08-03-2014, 09:48 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
|
[Ultra-Tech] Cheap and Expensive Rugged Equipment
If I make something Rugged and Expensive will it be:
1*1.2*2/3 = 0.8 x weight and 1x2x2 = 4 x cost -or- 1+0.2-1/3 = 0.867 x weight and 1+1+1 = 3 x cost Same with Rugged and Cheap: 1*1.2*1.5 = 1.8 x weight and 1*2*0.5 = normal cost -or- 1+0.2+0.5 = 1.7 x weight and 1+1-0.5 = 1.5 x cost Also: What is the DR, HT, and HP of weapons in Ultra-Tech normally? Is p. 17 really the last word? 10 HT and 4 DR or 12 and 8 for rugged? (Seems quite low to me...) |
08-03-2014, 10:01 AM | #2 |
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oregon
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] Cheap and Expensive Rugged Equipment
UT was written before 4th edition adopted the CF (cost factor) concept. As such, by RAW it would be the former - multiply all modifiers together. The additive method is still valid for cost modifiers, but even if you use it for there the weight modifiers should still be multiplied.
As for equipment stats, all three tech books use the same standard for HT and DR. One thing not mentioned on UT17 (but which is mentioned in the corresponding paragraphed in the other books) is that Good or Fine gear get an additional +1 or +2 HT, cumulative with the Rugged option. Last edited by vierasmarius; 08-03-2014 at 10:07 AM. |
08-03-2014, 12:48 PM | #3 |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] Cheap and Expensive Rugged Equipment
The absence of stats for armored gear is a definite problem for armored fighters whose weapons can be destroyed by splash damage that won't hurt the soldier...
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
08-04-2014, 01:31 AM | #4 | |||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] Cheap and Expensive Rugged Equipment
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
08-04-2014, 08:32 AM | #5 |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] Cheap and Expensive Rugged Equipment
A remediable problem if you've got Spaceships - simply assume the weapon is a streamlined spaceship of equal mass, ignore the volume component of armor, and just add in the DR, cost, and mass. A 10 lb rifle would be SM-2. Armoring it with nanocomposite (TL10) would mean each +3 DR would weigh 1.5 lb and cost $75 (you need 3 systems to cover the whole weapon). This should get you close enough. IIRC, Ultra-Tech used better (but more expensive) armor than Spaceships, so you could use that material instead for better DR.
|
08-04-2014, 09:18 AM | #6 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] Cheap and Expensive Rugged Equipment
Quote:
Your hack is probably actually a bit over-harsh for the weapon, since the reference spaceship is probably less dense than a gun is. But it's workable.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
08-04-2014, 09:27 AM | #7 | |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] Cheap and Expensive Rugged Equipment
Quote:
If you'd like, treat the weapon as unstreamlined instead if you think this would be an issue. |
|
08-04-2014, 10:54 AM | #8 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] Cheap and Expensive Rugged Equipment
Quote:
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
08-04-2014, 11:34 AM | #9 | |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] Cheap and Expensive Rugged Equipment
Quote:
EDIT: Here's an old analysis that indicates x2.5 for both DR and cost would be appropriate. So applying this to what I posted upthread, that's +5 DR per +1 lb and +$125. Last edited by Varyon; 08-04-2014 at 11:41 AM. |
|
08-04-2014, 02:57 PM | #10 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] Cheap and Expensive Rugged Equipment
Quote:
That's based on TL 10 Clamshells? So TL 9 would be 3.75 or 3.33 DR (11.25 or 10 for just the front)? (The thing is, heavy and light clamshells are not consistent.) |
|
Tags |
cheap, expensive, rugged, ultra-tech, weapon |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|