Re: [HoE] More confusion on Junkers [Shane]

[Allan Seyberth <darious@darious.com>]

(blam)
>	The problem is: I can't see any actual benefit to taking energy damage vs.
>physical damage.  Call me a munchkin, but if X costs more points than Y, X
>should have some benefit that Y doesn't.  If X and Y are identical in every
>respect except that X is more expensive than Y, I'm going to select Y over
>X every time.

Well - what kind of energy damage?

Off the top of my head, I would say to focus less on the "physical" vs.
"energy" damage - physical damage is just kinetic energy and all that, and
I would look at it as "special effect" vs "nothing special" weapons.

Flame throwers - I would call an "energy" weapon, as they have a residual
effect.
Lasers - I would call "physical", because all it does is do damage.  Of
course, it's a cool justification for taking a huge RoF with a long range
mod - but those points are spent elsewhere.  Maybe an Infrared Laser -
invisible and soundless, would qualify for the "energy" cost.

It's also possible that "energy" bonus may be built into the monsters -
there may be more monsters that ignore physical damage. (quick skim through
the monsters.....) Well, that wasn't it.

Hmmm.... would "energy" weapons do wind to monsters that don't normally
take wind?


On a side note - I wouldn't use the size modifiers on weapons - that chart
seems to be used only for items where bigger is better and is
innappropriate for weapons.
-------------------
Allan Seyberth
darious@darious.com

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Frank Perdue:
How the heck do I know?  Do I look like a chicken to you -- don't answer
that.