| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | I just don7t accept that a Wookiee with a vibroaxe could inflict more damage that a burst from an E-Web.
BTW, this is another case where the damage has escalated over the years. |
Just look at the Essomian...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Esoomian
High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6207
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like the Esoomian as as much as the next guy but the only real stats for it was that one NPC Tantor. There is no background for the race or even a baseline to tell us if 7D in strenght is considered possible/average or if Tantor was taking steroids all his life.
I'm not sure if there were ever 'official' stats for them.
However i do beleave 'power creep' has become a real factor in the later releases.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.
Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can accept that an axe can do more damage than a repeater. What would you use to fell a tree, an axe or a repeating blaster?
And I have a very humorous picture in my mind of a wookie beating a speeder bike with an axe. 
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Esoomian
High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6207
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | | What would you use to fell a tree, an axe or a repeating blaster? |
You may be able to use either. 
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.
Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Looking at the rules at the mo, the wookie can rip the speeder apart on his own.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rerun941
Commander
Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 459
Location: San Antonio, TX
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Looking at the rules at the mo, the wookie can rip the speeder apart on his own. |
I think this is more the fault of the scale system than the Body/Str Codes.
a 2D difference is simply not enough leeway to provide for Light, Medium and Heavy Speeders.
One of the reasons that Starfighter vs. Capital scale works so well is because there is a 6D gap between the two scales. You can have light interceptors, heavy bombers, heavy transports... a whole range of ships at Starfighter scale that will never come close to being able to damage Capital scale.
But a 4D Str human is the "equivalent" of a 2D Body Speeder for damage soaking purposes. A 4D Body Speeder is the "equivalent" to a 2D Body Walker, etc.
I would suggest adjusting the Scales:
Character 0D
Speeder 4D
Walker 8D
Starfighter 12D
Capital 18D
Death Star 32D
This would allow some additional wiggle room between scales to allow for things like Repulsorlift tanks, light and heavy walkers, etc.
_________________
Han - "How're we doin'?"
Luke - "Same as always."
Han - "That bad, huh?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Esoomian wrote: | | jmanski wrote: | | What would you use to fell a tree, an axe or a repeating blaster? |
You may be able to use either. |
Loved that link Esoomian. The gattling cut the tree down in 45 seconds. I think a Wookiee lumberjack could beat that time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lancil wrote: | | OK, weapons all weapons are designed to kill. It dose not matter if you are weak and chop into someone with an ax, or strong and cleave someone in half with it, or if you cut them in half with an e-web. The result is the same. They are dead. Yes if a Jawa hits you with a battle ax it will only chop into you and may not kill you, but if a 6d STR. Wookie hits you solid with an ax he is probably going to cut you in half. You can argue semantics all day but at the end of the day dead is dead, it does not matter much how you got that way. |
It does not matter much to the victim, but it does matter as far as combatants in general are concerned. That's not sematics. It is actually quite important if you happen to find yousaelf in a fight. Otherwise we'd still be using sticks and stones.
THe whole idea of giving weapons damage ratings is to prvide a means to comapre thier effects including realtive leathiality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rimmer
Ensign
Joined: 14 Mar 2010
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Using the OP example, a Wookie would roll 9D (6D + 3d) and keep the 6 highest results ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lostboy
Commander
Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Posts: 384
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Realistically a walker would be able to hold heavier armour than a starfigher in the same way a modern tanks armour out classes the armour of a present day fighter aircraft.
So maybe the Scale should be
Character 0D
Speeder 2D
Starfighter 4D
Walker 6D
Capital 12D
Death Star 24D |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting.... very intersting....
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lostboy wrote: | | Realistically a walker would be able to hold heavier armour than a starfigher in the same way a modern tanks armour out classes the armour of a present day fighter aircraft. |
An interesting idea, but please dont mention 'realism' here, or compare walkers and spacecraft to tanks and aircraft. Theres nothing supporting that the relationship is anything similar.
Again, upgrading walkers scale-wise is in itself not a bad idea at all.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I defer to your reasoning, Zzap, on the grounds that realism doesn't translate well into role-playing games.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | | I defer to your reasoning, Zzap, on the grounds that realism doesn't translate well into role-playing games. |
At least not when trying to figure out how much armour an imaginary starfighter with an imaginary propulsion system can handle.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Indeed!
 And don't forget the damage from the imaginary weapon....
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
