Sustained Fire Weaponry

[CRMcNeill]

I've been considering an optional damage rule. Some weapons such as flamethrowers or cutting devices like plasma torches or fusion cutters are capable of generating a constant, uninterrupted stream of fire. This includes powered melee weaponry like lightsabers and vibro-weapons. I've had a rule in mind for a while, but I'd like some input on it.

What I'm thinking is that, if a sustained-fire-capable weapon makes a successful strike to damage a target and continue that sustained fire into the following rounds, they receive a damage bonus based on the number of sequential rounds in which they hit the target for damage. This would function best on an immobile target, but a good gunner can manage to inflict sustained damage on a moving target.

For example, say a Jedi is using his lightsaber to burn through a blast door. Assuming he doesn't bring lightsaber combat up (the door isn't trying to dodge or hit him back, after all), he only inflicts 5D damage to the 6D blast door, and it easily resists the attack. However, the Jedi persists, continuing his attack into the next round. This time, because the Jedi has been continuously attacking the door for two rounds, he rolls 6D (5D base + 1D for the additional round). The door continues to resist, but is beginning to show signs of damage. This cycle continues until the Jedi either gives up or inflicts enough damage to burn through the door.

I'm figuring the bonus could vary based on what kind of weapon is being used. A lightsaber could have a sustained damage bonus of +1D, while a rapid fire weapon like an E-WEB might only have a bonus of +1.

That's the bare bones idea. Thoughts?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[Fallon Kell]

I would think that doubling the damage every round (fire-linking two weapons =+1D damage) could get out of hand awfully fast. (Drop your vibroblade point down, go to sleep, wake up as planet flies apart...) While I see exactly where you're going with this and why, I have given the same basic idea a good deal of thought in the past. In instances like this, the actual amount of damage does not go up, and D6 simulates instances like this with its wound/damage progression system. That said, I think there is something to be said for a bonus to the check to hit in the next round. That could indirectly translate into a damage bonus for better shot placement, E.G. headshots. That damage bonus would not stack round to round, though.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier

Complete Starship Construction System

[CRMcNeill]

I don't see how hitting a target for damage one round would make a target easier to hit the next round. I'm looking at it from a perspective of accumulated energy transfer, which the D6 wound progression system doesn't really take into effect. Cutting torches and lightsabers (as in the TPM scene where Qui-gon attempts to burn through the blast door on the Trade Federation ship) should be able to ramp up damage over time and eventually burn through what they come into contact with; it's simply a matter of how long it takes. I'm not saying there shouldn't be caps on the system to keep it from getting out of hand, but the concept is certainly present in the films.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[Esoomian]

Perhaps a situation like this can be better simulated by an effect value. So if the wielder beats the to-hit difficulty by five then they get +1D on the damage. That way if they beat the difficulty to-hit by 10 they get +2D damage.

That way someone cutting through a door that doesn't move is likely to get at least +1D or +2D to simulate them hitting the same spot they hit before and cutting a little deeper. That way it's not a guaranteed bonus because you aren't always going to hit exactly the same spot.

Doesn't really translate too well for flamethrowers though as it just makes dice spent on accuracy also have an effect on damage.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.

Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.

[garhkal]

I actually like where CM is going on this.. Though i would see it as an accruing +1 pip, +2 pips or +1d based on the weapon for damage each round its maintaining contact.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[CRMcNeill]

[CRMcNeill]

[garhkal]

[CRMcNeill]

[vanir]

I like the conclusions here, these are pretty similar to the kinds of ideas we've been tossing around between our group and using. We simply add a dice of damage per additional round spent cutting a blast door with a lightsabre, for example.

Hadn't thought about capping it but that makes sense for things like vibroweapons especially. We cap repeater blasters at +1D normally, we allow as a house rule the shooter to either use the repeater-fire to add +1D blaster skill to hit, or to MAP an extra shot at any target within a metre without penalty, or add +1D damage, all at player choice. Usually it's the +1D damage (6D light, 7D medium, 8D heavy, or you can do 2 free MAP shots at 5D light, 6D medium, 7D heavy, etc.).

Something like a flame thrower (haven't used many of those), I can see the good sense in a damage cap since even sustained flaming is only going to go to a point of instantaneous damage and after that it just burns at a constant rate of combustion/heat. So you might have a die cap of 6D on a handheld flamer, 7D on a heavy flamer or a suit mounted unit, 8D or better on a vehicle mounted flamer. Damage might actually start at 4D on each in the 1st round though, and just add +1D each consecutive round of constant direct fire, to the die cap where it plateaus and continues that damage each round fire is sustained.

[garhkal]

For flamers, i say 2d above normal for a cap, but ramps up +1 pip per round.. so it takes 6 rounds to get there.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[CRMcNeill]

[vanir]

The benchmark I've been using is 6D for a heavy weapon, 7D for a light support weapon and 8D for a vehicle mounted or light artillery weapon, character scale. Halved for speeder scale equivalent, so if I mount say a plasma gun the size of a medium repeater to a speeder turret I'll scale it to 3D+2 (speeder scale) damage and it'll be pintle mounted. A heavier, light artillery piece would be 4D and bolted into the turret frame so one crewman could operate it alone.
I use 2E scale caps so even a 3D+2 speeder scale weapon is pretty likely to kill all but the toughest aliens outright with a single shot, and I give at least a metre blast radius on speeder scale artillery/support weapons (half damage secondary in the radius but not directly hit).

This tends to keep with the SW tech benchmarks for repeaters/troop support weapons and artillery.
I'm a bit averted to having rifle sized 8D weapons since I feel it unbalances the role the support weapons and artillery. If you've got a man-portable 8D arm then naturally you'd want 10D heavy weapons and 12-14D light artillery, to keep the sense of scale. That's a lot of dice up on the SW tech benchmarks. E-Webs taking out walkers...

[garhkal]

True, infantry weapons should not be able to dish out more damage than vehicle mounted ones inc scale..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[Fallon Kell]