Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-09-2022, 08:20 PM   #21
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Heavily modified (logarithmic) damage system for GURPS: feedback wanted!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Or DR +20 vs a specific class of attack. Hardened armor doesn't actually represent anything meaningful.
In a Gritty Realism campaign, sure. I think most players and GM's are comfortable with the simplification of generic Hardening, but wouldn't want to have that feature double (or more) the DR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
No it shouldn't. The effort required to penetrate armor is more or less linear in quantity of armor affected, so the way you improve armor penetration is by making a narrower, deeper hole (for that matter, armor divisors on cutting attacks don't make any sense at all, things that make blades chop through armor better also make them chop through flesh better).
I agree on the oddities of AD on cutting weapons, but in a case where the bullet blows completely through a piece of cover (which is what I was referring to with "cover being shot through"), a 5 mm wide channel through the cover (from pi-) shouldn't cause as much structural damage (Injury) as a 10 mm wide channel (from pi). Unless you're suggesting that a 5mm bullet and a 10mm bullet (or, hell, a 20 mm bullet) with identical armor penetration should cause the same amount of injury in flesh when it blows through, but I don't think that's what you're arguing for.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2022, 11:16 PM   #22
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Heavily modified (logarithmic) damage system for GURPS: feedback wanted!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
Unless you're suggesting that a 5mm bullet and a 10mm bullet (or, hell, a 20 mm bullet) with identical armor penetration should cause the same amount of injury in flesh when it blows through, but I don't think that's what you're arguing for.
1d(2) pi and 2d pi- cause the same amount of injury. The reason the larger bullet is armor piercing is because it's a hard projectile that doesn't expand on impact.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2022, 04:17 PM   #23
dataweaver
 
dataweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Heavily modified (logarithmic) damage system for GURPS: feedback wanted!

For reference purposes, here's what I worked up a while back when I was asked by Raekai for help in combining Conditional Injury and Know Your Own Strength.

The first thing to note is that the two systems use very different logarithmic progressions: Conditional Injury is built around the Speed/Range table, which operates at six steps from ×1 to ×10; whereas KYOS uses a decibel scale, which operates at ten steps from ×1 to ×10.

Meanwhile, Basic Set operates on a ST^2 scale for Basic Lift (meaning that ST 20 can lift four times as much as ST 10) and has a kinda sorta linear progression for damage (from ST 9 to ST 27, +4 ST=+1d6 Swing and +8 ST=+1d6 Thrust; starting at ST 27, +8 ST=+1d6 for both; and from ST 1 to ST 9, you get massive distortion based on the fact that you're forced to work with a single damage die).

Neither CI nor KYOS align very well with this. To bring KYOS more into line with the “ST 20 can lift four times as much as ST 10”, Raekai and I decided to try out a 20-step progression from ×1 to ×10. That actually places ST 20 at only 3.16 times ST 10, which is a tad on the weak side; but not bad in comparison to KYOS's “ST 20 has ten times the basic lift as ST 10”. (The closest match in the vicinity of ST 10 would come from seventeen steps from ×1 to ×10; but that's a really ugly number to work with. And anything less than that is too fast.)

For reference the raw 20-step scale goes like this:

+0=×1.00
+1=×1.12
+2=×1.26
+3=×1.41
+4=×1.58
+5=×1.78
+6=×2.00
+7=×2.24
+8=×2.51
+9=×2.82
+10=×3.16
+11=×3.55
+12=×3.98
+13=×4.47
+14=×5.01
+15=×5.62
+16=×6.31
+17=×7.08
+18=×7.94
+19=×8.91
+20=×10

---

Once the +20=×10 baseline was established, the next step was to rework the Conditional Effects Table from CI to work with that instead of the +6=×10 progression that it was originally designed for. My logic in doing so was as follows:

If we were to set +0 to 1 point of damage, then 1d-2 would fall somewhere between +3 and +6 — in fact, its mean value falls almost precisely between +4 and +5. For simplicity, I'm going to assume that +5 corresponds to 1d-2. With that in mind, here's the map of WP to Basic Set damage:

0 WP: 0.562 dmg
1 WP: 0.631 dmg
2 WP: 0.708 dmg
3 WP: 0.794 dmg
4 WP: 0.891 dmg
5 WP: 1.00 dmg
6 WP: 1.12 dmg
7 WP: 1.26 dmg
8 WP: 1.41 dmg
9 WP: 1.58 dmg
10 WP: 1.78 dmg
11 WP: 2.00 dmg
12 WP: 2.24 dmg
13 WP: 2.51 dmg
14 WP: 2.82 dmg
15 WP: 3.16 dmg
16 WP: 3.55 dmg
17 WP: 3.98 dmg
18 WP: 4.47 dmg
19 WP: 5.01 dmg
20 WP: 5.62 dmg
+20 WP: ×10 dmg

Using a similar approach, here's how RT should map to HP:

0 RT: 3.16 HP
1 RT: 3.55 HP
2 RT: 3.98 HP
3 RT: 4.47 HP
4 RT: 5.01 HP
5 RT: 5.62 HP
6 RT: 6.31 HP
7 RT: 7.08 HP
8 RT: 7.94 HP
9 RT: 8.91 HP
10 RT: 10 HP
11 RT: 11.2 HP
12 RT: 12.6 HP
13 RT: 14.1 HP
14 RT: 15.8 HP
15 RT: 17.8 HP
16 RT: 20.0 HP
17 RT: 22.4 HP
18 RT: 25.1 HP
19 RT: 28.2 HP
20 RT: 31.6 HP
+20 RT: ×10 HP

According to B420, a Major Wound is any single injury of greater than ½ your HP. Since 19 WP is 5.01 damage and 10 RT is 10 HP, Major Wounds begin at Wound Severity +9. I figure that Minor Wounds begin at 1/10 of your HP, which would result in Minor Wounds starting at Wound Severity -5. Would Severity -6 or less would be a Scratch, or None. For the sake of nice, round numbers, let's say that a Scratch starts at Wound Severity -10; that would be roughly equivalent to a little over half a point of damage in the standard system. (-11 would be almost precisely half a point.)

Reeling corresponds to a single injury that takes you down to less than ⅓ of your HP in the regular system. That would be Wound Severity +12.

Crippled corresponds to losing all your HP in a single hit: Wound Severity +15.

Mortal Wound corresponds to a hit that does twice your HP in one hit: Wound Severity +21.

Instant Death corresponds to an attack that inflicts 6×HP in a single blow: Wound Severity +31.

Total Destruction corresponds to an attack that inflicts 11×HP in a single blow: Wound Severity +36.

So as far as Gross Effects are concerned, this is what the Conditional Effects Table looks like:

-11 or less: None
-10 to -6: Scratch
-5 to +8: Minor Wound
+9 to +11: Major Wound
+12 to +14: Reeling
+15 to +20: Crippled
+21 to +30: Mortal Wound
+31 to +35: Instant Death
+36 or more: Total Destruction

1d damage has a minimum WP of 5, an average WP of 16, and a maximum WP of 21. The minimum is the average -11, and the maximum is the average +5. That's a 16-point spread.

2d damage has a minimum WP of 11, an average WP of 22, and a maximum WP between 26 and 27. The minimum is the average -11 and the maximum is the average +4 or +5.

3d damage has a minimum WP between 14 and 15, an average WP between 25 and 26, and a maximum WP of 30. The minimum is the average -11 and the maximum is the average +4 or +5.

4d damage has a minimum WP of 17, an average WP of 28, and a maximum WP between 32 and 33. Minimum WP is average WP-11, and maximum WP is average WP+4 or +5.

That's pretty consistent. So we want a damage roll with a similar spread: a 15-to-16 point spread, with the average being biased toward the high end. The closest you can get to that with regular dice is to roll five dice, drop the lowest two, and subtract 14 from the result: that gives an average of slightly less than 0, a minimum of -11, and a maximum of +4.

If we assume that this “5d6, drop 2” will always be added to the damage, we can excise having to subtract 14 from it every time we roll by adding 14 to every entry on the Conditional Effects Table that we constructed. You can also achieve a similar result with 4d6, at the cost of the minimum being slightly higher (average -10 instead of average -11) and the maximum being considerably higher (average +10 instead of average +4 or 5). That's a potential doubling of maximum damage. Still, that's an outlier; and 4d is easier than 5d, drop two.

So we replace the dice pools with a flat 4d6 roll. Severity is that plus the Wound Potential minutes the Robustness Threshold:

Where Severity=4d+WP-RT,
Severity 3 or less: None.
Severity 4 to 8: Scratch
Severity 9 to 22: Minor Wound
Severity 23 to 25: Major Wound
Severity 26 to 28: Reeling
Severity 29 to 34: Crippled
Severity 35 to 44: Mortal Wound
Severity 45 to 49: Instant Death
Severity 50 or more: Total Destruction

Now: as I said before, the line between None and Scratch is largely arbitrary. I see no reason not to move it down three steps, so that Scratch starts at Severity 1. I'm also thinking of moving the threshold between Reeling and Crippled up one step, mostly for aesthetic reasons; but it would have the effect of making Crippling injuries slightly less likely. These changes would give us the following Conditional Effects Table:

Severity 0 or less: None
Severity 1 to 8: Scratch
Severity 9 to 22: Minor Wound
Severity 23 to 25: Major Wound
Severity 26 to 29: Reeling
Severity 30 to 34: Crippled
Severity 35 to 44: Mortal Wound
Severity 45 to 49: Instant Death
Severity 50 or more: Total Destruction

And here's a more drastic revision that moves several of the thresholds by up to three steps purely for aesthetic reasons:

Severity -1 or less: None
Severity 0 to 9: Scratch
Severity 10 to 19: Minor Wound
Severity 20 to 24: Major Wound
Severity 25 to 29: Reeling
Severity 30 to 34: Crippled
Severity 35 to 44: Mortal Wound
Severity 45 to 49: Instant Death
Severity 50 or more: Total Destruction

This puts the start of each range at a multiple of 5. Scratches get a slightly broader range; Minor Wounds become slightly less likely (which isn't a problem, considering that they still have the broadest range of all by far); Major Wounds become a bit more likely; and so does Reeling.

Everything else in Conditional Injury needs to be rescaled to twenty steps instead of six; for example, the Natural Healing Table is based on +6 Severity=×10 Time, and would need to be reworked around +20 Severity=×10 Time.
__________________
Point balance is a myth.[1][2][3][4]
dataweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2022, 04:17 PM   #24
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Heavily modified (logarithmic) damage system for GURPS: feedback wanted!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
1d(2) pi and 2d pi- cause the same amount of injury. The reason the larger bullet is armor piercing is because it's a hard projectile that doesn't expand on impact.
Pi-class represents the width of the wound channel. If something is pi, it has the wound channel of a pi projectile, not a pi- one. GURPS does indeed downgrade the pi-class for armor-piercing rounds, but if you're writing "1d(2) pi," that means it's pi after any such downgrade has occurred - were the above round not armor piercing, it would instead be 1d pi+ (or maybe 1d+1 or 1d+2 pi+, if it's AP rather than APHC).

In a case of pi vs pi-, the former leaves a wider wound channel. That's the whole reason there's a difference between the two. In cases where that doesn't matter, 1d(2) pi vs 2d pi- are indeed indistinguishable. In cases where it does matter, however, the two are different. I'd argue that, in a case where the the bullet is blowing through such that it can strike something behind the target, the difference between the two is significant - in either case, the target has a hole all the way through it, but pi results in a wound channel that's roughly twice as wide as pi-.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2022, 04:22 PM   #25
dataweaver
 
dataweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Heavily modified (logarithmic) damage system for GURPS: feedback wanted!

Here's how twenty-step logST lifting compares to Basic Set ST lifting in the range of 1 to 30:

ST 1: 3548%
ST 2: 995%
ST 3: 496%
ST 4: 313%
ST 5: 225%
ST 6: 175%
ST 7: 144%
ST 8: 124%
ST 9: 110%
ST 10: 100%
ST 11: 93%
ST 12: 87%
ST 13: 84%
ST 14: 81%
ST 15: 79%
ST 16: 78%
ST 17: 77%
ST 18: 78%
ST 19: 78%
ST 20: 79%
ST 21: 80%
ST 22: 82%
ST 23: 84%
ST 24: 87%
ST 25: 90%
ST 26: 93%
ST 27: 97%
ST 28: 101%
ST 29: 106%
ST 30: 111%

There's a bubble from ST 11 to ST 27 where Basic Set ST outperforms 20-step logarithmic ST by a much as 29%; outside of that range, logarithmic ST gradually comes to vastly outperform Basic Set ST.

One of the difficulties in terms of matching damage is that the standard system is kind of weird:

ST 2=0.00 dmg
ST 4=0.16 dmg
ST 6=0.50 dmg
ST 8=1.00 dmg
ST 10=1.67 dmg
ST 12=2.5 dmg
ST 14=3.5 dmg
ST 16=4.5 dmg
ST 18=5.5 dmg
ST 20=6 dmg
ST 22=7 dmg
ST 24=8 dmg
ST 26=9 dmg
ST 28=9.5 dmg
ST 30=10.5 dmg
ST 32=11.5 dmg
ST 34=12.5 dmg
ST 36=13 dmg
ST 38=14 dmg
ST 40=15 dmg
ST 42=16 dmg

...and so on. If we were to convert these directly to WP according to the table I worked up earlier, we'd get:

ST 2=-∞ WP
ST 4=-11 WP
ST 6=-1 WP
ST 8=5 WP
ST 10=10 WP
ST 12=13 WP
ST 14=16 WP
ST 16=18 WP
ST 18=20 WP
ST 20=21 WP
ST 22=22 WP
ST 24=23 WP
ST 26=24 WP
ST 28=25 WP
ST 32=26 WP
ST 34=27 WP
ST 38=28 WP
ST 42=29 WP
ST 46=30 WP
ST 50=31 WP
ST 54=32 WP
ST 60=33 WP
ST 66=34 WP
ST 72=35 WP
ST 80=36 WP
ST 90=37 WP
ST 100=38 WP
ST 110=39 WP
ST 122=40 WP

After that, each increase in WP corresponds to an escalating increase in Basic Set ST. Not surprising, considering that WP represents a geometric growth while BS ST represents a linear growth.

Put another way, here's what you'd have to buy in Basic Set to get the rough equivalent of each of these 20-step logarithmic ST scores:

ST -30 [-400]=Lifting ST 1 [-27], Striking ST 1 [-45], 0 HP [-20]: [-92]
ST -18 [-280]=Lifting ST 2 [-27], Striking ST 2 [-40], 0 HP [-20]: [-87]
ST -16 [-260]=Lifting ST 2 [-24], Striking ST 3 [-35], 1 HP [-18]: [-77]
ST -11 [-210]=Lifting ST 3 [-21], Striking ST 4 [-30], 1 HP [-18]: [-69]
ST -6 [-160]=Lifting ST 4 [-18], Striking ST 4 [-30], 2 HP [-16]: [-64]
ST -2 [-120]=Lifting ST 5 [-15], Striking ST 5 [-25], 3 HP [-14]: [-54]
ST -1 [-110]=Lifting ST 5 [-15], Striking ST 6 [-20], 3 HP [-14]: [-49]
ST 1 [-90]=Lifting ST 6 [-12], Striking ST 6 [-20], 4 HP [-12]: [-44]
ST 4 [-60]=Lifting ST 7 [-9], Striking ST 7 [-15], 4 HP [-12]: [-36]
ST 5 [-50]=Lifting ST 7 [-9], Striking ST 8 [-10], 4 HP [-12]: [-31]
ST 6 [-40]=Lifting ST 8 [-6], Striking ST 8 [-10], 5 HP [-10]: [-26]
ST 7 [-30]=Lifting ST 8 [-6], Striking ST 8 [-10], 6 HP [-8]: [-24]
ST 8 [-20]=Lifting ST 9 [-3], Striking ST 8 [-10], 8 HP [-4]: [-17]
ST 9 [-10]=Lifting ST 9 [-3], Striking ST 9 [-5], 9 HP [-2]: [-10]
ST 10 [0]=Lifting ST 10 [0], Striking ST 10 [0], 10 HP [0]: [0]
ST 11 [10]=Lifting ST 10 [0], Striking ST 10 [0], 11 HP [2]: [2]
ST 12 [20]=Lifting ST 11 [3], Striking ST 11 [5], 13 HP [6]: [14]
ST 13 [30]=Lifting ST 12 [6], Striking ST 12 [10], 14 HP [8]: [24]
ST 14 [40]=Lifting ST 13 [9], Striking ST 12 [10], 16 HP [12]: [31]
ST 15 [50]=Lifting ST 13 [9], Striking ST 13 [15], 18 HP [16]: [40]
ST 16 [60]=Lifting ST 14 [12], Striking ST 14 [20], 20 HP [20]: [52]
ST 17 [70]=Lifting ST 15 [15], Striking ST 15 [25], 22 HP [24]: [64]
ST 18 [80]=Lifting ST 16 [18], Striking ST 16 [30], 25 HP [30]: [78]
ST 19 [90]=Lifting ST 17 [21], Striking ST 17 [35], 28 HP [36]: [92]
ST 20 [100]=Lifting ST 18 [24], Striking ST 18 [40], 32 HP [44]: [108]
ST 21 [110]=Lifting ST 19 [27], Striking ST 20 [50], 35 HP [50]: [127]
ST 22 [120]=Lifting ST 20 [30], Striking ST 22 [60], 40 HP [60]: [150]
ST 23 [130]=Lifting ST 21 [33], Striking ST 24 [70], 45 HP [70]: [173]
ST 24 [140]=Lifting ST 22 [36], Striking ST 26 [80], 50 HP [80]: [196]
ST 25 [150]=Lifting ST 23 [39], Striking ST 28 [90], 56 HP [92]: [221]
ST 26 [160]=Lifting ST 25 [45], Striking ST 32 [110], 63 HP [106]: [261]
ST 27 [170]=Lifting ST 26 [48], Striking ST 34 [120], 71 HP [122]: [290]
ST 28 [180]=Lifting ST 28 [54], Striking ST 38 [140], 79 HP [138]: [332]
ST 29 [190]=Lifting ST 30 [60], Striking ST 42 [160], 89 HP [158]: [378]
ST 30 [200]=Lifting ST 32 [66], Striking ST 46 [180], 100 HP [180]: [426]
ST 31 [210]=Lifting ST 34 [72], Striking ST 50 [200], 112 HP [204]: [476]
ST 32 [220]=Lifting ST 36 [78], Striking ST 54 [220], 126 HP [232]: [530]
ST 33 [230]=Lifting ST 38 [84], Striking ST 60 [250], 141 HP [262]: [596]
ST 34 [240]=Lifting ST 40 [90], Striking ST 66 [280], 158 HP [296]: [666]
ST 35 [250]=Lifting ST 42 [96], Striking ST 72 [310], 178 HP [336]: [742]
ST 36 [260]=Lifting ST 45 [105], Striking ST 80 [350], 200 HP [380]: [835]
ST 37 [270]=Lifting ST 47 [111], Striking ST 90 [400], 224 HP [428]: [939]
ST 38 [280]=Lifting ST 50 [120], Striking ST 100 [450], 251 HP [482]: [1052]
ST 39 [290]=Lifting ST 53 [129], Striking ST 110 [500], 281 HP [542]: [1171]
ST 40 [300]=Lifting ST 56 [138], Striking ST 122 [560], 316 HP [612]: [1310]

So between ST 10 and ST 22, there's a mild bubble where Basic Set's ST outperforms logST by the equivalent of one or two points of logST: logST 12, 13, 20, and 21 lose about 10% of their damage dealing effectiveness compared to the regular rules, while logST 14 to 19 lose about 20%. Below 10 and above 22, logST vastly outperforms Basic Set ST.

Those bubbles are unavoidable, being the result of trying to match a logarithmic progression to quadratic and semi-linear curves. With that in mind, I doubt one could do much better than that.

The drawback to this approach is that it requires re-engineering both Conditional Injury and Knowing Your Own Strength, with a comparatively minor revision to the latter and extensive revisions to the former. In both cases, the overall structure remains more or less the same (with the exception that this approach attempts to remove the standard damage rolls from CI), with the main changes being to the tables.
__________________
Point balance is a myth.[1][2][3][4]

Last edited by dataweaver; 03-10-2022 at 06:32 PM.
dataweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2022, 05:11 PM   #26
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Heavily modified (logarithmic) damage system for GURPS: feedback wanted!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
Pi-class represents the width of the wound channel. If something is pi, it has the wound channel of a pi projectile, not a pi- one.
If something has a penetration of 2d and the wound channel of a pi projectile, it's 2d, not 1d(2). The fundamental meaning of an armor divisor is 'penetration is abnormally high relative to wounding'.

On the log scale above: there are two fairly natural formulas for ST damage -- +20 = x10, and +30 = x10. The first one does a better job of matching the existing ST damage table. The second has the benefit that it scales well with hit points: if we set Swing damage for ST 10 at 1d6, a single hit will do about 1/3 the HP of an object with weight equal to BL, and throwing an object with weight equal to BL at 9 yards per second will do Swing damage.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.

Last edited by Anthony; 03-10-2022 at 05:24 PM.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2022, 06:55 PM   #27
dataweaver
 
dataweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Heavily modified (logarithmic) damage system for GURPS: feedback wanted!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
On the log scale above: there are two fairly natural formulas for ST damage -- +20 = x10, and +30 = x10. The first one does a better job of matching the existing ST damage table. The second has the benefit that it scales well with hit points: if we set Swing damage for ST 10 at 1d6, a single hit will do about 1/3 the HP of an object with weight equal to BL, and throwing an object with weight equal to BL at 9 yards per second will do Swing damage.
+30=×10 also has the advantage that 30 is a multiple of both 6 and 10, meaning that you can line it up with both the Speed/Range table and the decibel scale.

As for HP, I tend to think that scaling them with the cube root of mass gives too few HP; large objects under the cube root system tend to be too fragile. I'd be more inclined to shift that to the square root of mass, at which point +20=×10 tracks with HP as well.

That said, I could see keeping it at the cube root; though then we're back to there being a disconnect between lifting and striking: +20=×10 take with lifting reasonably well, and shifting that to +30=×10 would result in a much wider range of ST scores that wouldn't be able to lift as much as they currently can. In fact, ST 10 to ST 20 would track fairly closely with a linear BL rather then the quadratic BL that 4e adopted: of +30=×10, then +10=×2.15.
__________________
Point balance is a myth.[1][2][3][4]
dataweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2022, 09:34 PM   #28
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Heavily modified (logarithmic) damage system for GURPS: feedback wanted!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
If something has a penetration of 2d and the wound channel of a pi projectile, it's 2d, not 1d(2). The fundamental meaning of an armor divisor is 'penetration is abnormally high relative to wounding'.
I... think one of us may have lost the thread of our discussion. Sam mentioned possibly getting rid of Armor Modifier (his system's equivalent to Armor Divisors), I advised him not to, you stated GURPS would be well-served getting rid of either Wounding Modifiers or Armor Divisor, citing that what GURPS currently calls 2d pi- and 1d(2) pi shouldn't be written out any differently, as they mechanically have the same effect. I was bringing up ways in which the two are actually mechanically distinct and now... this apparent non-sequitor. Or are you simply arguing from the standpoint that a 1d pi weapon, if using APHC (which you are writing as "1d(2) pi"), should just be written as 2d pi-? Presumably this would mean a 1d pi+ weapon using APHC should be something like 1.5d pi, and a 1d pi++ weapon using APHC should be something like 1.5d pi+ (or maybe just 2d pi - that is, instead of an armor divisor, you double damage and halve wounding), nuances of the current rules be damned. Does that sound roughly about right?

If so, I can certainly see some logic to that, but... a part of me really likes armor divisors. They probably aren't strictly realistic, but they add a sort of nuance that seems to... just work.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2022, 01:59 AM   #29
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Heavily modified (logarithmic) damage system for GURPS: feedback wanted!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
Or are you simply arguing from the standpoint that a 1d pi weapon, if using APHC (which you are writing as "1d(2) pi"), should just be written as 2d pi-?
Either that or the 2d pi- weapon should be written as 1d(2) pi. Having a 'damage' value that reflects neither penetration nor wounding is poor design.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2022, 02:29 PM   #30
Infornific
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Default Re: Heavily modified (logarithmic) damage system for GURPS: feedback wanted!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
Musing on this some more, how much thought have you put into how muscle-powered weapons behave? In theory you could keep a note of how much ST-based damage your character "should" do, and toss in the Adds from the weapon to recalculate DV. But that's going to slow things down if a character has to pick up a new weapon during combat, and you also get similar breakpoints as what "round up" would give you between the M16A2 and the AK47, where using a slightly higher-damage weapon functionally boosts damage by x1.5.

I wonder if you could use something more akin to the way layering armor works. That is, instead of a weapon doing thr+2 imp, it's instead something like DV 6. If you have DV 3-5* (from ST), this makes your damage with the weapon be DV 7. If you have DV 6, it's DV 8. If you have DV 7-9, the weapon gives you +1 to DV. If you have DV 10+, you may need to check your strength to use it (much like how current weapons are limited to damage based on 3*MinST), restricting it to DV 10. For cut/imp Weapons of Quality, perhaps Fine gives +1 AM (so better at getting through armor, but no better at wounding unarmored foes), while Very Fine gives the better of +1 AM and +1 DV (so it performs better against unarmored foes... and against those with hardened armor). Might be worth playing around with. Of course, this makes Striking ST intermediate between two DV's useless - but honestly, I think with a system like this, you'd be best served breaking ST up into TR (which would start at 10 and arguably be [+25]/level, although having it ramp up to this - [10], [10], [20], [25], to mimic HP's pricing at lower levels - might be appropriate), BL (following Lifting ST's pricing - or KYOS), and DV (which would start at 5; I'm not sure exactly what would be fair pricing, here).

*The need to match MinST - or MinDV if taking my later advice - may mean you can only have DV 1 or 2 points below that of a typical weapon.

EDIT: Looking at the document again, I see you did have some information on muscle-powered weapons, but it was such that you simply get a flat boost to DV based on the weapon's Adds, which seems excessive. I think revamping the table, with weapons having their own DV that "stacks" with your personal DV as above, would work better. Weapons that are rescaled for a character's ST/DV would actually be fairly simple - every +1 to weapon DV increases MinDV (probably weapon DV -2 for most weapons) and MaxDV (weapon DV +3 for most weapons) by +1, and increases weight by +1 SSR. Generally revamping tables is probably appropriate for this system, along with lumping a lot of similar weapons together, with the exact weapon being more flavor than stats - you don't have M16A2 vs AK47, you just have an Assault Rifle; you don't have Longsword vs Katana, you just have a Hand-and-a-Half Sword. And so forth.
I tried cleaning up my system a little if you want to take another look. There is an issue with adds - basically under a log system a giant's sword should have the same add to damage as a gnome's sword. Having weapons with a set DV might make more sense. Or possibly work like my suggestions for Armor - combine the Strength of the character with the Damage Value of the weapon for a finale damage value. For unarmed attacks, I'd simply stick with what I've got - straight from ST, modified by skill & technique.
Infornific is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
damage, house rules

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.