@DocTomoe I'm going to summon you back here, if you don't mind. Even if we don't agree on everything, you're the person who'se given the most constructive critiques so far.
First of all:
You get a GM whom runs his own thing, and you get this newcomer whom comes in, wants to purchase his own weapon, is inwardly giddy at the idea of being able to kick ass in a power armor, and tries to figure out what does what.Saying it's a Heavy Anti-Personnel weapon will have him immediately go "Ah, that's going to tear up most groundpounders".
If the GM that did his own thing already treats in his head the weaponry in a fashion the wiki article says, then he and the roleplayer both end up on the same page. This is a good thing. It's how it was supposed to be from the very beginning.
The rest of the DR revision really addresses other questions like, "okay, so, what if I don't hit a person with my Heavy Anti-Personnel weapon? What happens?" We present that the wider the margin, the less lethality involved, and give him an idea.
Then we present the idea of barrier shielding, and how its a protective buffer/handy GM plotshield, but that it doesn't really distinguish between location aimed/struck. Then I recommend that it count for about two possibly fatal hits before dropping and needing recharge.
Let me know if that makes sense to you. If so, then we're at least both on board on the same idea, but perhaps not on the execution.
You feel it's more helpful to have a damage range of 21 items, rather than 15. You feel (and are hardly the only one) it is
significant to the end user that there are 5 different tiers for personnel, 5 again for armor, etcetera. (for contrast, previous system had 4 personnel, 4 armor, 4 starship for a total of 12 - PDR5/ADR1 and ADR5/SDR1 were essentially the same value). So, as we sit right now, not only do we have 2 extra categories (vehicle, capital vessel) but each of the exiting categories has grown by +1. This is good, rather than alarmingly too much information which might weight things down in the roleplay.
You're on board with this kind of implied lethality, and this kind of reference table is okay:
Weapon Class vs Target | Approximate Outcome
4 Below | Negligible (nothing significant)
3 Below | Light damage (around 12.5% of expected damage)
2 Below | Moderate Damage ( around 25% of expected damage)
1 Below | Heavy Damage (around 50% of expected damage)
Equal | Potentially lethal
1 Above | Potentially lethal ( around 150% of expected damage)
2 Above | Quite lethal (around 200% of expected damage)
3 Above | Very lethal (around 300% of expected damage)
4 Above | Assuredly lethal (instant destruction)
And if we given examples like the following, it's helpful for people like Luca. That's what he seemed to appreciate:
For the Daisy, it could go from:
3 lower | Light Damage | Nicks and scrapes over armor surface
2 lower | Moderate Damage | Pockmarks and gouges on armor surface
1 lower | Heavy Damage | Armor surface twisted, torn or cratered nearly through
Equal | Lethal | Possibly fatal on precise penetration of chest/helmet
1 higher | Quite Lethal | Broader region such as face and chest affected can be fatal
2 higher | Very Lethal | Limbloss/beheaded, nonsurvivable damage to torso
3 higher | Assuredly Lethal | If hit centermass, destruction of the entire suit
For the Plumeria
3 lower | Light Damage | Nicks and scrapes over armor surface
2 lower | Moderate Damage | Pockmarks and gouges on armor surface
1 lower | Heavy Damage | Armor surface twisted, torn or cratered nearly through
Equal | Lethal | Hull breach, possible loss of function on vital system may cripple the ship
1 higher | Quite Lethal | Compartment-wide damage, wide sections open to space
2 higher | Very Lethal | Loss of major structural component such as main gun and pylons
3 higher | Assuredly Lethal | If hit centermass, destruction of the entire ship
For unprotected people:
Equal | Lethal | partial penetration, major burns, wounding, possible fatal wounds.
1 higher | Quite Lethal | reliable complete penetration, gaping wounds.
2 higher | Very Lethal | Severing limbs, eviscerating torsos, massive traumatic injuries.
3 higher | Assuredly Lethal | Incineration via energy weapon, explosive separation of body parts via projectile trauma
You don't really mind that due to the increase from 3 to 5 items, that some weapons will be cutoff from affected previously feasible targets.
- An infantryman with an assault rifle was capable of doing light damage on a Daisy (this was new), now he won't be able to do a thing.
- A Daisy's plasma rifle (8?) could lightly damage a Ripper mecha (11), but now won't be of much use.
I think you get it. Before, when categories were 3 items, the lethality range allowed passage to the next category (i.e: A medium anti-armor weapon could still do a tiny something on a medium vehicle). The only way of mimicking that would be to make that span going from 1 to 5 lower/higher. That feels uncomfortably stretched thin compared to the previous tigher range, but it seems the only way to attain somesort of equivalency that doesn't tighten the weapons too much compared to their IC useage/validity.
Again, this doesn't feel compatible with the way ships have been layed out. We'd likely either need ships to be listed in a range of 5 like everything else for that to work. (I don't find it desirable to need 10 total entries for ships/capital vessels)
I believe I also saw you mention something about just implying that a weapon would do more damage until a difference of 5, going to the above extreme meaning obliteration of the target, and the lower extreme barely tickles the target. And screw the table, just imply that and let GM/players figure out the rest. (despite Luca liking the example saying when dismemberment happened and such)
You understand that lethality is per single hit.
Meaning that it doesn't take rate of fire into account.
You also understand that when this system was designed, I meant for submitters to create their weapons mostly based on cinematic/dramatic impact; "I see my plasma rifle as taking a few shots to take down a Daisy"; "So, probably a few seconds of continuous fire dead center to make it blow up"; "So, probably Class 6"
If you understand that, then I'd point out that a weapon like the LASR appears misclassified. The LASR has historically proven more effective against softer-targets (Mishhu) and can kind of do something against power armor, but it's mostly thanks to its high rate of fire, rather than its striking power. By contrast, the Daisy power armor's plasma rifle has always proven more reliable in armor-to-armor combat (and it can do something against zesuaium too).
Finally, I still have a difference of opinion with your take on Durandium - one I still want to contest against. Everything in the notions regarding durandium makes it appear to suck much much more than before. You mention sciency reference, but to me, they're non-intelligible. What I do know is this:
Durandium is a lightweight metallic alloy created from commonly available elements including large amounts of processed aluminum and a significant quantity of synthetic carbon nanotubes.
The relative
toughness, cheapness, and availability of Durandium have made it
one of the universe's most favored material for building
vehicle frames and
light starship armor. It is fairly easy for technologically-apt nations to produce large quantities of the material. Once created by a processing plant, Durandium is molded into sheets or blocks. Factories press the sheets or melt or the blocks into the desired shapes. There is also a
transparent variant.
Underlining is mine. Basically, I've always considered durandium as somesort of futuristic supermaterial; maybe not the one that was the most optimal protection-wise, but its low-weight-to-mass ratio was its big quality (making it prefered with the Mindy II because it let it better be able to employ teleportation technology without losing too much protection - it wasn't as bad as the stealth materials or more mundane materials)
I'd like to come to a compromise that allows Durandium (and other armor plating that rested in the 0.6 modifier category before) to remain less competitive but viable choices across the board. I still think the ratio of thickness for equivalent protection (durandium 1.0, nerimium 0.8, zesuaium 0.6) is a good way of carrying over established notions from the previous DR system. At least that comes from somewhere. (and would permit us something to follow for other materials too)
