Author Topic: Weapons ratings and blocks  (Read 6713 times)

Offline Bernd

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: Weapons ratings and blocks
« Reply #15 on: July 14, 2012, 09:51:31 AM »
I didn’t necessarily meant literally 1000. Just a really big modifier that is more likely a plot device than anything else.

Also, explosives usually hit one to three or four zones. So the direct damage would be in these zones. So even a nuke with an attack roll bonus of 1000 would only destroy so much of a town with ten or so zones.

Offline Becq

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
Re: Weapons ratings and blocks
« Reply #16 on: July 16, 2012, 10:08:36 AM »
I'm of the opinion that stuff like nukes is best handled as plot devices.  Ie, the GM decides by fiat how extensive the damage to the city will be based on the needs of the story, etc.  But for those who feel the need to model it with more precision, I found the following, which might be useful:

Quote
The Nagasaki Prefectural report describes vividly the effects of the bomb on the city and its inhabitants:

"Within a radius of 1 kilometer from X, men and animals died almost instantaneously and outside a radius of 1 kilometer and within a radius of 2 kilometers from X, some men and animals died instantly from the great blast and heat but the great majority were seriously or superficially injured. Houses and other structures were completely destroyed while fires broke out everywhere. Trees were uprooted and withered by the heat.

"Outside a radius of 2 kilometers and within a radius of 4 kilometers from X, men and animals suffered various degrees of injury from window glass and other fragments scattered about by the blast and many were burned by the intense heat. Dwellings and other structures were half damaged by blast.

"Outside a radius of 4 kilometers and within a radius of 8 kilometers living creatures were injured by materials blown about by the blast; the majority were only superficially wounded. Houses were only half or partially damaged."
As a (fairly quick) attempt to translate this:

0-1 km : Sufficiently high attack bonus to ensure taken out results, even in hardened targets.  Absurdly high numbers (hundreds?  thousands?) would be reasonable here, and take-out would mean death for nearly all cases.
1-2 km : Attack bonus high enough to allow a taken out result for some, but let most by with significant consequences.  Perhaps around +20 to +30 (or more) attack bonus would be appropriate, and take-out would result in death only some of the time (if a mechanic is desired, perhaps a Endurance roll with a difficulty based on exposure).
2-4 km : Attack bonus high enough to result in significant consequences.  This sounds like +10 to +12 or so.
4-8 km : Attack bonus resulting in typically moderate consequences.  Perhaps around +6 to +8.

Again, just a fairly quick attempt to throw down some numbers based on the report quoted, YMMV.

Offline Orladdin

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 514
  • The Undauntable
    • View Profile
Re: Weapons ratings and blocks
« Reply #17 on: July 16, 2012, 01:31:14 PM »
It works.  Well done, Becq.


What have we done, fellows?
... Now we have beome death, the destroyers of worlds.

There is never a blanket answer to an ethical question.  This includes the Laws of Magic.

Perpetrator of The Cold Days Release FAQ

"I never make stupid mistakes. Only very, very clever ones."
-- The Doctor, Timewyrm: Genesys

Offline Rougarou

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 113
  • Just like Disneyland.
    • View Profile
Re: Weapons ratings and blocks
« Reply #18 on: July 17, 2012, 05:29:27 PM »
... Now we have beome death, the destroyers of worlds.

Oppenheimer, FTW!
"So you fought a hobo who tried to use a ritual to make himself a god?"
"We called him Hobosus."
"What?"
"Hobo plus Jesus. Hobosus."
- From a DFRPG campaign.

Offline Tedronai

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2343
  • Damane
    • View Profile
Re: Weapons ratings and blocks
« Reply #19 on: July 18, 2012, 07:36:33 AM »
I'm of the opinion that stuff like nukes is best handled as plot devices.  Ie, the GM decides by fiat how extensive the damage to the city will be based on the needs of the story, etc.  But for those who feel the need to model it with more precision, I found the following, which might be useful:
As a (fairly quick) attempt to translate this:

0-1 km : Sufficiently high attack bonus to ensure taken out results, even in hardened targets.  Absurdly high numbers (hundreds?  thousands?) would be reasonable here, and take-out would mean death for nearly all cases.
1-2 km : Attack bonus high enough to allow a taken out result for some, but let most by with significant consequences.  Perhaps around +20 to +30 (or more) attack bonus would be appropriate, and take-out would result in death only some of the time (if a mechanic is desired, perhaps a Endurance roll with a difficulty based on exposure).
2-4 km : Attack bonus high enough to result in significant consequences.  This sounds like +10 to +12 or so.
4-8 km : Attack bonus resulting in typically moderate consequences.  Perhaps around +6 to +8.

Again, just a fairly quick attempt to throw down some numbers based on the report quoted, YMMV.

I'd keep the initial radius in the 60-70-shift range.  That's plenty to drop even the beefiest of targets if they're exposed (anything without physical immunity is going down hard; Faery Queens and Archangels should be highly concerned if facing such an attack), punch through all but the most substantial of wards (that have been built like the mystical equivalent of a cold war command bunker) while still at least injuring most PC-grade characters with some risk that 'injury' rolls over into 'fatality'.

This seems more appropriate to me than an attack that incinerates the Merlin (a defensive specialist, who had several minutes warning of the attack) inside an Edinburgh-scale ward that is itself inside an Edinburgh-scale ward that is itself inside another Edinburgh-scale ward.
Even Chaotic Neutral individuals have to apologize sometimes. But at least we don't have to mean it.
Slough

Offline Becq

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
Re: Weapons ratings and blocks
« Reply #20 on: July 18, 2012, 07:21:49 PM »
The problem with specifying a number is that as soon as you define the nuke attack bonus to be X, some wizard player will simply cast an X+10 shift ward with a duration of several lifetimes -- which is eminently feasible under the RAW thaumaturgy rules.

So my temptation for things like nukes is to invent a new (for DFRPG) unstoppable force vs. immoveable object mechanic which I will refer to here as the "Rifts Rule".  Basically, I'd say that in the inner blast region, a nuke inflicts, say, a +60-70 attack inflicting plot device stress.  This stress can only be resisted in any way by defenses specifically defined as being of plot-device caliber by the GM.  NPCs listed in the Supernatural Heavyweight chart would be excellent candidates for having (varying levels of) plot-device defenses, and the Edinburgh ward -- having been built up and maintained by the collective efforts of the world's most powerful wizards over the generations -- is certainly a reasonable candidate, as well.  The 1000-shift ward a paranoid player built during his backstory is not (in my opinion), nor is even the best ward the Merlin could put up in hours let alone minutes.  Of course, that sort of powerful yet still sub-plot defense might well be a reasonable argument for a takeout result that is something less than instant death...

But that's just my take.

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Re: Weapons ratings and blocks
« Reply #21 on: July 18, 2012, 07:42:48 PM »
In other words, compensate for problems with the rules by completely ignoring the rules.

Not my favourite approach. I'd rather hack the Thaumaturgy system to make huge rituals non-trivial.

Because there's nothing wrong with a nuclear bunker Ward. It's cool, it makes sense, it's the sort of thing you'd expect from the Merlin.

The problem is not that an anti-nuke Ward works, it's that Harry Dresden could set one up without too much trouble.

PS: Just found this. I think it's relevant.

Offline GryMor

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Re: Weapons ratings and blocks
« Reply #22 on: July 18, 2012, 08:15:55 PM »
Nukes are not special/magical. They are just another way to release a lot of energy in a (to human sensors) instant. If you want to bypass a particular defense you can assess and invoke in the same manner as was done to Harry's shield, cooking his hand. This is no different from the mechanical vs narrative hit case you get with other attacks and consequences. Imho , if obtaining the nuke (or other large bomb) doesn't leave you with enough tags to reliably hit mooks , you failed to achieve a proper detonation. Maybe only the first stage went off, spreading radioactive material, or maybe it gets found converting it into an area social attack.

Offline Becq

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
Re: Weapons ratings and blocks
« Reply #23 on: July 18, 2012, 09:13:35 PM »
In other words, compensate for problems with the rules by completely ignoring the rules.

Not my favourite approach.
If you'd like to interpret it that way, I suppose; though its creating a new mechanic, not ignoring existing ones.  Its got precident on these forums -- for example, there are some who consider ACAEBG a problem, and deal with it by creating custom powers to "ignore" those rules.  :)
Quote
I'd rather hack the Thaumaturgy system to make huge rituals non-trivial.
Ok, I'm with you on this.  But I'm not going to suggest ways to deal with nukes assuming that everyone has bought into a custom Thaumaturgy ruleset -- especially since I don't recall there being even a tentative consensus reached during the discussions had on that topic so far.
Quote
Because there's nothing wrong with a nuclear bunker Ward. It's cool, it makes sense, it's the sort of thing you'd expect from the Merlin.
Sure thing.  That sounds like GM plot device, to me, which fits under the concept I presented.  Though my personal view is that even the Merlin is incapable of such a thing on the spur of the moment.  If, on the other hand, he had spent the decades since the close of WWII pouring power into a painstakingly crafted, rune-inscribed crystal, designed to create a one-shot shield to protect against a nuclear fireball...
Quote
The problem is not that an anti-nuke Ward works, it's that Harry Dresden could set one up without too much trouble.
Or even a minor practicioner with a variation of Ritual that includes wards, yes.

But even beyond that, nukes are the very pinnacle of humananity's potential for destruction.  If you can withstand a nuke, then there's basically nothing humanity can do you.  As such, I think the setting works better if they are something to be feared by nearly everyone, supernatural or not.  Wizards are powerful, but should not be able to directly compete with the destructive potential of a nuke by way of raw force.  Even the Queens should fear them -- maybe they might survive a direct, but at what cost?  At least, that's my opinion.
Quote
PS: Just found this. I think it's relevant.
Relevant, yes.  Correct ... well, opinions vary, obviously.

Offline GryMor

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Re: Weapons ratings and blocks
« Reply #24 on: July 18, 2012, 11:37:29 PM »
If you can withstand a nuke, then there's basically nothing humanity can do you. 

Just because a nuke, that hasn't been competently prepared, placed and rigged to take down a ward, doesn't end up punching through a particular ward, it doesn't mean that there is nothing humanity can do to you. Mechanically, assessments, declarations and compels can help, make a small hand grenade punch right through a ward that would bounce the blast front and firestorm from a negligent nuke strike. Narative wise, your house stood up to the hit, and shadowed the first floor of the rest of the houses on the block, but the rest of the city is trashed and I sure hope you have independent air supplies, otherwise you are about to have !!FUN!! of the airborne inhalation variety.

Real world wise, the nuke may be one of the better options for mass physical destruction but it's surprisingly ineffective against a wide variety of hardened targets that we have other (much smaller) bombs specialized to take out. Nukes aren't even the best for wide spread killing, for that, various chemical and biological agents sprayed in an area can have much higher kill counts (and far few survivors, percentage wise), per kg of weapon than a nuke.

Offline UmbraLux

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1685
    • View Profile
Re: Weapons ratings and blocks
« Reply #25 on: July 19, 2012, 12:03:27 AM »
...various chemical and biological agents sprayed in an area can have much higher kill counts (and far few survivors, percentage wise), per kg of weapon than a nuke.
Well, considering some deadly chemical doses are measured in "parts per million" I don't think a per kg measurement will ever be accurate.  Probably better to look at the effort in designing, engineering, building, and maintaining each type of weapon.

-----

I do have to ask one thing though - is someone really planning to use nukes or equivalent in game?  Or have we chased an argument down a rabbit hole?
--
“As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.”  - Albert Einstein

"Rudeness is a weak imitation of strength."  - Eric Hoffer

Offline Richard_Chilton

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2400
    • View Profile
Re: Weapons ratings and blocks
« Reply #26 on: July 19, 2012, 02:51:59 PM »
I found the following:
Quote
The Nagasaki Prefectural report

Fat Man was a 21 kiloton bomb.  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield, most modern bombs are 300 - 500 kilotons range with the more powerful ones bunt 9 - 15 megatons.

How powerful is a nuke? Powerful enough to take out a Naagloshii.

Richard

Offline ways and means

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1783
  • What Lies in the Truth, what truth in the Lies.
    • View Profile
Re: Weapons ratings and blocks
« Reply #27 on: July 19, 2012, 03:01:05 PM »


Fat Man was a 21 kiloton bomb.  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield, most modern bombs are 300 - 500 kilotons range with the more powerful ones bunt 9 - 15 megatons.

How powerful is a nuke? Powerful enough to take out a Naagloshii.

Richard

Powerful enough to a almost certainly kill a Naagolshii. Morgan wasn't certain that it did the job.
Every night has its day.
Even forever must come to an end....
I think.

Offline Richard_Chilton

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2400
    • View Profile
Re: Weapons ratings and blocks
« Reply #28 on: July 19, 2012, 04:25:22 PM »
Then let's leave it at:
Powerful enough that it has a very good chance to destroy a semi-divine creature - similar to one that Harry didn't have a chance of taking on Harry's chosen ground.

Richard

Offline Tedronai

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2343
  • Damane
    • View Profile
Re: Weapons ratings and blocks
« Reply #29 on: July 19, 2012, 04:42:52 PM »
A 50 point pyramid with a 7 point cap.
Evocation
Thaumaturgy
The Sight, Soulgaze
Refinement*5 at least, probably more (various specializations, spirit power and control topping the pyramid)
full Supernatural suite with a 1 or 2 point Catch that Harry wasn't able to obtain
True Shapeshifting
Modular Abilities with a pool of at least 8, probably more like 16 or 20

Did I miss anything important?
Even Chaotic Neutral individuals have to apologize sometimes. But at least we don't have to mean it.
Slough