I got my copy of Dangerous covenants finally, I was looking at the gear and I got to the section on explosives, specifically the barradium. It mentions this compound is also in thermal detonators. At the end it says all barradium weapons inflict vehicle scale damage, but range is personal scale.

I'm away from my core book, but is the thermal detonater listed as vehicle damage? If not, what do you think about this possible change? Shows why everyone in Jabba's palace was afraid of one.

*edited for spelling and punctuation.

No its listed as personal scale.

If its was vehicle scale it would make me wonder, why people use torpedoes and missiles? Since you can have pocket nukes (200 base damage and out striping turbolasers).

It's no wonder the people in Jabba's palace were afraid of Leia's thermal detonator. Clearly the GM of that session made it clear to everyone that as per the core rules, he ruled that everyone in that room were considered Engaged with one another for purposes of the explosion.

Thermal detonators are still at personal scale.

The thing to remember is that a thermal detonator is designed to be used in combat, being in a convenient spherical package with an activator switch that doesn't take any particular degree of skill to utilize (aside from the timing necessary when using any type of grenade to ensure maximum effectiveness). It also likely doesn't have as much of a barradium charge as the explosive version, seeing as how the explosives are rated at Encumbrance 2 while the detonators are Encumbrance 1.

Also, the Blast quality on thermal detonators is noted in the weapon's description to be Short Range, not Engaged like usual. So for the RotJ scene, the crowd's reaction to Leia drawing a TAD was justified, as a number of them are within several meters, and if this person is crazy enough to use a weapon that could very likely take them out as well as the target, who knows what else they might try. If you've seen Dark Knight, remember how quickly the mob bosses backed off once Joker revealed that cluster of hand grenades inside his coat? After that and the "disappearing pencil trick," it gave most of them a pretty clear idea that Joker wasn't someone to screw around with.

While part of me agrees that a thermal detonator should remain personal scale damage wise, if the change was meant, it would not be the first example of something being not in the stat block, but in the text. Such as the toydarian force immunity.

As to the torpedo/missile question, the barradium explosive states that all barradiun weapons (including thermal detonators) do vehicle damage, with personal scale range considerations. A missiles or torpedo would have further range and speed rated in vehicle scale. Including any blast radius.

This (possible) change makes these weapons truly deadly, as the EU reputation suggests, as well as a dangerous gamble for anyone to use. Not being able to throw it far enough, or a despsair roll can result in a very bad day for a character.

As the text in dangerous covenants does say ALL barradium weapons. Now i agree that 200 damage is a bit much, so in lieu of this new info, I'll be changing the thermal detonator yo 2 vehicle scale damage.

Reading over the two sections (CRB 160 & 165; DC 55), I think what happened is in the CRB, they scaled it properly, but showed it on a personal scale (the vehicle damage of a thermal detonator would be 2, making the 20 damage listed be personal). The CRB mentions how a detonator can level a building, then DC mentions similarly with enough charge, you can level a city. I get the feeling DC (having listed "explosive baradium charge" but "proton grenade" and listing "baradium" as damage 3 [not 2 like in CRB]) is not referring to a grenade, but a detonation (like having a brick of C4). The CRB also says thermal detonators have an encumbrance of 1, but DC says baradium has encumbrance of 2.

They're talking about two different uses (think of it like a black powder bomb vs a grenade). I don't know why they wouldn't just list the damage as 30 and not even mention having damage actually be vehicle scale, but that's my theory. I really don't think thermal detonators got nerfed 170 points of damage (going from 200 - 30) and I certainly don't believe a grenade would do more damage than a charge.

Another possibility is that the detonator is classified separately. Having been built so specifically (as a grenade), they listed the stats differently (possibly assuming you're more likely to use a detonator on personnel but a charge on a building or ship).

The thing about a TD is that it's not primarily a grenade, but an explosive charge. So when used in this fashion I'd allow the rules for setting explosive charges from page 55 of Dangerous Covenants to apply to it - basically adding damage for each success on a Mechanics check to plant the charge.

If barradium charges and thermal detonators are supposed to be same they'd have the same stat blocks. And personal vs vehicle scale damage isn't something you just kinda forget to mention.

More likely whoever wrote the barradium charge entry wrote "weapon" when he meant "charge."

I agree that the charge and thermal detonator are different, as the charge has a longer blast radius, more damage, etc. In essence a brick of C4.

The issue I have is, literal interpretation vs intent, that as read, a thermal detonator should be x10 damage. I believe this is already factored in, with the damage listed as 20.

A bomb whether dropped, placed or thrown is a weapon. A nuclear bomb is often described as a weapon of mass destruction

Chemical weapons such mustard gas can't be weilded in hand, per se.

This is why I m changing the stat block on the thermal detonator to coincide with what is intended, in my opinion, with dangerous covenants.

Also, I have at least one player that will always try to use literal interpretation of rules, and five thermal detonators will not cripple a star destroyer, unless the campaign calls for a strike from the inside with placement at precise points.

TBS, the only warning I would give about making thermal detonators 2 vehicle scale damage vs 20 personal scale is that extra successes add to damage. So by making it vehicle scale, extra successes now greatly up the damage on the thermal detonator. Something to consider.

Yeah, Ahrimon, I think that's probably the only reason to make that change in the first place. For me, I think it'll stay personal when being thrown (with Ranged Light) but be vehicle scale when being planted (with Mechanics). How often that'll come up, I'm not sure. But that's what I'm thinking.

Also the "feel free to add +50" to rolls on the crit table can be unfun too.

Maybe its just me but I'm seeing a pattern that suggests 20 is the max base damage of personal scale weapons...

I did think about the success issue, and I don't mind, as I will often upgrade the difficulty as a GM. . After all, if you don't get out of the blast radius, you'll regret it.

Ok, some new thoughts/realizations (for myself at least)...

1) I forgot about the added damage per success needing to scale too (that makes a huge difference)

2) Thermal Detonators are intended to be used as grenades. They use ranged light and have a range of short - they're a thrown weapon. In addition to being timed, they also detonate on impact and have a deadman's switch feature.

2b) The TD blast range of short is enough to hit everyone in a cantina. Look at the beginner game book, when you enter the cantina, it's specified that the range across the whole room is short. One TD could hit everyone in that building.

2c) The Baradium charge radius of Long is enough to take the "small town" mentioned.

2d) Baridium is intended like C4. It uses mechanics and does not have a range. It is also measured in kilos (under "Base Damage" p54).

3) There is a difference specified in the first paragraph of tarascii explosives baradium charge - "...best known for being used in thermal detonators. However, baradium can be detonated independantly..." and goes on to talk about baradium on its own.

4) You gain additional damage with the charges if you add more. There has been nothing about that prior (including TDs)

5) There does seem to be a specific difference between "weapon" and "charge" but under the initial EXPLOSIVES headding, they do say explosives are not technically weapons, although they can be used as such.
With that in mind, when I read "Baradium weapons deal..." I'm taking it to mean "when you use baradium explosive charges as an offensive device"

All that to say It makes most sense (to me at least) to say the stats in Dangerous Covenants in regards to Baradium are referring to its use as a charge and is intended to leave Thermal Detonators as they were written in the CRB.

Reading over the two sections (CRB 160 & 165; DC 55), I think what happened is in the CRB, they scaled it properly, but showed it on a personal scale (the vehicle damage of a thermal detonator would be 2, making the 20 damage listed be personal).

I think you're right.

Don't Thermal Detonators also have Breach 1? Bypassing 1 vehicle Armour or 10 Soak. Not many could survive that (nobody sane should believe they could, anyway) - making Leia's threat valid, even if the radius wasn't enough to clear the room.

I think you're right.

Don't Thermal Detonators also have Breach 1? Bypassing 1 vehicle Armour or 10 Soak. Not many could survive that (nobody sane should believe they could, anyway) - making Leia's threat valid, even if the radius wasn't enough to clear the room.

Yes, TDs do have Breach 1, ensuring that even if you're character is a soak monster, there's little to no chance of them surviving one.

Unless you are wearing cortosis armor...

Also for those of you trying to parse language to figure out what is what:

You have a hopeless task ahead of you. Consider that the only difference between a tool and a weapon is intent. If you want to harm someone a hammer is a weapon. You could use Mjolnir to hammer nails and it would make one heck of a sledge hammer for splitting logs. There are countless dissertations on the machete as both a tool and a symbol of violent revolution.

Its why governments that ban weapons – despite the best of intentions – are doomed to failure. Our greatest strength as humans is our unrivaled adaptability, but like any power it can be used to ignoble ends.

Alfred Nobel invented dynamite to mine and make roads, Oppenheimer invented the nuke to defeat the Nazis, etc.

If your players want to abuse the system they will. If you want to catch the players in a baradium bomb you can have a short campaign. Realistically, who cares how much damage it does? If you are in the blast radius of a building leveling bomb I don't care how spiffy your armor is, you are meat jelly inside it.

Unless you are wearing cortosis armor...

Then you deserve to live.

All others must die.

There are countless dissertations on the machete as both a tool and a symbol of violent revolution.

Machete is more than that. Machete is... a legend!

Reading over the two sections (CRB 160 & 165; DC 55), I think what happened is in the CRB, they scaled it properly, but showed it on a personal scale (the vehicle damage of a thermal detonator would be 2, making the 20 damage listed be personal).

I think you're right.

Don't Thermal Detonators also have Breach 1? Bypassing 1 vehicle Armour or 10 Soak. Not many could survive that (nobody sane should believe they could, anyway) - making Leia's threat valid, even if the radius wasn't enough to clear the room.

I have only one thing to say to that.

Eeeeeeeeewwwwwww!!!!

Remember, in a room a blast damage weapon can affect everyone. I'd judge that in Jabba's palace, everyone in that audience chamber would have been affected. (I always choose narrative common sense over rules.)

Except maybe someone standing behind Jabba..............

Except maybe someone standing behind Jabba..............

Jabba provides more than 10 Soak? ...I could see that, actually.

Sure, although I doubt thermal detonator scorched Hutt guts smell terribly appetizing......