Beware of streets full of cars!

[Blacksad]

From the modern SRD:

Exploding Vehicles: If the attack that disables a vehicle deals damage equal to half its full normal hit points or more, the vehicle explodes after 1d6 rounds. This explosion deals 10d6 points of damage to everyone within the vehicle (Reflex save, DC 20, for half damage), and half that much to everyone and everything within 30 feet of the explosion (Reflex save, DC 15, for half damage).

Anyone tried to produce a chain reaction?

 

[kreynolds]

Anyone tried to produce a chain reaction?

Most vehicles have more than 30 hit points, and objects take half damage from energy attacks. Even if you got max damage on an exploding car (60 points), the other vehicles in the area would take less than 30 points because of their hardness rating. Economy cars, such as the Chevy Cavalier and Dodge Neon, have 30 hit points. However, because of their hardness of 5, they wouldn't sustain enough damage to become disabled. Motorcycles would be toast, but anything else would be fine.

However, a Harley dealer would be screwed.

 

[Blacksad]

It doesn't say that the explosion is energy damage, at best I think that it's half-fire, half sharp bits.

 

[kreynolds]

It doesn't say that the explosion is energy damage...

It doesn't say that it's not either. Also, despite what you see in the movies, an exploding car releases very little concusive force. I've seen a demolition derby go wrong with a car catching fire, and a nearly full gas tank blew. When it caught, the flames shot out from beneath the car and spread out and up, but nobody was knocked from their feet. Also, they aren't blown apart into little bits of shrapnel. Exploding cars aren't claymore mines.

However, if you want to give a more cinematic feel to the game, then you would probably say that half the damage is fire and the other half is force damage. Myself, I don't go for that cinematic of a feel. I think Spycraft is much better suited to that.

 

[Blacksad]

err, I wasn't thinking of movie explosion, but of wounded person, burning affect only those that are very close to the explosion.

and when damage is listed if it isn't said that it is energy damage, I assume that it's normal damage, it would be silly to consider the burning damage that bullet can cause when they enter a body.

You've seen an accident, not something that was able to destroy half of the car hit point, i.e. something more akin to a rocket launcher than a machine gun, so you can expect a bit more explosion.

Consider the result of car used to kill some politician in Europe with bomb, many people are killed, not by fire, but by the sharp bit that the explosion produce when it breaks the vehicle.

Finally, ....two exploding vehicle next to each other can produce a chain reaction, traffic jam are going to be very dangerous!

 

[kreynolds]

err, I wasn't thinking of movie explosion, but of wounded person, burning affect only those that are very close to the explosion.

Eh? What does a wounded person have to do with it? I think I lost you. Can you rephrase?

and when damage is listed if it isn't said that it is energy damage, I assume that it's normal damage, it would be silly to consider the burning damage that bullet can cause when they enter a body.

Yes, it would be silly. It would also be grossly incorrect because fireams deal Ballistic damage. Their damage type is specificied, so I fail to see where you're going with this.

You've seen an accident, not something that was able to destroy half of the car hit point, i.e. something more akin to a rocket launcher than a machine gun, so you can expect a bit more explosion.

That's a good point.

Consider the result of car used to kill some politician in Europe with bomb, many people are killed, not by fire, but by the sharp bit that the explosion produce when it breaks the vehicle.

This is irrelevant. You asked about an exploding car. There is a difference between an exploding car because it was disabled, and an exploding car because there's a big, fat, giant bomb in it. Which one are we going for here?

Finally, ....two exploding vehicle next to each other can produce a chain reaction, traffic jam are going to be very dangerous!

There's a posibility. Listen, I'm not trying to be confrontational. I swear. I'm just trying to understand your point of view, but I find myself having a very difficult time doing that.

 

[Blacksad]

Eh? What does a wounded person have to do with it? I think I lost you. Can you rephrase?

Well, the damage suffered a person who stand next to an exploding car reflect quite well the damage dealt by an exploding car.

Yes, it would be silly. It would also be grossly incorrect because fireams deal Ballistic damage. Their damage type is specificied, so I fail to see where you're going with this.

They also provoke internal burning, due to the speed at which the bullet goes within internal tissue

That's a good point.

This is irrelevant. You asked about an exploding car. There is a difference between an exploding car because it was disabled, and an exploding car because there's a big, fat, giant bomb in it. Which one are we going for here?

Those aren't giant bomb, why do you believe they put it on car?
To kill someone with a bomb, either you get someone crazy enough to catch the target and explode the bomb (two death, one from your side). Or you use something that will become dangerous with the explosion (many death, none from your side).

Most of the bomb used wouldn't kill anyone if they were put in an open field (except those that are very close).

I choose bomb or rocket, because those are the tools used to explode a vehicle (most of the time).

There's a posibility. Listen, I'm not trying to be confrontational. I swear. I'm just trying to understand your point of view, but I find myself having a very difficult time doing that.

It was just some fun with the rules, because people are killed by several sharp bits, individualy those sharp bits shouldn't pass the hardness of other vehicles. While the rules allow for chain reaction with exploding vehicles, but that's the big problem with burst weapon, hardness, zone effect, etc... in many RPG, that appear here with vehicles

 

[kreynolds]

Well, the damage suffered a person who stand next to an exploding car reflect quite well the damage dealt by an exploding car.

Not really. People are soft and squishy. Cars are not. Either way, the damage needs to be defined. My gut would say that half the damage is fire damage, while the other half is concussive force. Both of these types of damage are energy damage effects, and objects take only half damage from energy effects unless stated otherwise. Fire is covered by this, but concussive damage is not. Personally, I would argue that objects still only take half damage from concussive damage, but the type of object would depend. For example, glass should take full damage, but metal shouldn't.

I could understand the argument of concussive damage dealing full damage to objects though, like force damage, but I'd rather have confirmation on this from the designers (I started a thread on the WotC boards). I'm more interested in their intent than anything else.

They also provoke internal burning, due to the speed at which the bullet goes within internal tissue

That may be, but according to the rules, firearms do not deal fire damage of any kind. If there is any heat damage, it isn't substantial enough to make an impact upon the rules.

Those aren't giant bomb, why do you believe they put it on car?

You said it. Not me. Your exact words were "Consider the result of car used to kill some politician in Europe with bomb". Now, it could be that because of your wording, I misunderstood you, but it looks like you are saying "Consider the result of a politician in Europe being killed with a car with a bomb in it."

It was just some fun with the rules, because people are killed by several sharp bits, individualy those sharp bits shouldn't pass the hardness of other vehicles. While the rules allow for chain reaction with exploding vehicles, but that's the big problem with burst weapon, hardness, zone effect, etc... in many RPG, that appear here with vehicles

So far I haven't seen a problem, but I might be missing your meaning. Could you be more specific? Is it just the posibility of a chain reaction that you see is the problem?

 

[Blacksad]

That may be, but according to the rules, firearms do not deal fire damage of any kind. If there is any heat damage, it isn't substantial enough to make an impact upon the rules.

It was just because I consider that the fire damage in the radius is not substential enough to affect those that stay around compared to the damage dealt by the sharp bits.

You said it. Not me. Your exact words were "Consider the result of car used to kill some politician in Europe with bomb". Now, it could be that because of your wording, I misunderstood you, but it looks like you are saying "Consider the result of a politician in Europe being killed with a car with a bomb in it."

When you explode a vehicle, you deal more damage than if you used only a bomb, I used the car bombing exemple not to show the destruction of the car, but to show that car bombing kill many people around the car, so the idea of damage after an explosion of a vehicle is correct.

So far I haven't seen a problem, but I might be missing your meaning. Could you be more specific? Is it just the posibility of a chain reaction that you see is the problem?

Don't you think that the explosion of two vehicle provoking a chain reaction is a problem?

The explosion should be 10 times 1d6, meaning that the vehicle hardness would prevent most damage, while people with no hardness will suffer the full damage.

and my original post was just to show some rule sillyness and have fun!

If the designer or the sage answer, please tell me, I'm pretty sure that the explosion damage was meant to be normal damage, but I could be wrong.

 

[kreynolds]

It was just because I consider that the fire damage in the radius is not substential enough to affect those that stay around compared to the damage dealt by the sharp bits.

Huh? If you're close enough to the car, and any of the damage is intended to be fire damage, you get burned no matter what.

When you explode a vehicle, you deal more damage than if you used only a bomb, I used the car bombing exemple not to show the destruction of the car, but to show that car bombing kill many people around the car, so the idea of damage after an explosion of a vehicle is correct.

Damage after an explosion? Dude, you totally lost me.

Don't you think that the explosion of two vehicle provoking a chain reaction is a problem?

No. If it's fire damage, objects take half damage, so its very unlikely that you'll get a chain reaction with any vehicle economy class and up. If it's concussive damage, like C4, objects still take half damage (this energy type isn't defined in regards to how it effects objects, and most energy types deal only half damage), so its still very unlikely that you'll get a chain reaction with any vehicle economy class and up. If it's a mixture of the two, same thing.

It's only a problem if its all concussive damage, and even then, only if concussive damage deals full damage to objects.

The explosion should be 10 times 1d6, meaning that the vehicle hardness would prevent most damage, while people with no hardness will suffer the full damage.

Again, people are not cars. People caught in the explosion won't aid in the chain reaction of exploding cars, so I don't see the relevance. I'm not trying to be rude. I'm just having a really hard time making sense of some of your wording.

and my original post was just to show some rule sillyness and have fun!

I get the fun part, but like I said, I don't see any sillyness yet, not unless its all concussive damage, and even then, not unless concussive damage deals full damage to objects.

If the designer or the sage answer, please tell me, I'm pretty sure that the explosion damage was meant to be normal damage, but I could be wrong.

I'll let you know.