Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

This is really the nature of the question. Is it just big numbers? Do we slap vulnerabilities as a campaign rule (and thus not paid for or slotted)? The latter makes more sense, since it isn't a "benefit" that you get points from. I'm not giving every PC that benefit, that's silly.

[Mister E]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

Three words.

 

Whiskey.

 

Tango.

 

Foxtrot?!

 

Dude, what did you SNIFF? GLUE?

 

Negative, Ghostrider. Just musing about how integrated ship systems rules might manifest at the dinner table.

[Mister E]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

This is really the nature of the question. Is it just big numbers? Do we slap vulnerabilities as a campaign rule (and thus not paid for or slotted)? The latter makes more sense' date=' since it isn't a "benefit" that you get points from. I'm not giving every PC that benefit, that's silly.[/quote']

 

What of Kryptonian-type characters... shouldn't they have the option to be non-vulnerable to vehicle weapons? If the limitation isn't payed for, you can't sell it back quite so simply.

 

Perhaps in a Champions campaign, it could be like the NCM limitation...

 

... or integrated into the NCM limitation as part of an expanded conception of human fragility which you can't get points for in a 'Heroic' campaign.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

This is really the nature of the question. Is it just big numbers? Do we slap vulnerabilities as a campaign rule (and thus not paid for or slotted)? The latter makes more sense' date=' since it isn't a "benefit" that you get points from. I'm not giving every PC that benefit, that's silly.[/quote']

 

It all depends on how you envision the world.

 

Do very large guns do correspondingly very large amounts of damage? Against everything? Just each other? Do very large objects still have a certain vulnerability to much smaller guns? Is it cleaner, and more effective to define small targets as being especially vulnerable to big guns? Or do we just add more dice?

[Kenn]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

There's always the Fuzion method where 1d6 at ship scaled weapons equalled 13d6 at normal level weapons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What? It was a joke.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

It all depends on how you envision the world.

 

Do very large guns do correspondingly very large amounts of damage? Against everything? Just each other? Do very large objects still have a certain vulnerability to much smaller guns? Is it cleaner, and more effective to define small targets as being especially vulnerable to big guns? Or do we just add more dice?

I tend to be in the "add more dice" camp on offense, here, tho thinking about it one form of offensive scale control would be to introduce blowthrough rules, probably based on Casual weapon damage (or perhaps via armor penetration ala Piercing), to allow the big guns to blow clean through smaller targets without expending all of their energy on said small target (if you shoot an APC with a 30 mm Depleted Uranium slug from an A-10, the slug isn't gonna pay much attention to the guy on top of the APC it happens to punch through before hitting the armor and going all pyrophoric).

 

I certainly agree with your statement that it comes down to the builds. One thing I ended up doing with my all encompassing weapons list for my SH game was to fairly tightly control the interactions between Hardening and the various advantages that work against it. Other than raw damage, this was my main "scale" control, as I presumed certain levels of hardening to reflect construction differences... for instance... anything that operates in space where high velocity micro-debris is a very real hazard starts with hardening as part of its "package deal" so to speak. Similarly, a mil-spec vehicle was presumed to be built with the expectation that it would be attacked by anti-material weapons (this assumption is part of what makes them mil-spec), and as such are all build with a level of hardening to reflect their inner structure (spall shields, honeycombed/layered armor, reinforced frames, etc), so in practice it worked out that light anti-material weapons had advantages that let them rip right through most infantry scale armors, at least until you got into the powered armor/battledress/jump armor level of Infantry, where it began to balance out again. At the same time, said weapons would have their advantages totally neutralized by the piles of Hardening that a capital ship would carry, and the raw damage would have to deal with the various sources of Resistant DEF on said cap ship, as well as Damage Reduction and the like.

 

Speaking of which....some random thoughts on Damage Reduction:

 

Could be the simplest way to indicate scale. Require it as part of a Size Package, with a "Scaling" limitation to reflect Size categories, as well as a limit to reflect that it doesn't protect Inobvious Foci (as I've mentioned before, structural damage isn't what kills ships... critical systems damage effects DO).

 

Damage reduction can and should ALSO be bought, I'm thinking with Limited Coverage and an Activation Roll, to represent "density" of the vehicle. An M1 Abrams, for instance, would have none of this. No wasted or redundant space, if you penetrate the hull, you're GONNA hit something inside. A bulk cargo ship, on the other hand, could probably take a lot of pummeling without a lot of critical systems hits, because theres so much nothing to hit, in ship terms, anyway (ok, so that hit punched through a bulkhead and destroyed 3 cargo containers full of Pokemon Cards. whoop)

[SteveZilla]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

There's always the Fuzion method where 1d6 at ship scaled weapons equalled 13d6 at normal level weapons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What? It was a joke.

 

Next you'll be promoting Rifts' MegaDamage!

[SteveZilla]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

(ok' date=' so that hit punched through a bulkhead and destroyed 3 cargo containers full of Pokemon Cards. whoop)[/quote']

 

WOOHOO!!!!!