D20 Future Q&A With Rodney "Moridin" Thompson and JD Wiker!!

[Plane Sailing]

Because the basic calculation for the attack's bonus comes from the gunner's attack bonus, it's based on an actual person (or crew) firing the weapon. And as with other types of attackers (characters, creatures, and so on), additional attacks suffer a -5 penalty. (And a further -1 because the second attack has one less weapon in the battery.)

JD, sorry to quote you since I understand that the starship rules were heavily modified after you wrote them (and there are other people who have said that first) but the general rule that attackers suffer a -5 penalty on secondary attacks has a *really important* exception.

Specifically those creatures with more than one consciousness (Hydra) don't suffer any penalty for more than one attack, and indeed can even make a full attack after moving.

Besides which, a creature with two claws and a bite for whom the claws are its primary weapon will make two claw attack at full BAB and then a bite attack at -5. Two claw attacks at full BAB.

In the light of this, even in this starship combat system which I'm disappointed with I'm surprised to not see warships being treated in at least the same kind of way as that.

Ah well, not to worry.

 

[deranged DM]

Hi yourself!

Hi deranged DM!







Correct.



Well 50% of the energy is blast, 35% thermal radiation and 15% nuclear radiation (inc. EMP damage).

However even assuming 16d8 represents only the thermal radiation its still way down from 84d6 (35% of 240d6).



We can easily determine:

120d6 blast
84d6 heat
36d6 radiation

And that is where I get annoyed with the rules. Whyfor are we tossing around megaton nukes, anyway? Kiloton yields would be quite adequate...

84d6 still seems too much, but I do agree with you that 16d8 is a bit wussy for a megaton nuke.

 

[JDWiker]

And that is where I get annoyed with the rules. Whyfor are we tossing around megaton nukes, anyway? Kiloton yields would be quite adequate...

84d6 still seems too much, but I do agree with you that 16d8 is a bit wussy for a megaton nuke.

I'd have to agree that the numbers seem too low--and, for the most part, I'm the one who put them in there. The idea was that they would be commensurate with the rest of the starship weapons, but other factors were supposed to make them more efficient.

For example, the revised starship rules leave out the fact that damage is doubled in the initial blast radius (600 feet for low-yield nukes, 3 miles for high-yield nukes), normal for a certain radius beyond that, and halved for a certain radius beyond that.

Makes them *a little* better, and certainly better than just throwing three hand grenades, but I'll take at least part of the blame for not assigning higher damage numbers, even without the doubling.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi yourself!

And that is where I get annoyed with the rules. Whyfor are we tossing around megaton nukes, anyway? Kiloton yields would be quite adequate...

Well, anyone familiar with contemporary science fiction television and movies knows that spacecraft can routinely take that sort of punishment...

eg. Star Trek photon torpedoes and quantum torpedoes are in the multi-megaton range, and it always takes multiple blasts to defeat the ships shields and even with shields down such ships can often withstand a number of direct hits before being destroyed.

eg. In (The New) Battlestar Galactica, the Galactica is seen taking a nuke hit and suffers minimal damage. The Galactica has no force field tech.

eg. The Star Destroyers in Star Wars have Turbolasers that deal damage in the multi-megaton range (Light Turbolasers) and Gigaton Range (Heavy Turbolasers).

...thats why we are talking about it.

84d6 still seems too much, but I do agree with you that 16d8 is a bit wussy for a megaton nuke.

Well 84d6 is the proper figure*, personally I think it looks a bit low, but then you have to remember that d20 damage escalates at a very slow rate.

*Given the 5d6 damage grenade represents 125g TNT.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi JD!

I'd have to agree that the numbers seem too low--and, for the most part, I'm the one who put them in there.

Well at least you are honest.

The idea was that they would be commensurate with the rest of the starship weapons, but other factors were supposed to make them more efficient.

I see this as an indictment of all the weapons though - not just nukes. I'll try and explain below.

For example, the revised starship rules leave out the fact that damage is doubled in the initial blast radius (600 feet for low-yield nukes, 3 miles for high-yield nukes), normal for a certain radius beyond that, and halved for a certain radius beyond that.

Makes them *a little* better, and certainly better than just throwing three hand grenades, but I'll take at least part of the blame for not assigning higher damage numbers, even without the doubling.

Here is how I see modern and future weaponry and armour being properly rated according to the d20 fundamental rule that:

x8 mass (or one size category) = x1.5 (base) damage.

Now in d20 Future we are also told that each Progress Level can reduce the size of previous PL equipment by one category and maintain the same power output.

So reverse engineering that law and we can estimate that the same peice of equipment will be (roughly) x1.5 more effective (either weaponry or armour) for each Progress Level increase.

Case Study: 1 - Melee Weapons.

PL 2: Greatsword = 2d6
PL 3: Mercurial Greatsword = 2d8
PL 4: ? (Okay I haven't worked this one out yet) = 4d6
PL 5: 2-H Chainsaw = 4d8
PL 6: 2-H Vibroblade = 8d6
PL 7: 2-H Monoweapon = 8d8
PL 8: 2-H Beamsword = 16d6
etc.

Case Study: 2 - Missile Weapons.

PL 1: Shortbow = 1d6
PL 2: X-Bow, Longbow = 1d8
PL 3: Heavy X-bow = 2d6
PL 4: Arquebus = 3d6
PL 5: Assault Rifle = 4d6 (5.56mm) 5d6 (7.62 mm)
PL 6: Laser Rifle = 6d6 (or 7d6)
PL 7: Plasma Rifle = 8d6 (up to 11d6)
PL 8: Pulse Rifle = 12d6 (up to 15d6)
etc.

Case Study: 3 - Explosives

PL 1: Greek Fire = 1d6
PL 2: ? = 1d8
PL 3: Bomb (Gunpowder) = 2d6
PL 4: Dynamite = 3d6
PL 5: Fragmentation Grenade = 4d6 (or 5d6)
PL 6: Concussion Grenade = 6d6 (or 7d6)
PL 7: Gravitic Grenade = 8d6 (up to 11d6)
PL 8: Thermal Detonator = 12d6 (up to 15d6)
etc.

Case Study: 4 - Armour

PL 2: Platemail (Heavy) = +6 (L/M/H = +1/+3/+6)
PL 3: Full Platemail (Heavy) = +8 (L/M/H = +2/+4/+8)
PL 4: ? (L/M/H = +3/+6/+12)
PL 5: Kevlar Vest (Light) = +4 (L/M/H = +4/+8/+16)
PL 6: ? (L/M/H = +6/+12/+24)
PL 7: ? (L/M/H = +8/+16/+32)
PL 8: Clone Trooper Armour (Medium*) = +24 (L/M/H = +12/+24/+48)
etc.

*If we assume (non-powered) Heavy Armour affects mobility then Clone Trooper Armour is at best Medium.

This can also be applied to Vehicles.

eg. M1A2 Abrams (Huge: Heavily Armoured PL 5) = +32

eg. Imperial Star Destroyer (Colossal++++++: Heavily Armoured PL 8) = +1536

Maybe I should write an article on this for Dragon Magazine.

 

[The Black Kestrel]

...Here is how I see modern and future weaponry and armour being properly rated according to the d20 fundamental rule that:

x8 mass (or one size category) = x1.5 (base) damage.

Now in d20 Future we are also told that each Progress Level can reduce the size of previous PL equipment by one category and maintain the same power output.

So reverse engineering that law and we can estimate that the same peice of equipment will be (roughly) x1.5 more effective (either weaponry or armour) for each Progress Level increase.

Case Study: Omiited for brevity's sake

While in general I agree with what you've written I think you've missed a couple of points. One bullets weight a hell of a lot less than the projectiles you mention in PL 1-4. They rely on the kinetic energy imparted by the great speed at which they travel vice thier mass. Again melee weapons are similar, thier ability to do damage is a function of thier mass, configuration and speed with which they are wielded (user's strength). I think you are overly optimistic on the increasing damage potentials on personal-scale weapons especially kinetic based ones. The two most promising technologies for PL 6, Electro-thermal (aka Electro-chemical) and Magnetic Accelerator technologies currently only provide an increase of 20-50% (50% being theoretical right now) in energy imparted to the projectile. As technology advances you may want to limit your increases to the 25% category.

On armor I think you missed a major factor: Hardness! I personally have issues with a Defense of 1536 like you suggest for a Star Destroyer. The Abrams +32 Defense truly applies only to the frontal arc, where rounds impact on the heavily armored and sloped glacis. On it's side and rear arcs it is far less armored.

As an addenda the formula for nuke damage in d20 Mecha agrees quite nicely with your damage estimation for a low yield tactical kiloton nuclear warhead (1.8 Kt to be precise). A 200 Kt nuke does 234d20 and a 1Mt nuke does 351d20.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Black Kestrel, I think that the main point that UK is making is unrelated to "real life" issues that you mention.

Rather he is taking some of the general principles given in the d20 rules and then extrapolating back from them. Essentially that each increase in PL would be expected to add 50% to the potential damage output. Put in raw figures:

PL average damage (from 1d6 base)
1 = 3.5
2 = 5.25
3 = 7.9
4 = 11.8
5 = 17.7
6 = 26.6
7 = 39.9
8 = 59.8
9 = 89.7

or
PL average damage (from 2d6 base)
1 = 7
2 = 10.5
3 = 15.8
4 = 23.6
5 = 35.4
6 = 53.2
7 = 79.7
8 = 119.6
9 = 179.4

Cheers

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi BK!

While in general I agree with what you've written I think you've missed a couple of points.

Quite likely - as Plane Sailing was kind enough to point out I was really just commenting on the general principle of damage. Something that could be used as a framework upon which to base weapon (and armour) scaling on both a Size and Progress Level basis.

One bullets weight a hell of a lot less than the projectiles you mention in PL 1-4. They rely on the kinetic energy imparted by the great speed at which they travel vice thier mass. Again melee weapons are similar, thier ability to do damage is a function of thier mass, configuration and speed with which they are wielded (user's strength). I think you are overly optimistic on the increasing damage potentials on personal-scale weapons especially kinetic based ones. The two most promising technologies for PL 6, Electro-thermal (aka Electro-chemical) and Magnetic Accelerator technologies currently only provide an increase of 20-50% (50% being theoretical right now) in energy imparted to the projectile. As technology advances you may want to limit your increases to the 25% category.

Remember that those technologies are in their infancy so its not unreasonable to suggest a performance boost of +50% on the previous Progress Level. We are not talking about experimental weapons but rather standard issue military hardware.

Also remember that PL is more of a grey scale than purely black and white.

eg. If we attribute 4d6 to a modern Assault Rifle and presume 6d6 for a similar sized PL 6 weapon then at some point in the interim someone will develop a 5d6 weapon. You have already noted that infant tech is 25% better so we already have that 5d6 catered for.

On armor I think you missed a major factor: Hardness!

I didn't miss it, I blatantly ignored it - as I didn't want to dilute the discussion at this juncture.

I personally have issues with a Defense of 1536 like you suggest for a Star Destroyer.

Nevertheless you see the logic in it? This is wholly consistent with what we know about Star Destroyers.

The Abrams +32 Defense truly applies only to the frontal arc, where rounds impact on the heavily armored and sloped glacis. On it's side and rear arcs it is far less armored.

Assuming Full Platemail (Heavy Armour to be more specific) is 1/4 inch thick at the strongest point the +32 defensive bonus relative to 1 inch thick plating. However the Abrams probably has this at its weakest point with about 2-4 inches on the front slope making it a possible +64-128.

Its notable the Abrams own main armament is pretty much ineffective against another Abrams tank.

As an addenda the formula for nuke damage in d20 Mecha agrees quite nicely with your damage estimation for a low yield tactical kiloton nuclear warhead (1.8 Kt to be precise). A 200 Kt nuke does 234d20 and a 1Mt nuke does 351d20.

Thats definately more like it!

The thing is, if you start from a logical base you can't go wrong at any point. But once you start bending the physics you get some really bizarre results (hence the 16d8 1 MT nuke damage).

 

[edventure]

Just an FYI folks. WOTC has posted Moridin's chapter on VRNet on their website.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20modern/article/20040914a

 

[Morgenstern]

Case Study: 2 - Missile Weapons.

PL 1: Shortbow = 1d6
PL 2: X-Bow, Longbow = 1d8
PL 3: Heavy X-bow = 2d6
PL 4: Arquebus = 3d6
PL 5: Assault Rifle = 4d6 (5.56mm) 5d6 (7.62 mm)
PL 6: Laser Rifle = 6d6 (or 7d6)
PL 7: Plasma Rifle = 8d6 (up to 11d6)
PL 8: Pulse Rifle = 12d6 (up to 15d6)
etc.

While all of these are way more interesting than I would have thought, I think that this one is flawed - you base should probably be more like 1-2 points of damage from tossing a very small rock, possilby 1-3 if we're thinking sling (hand held tool to launch said rock). Otherwise you iss out on some of those tech leves having actually been aplied to miniturization rather than increasing damage output. Bullets are small, and that makes them easier to transport - a very desirable characteristic often glossed over by gamers . You step all of the above down by two levels, and I think you might have more senseible and more playable numbers .