Thoughts/Questions on the Rank Expansion Descriptors (for Damage Specifically)

[King Ghidorah]

So - first off, I love that the explicitly delineated ranks have been expanded. Even if it only comes up when things get nuts, this is super useful. But for the rank 11 and 12 benchmarks for Damage specifically I have some thoughts and questions that I figured might be constructive to address when staff has the time.

The rank 11 benchmark of 'punching through re-enforced vehicle armor' seems vague to me, especially because fucking up a tank is already the benchmark for rank 9. Are we, at rank 11, now talking about just tearing an immediately-lethal hole right through that same tank? Or is re-enforced vehicle armor in this context more like the armored hull of a battleship? It's the difference between a man-portable anti-tank weapon and an actual submarine-launched torpedo in terms of raw force, so it might be prudent to be more specific.

The rank 12 benchmark for damage also struck me as vague on account of how the first part is worded. The destructive potential of heavy deconstruction equipment is something I'm not sure most people can actually picture with any confidence beyond 'building was there and now there is no building, and this process takes a while'. So are we talking about knocking over an apartment block with a single blow on raw force alone, without even needing a blast radius as such (or big-boy growth ranks) attached to the ability to spread that damage around? That seems to be what the second part of the descriptor implies, but the comparison to deconstruction equipment, which to my understanding actually represents more of a targeted application of force over time than it does a gross abundance, actually makes things less clear. At least, that's how it reads to me; I do have a tendency to overthink things.

Anyway. I hope this is helpful, and doesn't cause anyone any headaches.

 

[The Future Warrior]

Being the one who wrote the new descriptions (for better or worse), your insight does help.

For rank 11, your first guess is mostly correct. Rank 9 does call out putting a big dent in a tank, and Rank 11 is more or less increasing in power enough to turn that dent into a solid hole clean through the armor.

Rank 12 is....the wording is a bit wonky yes, which is entirely my bad. But it's more or less again in line with your first guess. Rank 10 is capable of tearing through a single I-Beam, which a typical building is going to have several of. Rank 12 is mostly meant to imply being able to tear/shear through several of them in a single blow, to completely tear through an entire building in a single blow.

The other thing to remember is that, as was helpfully supplied to me when I was working on these, is that the damage ranks themselves aren't exactly meant to be hard limits or exact numbers, and more of just a general ballpark guideline. They're less strict/exact and more 'poetic' and showy, as long as whatever the next rank is seems like it's better, even if the actual numbers don't necessarily add up (as outside of major math nerds or structural/material engineers and the like, no one is probably going to dive deep enough to figure out exact forces and examples of them).

 

[King Ghidorah]

Understood... but with the feel of the thing in mind, I'd like to make one last suggestion - again, about the rank 11/rank 9 callback. With the knowledge that it *is* a callback, it now has the issue that major dent versus penetration kind of feels like a relatively marginal increase when the difference is two whole ranks and there's 'tears through an I-beam' in between them. 11 and 9 seem like they are occupying similar realms of strength - which makes 11 and 10 almost feel like they should be flipped.

I'd like to put 'Enough force to break the trunk of an ancient sequoia tree' out there as a possible alternate descriptor for Rank 11.

I'm sorry I'm still on this - I spend a lot of time staring at the abilities page and I just want things to be as clear as possible. Last I'll say it about, I swear.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

I’m following the conversation! I’m one of the staffers who reviewed the original proposed ability scale additions, approved ‘em and then added them in.

I think we’ll probs workshop 12’s wording to make it more clear! As for Rank 11… I’m not completely sold on the sequoia tree example, but it’s a solid idea (lol). In hindsight I think it could use a little more oomph.

We’ll discuss it!

 

[The Future Warrior]

After some thinking, we have the following to propose as alternatives to the current wording:

11: Enough force to completely demolish armored vehicles.
12: Destructive potential of high-yield demolition explosives.

 

[King Ghidorah]

Those read, to me, as both far more clear and in keeping with the overall growth curve for raw damage.

I appreciate both the promptness and responsiveness in this matter. That's some quality staffin'.

 

[Klarion]

I’ll make the updates soon! Unfortunately I’m on mobile so it’s a little rough adding ‘em, but once I’m at my PC I’ll get on that.

 

[Lilith]

With the changes I feel the scaling of Rank 13 is unclear as a midpoint between high-yield explosives and a nuclear strike.
Change suggestion:
Rank 13: Comparable to a thermobaric bomb. Enough force to penetrate a reinforced bunker.

Rank 14: (Comparable to a small, tactical nuclear strike.) Obliterates almost all known materials.

Rank 15: (Even opponents with extremely strong armor or supernatural protection will still be injured.) You're capable of complete vaporization.

Rank 16: Comparable to a planetary collision. (Enough destructive force to shatter a mountain.)