Aug 09, 10:38 1998

To: Froccer

From: Lindharin

Hi,

Sorry for the delay - the last few days have been busy... :)

> Yeah, the damage potential of the glitterboy would be totally
> disgusting. I think there are some weapons that are just single shot
> weapons, period. This would include some weapons such as the Boom Gun,
> the TX-5 Pump Pistol, and any type of conventional shotguns. The reason
> for this being that either the recoil or the reload time (in the case of
> the Boom Gun, I would say it is both) is a limiting factor in
> considering how fast it can fire. A good rule of thumb would be to check
> the rate of fire on the weapon. If it says that you can only shoot it
> once per attack, then it is a single shot weapon. If it says that its
> rate of fire is the infamous "Standard" rate of fire, then it is
> probably capable of at least short bursts (in the case of energy rifles
> that have clips of 20 or more, it is probably capable of firing longer
> bursts). In any case, the GM should use his discretion as to the rate of
> fire on any weapon.

I agree.

> Uh, I think so. When I first thought of particle accelerators I
> immediately thought of the particle beam cannon and particle beam
> mini-cannon from one of the RIFTS sourcebooks. I also thought about the
> heavy particle beam weapons on the Naurauni's Carnivore heavy tank. All
> of these are definitely really, really, really big heavy weapons. Now
> that I think about it, though, there are a lot of small arms that use
> particle acceleration technology. Naurauni's main line of small arms are
> all particle beam weapons (1d4 x 10 MDC, rate of fire "Standard"). Even
> northern gun has its own particle beam rifle (I can't remember what it
> is called though; its a burst fire weapon).
>
> To conclude, all particle beam weapons do not need to be in the ASN
> category, but all heavy energy weapons should be.

Agreed.

> In other words, its not the size that matters, but how you use
> it (Ouch! Sorry, had to be done).

:)

> So a revision could be:
>
> SN Explosives: conventional, normal, and high explosive grenades and
> missiles.
>
> ASN Explosives: nuclear, armour piercing, and plasma grenades and
> missiles
>
> Especially nuclear. Whoa bow! That is a reason in its self for having
> ASN.
>
> I think I would like the fact that plasma grenades would be ASN. I am
> kind of cynical about grenades in general. They only do a max. of 5d6
> MDC. If someone threw a grenade at me, I wouldn't worry. I would just
> take the damage and be thankful he didn't shoot a burst from an energy
> weapon at me. With the ASN Explosive it makes some of these weapons
> (particularily plasma) much more useful.

I'm not sure that any grenade should be ASN, but I'm also not sure they
shouldn't... :) I think the question is: should a plasma grenade do
full damage to a tank? Is there a definition of what a plasma grenade is?
I've tended to think of it as super-napalm, which would be more of an
anti-personnel weapon, but that could be wrong.

A related but separate point: If your primary concern is that grenades
don't have enough impact on the game, one alternative ruling that I've been
considering is that any explosive always counts as beating AR. A "strike"
roll doesn't really seem to make sense, other than to determine if the
grenade landed in the approximate area. The "area of effect" nature of the
explosive would tend to say that it should always find the weak spots in the
armor, if there are any.

> I don't think that the damage modifier should be played with for a
> number of reasons. First, I think that ASN should remain consistent with
> the other damage levels. Second, it is a sad fact that big guns tend to
> kill people. Third, if a party member is facing down a ASN source of
> damage they should a) run, or b) hide. Fourth, what is a ASN weapon
> shooting at party members for? Don't they have something better to shoot
> at.
>
> As you can guess, I like working with max. damage scenarios. Let's take
> one that involves one of the less gruesome weapons in this category
> (1d6x10x2 SDC rail gun or small missle). If the weapon does max. damage
> and rolls under the AR, that means the character takes 60 SDC max. As
> you have mentioned before, characters are tougher in general in your SDC
> system. It is likely for a man of arms (who has 1d4 x 10 SDC to start)
> will survive even a max. damage hit from one of these weapons. For one
> of the more gruesome weapons, the character will (and should) die a
> horrible death (I wouldn't want to see too many characters walking away
> from a boom gun hit).
>
> There is the possibility, though, that a character will even survive one
> of the more gruesome weapons. A boom gun that only rolls a 6 on 3d6 for
> damage means that it will only do 60 SDC to the character > (6x10x2/2 = 60 SDC).

Fair enough. I think I can agree with that reasoning. One other point,
though. Against SN, the rules for unsealed high-tech armor say that if the
strike roll is LTE AR the suit takes full damage from SN and the user takes
none, else the opposite applies. However sealed environmental armor says
that even if the strike roll is GT AR, the suit takes 1/2 and the user takes
1/2. Should that apply to the above stats for ASN? If the protection from
environmentally sealed armor was applied in a reduced fashion vs ASN, one
end result might be:

If the strike roll is LTE AR then the sealed armor would take 3/4 and the
wearer takes the remaining 1/4. If the strike roll is GT AR, sealed armor
would take 1/4 and the wearer would take 3/4. Unsealed armor (or
environmental suits that aren't sealed)would still only provide 1/2
protection if LTE AR and no protection if over AR.

> That depends. First, it depends on the gm. Is he always putting the
> characters in a position where they HAVE to battle tanks and big bots?
> Second, it depends on the characters. Are they sufficiently armed?
> Taking on something that has heavy weapons with pea shooters won't get
> you very far. Do they use proper tactics? Taking on a tank or bot head
> on should be discouraged. These things are made for war, and can dish it
> out as well as take it. The characters should find a way to defeat it,
> without using the metaphorical "bayonette charge" approach to battle
> tactics. Third, it depends on gm and character collaboration. Does the
> gm provide ways to get out of the situation without direct
> confrontation? Does the gm provide ways to defeat the threat that
> doesn't involve depleating the targets main body of SDC? Do the
> characters search for such options?

Those are all good points. It is true that it really is a matter of GM
perspective. The rule books present some much data about the bots that I,
at least, find it easy to fall into the trap of thinking they are used for
everything. But they are still a limited resource and should / will be
deployed where they'll do the most good.

> You could take the cynical approach to the above argument and say, "No.
> None of those things apply." In this case, maybe ASN should be more
> refined.
>
> It is still possible for characters to make short work of some vehicles
> though. The UAR-1 Enforcer for example would have 700 SDC (I think;
> unsure about the exact number). If you had even six characters in your
> party, you could conceivably take it out quite expediently.
> Taking just normal infantry weapons (3d6x2 SDC), each character could
> empty the clip and do some pretty good damage. 18 x 2 SDC for a single
> shot x 7 for a full burst x 6 characters / 2 for ASN armour = 756 SDC.
> This also depends on which set of rules you use (if you are using x7 or
> x10; 4 attacks for a long burst; etc ...). I think that, in general, the
> party would have better weapons than common infantryman weapons, so they
> would do better damage.

This is all true, too. I'm not used to thinking in groups of 6 though.
We've been moving around a lot the last few years and rarely have more than
2-3 players.

> Doesn't the damage do with MD weapons also increase by a factor of two
> though? I realize that with ASN armour, the damage would be
> automatically halved, but it would not be impossible to take out one of
> these monstrosities.

Yes, the MD damage does double too. Good point.

> I think that is a really good idea. Six characters shooting at the tank
> will have better chances of damaging some internal structure (you get
> six chances to roll above the AR). This will give the characters a
> better fighting chance.
>
> It should be noted that the characters should have some access to ASN
> weapons, even if just ASN mini-missles. This will allow them to aim at
> some vulnerable portion, and disable part of the bot/tank. They would
> then be able to exploit that weakness (if they were smart).

I'll try to dig out my vehicle combat rules sometime this week and email it
to you for comments.

> I have a really good story about my character regarding battle tactics,
> but I don't want this email to be totally monsterous. Maybe
> I will include it in another email (it is my favorite story to tell).

Sure, I'd love to read it!

Hope your weekend is going great,
Lindharin