| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2021 12:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Naaman wrote: | | When the RAW says that a given piece of protection is "destroyed" that means that it can no longer provide a protective benefit at all. |
Conversely, if a speeder is "destroyed", has it completely blown up into tiny bits, or is it just a hulk that's no longer serviceable as a means of transportation, but can still be hidden behind in the event of a blaster fight?
I agree that the RAW rules for "protection" are, well, one-dimensional, in that they're designed mostly for Character-Scale inanimate objects (doors, crates, etc) that characters might encounter or take cover behind, and that could legitimately be considered blown to bits on a Destroyed result. The question of larger-Scale objects that are also fragile enough to penetrate without being Destroyed isn't addressed by the RAW
| Quote: | | All you're really doing is comparing the base dodge roll to the attack roll, and if a hit is scored, they roll to soak. This is exactly how armor works: Get hit while wearing armor? Roll strength plus armor rating to resist. |
The problem is that simply stacking the Cover's Body Dice with armor gets out of hand pretty quickly. A character wearing body armor and hiding behind a metal door has a decent chance of soaking a shot from an E-Web, whereas with the existing protection rules, there's a decent chance that the E-Web shot will punch straight through the cover and inflict a full power shot (or something close to it) on the character behind it. It makes sense for armor to stack with the character's Strength since the character is wearing it; less so for a separate object.
| Quote: | A concealment bonus is useless if the weapon "might" penetrate the concealment AND the attacker knows where the target is (for example, if the target is partially exposed for the purpose of shooting).
Is that making sense? |
This is what I was alluding to in my previous post; if the character is hiding behind a 1^3 meter metal crate, the shooter may not be able to see him, but does know exactly where he is, with very little margin of error. So yes, Concealment means less and less as the volume of "safe space" behind said cover decreases. The relationship between Concealment, Cover and Scale really should be addressed, at least in general, so GMs have guidelines
_________________
"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 |
|
 |
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2021 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: |
The problem is that simply stacking the Cover's Body Dice with armor gets out of hand pretty quickly. A character wearing body armor and hiding behind a metal door has a decent chance of soaking a shot from an E-Web, whereas with the existing protection rules, there's a decent chance that the E-Web shot will punch straight through the cover and inflict a full power shot (or something close to it) on the character behind it. It makes sense for armor to stack with the character's Strength since the character is wearing it; less so for a separate object.
|
I'm not seeing what you mean here.
It seems like you agree with me in that "protection" is either going to protect outright or not at all.
The primary argument FOR a separate protection mechanic is that it reduces the damage output of the attack by a certain amount of dice. Mathematically, this is the same as adding those dice to the soak roll.
Not sure how "realistic" you want to get but I'll offer this:
In terms of firearms (which are not blasters, of course), the amount of apparent "damage" to an object depends entirely upon how much of the bullet's energy is delivered to the object.
A bullet that delivers all of its energy to the target will cause a large area of the object to "burst" open or apart, and will then stop or slow down so much that it cannot penetrate anything else (but it "destroyed" the first object in it's path). A bullet that delivers (virtually) none of it's energy to an object will pass right through it leaving only a bullet-sized hole and virtually no other damage, but retains (virtually) all of it's terminal performance/lethality. In the case of bullets, the latter may result in a mortal wound, but will not kill instantly unless it shuts down the central nervous system (that is, the bullet didn't do much damage, but the blood loss eventually kills the target, not the trauma from the bullet).
In short, the more damage that is caused to the first object, the less damage it will be able to cause to any subsequent objects.
Since blasters are energy weapons, it seems to me like these principles should be even more applicable.
Here's an anecdote:
In our HMMWVs, we had armor plating that was installed with some stand-off from the actual body of the vehicle. This created an "air gap" between the armor and the vehicle itself. This basically forced any object fired at the vehicle to have to penetrate twice, rather than once.
In some cases, the plating was designed to "scatter" the projectile into smaller pieces so that each smaller piece would have less momentum for it's second penetration attempt.
In any case, if a blaster bolt hits a target and "sparks" or bursts into little photons (as seen in the films), then it makes sense (to me) that after initial impact, the energy from the attack is essentially spent.
Either way, it makes most sense to me that cover which provides a dodge bonus is impervious to weapons fire for all practical purposes.
_________________
.
SpecForce Combat Elements
All About Lightsabers: Designing, Building, and Fighting
Last edited by Naaman on Sat Jun 26, 2021 1:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2021 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | In short, the more damage that is caused to the first object, the less damage it will be able to cause to any subsequent objects. |
Yes, but there's already a rule in place for this. The amount of damage inflicted on the Cover Object generates a modifier which is applied to the Damage roll inflicted on the character taking cover. You can still use the same Damage roll; just roll the modifier dice and add / subtract from either the original attack roll or the character's Strength roll as is most appropriate.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2021 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Naaman wrote: | | In short, the more damage that is caused to the first object, the less damage it will be able to cause to any subsequent objects. |
Yes, but there's already a rule in place for this. The amount of damage inflicted on the Cover Object generates a modifier which is applied to the Damage roll inflicted on the character taking cover. You can still use the same Damage roll; just roll the modifier dice and add / subtract from either the original attack roll or the character's Strength roll as is most appropriate. |
Not really. RAW has it so that the more damage done to the protection, the more damage the character takes.
Also, I edited above with an anecdote.
_________________
.
SpecForce Combat Elements
All About Lightsabers: Designing, Building, and Fighting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2021 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | Not really. RAW has it so that the more damage done to the protection, the more damage the character takes. |
Where are you getting that? Here's the chart from the 2R&E Rulebook (pg. 94)A character behind protection may suffer some damage depending upon how badly his protection is damaged. Subtract dice from the attack's damage* based on the chart below.Protection is = Reduce Weapon Damage By:
Not seriously damaged = Character is completely protected
Lightly damaged = -4D
Heavily damaged = -2D
Severely damaged = -1D
Destroyed = Character takes full damage. *Emphasis Mine.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2021 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: |
The problem is that simply stacking the Cover's Body Dice with armor gets out of hand pretty quickly. A character wearing body armor and hiding behind a metal door has a decent chance of soaking a shot from an E-Web, whereas with the existing protection rules, there's a decent chance that the E-Web shot will punch straight through the cover and inflict a full power shot (or something close to it) on the character behind it. It makes sense for armor to stack with the character's Strength since the character is wearing it; less so for a separate object.
|
Oh, and I kinda missed this before, but it seems like you slightly misunderstood my position.
I'm not in favor of adding the cover's body dice to the soak roll. Rather, some case by case amount of dice based on what I might call the "protection value" which I consider separate from the body dice (how many body dice would a house have, even though [an empty] one would offer essentially zero protection against gunfire?).
_________________
.
SpecForce Combat Elements
All About Lightsabers: Designing, Building, and Fighting |
|
| 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: Sat Jun 26, 2021 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
https://rancorpit.com/jotw/damage.html
My tweaks to RAW (found at the link above) are applicable to this discussion.
To address the speeder concern, I added this: "Note: This system is a generalization that is mostly applicable to walls, doors, and other mundane obstructions. Do not use the protection damage rules if the protection is something that has more specific damage rules, such as a vehicle."
I also added something not present in RAW, damage accumulation rules for protection. R&E only gave us damage accumulation rules for characters, vehicles, and spaceships. I added damage accumulation rules for everything else.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2021 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | https://rancorpit.com/jotw/damage.html
My tweaks to RAW (found at the link above) are applicable to this discussion.
To address the speeder concern, I added this: "Note: This system is a generalization that is mostly applicable to walls, doors, and other mundane obstructions. Do not use the protection damage rules if the protection is something that has more specific damage rules, such as a vehicle."
I also added something not present in RAW, damage accumulation rules for protection. R&E only gave us damage accumulation rules for characters, vehicles, and spaceships. I added damage accumulation rules for everything else. |
Yup.
I looked those over a couple of times (though it's possible I've still missed something).
What's your thoughts on the idea that providing a dodge bonus and a protection value is essentially the same as providing only a protection value (if we are allowing for a shot that beats the base dodge roll to still get a chance to deal damage)?
_________________
.
SpecForce Combat Elements
All About Lightsabers: Designing, Building, and Fighting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2021 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | That is the chart I'm getting it from.
The more damage done to the protection, the more damage "makes it through" to the character. |
Okay. It just sounds odd to take a system that applies negative values and express them in positive terms ("more" instead of "less").
_________________
"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: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2021 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | What's your thoughts on the idea that providing a dodge bonus and a protection value is essentially the same as providing only a protection value (if we are allowing for a shot that beats the base dodge roll to still get a chance to deal damage)? |
Mainly that any sort of Dodge bonus should be capped based on how much room the character has available behind said Cover to Dodge.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2021 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | Besides that:
What does a dodge bonus do? If your dodge roll succeeds, it's supposed to mean that the shot missed. Allowing a damage roll after applying a dodge bonus seems to negate the purpose of a dodge bonus. |
I don't think that can be addressed without first establishing whether or not you use Dodge in your campaign (I'm certainly trying to extricate myself from it) and what sorts of conditions you place on it.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
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: Sat Jun 26, 2021 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm using RAW terms for cover and protection here...
| Naaman wrote: |
I looked those over a couple of times (though it's possible I've still missed something).
What's your thoughts on the idea that providing a dodge bonus and a protection value is essentially the same as providing only a protection value (if we are allowing for a shot that beats the base dodge roll to still get a chance to deal damage)? |
Dodging and protection are always separate. Dodging is part of the initial to hit difficulty which determines if the full brunt of the attack hits the character. Dodging replaces the difficulty based on range (or adds to it for full reaction). Either way, it is part of the base difficulty before the cover modifier is added to the difficulty...
| Quote: | | If the attacker rolled well enough to beat the basic difficulty, but not well enough to beat the added cover modifier, that means that the shot hit whatever the character was hiding behind. |
If the attack misses the target, then there is a chance it may hit the protection as indicated above. If it hits the protection, then based on the damage to the protection, some damage may come through to target. This has nothing to do with dodge at this point because dodge is only relevant to the target being hit directly (though the cover). Once the cover is hit (which is after the target is missed), the target character is basically taking indirect damage (if any).
CRM brings up a good point about a character not always having room to dodge, but in conjunction with cover/protection, I do consider ducking and like movements to possibly be dodging. If a character using cover/protection is shooting back at their attackers, then the character is likely popping up/around to fire their shots and ducking back behind the cover. If a character is not attacking and only focused on not being hit (full reaction), then they are moving around behind the cover based on the best protection for each attack as it comes. If a target character is dodging out in the open without cover/protection, that is the dodging that the character would have to cover some distance to do. If cover/protection is involved, it seems more realistic for dodging to have less foot movement.
This has worked for me. My thoughts are that I haven't had a problem with the way it has worked in RAW beyond what my minor tweaks address, so I haven't thought about changing the fundamentals of how it works.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2021 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Imagine a scenario wherein a character is partially hidden. A shooter shoots and the defender dodges out from behind the cover, rather than back into it. If the cover is hit, there is no way the character can take damage.
Now, taking that to the next level: if the protection/cover is large (suppose the size of a shipping container and the character is positioned in the center. The attack will target a man-sized area (hence the notion that the "cover was hit instead"). But we don't know which way the character will dodge. If the shooter missed left and the defender dodged right, then, again, there is no way the defender can be damaged by a penetrating hit.
Now, let's go back to the first scenario, but add a separate piece of protection a meter or so away from the one the defender is currently using. Which cover will be "targeted" by the attacker? The defender may dodge back into his current cover, or into the alternate cover. If the attacker favors the "man-sized" area currently in use, there is no way he can damage the alternate cover, should the defender choose to go there instead.
These are just a few examples of how a dodge bonus OR a protection bonus should be used, but not both, because the latter essentially renders the former irrelevant.
By RAW, the dodge bonus literally has no value: in order to take no damage, the character must roll a high enough base dodge to beat the attack roll. Short of that, the cover/protection "consolation damage roll" applies (which may result in no damage, but no thanks to a dodge bonus).
Think of it like this, suppose there were NO protection. But rather, some visual obstruction (darkness, smoke, etc). If the attack roll beats the base dodge (but not the added bonus), does the defender get hit? Take reduced damage?
_________________
.
SpecForce Combat Elements
All About Lightsabers: Designing, Building, and Fighting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
