 40K) are best at flushing targets out of cover.

Additionally I'd make flamethrowers less desirable as a weapon by giving energy/fire damage against the wielder a chance of detonating the fuel backpack (the bottle is too small a target for that to be a real possibility). Something like a roll of six on the wild dice causes the backpack to explode.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.

Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12494
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Esoomian wrote:
I'd reduce the difficulty for the willpower test for any panic based rolls for any species in fully enclosed armour, any species that doesn't breathe (such as some varients of the Gands) or with any sort of fire resistance.


That's already covered in the damage, as fully enclosed armor and any sort of fire resistance would provide protection against the fire damage in the first place, resulting in less damage, and therefore lower Willpower difficulty. Enough damage to override that added protection would certainly be unsettling to the target. Perhaps species that don't breathe could be lumped in with the added advantage of droids being fire resistant, but it is no guarantee that they are equally resistant to flame and heat.


Quote:
I'd also say that the autofire dice could be used to negate the effects of cover as flamethrowers (especially in 40K) are best at flushing targets out of cover.


Technically, it already does. Cover provides bonuses to the character being attacked to avoid damage, but auto-fire can be added to the To Hit roll, counteracting the Cover bonus.


Quote:
Additionally I'd make flamethrowers less desirable as a weapon by giving energy/fire damage against the wielder a chance of detonating the fuel backpack (the bottle is too small a target for that to be a real possibility). Something like a roll of six on the wild dice causes the backpack to explode.


That seems fair. There are already rules in place for damaging weapons, so I will take a look at that. It would be more appropriate in the D6 world to simply make it more difficult for a shooter to hit the bottle, not impossible. IMO, the damage from a detonating bottle / fuel-pack should be linked to how badly damaged the weapon is.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 12245
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Again i point to my backpack developed for rules on what happens should the pack get hit.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Esoomian
High Admiral
High Admiral


Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6176
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:
Esoomian wrote:
I'd reduce the difficulty for the willpower test for any panic based rolls for any species in fully enclosed armour, any species that doesn't breathe (such as some varients of the Gands) or with any sort of fire resistance.


That's already covered in the damage, as fully enclosed armor and any sort of fire resistance would provide protection against the fire damage in the first place, resulting in less damage, and therefore lower Willpower difficulty. Enough damage to override that added protection would certainly be unsettling to the target. Perhaps species that don't breathe could be lumped in with the added advantage of droids being fire resistant, but it is no guarantee that they are equally resistant to flame and heat.


I only partially agree with that statement. Someone in fully enclosed armour (or clothing) like a space suit for instance might be able to remove clothing that is on fire rather than giving in to panic. I do quite like the idea of a guy frantically removing a burning space suit as they dive away from a flamethrower.

Not breathing means that you're not inhaling the fumes or having your lungs scorched by the heat. I'd consider that an advantage over most when being set on fire in the same way that you consider having a lot of hair a disadvantage.

Quote:
Quote:
I'd also say that the autofire dice could be used to negate the effects of cover as flamethrowers (especially in 40K) are best at flushing targets out of cover.


Technically, it already does. Cover provides bonuses to the character being attacked to avoid damage, but auto-fire can be added to the To Hit roll, counteracting the Cover bonus.


True but with cover can't you get up to 4D of protection? I'd say that for a flamethrower you should double the autofire dice's effectiveness at removing cover. Especially considering the 40K flamethrowers you're basing this on just automatically ignore cover entirely.

Quote:
Quote:
Additionally I'd make flamethrowers less desirable as a weapon by giving energy/fire damage against the wielder a chance of detonating the fuel backpack (the bottle is too small a target for that to be a real possibility). Something like a roll of six on the wild dice causes the backpack to explode.


That seems fair. There are already rules in place for damaging weapons, so I will take a look at that. It would be more appropriate in the D6 world to simply make it more difficult for a shooter to hit the bottle, not impossible. IMO, the damage from a detonating bottle / fuel-pack should be linked to how badly damaged the weapon is.


One of my favourite lines in 40K comes from the damage table on the Ork scorcher vehicle for the hit location of the fuel tank.

The vehicle is now leaking a trail of burning fuel. This is not a problem unless it stops for any reason...
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.

Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 12245
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I only partially agree with that statement. Someone in fully enclosed armour (or clothing) like a space suit for instance might be able to remove clothing that is on fire rather than giving in to panic. I do quite like the idea of a guy frantically removing a burning space suit as they dive away from a flamethrower.


But with the 5 second combat rounds SW uses, how many rounds would it take TO Strip off armor?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Esoomian
High Admiral
High Admiral


Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6176
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In that situation I'd make them do a strength check and if they rolled high enough to 'wound' the armour I'd say they just break all the catches and get it off in a round or so. Also some power armour may have an eject or a button you press to have it all just fall off.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.

Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 12245
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wouldn't (or shouldn't) those power armors then list that feature in their description/write up?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Esoomian
High Admiral
High Admiral


Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6176
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have never known a player not to get the armour customized in that way so that ion blasts don't turn them into statues.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.

Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12494
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Esoomian wrote:
I only partially agree with that statement. Someone in fully enclosed armour (or clothing) like a space suit for instance might be able to remove clothing that is on fire rather than giving in to panic. I do quite like the idea of a guy frantically removing a burning space suit as they dive away from a flamethrower.

Not breathing means that you're not inhaling the fumes or having your lungs scorched by the heat. I'd consider that an advantage over most when being set on fire in the same way that you consider having a lot of hair a disadvantage.


In both instances you describe, the suit would actually be providing soak dice to Strength to resist the initial flame damage, and would continue to do so when countering subsequent flame damage, and that's not something a character facing a flamethrower would give up. I can perhaps see a character removing armor as part of the process of putting the flames out, but that also requires staying calm. As I already said, I can see sealed armor (by which I meant environmentally sealed) providing the same additional protection as droids (+1D, which would be in addition to any armor bonuses). Armor / sealed suit = Increased Strength vs. Physical Damage (flamethrowers) = Lower Damage inflicted = Lower difficulty for Willpower roll to maintain control = more likely to retain sense of mind to remove burning armor.


Quote:
True but with cover can't you get up to 4D of protection? I'd say that for a flamethrower you should double the autofire dice's effectiveness at removing cover. Especially considering the 40K flamethrowers you're basing this on just automatically ignore cover entirely.


For that route, I would rather tie cover negation in with the blast radius rules. The auto-fire rule for increasing accuracy is more about spraying the flame around more to increase the chances of a hit. In fact, when combining the auto-fire and blast radius effects, you could increase the localized damage and still require characters to dodge, even if they are behind cover.

I don't think I would take the automatically-ignore-cover route with D6 rules for flamethrowers, either, as the RAW already has rules in place for attacking and damaging cover that provides 100% coverage.


Quote:
One of my favourite lines in 40K comes from the damage table on the Ork scorcher vehicle for the hit location of the fuel tank.

The vehicle is now leaking a trail of burning fuel. This is not a problem unless it stops for any reason...


Yeah, I love the descriptors on Ork weaponry and mishaps. It's usually almost slapstick in nature.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12494
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Esoomian wrote:
In that situation I'd make them do a strength check and if they rolled high enough to 'wound' the armour I'd say they just break all the catches and get it off in a round or so.


That makes sense; reminds me of the scene in Aliens, where Hicks was struggling to get his armor off before the acid blood burned through it. What would be the armor's Strength to resist the removal attempt? Armor bonus is an obvious starting place, but isn't always the best indicator, as there are other factors involved.

Quote:
Also some power armour may have an eject or a button you press to have it all just fall off.


That makes sense too.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Esoomian
High Admiral
High Admiral


Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6176
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:
Esoomian wrote:
I only partially agree with that statement. Someone in fully enclosed armour (or clothing) like a space suit for instance might be able to remove clothing that is on fire rather than giving in to panic. I do quite like the idea of a guy frantically removing a burning space suit as they dive away from a flamethrower.

Not breathing means that you're not inhaling the fumes or having your lungs scorched by the heat. I'd consider that an advantage over most when being set on fire in the same way that you consider having a lot of hair a disadvantage.


In both instances you describe, the suit would actually be providing soak dice to Strength to resist the initial flame damage, and would continue to do so when countering subsequent flame damage, and that's not something a character facing a flamethrower would give up. I can perhaps see a character removing armor as part of the process of putting the flames out, but that also requires staying calm. As I already said, I can see sealed armor (by which I meant environmentally sealed) providing the same additional protection as droids (+1D, which would be in addition to any armor bonuses). Armor / sealed suit = Increased Strength vs. Physical Damage (flamethrowers) = Lower Damage inflicted = Lower difficulty for Willpower roll to maintain control = more likely to retain sense of mind to remove burning armor.


That makes sense if the target doesn't breathe or is in completely sealed (environmentally sealed) armour then it counts as a droid or inorganic for purposes of resisting fire damage and gets that +1D to resist the fire damage. That +1D then in turn lowers the likelyhood of panic.

Not quite sure I understand blast radius negating cover is it just you target behind the cover and hit them with the blast radius?

crmcneill wrote:
Esoomian wrote:
In that situation I'd make them do a strength check and if they rolled high enough to 'wound' the armour I'd say they just break all the catches and get it off in a round or so.


That makes sense; reminds me of the scene in Aliens, where Hicks was struggling to get his armor off before the acid blood burned through it. What would be the armor's Strength to resist the removal attempt? Armor bonus is an obvious starting place, but isn't always the best indicator, as there are other factors involved.


I'd just use the armour bonus but you have to do enough damage to actually 'wound' the armour otherwise you haven't done enough to get it off.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.

Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0