ajackson

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

So' date=' explain to me what real thing you are talking about in game terms.[/quote']

If you're wearing a bulletproof vest and get hit by a bullet that fails to penetrate, you're going to get bruising and pain, but it's going to be nowhere near as random as the effects of a bullet that penetrates.

 

There was a quite long discussion of the statistics of killing attacks on the 6e boards, and it was quite clear that KAs were superior to NAs against most targets. 1d3 might be unduly weak (though I don't really think so), but 1d6-1 was way too strong.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

On the other hand' date=' the old randomness was actually pretty realistic.[/quote']

No it wasn't. Non-penetrating damage for bullets and the like is neither particularly random nor particularly effective. It's only penetrating damage that is random.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

The change is apparently designed to make the maximums line-up' date=' to address this alleged Stun Lotto problem, regardless of the fact that it makes the average roll noticeably less potent.[/quote']

Yeah, but knocking people out isn't the purpose of killing attacks. It just means characters shouldn't use killing attacks unless they're trying to kill the target.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

I said we (the Pro-COM crowd) offered a compromise (to the anti-COM crowd) and they spat it back in our faces. BTW' date=' read my sig.[/quote']

Optional stats is not a viable compromise, at least in a main book. Tossed into a book of optional rules, sure.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Well' date=' it's official: Unified Power can be used (for example) to backdoor CHAR recoupling.[/quote']

Depending on what it does, it might not behave like current figs, though. I suspect unified power is something like a -1/4 limitation that means you drain the entire power as a single power, or some such.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

1. It was announced as possibility in the 6th ed forums. Now its been confirmed as a truth. It Long was going to just do everything he said he might in the forums then they were a sham.

 

2. Even then most of the dislike seems to be towards decoupling CVs which came out of nowhere. At least I don't recall that being even brought up a part of the discussion from an official source. Some posters did bring it up and even then it met with strong opposition.

You might look at the first post in the characteristics thread. Points of note:

Q: Should we get rid of the concept of Figured Characteristics, and just make all Characteristics straightforward purchases?

 

Steve’s Thoughts: I am strongly in favor of doing this and intend to implement this change unless I am persuaded otherwise by a particularly convincing argument.

 

Q: Should CV be removed as something that’s factored from DEX?

First of all, it was quite obvious from the thread that no 'particularly convincing arguments' came forward, since I didn't notice anyone being convinced by arguments on that thread. Second, the CV change didn't come from nowhere..

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Because people didn't like some of the information released?

I might point out that there's almost zero surprises in what Steve has released, and people mostly haven't complained about the stuff that's a surprise (some minor complaints about KAs) -- they've complained about figured characteristics, which has been posted since forever in the 6e discussion and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who was following those discussions.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

One thing is clear - this is something that people DO care about. 43 pages in 2 days. That has to be some sort of record.

It's clear that at least some people care passionately. It's not so clear that any large number of people care; the number of people actually posting in this thread is not large.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

For example' date=' if look at the Hit Location chart, you only get a STUN multiplier of 5 when you roll 3-5 on 3d6 which is a 10/216 chance.[/quote']

The main reason for not having an issue with hit location is that normal attacks get the same benefit -- sure, a 6 dc KA to the head average 35 stun, but a 6 DC EB to the head averages 42.

Re: Anyone run a Starcraft setting

See' date=' I'm the guy who would want to try to play as 2 Zerglings (2 zerglings, for those that aren't familiar, are spawned from one egg).[/quote']

Sadly, Zerg are pretty well nonsapient -- the only canon exceptions are Cerebrates, Overminds, and the Queen of Blades, though we can reasonably extrapolate that other Zerg-Terran sapient hybrids can be made (standard infested Terrans, however, do not seem to be sapient), and it's probable that Zerg-Protoss could also be sapient.

Re: Anyone run a Starcraft setting

It does look like a good site' date=' but if it is a fan site it could include a some speculation.[/quote']

Mostly, it tries to pull together multiple sources, such as cut scenes, extra scenarios released by Blizzard, StarCraft novels, and so on. While those generally are authorized projects, they aren't necessarily actually canonical -- Blizzard may at some later point choose to ignore them.

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

In that case' date=' figure on 2.3 kilogram of food per person per day[/quote']

Well, assuming nothing is produced on-board and you don't use much dehydrated food. Dry weight is around 400-500g/day, and you can save a considerable amount of wet weight by sending dry foods (including grains -- uncooked rice, for example), plus save both some wet and some dry by using hydroponics or aquaponics.

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

That's important to remember. Would suppressors help?

Anything designed to deal with rapid pressure changes (such as, oh, vacc suits) would help.

Re: Anyone run a Starcraft setting

The only thing is' date=' to be true to the Starcraft setting, the zerg would ultimately have to win every time.[/quote']

Huh? Sure, at the end of the Brood War campaign the Zerg appear to be in the best position (though the Terrans are still solid, it's just the UED who are toast), but at the end of the original campaign the Terrans look healthiest (somewhat by default -- the Terrans still have a government, while the Zerg have lost their Overmind and the Protoss have lost their home world).

 

No, to be true to the Starcraft setting, the Protoss need to be horribly abused at every opportunity, but the Zerg and the Terrans are both capable.

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

Now, how is this device superior to a limpet mine? If you're going to be attaching something to someone anyway, you might as well attach a shaped charge. Just give it a sticky surface (glue, or maybe a gecko grip), slap it on, move back, and try to avoid the splatter.

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

Somebody mentioned that one can use similar tactics to the ones used by' date=' say, US Navy SEALS for hand-to-hand combat underwater while wearing SCUBA gear.[/quote']

Air has considerably lower viscosity than water; I'm not sure how really relevant this is.

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

Grab your opponent first -- then punch.

Even then, your momentum is working against you. The easiest way to get high force (which would actually make free fall combat quite dangerous) would basically be doing leaping movethroughs or movebys.

Re: Anyone run a Starcraft setting

I've never played Starcraft. Is there anything to do in the setting other than be an Infantryman?

Sure. First of all, you could play something non-military. Secondly, if you're military, you could reasonably be:

SCV operator (engineer)

Marine (yup, it's a grunt)

Firebat (it's a grunt...with a flamethrower)

Driver/Pilot (for any of a variety of vehicles)

Ghost (sniper/special ops troop, with invisibility).

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

Have you ever seen what a sword or mace or axe does to unprotected flesh and bone? You think a flexible skintight garment is going to protect someone from that?

Quite possibly; it's somewhat overdesigned, but not as much as you might think. A skinsuit that you can actually move about in won't be simple materials, it will be smart materials that apply and remove tension on demand (otherwise moving about in vacuum is very difficult; making joints that bend properly is a major challenge of spacesuit design), and it will need to have heat transfer systems (sweating won't do you any good in a spacesuit), probably making over thickness similar to a wetsuit. It's not that much overdesign to make the suit out of materials tough enough to withstand a blade, which go rigid on impact.

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

Actually' date=' skinsuits make a great deal of sense. It's just that if you are going to have boarding of ships in your campaign, we've already seen arguments that that leads to melee combat, and armor suits are a known defensive measure for melee combat.[/quote']

It's actually likely that skinsuits would be an effective defensive measure against melee combat -- in the end, strength-based weapons just aren't all that effective, though you could always use a bang stick, or even more powerful variants, such as a shaped charge on a stick.

 

In practice, I think most people fighting on board ships will have the theory of 'I have a better chance of patching holes in equipment than patching holes in me, so I'll use a weapon that lets me win'.

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

One of the things I notice is the recurrent knee jerk to force everything into ‘what we know and can understand now’.

That's because this is the 'hard' SF thread, and while hard sf can get into pretty off-the-wall mechanics, it shouldn't break known physical laws.

Re: Roll-high rules for Skills and Attacks and such?

I don't really expect it, since Steve suggested that he was opposed without strong arguments, but anyway:

Attack Rolls: roll OCV + 3d6. You hit if you get DCV+10 or more.

Contest of Skills: roll skill + 3d6. Higher roll wins.

Simple skill check: roll skill + 3d6. 21+ succeeds. Anything that would normally be a skill penalty can instead be reversed and added to difficulty. Note that you may want to subtract 8 from current skill levels (so a familiarity is +0 and a stat roll is 1 + CHA/5), in which case 13+ succeeds.

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

The hydrostatic shock concept seems very popular still' date=' even though AFAIK it's been disproven. Is it back again? (As in, what's "recent"?)[/quote']

The references look recent. There's a shortage of good studies of the immediate effects of gunshots on humans (pesky ethics), so various ideas have a tendency to come up again and again.

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

Yup. That's why I suspect that if it is to be successful in actually securing a more or less intact and functional vessel (or capturing live personnel from a ship)' date=' spaceship boarding has to be done by surprise or while so much other stuff is going on the defenders can't prepare effectively enough.[/quote']

Or you can simply use overwhelming force and intimidate the defenders into giving up without a firefight.

 

Oh, for other SF options: flash attacks won't damage most equipment and can incapacitate an opponent for long enough that he can be captured or finished off by other means. Things like glue or web grenades may be possible and won't penetrate surfaces though they'll likely do a number on exposed keypads and the like.

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

Define 'important stuff'.

High probability of reaching a depth adequate to stop the target, from most angles, on a torso shot. Including the possibility that you may need to shoot through an arm that's in the way.

A brain? Three' date=' four inches. The heart? Again, three to four inches. Hell, a person is only 6-8" thick anyhow. A frangible round -- poor penetration, near-complete transfer of energy -- isn't going to penetrate your 6-8", no.[/quote']

In fact, it's probably not even going to penetrate your 3", though individual pellets might (not necessarily with enough force to kill, though; typical frangible rounds probably have similar penetration to birdshot).

The hydrostatic shock and near-complete transfer of energy into that area of the target (instead of' date=' y'know, exiting out the other side) means that yeah, the pirate might 'block' that frangible round with his arm, but having your arm slammed with the full energy of that charge is going to either a) damn near rip your arm off or make you think it was.[/quote']

Hydrostatic shock is basically irrelevant until you reach extremely high energy levels, at which point frangible rounds won't save your fragile components. As for ripping the arm off, the momentum transfer is very small -- if the weapon won't rip your arm off when you fire it, it won't rip the arm off the target. It will take a big hole out of the arm that will hurt plenty, but that's about it.

And yes, hard armor would protect against penetration, but you still have a large portion of the energy transferred -- which means getting shot in the chest is still going to hurt like a son of a bitch. 1 Shotgun + 1 Frangible + 1 Target = 2 Ouch.

The energy transfer through a rigid vest is very small -- again, it generally won't be significantly more than the recoil.

Still' date=' ouch != damage. Which means that gel rounds (that transfer ALL the energy), chemical loads (which splatter/soak in around the 'hard' armor), all that sort of stuff (which we COULD have today, if we wanted) start becoming viable options...[/quote']

Gel rounds (and baton rounds, and the like) are also likely to be ineffective against hard armor. Chemical loads are pretty well guaranteed to be totally ineffective against anything sealed against vacuum.