ParanetOnline

The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Belial666 on June 15, 2011, 10:54:28 AM

Title: Nukes
Post by: Belial666 on June 15, 2011, 10:54:28 AM
First of all, I usually dislike plot-device powers. I also like statting things up. Therefore, nukes. Nukes are not plot-device powerful, seeing as a nuclear bunker can survive a nuke... but can't survive a much smaller bunker-busted bomb. Sure, the Hiroshima bomb was strong enough to turn people into atomic shadows at ground zero but left some of the heavier buildings still standing.

Let's extrapolate from that; against attacks, thick exterior walls defend as objects at +10, with a stress track 10 boxes long. Vault doors and similar heavy fortifications defend as objects at +12 with a stress track 12 boxes long. They can't take consequences or use FP. Since the bomb took out all of the first but some of the latter survived, we need it to be an attack that the first can't resist at all but that the latter might. A +15 attack means defense of 10 will never resist it but defense of 12 might roll a +4 in a 1 out of 81 chance. Since heavy walls and thick iron objects survived more often than not, the blast would have been a bit lower weapon rating so that it only took out such structures half the time. This means weapon 9, for an average chance to take out such things or weapon 8 for a 33% chance - and still level anything less than fortified structures 99% of the time. And this is for ground zero of the blast.

Now, a nuke also has the big flash and the radiation as secondary results that don't really harm buildings but do a number on humans. So we need to stat this up a bit. Here's an example;


40-kiloton nuke [20 shifts effect, 200 zones radius]
Effect: weapon 8 at +15 attack. In addition, a nuke creates a 6-shift fire and a 6-shift radiation environmental hazard for the scene.
Dissipation: nuclear attacks dissipate fairly rapidly. Drop weapon rating, attack rating and hazard strength by 2 for every 1/4 of the radius.
Special 2: nuclear attacks are almost always a surprise as you usually can't see the blast coming. You still defend normally against hazards.

Given that explosive damage increases by the cubic root of explosive energy, explosive radius increases by the square root of energy and that +2 weapon rating in the DFRPG means an order of magniture more damage, here's a further extrapolation;


4-megaton nuke [24 shifts effect, 800 zones radius]
Effect: weapon 10 at +19 attack. In addition, a nuke creates a 7-shift fire and a 7-shift radiation environmental hazard for the scene.
Dissipation: nuclear attacks dissipate fairly rapidly. Drop weapon rating, attack rating by 3 and hazard strength by 2 for every 1/4 of the radius.
Special 2: nuclear attacks are almost always a surprise as you usually can't see the blast coming. You still defend normally against hazards.


Do note that either bombs will kill a human being at ground zero, period. (the fire hazard autotags your full consequences and hits at +14 even if you miraculously survive the blastwave). But supernatural creatures tough as buildings might survive - as they should.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: 13th~Nineteen on June 15, 2011, 04:36:06 PM
But would it take out a Skin Walker?
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: tetrasodium on June 15, 2011, 05:18:11 PM
But would it take out a Skin Walker?
(click to show/hide)
thinks it did
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Belial666 on June 15, 2011, 05:27:44 PM
Well, the Skinwalker has enough shifting points to take on mythic-level abilities but the only one that matters is mythic toughness. 10 stress boxes, 3 armor, 0 defense vs weapon 8, 15 attack means 10 stress goes over to consequences - so at least moderate and serious from the blastwave. Then the fire hazard hits at +10 (autotagging the two consequences) and the radiation at +6. Assuming superb endurance, the skinwalker survives that exchange but gets a few more hits.

Now, the skinwalker could attempt to escape. But the nuke just turned the area into a burning, radioactive wasteland. A Way to the Nevernever would only lead to a similar environment now. The skinwalker could attempt to run - but shifting away its toughness to get speed would kill it. The only question is whether it can move a hundred zones to get out of the highly radioactive and burning area before it runs out of stress boxes.

It gets toasted unless it gets really, really, really lucky. And as a monster with negative refresh, it's not supposed to start with Fate Points so it won't get lucky.



Equally tough monsters that are immune to fire or that radiation won't affect them (such as golems) will probably survive the nuke. So would ghosts, those undead whose catch isn't fire, and anything physically immortal (not necessarily immune to damage - they just need to be immune to death). A wizard who is paranoid enough to make a potionlike defensive item at 16 shifts that conjures a 20-ft-thick steel dome or a 16-shift Ward around him in case of nuclear explosion will also survive. But what wizard is paranoid enough to make something like that?
*goes off to finish his version of Dresden's crystal shield*
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: BumblingBear on June 15, 2011, 06:47:48 PM
I find it amusing that with a handful of fate points, my character could probably survive a nuke.

Perhaps he could shut himself in a lead line refrigerator?

::lol::
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Richard_Chilton on June 15, 2011, 07:35:03 PM
Um, you might want to checkout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions)

Things like the radius of "Urban areas completely levelled (20 psi/140 kPa)" implies more than 20 stress levels - that goes for kilometers when a 20 MT bomb is dropped.

A good rule of thumb is:
Hit by a nuke = dead.
Almost hit by a nuke = almost counts in horse shoes and nuclear weapons, so near misses equal death.

There's the blast wave.  There's the fire storm.  There's the lack of air to breath.  Then there's the buildings falling on you - or rather fragments of building.  That's not talking about the fatal blast of radiation - no, nukes = death.

Richard
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Belial666 on June 15, 2011, 09:07:20 PM
Quote
Urban areas completely levelled (20 psi/140 kPa)" implies more than 20 stress levels
140 kPa = 1,3 atmospheres or 20 psi. It is comparable to suddenly being exposed to the pressure of 40 feet of water or being hit by a speeding truck.

Now, some relevant numbers;
Quote
Effects of high overpressure;
20 psi overpressure severely damages or demolishes heavily built concrete buildings
35-45 psi overpressure may cause 1% fatalities to humans (but universal injuries)
55 to 65 psi overpressure may cause 99% fatalities to humans

Distance from ground zero in feet and mortality rate for hiroshima bomb;
0 - 1000          93.0%
1000 - 2000    92.0%
2000 - 3000    86.0%
3000 - 4000    69.0%
4000 - 5000    49.0%
5000 - 6000    31.5%
6000 - 7000    12.5%
7000 - 8000    1.3%
8000 - 9000    0.5%
9000 - 10,000   0.0%

Cause of immediate death for hiroshima:
Burns            60%
Falling debris  30%
Other            10%

Cause of immediate death for nagasaki:
Burns              95%
Falling debris      9%
Flying glass        7%
Other                7%
So a 40-kiloton nuclear explosion is not automatically lethal. 7% of people within 1000 feet of ground zero did survive, despite gamma radiation, blastwave and the firestorm that followed. There have been people that survived the bombing of Hiroshima, traveled to Nagasaki, and survived the bombing of Nagasaki as well. I feel rather justified with the mechanics I gave the 40-kiloton nuke now. I might even have given it marginally too high effects.


EDIT:
This probably means that the skinwalker hunting Morgan might have survived if it had its modular points into toughness. OTOH, it might have had all its points into speed to catch up with Morgan or it was a weaker version than the one hunting Dresden.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Sanctaphrax on June 15, 2011, 10:02:54 PM
Mixed feelings here. I like the idea, but I feel as though the blast should become gradually less lethal as you move away from ground zero rather than having a D&D-style blast radius.

How would you handle the long-term effects of radioactivity? I'm told that people still get sick in Hiroshima today from lingering radiation.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Belial666 on June 15, 2011, 10:58:18 PM
Blast and Hazards don't only affect creatures. They affect the area itself.

Just like a 10-shift fireball can add the aspect "House On Fire" to the scene in addition to causing damage to its occupants, so a nuke would affect the area. The blast would replace existing aspcets by the overall scene aspect of "Apocalyptic Wasteland". The firestorm would leave behind the aspect "Scorched Earth" and the radiation hazard would leave behind the aspect "Highly Radioactive".

Then the GM could occasionally compel the "Highly Radioactive" aspect to cause radiation-related stress or consequences just like he could compel a "House On Fire" aspect to burn the occupants.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: EldritchFire on June 16, 2011, 03:47:44 AM
Blast and Hazards don't only affect creatures. They affect the area itself.

Just like a 10-shift fireball can add the aspect "House On Fire" to the scene in addition to causing damage to its occupants, so a nuke would affect the area. The blast would replace existing aspcets by the overall scene aspect of "Apocalyptic Wasteland". The firestorm would leave behind the aspect "Scorched Earth" and the radiation hazard would leave behind the aspect "Highly Radioactive".

Then the GM could occasionally compel the "Highly Radioactive" aspect to cause radiation-related stress or consequences just like he could compel a "House On Fire" aspect to burn the occupants.

Dang, I love the simplicity of FATE.

-EF
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Todjaeger on June 16, 2011, 03:57:26 AM
A few things when discussing nuclear devices...

The Hiroshima and Nagaski devices were both comparatively small atomic devices with a yield in the range of 16 - 20 kilotons.  That is roughly comparable to an atomic device which can be fired via tube artillery, or deliveryed via SRBM system.

Another key difference is that both devices were airbursts, with detonation occuring at ~10,000ft if I remember correctly.  That means that a person or building at 'Ground Zero' is still going to be nearly two miles away from the blast.

Regarding structures, while some of the buildings did indeed remain standing, they were all damaged and suffered some degree of structural compromise.

Lastly, when the devices went off, the temperature was briefly the same as on th surface of the sun which is why people were scorched into 'shadows' on the ground.  Unless the supernatural creature or being is able to shrug off 20,000 tons of explosive force, 10,000 degree temperatures, and the radiation which goes along with an atomic blast, then I would say "no" it/they wouldn't survive.

Now if the device is scaled up to a hydrogen/thermonuclear device, it changes even further.  A 2 megaton device, which is one of the standard sizes used for single warhead ICBMs is the rough equivalent of 2 million tons of explosives and the temperature at the blast is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million degrees.  By way of comparison, the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens was also of roughly 2 megatons force.  During the eruption, trees as far as 19 miles away that were not shielded from the blast by local terrain were shorn off at the base of the trunk and knocked over.  Over 200 square miles of trees were knocked down as a result of the blast.  Also, due to the collapse of the crater, Mount St. Helens dropped close to a thousand feet in height.

Treating such a device as something ~7 times as damaging as a shotgun blast but covering a large area is a bit insufficient, especially if someone/something is close to the blast area.  The pressure wave is capable of propelling debris like projectiles, with a shotgun-like effect miles away from the location of the blast.  In the example I used of the Mount St. Helens eruption, the channeled blast extended out past 19 miles, but with 'only' sufficient force to kill trees by debrading with debris and scorching them, instead of outright knocking them over.  Therefore, if looking for a 20 stress type of hit, that might be applicable for someone/something which is about 20 miles from a 2 megaton device going off.  Keep in mind also that a 20 stress hit isn't going to result in an automatic Taken Out result for anything with even Mediocre (+0) Endurance as long as they can take Consequences.

In short, there is a tremendous amount of energy in such devices, making a nuclear weapon very much a 'plot device' and should be treated as such.



Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Belial666 on June 16, 2011, 11:11:16 AM
Quote
Another key difference is that both devices were airbursts, with detonation occuring at ~10,000ft if I remember correctly
Actually, the airburst was 580 meters off the ground for Hiroshima. People at ground zero were 580 meters from the bomb. Some of them did survive, if barely.

Quote
Unless the supernatural creature or being is able to shrug off 20,000 tons of explosive force, 10,000 degree temperatures
Not 20.000 tons of explosive force - 20.000 tons of explosive. Which produced a 140 kPa blastwave, roughly equivalent to a 16-ton truck hitting per square meter (average frontal surface of a human). And it was ~3400 degrees, not 10.000, lasting a millisecond. It was just enough to ignite wood but not to melt most metals - even the relatively soft ones.

Quote
A 2 megaton device, which is one of the standard sizes used for single warhead ICBMs is the rough equivalent of 2 million tons
So, 100x more explosive. That means, according to fairly simple explosion calculations, 4.6 times greater radius and 4.6 times greater explosion strength. 1000x more explosive (a 20-megaton bomb) would mean 10 times greater radius and 10 times greater explosion strength than a 20-kiloton one.

Quote
Keep in mind also that a 20 stress hit isn't going to result in an automatic Taken Out result for anything with even Mediocre (+0) Endurance as long as they can take Consequences.
A 20 kPa blastwave will shear off trees and collapse 99% of all manmade buildings. Most humans are killed at three-four times as much overpressure. Simply put, it is four times easier for a bomb to collapse major buildings than it is to kill a human.
The human can (and usually will) be killed by the firestorm that comes after the blastwave; over 70% of the victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki died from the fire rather than sharpnell or overpressure. Thus, they did survive the initial blastwave, due to luck, situational cover or sheer toughness on their part.





All in all, the Hiroshima bomb was barely strong enough to outright kill most humans at ground zero. A 2-megaton bomb will have roughly 4,6 times the lethality and a 20-megaton bomb will have roughly 10 times the lethality. Therefore, not plot-device powerful by any means.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Haru on June 16, 2011, 05:24:51 PM
I find it amusing that with a handful of fate points, my character could probably survive a nuke.

Perhaps he could shut himself in a lead line refrigerator?

::lol::
Nice :)

But you'd only need one fate point if you can invoke it for effect.

Putting numbers like that on a nuke is like stating out god to die the death of a thousand tiny cuts, only here it is the opposite, the survival by a thousand tiny... shields. Ok, the metaphor falls apart a bit, but I think you know what I mean. In my opinion things on a scale like that should be a plot devise effect and should therefore be countered by plot devise effects (for example by invoking a refrigerator (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool)).
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Sanctaphrax on June 18, 2011, 03:48:00 PM
I disagree completely with everyone saying that nukes should be a plot device.

What does that even mean? Do you tell your players that they die, no defence possible?

If you want to use nukes in your game, you need to assign numbers of some kind.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Haru on June 18, 2011, 04:17:04 PM
If you want to use nukes in your game, you need to assign numbers of some kind.
Why?

To me it is more a situation like "there is a nuke about to blow up in 20 minutes. You better find a way to get out of here asap or you are going to blow up with it". I for one would be pretty disappointed if someone in the centre of the explosion would survive, just because he could stack a ton of fate points against an attack of a certain number. I would have no problem with a cool invoke for effect, but just number crunching for a nuke seems kind of silly.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: BumblingBear on June 18, 2011, 04:20:07 PM
Why?

To me it is more a situation like "there is a nuke about to blow up in 20 minutes. You better find a way to get out of here asap or you are going to blow up with it". I for one would be pretty disappointed if someone in the centre of the explosion would survive, just because he could stack a ton of fate points against an attack of a certain number. I would have no problem with a cool invoke for effect, but just number crunching for a nuke seems kind of silly.

I agree with this.

Surviving a modern nuke is silly. 


Also, I disagree with the OP that nukes are not plot devices.

Why?  Because in reality, if someone were to use a nuke to kill a shagnasty or something, they will be killing innocent people too.  PLUS, and most importantly, whatever country that was in would probably consider it to be an attack and counterattack.

Nuclear armaggedddon is definitely plot device territory. :P
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Sanctaphrax on June 18, 2011, 04:22:04 PM
That's not actually using a nuke. That's just using a timer, with a nuke as the end condition.

And you can do anything with enough Fate Points. Seriously, a Pure Mortal can kill the entire Senior Council with enough Fate Points. Fate Points are like the power of Plot, bent to the service of a character. If they can't save you from a nuke, there's a serious problem.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: UmbraLux on June 18, 2011, 04:44:20 PM
And you can do anything with enough Fate Points. Seriously, a Pure Mortal can kill the entire Senior Council with enough Fate Points. Fate Points are like the power of Plot, bent to the service of a character. If they can't save you from a nuke, there's a serious problem.
To each their own but, in my book, surviving a nuke means getting away from it or preventing the explosion.  Not toughing it out.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Sanctaphrax on June 18, 2011, 04:49:50 PM
How about having your skin melted off (extreme conseqence) without dying?

I think that's what happened to a lot of real-life nuke survivors.

Neither of the nukes used so far killed everyone. Newer, better, nukes might have higher numbers making survival less likely, but even then survival would be possible if you were far enough away and tough enough and protected well enough.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Tedronai on June 18, 2011, 09:27:15 PM
Sounds like a concession to me.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Richard_Chilton on June 18, 2011, 09:47:14 PM
Actually, the airburst was 580 meters off the ground for Hiroshima. People at ground zero were 580 meters from the bomb. Some of them did survive, if barely.

Just to translate, 580 meters = 1902.4 feet

So the "0 - 1000          93.0%" figure is actually something like "1902 - 2902 from the blast produced 93% mortality".  Which is the same as saying there were survivors half a mile away from the blast point.

Based on the science, I'd say that anything in the same zone of bomb would not exist after the blast - except as radioactive dust.  When "Other            10%" includes "being converted to a shadow on a building" assigning stress levels just doesn't work.  If the piece of land you're standing on becomes part of a glass crater your chances for survival are zero.

Now for the one time nukes were mentioned in the books:
Morgan, a man who made a life out of killing magical threats, wouldn't have just said "Well, that nuke probably killed a semi-divine creature.  Yes, it's of the status of maybe an angel or minor god, but I'll just assume that it was taken out because I'm known for assuming that things always work out for the best."  No, Morgan strikes me as the type who would have checked the results in great detail.  Even if somehow he had forgotten to, the Merlin would have poured the council's resources into finding out if that thing was dead or not.

Why? Because knowledge is power and the current Merlin strikes me as someone who would want to know how to kill semi-divine things.  I wouldn't be surprised if in the DV those missing nukes aren't where people think they are (they are in riverbeds in the real world) but in the hands of the White Council serving as their god killer weapons.

Which is more or less my reasoning for Morgan being right when he said the nuke killed one of them.  Looking at the stats in Our World, instant death for that thing would mean instant death for most godlings.

Richard
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Tsunami on June 18, 2011, 11:49:20 PM
I disagree completely with everyone saying that nukes should be a plot device.

What does that even mean? Do you tell your players that they die, no defence possible?

If you want to use nukes in your game, you need to assign numbers of some kind.

Honestly, if it goes so far that i drop a nuke on my players, it's for one of two reasons

1) I want to make a really scary situation, where they for some reason survive a nuclear blast. Be it that they are in a bunker, that they escape into the nevernever at the last second, or some other plot point that let's them live to fight another day.

or

2) I want them dead.

Neither of the two situations has any need for numbers on how damaging the explosion actually is.

Now if this were a Superhero Game the situation would be different, but in DFRPG... Being hit by a Nuke means death, plain and simple.

That's how i'd handle nukes.
But then again any of my games would have to be seriously off the rails to get to a point where nukes come into play. :)

So if other people's games need values for nukes... have fun... i see no need for them.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Sanctaphrax on June 19, 2011, 02:36:11 AM
Well, you can use DFRPG to play a superhero level game.

So some people could actually use these numbers.

Heck, Bergelmir would have a decent shot at surviving a small nuke if his catch was something else.

Anyway, a large nuke could certainly kill a skinwalker. As long as it didn't have Modular Abilities set to above-Mythic Toughness.

But since you mention it, there should probably be extra accuracy and weapon rating if the bomb goes off within a really small distance of you. I still wouldn't make it infinite, though, since it's just an enormous amount of mundane force. I'd just use numbers so high that nothing could realistically survive without Physical Immunity.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: BumblingBear on June 19, 2011, 02:43:33 AM
Oooh I've been inspired by this talk of nukes being plot devices.

What about an enchanted sword in a game or a lightsaber or something that spells instant death if it makes contact?

Like... a soul sucking sword or something.

That would be intense!  I just don't know whether my players would like it or hate it.  Probably hate it... but then again most of them want to play a new character now that they know the system better.

What better way to kill off a character than be killed by a Jedi?  :P
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: EldritchFire on June 19, 2011, 02:48:44 AM
I disagree completely with everyone saying that nukes should be a plot device.

What does that even mean? Do you tell your players that they die, no defence possible?

If you want to use nukes in your game, you need to assign numbers of some kind.

I am reminded of a quote: "If it has stats, we can kill it!"

If you want your players to have a chance at survival, give it numbers. If not, don't. Neither is right, neither is wrong. One may be more right for your group than the other.

-EF
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: ways and means on June 19, 2011, 02:49:38 AM
If I remeber correctly when morgan talked about nuking the skinwalker he said that he was 'almost certain' he got it.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Sanctaphrax on June 19, 2011, 02:52:32 AM
I object on a philosophical basis to statlessness. I'd rather use arbitrarily high numbers.

So BumblingBear's enchanted sword would just be weapon 45 or so in a game run by me.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: BumblingBear on June 19, 2011, 03:02:19 AM
I object on a philosophical basis to statlessness. I'd rather use arbitrarily high numbers.

So BumblingBear's enchanted sword would just be weapon 45 or so in a game run by me.

See, the thing is I think my players would accept a plot device weapon (especially if they could get ahold of it) but really don't like big numbers.

In an earlier game, I had a completed ritual release a 4 shift attack, 20 shift weapon blast.  My players hated it even though they easily cleared the attack and could have used fate points if they had rolled negative.

The huge attack out of nowhere just sat wrong with them.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Sanctaphrax on June 19, 2011, 03:31:41 AM
How odd. Infinity is considerably larger than 45.

But you do whatever keeps your players happy.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Ala Alba on June 19, 2011, 03:53:50 AM
How odd. Infinity is considerably larger than 45.

Woah, careful there. I could make a decent argument that that is not necessarily the case...  ;D

No one ever said anything about a weapon: "Infinity" anyway. A plot device weapon that kills you no matter what doesn't even need a weapon rating-- the result is just what you say it is, no more, no less. That is to say: unavoidable death.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Richard_Chilton on June 19, 2011, 04:39:28 AM
This is an aside, but since people have been talking about deadly weapons...

There's an old game called Warpworld (basically the gods came back, most tech doesn't work, etc - slightly Rifts like in setting but with better rules) where the gods had made a fantastic sword.  A diamond blade that was enchanted to the point where it could cut through practically anything and kill almost anything with one swing.  They released it on the world, got some popcorn, and watched the fun of the mortals fighting over it, laughing as it changed hands.

See it's the ultimate hand to hand weapon - but doesn't grant you any defensive ability and it's only useful in hand to hand situations.  A squad of archers could easily take the current welder out - and there would be a new fight over who would weld the "ultimate weapon".  Anyone holding it has a huge target painted on them.  They become unbeatable hand to hand but a target of missile weapons, magic, poison - basically everything except hand to hand.

Thinking about it, I now want to make a sword that's a 40 stress weapon and see if the players are wise enough to avoid it.

Richard
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Todjaeger on June 19, 2011, 05:48:40 AM
Oooh I've been inspired by this talk of nukes being plot devices.

What about an enchanted sword in a game or a lightsaber or something that spells instant death if it makes contact?

Like... a soul sucking sword or something.

That would be intense!  I just don't know whether my players would like it or hate it.  Probably hate it... but then again most of them want to play a new character now that they know the system better.

What better way to kill off a character than be killed by a Jedi?  :P

If you're looking for something which kills instantly and absolutely, it already exists.  It's called mordite.

Also, something which people keep seeming to miss or misunderstand, is that when the device detonates, the 'explosion' is actually the reaction of the surrounding environment to the sudden release of massive amounts of energy.  All this discussion of overpressure, pressure waves, etc is essentially how the energy released via fission or fusion ends up dissipating, via raditation (EM/thermal and particle) kinetic, etc.

Now the RAW might allow for a character with enough Fate points to be at Ground Zero when a nuclear device detonates and have them survive...  In reality, no, that wouldn't happen.  As Jim Butcher has commented on more than once, while the works are fiction, things like magic still follows basic laws of physics.  Magical fire is still fire, it's hot, it burns , it spreads, etc.

Also, to parapharse a Q&A I read years ago in Dragon magazine, back when TSR still offered the Marvel Superheroes RPG...
Q: "But what if Aunt May stabbed Galactus with a kitchen knife and spent 100 Karma points to achieve a Kill Result, Aunt May would've killed Galactus."
A:  "Aunt May would never be in a position to have 100 Karma points to spend stabbing Galactus..."

Basically, things don't survive being 'hit with nuclear weapons' which when you get down to it, are devices that breakdown and/or reassemble the basic building blocks of the universe.  Instead, things survive by avoiding being hit/directly hit but them.

-Cheers
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: finnmckool on June 19, 2011, 12:52:36 PM
I concur that characters could survive a nuke. But not like some of you guys are saying. It's not like the survivors of the bombs absorbed the damage and walked off. They got lucky at being behind cover. You survive a nuke by not being next to it when it goes off, not because you're tougher than the bomb. Yeah, fate points can save you from a nuke. But not by making you bomb proof. By making you run, or make smart decisions or "Hey look! A lead lined refrigerator!" I mean, Indy clearly dropped some SERIOUS points to get that and even I was declaring some hard shenanigans on that one in the theater. And that's a movie which doesn't need to follow rules. But as far as, "The nuke went off but you soaked up the damaged and walked away, you steaming, gooey mutant you." I'm just not cool with that. And if my GM has a monster walk away from a nuke? I may kill him with my dice bag. Just because if I go to the trouble of arranging a nuke attack on a critter, I expect my cleverness to be rewarded. I nuke a monster and it keeps coming I think my character might just save it the trouble and eat a bullet, because really...what else do you THROW? Actually, that's starting to sound dramatically awesome. But still...I'd be a bit pissed.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: BumblingBear on June 19, 2011, 06:20:07 PM
Hmm...  this convo got very literal very fast.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Tedronai on June 19, 2011, 08:17:18 PM
It's not like the survivors of the bombs absorbed the damage and walked off. They got lucky at being behind cover. You survive a nuke by not being next to it when it goes off, not because you're tougher than the bomb. Yeah, fate points can save you from a nuke. But not by making you bomb proof. By making you run, or make smart decisions or "Hey look! A lead lined refrigerator!"

This.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Silverblaze on June 19, 2011, 08:35:45 PM
So...physical immunity...says immunity right?

 Is that power Nuke Proof or Not Nuke Proof?

Also, Physical Immunity with the catch of nuclear weapons is going to happen in someone's game as a result of this thread. 

For shame! -  to all involved. :P (99.999999999% kidding on this last statement)
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Tedronai on June 19, 2011, 09:15:53 PM
Nukes being plot devices, ask Plot.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Sanctaphrax on June 19, 2011, 09:58:47 PM
Physical Immunity should definitely apply against nukes. Unless the catch causes trouble.

Richard_Chilton's idea sounds quite interesting to me.

Todjaeger and finnmckool make excellent points as long as we are talking about characters without Mythic Toughness.

If you toss out a nuke and fail to kill what you hit, then your GM is probably making the game too hard for you.

PS: I really really hated the fridge thing.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: JayTee on June 20, 2011, 12:35:11 AM
EDIT: Posted in the wrong thread, sorry!
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: fantazero on June 20, 2011, 12:42:38 PM
1. Where is this Nuke going off? Arent the Mortal authorities going to get involved. Isnt that what we DONT want to happen? The White Council would look down on Wizards nuking super naturals. Also the entire world would get involved with a nuclear attack, you could cause WW3.

2. If your Character can survive a nuke, wheres the difficultly? You're a god. That's why Superman isnt more popular, its hard to write stories or relate to him because he is TOO powerful, all the best stories involve either putting him in situations where his powers dont/cant work, or taking his powers away all together. Batman is a better character because he has some James Bond gadgets and stuff but the end of the day, he's just a man. If I told you Superman stopped an Asteroid from hitting the earth, you would yawn, but if I told you Robin the Boy Wonder did it, you would ask HOW?!

3. The bombs that went off during WW2 are nothing compared to what we have now
(http://www.blogiseverything.com/files/pics/nuclear_bomb_comparison_thumb.jpg)
Fire cracker vs Truck bomb.

4. Even if you did have a handfull of Fate Points and could survive the blast, whats the mental, physical and social stress of Plasma Hot Air, Radiation, Sunburn ect.
Mental "I just saw a town of people melt"
Physical "I'm burned and scarred all over"
SOcial "No one wants to be my friend because I glow in the dark and make people sterile."

5. How got the nuke? Did a PC bring it? What do I need to role in resources and contacts to get a Nuke? Also I would need scholarship to USE the damn thing. And atleast a stunt of "I worked on a nuclear submarine" or something

6. Whats the delivery  method?

This whole thing is silly
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Belial666 on June 20, 2011, 05:10:45 PM
Quote
If your Character can survive a nuke, wheres the difficultly? You're a god.
Nicodemus can survive nukes. In fact, he's immune to them (says so on his sheet). So are all ghosts because they're immune to all attacks they don't acknowledge and a nuke is too fast and explodes too far for them to do so - even if they wanted to, for some reason.  And both ghosts and Nicodemus have been defeated in the series. Repeatedly.



Also, my current character in a PbP game could survive a nuke due to death being a nuisance to her. Nuke her and 5 mins later she comes back and she'll be radioactive. That doesn't mean there is no challenge in the game. In fact, I love some of the challenges in that campaign.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: fantazero on June 20, 2011, 07:53:24 PM
Nicodemus can survive nukes. In fact, he's immune to them (says so on his sheet). So are all ghosts because they're immune to all attacks they don't acknowledge and a nuke is too fast and explodes too far for them to do so - even if they wanted to, for some reason.  And both ghosts and Nicodemus have been defeated in the series. Repeatedly.



Also, my current character in a PbP game could survive a nuke due to death being a nuisance to her. Nuke her and 5 mins later she comes back and she'll be radioactive. That doesn't mean there is no challenge in the game. In fact, I love some of the challenges in that campaign.

Existing on another plane of existance that bleed through to the earthly realm isnt the same as surviving a Nuclear Reaction.

So Nickleheads rope wont burn in the heat? I want a WOJ on this
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Belial666 on June 20, 2011, 08:10:52 PM
Quote
So Nickleheads rope wont burn in the heat? I want a WOJ on this
That is also in the book. As an artifact, The Hangman's Noose is indestructible except by a ritual perversion of its own purpose. Just like Swords of the Cross, The Blackstaff, the Denarian coins and other similar artifacts. Most IoPs get this for no extra refresh BTW.


In short, creatures and objects from a level of power and up aren't killable by nukes. Some of them aren't killable at all, even if you're supposed to be their "catch". The Fallen and the Walkers for example.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Haru on June 20, 2011, 08:27:13 PM
A large part of an explosion is, that is involves heat, or more specific: fire. Fire is a cleansing power, as stated in both the novels and the rpg books. A fire of that magnitude would certainly be enough for me to count as a cleansing ritual on an IoP. And once the noose is gone, so is Nicodemus. The only thing that will remain is the coin, not because it is better enchanted, but for me it exists on another level of plot.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: fantazero on June 20, 2011, 08:30:40 PM
Honestly a nuke is like throwing something into the sun. If the fire of the sun isnt enough to kill things, but sunrise is, then something is wrong.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Sanctaphrax on June 20, 2011, 08:36:31 PM
Wait, what does sunrise kill?

Anyway, the noose seems like it ought to make it through the nuke, given the use of the words "up to and including a nuclear strike" in Nicodemus's writeup.

I wonder if the radiation affects the cleansing-ness of the fire from a nuke.

Anyway, the rules being used for nukes here could also be used for normal bombs. Am I right in assuming that nobody objects to the mechanics so much as the idea that a nuke has them?

Personally, I think that the nuke should have greater effect at point-blank range. Otherwise, this all looks good to me.

PS: Glad to hear that you like the challenges in EtA, Belial. Which ones were you thinking of as especially good?
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Haru on June 20, 2011, 08:46:17 PM
Anyway, the rules being used for nukes here could also be used for normal bombs. Am I right in assuming that nobody objects to the mechanics so much as the idea that a nuke has them?

That is pretty much it, at least for me. "Nuke" in the last part of this thread not only refers to the specific object, but to anything of its scale.

Changes spoilers:
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: ways and means on June 20, 2011, 08:47:22 PM
Interesting enough I would argue that mordite might be able to kill nicodemous but I don't think a nuke would because mordite is a conceptual weapon (aka plot device) and a nuke when you get down to it is just a really really really (20 or so more reallies) big explosion. I am ignoring radiation because this is a debate about people with mythic toughness or PI surviving a nuke none of them have to worry about radiation.  
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Belial666 on June 20, 2011, 08:49:41 PM
Quote
Honestly a nuke is like throwing something into the sun. If the fire of the sun isnt enough to kill things, but sunrise is, then something is wrong.
Not really. Sufficiently tough buildings can survive a nuke. They might be very damaged but still standing. If you throw a building, mountain or even planet into the sun, you aren't seeing it again.



And that's my point that nukes aren't plot-device level poweful. Buildings, while quite tough, have a finite amount of toughness. Thus, since they can survive a nuclear strike, a nuclear strike isn't plot-device strong.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Tedronai on June 20, 2011, 08:54:43 PM
Begging the question, W&M.


@Belial
Just because something is survivable does not mean that it is not a plot device.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Sanctaphrax on June 21, 2011, 06:44:50 PM
Which raises the question of what exactly a plot device is. Because when you get right down to it, everything is a device used to advance the plot.

I usually use the term to refer to something without stats.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: devonapple on June 21, 2011, 06:55:13 PM
I usually use the term to refer to something without stats.

As would I. Having inadvertently killed a party because I gave monster stats to a puzzle with teeth, I am eager to avoid such misunderstandings in future.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: polkaneverdies on June 21, 2011, 09:40:18 PM
SOcial "No one wants to be my friend because I glow in the dark and make people sterile."

I didn't want it to go unremarked that was hilarious.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Sanctaphrax on June 23, 2011, 02:48:24 AM
@devonapple: Fortunately, you now play DFRPG and so you don't have to worry about such things anymore.

@polka: That actually raises an interesting question. Can you use a social consequence to absorb physical stress?
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Blackblade on June 23, 2011, 05:03:50 AM
As would I. Having inadvertently killed a party because I gave monster stats to a puzzle with teeth, I am eager to avoid such misunderstandings in future.

Sounds like there's an interesting story behind that.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Todjaeger on June 23, 2011, 06:42:09 AM
@polka: That actually raises an interesting question. Can you use a social consequence to absorb physical stress?

Actually, that doesn't sound so much like a Social consequence as an Extreme consequence with permanent Aspect change.

And with the way I GM, that would also be a Fate point generator...  Trying to hide from on someone in a dark alleyway, forget it, the glow literally lights up your position.  Have a positive social interaction with someone, forget that as well, they're too distracted watching clumps of your hair fall out as you talk to them, and so on...

Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: devonapple on June 23, 2011, 04:03:27 PM
Sounds like there's an interesting story behind that.

Long story short: a trap used a custom-built Construct (with Hit Dice, damage, and an attack roll) as the mechanism of injury/death, as opposed to a simple attack roll and damage. It was well beyond what the party could have defeated at their level (though a sufficiently advanced group could have destroyed it, which is fine), so they were supposed to find a way to disable it without fighting. The problem looked like a nail, so they kept using their hammer. Except in reverse.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: zenten on June 23, 2011, 05:41:33 PM
There's a limit to how much Fate points can help on a single roll.  Even if all 7 of your personal aspects apply, and you have three more aspects created through maneuvers or whatever, that's still only +20 to your roll.
Title: Re: Nukes
Post by: Sanctaphrax on June 24, 2011, 03:22:30 AM
You can always spend Fate Points for +1.

Also, declarations are handy.