Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
D20 Future Q&A With Rodney "Moridin" Thompson and JD Wiker!!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Upper_Krust" data-source="post: 1762553" data-attributes="member: 326"><p>Hi BK! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Also remember that PL is more of a grey scale than purely black and white. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I didn't miss it, I blatantly ignored it - as I didn't want to dilute the discussion at this juncture.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Nevertheless you see the logic in it? This is wholly consistent with what we know about Star Destroyers.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Its notable the Abrams own main armament is pretty much ineffective against another Abrams tank.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Thats definately more like it!</p><p></p><p>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).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Upper_Krust, post: 1762553, member: 326"] Hi BK! :) 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. 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. I didn't miss it, I blatantly ignored it - as I didn't want to dilute the discussion at this juncture. Nevertheless you see the logic in it? This is wholly consistent with what we know about Star Destroyers. 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. 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). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
D20 Future Q&A With Rodney "Moridin" Thompson and JD Wiker!!
Top