NG 6 MD Plastique appropriate damage

[Mlp7029]

There seems to be an discrepancy with the NG 6 MD Plastique damage values compared to the other explosives. The NG 6 per pound damage of 2D4x10+20 is more than 16 times the 1D6 per ounce value. That is not the case for the other types so I posted this poll to see which value people think is more appropriate.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

There seems to be an discrepancy with the NG 6 MD Plastique damage values compared to the other explosives. The NG 6 per pound damage of 2D4x10+20 is more than 16 times the 1D6 per ounce value. That is not the case for the other types so I posted this poll to see which value people think is more appropriate.

If you have to make it fit in your head...

Imagine that adding more explosives of this type increases the explosive power (its rare, but some types of explosives can go off with a bigger bang when set off by a slower explosive), and that 1lb is the critical mass weight where this occurs.

Its pure Handwavium, but it works.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

I actually didnt look at your math at first.

I think you’re mistaken.

If it does 1D6MD per ounce, thats a max of 96 (16x6).

The 1lb listing is just an easier way to get nearly the same result:

2D4x10+20 is a max of 100, a difference of only 4 MD.

Its certainly got a better average rolling for 1lb, but.. whatevs.

[pad300]

The palladium version of math has always been pretty approximate & hand-wavey ( it comes from their general innumeracy), and they don't like rolling (and adding up) handfuls of dice. Thus they are approximating 16d6 with only a couple of dice rolled. The mean value of 16d6 is 16*3.5 = 56 (min value 16, max value 96), whereas 2d4X10 +20 = 2.5X10 + 20 = 70 (min 40, max 100). If you really care, 2d4X10 + 10 would probably be a bit better approximation. I however, wouldn't worry about - the published numbers are all pretty goofy anyhow, so what's one more in the pile...

[Mlp7029]

I actually didnt look at your math at first.

I think you’re mistaken.

If it does 1D6MD per ounce, thats a max of 96 (16x6).

The 1lb listing is just an easier way to get nearly the same result:

2D4x10+20 is a max of 100, a difference of only 4 MD.

Its certainly got a better average rolling for 1lb, but.. whatevs.

Average damage was my concern. 16 times average 1D6 (3.5)= 56 vs the 70 average for the lb number.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

I actually didnt look at your math at first.

I think you’re mistaken.

If it does 1D6MD per ounce, thats a max of 96 (16x6).

The 1lb listing is just an easier way to get nearly the same result:

2D4x10+20 is a max of 100, a difference of only 4 MD.

Its certainly got a better average rolling for 1lb, but.. whatevs.

Average damage was my concern. 16 times average 1D6 (3.5)= 56 vs the 70 average for the lb number.

1 - that isn't what you said at all -

It does what is published even though 2D4x10+20 is more than 16 times the 1D6 per ounce value

You said that the 2d4x10+20 is SIXTEEN TIMES more. Bad phrasing perhaps, but that's what you said. What you wanted to say, apparently, was that "2d4x10+20" is more than the sum of 16d6". What you ACTUALLY said was that the 1lb number was 16 times higher than the numbers should be at 1d6 per ounce.

2 - Palladium is RIFE with scale-ups like this for convenience. They are literally EVERYWHERE.

Its a complete non-issue.

[Prysus]

It does what is published even though 2D4x10+20 is more than 16 times the 1D6 per ounce value

You said that the 2d4x10+20 is SIXTEEN TIMES more. Bad phrasing perhaps, but that's what you said. What you wanted to say, apparently, was that "2d4x10+20" is more than the sum of 16d6". What you ACTUALLY said was that the 1lb number was 16 times higher than the numbers should be at 1d6 per ounce.

Greetings and Salutations. This took me a few times to read, but that's not actually what he said. Words like 16 times "more" or "higher" are words added in by the reader. Well definitely not the clearest wording, I found it best to break the line up into sections.

*It does what is published even though* (2D4x10+20) {is more than} [16 times the 1D6 per ounce value]

-or-

(2D4x10+20) > (1D6x16)

I agree the two values not being perfectly equal is non-issue, but figured I might help add some clarity to the original wording. Farewell and safe journeys.

[Mlp7029]

Thanks for the discussion. I am going to leave the per lbs damage as is at 2D4x10+20.

[Nekira Sudacne]

I'll even argue that there is some rational for scaling damage upwards this way. When it comes to explosions, part of the damage involves all sorts of secondary effects, tinsile strength of armor that can take a lot of pounding from a certain force can crack faster once that stress limit is exceeded.

In short, you'll do more damage to something, in general, if you set off 16 sticks of dynamite simultaniously than you do if you set them off sequentially in 3 second intervals.

[Mlp7029]

I'll even argue that there is some rational for scaling damage upwards this way. When it comes to explosions, part of the damage involves all sorts of secondary effects, tinsile strength of armor that can take a lot of pounding from a certain force can crack faster once that stress limit is exceeded.

In short, you'll do more damage to something, in general, if you set off 16 sticks of dynamite simultaniously than you do if you set them off sequentially in 3 second intervals.

Absolutely true in real life but unfortunately not in the Rifts gaming system. The two seem to be equal in the best case and in the worst the 16 sticks of dynamite exploded simultaneously does less damage than you set them off sequentially in 3 second intervals.