• If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
  • 📅 April 2024 is YE 46.3 in the RP.

Damage Rating Conversion Chart

Status
Not open for further replies.
What Eis said.

I got that on the first read, so I don't see the problem. I also approach things from the Fred, Destroyer of Players perspective, so perhaps it was easy to read that on the first go.

This system is meant to be largely narrative, not mathematical. That has to be at the forefront of its use. Trying to work this system similar to the DR system results in misplay.
 
I feel like, and I know I'm the last person who's input is wanted here, that a narrative system works better for SARP. I can't really explain it, but it just feels right; it isn't a tabletop RPG after all, right?
 
I can understand that much, but the Endurance goes contrary to that, but more importantly, seems to unbalance things a bit. That's why I'm concerned.
 
The Endurance gives players the capability to usually avoid two shots that could potentially damage them on average. Even if the shot wasn't going to actually do any real damage to their equipment it still depletes one charge of the shields. This is a cushion to stop players from having to be hyper cautious and allow them to take risks. It isn't something that is going to allow a player to wade into a firefight and shrug it off. It's only two shots. Two. After that it is all down to the armor.

I can't see a shield soaking up two shots being over powered. If you reduce it to just one it becomes practically useless, and may as well not exist. Armor is effectively a better defence as it is already.
 
Nepleslian power armors are generally the toughest power armors in the setting by precedent. They're currently the 10-to-15 SP suits, that I recall. Under the umbrella of this system, that makes them Class 6. The Shield category recommends a standard of 2 endurance (I think I like "2 charges" that Eistheid mentioned better, though. Seems to carry the meaning across somewhat better), and it recommends that you assume that the Shield's class is the same as the Armor's class. It's a baseline (one which is, to be honest, inspired half from Mass Effect, half from Wes' plots). If a Game Master wants the armors in his plot to have 3 charges instead, more power to him. His arbitration, his rolls to fudge, or whichever. None of my business. I just recommend a baseline I believe is a good middleground.

It's not frequent that power armors are going to ideally have the best weapon possible for the job. One potent mainstay for the Star Army of Yamatai is their plasma rifle. Let's say it's Class 5. Say my Daisy power armor fire it at a Nepleslian Hostile. Bam, hit on shield; Shields down to 75%. It's not just two hits - I'm using a weapon from a lower class and so the shielding will be able to soak in more punishment.

Keeping on that same line of thought, let's say my plasma rifle manages to hit enough times to deplete that Hostile's shield. The Hostile has no nearby cover, and decides to make a run for it. It runs past my Daisy and I make the most out of my advantage, striking it to the left of its chestplate first, then its left shoulder, and then right in its back. My weapon is a class under, so rather than possibly destroy it, it does half its usually expected damage. Narratively, I made a smelted mess of the areas I struck, but the Hostile is still functioning, the armor - though more vulnerable in places - still protects its user, and now that the Hostile reached cover, given enough time, it can recuperate its shielding to then go back into the fray with a bit more margin for error.

In the same scenario, if my Daisy had been equipped with a Class 6 Aether Saber-rifle, I'd have reduced the Hostile's shielding with my beams twice as fast, and then when I struck it chest, shoulder and back, I'd have caused much more severe damage. If I'm a nice GM, consider the unit is in movement and all, I could rule that I smelted through the chestplate, roasted at the inner workings underneath and gave the wearer bad burns in that location. Maybe I oblierated most of the shoulder armor and burned the wearer's shoulder, or maybe I severed it off. In the back, I know there are more inner workings there, so while it might not have harmed the user, it might have savaged the thrusters, or the main power supply, or something.

Point is, though, that even in the second case, the Hostile survives more damage than its shield took on a weapon rated as capable of getting a one-hit kill on it - though I was merciful, but I'd be surprised to not have GMs fudge things a bit in the favor of PCs even if a weapon potentially can one-hit kill them. The key word here is, of course, potentially.

To me, the wonders of Nepleslian engineering is represented by them making the unit well rugged and plated enough to be class 6, which gives them in turn much more endurance than other suits in the setting have (more obvious competitors being the Mindy and the Daisy). I believe this is adequate representation for a unit like the Hostile, and it clearly can last under fire far longer than a Daisy can. That's an all around win for its portrayal.

The material of the armor can also count for something. Yamadura isn't weak. Yamadura gives you a bit more weight (more resistance to recoil/knockback can be implied in there) and regenerative properties. Say I bring my Daisy in combat against infantry. It gets fired on by assault rifles and by the end of the fight, it's crattered, pockmarked and gouged at. Had the fight been longer, there could have been breaches, and if something else happens then and there, the Daisy is badly ablated and vulnerable. But give it a few minutes, and all those blemishes are going to mostly fill themselves back in and make it look nearly pristine if not for the very abused paintjob. It's an amazing material to use for units you assume will operate without support for a long time, and it's a big boon logistically too.

This makes Yamadura a pretty good material for the Daisy, which has a good balance of mobility and defense to boot. Provided it fights targets weaker than itself, it might be able to last for prolonged stays in a combat zone, contrary to how the Mindy 2A was with its durandium armor. However, the Mindy II had advantage in using durandium - it made for a lighter base weight, which made it more compatible with the teleportation module. Also, by virtue of the teleportation module, the Mindy II would typically be used more for single skirmishes before being able to return to base to recuperate - Yamadura's regenerative properties would've gone mostly to waste.
 
I think that explanation on the shields makes a lot of sense. It allows for a bit of Gm fudging on exactly what happens, while still giving the players a decent estimate on what they can hope for, and it's more than clear enough to me. And that's all it should be. This system doesn't need to tell you every last little decimal point of the differences between armors, or exactly how much damage a shield can shrug off before failing, and so on. It just needs to give you estimates, which is exactly how it works in real life. You can say, in theory, that a bulletproof vest will stop a certain range of calibers once, maybe twice, and then it's basically a heavy sweater. It MIGHT stop a bigger badder round once, it MIGHT last even longer against really low caliber weapons, but there's no exact "it will stop x y amount of times".
 
I had assumed that in a same-class engagement, a center-mass hit to the armor would have a high chance of breaching and be potentially lethal thanks to the chart. Because of that, I had thought that an off-hit to the limbs or such would be extremely damaging, but that doesn't seem to be the case due to the examples given here. With this in mind, I can sort of see where you're going. It's similar in effect to having Endurance be included in armor based off of construction and thickness, but of course, narrative driven. The source of this confusion may be the terms used in the chart though. Would clarifying what each means help?
 
You're coming at it from the wrong perspective. Shields, by their very nature, have at least one step more of information than armor does. It's not just a question of what level of shielding it is, it's a question of how many hits that shield can take and come back. Armor, all you need to know is its basic information. It's on about this level of durability. With shielding, you need to know that it's on about this level of durability, and you have about x number of hits in that range before it fails. Armor doesn't really need that specificity on the last piece, because armor tends to be a bit more final than that. Once it's down, or something breaks through, it's done, and damage is done. Shielding, by it's very nature, not only comes back, but isn't a one and done kind of thing like armor. Where with armor, it takes a hit, and the damage is done, the shield is effectively identical to how it was before it took any hits, so long as that endurance, or as Eistheid said, (and I agree, I like the term better) charges last. It's basically like having multiple levels of armor stacked. A class 6 set of armor will most likely go down after 2-3 hits from a class 6 weapon, even if they're spaced apart. A class 6 shield, on the other hand, can in theory take those shots literally forever so long as it's given time to recharge. So rather than giving the armor more information it doesn't really need, that information is represented with a separate piece of information entirely on the shielding section.

Basically, what you're calling endurance in your post has nothing to do with the Shield Endurance. That's the same thing as the class. The Shield Endurance is basically a count of how many times it can work at that class of damage, not how much damage it can sustain in the first place.
 
This has been sitting fallow for longer than I'd like...

First of all

Also, I want to copy edit the article, but I don't have time this weekend. The upside -- I'm off work this week.

@Doshii Jun are you still interested in doing as you said?

Secondly, should I go in and update the language in the shielding section to reflect the language using 'charges'?
 
Should I put this up in the NTSE so that it's easier to keep track of and move it along into an officially implemented state?
 
Yeah, I think we should move it forward.
 
Nope, but that's intentional. I haven't been in any rush.

I have other things like uniforms, a 3d starship, a 3d shuttle, starship floorplans, a shuttle's internal layout, possibly an escape pod, and a power armor to finish. As long as I'm not ready to submit any of these, I don't actually need a revision to the DR system, though I do know I need to get it done beforehand.

I know 3 things need to be done with it:
- Expand to the current scale so that it includes a 25 sample size, this mostly adds extra ship samples to make it grow from two groups of 3 to two groups of 5.
- I need to eliminate all examples to something only a setting admin can give a green light on: Yamatai faction relatively mainstream equipment. The last time freer contributions were allowed, it did not turn out well. This step was actually asked of me by a Tech moderator.
- I need to overhaul the language used in the article. From the looks of it, it's too 'official'. Most of the time I saw people object over complexity or detail, using more layman terms to explain helped - so a more casual approach will make it more user friendly.
 
I'm glad to hear it's still in the works. As for the three things you listed, they sound like good changes.
 
I wish I had the time to spare. I'm currently watching the BVNPT hearings for homework, and this one session is 5 hours long. We were supposed to go there in person to watch, but they had to reschedule. So now, I'm stuck watching it on what's supposed to be my off hours as homework.

I feel sad.
 
It looks like either system is adding complexity. I don't see a benefit in adding more weapon categories if the goal is to keep power levels normalized across the setting. I also don't think this addresses the key issue of the rules not being written down anywhere. Though there is plenty of additional writing on the damage scale, it wasn't really the damage scale that was the problem, it was the other less defined rules like moving between scales, how many weapons a ship could have, speed limits, who gets to disregard the rules, ect. that was the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: raz
Status
Not open for further replies.
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top