Forums of the Megaverse®

jedi078 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

jedi078 wrote:If you have a 4 pound object that is traveling at mach 5 and a 32 pound object traveling at mach 5 which one do you think is going to do the most damage when it hits something? That's my reason why a 120mm SABOT round fired from an M1A1 will kill a juicer, because in most cases a boom gun round will kill a juicer too. It's obvious you don't agree with me.

You're starting with a faulty premise, which is that the ammunition description and speed for the Boom Gun are accurate, when it's pretty clear that Palladium put no real thought into them.

My premise is that a 120mm SABOT round should be inflicting a lot more damage then what is stated in the books and that if that round hit a Juicer he'd be dead, just like he would if hit by a boom gun round.

And your basis for that premise, that a 120mm SABOT round should be inflicting a lot more damage, IS what exactly, if not the damage listing and description for the Boom Gun (and/or other such weapons)?
It seems to be either that, OR the SDC capabilities of a Juicer.

Neither of which are a good starting place.

I can see the argument that the Boom Gun should do less damage, given its description.
I can see the argument that Juicers have too much SDC.
Both of these would make sense, because the Juicer's SDC and the damage of a Boom Gun (given its description) are anomalies; they don't fit with the general depiction of damage in the game.

But I don't see any sense in taking these anomalies, the things that don't fit, then trying to use them as a starting ground.
"The Boom Gun does X damage, and it should do less than a tank's main gun, therefore the tank's damage is messed up" doesn't make sense.
"A Juicer is a normal human on a lot of drugs, and realistically a normal human on a lot of drugs can be killed by getting shot by a tank, therefore the tank's damage should be boosted" doesn't make sense.

Because you're starting off with flawed premises, that the anomalies are the standard.

Your goal seems to be to point out that a normal human, no matter how many drugs they are on, should be able to be killed by a point-blank shot to the head by a decent caliber weapon.
That's a reasonable goal.
There are many reasonable ways to achieve that goal.

Deciding that the damage of a tank weapon needs to be increased because if you don't follow the rules a human on drugs could survive a shot from the tank is not a reasonable way to achieve that goal.

Instead try:
-Pointing out that the Juicers have a stupid amount of SDC.
-Pointing out that the Boom Gun shouldn't do so much damage based on the description.
-Or, God Forbid, pointing out that the official rules of the game include using common sense to overrule SDC listings, including specific mentions that no matter how much SDC a person might have, if they dive onto a grenade they're dead. Maybe even mention the optional table to use where no matter how much SDC a person has, a point-blank head shot can drop them into a coma, regardless of how much or how little damage is rolled.

Do something like that, I'm on your side.
Try to argue that tank weapons should do more damage based on juicer stats and boom gun descriptions, and I'm not.

Killer Cyborg wrote:And your basis for that premise, that a 120mm SABOT round should be inflicting a lot more damage, IS what exactly, if not the damage listing and description for the Boom Gun (and/or other such weapons)?

Having seen first hand what a 120mm SABOT will do to something I think I can say that it does a lot more MDC then stated in the RAW. Now to but this in game context, the boom gun is an anti-armor weapon, and the Rheinmetall 120mm gun is also an anti-armor weapon. Both weapons are designed to core holes through enemy vehicles. That said if these weapons are designed to destroy vehicles what do you think they would they do to a person, even one wearing body armor that is juiced up on drugs?

Killer Cyborg wrote:-Or, God Forbid, pointing out that the official rules of the game include using common sense to overrule SDC listings, including specific mentions that no matter how much SDC a person might have, if they dive onto a grenade they're dead. Maybe even mention the optional table to use where no matter how much SDC a person has, a point-blank head shot can drop them into a coma, regardless of how much or how little damage is rolled.

I already stated as such....I even noted what book and page.

Kikkoman wrote:A juicer taking a normal bullet to the head and living is believable

Yes.
Just not as believable as a juicer taking an normal bullet to the head and dying.

And even if he lives, that doesn't mean that he'd retain any motor control or other degree of mental ability.
Phineas Gage survived having a metal rod driven through his head by an explosion, but his personality didn't.
Gabrielle Giffords survived getting shot in the head, but there's no real information about how much of her mental ability she has retained. It took her just over a month to start regaining her ability to speak, and there's nothing I know of describing whether that was forming normal words or simply being able to make deliberate-seeming sounds that were kind of like words.

Realistically, it'd be possible for a juicer to survive getting shot in the head, depending on where the bullet hit and other factors, but this is a role-playing game, not reality.
There are always compromises when converting from reality to a game.

In a RPG, if a character gets turned into a vegetable, that character is effectively dead.
In a large number of adventures and campaigns, if a character is out of commission for months or years, that character is effectively dead.
As a general rule, severe head trauma as from a gunshot to the head is likely to take a character out of the picture as far as game-play goes.

Sure, it might be fun for some people to role-play out 5 years of physical therapy while the character relearns how to eat and walk, but as a general rule you might as well write the character off as being demised.
It's faster, easily as plausible, and even more fun 9 times out of 10.
And that 10th time, GM's Discretion can always change things.

As it is, there are rules for dealing with head shots, so I really don't know why so much effort is being expended on this thread debating it.

jedi078 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:And your basis for that premise, that a 120mm SABOT round should be inflicting a lot more damage, IS what exactly, if not the damage listing and description for the Boom Gun (and/or other such weapons)?

Having seen first hand what a 120mm SABOT will do to something I think I can say that it does a lot more MDC then stated in the RAW.

How much Mega-Damage exactly IS that, and what did you see?
That might be a LOT more interesting than talking about Boom Guns and juicers.

Now to but this in game context, the boom gun is an anti-armor weapon, and the Rheinmetall 120mm gun is also an anti-armor weapon. Both weapons are designed to core holes through enemy vehicles.

All MD weapons are anti-armor weapons.
The Boom Gun seems to be as much anti-personnel as it is anti-vehicle, and it's designed to take out infantry with 7-8x the damage capacity of the strongest tank listed in the Compendium of Modern Weapons.

That said if these weapons are designed to destroy vehicles what do you think they would they do to a person, even one wearing body armor that is juiced up on drugs?

Kill the person.
Which has nothing to do with increasing the damage for a SABOT round.

Killer Cyborg wrote:-Or, God Forbid, pointing out that the official rules of the game include using common sense to overrule SDC listings, including specific mentions that no matter how much SDC a person might have, if they dive onto a grenade they're dead. Maybe even mention the optional table to use where no matter how much SDC a person has, a point-blank head shot can drop them into a coma, regardless of how much or how little damage is rolled.

I already stated as such....I even noted what book and page.

Perhaps stick with that, then.

I am trying to find a page reference, but I distinctly remember a rule that a subject who was bound and prepared for ritual sacrifice is automatically killed.

I find the proposed bound and prepared juicer is in an identical situation to the sacrificial victim indicated above.

So yeah, your character hears the cocking of the revolver's hammer . . . please roll up a replacement.

Jefffar wrote:I am trying to find a page reference, but I distinctly remember a rule that a subject who was bound and prepared for ritual sacrifice is automatically killed.

I believe that was in the Q&A section of one of the Rifters, but don't quote me on that.

The Beast wrote:I believe that was in the Q&A section of one of the Rifters, but don't quote me on that.

I'm sure it was a main book, just forget which one.

Jefffar wrote:

The Beast wrote:I believe that was in the Q&A section of one of the Rifters, but don't quote me on that.

I'm sure it was a main book, just forget which one.

I TOLD YOU NOT TO QUOTE ME ON THAT! jk

If said Wild Bear or Elephant was prepared in the appropriate fashion and I had an appropriate weapon, it would be an automatic kill. In a lot of ceremonial sacrifices a small knife was all that was used, just sever an appropriate artery and watch the target bleed out in a few seconds.

A .357 Magnum on a human skull would be an appropriate weapon. The super technology in his body may prolong the period from between when the trigger is pulled and when the juicer ceases to actually live. The executioner may rush and botch the job, but again, that just turns it into a question of how long it takes blood loss to finish the job.

Of course if the initial shot didn't do the job, there's nothing stopping the executioner from putting a second bullet in, just to be sure.

Short of a supernatural being with some sort of regenerative ability, the rule should and does apply.

Since we're still talking about this....

RGMG, 35

Fans have told me stories about other players whose characters charge gunmen without fear, because the bullet damage is first subtracted from their SDC points and they know they can defeat the gunmen before their character gets shot more than 4-5 times and may not even suffer Hit Point damage. One character even jumped on a life grenade, took the full blast, got up, dusted himself off and said, "Heck, it's only 40 SDC, I'm fine." Another player's character would shoot himself in the temple to show the bad guys how tough he was.
Now, while the idea is that a character can endure more physical damage than a normal person, this is ridiculous!! Yes, this is also an example of poor game mastering....

Shooting yourself in the head and expecting to live is worthy of ridicule, and an example of poor game mastering.
Officially.

If you use the optional rules for point blank damage, which are pretty reasonable, here's how it'll work:
A juicer has 1d4x10 HP.
Let's say this one has maximum for first level, 40.
A .45 inflicts 4d6 SDC, for an average roll of 14 SDC.
A point blank headshot against a helpless victim will inflict full damage to HP and 1/2 damage to SDC, so on an average roll that's going to be 14 HP and 7 SDC (the SDC damage doesn't really matter against a Juicer), which isn't that much compared to the Juicer's total HP/SDC.
It's a head shot, though, and the head doesn't have the full HP that the entire body does.
Going by CoMW (as Beast has pointed out), the head only has 24% of the total HP, which would work out to 9.6 HP.
So an average shot would drop the juicer into a coma instantly (negative 4-5 HP).

The minimum a shot could do is 4 SDC, so on a bad roll the Juicer would have 5.6 HP left.
He'd also be stunned or knocked unconscious going by the rules on p. 37 of RGMG
He'd also have a 30% chance of getting knocked into a coma, dropping the HP to zero regardless of how many HP there are.
But we'll say that he's still sitting there with 5 HP, that he lucks out and doesn't drop into a coma.
He just got shot, so he's going to have blood loss, which comes straight from HP, and bleed out at a rate of 1 HP per minute.
He's also at 15% or less of his total HP, so he's going to have internal bleeding for another 1 HP per minute, bleeding that can only be stopped by a Medical Doctor and surgery.
So he might be alive at 5 HP to start, but in 1 minute he'll be down to 3 HP, in 2 minutes he'll be down to 1 HP, and in 3 minutes he'll be down to -1 HP, even if he isn't knocked into a coma directly by the shot.
If the Juicer has a PE of 30, that means that there's a 15 minute span in which somebody will need to get him to medical treatment or he's dead.

As Rat Bastard pointed out, Juicers do have IRMSS kits built into their harness, but the thing is somebody has to trigger the chest plate in order for this to work. Then it takes a full minute for the nanites to reach the right area.

So the best case scenario is that the shooter botches the shot with a bad damage roll, doing minimum damage, against a juicer with maximum HP (for first level), and somebody happens to be right there to trigger the chest plate immediately, before the Juicer bleeds to death.
Which means that under the right circumstances, a Juicer could actually survive getting shot point blank in the head.
But it's not the way to bet.

AND all of the above is assuming that the GM doesn't simply exercise his discretion to declare the character outright DEAD:

Depending on the situation, the victim of a point-blank attack may be automatically killed too. But this is left up to the Game Master's discretion. The general rules here are to be applied in non-lethal situations.

Rogue_Scientist wrote: [Snip for brevity . . .]

Dude, you can shoot an elephant in the eye with a .45 and you're just going to **** him off.

[Snip for brevity . . .]

I notice nobody said **** about my Splynncryth statement. Ever see the Knight's of the Round Table where the GM has a kid throw a radish that does 1d6 damage? Next thing you know, all the characters are throwing baskets of radishes at their villians. My point is that you have to be careful with introducing these things in your game. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander". If you want to make execution-style head shots insta-kills vs PCs, you better prepare for them to defeat your major menace by some guy throwing him into a headlock and putting a few rounds in his face. Because in the end you're saying: "HP/SDC/MDC means nothing against certain kinds of attacks", notably point-blank to the face. So why not just follow the rules?

[/quote]

In regards to the elephant, I'm sure a knife in the right spot would probably do it though. I also used the phrase appropriate weapon. So far I am unconvinced that a juicer's increased durability is specifically going to prevent a .357 from close range into the head by a skilled executioner. He may survive longer as his body will put up more of a fight than most, but that will prolong the death instead of preventing it.

I did comment on the Splyncryth statement. I made an exception for creatures with supernatural healing and regeneration abilities.


In regards to the game balance issue. I am not talking about a simple headlock here. I am talking about a target that has been thoroughly restrained and prepared for a ritual sacrifice (or in this case execution). In the headlock situation the target is still fighting and has a chance. In the bound to a chair, forget it.

And yes, I do let the characters benefit from this too, in fact they benefit from it far more than the bad guys because as a GM I tend not to execute characters without first giving them a chance to escape or whatever. Far more NPCs have tied tied to chairs in my games have had the players.

Imagine how much easier these discussions would be if the rules would simply be updated to account for situations like this.

"What happens if someone gets shot point blank in the head?"

D20: See Coup De Grace, page XX

Rifts: See 43 page long thread of people arguing over 'common sense'.

You know... there have been any number of instances of people who shot themselves in the head and survived... maybe not in the best of shape (euphemism), but survived nonetheless...
Similarly, there's the famous case ofPhineas Gage who led a long and active life after an accident where his head was run through by a large iron rod... the behavioral modifications induced by his brain injuries gave some of the first insights for what would eventually lead to the practices of lobotomy and neuro surgery.

Shooting yourself in the head is a strong likelihood of death, not a certainty, especially if you're a very tough character like a juicer or crazy.

I can't help myself!

Booom! HEADSHOT!

Thank you I feel better.

That said it is a game, Instant death is bad in RPG, always has been.

Rogue_Scientist wrote:If point-blank head shots = insta-death, supernatural healing/regeneration is irrelevant. If you're reduced to 1 HP/MDC, great. You heal back. But dead is dead. Super regen isn't going to help you out with that.

Once dead, even gods and alien intelligences have to be resurrected by their followers or an outside agent.

Myself and the rules said automatic death - not instant death.

Rogue_Scientist wrote:

Jefffar wrote:In regards to the game balance issue. I am not talking about a simple headlock here. I am talking about a target that has been thoroughly restrained and prepared for a ritual sacrifice (or in this case execution). In the headlock situation the target is still fighting and has a chance. In the bound to a chair, forget it.

I don't think you understand how physics works. There is no difference between being immobilized by a chair/mechanical restraint and being properly immobilized by an opponent. Immobilized is immobilized, and offers the same penalties either way.

If you're getting your throat cut, it doesn't matter if you're tied to the execution pole or if there is merely some guy behind it holding you down. The knife doesn't know the difference.

If he is fully, completely immobilized (ie can't get out with an action and a D20 roll) then yes, he is prepared.

However pulling this one off in the midst of combat is a lot harder than you think. An isolated, unsuspecting sentry being taken out this way is definitely plausible and appropriate.

All this talk of a 120mm versus a juicer.....if he isnt wearing armour he is dead. Even by the book.

A 120mm vareis from 1d6x100 to 3d4x100 damage. getting hit with one even in armour should debilitate a juicer if not kill one outright since thier armour typically voers their main bodies only and not their thighs or arms. Blast radius is a wonderful thinkg ESPECIALLY against a juicer.

120mm? that's an artillery shell (or Abrams kinetic needle thingie) right? forget it, even a juicer, if hit full on by one of these, is gonna get pulped.
2 questions though
a) how do you get the precision to hit a human size (or anything less than truck size) target.
b) hames, where did you get those figures for the 120mm gun, 'cause I don't know a PB game where there are the stats for a current Abrams and its gun (and the version in Mer Ops has been seriously upgraded)

Compendium of Modern Weapons have an Abrams gun - SDC damage.

Svartalf wrote:120mm? that's an artillery shell (or Abrams kinetic needle thingie) right? forget it, even a juicer, if hit full on by one of these, is gonna get pulped.
2 questions though
a) how do you get the precision to hit a human size (or anything less than truck size) target.
b) hames, where did you get those figures for the 120mm gun, 'cause I don't know a PB game where there are the stats for a current Abrams and its gun (and the version in Mer Ops has been seriously upgraded)

System's Failure has stats for an Abrams (the only game to in fact stat an Abrams of PB) and as Jeffar pointed out the Compendium of modern weapons has stats for a 120mm tank cannon as well.

Also it wasn't me who brought the 120mm into the conversation. I was merely stating the facts in general since it was part of the conversation earlier.

jedi078 wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Really? Do the math? Hows about I do the only math that matters; The cannon does 1d4x100 SDC. End of story.

Math done.

If you have a 4 pound object that is traveling at mach 5 and a 32 pound object traveling at mach 5 which one do you think is going to do the most damage when it hits something? That's my reason why a 120mm SABOT round fired from an M1A1 will kill a juicer, because in most cases a boom gun round will kill a juicer too. It's obvious you don't agree with me.

It's not that I don't agree with your view that by real-life standards, yes the Abrams' cannon is effectively a boomgun,
It's that I do not think you are applying the reality of mechanics to the situation at-hand.

That is, while the real-life 120mm cannon travels at mach 5, a real-life boomgun would be travelling at like mach 50 in order to achieve the mechanical damage it does.

That future drugs can make a person tough enough to withstand a bullet to the head in real life.


That is why I ultimately disagree with your position; you are only applying the logic that is convenient for you, and you are only doing this to one reality.

Basically, the one thing you must realize is that a non-scientist/physicist wrote the rules, so basically you cannot convert bullet damage to a system with hit-points (which are abstract), and expect the reverse to then hold up. I mean really, KS probably just plucked "mach 2" and "mach 5" out of the air to make it seem that the boomguns' round was moving "really fast" to do all that damage.

When in actuality, the super-shotgun is the inferior weapon when compared to things like a sabot round.

So in the end, the in-game physics translate to the mechanics, and that is all we can go by.

Saitou Hajime wrote:I can't help myself!

Booom! HEADSHOT!

Thank you I feel better.

That said it is a game, Instant death is bad in RPG, always has been.

That's why I suggested using the hit location break-downs.

Rogue_Scientist wrote:

The Beast wrote:That's why I suggested using the hit location break-downs.

Which, imo, should be applied to non-supernatural MDC beings as well.

If you reread my original post, you'll see the one I was refering to was for humans.