What's new
  • 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.

Approved Submission [Mechanic] Damage Rating Revision

Eistheid

Eistheid

Retired Member
Inactive Member
Submission Type: Narrative driven damage guidelines.
Submission URL: https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=fred_s_damage_rating_revision

Notes: Much of default the form doesn't really apply since this isn't a typical setting submission. I hope you don't mind me removing those components.

This is probably going to take some work to get finalized. I will however be more than happy to fill in blanks and update this as we go along. Additionally post-approval I'll be happy to update old DR values as needed, likely including both systems for a while to smooth over the transition.

A final note, the article will probably need to be moved to a new page location as I believe the current one is just WIP storage.

As has been determined the final call of what is done comes down to GM fiat. As such it is best to view this as intended: A set of guidelines to help players and GMs understand the effects of what they're working with rather than hard rules that must be adhered to.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This suggestion has been implemented. Votes are no longer accepted.
I guess it's time to get serious about this becoming implemented in the setting.

I beleive the term Endurance for forcefield-type protection was not popular. "Charge" seemed to find more favor, though I'm concerned that it might step on the toes of nomenclature from capacitors (like the ones that can be mounted on the Mindy II to resplenish its shields or teleport one extra time without needing to recharge). The main thing the text needs to convey is that it is going to take 2 consecutive Class 6 weapon attacks to reduce an heavy power armor's barrier shielding by 100%.

Also, we need to establish at least 1 token example by Class in the big table, both offensive and defensive. Something that won't be ambiguous. for example, the example of the Plumeria implies that the Plumeria is the poster child for Class 11.

Finally, Wes needs to endorse the conversion example for the Plumeria. If it's inaccurate, then it's not a good example. It needs to be.
 
I switched the language from "Shield Endurance" to "Shield Charge" and added a section that specifically uses a Mindy with Class 6 shielding as an example. Later in the passage I left an instance of the word "endurance" because it made more sense than "charge" in the context.

I've tried to populate the table with more examples, however I'll admit that I don't have a wide familiarity with all of the vehicles and weapons of the setting, as such I've done what I can but admit that they may need to be changed at a later point. Essentially I'm either going to need to sink a lot more time into this, or I'll need suggestions.

I also added in links on the table for easy reference, be it for determining what belongs where, or understanding what sort of unit belongs in that Class.
 
As it is, it could use some extra levels for each category. To be precise, the infantry based weapons have several different calibers for different weapons that are grouped in the same category right now that in practice would have a very different potential, one example is the .50 cal and the 25mm are grouped in the same level of the same category; by today's standards, the latter is much more powerful as it can safely be used as an anti-IFV gun, for example. Just look at how they're different from each other. There's other examples, but I guess what I'm trying to convey was clear.

It would also be remiss of me to mention that it could use a category for mecha/superheavy vehicles. I can't picture the 21 meter tall Warbear being grouped up on the same category as the RUSE.
 
I have for the moment expanded the number of spots in the table and shuffled the numbers, however I'll admit that I'm not sure what to fill in the spaces with.

Also I'm not sure if there should be additional section headings or if things should just be expanded upon within the blocks.

I'm admittedly exhausted so this is probably a pretty terrible addition so apologies to all in advance.

I haven't touched the Class numbers in the text proper since this was just a thought experiment and I didn't want to have to edit more than the table before things are sorted out. Hopefully having a wider array of sections will make classifications easier going forward...
 
I have considerable misgivings to this change, adding 2 extra classes per non-ship categories like that.

I won't contest that it allows for more unit accuracy. That this might be good for people whom want a more granular approach to this, might avoid requests for expansion in the future. I also admit I find this change mightily inconvenient as it throws a large wrench in the wheels of what I intended for increasing/diminishing lethality. It makes variance between units (infantry peppering weapons fire at a power armor) potentially much less relevant.

Also, I'm going to point out this kind of detailing may actually - forgive my english - be a little anal. Class is not necessarily equating to size so much as what can kill something. There's a large size difference being a Boeing 747 liner and an F-15 fighterplane, but both can be destroyed with a single sidewinder missile. A fuel-tanker boat is enormous, but a well-placed missile/torpedo still might sink it. A lot of that is circumstancial, which is why giving broader categories in the article and letting GMs arbitrate the chaos beyond that (because there is always going to be that) was preferable in my eyes.

@Doshii Jun @Aendri your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I'm honestly with @Fred on this one. To me, unless we're going to go into a lot more detail than we currently have, adding more categories just dilutes what we already have further, for no real difference. GMs were always going to need to fudge things a little bit with this system, and that was the whole point of it, to build a system that was more clearly favorable towards fudging and writing than pure numbers and exact demarcation of every detail. If we start getting into the differences between Frames and Power Armors, why aren't we differentiating between destroyers and cruisers, or cruisers and battleships? There's a much wider gap between a Chiaki and a Sharie than there ever was between a Frame and a PA, after all.
 
Last edited:
I have yet to review the formal submission, so I'm withholding opinions for the moment. I value the feedback. It helps when I get into the submission.
 
Since it is minimal effort for me to add or remove classes and re-arrange information on the table, I thought it would be worth seeing what the general response was to the concept. After all I can easily revert the changes. It is apparent however, that increasing the number of subsections and the accuracy of the sections isn't a popular move, at least among those who have replied to this change. As such unless there are any good arguments (that are widely agreed upon) to continue along this path I'll probably restore the old version momentarily.

I suppose it would be simple enough for a GM to manufacture their own personalized version of this table with all of the nuances and detail that they desired, since this class system is fairly easy to expand upon, and even the scaling damage could be easily adapted by reducing the percentage differences between the levels allowing for a more gradual shift over a larger number of steps.

However, I understand that the point of this system is to reduce the mechanic based headaches that have arisen in the past.

With that said, I'll wait a few more hours before reverting the table to allow others to see it in its present state and possibly make their comments. I will also continue to gather offensive and defensive Class examples to continue fleshing out the table.
 
I think that's kinda the core of the system. Part of the reason for a shift towards this over the current scale is that GMs ignore the DR ratings half the time (if not more) anyway, so we might as well make a system that's more friendly to fudging up front. If someone wants to go into finer detail than that, they can, but that shouldn't be the standard system because it's just adding more things for people to have to justify.

Instead of adding more categories, make it completely clear that there is nothing hard and fast about these numbers. A Mindy, for example, is normally (by the updated table as things stand) a Class 7 armor. But that's just a default number. It could be argued easily that different armor loadouts would change that, like adding the Zesu chainmail should probably bump the mindy up 1-2 classes.
 
In line with what I wrote earlier, I have restored the table to its initial state.

That this system isn't "hard and fast" is addressed in the second paragraph of the article. If that wording is not clear enough, I would appreciate an example that would be better rather than just: "It isn't clear enough."

I'm not certain where it would be best to write the information that should the present system not suit a GM's needs, that they can use their own adaptations to run their plot, as such advice there would also be appreciated.

So far as I can tell apart from lacking a Class 8 weapon example, and a Class 15 example I have addressed every point that has been brought up so far, that wasn't rejected by other participants of this review.
 
Last edited:
Instead of weapon examples have you considered creating slots based on where this weapon would be mounted? Such as a tank main gun, an armored fighting vehicle main gun (alah 25mm bushmaster), or battleship main gun?
 
I feel like for the most part, that should be fairly self-explanatory based on the name and class. The main gun for anything will always be fairly high up the class chart for it's given category, but there's not one single rating for something like that, either, so putting examples that are too generic would just be pointless. The Main Gun of a Yamataian battleship would be much scarier than, for example, the main gun on an Azorean battleship, simply because of tech differences, for example.

You can infer that a tank's main gun would be something like a "Heavy Anti-Vehicle" class weapon, though, since it's intended to do massive damage to armored vehicles and buildings. And so on.
 
Not to mention that listing that a weapon being mounted on a vehicle would give us a worse idea of what the weapon did. Which is counter the entire point of this.

If we say this is a tank mounted gun, but it has the punch to take down a scout starship, yet another tank mounted gun can barely take out other tanks we suddenly have a category with wildly different effects on the enemy (Something that has plenty of examples IRL). With how the examples are presently listed something in the Class can be relied upon to kill what is in the Class with one well placed shot. Just what the weapon is mounted on should be left up to the tech article, since we have firmly decided that the DR system should not be a surrogate for explaining the function and form of a weapon. We don't want to reduce tech submissions to numbers.

As we already touched upon in the thread weapons aren't linear for platforms, after all infantry can carry tank killing weapons IRL, and so forth. So there is no hard "If you are this class you can only kill something of the same Class" since it is feasible that any given Infantry, PA, Vehicle, or Starship might have a weapon that hits above its Class, or on the flip side below its Class. To this end ordering things by what platform they're mounted on isn't a useful metric for us as tech authors, or as players and GMs.
 
...I'm growing to think that we're at a point where this can actually be considered functionnal and that interest/feedback in how it performs is going to still trickle in once it's gone into play (kudos given to Eistheid for having become a driving force for that).

As in, when different submissions are grandfathered in, when new submissions are made based on it, when GM/players are actually going to use it. Hopefully, the foundation is sound enough to survive criticism.

Though, the best way to determine that is actually seeing if the conversion example works. @Wes I want you to look at the conversion example for the Plumeria given at the bottom of the article. If this works for you, then this DR system is about as ready as it'll ever be.
 
Though, the best way to determine that is actually seeing if the conversion example works. @Wes I want you to look at the conversion example for the Plumeria given at the bottom of the article. If this works for you, then this DR system is about as ready as it'll ever be.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with it, because calling the turreted anti-ship guns anti-vehicle ones is entirely misclassifying them. Everything else looked okay though.

I'm suggesting this as the example for medium anti-vehicle: https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=stararmy:weapons:anti-fighter_turret_type_31
 
Waiting to see if @Fred is OK with Wes' suggested example.

Once that's done, I'll begin the formal review. During that review, I'd appreciate no further comments.
 
Wes said:
I don't agree with it, because calling the turreted anti-ship guns anti-vehicle ones is entirely misclassifying them. Everything else looked okay though.

I'm suggesting this as the example for medium anti-vehicle: https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=stararmy:weapons:anti-fighter_turret_type_31
Click to expand...

It's okay @Doshii Jun - it's not unexpected that the setting manager, faction manager and creator of the Plumeria gunship would have a different cinematic take than mine on an iconic ship like this one. I figure at this juncture that it's a good problem to have.

Here's what I wrote down regarding the choices Wes disagrees with:
The turreted anti-ship cannons can be employed against other vessels, but as these are turreted weapons with good range of fire, it would be a good balancing act to not make them as potent as the one-hit KO we expect from the fixed forward-facing pylon railgun. Making them appropriate to gut shuttles, this still makes them a credible menace to starships, so having them be (Class 9) “Heavy Anti-Mecha” weaponry seems most appropriate.

The smaller anti-armor weapons were meant as a direct counter to Mishhu battlepods, as well as being able to preform some extra duty to shoot down power armor and incoming missiles. Unless it is in the best condition possible, most power armor should not expect to survive a direct hit from such a piece of equipment, so these are labelled (Class 7) “Light Anti-Mecha” weaponry.
Click to expand...

@Wes I'm going to ask a few leading questions:

Don't forget that anti-vehicles didn't exist before, so it was a straight transition from ADR to SDR. I understand your take on mislabeling, but then again, Anti-Vehicle wasn't a plausible choice before either, right?​
  • If the Plumeria's smaller turrets are anti-vehicle (meaning you expect them to easily gut open unshielded shuttles/fighters/space shuttle orbiters/Boeing 747), does the Plumeria actually have anything that's for use against Power Armor? Is there such a weapon in your mind within KFY's current lineup?
(Say PCs in Kawarime/Nodachi fightercraft have to fight against a Plumeria, how fast do you expect the Plumeria's smallest turrets to take them down?)​
  • Consider the anti-ship turret. If you expect it to be anti-ship, then it means that a well-placed it from that turret can cripple or destroy either an unshielded Yui scout (class 10), a Plumeria gunship (class 11) or an Urufu Light Cruiser (class 12)? How lethal do you expect it to be?
(don't forget, a Super Eikan has tons of those very same turrets: consider what kind of damage you would want those to do to your Eucharis).​
  • Your gunships have traditionally had for primary weapon the positron railguns as ship-to-ship weapons when the main gun was too cumbersome to use. They are fixed weapons facing forward. Whereas your turrets, being more complex weapons, offer wider field of fire. Do your turreted anti-ship cannons cause less damage, equal damage, or more damage to the positron railguns?
(if the turrets perform equally, or outperform the positron railguns (whom have volative anti-matter ammunition stores), would that make the positron railguns obsolete since the turrets also offer on top of that superior firing arcs?)​
  • You have larger ships than the Plumeria in KFY's lineup, whom have larger turrets. If the turrets on the Plumeria's are already anti-ship and quite a threat to it, what do you think the turrets on a Sharie will do to it?
All the above questions were questions I asked myself when I made my brainstorm and why I came to the conclusions I did. What do you think?
 
Last edited:
13 - Shock Array
11 - Railguns
10 - Anti-ship turrets
8 - Anti-fighter quad turrets
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top