| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:10 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| lecher000 wrote: | | I don't see why slashing weapons would be less effective considering piercing weapons are designed in order to bleed out targets and attack organs like the lungs and heart. Droids lack both blood and a need for lungs, though I guess you could say their "heart" is their power cell. |
Oops. I meant piercing.
| lecher000 wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | But saying weapons have reduced effects against droids is meaningless without a droid damage system in the first place. RAW never provide one (oops). CRM made one, and I made one. |
Also, the droid damage system is the same as the human one, they're simply a different category of being. It's definitely not useless, especially since ion weapons from the beginning are designed to only be effective on droids and vehicles, predating any of my own rules. People are free to house-rule a droid damage system though. |
There is nothing in RAW that says to use organic damage system for droids. Also, the organic damage statuses do not correspond to the droid damage statuses on p.64. It is impossible to have a droid damage system without some house ruling.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 1:48 pm Post subject: Re: Alternate Weapon Type Rules |
|
|
| lecher000 wrote: | | Well that's only if your goal is to nerf vibroweapons. |
IMO, melee weapons in general need a nerfing, which is technically what WEG did with their D6 Space Strength Damage rules.
And it makes sense in general to have a cutting weapon do less damage against a metal object than it does against flesh. Since we already have a mechanic for Armor providing a bonus depending on the type of damage being inflicted, I prefer a rule that parallels the existing rules to the greatest degree possible. This makes it easier for GMs to apply mentally (as in, not having to learn and remember a new mechanic, just applying an old mechanic in a new way).
| Quote: | | I want to try and keep stun damage unique to stun-specific weapons, to keep stun batons and regular clubs objectively separate. Clubs can technically achieve the same end-goal of the character becoming knocked unconscious through stunning for a stun weapon or exhaustion from fatigue damage, though stun damage has its own unique category. |
But Stun already covers a pretty broad range beyond Stun-specific weapon. Essentially, Stun is used to represent lots of effects that temporarily disable or neutralize a character without causing lasting harm. Stun is actually the lowest result on the general damage chart for just that reason. Even the Force Power Inflict Pain is calculated as Stun Damage.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another possibility for Slashing vs. Piercing:
Because Piercing is a linear application of force, have them do lower damage relative to Slashing, but be better at piercing armor. The reasoning is that, when attacking armor, a Slashing weapon distributes kinetic energy across a line of impact, rather than focusing it all into a single point like a Piercing weapon.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
lecher000
Ensign
Joined: 13 Oct 2021
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 3:01 pm Post subject: Re: Alternate Weapon Type Rules |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | lecher000 wrote: | | Well that's only if your goal is to nerf vibroweapons. |
IMO, melee weapons in general need a nerfing, which is technically what WEG did with their D6 Space Strength Damage rules.
And it makes sense in general to have a cutting weapon do less damage against a metal object than it does against flesh. Since we already have a mechanic for Armor providing a bonus depending on the type of damage being inflicted, I prefer a rule that parallels the existing rules to the greatest degree possible. This makes it easier for GMs to apply mentally (as in, not having to learn and remember a new mechanic, just applying an old mechanic in a new way).
| Quote: | | I want to try and keep stun damage unique to stun-specific weapons, to keep stun batons and regular clubs objectively separate. Clubs can technically achieve the same end-goal of the character becoming knocked unconscious through stunning for a stun weapon or exhaustion from fatigue damage, though stun damage has its own unique category. |
But Stun already covers a pretty broad range beyond Stun-specific weapon. Essentially, Stun is used to represent lots of effects that temporarily disable or neutralize a character without causing lasting harm. Stun is actually the lowest result on the general damage chart for just that reason. Even the Force Power Inflict Pain is calculated as Stun Damage. |
Well what I meant by the "stun" damage thing is that weapons with stun settings automatically send a character into an unconscious state for 2D minutes if they suffer damage more serious than stunned. That's what I was referring to. Obviously you can roll up "stunned" on the damage chart, but weapons with stun settings are different in that they can usurp the regular build-up of stun damage. But if that's what you meant, they simply build up another level of stun, that's more doable.
As for melee weapons, armor is very different from appliance-applications of metal. Stainless steel is a very crappy kind of steel to use for a longsword, but it's great for home appliances. The same logic applies to most droids, which is why they can upgrade their frames to use reinforced alloys. There's also cast vs forged, then the purity aspect of the ore, the gauge and tempering. There's multiple processes all of which determine the kind of metal you're going to be creating.
If droids are being rolled out and manufactured quickly on an assembly line and available for purchase by meager moisture farmers, they'll in all likelihood be using casting methods, which would all-around make the metals used weaker than intended and generally not useful as armor. Secondly, I doubt standard appliance droids are going to be using many armor-grade metals on their bodies since that would increase their manufacturing cost which would be unnecessary for something like a standard protocol droid.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | Another possibility for Slashing vs. Piercing:
Because Piercing is a linear application of force, have them do lower damage relative to Slashing, but be better at piercing armor. The reasoning is that, when attacking armor, a Slashing weapon distributes kinetic energy across a line of impact, rather than focusing it all into a single point like a Piercing weapon. |
Well piercing weapons don't apply a linear level of force, but I see what you're trying to say. The formula you're referring to is P = F/A (Pressure equals Force over Area), which means that the smaller area a point of contact is focused on, the larger the pressure will be, which is why the common design of most military cartridges uses spitzer (pointed) bullets.
Overall I would have to ultimately say no since if I'm going to give piercing weapons a bonus at penetrating armor, I would need to give slugthrowers a bonus at penetrating armor since they both use physical damage types and bullets are far better at armor penetration than hand-held melee weapons.
Last edited by lecher000 on Tue Oct 19, 2021 3:40 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lecher000
Ensign
Joined: 13 Oct 2021
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: |
There is nothing in RAW that says to use organic damage system for droids. Also, the organic damage statuses do not correspond to the droid damage statuses on p.64. It is impossible to have a droid damage system without some house ruling. |
You're talking about the Droid Repair roll right? I always assumed it mirrored the character damage chart where Stunned = unharmed but suffering from minor penalties, and Wounded, Incapacitated, Mortally Wounded, and Killed were Lightly Damaged, Heavily Damaged, Severely Damaged, and Nearly Obliterated, respectively.
At least, I assumed that since they use the same exact damage chart on the template on the back on page 278. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lecher000 wrote: | | You're talking about the Droid Repair roll right? |
In part, yes.
| lecher000 wrote: | I always assumed it mirrored the character damage chart where Stunned = unharmed but suffering from minor penalties, and Wounded, Incapacitated, Mortally Wounded, and Killed were Lightly Damaged, Heavily Damaged, Severely Damaged, and Nearly Obliterated, respectively.
At least, I assumed that since they use the same exact damage chart on the template on the back on page 278. |
That is not an illogical presumption for a starting place, but it is not explicit in RAW and there are choices to make. Remember there is an R&E wound status that is not on the wound chart, "wounded twice," because it is only possible through accumulation of two separate wounds and not a single wound. The direct droid correlation would be "lightly damaged twice," which is not on the repair chart. How do you repair that? Two separate repair rolls, one for each light damage? That seems simple enough, but it doesn't really make sense when more severe damage can be repaired in a single repair roll.
For my Character and Droid Damage rules, I was inspired to mirror droids to organic characters in effects. I mirror ion damage for droids to organic stun damage. I shift some of the names of droid damage status because I feel "lightly damaged twice" sounds stupid, and it should be repairable in a single repair roll like all the others. So I shift the "heavily damaged" up to wounded twice and "severely damaged" up to incapacitated. I also feel "destroyed" should replace killed but "nearly obliterated" shouldn't be for every mortally wounded, so I added "critically damaged" to replace mortally wounded and "nearly obliterated" is a possible outcome of the droid's player or GM rolling a 1 on the wild die of the damage resistance roll. My droid repair chart is adjusted to show all of these possibilities. This seems more complex for droids, but I also have simplifications to the damage system for mooks like for organic characters. (Mooks don't have wounded twice or mortally wounded, or the corresponding droid equivalents.)
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 7:11 pm Post subject: Re: Alternate Weapon Type Rules |
|
|
| lecher000 wrote: | | But if that's what you meant, they simply build up another level of stun, that's more doable. |
This. The idea being that, even on a glancing hit, it delivers enough impact damage to add to the character's Stunned total. Frankly, the Stun damage system is something of a mess. I have my own version that treats Stun Damage like Ionization for living beings, but still requiring rest for it to completely roll off.
| Quote: | | As for melee weapons, armor is very different from appliance-applications of metal. Stainless steel is a very crappy kind of steel to use for a longsword, but it's great for home appliances. The same logic applies to most droids, which is why they can upgrade their frames to use reinforced alloys. There's also cast vs forged, then the purity aspect of the ore, the gauge and tempering. There's multiple processes all of which determine the kind of metal you're going to be creating. |
True, but even if I stab a stainless steel pot with a carving knife full force, it's going to take less damage than if I do the same to my own hand.
| Quote: | | If droids are being rolled out and manufactured quickly on an assembly line and available for purchase by meager moisture farmers, they'll in all likelihood be using casting methods, which would all-around make the metals used weaker than intended and generally not useful as armor. Secondly, I doubt standard appliance droids are going to be using many armor-grade metals on their bodies since that would increase their manufacturing cost which would be unnecessary for something like a standard protocol droid. |
The counterargument is that companies and their customers are going to want a certain degree of reliability and durability in their products. A droid with sheet-metal skin may exist, but it certainly won't have a reputation for quality.
| Quote: | | Overall I would have to ultimately say no since if I'm going to give piercing weapons a bonus at penetrating armor, I would need to give slugthrowers a bonus at penetrating armor since they both use physical damage types and bullets are far better at armor penetration than hand-held melee weapons. |
Fair, but by the same token, you could flip the rule and have slashing weapons do -1D Damage against armor and achieve the same result.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
lecher000
Ensign
Joined: 13 Oct 2021
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:59 pm Post subject: Re: Alternate Weapon Type Rules |
|
|
| Quote: | | True, but even if I stab a stainless steel pot with a carving knife full force, it's going to take less damage than if I do the same to my own hand. |
Which is why I have piercing weapons do less damage. And with Star Wars, you have to assume the materials they make melee weapons out of has got to be significantly better than what we have now, making armor even less of an issue than your example would indicate, but not so little of an issue that it bypasses armor automatically. Overall my point with piercing weapons was to show that they are less effective overall to Droids than Organics since slashing weapons can cut wires and deliver a larger amount of force over an area to beat the droid that it would essentially achieve something similar.
The droid damage chart linked is appreciated, as that will help.
| Quote: | | The counterargument is that companies and their customers are going to want a certain degree of reliability and durability in their products. A droid with sheet-metal skin may exist, but it certainly won't have a reputation for quality. |
Well, it depends. That metal may be thin, but it may also be rust-proof. You also have to assume that they don't want droids built with too thick of a shell because of multiple reasons, weight and causing excessive heat build-up being the main ones. The droids that do require thicker shells like the X-10 D Draft Droid, have plenty of Strength to soak hits very easily, representing their thicker shells, and which likely have a galvanized coating of some sort to prevent rust. A service droid on the other hand is going to have very shiny, light-weight, rust-resistant metal that can be quickly and cheaply produced. Combat and training droids already come pre-equipped with extra plating as well.
| Quote: | | Fair, but by the same token, you could flip the rule and have slashing weapons do -1D Damage against armor and achieve the same result. |
Well as I stated earlier in this post, the slashing weapons are likely made of good enough materials that penetrating armor isn't the issue, which is why I made piercing weapons simply less effective at causing wounds instead of punching through armor.
| Whill wrote: | That is not an illogical presumption for a starting place, but it is not explicit in RAW and there are choices to make. Remember there is an R&E wound status that is not on the wound chart, "wounded twice," because it is only possible through accumulation of two separate wounds and not a single wound. The direct droid correlation would be "lightly damaged twice," which is not on the repair chart. How do you repair that? Two separate repair rolls, one for each light damage? That seems simple enough, but it doesn't really make sense when more severe damage can be repaired in a single repair roll.
For my Character and Droid Damage rules, I was inspired to mirror droids to organic characters in effects. I mirror ion damage for droids to organic stun damage. I shift some of the names of droid damage status because I feel "lightly damaged twice" sounds stupid, and it should be repairable in a single repair roll like all the others. So I shift the "heavily damaged" up to wounded twice and "severely damaged" up to incapacitated. I also feel "destroyed" should replace killed but "nearly obliterated" shouldn't be for every mortally wounded, so I added "critically damaged" to replace mortally wounded and "nearly obliterated" is a possible outcome of the droid's player or GM rolling a 1 on the wild die of the damage resistance roll. My droid repair chart is adjusted to show all of these possibilities. This seems more complex for droids, but I also have simplifications to the damage system for mooks like for organic characters. (Mooks don't have wounded twice or mortally wounded, or the corresponding droid equivalents.) |
Mirroring organics to droids is a good default to fall back on. Overall I feel that there should be more complex aspects about damage to droids though since their parts are more independent of their body. For instance, if a person loses an arm, they've lost that arm. If a droid loses an arm, unless it's blown completely to pieces, it can be easily reattached. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:27 am Post subject: Re: Alternate Weapon Type Rules |
|
|
| lecher000 wrote: | | Mirroring organics to droids is a good default to fall back on. Overall I feel that there should be more complex aspects about damage to droids though since their parts are more independent of their body. For instance, if a person loses an arm, they've lost that arm. If a droid loses an arm, unless it's blown completely to pieces, it can be easily reattached. |
I agree. My Character and Droid Damage rules address that.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lecher000
Ensign
Joined: 13 Oct 2021
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:12 am Post subject: Re: Alternate Weapon Type Rules |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | lecher000 wrote: | | Mirroring organics to droids is a good default to fall back on. Overall I feel that there should be more complex aspects about damage to droids though since their parts are more independent of their body. For instance, if a person loses an arm, they've lost that arm. If a droid loses an arm, unless it's blown completely to pieces, it can be easily reattached. |
I agree. My Character and Droid Damage rules address that. |
Oh, I guess I missed that. I was half-paying attention while browsing it, doing a few other things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:39 pm Post subject: Re: Alternate Weapon Type Rules |
|
|
| lecher000 wrote: | | Which is why I have piercing weapons do less damage. |
That doesn't address my point though. A slashing motion against a metal pot will also do less damage than it would if I were to slash my own arm. The point is that even metal of middling quality will resist stabbing and slashing weapons better than flesh would.
| Quote: | | And with Star Wars, you have to assume the materials they make melee weapons out of has got to be significantly better than what we have now, making armor even less of an issue than your example would indicate, but not so little of an issue that it bypasses armor automatically. Overall my point with piercing weapons was to show that they are less effective overall to Droids than Organics since slashing weapons can cut wires and deliver a larger amount of force over an area to beat the droid that it would essentially achieve something similar. |
I agree, but I think that strengthens my overall point, as well, in that a slashing action isn't going to be as good at penetrating armor/metal as a piercing one. Armor quality has also likely proceeded somewhat apace with melee weapons. So the overall concept is that, while a slashing weapon has the potential to do more damage due to lateral application of force (as opposed to linear) spreading the damage across a plane, the linear application of the same approximate amount of energy will be better able to penetrate armor or other resistant material (like a droid's outer shell).
EDIT: There is actually a cut-proof glove in common use in settings as varied as operating rooms to kitchens. I've worn a pair; it won't stop a needle stabbing through, but I test-slashed the back of my hand with a surgical scalpel and it didn't do a thing.
From there, augmented weapons (vibro-, power or chain-) would modify the base damage, overcoming the material resistance of the armor by brute force, regardless of any modifier.
| Quote: | | The droid damage chart linked is appreciated, as that will help. |
Glad to be of service.
| Quote: | | That metal may be thin, but it may also be rust-proof. You also have to assume that they don't want droids built with too thick of a shell because of multiple reasons, weight and causing excessive heat build-up being the main ones. The droids that do require thicker shells like the X-10 D Draft Droid, have plenty of Strength to soak hits very easily, representing their thicker shells, and which likely have a galvanized coating of some sort to prevent rust. A service droid on the other hand is going to have very shiny, light-weight, rust-resistant metal that can be quickly and cheaply produced. Combat and training droids already come pre-equipped with extra plating as well. |
In that case, I would suggest that the droid's Strength stat would be a better indicator of the metal quality, along with any Armor included in the droid's standard equipment.
| Quote: | | Well as I stated earlier in this post, the slashing weapons are likely made of good enough materials that penetrating armor isn't the issue, which is why I made piercing weapons simply less effective at causing wounds instead of punching through armor. |
I mostly made my response to this above, in that armor quality is going to be improving, as well, and that distributing applied force in a line across a piece of resistant material will have a lower net penetration effect than would applying that much force at a single point.
So, a Stabbing weapon isn't going to cause as much Damage on account of the damage not being distributed in the same way that a Slashing weapon will be more likely to sever wires and other critical components if it penetrates, but a Piercing weapon will be more likely to penetrate said protection.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
lecher000
Ensign
Joined: 13 Oct 2021
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:05 pm Post subject: Re: Alternate Weapon Type Rules |
|
|
| Quote: | | I agree, but I think that strengthens my overall point, as well, in that a slashing action isn't going to be as good at penetrating armor/metal as a piercing one. Armor quality has also likely proceeded somewhat apace with melee weapons. So the overall concept is that, while a slashing weapon has the potential to do more damage due to lateral application of force (as opposed to linear) spreading the damage across a plane, the linear application of the same approximate amount of energy will be better able to penetrate armor or other resistant material (like a droid's outer shell). |
The expanding of the effectiveness of certain melee weapons against certain types of armor feels like it could be its own spin-off house rule that would need to be explained in better detail than in this thread. If I start including the effectiveness of slashing weapons against certain types of armor, then I would be called to apply that same level of granularity for bludgeoning weapons, which are used specifically to avoid penetrating armor since the blunt force transfers directly through it, being even better than a spear in that regard.
| Quote: | | In that case, I would suggest that the droid's Strength stat would be a better indicator of the metal quality, along with any Armor included in the droid's standard equipment. |
Exactly.
| Quote: | | So, a Stabbing weapon isn't going to cause as much Damage on account of the damage not being distributed in the same way that a Slashing weapon will be more likely to sever wires and other critical components if it penetrates, but a Piercing weapon will be more likely to penetrate said protection. |
Well, stabbing weapons are insanely lethal, to organic targets. Cuts and slashes are considerably less lethal since they can be closed far more easily and sutured. A stabbing wound penetrates deep into the body screwing with organs and causing large holes that are more difficult for the body to heal. All of this is getting besides the point though in that we're now talking about armor and the lethality of various martial weapon types instead of droids specifically, which my point for piercing weapons was that the method of attack of a spear (piercing the body to hit vital parts of the body and cause massive bleeding) is designed with attacking an organic being in a way that a droid wouldn't be as harshly effected. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:03 pm Post subject: Re: Alternate Weapon Type Rules |
|
|
| lecher000 wrote: | | The expanding of the effectiveness of certain melee weapons against certain types of armor feels like it could be its own spin-off house rule that would need to be explained in better detail than in this thread. If I start including the effectiveness of slashing weapons against certain types of armor, then I would be called to apply that same level of granularity for bludgeoning weapons, which are used specifically to avoid penetrating armor since the blunt force transfers directly through it, being even better than a spear in that regard. |
In that case, I'd ascribe the added damage to "shot placement", using the Accuracy Damage bonus from Rules of Engagement. I use a modified version where, for every 3 points by which the attacker beats the weapon's Difficulty (or the target's reaction roll, whichever is higher), they get a +1 to Damage. That way, inflicting additional damage based on where the target is damaged is factored in. Sure, a Stabbing weapon may be able to inflict a lot of internal damage, but it has to hit something vital to do so.
| Quote: | | Well, stabbing weapons are insanely lethal, to organic targets. Cuts and slashes are considerably less lethal since they can be closed far more easily and sutured. A stabbing wound penetrates deep into the body screwing with organs and causing large holes that are more difficult for the body to heal. All of this is getting besides the point though in that we're now talking about armor and the lethality of various martial weapon types instead of droids specifically, which my point for piercing weapons was that the method of attack of a spear (piercing the body to hit vital parts of the body and cause massive bleeding) is designed with attacking an organic being in a way that a droid wouldn't be as harshly effected. |
An alternate approach here would be to increase the Difficulty of Healing rolls on Stabbing 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 |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16176
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:12 pm Post subject: Re: Alternate Weapon Type Rules |
|
|
| lecher000 wrote: | | BOWCASTER <snip> explosive damage in a 3 meter radius. |
| Quote: | | DISRUPTOR <snip> up to 3 meters tall (or long/wide) is considered completely vaporized. |
| Quote: | | PARTICLE BEAM <snip> causes an explosion 3 meters large |
Also, been meaning to mention this, but unless Disruptors and Particle Beamers are fixed in size, the blast radius should probably be linked to the damage output of the weapon: more energy = bigger blast radius.
I've chewed on this for years and didn't really feel like applying the hand grenade blast radius rules really worked, so I came up with my own quick blast radius rules that allow you to calculate the damage reduction first, then figure out the range after if needs be.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
lecher000
Ensign
Joined: 13 Oct 2021
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2021 12:04 am Post subject: Re: Alternate Weapon Type Rules |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | lecher000 wrote: | | The expanding of the effectiveness of certain melee weapons against certain types of armor feels like it could be its own spin-off house rule that would need to be explained in better detail than in this thread. If I start including the effectiveness of slashing weapons against certain types of armor, then I would be called to apply that same level of granularity for bludgeoning weapons, which are used specifically to avoid penetrating armor since the blunt force transfers directly through it, being even better than a spear in that regard. |
In that case, I'd ascribe the added damage to "shot placement", using the Accuracy Damage bonus from Rules of Engagement. I use a modified version where, for every 3 points by which the attacker beats the weapon's Difficulty (or the target's reaction roll, whichever is higher), they get a +1 to Damage. That way, inflicting additional damage based on where the target is damaged is factored in. Sure, a Stabbing weapon may be able to inflict a lot of internal damage, but it has to hit something vital to do so.
|
That's fair, but you could factor in the piercing weapon damaging bone as well to explain the damage bonus to limbs, which could work since while attacking a limb will still be dangerous with its +2 advantage, slashing weapons are not out-done by them since they are still far more dangerous when it comes to limbs since they can cut them off out-right.
| CRMcNeill wrote: |
Also, been meaning to mention this, but unless Disruptors and Particle Beamers are fixed in size, the blast radius should probably be linked to the damage output of the weapon: more energy = bigger blast radius.
I've chewed on this for years and didn't really feel like applying the hand grenade blast radius rules really worked, so I came up with my own quick blast radius rules that allow you to calculate the damage reduction first, then figure out the range after if needs be. |
You brought up something that I should also change, the uniformity of the blast ranges. Bowcaster blast range has been reduced while the Particle Beam explosion has been increased. Reasoning for this would be that the mix between energy and physical with the bowcaster creates a more potent explosive as the kinetic force and weight of the projectile combines with the energy cocoon to create far more pressure at the point of contact, but lacks the energy to expand really far. For the particle beam it would deal less damage overall because the particles in the beam, according to wookiepedi, are less densely packed, but more energized, resulting in a more energetic (wider) but less powerful explosion. If someone is more versed in the physics of explosions I would happily modify them to be more realistic.
Making the explosions dependent on damage would be a good alternative rule, but for the weapon types listed they are fine defaults for now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
