Fred's Damage Rating Revisions

[Fred]

It's begun. I've started an article right here: https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=fred_s_damage_rating_revision
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=fred_s_damage_rating_revision
This is currently very raw, with me just writing what came to mind. I get the impression I put the idea on display much more brilliantly before, but I don't quite remember how it was exactly. I haven't been able to find it using XenForo's search engine either.

This is not yet a submission: I'm putting it on display so that the people that care for such a change, or whom are critical about it can comment on it. I also don't think the article is presently very audience friendly, and could do with a bit of clarification - though I don't consider myself the highest authority on how best to achieve this.

Key points:

• Have damage ratings be faithful to SARP's more common plot's narrative trends.
  
• Give units larger than power armors and smaller than small ships some acknowledgment.
• Restore the viability of infantry and smallarms in the setting, especially by contrast with power armor.
• Give more freedom as to what kind of hardware can be used by unit size-category and how viable it is against something superior (i.e.: infantryman with anti-materiel sniper rifle vs. Daisy helmet = potential kill)
• Weapons kill what they are meant to kill. If they don't, it's because they didn't hit anywhere fatal (screw hit points-style plotarmor)
• If you sustain damage, it's likely because the weapon was non-fatal.
  
• Streamline the impact of shielding on the setting. It's a plotshield.
• Not every weapon is equal, most likely would be adjusted for the purpose and imagery intended. There's a Plumeria example of that at the end.

 

[DocTomoe]

I'll keep this short and sweet:

This is too damn convoluted. I don't like it, and it'll just get in the way even more than the current system.

 

[Fred]

Ah. I remember you and what you thought of it before.

Because its complicated to grab a light anti-armor rifle like the LASR, expect it to potentially kill a lightly-armored Mindy on a good squeeze of a trigger if its caught unshielded, expect it to sashimi something softer even better, but to just damage, dent or scratch something that's better armored...and then leave the whole imagery of that for the GM to arbitrate because that's what they do. Right.

Sorry Tomoe. This isn't a thread that's looking for votes of confidence. It's a thread meant to iron out something which was already pitched and was looked forward to by no-small-number of interested parties before. When you happen to contribute constructively to helping improve this, I'll hear you out.

Besides, it's not a system: it's a guide. The very fact that what came before was a system is exactly what was wrong with it in the first place.

 

[Abwehran Commander]

I don't understand how this is convoluted.

Scale means the size/strength of the weapon/vehicle in question and the Lethality is just a measure of difference between scales. Scale of Shielding uses the same number scale (from what I've read), but I believe I'm a bit fuzzy on Shield Endurance.

Over all, the Plumeria explanation does well in explaining outfitting certain scales of weapons on certain scales of vehicles. I'd like to see something similar on the shield and protection side as well.

 

[Fred]

Shields are in a rough state at the moment. But I meant what I said by them being the closest thing us GMs have to plotshields - traditionally, things in SARP are very fragile. According to what I've seen of Wes' GMing, combat goes far more for one-hit kills than gamey prolonged exchanges. Shields, under this medium, are more significant in protection than the armored object itself.

It's not that what the object is made of doesn't matter as much, so much as realizing that we are tossing about planet destroying ordonnance at each other most of the time. If you want to support suspension of disbelief, putting the accent on the shield seems like the most sensible way to go, since shields are very sci-fi in themselves.

When I think of shields for power armor, I'm mostly witness by how fast they go down when a GM actually brings up some nasty aether weapons (Hanako's capture by Pumpkin on the Sakura is one such event). This isnpired me to think of them as Mass Effect kinetic barriers: they'll protect you while under fire, but you'll see them quickly drop to the halfline, and then to zero. Usually, that leaves you scrambling for cover, or has allies lay down suppressing fire to have the opponent duck for cover to give you some breathing room. At least, expecting that you're using anti-armor rifles to down, say, Daisy power armors.

If you're actually having your Daisy power armors attacked by unarmored NMX infantry, then the shield will likely hold under multiple hits and much more slowly ablate. That's where the difference between scale comes into play, though it's really more an expression of common sense, and a bt of a guide on when to say "Shields are holding!", "Shields are down to half strength!", "Shields are collapsing!". If the Daisy is hit directly because of whatever, then because of the weaker caliber/penetration values of smallarms it'll likely be able to weather this too, but it doesn't make that trivial - here, I'm thinking of the first Robocop movie, where the whole police force was hosing down gunfire on poor Alex Murphy - he certainly didn't like it.

For starships and fightercraft, I'm thinking some GMs will either go for the shield bubble, or go for quadrants/shield facings (personally, I think better of the latter). Then it's a determination of what is potentially deadly to the ship to figure out what halves the protection shielding provides. For example, a Plumeria fighting another Plumeria could hit its target on its port-side shields with its two positron railguns, drop that protection to nil, and then lance out with its aether shock array to scythe through the then vulnerable ship.

Boom.

Hit points/SP and such never figured into this. Plumeria gunship destroyed, which is pretty much just what you'd expect from the weaponry deployed to achieve in any case.

A different circumstance could've been if the Plumeria had fired its shock array first. That likely would've knocked that shield facing down too, exposing it to the two positron railguns. Each railgun, if striking around the middle of the structure, probably could cripple or destroy the targetted Plumeria. However, this could very well just hit the shuttlebay and the pylons (moving targets + poor accuracy for railguns = not hitting always in the most ideal of places). Then, it could possibly use its heavier turrets to try and finish it off.

This said, the Plumeria on Plumeria example is very decisive. It's not always like that. Miharu, for example, might have been meant to bes a heavier ship with six light anti-ship turrets, a variable yield main aether cannon (weaker rapid fire shots) and the bulk of its offensive punch came from its torpedo launchers.

I figure, most of the time, that people/ships won't necessarily have the luxury of firing the very best weapon at the very best place on the target.

This said...

The entry for Shield Class and Endurance is mostly an expression of me knowing that people will eventually go and figure out better shields for their units. I mean, if an infantryman can carry an anti-materiel sniper rifle, I could very well see the Star Army issue a much better shield system for the Mindy III than just a Class 4. By the same vein, there could also be less quality shields too, or shields that are weaker as part of concessions made (stealthier, lower energy demand, etc...).

 

[Wes]

I haven't got a chance to read this yet because I don't really get any free time at work, but I did search forums and I found this thread, which may be the one you were looking for, @Fred: Fred's Musing On Damage Ratings

 

[OsakanOne]

I have enough trouble working with the damage system because there's no approximation of what kinds of weapon-classes do what kinds of damage. Its just watching numbers and I have no frame of reference.

By implementing this, I'll basically be asking Doc to spec everything I write and he pushes for higher numbers than I do. Why? Personally, I favour what's fun to play and what's really neat and interesting over what's effective.

I'd rather ask whoever wrote a given bit of kit how they think it measures up rather than rely on that damn convoluted numbers system: As effective as a weapon is, I think effective circumstance and specialisation are more important since every weapon is always designed to perform a task. Out of its true depth, its either never going to be anywhere near as effective or its going to discover a new use that wasn't anticipated before.

In short? You can't tell a GM what is and isn't lethal. That's their decision to make, not yours to lord over.

If fun roleplay means plot-armour, plot-armour it is!

I'm in no hurry to kill off named characters. Good story, solid roleplay, satisfying skirmishes and above all having fun come first.

I have no interest in introducing unnessesary complications: I play SARP because it isn't Dungeons and Dragons or Path Finder. Yes, approximations are useful. But ultimately what happens is down to the fate of the game, not the fate of the dice.

I'm sorry if I've upset anyone with this post. I'll shut up now.

 

[Fred]

Not upset, Osaka. You just... kind of feel out of context, so it's hard to really take it to heart.

* * *

Wow. I clearly had a better handle on that back then than I do right now.

Presently, I have an approach to numbers in the wiki article that worries me a bit. I wanted it to be more evocative than the number approach. It still feels like it can, but back in that other thread that seemed to come with multiple examples needed to make the picture clear. I want to avoid sounding long-winded.

Another concern is the degree of lethality. I'm going for 'potentially lethal' here, back then I was stating 'severe damage'. I still think it's sensible to point out that a "Medium Anti-Armor Rifle" when used, has the power to kill an M6 Daisy power armor. Why would you even call it an Anti-Armor weapon if it doesn't do its job?

I'm in a Daisy power armor. I have street thugs coming at me with puny pistols (light anti-personnel). Those things mist off on my armor leaving only a mess of bright shallow gouges on my Daisy's paintjob (medium armor-grade).

I grab my Light Armor Service Rifle (the LASR is a Medium Anti-Armor weapon) and start spraying at the thugs. Metal hail conjured by my trigger finger is more than sufficient to turn these guys to hole-riddled ruins.

Their Hostile-wearing buddy shows up to the scene. I take the initiative and fire first, but all I achieve in my first spray is a series of chewed out holes across its chest and left shoulder - I damaged it, but the damned thing's tough! (heavy armor-grade protection)

It unstraps its assault rifle (also a Medium armor-grade weapon) and starts shooting at me. I try to dodge aside, but it still tags me on my flank. Good thing those were only glancing hits! - as is, they penetrated right through the flexible armor of my lower torso and bloodied my hemosynthetic insert; a more direct hit and I'd have taken bullets in my guts!

For instance, I'm happy with the above. That's exactly the outcome I'd wish of this. In hindsight, though, since the LASR is a very high rate-of-fire weapon, I'm thinking it might actually be a Light Anti-Armor weapon when it uses its armor-piercing ammunition, and that it'd do most of its damage ablating protection from multiple successive strikes. That's kind of what I'm imagining.

Because, well, not all weapons are created equal, and some have more utility than other. Some, like a shotgun, may cause more damage up close due to the clusters being more concentrated on the target. Etc etc...

I liked this too:

In example:
The same Medium Anti-Armor Rifle (I ranked it 5) would...

• Do minimal damage against medium mecha targets (8, like a Ripper)
• Do mitigated damage on light mecha targets (7, like a Tasha)
• Do decent damage on heavy armor targets (6, like an Hostile)
• Do severe damage on medium armor targets (5, like a Daisy power armor)
• Be devastating on light armor targets (4, like a Mindy II)
• Be quite bad on heavy personnel targets (3, neko in full body armor)
• Guarantee an awful day on medium personnel targets (2, police guy with a bulletproof vest)

It uses evocative language, but backs it with the number scale under it for ease of comprehension.

And about shielding, this is what had been said way back then:

Deployed energy shielding shouldn't 'lose' hit points to attacks - it either is active or not. Keeping this on trigger and making each span of activation something that's costly however fulfills the need of making them go down via attrition.

As for the actual endurance of those protections, I'd typically scale them by unit type by default to keep things simple (at least for the moment). So...

• Significantly lower rank attack will see the protection hold indefinitely barring certain circumstances
• Lower rank attack will have the protection hold 'for the moment' without appreciable reduction unless such damage is sustained (that's mostly GM's whim/common sense dictated).
• Same rank attack (medium starship target hit by a medium anti-starship weapon) would see the according protection drained.
• Same rank attack on drained protection would deplete it.
• Higher rank attack would deplete the protection type on the first hit.
• Higher rank attack on drained protection would deplete it and damage the unit or drain the other layer of protection also in the way.

The above would make shields kind of more like they were in the first DR system, though they'd be much easier to bring down while still allowing the larger units the greater endurance they are entitled to. The vulnerability is there to provide much more interactivity with engineering crews trying to manage/shore up ship protections in mid-combat - something that they can do in the middle of a fight (since actually fixing real ship damage in a fight takes too long to be appreciably done beyond quick juryrigging).

Reading this makes me want to drop the shield class/endurance bit. It's kind of the same language in gamey numbers, but it feels like an overcomplication.

As for benchmark for weapons, this is what had been originally set:

This said, maybe we can start with certain benchmarks. I'll be ranking for clarity, not to assign damage values. Defensive values will be dwelled on later - for now I'm just assuming the target would have standard protection for the 'class' it represents.

• Anti-Personnel:
  1- Pistols
  2- Rifles (Pistols /w Armor-Piercing Rounds)
  3- Rifles with Armor-Piercing Rounds

Around this point, we're getting pretty close to what can dent a power armor. Grenades on average probably fall within the same degree of lethality as rifles, but with wider areas of effect. Same for the Star Army NSP (heavy mode?) and the Daisy forearm cannon. So...

• 3- Rifles with AP rounds, Anti-Personnel grenades, Daisy pulse cannons.

Now, we're headed more toward the stuff power armors wield...

• Anti-Armor:
  4. Compact handcannons (like the Armor Service Pistol)
  5. Rifle-sized weapons like the LASR and the Accelerated Plasma Rifle.
  6. Some nastier weapons like anti-armor grenades, and most mini-missiles. Maybe specialized applications of rank 5-like weapons, like the LASR sniper version.

Around 4~5, I kind of start thinking that these kinds of weapons probably would start dealing some degree of hurt to larger vehicles like tanks and larger mecha in the same way I expect people with guns would be able to chip at a power armor. But not all anti-armor weapons are actually wielded by power armor.

A soldier-dude can go and carry around a bazooka. The bazooka/rocket launcher is probably better meant to strike at a lumbering tank and deal damage to it (tanks being 'mecha' vehicles). An unarmored soldier could probably use the same bazooka and deal tons of hurt to a power armor too. Power armors, on the other hand, readily have better access to weapons that would deal around the same kind of harm without it it being as unyieldy, cumbersome to use, or limited of use (I think bazookas are singleshot, and you can't lug much ammo on your person for those).

• Anti-Mecha:
  7. Heavier weaponry that usually are fixed emplacements. Like, a machinegun turret atop a tank, or mounted on the side of an attack gunship, or some secondary weapon mounted on a mecha's arm.
  8. Actual rifle-sized weaponry for mecha. Something that's handheld, requires both hands, or has central position on the unit such as the main cannon of a tank.

Large bazooka-styled weapons such as the Gauss Bazooka used by Daisy power armors might be equivalents to rank 8 as well. Of course, the gauss bazooka is not as convenient as a heavy weapon as the mecha's beam rifle is for it to readily wield.

• 9. Here, we talk about stuff with real oomph in the mecha scale, like actual rockets and missiles, rather than mini-missiles. The kind of thing you'll probably see mounted on fightercraft. If a mecha takes a hit from that, it'll going to smart - greatly - assuming it survives.

Anti-Mecha weapons are the sort of thing that a starship couldn't just shrug off, though it's about the same balance as most anti-personnel weapons against power armor. I'd expect a naval vessels cannon turrets, or a mecha's beam rifle. Used at tender spots, a fightercraft's missile volley could strike at a ship's weapon turret, sensor dish, and other location and while the oomph to destroy the starship entirely will be lacking, it'll still be dangerous.

Then, from there, it's starship weapons. Rank 9 missiles might probably send buildings crumpling down at choice spots, but anti-starship weapons sort of up the bar to wiping out city-blocks; with it getting much worse as the ranks keep creeping up.

10, 11 and 12 would likely follow that, with some uber-huge mecha weapon or bomber torpedo being able to creep up there. It'd probably be normal for starships to routinely pack mecha weapons, so, starship weapons would generally qualify for compromising the potent defense and gutting open the shields, barriers and hull armor of other vessels.

Positron cannons, beam arrays, nuclear torpedo warheads could probably all fit in here. If it can threaten the existence of a city, it's probably anti-starship too, I'd guess.

The planet destroying stuff (13, 14, 15) - and this doesn't need to apply to just blowing them up; focused attacks from rank 13 could be threatening to something as large as north america/australia size - would go with the weapons of capital vessels, where anti-starship weaponry would be the usual for many turrets on battleships. The most powerful torpedoes (anti-matter?) would probably fit in there. The fancier sci-fi weapons like the aetheric shock arrays would probably find a good fit here, probably being integrated in spinal mounts few ships could afford to have.

...

So... on one hand, I have to use this article to helpfully explain it to someone whom is just getting introduced to SARP - being evocative without writing a novel would feel best.

On the other hand, this also needs to be pitched to people whom already have set expectations from the previous hitpoint-based DR system and have their thinking adjusted accordingly.

Finally, like the Hostile PA example above when it fired on a Daisy, lethality is high, but that doesn't mean a weapon - once fired - is always that ideally lethal. I'd rather start this on a stance of high lethality and let Game Master fudge around with how effective those actually end up being. The whole point of the DR guideline is - after all - informing people on the effectiveness of the tools they have within the presented setting so that they can make informed choices.

 

[OsakanOne]

Fair enough, Fred. Its just, I think you do need to run by examples of the kinds of damage the numbers do against targets and I think keeping it simple is really important.

I also really dislike having to constantly update stats: If you do this, we'd have articles from the ORIGINAL Damage-Rating system that are now rendered double-irrelevant, making things even harder for players and GMs alike trawling through the wiki.

I'm really really dreading that experience.

 

[Edto Xar'Sivaree]

I'll be honest, I love how this system is explained more than the currently accepted DR system. It has more too it, and as always, it's a guideline. Let's face it ((IMO)) this one is a much better guideline. I have little to add to it unfortunately, and Positive comments tend to fall flat to negative ones but I really do love this system. I think it should be implemented as the standard rather than the current system. I just find it way easier to understand.