T Bone wrote:
On May 3, 2007, at 1:02 AM, Pauli Hakala wrote:
What I am really trying to implement here is simply that certain
vehicle types are easier to dodge with than others. Frex, it is
inherently easier to dodge with a jetfighter than with
an automobile.
Right, and using canon GURPS, simple penalties/bonuses are the way to
model that. Maybe based on some known measure of maneuverability, as you
are already doing (Dodge Modifier = (sAccel in Gs x2)).
I wouldn't also use Skill divisors, unless you want to explicitly state
that Skill matters *less* when Dodging with vehicle A, than it matters
when dodging with vehicle B. That's a different matter from inherent
difficulty of dodging; it's a statement of the weight of skill as one
input into dodging. And while it's a mechanic that could be applied
throughout many GURPS rolls, it's used pretty much nowhere. (Defenses
are the only major area where skill divisors are used, but as far as I
can tell, it's as an oddball play-balance issue, not as a statement that
skill is less important in defenses than it is in other combat tasks.)
So overall, I would probably run vehicle defenses using normal rules
(base = Skill/2), or FEND rules (base = Skill) if you prefer, and
instead of further Skill divisors, handle the inherent difficulty factor
through mods (such as your sAccel-based mod, which seems especially
appropriate).
b) Do deflectors act like a mobile shield, "catching" some attacks
while "missing" others? Then letting a deflector roll its own Block,
separate from the ship's own defense, may make sense.
c) Do deflectors in some way boost the effectiveness of the ship's
own evasive maneuvers? Then let the deflector add a bonus to a ship's
Dodge (think of it as a 4e shield defense bonus, not as 3e PD).
Yes, the deflector PD was added to the active defenses just
like ordinary PD from armor. However, even while the ship was still,
deflector screens did offer some protection in the form of passive
defense roll.
I am thinking about treating Deflector PD just like the FEND treats
normal shields - Subtract the Shield PD directly from any and all
attack rolls. This makes ships with deflectors more difficult to
hit in any situation, and does serve as a justification for
the expense of deflector screens as compared to ordinary armor.
Sounds good, though I myself would use that only if the attacker can
*see* the deflector (just like a shield). The difficulty of aiming
around the shield, at an effectively smaller target, is how I see the TH
penalty for striking a shield-wielding target.
The screen is visible, like a transparent blur surrounding the vehicle,
and is constantly dumping out waste energy in the infra-red spectrum.
Deflection works by very localised gravitational lensing, which
turns away energy beams and fast-moving projectiles. The closer to dead
center of the target profile a beam hits, the less it gets turned
away by the deflector screen.. Of course, on a bigger target the size
of this 'bullseye' zone increases, but this is already factored in
with the size modifier.
Finally, another question about your rule: What's the reasoning
behind subtracting SM from vehicles' Dodge? Is it that a huge vehicle
would have to move much farther to Dodge an attack on its center? I
can see sense in that, though would have to wonder why the same
shouldn't apply to regular creatures, too.
Exactly. A huge vehicle might be simply unable to move away
from an attack vector before the attack hits it, no matter
what the usual dodge game mechanics say. This depends both
on its size and acceleration stats. Larger object needs more
acceleration to move out of the harms way. A 100yard cube
with 1g sAccel cannot maneuver nowhere near enough in
1 second to evade a beam weapon attack aimed at it's
center. OTOH, a 3x10 yard front profile starfighter with
1g sAccel is an entirely different story.. Size matters.
Yes, same should apply to land-based biological creatures
as well. Of course, a land-based biological creature is more
limited in it's application of accelerating force when
compared to a 3D vectored thrust starfighter.. I simply add
a Dodge Modifier equal to the inverted Size Modifier of a
creature (frex Size Modifier -3 = Dodge Modifier +3). The
average human being has a Dodge Modifier +0.
Ah. If you're doing the same for creatures too, then that is indeed
consistent. Interesting, and no doubt sensible, though I expect a close
look might suggest some modifications, like a cap for small SM, or
possibly using SM/2. Otherwise, the Dodge stats for bugs etc. become
excessively high.
Against bugs, use a flyswatter instead of trying to pin them
with a needle or trying to catch them with chopsticks. Their small
size benefits can be canceled out by simply using a larger weapon
attack surface.. This could work by simply capping the dodge
modifier of a very small creature at the size modifier of
the attacking weapon. As the rationale goes; the larger
the flyswatter, the easier it is to hit a fly.
Same way, when attacking a swarm with a shield held in two hands,
I've always added the Shields PD as to-hit bonus. It is easy to
just squash the little critters between the shield and floor..
The new P/A skill 'Evasion' works as a Skill/2 dodge base for
biological creatures trained in the art of dodging attacks
while maneuvering on their feet. (Robots use Battlesuit or
Driving:Mecha skill as their dodge base.)
I'm all for some sort of skill to aid Dodge, though have always been
leery of any Skill/2 as a replacement for Dodge, for point cost reasons.
Especially in 4e: your Evasion essentially allows +1 Dodge for 8 points,
right?
For that reason, I've always favored a Dodging (i.e., Evasion) skill
that instead *replaces* DX in the (DX+HT)/4 equation. Under 4e, that
would raise the cost of +1 Dodge from Dodging skill to 16 points. Still
pretty cheap!
Originally I added in the Evasion skill as a play-balance fix, since
Battlesuit and Driving(Mecha) skills already offered Skill/2 dodge
to robots, mechs and battlesuit troopers. Learning to dodge with
a 2+ ton chunk of powered armor should not be any easier (i.e.
costing less points) than learning to dodge without.
Ability to evade incoming fire is often trained by militaries. Hit
the ground, move from cover to another, run zig-zag and so on. Hence
a skill focusing on evasion felt like a very logical concept.
Evasion skill playtested quite well over several years in my group.
In practice, all it did was to bring infantrymen to the same line
with battlesuit troopers when it came to dodging. And if one wanted
to dodge equally well on foot, in a battlesuit as well as piloting
a mech or starfighter, the point costs would soon stack up, coming
closer to what 'default' attribute based dodge costs..
In fact, most player characters did not end up spending more than
2 or 4 points in the Evasion skill. In a no-holds-barred scifi game,
being able to dodge on foot is only a small part of surviving combat
situations. Most serious battles always did involve heavy military
vehicles, infantry was usually not much of a factor except in
boarding actions. Even then, powerarmor was mostly used for boarding,
using a different skill (Battlesuit P/A) for dodging.
I see no problems with using the Evasion skill with FEND. It works
just like Battlesuit and Driving:Mecha skills do. (Default 'untrained'
dodging still uses the usual HT+DX base.)
-Pauli
--
"Accompanied only by the full moon, howling of
the nightwolf, and the path under my bare feet,
the elvenpath.."
-Nightwish, Angels Fall First: Elvenpath
_______________________________________________
GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]>
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
