Steve's Latest ruling

[JmOz]

Okay, recently Steve was asked a couple of questions (Cross posting don't you love it?) about how to round leaping based on Strength from multiple sources.

Some people feel that it should be based on total strength, while others feel that it should be based on each incurment of Str.

To give an example for those not following the rules thread

12 Str +13 Str OIF should be 5" of leaping based on 25 Str

or 12 Str + 13 Str OIF should be 4" of leaping based on 2 +2 =4"

Steve has agreed with the latter, siting complexity, but says go ahead if you don't mind the complexity.

So the question is this: Who thinks Steve's ruling is poor (Can't be wrong do to his postion) and who agrees with it

[Osprey]

I don't SEE any complexity.

[sbarron]

Steve is always right. That was too easy.

[JmOz]

Yes, yes, but did you ever do it the way he is saying before, will you now, and do you think that if you were in his postion you would have done the same thing?

[Monolith]

Darren Watts takes his Miracle Pill, and for 1 hour becomes HEROMAN.
8 STR +42 STR OIF (pill) 1 charge continuing 1 hour
HEROMAN has a 50 STR but can only leap 9.5”.

Steve Long puts on his battlesuit and becomes DARKNIGHT.
18 STR + 32 STR OIF (battlesuit)
DARKNIGHT has a 50 STR but can only leap 9.5”.

Ben “CRUSHER” Seeman is a brick with 50 STR, but grows tired very quickly when using it.
10 STR +8 STR 2x END, +8 STR 3xEND, +8 STR 4xEND, +8 STR 5x END, +8 STR 6x END.
CRUSHER has a 50 STR but can only leap 9.5”

Monolith is a brick with 50 STR.
MONOLITH can leap 10”.

HEROMAN, DARKNIGHT, and CRUSHER should not lose any leaping when they have the same STR as MONOLITH.

[Vondy]

I'm with Monolith on this one.

[nblade]

I guess I would have a counter question. If you think leaping should be done at each item/sources of str increase, what about HTH damage and other figured numbers?

While in a perfect world, it would make more sense to calc each one seperately, I'm not about to do that. So the reason I said Steve was right has little to with it correctness, rather if I make a exception with leaping, I should make an exception for all devrived and figured values from str. Not something I'm fond of doing.

[zornwil]

Although I think it should be done as the total STR then divided (in other words, the first example of 12 STR + 13 OIF STR = 5"), I don't really care much. It's the kind of thing I wouldn't think to look at (and never did in HD) but if a player corrected me while I was GMing I'd just say "oh, okay, whatever" regardless of what the rules say.

I think Steve's ruling was more in the context of the programming. I would say THEORETICALLY that this isn't acceptable but practically speaking if this minor glitch remained in HD a long time I wouldn't care. If a player needs that extra inch so vitally they will typically push, if they don't have enough END or STUN left to push, well, that's rare enough, and at that point they'll probably be scouring their character sheet and if they know enough notice it, if they don't know enough and it "really matters" in the context of the game drama and fun, then a good GM would probably allow a CON or EGO roll or just fudge it ("owe me an XP to offset it later) and be done with it.

[SuperPheemy]

It looks like a rounding issue to me. And it looks like a minor one at that, quibbling over .5" one way or the other. Myself, I'd go with the simpler answer, that being the idea that Strength is strength regardless of how the final value is tallied.

Do what you want in your campaign. The extra .5" doesn't really make a difference, so long as all the characters are consisitent with one another.

[JmOz]

If I understand the latest question: then yes I do, I think a character should not be penalised because they put a couple of more points in there body str instead on giving it to the battlesuit (at a points savings).

Here is the non sense part of it

Str 10 + 30 OIF =8" leaping, 30 points

Str 28 + 12 OIF= 7.5" Leaping, 36 points. Now the character who spent more is getting penalised (ADMITINGLY with uot the suit they have more,)

[Supreme]

Maybe I missed something, but since when does the leaping from a 13 STR round down to 2"?

[nHammer]

I'm going to reply before I read what others have to say.

I think the poll should be shut down. Is Steve right or wrong? The man pretty much made 5th Ed. So whatever ruleing he makes is right.

A far as which way the leaping should be calculated. I say any Strength that can be used for leaping should be added together to figure out how far a character can leap.

Now I'll go see what others say.

[MarkusDark]

Originally posted by JmOz

To give an example for those not following the rules thread

12 Str +13 Str OIF should be 5" of leaping based on 25 Str

or 12 Str + 13 Str OIF should be 4" of leaping based on 2 +2 =4"

Steve has agreed with the latter, siting complexity, but says go ahead if you don't mind the complexity.

So the question is this: Who thinks Steve's ruling is poor (Can't be wrong do to his postion) and who agrees with it

As stated, it is the 'official' ruling but individual house rules apply. I personally wouldn't use the ruling as is. If such breakdowns are considered, then shouldn't the character's base HTH damage be 4.5 dice instead of 5? Then you would have to look into the other stats that are added onto and do similiar items. Should CV's now be determined by Dex breakdowns?

I would say for ease of gameplay and removal of confusion that the overall value should be considered as if it was a single value. But the reply was more of a programming issue than a pen and paper issue, from what I read at least.

I will also admit that having this poll does have a slight feeling of "Mommy, Dad said no, can you say yes?" to it...

But why would someone have only a 12 Str? That doesn't even go over the hump for a Str Roll. ;)

[misterdeath]

Well, the basic idea of Hero Math is that you round at each step of the calculation.

So, in that case, Steve's right. And yeah, that's how I've always done it.

It turns out in this case, that the problem lies against the character, instead of in favor, like it does with Active Point/Real Point Calculations and the like.

It's consistant. And because it hurts as much as helps, that makes it fair.

If I buy 30 Str (1/2 End) + 30 Str (1/2 End, OIF) then my total Endurance cost is 2 not 3. (30 makes 3 End, but Half End makes it 1 End for each half. That's 2 pts total) So, in that case you're getting the benefit in your favor. Leaping rounds the other way.

From a practical standpoint, you can add 1 extra point to each of the powers so that it round up instead of down, and so comes out to the right power.

D

[MarkusDark]

whoops

[zornwil]

Originally posted by nblade
I guess I would have a counter question. If you think leaping should be done at each item/sources of str increase, what about HTH damage and other figured numbers?

While in a perfect world, it would make more sense to calc each one seperately, I'm not about to do that. So the reason I said Steve was right has little to with it correctness, rather if I make a exception with leaping, I should make an exception for all devrived and figured values from str. Not something I'm fond of doing.

But doesn't it work this way? 12 STR + 17 STR = 6 PD (not 5 PD, ie, not 2 PD + 2 PD).

By the way, MC actually does add the STR together before making the leap number.

Well actually I just looked at HD and 12 STR + 17 STR = 5 PD!! That sucks. MC does it "right" (by my way of thinking) and 12 STR + 17 STR = 6 PD, even in the new template for 5th.

[i3ullseye]

So we have a character with various magic/cosmis items that each assist his stats. Under the newly stated rule...

Base STR of 12 =2"
Ring of +7 STR = +1"
Belt with various stats including +2 STR= +0"
Drinks a potion of 2D6 str, and rolls a 7= +1"

So total leap is now 4", but total Strength is now 28, which would normally be 6" if you round up.

So i say total it then calculate. The extra points of strength do not just dissappear as they stack.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by MarkusDark
As stated, it is the 'official' ruling but individual house rules apply. I personally wouldn't use the ruling as is. If such breakdowns are considered, then shouldn't the character's base HTH damage be 4.5 dice instead of 5? Then you would have to look into the other stats that are added onto and do similiar items. Should CV's now be determined by Dex breakdowns?
This pretty much hits the nail right on the head.

12 STR +13 STR OIF

If Steve's ruling to round each part separately is correct then the damage should be 4.5d6 not 5d6 (12 rounds to 2d6 and 13 rounds to 2.5d6).

The ruling even affects Figured Characteristics if you use an extended addition:

13 STR +13STR 2x END, +13 STR 3xEND, +13 STR 4xEND, +13 STR 5xEND.

In this instance PD and REC would be +15 instead of +13 and STUN would be +35 instead of +33. Not huge differences, but still there should not be any differences at all, IMO.

[nblade]

Originally posted by zornwil
But doesn't it work this way? 12 STR + 17 STR = 6 PD (not 5 PD, ie, not 2 PD + 2 PD).

By the way, MC actually does add the STR together before making the leap number.

Well actually I just looked at HD and 12 STR + 17 STR = 5 PD!! That sucks. MC does it "right" (by my way of thinking) and 12 STR + 17 STR = 6 PD, even in the new template for 5th.

Don't ask me anymore, I've think I've misread too many posts lately. I think understand what the issue is. I must have misread it three or four times.

[BobGreenwade]

Originally posted by sbarron
Steve is always right. That was too easy. This is why I voted that way -- he's the Guy In Charge, and the GIC always makes the right ruling. :)

On the other hand, if the poll had asked, "I agree with Steve" versus "I disagree with Steve," I would have voted the latter. I always add the Characteristic together first, then figure the results thereof. (Like elevators/lifts as secondary Vehicles on a large Vehicle -- I say the Vehicle pays 1:5 and the owning character is allowed 1:25, but Steve says the owner pays 1:5 directly, and since he owns the company he's obviously right.)

[JmOz]

FOR THE RECORD: (In regards to the Mommy/Daddy game above comment)

This is not me trying to change Steve's mind, I Know better, once steve makes a ruling you need to convince him between a shadow of a doubt that he is wrong before he will change it, I can't and won't try that on something this frivolous.

My actual reason for posting this was to see how opinions ran on the desision, it was something I was curious on, as I did not agree with it, which BTW is in the VAST minority of most of the desisions he has done (The only one that comes to mind other than this was Foci in VarLim, I'm sure there were others). I was curious as to see how many agreed with my mentality, and realising this is far from scientificly accurate, the poll is still running about 40% with. Furthermore the comments made by those who have voted for agreeing with Steve have mostly been Steve is write because he is Steve (Note I comment on that in the opening post), so this is in no way negating Steve's authority.

Steve Long has done a wonderful job, and I can see his logic in this, the fact that I disagree with it does not negate it. There is a concept I learned about in my Legal Enviroments class a few weeks ago that pretty much sums up my thoughts, a real lawyer or better student than I can give you the details BUT before a case can go to appeals it is reveiwed, and one of the criteria is that if the rulings of the court are those a reasonable person would make, despite if they are agreed with or not, then it will not be retried (or something like that, it was only touched on briefly). I don't expect it over ruled, I just want to see who agrees with it or not.

Even Steve's comment in the response was essentialy I said this because it seems the easiest ways (I would disagree with that as well) but if you want the more complex way go for it.

As for this thread should be closed down, that is Stevesand Bens (darrens too I guess) desision. I don't think they will as no one has gotten nasty yet, keeping it on topic, and not calling names etc...

Something to think about, why is it that when ever someone has anything negative to say on these boards about the company or the game you hear something akin to "How dare you come here and say this". This has started to get under my skin, and to clarify I am not talking about name calling or lies.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Monolith
This pretty much hits the nail right on the head.

12 STR +13 STR OIF

If Steve's ruling to round each part separately is correct then the damage should be 4.5d6 not 5d6 (12 rounds to 2d6 and 13 rounds to 2.5d6).

The ruling even affects Figured Characteristics if you use an extended addition:

13 STR +13STR 2x END, +13 STR 3xEND, +13 STR 4xEND, +13 STR 5xEND.

In this instance PD and REC would be +15 instead of +13 and STUN would be +35 instead of +33. Not huge differences, but still there should not be any differences at all, IMO.

I don't think that str with limitations adds to figured characteristics unless the limitations affect the figured characteristics themselves. Since PD, Rec, and Stun don't cost end, the true figured characteristics would be 3 PD, 3 Rec, and 7 stun.

[JmOz]

Originally posted by BobGreenwade
This is why I voted that way -- he's the Guy In Charge, and the GIC always makes the right ruling. :)

On the other hand, if the poll had asked, "I agree with Steve" versus "I disagree with Steve," I would have voted the latter. I always add the Characteristic together first, then figure the results thereof. (Like elevators/lifts as secondary Vehicles on a large Vehicle -- I say the Vehicle pays 1:5 and the owning character is allowed 1:25, but Steve says the owner pays 1:5 directly, and since he owns the company he's obviously right.)

Bob,

Thank you for posting,

I actually intended more along the lines of I agree or disagree, except I could not (For some brain anarism reason) think of a better way to say it than that which I did.

As for the elevators, I call them freebees personaly...

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Gary
I don't think that str with limitations adds to figured characteristics unless the limitations affect the figured characteristics themselves. Since PD, Rec, and Stun don't cost end, the true figured characteristics would be 3 PD, 3 Rec, and 7 stun.
No, you are wrong. STR in a Power Framework does not affect Figured Charactistics. STR bought with Limitations (example: Only In Hero ID) still add to Figured Characteristics unless the player buys the Limitation to not allow it.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Monolith
No, you are wrong. STR in a Power Framework does not affect Figured Charactistics. STR bought with Limitations (example: Only In Hero ID) still add to Figured Characteristics unless the player buys the Limitation to not allow it.

NRBH, but I'm 100% positive that any limitations that affect str must affect the figured characteristics as well to get them. OIHD affects the figured, so str bought with it will generate it. X5 end doesn't affect figured, so str bought with it doesn't generate any.

It'd be pretty stupid if it did. For example, you would be able to purchase +100 str X10 end with no intention of ever using that str, and get +20 pd, +20 rec, and +50 stun for the price of 20 points!

[JmOz]

Gary is right

By the way Mon, MP require you to take the Does not figure lim, but you do get the savings, it was a change/clasification in 5th

Gary is wrong: Leaping is not a figured characteristic, insteat it is a trait of STR

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Gary
NRBH, but I'm 100% positive that any limitations that affect str must affect the figured characteristics as well to get them. OIHD affects the figured, so str bought with it will generate it. X5 end doesn't affect figured, so str bought with it doesn't generate any.
You are correct about that. I had forgotten that it was part of the Characteristics Power.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Supreme
Maybe I missed something, but since when does the leaping from a 13 STR round down to 2"?
It does not round to 2", it rounds to 2.5".

[Monolith]

Originally posted by JmOz
By the way Mon, MP require you to take the Does not figure lim, but you do get the savings, it was a change/clasification in 5th
Yeah, I knew that. But the Limitation value was not important to the point I was attempting to make. :)

[slikmar]

I would total first then figure.
Your arguments on damage are wrong though:
12str = 2d6+1
13str = 2.5d6
2d6+1 + 2.5d6 = 5d6 all the way back to first edition(and man did i make some bad characters then)

[BobGreenwade]

Originally posted by JmOz
Bob,

Thank you for posting,

I actually intended more along the lines of I agree or disagree, except I could not (For some brain anarism reason) think of a better way to say it than that which I did. Well, it's actually a combination of OCD and being a lawyer wannabe that got me hung up on the semantics. :D
As for the elevators, I call them freebees personaly... And for your game, that's the right ruling. It really only makes a difference anyway if something's trying to outrun one, or using one to outrun something.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by slikmar
I would total first then figure.
Your arguments on damage are wrong though:
12str = 2d6+1
13str = 2.5d6
2d6+1 + 2.5d6 = 5d6 all the way back to first edition(and man did i make some bad characters then)
Normal damage does not have any "+1" modifiers associated with it. Only Killing damage has a +1 damage figure.

[JmOz]

OCD?

[Monolith]

Originally posted by JmOz
OCD?
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

[BobGreenwade]

Originally posted by Monolith
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. You are correct, sir! :D

[lemming]

Originally posted by misterdeath
Well, the basic idea of Hero Math is that you round at each step of the calculation.

So, in that case, Steve's right. And yeah, that's how I've always done it.


That's actually the reason I voted "Steve was wrong". I hate rounding at each step. IMO, it's needlessly complex. :)

That said, I have no problem with Steve's ruling. I like seeing my STR in nice even packages of 5 anyway...

[Captain Obvious]

I have to disagree with Steve's ruling on this one. It's not at all complicated to total the STR and then divide.

The complications in this whole scenario come from all the calculations involved in adding the effects of STR from various sources. To take an extreme example, a guy with base STR 10 and 100 different foci that provide 2 pts each will only leap 2", even though standard game logic says he can chew up concrete with casual STR. Someone (Monolith I think) has pointed out that if you figure leaping this way, why not damage, lifting power, figured characteristics, etc? This guy will have spent 200 active points in STR and have very, very little to show for it.

Much simpler to say total it all first and do all calculations from there.

[i3ullseye]

Thank you Captian Obvious.....

Wow, thats the first time i have ever said that and NOT been referring to John Madden.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious
I have to disagree with Steve's ruling on this one. It's not at all complicated to total the STR and then divide.

The complications in this whole scenario come from all the calculations involved in adding the effects of STR from various sources. To take an extreme example, a guy with base STR 10 and 100 different foci that provide 2 pts each will only leap 2", even though standard game logic says he can chew up concrete with casual STR. Someone (Monolith I think) has pointed out that if you figure leaping this way, why not damage, lifting power, figured characteristics, etc? This guy will have spent 200 active points in STR and have very, very little to show for it.

Much simpler to say total it all first and do all calculations from there.

I think someone buying 100 foci with 2 str each is just trying to point shave and deserves what he gets. :p

[rjcurrie]

JmOz,

I have to ask you this. What is your agenda? Why is it that everytime you disagree with one of Steve's rulings, you feel the need to start a discussion thread on the matter? If you don't like a ruling, don't use it.

Are you perhaps trying to undermine Steve's position as Line Editor? Perhaps, you think if you can get enough people to agree with you that Steve is wrong, they will inundate Hero Games with letters, asking for Steve to be replaced as Line Editor with you being the suggested replacement. This would also explain your eagerness to jump in and answer questions from the 5th Edition board while Steve was in London last fall.

Now, I sincerely doubt that is really your motive and you do, of course, have the right to disagree with Steve. But do you really need to post a thread every time you do? The only reason that I can think of is that you are seeking some kind of validation for these disagreements. Are you that insecure? Or you are, for God only knows why, trying to prove yourself as a superior interpreter of the Hero System rules to Steve Long? I'm just curious as to what you hope to get out of posting these threads?

And by the way, as a minor correction, JmOz, this is not a new ruling by Steve, it was made sometime last fall and there were questions on the 5th Edition board at the time dealing with the matter. You just didn't notice it until now :).

[JmOz]

Yup that insecure, seriously, I will give you a peak in my head, I warn you now that it is a jumbled mess, and may not make total sense, it may also contradict itself at times, but these are my musings.

I normaly do it because I get a thought in my head of "How many people think the same as I do", a matter of curiosity if you will (as I think I said in a responce above). In the end it doesn't really matter, but I start wondering, and then my impulsive nature kicks in. Many of the threads I start I probably would not if I thought about it longer.

I also sometimes get the feeling that people see Steve's official rulings and say "Yes, this is the right way, because Steve has said so" with out ever exploring the questions of "why" behind it, of cource it is always easier to ask the Why questions about those thing you don't agree with or understand.

For the record I disagree with Steve more often than I post these threads, this is probably the most frivoulous one I have done, but part of that is that I had entrenched myself in the discusion with DSimmon, and as part of cooling off from loosing that discussion (I am a bad looser I admit it). If memory serves (It probably does not), I have done this once before (VarLim) and a second time on something in Black and WHite in the book that I disagree with (Damage SHield). Both times I wanted to see what others thought, I like to understand how people come to there desisions.

And while I joke about it, I do have some insecurities, especialy about my intelect, so when I do interpret things differently than others I like to know if others see the thing the same way as I do, not that I need to be always right, but I don't like being the only one to have made the mistake, or to look at things in a certain way

I don't doubt that Steve is right, I also don't doubt that his opinion matters, I don't doubt he is more capable of making these desisions than I am. I also don't doubt my abiilty to make these desisions as well. I would say that Steve's answers and mine agree about 90-95% of the time, the rest of the time it is usualy a mattler of seeing where he is coming from even if I disagree, when I don't understand it I start over analyzing it (the compulsive in me), for the record when I don;t understand anything I get very focused on it, my SO says it is part of my ADHD, I say I just am obsessive.

And Finnaly I miss the old "Rules" Board where people would debate rules, now days you ask a rules question on the Hero Systems Discusions boards, someone will post it to steve for a Official ruling, thus killing it, at least this way we can get some dialoge on rules

As for my jumping in, it is called being A) Helpful, B) like I said above I like talking about the rules of the system, I am by my nature a tinkerer and as such like to get in arms deap with the mechanics of things and think of how they interact etc. FInnaly for the record, I would HATE to have Steve's job, people like me would drive me stock raving MAD...

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by JmOz

And Finnaly I miss the old "Rules" Board where people would debate rules, now days you ask a rules question on the Hero Systems Discusions boards, someone will post it to steve for a Official ruling, thus killing it, at least this way we can get some dialoge on rules

*scratches head*
Actually that was one section of the old board I avoided. I know how I run my games, and how I modify. I am interested in what the official line is. What other point is there in discussing "the rules". Discussing how to build things, or how to model something sure, but debating the rules... I've lived through way to many rules-debate-flamewars on the Hero system mailing list to ever enjoy that.

[Monolith]

Rod,

I just consider everything you posted to be nothing more than a cheap shot at JmOz. If someone wants to "argue" rules that is one thing, but when someone makes an entire post which does nothing but attack someone else, then that is an entirely different issue. Every thing you had to said here did not need to be part of a public forum, IMO.

There are few people on this message board which spends more time helping DOJ, answering questions for newbies, and in general supporting DOJ than I do. But having said that, there are times when even Steve Long can be incorrect, and at those times I feel it is important that I point out that I think he is wrong so that perhaps he will look at it again and give it a little more thought.

The HERO System is not a simple game. To understand and play this game you need a 372 page rule book, a 44 page Genre-By-Genre document, and at this point in time a 160 page Rules FAQ (I wont even discuss all the optional material in the Ultimate books). Every time an exception is added to the game system it just makes it that much harder for people to play the game without having to reference 5 different sources to understand a rule. I have been playing this game for 16 years, and I do not think I know even half of the rules off the top of my head any more. There are just too many rules.

In this issue I feel Steve is wrong because he is adding one more un-needed, and in this case inconsistent step to character design (he is saying round them separately for leaping, but not for damage). As a loyal supporter, I feel that I should point this out. I assume JmOz feels pretty much the same as I do.

Maybe you agree with Steve and maybe you disagree with Steve, but in any case direct personal attacks should never be made on another poster, IMO. I probably have more flamewars than anyone on these boards, but I would never make a post which says nothing more than you're an idiot with a secret agenda trying to undermine Steve's authority. That, I consider to be very trollish.

[JmOz]

Mon, chill on Rod, I brought it on my self a little, I was upset with another poster on this thread and I brought it up in the chat before my computer went wonky on me, so I think he was annoyed a bit by it, no harm no foul.

For that matter me and Rod don't normaly get along, not my fault, not his, just two people who rub each other the wrong way at times (my lackof gramerical and typing skills I know bugs the heck out of him). Don't take that as an attack please, he is a good guy, with some great ideas.

[JmOz]

By the way Monolith, Thank you for having my back like that.

[nHammer]

What's annoying me is the discussion as to whether Steve is right or wrong. I don't think it's a matter of right or wrong (which is why I didn't vote in the poll) I think it's a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with Steve.

The only problem I have with this thread is the poll choices. I think Jim errored in wording it the way he did.

I also think discussing the rules is a good thing. It helps the game designers (like Steve) make a product the fans want. I mean think about it. If LOTS of fans say they prefer a rule a certain way than the designers have a basis to work from when they work on a later edition.

Just the thoughts from a constant lurker and occasional poster, for whatever they may be worth.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by JmOz
By the way Monolith, Thank you for having my back like that.
It is not even a question about having each other's back. It is a question about understanding that there are not that many HERO System players around, and I really do not think we need to be taking shots at each other. We are all part of the same loyal group which loves this game. We all want to see Darren and Steve, and all the other partners, prosper. There are enough non-HERO System players constantly assaulting us on the multitude of forums on the internet. We do not need to be assaulting each other if we can help it.

I am a Capitalistic-Socialist at heart. I always believe that if we all work together and find the good in the game that between us all we can make this game something to be proud of; not just something to be played on a Saturday night.

[i3ullseye]

As of this read, it is close... but the people who prefer to add it all and then calculate the jump is ahead by 15 to 13.

I just generally go by the KISS rule. Keep It Simple Stupid. With a game as indepth as HERO, every little time saving effort can save you tons of player grief in the long run.

I understand the math for both versions. But in this instance the sum of the bonuses being added first favors the character. And the rules do state to always favor the character with the exception of speed.

/shrug

[schir1964]

Thanks for the Thread JmOz.

I was planning on researching MC: Hero 5th Edtion Template to see if it complied with this latest ruling. After reading this, I realize that there are enough people who disagree (myself included) that I'm going to let the code stand as is (since someone has already mentioned that it totals first).

I still remember the long discussions I had when trying to create the Size Stat and the infamous Protean Form rules that were hashed out on these boards. Some people have difficulty communicating and this creates arguments over nothing. I should know since I've done it quite a few times myself on these boards. (8^D)

Anyways, I like consistency, especially concerning rules, so it is no surprise that I've found a few of Steve's decisions to be inconsistent with some of his previous ideologies. I've discussed these directly with Steve to get inside his head on his decisions, and to give my point of view on them, and then I let it go. In the past I would also spend time on the boards to get others opinions on them also for my own information, but now other things with higher priority take precedence. I'm glad other people, like you, still have time to do it so that I can read them and still get information.

Thanks again.

- Christopher Mullins

[Captain Obvious]

To offer another extreme example, one that is much more likely to turn up in the hands of a munchkin/twinkie/rules lawyer, imagine a character who buys 3 pts of STR from as little as two different sources. Ten points base gives 2" leaping + 3 pts STR from source 1 gives another 1" leaping + 3 pts STR from source 2 giving another 1" leaping.

Six active points of additional STR and he has 2 extra inches of leaping, whereas someone buying 6 points of straight-up STR has only 1. For another 3 points, The Mighty Munchkin can have a total of 5" leaping, whereas Eagle Scout would have a mere 4", and that only from rounding up....

[Nelijal]

Yawn. . .

[Checkmate]

Originally posted by i3ullseye
Thank you Captian Obvious.....

Wow, thats the first time i have ever said that and NOT been referring to John Madden.

That is the funniest thing I've heard in a long time :D

Back on topic: Those who think Steve's ruling was made for progamming considerations are mistaken. It would have been just as easy for Dan Simon (the Programmer of HD) to compute leaping by figuring total STR. He did it the way he did because of Steve's ruling. Steve didn't say: "What you can't make HD figure out leaping inches after all STR is added? Shoot we'll just change the rules then"

[Starcorp Man]

Well in 4th, it was Total (Hero Creator) for programming wise. I don't see where you use both individually in one way and use it together in others. Should it matter how you get to the total, as long as you get to the total. 25 STR is 25 STR. Would a 12 DEX w/ +11 DEX OIF have OCV/DCV 7 instead of 8?

If it's always about Glad Handing Steve Long, a lot of people are going to be disappointed, he's done some great stuff, but I'm not the only one that doesn't like everything he's done with the new rules and setting, and you can never expect that from anyone.

[Syberdwarf2]

I think Steve's right on this. That's how I've done it, and it just makes things easier. Now, while I've done my fair share of HERO math, I beleive that there is such a thing as Too Much math....
K.I.S.S........
Keep It Simple Stoopid.

I like it when things are simple. Especially when the simplicity concerns something that doesn't really matter, IMO.

my $.02

[Starcorp Man]

You agree with him but want to keep it simple, huh? No slam but if stats are to be figured that way, why do they not effect all aspects of the stats, for every stat not just leaping. There's no simplisity involved, it's inconsistant.

Once again, DEX. You have Dex 8 and a +8 Dex OIF, by the math figured for leap that would give you OCV 6 DCV 6 for a 16 Dex, yet that's 1 point less then the minimum 17 needed.

STR Rolls should be effected, figured characteristics, the whole situation, and they aren't and haven't been... ever.

[Syberdwarf2]

Originally posted by Starcorp Man
You agree with him but want to keep it simple, huh? No slam but if stats are to be figured that way, why do they not effect all aspects of the stats, for every stat not just leaping. There's no simplisity involved, it's inconsistant.

Once again, DEX. You have Dex 8 and a +8 Dex OIF, by the math figured for leap that would give you OCV 6 DCV 6 for a 16 Dex, yet that's 1 point less then the minimum 17 needed.

STR Rolls should be effected, figured characteristics, the whole situation, and they aren't and haven't been... ever.

Hey now, calm down...... Didn't mean to urk you. I was just sayin my opinion. If I'm running a game, I'd do it that way (figuring off of the 'total' STR, not the incremements). If, however, I was a player and the GM wanted to do it that way, then fine. No prob. Either way is acceptable. It's just that I prefer the "official" method.

"Never let the rules get in the way of having fun".... truer words were never spoken.

[Starcorp Man]

Don't worry about it, I wasn't urked... okay from your previous message you seemed to say you agreed with Steve on the Leaping being based on each STR individually, not the total.

[JmOz]

Originally posted by Syberdwarf2
Hey now, calm down...... Didn't mean to urk you. I was just sayin my opinion. If I'm running a game, I'd do it that way (figuring off of the 'total' STR, not the incremements). If, however, I was a player and the GM wanted to do it that way, then fine. No prob. Either way is acceptable. It's just that I prefer the "official" method.

"Never let the rules get in the way of having fun".... truer words were never spoken.

You know you just said to do it the "Unofficial" way?

The official way is +3=1", +3x5=5", opposed to the unofficial of +3x5=3"

[Syberdwarf2]

Originally posted by Starcorp Man
Don't worry about it, I wasn't urked... okay from your previous message you seemed to say you agreed with Steve on the Leaping being based on each STR individually.

nope.
What I was saying, if I understood all of this correctly is (IDHBIFOM);is the Total STR should be used to determine the leap, IMO. It shouldn't be figured from the increments.

[Syberdwarf2]

Originally posted by JmOz
You know you just said to do it the "Unofficial" way?

The official way is +3=1", +3x5=5", opposed to the unofficial of +3x5=3"

okay.... now I'm confoozed

[Starcorp Man]

I think Steve's right on this. That's how I've done it, and it just makes things easier.

From your previous message, you said you agree with Steve. Steve said 12+13 Str is 4.5", where 25 is 5" which is what you're saying, hence the confusion.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Syberdwarf2
nope.
What I was saying, if I understood all of this correctly is (IDHBIFOM);is the Total STR should be used to determine the leap, IMO. It shouldn't be figured from the increments.
Steve's ruling states the exact opposite. That's why so many of us have been arguing against it. :)

[Syberdwarf2]

nowwwwww I get it.

(((phone rings)))
SD: Hello?
Voice: Hello, Syberdwarf?
SD: Speaking
V: This is your village calling. We'd like our Idiot back now.

:D

[WillRhodes]

I don't see any complexity to basing STR-derived values on the total STR, regardless of (unrelated) limitations (or advantages) on part of the STR. If a player brought me a character with 15 STR + 15 STR (1/2 END), I wouldn't let them get the round-up twice when figuring STUN.
Figured values should be figured from the FULL value of the stat that they are based on, unless the modifiers on the increments affect the figured value.
Otherwise, I foresee someone designing a character with (for example) a bunch of 5pt STR increments, each with different modifiers, so they only have to pay END for their base 10 STR.
Rounding by increment is just too easily abused.

Will Rhodes

[SCUBA Hero]

Originally posted by WillRhodes
If a player brought me a character with 15 STR + 15 STR (1/2 END), I wouldn't let them get the round-up twice when figuring STUN.

Would someone with Hero Designer try that combo and report on how STUN is affected? And a couple of other examples (HA)?

Just trying to see if the ruling for Leaping is an isolated case or uniform.

[Balok]

I'd be inclined to add them and then do the rounding; I don't find that any more difficult than rounding at each step, and I think it's going to produce more consistent results.

But I'd also require the two strengths be within 20 or maybe 25 of each other. A person with STR 10 will make at best a negligible contribution to any STR feat being performed by someone of STR 30 (16x stronger) or STR 35 (32x stronger).

[Checkmate]

I think you missed the point of this discussion. We are not talking about two different people combining thier STR. Let me give you this example:

Let's take the Hercules, he is naturally strong so he buys 25 STR and gets 5" of leaping

Tony stark has a 12 STR. He wants to have a 25 STR when he becomes Iron Man so he buys +13 STR OIHID. According to Steve's ruling this would mean Iron Man only has 4.5" of leaping even though he has a 25 STR.

I realize Iron Man and Herc would have a lot more STR but that's not important to the discussion. Does it make sense now?

[Balok]

Originally posted by Checkmate
I think you missed the point of this discussion.

...

Does it make sense now?

Oops. I misread the first post, and someone never got the right idea from the rest of them. Huukt awn fahniks werkkt four me!

But part of my post does apply: the first paragraph, which essentially states that I disagree with Steve's ruling. Although his ruling agrees with the official HERO System rules of round at each step, I don't think its any more difficult to add the strengths and then round. I also feel that approach is more realistic. At least for the STR case.

[Force]

I guess the questions that should be really asked is:

Does this affect all stats that are figured from str (i.e. stun, rec, pd, str rolls, etc.) or only leaping?

If only leaping then why the inconsistency?

Does this affect other figured stats from other characteristics (dex, con in particular)?

If only str then why the inconsistency?

These are the questions I need answered.

I think steve has opened a whole can of worms in character building making champions yet even MORE complex for the beginner.

Bad move and bad form imo...

[archermoo]

Originally posted by SCUBA Hero
Would someone with Hero Designer try that combo and report on how STUN is affected? And a couple of other examples (HA)?

Just trying to see if the ruling for Leaping is an isolated case or uniform.

In HD 1.32:

30 STR gives a 30 STUN, 6d6 Damage, and 6" leap

15 STR + 15 STR (1/2 END) gives 31 STUN, 6d6 Damage, 6" leap

13 STR + 17 STR (1/2 END) gives 31 STUN, 6d6 Damage, 5.5" leap

12 STR + 18 STR (1/2 END) gives 30 STUN, 6d6 Damage, 5.5" leap

[Gary]

Originally posted by archermoo
In HD 1.32:

30 STR gives a 30 STUN, 6d6 Damage, and 6" leap

15 STR + 15 STR (1/2 END) gives 31 STUN, 6d6 Damage, 6" leap

13 STR + 17 STR (1/2 END) gives 31 STUN, 6d6 Damage, 5.5" leap

12 STR + 18 STR (1/2 END) gives 30 STUN, 6d6 Damage, 5.5" leap

That would imply that it's best buying each group of str and con in increments of 3, not 5 to get the roundoffs in your favor each step.

Consider +30 str. You get +6 PD, +6 Rec, and +15 stun.

If you bought the 30 str in 10 increments of 3, you would get +1 PD, +1 Rec, and +2 stun per increment, and you would get +10 PD, +10 Rec, and +20 stun in total.

[SCUBA Hero]

Originally posted by archermoo
In HD 1.32:

30 STR gives a 30 STUN, 6d6 Damage, and 6" leap

15 STR + 15 STR (1/2 END) gives 31 STUN, 6d6 Damage, 6" leap

13 STR + 17 STR (1/2 END) gives 31 STUN, 6d6 Damage, 5.5" leap

12 STR + 18 STR (1/2 END) gives 30 STUN, 6d6 Damage, 5.5" leap

Thanks, archermoo!

So it looks like STUN and leaping are rounded each time, but damage is taken from the total. Interesting...

[Force]

Originally posted by archermoo
In HD 1.32:

30 STR gives a 30 STUN, 6d6 Damage, and 6" leap

15 STR + 15 STR (1/2 END) gives 31 STUN, 6d6 Damage, 6" leap

13 STR + 17 STR (1/2 END) gives 31 STUN, 6d6 Damage, 5.5" leap

12 STR + 18 STR (1/2 END) gives 30 STUN, 6d6 Damage, 5.5" leap

Does it work this way with dex and con?

[archermoo]

Originally posted by SCUBA Hero
Thanks, archermoo!

So it looks like STUN and leaping are rounded each time, but damage is taken from the total. Interesting...

If you hadn't seen it, looks like after some reflection (okay a lot of reflection) Steve is having Dan change HD to run leaping like damage from STR. I.e. from the total amount of STR, rather than figuring (and rounding) it for each purchase seperately. Dan and Steve went round and round about this when HD was in the conceptual stage, and several times since. It was doing things the way it was because it was supposed to. :)

[Force]

This ruling really disturbs me since this does seem to apply only to str and not other stats like dex and con.

Why the inconsistency?

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Force
This ruling really disturbs me since this does seem to apply only to str and not other stats like dex and con.

Why the inconsistency?
I have no idea why. It could just be one of those things that seemed good at the time.

Anyway, Hero Designer has been changed, which was my main issue, and I will assume the FAQ will have an update about this. That is plenty good enough for me. :)

[SaintHax]

The ruling was simple: this was based on a Foci that gave +10 Str and usable by anyone, not an inate power bought w/ different limitations.

If you treat the ring as an object that posseses a Str of Ten, then you'd do the math as Steve explained. You see a Str 10 plus a Str 10 equals a Str 15. Hero doubles stats every 5 points which is why linear math doesn't work.

-Nate

[Force]

Originally posted by SaintHax
The ruling was simple: this was based on a Foci that gave +10 Str and usable by anyone, not an inate power bought w/ different limitations.

If you treat the ring as an object that posseses a Str of Ten, then you'd do the math as Steve explained. You see a Str 10 plus a Str 10 equals a Str 15. Hero doubles stats every 5 points which is why linear math doesn't work.

-Nate

Then why does this not apply to other stats such as dex and con?

[SaintHax]

There's no unit of measurement for Dex or Con. The only thing they effect are the Characteristic rools and figured stats; Str, on the other hand, has leap and lifting ability that has a concrete measurement.

I left out damage, b/c if you did math for damage as Steve described, you'd get the same numbers. e.g. 20 Str w/ a +10 Str ring: 4d6 for the 20, +2d6 for the 10, or 6d6 for 30 Str.

This is one reason I'm not a fan of non-linear math, but it's often used in SuperHeroic games to allow amazing abilities at an affordable point cost. Steve was right in his own way, but I'll only use that ruling in a heroic campaign.

[gewing]

I won't use it in ANY campaign. Oh well.


Originally posted by SaintHax
There's no unit of measurement for Dex or Con. The only thing they effect are the Characteristic rools and figured stats; Str, on the other hand, has leap and lifting ability that has a concrete measurement.

I left out damage, b/c if you did math for damage as Steve described, you'd get the same numbers. e.g. 20 Str w/ a +10 Str ring: 4d6 for the 20, +2d6 for the 10, or 6d6 for 30 Str.

This is one reason I'm not a fan of non-linear math, but it's often used in SuperHeroic games to allow amazing abilities at an affordable point cost. Steve was right in his own way, but I'll only use that ruling in a heroic campaign.

[Force]

Originally posted by SaintHax
There's no unit of measurement for Dex or Con. The only thing they effect are the Characteristic rools and figured stats; Str, on the other hand, has leap and lifting ability that has a concrete measurement.

I left out damage, b/c if you did math for damage as Steve described, you'd get the same numbers. e.g. 20 Str w/ a +10 Str ring: 4d6 for the 20, +2d6 for the 10, or 6d6 for 30 Str.

This is one reason I'm not a fan of non-linear math, but it's often used in SuperHeroic games to allow amazing abilities at an affordable point cost. Steve was right in his own way, but I'll only use that ruling in a heroic campaign.

As was noted in some examples, this 'rounding' rule affected figured characteristics by str.

Also dex affects ocv/dcv...

[SaintHax]

Originally posted by Force
As was noted in some examples, this 'rounding' rule affected figured characteristics by str.

Also dex affects ocv/dcv...

Steve's ruling made no mention of figured states, as I recall. It was specifically for leaping. And OCV/DCV is a figured stat, and as I was trying to point out: Leaping and Lifting is not a figured stat, it's two units of measurement that's associated w/ Str that does not follow linear math. All the figure stats follow linear math. This is why the ruling was special.

-Nate