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.
Okay. But can give me something to go on? I don't pretend to have better vocabulary than you do (can only derive so much from Micheal Stackpole Battletech novels.. :p ). I'm told its not sufficient and I am open to improving it, but I still don't have - nor am offered - a better idea.
 
I meant in the table under 'attacks', which currently only has two columns, the third column could provide general examples rather than target-specific examples, for easy reference.

It's hard to shove in every possible example, but there needs to be some way to convey that 'neglgible damage' could still have effects like ruined solar panels, blinded sensors, or infiltration, light damage might include disabled sensors or point defence turrets, and moderate damage could result in the total destruction of exposed systems, or even temporarily disable major turrets, barrier fields, or engines.

(Damage descriptions on unarmoured ships are going to be different even for the same level, though that's a separate issue that might not be relevant to the quick reference... without armour, they'll likely get holes in them even from the weakest attacks, but without really feeling them.)

Maybe this belongs somewhere else, but if people don't know that subsystem damage can occur, they might get the idea that all damage below the 'potentially lethal' level is superficial and ineffective when it comes to fighting a starship.
 
Medium could be changed to something along the lines of armor cracking. The reason for this is that "twisted, torn and cratered" seem to be the extreme of what gouges could be. So, rather than focusing on similar damage types, it'd be better to mention cracking. Cracking armor, while not causing damage such as to rend or remove it, would be akin to weakening it. Moderate damage implies that if you keep on it, it'll eventually break. So when you keep hitting it and cracking it further and further... you finally cause a twisted/torn appearance. Or, of course, form a crater. An energy weapon example could be searing/causing surface melting. Compared to melting the entire wall, this would cause softening of the armor itself and fill the same sort of role one would expect from moderate damage.

As for light damage, I think it should be light/small gouges. Reason being that these are dents. Denting a piece of metal is considered to be lightly damaging it (again, depending on severity), while scratches tend to be so shallow that they're mainly visible damages.
 
Alright.

@Navian
I get what you mean now. I'll admit I was taking a stance toward damage for ships was that most vital systems were under the hull, and the focus was on expressing hull deterioration. By heavy damage, you're doing something that threatens to compromise or has compromised the hull where struck. Potentially lethal expressed an attack powerful enough to punch through and reach something vital (just like a knife would punch through flesh and bone and perhas reach the heart).

The table you mentioned is a good one to add stuff to, but it was only meant to be a graphical representation of the 4 steps above/below. If I start putting examples there, I'm worried that: a) it'd be too much info right away for a person new to it, b) it'd feel like I'm telling people/GMs what to do, rather than letting them run their own interpretation with less implied contention (opening the possibly of arguments like "you're doing it wrong"). Not to mention the example of uses at the bottom make me worry about redundancy.

@Legix
"Armor cracking" seems something that'd concern ceramic more than metal. But there are fissuring and buckling that could perhaps illustrate the same thing? (as in "armor cracking, fissuring or buckling" for moderate damage).

Expressing heat is tricky. Heat can saturate an item, the more saturated it is, the most likely it is to run liquid or evaporate. I can certainly start as 'searing' for negligible damage that left red-hot trails across the hull and then cooled down to show the surface as seared. According to what I saw happen to putting plastic toys over a heater, going to light damage could saturate the location with heat enough for it to reach melting point and warp/become more brittle due to that. Moderate damage is likely the point where there was enough heat to evaporate part of the struck region on contact sufficiently to bore a noticeable depression. Heavy damage would threaten to create wider warped openings.

@Doshii Jun
Most of the bodies of text should be up for grabs. We're just going over the content of tables.
 
That seems reasonable. It just makes sense that we want to make Moderate Damage have relevant/feasibly different damage. It's also why I mentioned the energy damage. It could be worthwhile to detail energy-based damage on other things (such as lasers and plasma), as your point expresses how it sorta is. Even a single example can help define how energy weapons might act that aren't styled or functionally similar to kinetic/explosive weaponry.

TLDR: The fissuring and buckling seems fine to help clear that up. I think it'll put Moderate Damage in this sense of being visibly closer to the same image across the reader's minds, rather than of differing sizes.
 
I can tell you I never really could place penetration by caliber and such, which is why descriptions rather than "20mm penetration of a block of cement" are what I used. I know that means nothing to me visually, and the math behind using what caliber at which velocity to penetrate in X thick armor largely goes over my head.

So, in the context of spaceships like the Plumeria being given a hard time, we have:

Negligible: dents, heat sears the surface, enough to ruin a paintjob
Light Damage: armor has gouges or noticable pockmarks; heat warps the armor as it melts
Moderate Damage: armor might crack, fissure or threaten to buckle; heat causes indents from reaching boiling point
Heavy damage: hull is twisted, torn or cratered nearly through; heat sufficient to vaporize deeper depressions
Potentially lethal: Hull breach, possible loss of function on vital system may cripple the ship

Does this express deterioration better?
 
Changelog:
In the main article, and the quick reference:
- made the discussed changes in the vs. medium-sized starship example to better express deterioration.

I was looking at the power armor example too. It felt like I could recycle a part of this, but when I looked at it it already seemed pretty close. Or at least, already closer to looking like gradual. Any changes needed in that respect?
 
Working on one of Zack's aritcles, we decided that personnel could have energy shields or barriers, but any above Tier 3 would result in either a lot of discomfort or bodily harm. Could you either update the article to reflect this or give me the green light?
 
My concern is that if a rule like that is instituted, every personal barrier will be tier 3 (no one bothers making tier 2 or 1 screens for people wearing partial suits or none at all) and the drawbacks of using a burdensome up-tiered barrier field won't be seen due to the hard cut-off.

I'd like to see personal barriers, but I'd like their effectiveness to be basically linked to the size or weight class of the equipment that provides them. In the specific case mentioned, that might be tier 2, since it's a mid-weight backpack that not only provides a barrier bubble and is heavily armoured, but serves as a flight pack, as well. Some drawbacks for making it tier 3 despite that would make sense.
 
IIRC, the new DR system already states that the field typically matches the armor tier of the item, so we should see shields Tier 1-3. Plus, we've only been just allowed to make personal energy shields, so it will take a bit before people start making them in various strengths.
 
Lol, love it!
But seriously, I have no intention of ever really studying these new guidelines beyond 'this is a big gun, this is a wittle guy!'

I mean, seriously, most of this stuff is common sense.

Besides, my characters tend to take more damage than the GM gives them. I get inconvenienced by a glue grenade, I say it blocks the intake and makes the reactor meltdown...
Dats how I roll, with a D20. Self-assigned crits. I call a number and see how close I am. If it's incoming damage, the further the better. Stories are just a little cooler when there's a bit of chance involves.
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top