| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16404
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:21 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Esoomian wrote: | Lets say for instance the sword being parried is heat resistant but not specifically lightsaber proof so in this instance if gets a body strength of 4D.
The jedi only rolls 10 on his damage but the sword wielder rolls a 16 on his soak.
Does his sword now pass through the lightsaber blade unimpeeded or does the lightsaber blade itself have some sort of mass which prevents this movement or at the very least deflects it? |
The Jedi would have to be pretty junior to inflict that little damage (unless he didn't have Lightsaber Combat up. I would play it that the blade has definite mass to block a physical attack. In fact, if the sword wielder tried to force his blade through, I'd probably give some added damage to the lightsaber.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | I don't think they're perfectly efficient, but for things like inch thick steel rod, you can see in the movies that they're are very efficient. I personally wouldn't want to get hit with an axe head flying at 99% of the original swinging velocity... |
A wise Jedi would probably parry the axe head, not the haft, for that very reason. |
Exactly, and now we have both sides parrying specific portions of the opponent's weapon. | Bren wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | I don't think they're perfectly efficient, but for things like inch thick steel rod, you can see in the movies that they're are very efficient. I personally wouldn't want to get hit with an axe head flying at 99% of the original swinging velocity... |
I got your point...well axe head actually.  Realistically there is something in what you say. I just don't see Star Wars as a particularly realistic fictional universe and I don't think getting clonked with an axe head is in keeping with how we see the Jedi's act. In addition, if the blade is nearly perfectly efficient, then weapons shouldn't even have a 2D much less a 3D STR vs the 5D lightsaber damage. You need a 5D difference between damage and resistance to average out to an automatic 16+ destruction result so weapons should be 0D - 1D vs a lightsaber.
|
I'd probably add the axe wielder's strength to the lightsaber's damage to represent what he's contributing to it's destruction... | Bren wrote: |
Some other ways to avoid the axe: Maybe the Jedi can use the force to vary the resistance or efficiency of the lightsaber blade to nudge the axe head out of the way, maybe he can give the lightsaber blade a bit of a twist to deflect the axe head just enough to miss the Jedi, maybe he ducks at the right time (after all the parry skill includes avoiding the strike not just blocking it), or maybe as crmcneill suggests, he parries the axe head itself (though realistically in this case you now have two smaller projectiles to avoid). Those sorts of solutions don't seem out of line for someone who can parry and reflect back blaster shots from multiple opponents.
If you feel you must add a rule to reflect parrying melee weapons, then at most, I would add +5 or +10 to the parry difficulty. With any roll between the regular parry and the +5 or +10 over, may require a dodge roll to avoid getting hit with the axe head. |
Sure, that's fine too, but now you have more MAPs to deal with. And decisions to make. And depth and forethough added to combat. See where I'm going with this? 
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Esoomian
High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6207
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | The Jedi would have to be pretty junior to inflict that little damage (unless he didn't have Lightsaber Combat up. I would play it that the blade has definite mass to block a physical attack. In fact, if the sword wielder tried to force his blade through, I'd probably give some added damage to the lightsaber. |
That depends on how you think of lightsaber combat. I tend to imagine that a jedi isn't pouring all his concentration into increasing the damage on his lightsaber every single second because that would be too exhausting. Rather he enhances the damage just before impact like a martial artist making a fist just before he hits someone.
That way a parry (as it can be seen to be stopping the blade before it's intended target) should not have to deal with more than the lightsaber's base damage but if the Jedi is actually attempting to destroy the weapon then the weapon should take full damage.
This is however just how I see things. Others may believe that as soon as lightsaber combat is active the lightsaber's damage is increased.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.
Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.
Last edited by Esoomian on Thu Jul 28, 2011 4:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I always assumed that the lightsaber "blade" is held together by sort sort of force field, and that is what prents other blades from passing through each other. And why lightsabers can deflect blasters bolts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Esoomian wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | The Jedi would have to be pretty junior to inflict that little damage (unless he didn't have Lightsaber Combat up. I would play it that the blade has definite mass to block a physical attack. In fact, if the sword wielder tried to force his blade through, I'd probably give some added damage to the lightsaber. |
That depends on how you think of lightsaber combat. I tend to imagine that a jedi isn't pouring all his concentration into increasing the damage on his lightsaber every single second because that would be too exhausting. Rather he enhances the damage just before impact like a martial artist making a fist just before he hits someone.
That way a parry (as it can be seen to be stopping the blade before it's intended target) should not have to deal with more than the lightsaber's base damage but if the Jedi is actually attempting to destroy the weapon then the weapon should take full damage.
This is however just how I see things. Others may believe that as soon as lightsaber combat is active the lightsaber's damage is increased. |
There may be something to that idea, but if that's true, the base damage of a lightsaber is not enough. (Which I've always thought...) Luke and Vader and Obi Wan are always accidentally slicing through things while they fight, even when it would help their swing recovery if the blade were to bounce off.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Esoomian
High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6207
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I might have to rewatch the films as I can't think of an instance off the top of my head where a rebound would have been more helpful than just passing through the object.
Even so it is possible that the times when they slice through something could have been a non-critical failure (a one on the wild dice that doesn't result in a complication) so with a one on the wild dice that doesn't complicate they are off with their timing and apply amplify the damage of the lightsaber blade at an inopportune moment resulting in slicing through some scenery.
With a complication I'd be tempted to have them slice through something vital like the controls for the artificial gravity generation. 
_________________
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: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the time's i have had a LS parry a weapon's blade (not just forced the attacker off angle etc), i have ALWAYS gone with LS base damage for what it does to the weapon... Especially when parrying brawling attacks...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Esoomian wrote: | | That way a parry (as it can be seen to be stopping the blade before it's intended target) should not have to deal with more than the lightsaber's base damage but if the Jedi is actually attempting to destroy the weapon then the weapon should take full damage. |
We play it the same. The Jedi has to intentionally target the weapon to get the enhanced LS damage. If he is just parrying an opponent's attack, the LS just does 5D. But then we treat most weapons as only 2D. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Esoomian
High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6207
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've always thought (and posted to the same effect somewhere) that the body strength of a weapons should depend on it's type.
A finesse weapon like a vibo-rapier should perhaps have a body strength of slightly less than the damage bonus it grants and crude bludgening weapons that rely on weight and mass should have a body strength of perhaps one and a half times the damage bonus they grant.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.
Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16404
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe the weapon's body strength should be based on the damage it inflicts. For example, if a weapon inflicts Strength+3D damage, then its body strength would be 3D. It might need some modifiers for powered weapons like vibroblades, but it's as good a criteria as any...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Esoomian
High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6207
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK so I've trawled through some of my posts and I've mentioned this theory of mine several times (most recently in the going Zoro on someone thread) but I never actually posted it in full.
Basically it goes like this:
Powered melee weapons that rely on finesse have a body strength equal to half their damage so a vibro rapier that does strength +3D damage would have a body strength of 1D+2 (rounding up)
Powered melee weapons that have a body strength equal to three quarters of their damage so a vibro blade that does strength +3D damage would have a body strength of 2D
Unpowered melee weapons that cut or stab have a body strength equal to their damage so an axe that does strength +2D damage would have a body strength of 2D
Unpowered melee weapons that bludgen and bash have a body strength equal to one and a half times their damage damage so a warhammer that does strength +2D damage would have a body strength of 3D
If the weapon's history is known and it is well made (say the PC made the weapon personally and got a really good roll when they did) it might also have a bonus to it's body rating.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.
Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16404
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Esoomian wrote: | OK so I've trawled through some of my posts and I've mentioned this theory of mine several times (most recently in the going Zoro on someone thread) but I never actually posted it in full.
Basically it goes like this:
Powered melee weapons that rely on finesse have a body strength equal to half their damage so a vibro rapier that does strength +3D damage would have a body strength of 1D+2 (rounding up)
Powered melee weapons that have a body strength equal to three quarters of their damage so a vibro blade that does strength +3D damage would have a body strength of 2D
Unpowered melee weapons that cut or stab have a body strength equal to their damage so an axe that does strength +2D damage would have a body strength of 2D
Unpowered melee weapons that bludgen and bash have a body strength equal to one and a half times their damage damage so a warhammer that does strength +2D damage would have a body strength of 3D
If the weapon's history is known and it is well made (say the PC made the weapon personally and got a really good roll when they did) it might also have a bonus to it's body rating. |
That's pretty good. It'd almost be worth going through the melee weapons section in the Weapons Compilation and penciling in estimated Body Strengths
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting rules... Surprised you didn't put them in my "Zorro" thread..
_________________
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: Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
I essentially mentioned it but I didn't want to derail the thread (as I have done to some extent here) so I tried to get back to the topic as fast as possible.
It might be worth starting another thread as I'm not 100% sure about the numbers being appropriate and there could be other modifiers too.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.
Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Esoomian wrote: | I essentially mentioned it but I didn't want to derail the thread (as I have done to some extent here) so I tried to get back to the topic as fast as possible.
It might be worth starting another thread as I'm not 100% sure about the numbers being appropriate and there could be other modifiers too. |
That looks very interesting Esoomian. 8) I suggest you start a new thread outlining your suggested rule and including a few examples for each instance or a somewhat comprehensive listing of weapons with STRs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
