ST-Based Damage

[kirbwarrior]

So I've been trying to fix the damage table in GURPS. I do not like the numbers it gives, but I've yet to come up with a better fix.

But then a friend pointed out that the table might have been done intentionally. Is this true? What was the intention behind damage as it stands?

Has anyone been able to find a fix? I've tried where ST 20 is twice the damage of ST 10, but no number seems to balance out. Any ideas?

[sir_pudding]

We've certainly discussed this in the past. IMO, there probably oughtn't be swing damage at all and thrust should go from 1d at ST 10 to 2d at ST 20. Leverage should provide a multiple to damage based on the lever (greater for long unbalanced weapons than short balanced ones).

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

But then a friend pointed out that the table might have been done intentionally. Is this true? What was the intention behind damage as it stands?

Well, to start with, backwards compatibility with ST damage charts that have not changed significantly (at least in the human range) since first edition. Also, making +1 ST -> +1 damage.

What is the problem that you have that you want to fix? I have several issues with ST-based damage, with different fixes.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Well, to start with, backwards compatibility with ST damage charts that have not changed significantly (at least in the human range) since first edition. Also, making +1 ST -> +1 damage.

What is the problem that you have that you want to fix? I have several issues with ST-based damage, with different fixes.

Well, I want damage to make sense (I liked 1d ST 10, 2d St 20), but it flies against DR, and is a little high in general. But any lower, and ST 20 doesn't have enough damage output (or at least my players believe so)

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

Well, I want damage to make sense (I liked 1d ST 10, 2d St 20), but it flies against DR, and is a little high in general. But any lower, and ST 20 doesn't have enough damage output (or at least my players believe so)

+1d per +10 ST is reasonably balanced with DR, which is calculated from real-world thicknesses and assumptions in many cases. Not all, but many. Certainly true enough for guns.

Consider that at ST 20 (2d) a punch has the penetrating power of a .45 ACP slug. Why isn't that enough?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

but it flies against DR,

What do you mean here?

and is a little high in general.

ST 20 is extremely high to begin with.

[munin]

This thread produced a good corrected damage chart (the Further Extrapolated columns), and matches what Kromm stated as how he would have preferred it to have been done:

Originally Posted by Kromm

Honestly, we just kept the 3e table as a placeholder until we resolved 4e DR and damage scaling . . . and no resolution led us to alter the table. Personally, I prefer to increment swing for ever ST point, thrust for every two ST points, and apply Nd-1, Nd, Nd+1, Nd+2, (N+1)d-1, (N+1)d, (N+1)d+1, (N+1)d+2, etc. No jogs or padding. Had my attention been drawn to this at the time, I would have done it. ...

But you can't get ST less than 10 to have the same progression as that above 10 without slowing down the progression dramatically, or permitting ST 10 to have much higher damage. The easiest progression is thr = ST/4, sw = ST/2 -- this gives a reasonable 1d-1/1d+1 at ST 10, but the progression after that is much slower than RAW (though a slower progression can be made a little more interesting/complex by allowing fractional damage adds -- i.e., ST 10 would actually be 1d-1/1d+1.5 -- which come into play with wounding modifiers).

[Landwalker]

If paring down damage and bringing it into line with what's believable / appropriate relative to DR is what you're after, I put together an alternative ST-based damage system that completely does away with the ST table altogether by making damage a function of a modified ST roll (with the "modifications" based on such things as swing-versus-thrust and maneuver chosen). Of course, I use an excel spreadsheet to calculate damage for each hit, so it may be a bit more complicated than what you're after. ;-)

If you're interested, feel free to shout, or send me a PM, and I'll hook you up with a copy.

[Anthony]

If you want it to be 1d per 10 ST, you'll want to reduce the cost of ST. Reduce ST cost to 5 and I doubt anyone will object to the lowered ST damage.

[Landwalker]

Originally Posted by Anthony

If you want it to be 1d per 10 ST, you'll want to reduce the cost of ST. Reduce ST cost to 5 and I doubt anyone will object to the lowered ST damage.

Respectfully disagree. ST still contributes to the ever-important HP (+2/level) and Lifting ST (+3/level). And Lifting ST affects how much armor you can wear without being rendered effectively immobile. If you want to scale back ST-based damage to more realistic levels, you absolutely don't want to make it easier to support heavy armor and render the damage functionally irrelevant.

If players complain about not doing as much damage, just point out that it applies to enemies, too. Changes like this cut both ways, and in a lot of campaigns, the enemies aren't the ones with the better toys for getting around it.