Re: [WW] Sherman Tank vs. Purple Worm

[Matt Smith <mdsiii@nts-online.net>]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2001 23:59:38 -0400, Noah Doyle wrote:

>Matt Smith writes...
>
>>I just don't buy it: the worm is Gargantuan, the tank is Huge; the worms
>>outmasses the tank several times, and has teeth that can chew through solid
>>rock. The worm should have some reasonable chance beyond a critical to hurt
>>the Sherman.
>
>Counterpoint - although the worm can chew through solid rock, those jaws are
>not high-velocity projectiles, and cast steel might be harder to damage in
>that manner, crushing. However...
>
Point.

>>. If you want a little more of an even match up then something needs to be
>>adjusted.
>
>That seems to be the question, what kind of results are we looking for?
>What -is- an even match for a Sherman, or a King Tiger, in the Monster
>Manual? And should we limit ourselves to the strict comparison of damage v.
>armor? What about the Worm Bull Rushing from below, or other tactics? Maybe
>it -isn't- balanced...but, that's very much a personal DM/PC decision.

Very true. The whole reason I brought the subject up is some of the
hypothetical matchups (like Sherman vs. worm) I was looking at didn't
"feel" right to me. Your Milage May (and obviously does) Vary.

>>By the way, a Sherman is too big for a standard purple worm to swallow :)
>
>I knew that, really I did. :)

I know you did. I got your 2nd post seconds after I made mine. Doesn't
it always work out that way? :)

>
>>A standard purple worm has an AC of 19, 15 of that natural armor. If it
>were a >vehicle instead of a monster, with an Armor rating instead of
>natural armor, it >would have an AC of 4!
>
>Well, how did the Sherman get an AC of 15 then? With a -2 due to size, and
>no Dex mods, shouldn't it be 8? That's where I extrapolated the +7 armor
>bonus from. I think that the Armor Rating and the PVs are representative of
>the armor's ability to stand up to damage -much- better than pre-industrial
>materials, and the effects of very high velocity projectiles, respectively.

According to an old combat example post by John Hopler, "AC for ground
vehicles is based on size and the slope of the vehicles front armor".
I didn't think armor slope really applied to a purple worm, so I left
it out. Of course, if you use Clint Black's conversion, the worm
retains some of the deflection benefit of its hide.

>It doesn't exactly work, because d20 models accuracy and penetration in the
>same number, which is - not perfect. It's one of my bigger gripes, really.
>But, it can be fudged, in a lot of ways. 

Agreed AC is a bit clunky. The fact that the components of AC are now
explicitly itemized, and that there are built-in fudges like Ranged
Touch Attacks make working with it much easier than in pre-3e stuff.
On the plus side, putting all defense into a single rating vs. a
single die roll makes for faster combat than some systems with a
separate step for penetration.

>The fact that the Worm has an Armor
>bonus of -twice- that of a Sherman is a pretty big plus, I'd think, in it's
>favor. I'm willing to accept the higher 'D&D' ACs, in exchange for the PV
>and AV of the 'WW2' vehicles. 

Yeah, it still works mechanically. I wouldn't want to Vehiclerize all
or even most monsters. Just those cases where the Invulnerable
Tank/Unhittable Monster Skew hurts my suspension of disbelief. If you
see the Skew as a feature instead of a bug you won't want to bother
with any of this. I won't bother if the conversion system is more than
a paragraph or two. Clint Black's suggestions are very close to what
I'm looking for.

>However, I'm loathe to give the 'D&D' monsters
>with DR the bonus that pistols and most rifles give to vehicle AVs.
>
I wouldn't do this either, as DR can be conceptually different from
Armor, despite the similarity in mechanics. See below.

>For comparison, a Purple Worm's bite can't hurt an Iron Golem, either - but
>it's Large, and could be swallowed and dissolved, albeit slowly. There's
>precedent for big things made of metal to not be hurt by much (50/+3 DR on
>that Golem). Also - magical and energy attacks might not be stopped by PV at
>all - if it's sealed up, a Fireball won't get in, maybe - I could think of a
>few ways to get around the hatches being closed. But a Lightning Bolt, and
>if PV is similar to DR, a Magic Missile blasts right on through. Granted, it
>might not stop an AFV in it's tracks, but that's damage right to the 'HP' of
>the thing. Another ramification, if we follow that line of thought -
>creatures -with- a DR can do damage right through an AFV's PV as well, or
>some of it - as they are considered to be able to defeat their own DR. Is a
>+1 enough to defeat all PVs? The Iron Golem has a 50/+3 - does it do
>straight damage, as the +3 would defeat any PV it encountered, like any DR
>equivalent or lower? I can't find anywhere in the WW book where it talks
>about this possibility....and while Clint Black's idea seems pretty slick, I
>don't like changing the ACs between the 'systems'.
>
>Noah

Hmmm...Looks like you've opened a whole new can of worms here. Let me
see if I can help you find a bigger can to put them in :)

The Damage Reduction mechanic in D20 covers a multitude of
conceptually different defenses. Much as I would like to find some
universal rule, I think the question of DR vs. vehicles has to be
decided on a case-by-case basis. This would depend on the special
effects of the DR.

Example One: Wehrwolves (DR 15/silver)
My conception of this has always been that when a lycanthrope takes
small nonsilver wounds, they heal instantly. This would hold true even
against large-caliber rounds with positive PV, so the DR would work
normally in this case. On offense, the wehrwolf's claws are equivalent
to silver weapons- no more effective against vehicle armor than
regular claws. Ignore it.

Example Two: Iron Golems (DR 50/+3)
I believe most of this DR represents the tough all-magical-metal
construction of the golem. Therefore, the DR would be disallowed vs.
an attack with a positive PV. Of course, I would also calculate an
Armor value from the golem's AC. If I didn't want to "Vehiclerize" the
golem I'd probably just treat the 50 DR exactly like a Armor value of
50. Offensively, the special effects imply that the golem is capable
of penetrating heavy metal armor- D'OH! Give it a positive Penetration
Value. You could base it off the golem's Strength, as in my post to
Mr. Clark, or you could give it a 50 PV from its DR value and leave it
at that.

I realize that this sort of analysis is terribly subjective,
especially since you are extrapolating from the part of the creature
descriptions without game mechanics, or even just from sheer
guesswork. All you can really do is come up with ruling that feels
right to you and doesn't ruin your suspension of disbelief.

BTW, thanks for your helpful and thought-provoking posts. This sort of
thing is why I love dedicated mailing lists.

Matt Smith