Hitting things with Thrown Things

[Tywyll]

Ok, I'm a bit confused about throwing objects at characters.

I had the chance to be in a spur of the moment pick up Champions game. In that game, my sword-wielding brick picked up the body of a plane I'd just wrecked and threw it at my nearly impervious opponent.

Damage was the same as if I had punched them.

So long as the object had enough def+body, its weight, pointy bits, etc don't matter.

Meanwhile, if I hit them with a heavy enough club, I'd have done +4d6.

A stick does 4DC extra, a plane does zip?

Yeah, I realize it allowed me to attack with an AoE, but shouldn't it provide some bonus damage? If I dropped it on someone, it would do a minimum amount of damage based on the strength needed to lift it (Ultimate Brick I think), but throwing it, no dice. Kind of defeats the purpose of hitting your foe with a parked car.

[Hugh Neilson]

If you run a search of the boards, you'll find some older threads discussing this isue in depth. Suggestions include a chart for extra damage, a discussion of other effects, and some suggested penalties for using such objects as weapons. The book already suggests "pointy bits" might convert STR into an AP or KA attack.

There are a couple of issues here. First, how much extra damage? It's important to remember +1d6 = double the force, since it equates to +5 STR. As well, I don't want Bricks in my campaign readily able to, say, double their damage by using a heavy object.

The second is that this bonus should not come free. Some considerations:

(a) The Grabbing of an object should be at least a 1/2 phase action, and in some cases could even be considered an attack action. You can only throw, or swing, after.

(b) CV Penalties? Do you have proficiency with thrown airplanes? If not, then perhaps the non-proficiency penalty should apply (that's -3 OCV), in addition to any penalties for aerodynamics and balance. This doesn't apply to weapons you [aid points for, but I don't see "Airplane Toss" written up as a power on many character sheets. :) A Bulk penalty should probably also apply - a human-size creature lifting a 747 has pretty poor leverage, and I would also toss in encumbrance penalties.

(c) If you're already getting the benefit of converting a normal attack to AE, that's pretty significant. Perhaps you should either get this bonus OR bonus damage, but not both.

Bricks are, frankly, powerful enough in combat without expecting a bunch of extra benefits using heavy objects, with no penalties. I would be happy to see some "extra damage from heavy/hard objects" rules provided they also included some rules for the time it takes to lift and throw these, the OCV penalties and the DCV penalties for such actions. I would also suggest these rules encompass just how much mass and hardness it takes to get a bonus at various STR levels. I don't see Grond reasonably doing a lot more damage by hitting you with a tire iron...or, for that matter, a club that's normally +4d6 in the hands of someone with closer to human STR.

Of course, if you want to use objects of opportunity for extra damage at no penalties, you need simply buy a power which has "OIF: Objects of Opportunity". There are no penalties for "weapons" you paid points for.

[Blue]

It's not an easy thing to ajudicate. You have to figure that while you are in fact lifting something heavy and swinging it, you are also using a significant portion of your strength that would normally be applied directly to damage to instead get this thing in the air.

Liken it to, say, a small, parked car in Neutral. If you were standing in front of the car and I had three guys push the car at you, you'd feel a bump and likely be brushed aside after a while, but you wouldn't be very injured; primarily because the strength of those three people was so lessened by the effort of pushing the car. If the three guys were strong enough to pick up the vehicled and drop it on you instead, you'd likely take damage only from the weight of the car, because they didn't have much STR beyond what it took to lift (Sort of like STR minimums on weapons). And if they had enough combined STR to throw the item, then you take damage for weight of the vehicle, plus the velocity they managed to achieve with it.

Essentially the thrown item is performing a move through.

This all gets kind of clumsy if you take it to the extreme. I tend to sidestep a lot of this with a couple of extra dice of damage AND a modifier of some sort (Like a plane is really an Area Effect attack).

[Hugh Neilson]

Liken it to, say, a small, parked car in Neutral. If you were standing in front of the car and I had three guys push the car at you, you'd feel a bump and likely be brushed aside after a while, but you wouldn't be very injured; primarily because the strength of those three people was so lessened by the effort of pushing the car. If the three guys were strong enough to pick up the vehicled and drop it on you instead, you'd likely take damage only from the weight of the car, because they didn't have much STR beyond what it took to lift (Sort of like STR minimums on weapons). And if they had enough combined STR to throw the item, then you take damage for weight of the vehicle, plus the velocity they managed to achieve with it.

I like that example, and the STR min is probably a good analogy. If we added damage based on mass and hardness of the object, then reduced it by the STR needed to lift the object, that might make the system work reasonably well.

However, if you throw the 16 hex aircraft, how much of your STR/the object's mass is actually hitting the single hex where the opponent is standing. Rather than taking the full impact of the plane, more likely the stress snaps the fuselage, reducing the impact. Unless the thrown object has enough DEF/BOD to survive the impact without breaking, the force ransmitted to the target is reduced.

[Silbeg]

Ok, I'm a bit confused about throwing objects at characters.

I had the chance to be in a spur of the moment pick up Champions game. In that game, my sword-wielding brick picked up the body of a plane I'd just wrecked and threw it at my nearly impervious opponent.

Damage was the same as if I had punched them.

So long as the object had enough def+body, its weight, pointy bits, etc don't matter.

Meanwhile, if I hit them with a heavy enough club, I'd have done +4d6.

A stick does 4DC extra, a plane does zip?

Yeah, I realize it allowed me to attack with an AoE, but shouldn't it provide some bonus damage? If I dropped it on someone, it would do a minimum amount of damage based on the strength needed to lift it (Ultimate Brick I think), but throwing it, no dice. Kind of defeats the purpose of hitting your foe with a parked car.

I have always adjudicated that this casual weapon would do your STR damage, and that alone. If the object is large enough, I will grant AE, but anything more than that would give to great an advantage to a strong character, in my eyes.

In any case, even that club could be easily broken by a strong character (A STR 50 brick would do an average of 14 BODY, which would probably be enough to snap the baseball bat!). Of course, had the weapon been purchased with character points, I would be quite a bit more leniant on this...

But, back to the thrown object... assume that the plane weighs 3200kg - its mass would cause 7d6 damage. However, it takes 35 STR just to throw it (which couldn't be used for damage), subtracting 7d6 from the characters STR for damage. Assuming a 50 STR character, this would be 10d6 + 7d6 - 7d6 = 10d6 of damage (let's ignore velocity, as we are dealing with this as a thrown weapon, not a character). So, in reality, it is a wash.

Since there is no real difference here, the KISS philosophy would argue that we should just ignore the mass, and use the base STR of the character. You could limit the damage to the DEF + BODY of the object being thrown (as suggested in The Ultimate Brick), but I wouldn't add to it.

[Tywyll]

While I am aware of the balance issues and the dangers of letting the Brick's really rule, there is a point where it starts breaking down suspension of disbelief.

If I throw a rock at someone, in real life, I might very well knock them out if I hit them in the head. If I punch them in the face however, its unlikely that the same would result (I have a realistic appreciation for my abilities).

To a 50 str brick, an object that takes a 20 str to lift is essentially that rock. Now, I realize it is not aerodynamic and they would take hefty penalties in chucking it, but if it hits, it should have some effect from its mass+their strength.

As for buying them as a power... I have real problems with buying certain powers to represent things the stats should be capable of. For instance, I don't think you need an Entangle power on the sheet to use a 50+ strength to tie someone up with a metal girder. A 15 str character doesn't need a power on their sheet to tie up a character with a rope, do they? The girder becomes like a rope in the hands of someone that strong. Certainly, a character could buy extra damage with thrown objects (they are really accurate or something) but the objects themselves should have some effect, especially when a war club can dish out an extra 6DC. A car just ought to do more damage in the hands of its wielder, or else there is little point in using that common trope of super gameing.

Just my 2C.

[austenandrews]

Figure out how far the character can throw the object and then do Move Through damage accordingly. Dunno how the numbers would work out on that, but it sounds logical for thrown objects.

Of course a character's Move Through has less chance of success at higher speeds, whereas a projectile has a greater chance of success at higher speeds. So I'm not sure how to figure the OCV modifiers. Makes sense to throw in a negative for lack of WF and maybe some STR-based negs for objects over the character's Casual STR.

If I needed to solve the problem for my game, I'd play with numbers based on these considerations and look for a simple approximation. I'd also try to generalize it to work for using large object as hand-to-hand weapons.

[Silbeg]

A car just ought to do more damage in the hands of its wielder, or else there is little point in using that common trope of super gameing.

Not necessarily. It is very genre (in Champions) for a brick to grab a car, or whatever, as a weapon, but this is most often used for other than damage reasons... like hitting a martial artist (AE weapon, either thrown or HtH), or someone at a distance....

Same goes for a telephone pole/tree/girder, which is usually used to get some reach (i.e., Stretching). I don't see extra damage as a given, here... rather, the extra effect of being able to use your STR at range, or AE (or both) is the trick, here.

For instance, I don't think you need an Entangle power on the sheet to use a 50+ strength to tie someone up with a metal girder.

AS for the wrapping a girder around a target as an entangle, that is the "Brick Trick" called The Big Wrap-up (or something like that)... and is either a power the character bought, or perhaps an occassional use of the "brick tricks" power skill... Just because you can bend the girder doesn't mean that you can get it wrapped around your target quickly, or in such a way that the target can't get out. Of course, you are welcome to adjudicate this as you wish!

[Lord Liaden]

There is one point regarding the BODY+DEF total for max damage that you might want to keep in mind: the object that is thrown is also going to be taking damage from impact when it hits something, and if the force that it's exposed to exceeds the maximum it can withstand it's going to disintegrate rather than transfer any more impact force to the target.

[Dust Raven]

I tend to look at it like this: A weapon is built to withstand the force of an impact, and a normal object is not. A weapon is designed to work with the wielder's STR to utilize leverage for increasing damage, and a normal object is not. Sure, you might get some leverage with a sturdy object, but you will be using a lot of your STR just to move it and will likely be doing less damage than you would without it. I think the Hero System is often being generous in allowing full STR damage with non-weapon objects in all cases.

Of course, you can always build a character who's specifically skilled at using non-weapon objects in combat and might have a HA +xd6 with OIF to represent the use of such things in combat. Toss Ranged on it to add it to thrown weapons.

[Katherine]

I just give its +1 or 2d6 more damage and let it go, unless your hitting someone with a solid block Notpossiblium the hardest substance known in gaming. It doesn't seem to really unbalance things since technically, anyone can do it, bricks can just do it with cars. It you do more damage than Def and Body, the object shatters and you have to get a new weapon. If the Hero is anyway concerned about collateral damage this becomes a problem. Blaster can do tricks as well. It just seems to make a certain degree of sense. If I pick up a heavy rock and clock someone in the head with it, its going to be more damaging than my bare fist. At least likely make the damage killing instead of normal. YMMV, of course.

[Trebuchet]

I think throwing a large object such as a car or airplane and effectively getting Ranged and Area of Effect for free is more than enough. Adding extra dice of damage is a bit much.

[zornwil]

While I am aware of the balance issues and the dangers of letting the Brick's really rule, there is a point where it starts breaking down suspension of disbelief.

If I throw a rock at someone, in real life, I might very well knock them out if I hit them in the head. If I punch them in the face however, its unlikely that the same would result (I have a realistic appreciation for my abilities).

To a 50 str brick, an object that takes a 20 str to lift is essentially that rock. Now, I realize it is not aerodynamic and they would take hefty penalties in chucking it, but if it hits, it should have some effect from its mass+their strength.

As for buying them as a power... I have real problems with buying certain powers to represent things the stats should be capable of. For instance, I don't think you need an Entangle power on the sheet to use a 50+ strength to tie someone up with a metal girder. A 15 str character doesn't need a power on their sheet to tie up a character with a rope, do they? The girder becomes like a rope in the hands of someone that strong. Certainly, a character could buy extra damage with thrown objects (they are really accurate or something) but the objects themselves should have some effect, especially when a war club can dish out an extra 6DC. A car just ought to do more damage in the hands of its wielder, or else there is little point in using that common trope of super gameing.

Just my 2C.
On that note of suspension of disbelief, bear in mind something here, we don't have people or even (as far as I know) beings on Earth striking with 50 STR or other such high numbers. The notion of being that strong, picking up a plane, and heaving it as opposed to striking someone with 50 STR is already an unknown, including the effect of stress on the plane itself. And whether a 50 STR strike would really be less effective AT THAT HIGH LEVEL than throwing even a rock with 50 STR is all a bunch of questions.

But what a plane and a rock have in common is they are both aerodynamic and balanced (depending on the rock, anyway, but normally that's what people are going for in throwing rocks), as well as very hard, with reinforced surfaces. I can see giving, as Katherine mentions, 1-2d6. HOWEVER, if you expect the character to do that as a normal routine, you should pay to do additional damage on a regular basis.

[Champsguy]

I give extra damage for that sort of thing. I'm not worried about "Oh, this gives a brick too much of an advantage, and now my pussy hurts." It's not every day that the brick has an airplane available that he can grab.

So, yeah, I feel for ya. We always allow big objects to do lots of damage. That airplane is a big +4D6 Hand Attack, Area Effect sitting there waiting for ya. I do, however, limit the damage done to Def + Body. The plane shatters before it does more dice than that.

[Hugh Neilson]

including the effect of stress on the plane itself.

As an experiment, try picking up a baseball bat at the usual hand grip. You can only use the tip of your thumb and the tip of your forefinger on one hand. You must raise the bat to table height from the floor, keeping it level (parallel with the floor) all the way.

Sure, I can lift a baseball bat, but try doing it with no leverage I don't see a high STR super having les issues of balancing a 747. I do think that the weight of the entire plane bearing down on a space with the area of 2 hands is more likely to result in a hole in the plane, and it hitting the ground, than a successful lift, but that's another issue.

It's genre, so we allow it to be lifted. But that doesn't mean it should add a dozen dice to the person's usual STR damage.

[Dr. Anomaly]

I've always wondered why bricks in the comics often pick up things to use as clubs, if the game doesn't give you any "extras" for that. It doesn't seem in genre.

On the other hand, if using a club doesn't give you any advantage when you're hitting something, why do baseball players use bats? Shouldn't they be able to hit the ball just as far using their bare hands?

Maybe baseball players in the Champions universe do use their bare hands. Or maybe they use bats just because they "look cool", not because it lets them hit the ball any farther.

(Yes, yes, I'm aware of the physics behind using a bat, the principles of the lever and force vs time compression. I'm just being sarcastic because in the HERO system, using a something you pick up to hit someone only lets you do up to your STR, max ... less if the BODY + DEF of the object is less than the damage you do with your STR.)

[Dust Raven]

Using a bat is a poor example though. A bat is an actually tool with game stats and can be used as a weapon to add damage. A 747 is not. Using physics, it's fairly impossible to use a 747 as a weapon, HTH or thrown. It'll fall apart before you can get it near the target (well, if you have TK it might be easier, but with TK, you aren't gaining leverage of any kind). It's a pretty good bonus you're getting just to be able to smash stuff with objects like that in the first place.

Of course, getting back to small scale, things like a lead pipe, or a heavy stick are essentially clubs even though they aren't designed for combat. So is a rock. For a "normal STR" character I might call it a fragile club and add a die or two but apply damage to it when it hits (or misses and hits something else). But if you have the STR to lift and swing a 747, something like a flimsy pipe or stick is gonna be like swinging a rolled up newspaper and nothing more.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Using a bat is a poor example though. A bat is an actually tool with game stats and can be used as a weapon to add damage. A 747 is not. Using physics, it's fairly impossible to use a 747 as a weapon, HTH or thrown. It'll fall apart before you can get it near the target (well, if you have TK it might be easier, but with TK, you aren't gaining leverage of any kind). It's a pretty good bonus you're getting just to be able to smash stuff with objects like that in the first place.

Of course, getting back to small scale, things like a lead pipe, or a heavy stick are essentially clubs even though they aren't designed for combat. So is a rock. For a "normal STR" character I might call it a fragile club and add a die or two but apply damage to it when it hits (or misses and hits something else). But if you have the STR to lift and swing a 747, something like a flimsy pipe or stick is gonna be like swinging a rolled up newspaper and nothing more.
I was thinking more along the line of uprooting a lamp post or telephone pole and using it as a club. Sure that gives reach, but most bricks could half-move to their opponent and punch them and do just as much damage, so why bother to pull up a lamp post? (Yes, I'm aware that in the case of a target with some kind of Damage Shield why you'd want to do that, but that's a special case and the bricks in comics do the "big club" thing all the time, not just in those special cases.)

[Dust Raven]

I was thinking more along the line of uprooting a lamp post or telephone pole and using it as a club. Sure that gives reach, but most bricks could half-move to their opponent and punch them and do just as much damage, so why bother to pull up a lamp post? (Yes, I'm aware that in the case of a target with some kind of Damage Shield why you'd want to do that, but that's a special case and the bricks in comics do the "big club" thing all the time, not just in those special cases.)

A lot of times, the brick doesn't have enough movement to reliably get into HTH combat with the target (could miss the Leaping roll) but can get to the lamp post, and the target is in range of the lamp post. It's the same arguement for why bricks throw things. Other times, the target is in inaccessible (flying) or is less dangerous at range (no ranged attack or a damage shield). Otherwise if the brick can get to HTH he will.

[Dr. Anomaly]

A lot of times, the brick doesn't have enough movement to reliably get into HTH combat with the target (could miss the Leaping roll) but can get to the lamp post, and the target is in range of the lamp post. It's the same arguement for why bricks throw things. Other times, the target is in inaccessible (flying) or is less dangerous at range (no ranged attack or a damage shield). Otherwise if the brick can get to HTH he will.
Throwing things, sure, I can see that. But are you seriously trying to tell me that most bricks don't have enough movement to half-move the length of a lamp post? :nonp: I've got a bit of trouble buying that.

[Hugh Neilson]

Throwing things, sure, I can see that. But are you seriously trying to tell me that most bricks don't have enough movement to half-move the length of a lamp post? :nonp: I've got a bit of trouble buying that.

Even if they do, don't they have to make an attack roll to grab and uproot the lamp post ("here endeth the phase")? I'd probably let him use casual STR and avoid losing a phase. It's not like the 'post is going to dive for cover.

[Champsguy]

No, bricks uproot lampposts and grab cars, and they use them not just for extra reach, but for damage as well. Until you get to the psychotically strong bricks, that is. Hulk rarely bothers with swinging lampposts at people, but lesser bricks do.

[Dr. Anomaly]

No, bricks uproot lampposts and grab cars, and they use them not just for extra reach, but for damage as well.
Too bad it doesn't work that way in HERO, then.

[Champsguy]

Too bad it doesn't work that way in HERO, then.

It does in our games. :)

[Dr. Anomaly]

It does in our games. :)Sure...but you had to house-rule it!

[Champsguy]

Sure...but you had to house-rule it!

Not really. I don't give a flying crap in a hat what the suggested rules in The Ultimate Brick, or anything else, says about "still only do your Str damage". Those are all optional. If it ain't in the Big Black Book, it ain't a rule. :)

Besides, we house rule stuff all the time. Need Continuous on a Damage Shield, my ass.

[zornwil]

As an experiment, try picking up a baseball bat at the usual hand grip. You can only use the tip of your thumb and the tip of your forefinger on one hand. You must raise the bat to table height from the floor, keeping it level (parallel with the floor) all the way.

Sure, I can lift a baseball bat, but try doing it with no leverage I don't see a high STR super having les issues of balancing a 747. I do think that the weight of the entire plane bearing down on a space with the area of 2 hands is more likely to result in a hole in the plane, and it hitting the ground, than a successful lift, but that's another issue.

It's genre, so we allow it to be lifted. But that doesn't mean it should add a dozen dice to the person's usual STR damage.
Sure, but I'm saying 1-2d6, not a dozen d6. And this is a comic book genre, if we allow a high-STR brick to throw the plane at all, he ought to be able to throw it to some effect.

[zornwil]

Not really. I don't give a flying crap in a hat what the suggested rules in The Ultimate Brick, or anything else, says about "still only do your Str damage". Those are all optional. If it ain't in the Big Black Book, it ain't a rule. :)

Besides, we house rule stuff all the time. Need Continuous on a Damage Shield, my ass.
It's in the Big Black Book. Page 447, it says "If a character uses an object as a weapon, the maximum amount of damage he can do with it equals its combined DEF+BODY...DEF+BODY doesn't add to his STR". Just FYI, not suggesting you should change your game.

I don't do this, for the most part. In the comics bricks grab stuff and bash away with it and don't seem impaired by the material (within reason! of course I wouldn't let that go with a pillow or paper or such). So they should in the game.

[Hugh Neilson]

Sure, but I'm saying 1-2d6, not a dozen d6. And this is a comic book genre, if we allow a high-STR brick to throw the plane at all, he ought to be able to throw it to some effect.

There's an older thread I was involved in where we tried to come up with a mechanic for adding damage from improvised weapons. I agree that there should be some additional damage from "comparatively" massive hard objkects (be it a tire iron to a 10 STR mentalist, or a 747 for a 90 STR Brick). There should also be rules for the time it takes to grab, lift, uproot, etc. such objects, and any penalty to OCV/DCV when carrying/using them. I seem to recall we seemed to have a reasonable set of guidelines by the end of the thread (which I've since lost track of).

[Gary]

There's an older thread I was involved in where we tried to come up with a mechanic for adding damage from improvised weapons. I agree that there should be some additional damage from "comparatively" massive hard objkects (be it a tire iron to a 10 STR mentalist, or a 747 for a 90 STR Brick). There should also be rules for the time it takes to grab, lift, uproot, etc. such objects, and any penalty to OCV/DCV when carrying/using them. I seem to recall we seemed to have a reasonable set of guidelines by the end of the thread (which I've since lost track of).


I think the guideline was if the object had half the Def as the Str/5 of the character, it added +1d6 and if it had the same Def as the Str/5 of the character, it added +2d6. Thus a 60 Str character would do +1d6 with a Def 6-11 object, and +2d6 with a 12+ Def object.

[zornwil]

This sounds familiar, I probably have it bookmarked - with half a million other things. Need a new system... :(

[Dr. Anomaly]

Need a new system... :(Computer or bookmarking?

[zornwil]

Computer or bookmarking?
Bookmarking, but overall really general knowledge management.

I have TONS of very cool HERO ideas and resources recorded - in e-mail, electronic documents, and bookmarks. I kind of have a better system to at least get them in one place, but even at that I have no decent index or such.

[zornwil]

PS - should I admit my job at work is in part responsibility for our local Business Intelligence deployment... :rolleyes:

But really, it's a hard job. :straight: The reporting side is the EASY part. We, as a corporation, haven't even STARTED to tackle how to really effectively use the mountain of Word and Excel docs that are company *really* runs on, if you know what I mean.

[Dr. Anomaly]

We, as a corporation, haven't even STARTED to tackle how to really effectively use the mountain of Word and Excel docs that are company *really* runs on, if you know what I mean.I know exactly what you mean!

[Champsguy]

It's in the Big Black Book. Page 447, it says "If a character uses an object as a weapon, the maximum amount of damage he can do with it equals its combined DEF+BODY...DEF+BODY doesn't add to his STR". Just FYI, not suggesting you should change your game.

I don't do this, for the most part. In the comics bricks grab stuff and bash away with it and don't seem impaired by the material (within reason! of course I wouldn't let that go with a pillow or paper or such). So they should in the game.

I don't have Revised.

But, I would take the "DEF+BODY doesn't add to STR" to mean that, if you've got a 60 Str, and you swing an 8 DEF 6 BODY thingy at someone, the DEF+BODY (14) doesn't add to your 60 Str. Meaning, you can do a max of 14D6, not 26D6.

[zornwil]

I don't have Revised.

But, I would take the "DEF+BODY doesn't add to STR" to mean that, if you've got a 60 Str, and you swing an 8 DEF 6 BODY thingy at someone, the DEF+BODY (14) doesn't add to your 60 Str. Meaning, you can do a max of 14D6, not 26D6.
That's how I took it.

PS - but it also states that the DEF+BODY indicates the max of what your STR can do as well - so if it's more, you can't do more.

[Dr. Anomaly]

That's how I took it.

PS - but it also states that the DEF+BODY indicates the max of what your STR can do as well - so if it's more, you can't do more.
Right. You have 60 STR and you use an object which as a total DEF + BODY of 14.

STR 60 lets you do 12d6 damage. Using the object, you do 12d6 damage since that's your maximum via strength.

If you're using an object which has a total DEF + BODY of 10, then you do 10d6 even though you're strong enough to do 12d6, because the object isn't "robust" enough to stand up to it.

The way it looks to me, using an object as a club either gets you no extra damage or a reduction in damage. One of the classic comic book brick tropes is...out the window.

[Sean Waters]

Extra damage from big objects. I say 'no'.

Why?

Well because Hero is a points based system, so if you find a hole in it it is because you have not built the character you wanted and you are trying to makes the rules fit your concept.

It is accepted in the rules that throwing or swinging large objects gives you range or a version of stretching for free.

Equally, it is accepted, although less clearly, that doing this gives you an improved change to hit (I don't like the idea of it making your strength area effect: at the suggestion of another thread some time ago I now use the DCV penalty for large objects and an OCV bonus if a brick uses it in combat).

Why do you get to use a girder as a free entangle? Because you are strong it acts like a rope? No it doesn't: have you ever watched a plumber at work? They need a specific tool to bend metal in a predictable way - if you just wrapped a metal girder around a normal human you'd almost certainly crush them. Still I don't mind that: I wouldn't let you use a metal girder in combat as an improvised entangle, unless the target was already immobilised. What I let you do out of combat is far less important from a balance POV.

So extra damage? Why? Think it through: when you throw a punch the damage is a product of your weight, the speed of the punch and to a far lesser extent, the strength of the person throwing the punch.

If you use a weapon you can fairly assume it has been designed to maximise the application of your strength by a combination of leverage, hardness, and a bit of extra weight.

Improvised weapons will probably not be able to take advantage of a great deal of leverage: they are not designed for what you are using them for.

Hardness? Well the average 60STR brick is going to have skin harder than tank's armour anyway, so wheatever is picked up is going to add nothing there.

Finally, weight: definite increase, so more damage, no? Well it would increase the momentum of the 'punch' ONLY if you could swing it as fast as you could swing a punch. I see swinging a 747 as being slower, so the increased mass is balanced by the reduced velocity.

If you throw the thing it still isn't going any faster than if you swing it in melee, so again, no increase in speed. Moreover you are using some of your strength just to keep the object in hand, and reacting in a reasonably predictable way despite its unweildy shape.

Of course you can house rule all you like, but improvised weapons are not particularly effective. There will be an advantage to using them, or you wouldn't bother, but it is not the same as just using a purpose built weapon.

You are already getting range on your strength, and a bonus to hit, and I think that is enough. If you are desperate to add more damage, buy it as increased strength (no figured characteristics, objects of opportunity for a -1 limitation), or say if you are using a huge improvised weapon then it has to be considered a haymaker manoeuvre: there's your increased damage right there, with appropriate and commensurate limitations.

In fact I like that: use the rules for increased damage at the cost of DCV. Seems entirely appropriate for chucking a plane to me.

[zornwil]

Right. You have 60 STR and you use an object which as a total DEF + BODY of 14.

STR 60 lets you do 12d6 damage. Using the object, you do 12d6 damage since that's your maximum via strength.

If you're using an object which has a total DEF + BODY of 10, then you do 10d6 even though you're strong enough to do 12d6, because the object isn't "robust" enough to stand up to it.

The way it looks to me, using an object as a club either gets you no extra damage or a reduction in damage. One of the classic comic book brick tropes is...out the window.
Yeah, I pretty much ignore that rule. But it's useful for more realistic play.

[zornwil]

Great post, Sean, I'm going to nit-pick it mainly out of interest, but I want to be clear in that I think this is fine GMing and I wouldn't have a problem with it, even if in a superhero game I'd be unlikely to handle it the same way.


Extra damage from big objects. I say 'no'.

Why?

Well because Hero is a points based system, so if you find a hole in it it is because you have not built the character you wanted and you are trying to makes the rules fit your concept.

I do think we need to bear in mind whether this is a one-time, an infrequent, a regular, or a more gray frequency of event. It is entirely within the ethos of many games, if not the spirit of the rules (though the "SFX trump card' as indicated in the rules applies here), to take dramatic advantage of the environment - if the GM stages a fight in an airplane hanger, expect airplanes to come into play. Similarly, if the GM sets up a mighty villain and the PCs are expected to be "inventive", well, if they're desperate and the situation demands they try different things, I'm likely to want to reward their creativity (even if it is a bit lacking!).


It is accepted in the rules that throwing or swinging large objects gives you range or a version of stretching for free.

Equally, it is accepted, although less clearly, that doing this gives you an improved change to hit (I don't like the idea of it making your strength area effect: at the suggestion of another thread some time ago I now use the DCV penalty for large objects and an OCV bonus if a brick uses it in combat).

Why do you get to use a girder as a free entangle? Because you are strong it acts like a rope? No it doesn't: have you ever watched a plumber at work? They need a specific tool to bend metal in a predictable way - if you just wrapped a metal girder around a normal human you'd almost certainly crush them. Still I don't mind that: I wouldn't let you use a metal girder in combat as an improvised entangle, unless the target was already immobilised. What I let you do out of combat is far less important from a balance POV.

I'm assuming you mean out of combat in terms of this instance, as certainly out of combat munchkins can be entirely plot-damaging.

Anyway, that being said just for the record, I mostly agree. In combat I might allow a brick to spend a phase manipulating the girder to get it ready to use, and even then I'd apply some minuses to use the Entangle against an unwilling target. It wouldn't/shouldn't be effective as if it were a regular Entangle, I agree. But as "clean-up" when the brick has time and wants to secure the bad guy, sure.


So extra damage? Why? Think it through: when you throw a punch the damage is a product of your weight, the speed of the punch and to a far lesser extent, the strength of the person throwing the punch.

If you use a weapon you can fairly assume it has been designed to maximise the application of your strength by a combination of leverage, hardness, and a bit of extra weight.

Improvised weapons will probably not be able to take advantage of a great deal of leverage: they are not designed for what you are using them for.

Hardness? Well the average 60STR brick is going to have skin harder than tank's armour anyway, so wheatever is picked up is going to add nothing there.

Finally, weight: definite increase, so more damage, no? Well it would increase the momentum of the 'punch' ONLY if you could swing it as fast as you could swing a punch. I see swinging a 747 as being slower, so the increased mass is balanced by the reduced velocity.

If you throw the thing it still isn't going any faster than if you swing it in melee, so again, no increase in speed. Moreover you are using some of your strength just to keep the object in hand, and reacting in a reasonably predictable way despite its unweildy shape.

All good stuff from a more realistic perspective. I just think it depends on how fantastic you expect the game and how rubber physics one is, then obeying a combo of balance and drama.


Of course you can house rule all you like, but improvised weapons are not particularly effective. There will be an advantage to using them, or you wouldn't bother, but it is not the same as just using a purpose built weapon.

Aside from the rare dramatic instance where an object happens to fit the bill, which is likely a sort of plot device or such, I do agree, and I think this is a valid and important point. That's why I (personally) don't want to give more than 1d6 or 2d6 additional for objects.


You are already getting range on your strength, and a bonus to hit, and I think that is enough. If you are desperate to add more damage, buy it as increased strength (no figured characteristics, objects of opportunity for a -1 limitation), or say if you are using a huge improvised weapon then it has to be considered a haymaker manoeuvre: there's your increased damage right there, with appropriate and commensurate limitations.

In fact I like that: use the rules for increased damage at the cost of DCV. Seems entirely appropriate for chucking a plane to me.

I do like your approach. I tend to allow supers to be fairly "grand" in their approach, but that wouldn't fit a lot of campaigns. I do think a haymaker limitation is appropriate for big crushing objects or such.

[Champsguy]

Right. You have 60 STR and you use an object which as a total DEF + BODY of 14.

STR 60 lets you do 12d6 damage. Using the object, you do 12d6 damage since that's your maximum via strength.

If you're using an object which has a total DEF + BODY of 10, then you do 10d6 even though you're strong enough to do 12d6, because the object isn't "robust" enough to stand up to it.

The way it looks to me, using an object as a club either gets you no extra damage or a reduction in damage. One of the classic comic book brick tropes is...out the window.

Well, I don't have Revised, but that's lame if that's the way the new rules are. I'll continue to ignore it as it is stupid.

[zornwil]

Well, I don't have Revised, but that's lame if that's the way the new rules are. I'll continue to ignore it as it is stupid.
Where 5ER goes wrong in some rulings, it does a good job in creating more consistency in the system in general, introducing a few new useful options (like Megascale), and in general for having detailed discussion that one can take or leave but is useful just for interest's sake.

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, I don't have Revised, but that's lame if that's the way the new rules are. I'll continue to ignore it as it is stupid.

As I think someone has already pointed out, this is NOT a change in the rules. I recallthis from well before 5e.

[Sean Waters]

Well, I don't have Revised, but that's lame if that's the way the new rules are. I'll continue to ignore it as it is stupid.

Years ago I built a character called Fortress for a friend of mine (his name is Matt and he's just undergone brain surgery: I'm pretty sure the evens are not connected. Any good thoughts sent his way through the ether would be much appreciated)

Anyway, the concept was that 40 years ago he was Superman, basically the most powerful being on the planet. A lot had changed since he helped win WWII though: for one thing he got old and developed heart trouble (actually the military game him drugs which damaged his heart as they were becoming frightened of how powerful he was becoming).

Even then he was enormously strong. I described his outlook to Matt as seeing himself as if he lived in a paper world: there was almost nothing that wouldn't rip, tear or break if he handled it too roughly.

I think the idea of scenery smashing if it isn't strong enough to stand up to what you are using it for is entirely appropriate and in-genre, otherwise every brick would carry around a medium sized family saloon at all times.

Just think how desperately powerful these beings are: imagine being hit by a telephone pole swung by the arm of a catapult: your average brick is far far stronger than the catapult. They really can do more damage hitting something with a fist than with a bit of scenery: the scenery just isn't up to it.

[Sean Waters]

I do think we need to bear in mind whether this is a one-time, an infrequent, a regular, or a more gray frequency of event. It is entirely within the ethos of many games, if not the spirit of the rules (though the "SFX trump card' as indicated in the rules applies here), to take dramatic advantage of the environment - if the GM stages a fight in an airplane hanger, expect airplanes to come into play. Similarly, if the GM sets up a mighty villain and the PCs are expected to be "inventive", well, if they're desperate and the situation demands they try different things, I'm likely to want to reward their creativity (even if it is a bit lacking!).

Absolutely agree: the occasional railway car, I'll let the player get away with but IME bricks tend to get snippy after missing the martial artist every phase this turn and inevitably turn to the big stuff. Maybe I encourage that by having sarcastic, obnoxious martial artists. :)


I'm assuming you mean out of combat in terms of this instance, as certainly out of combat munchkins can be entirely plot-damaging.

...and out of combat I'll conquer the world. Yeah, you have to watch those munchkins... :) :)


All good stuff from a more realistic perspective. I just think it depends on how fantastic you expect the game and how rubber physics one is, then obeying a combo of balance and drama.

I don't mind rubber physics so long as everyone gets a share of the goodies. Giving bricks easy access to a way to make their strength ranged, high OCV and extra damage often puts out the nose of virtually every other concept of character. I'm more concerned with game balance than actual reality: I just come up with these rationalisations to sell my stingy approach to players. :D

[Hyper-Man]

Right. You have 60 STR and you use an object which as a total DEF + BODY of 14.

STR 60 lets you do 12d6 damage. Using the object, you do 12d6 damage since that's your maximum via strength.

If you're using an object which has a total DEF + BODY of 10, then you do 10d6 even though you're strong enough to do 12d6, because the object isn't "robust" enough to stand up to it.

The way it looks to me, using an object as a club either gets you no extra damage or a reduction in damage. One of the classic comic book brick tropes is...out the window.

Hi Doc,
I searched 5ER, The Ultimate Brick and the FAQ last night and could not find a confirmation of your first example (STR 60 + object/DEF + BODY of 14 only doing 12d6).

If you know the relevant page number or url please post it. :)

BTW, I found the DEF + BODY = 10 example and totally agree with it.

I am not so sure about your assumptions when the DEF + BODY = X where X is higher than a character's STR/5.


5ER, page 447,
Using Objects As Weapons
If a character uses an object as a weapon, the maximum amount of damage he can do with it equals its combined DEF+BODY - if he tries to d additional dmage, the object simply breaks (generally, it's then unusable as a weapon). The DEF+BODY doesn't add to his STR; rather, it represents an upper limit on how much damage he can do with the object.


I think there is some major confusion about the line highlighted in blue above. It does not state that (STR/5)d6 is an upper limit. It says that (DEF+BODY)d6 does not get added to (STR/5)d6. The 'it' being referred to appears to be DEF+BODY. Going back to your example: (STR 60 + object/DEF + BODY of 14) I would say the rules above support the STR 60 character doing 14d6 with this object in combat.

I think the end of The Incredibles where Mr. Incredible used part of the Omnidroid as a weapon against itself is a pretty good example of a high STR character getting a damage bonus for using an item precisely because the item is harder/tougher than normal for its weight/mass.

HM

[Dr. Anomaly]

Hi Doc,
I searched 5ER, The Ultimate Brick and the FAQ last night and could not find a confirmation of your first example (STR 60 + object/DEF + BODY of 14 only doing 12d6).

If you know the relevant page number or url please post it. :)

BTW, I found the DEF + BODY = 10 example and totally agree with it.

I am not so sure about your assumptions when the DEF + BODY = X where X is higher than a character's STR/5.



I think there is some major confusion about the line highlighted in blue above. It does not state that (STR/5)d6 is an upper limit. It says that (DEF+BODY)d6 does not get added to (STR/5)d6. The 'it' being referred to appears to be DEF+BODY. Going back to your example: (STR 60 + object/DEF + BODY of 14) I would say the rules above support the STR 60 character doing 14d6 with this object in combat.

I think the end of The Incredibles where Mr. Incredible used part of the Omnidroid as a weapon against itself is a pretty good example of a high STR character getting a damage bonus for using an item precisely because the item is harder/tougher than normal for its weight/mass.

HM
Y'know, Hyper-Man, you may have a point. I've always understood it to mean that you could do either your STR damage, or total damage classes equal to the combined DEF and BODY of the object, whichever is less.

Guess it's time to ask Steve.

:stupid:

I think I'll just wander over and do that...

[Sean Waters]

Hi Doc,
I searched 5ER, The Ultimate Brick and the FAQ last night and could not find a confirmation of your first example (STR 60 + object/DEF + BODY of 14 only doing 12d6).

If you know the relevant page number or url please post it. :)

BTW, I found the DEF + BODY = 10 example and totally agree with it.

I think the end of The Incredibles where Mr. Incredible used part of the Omnidroid as a weapon against itself is a pretty good example of a high STR character getting a damage bonus for using an item precisely because the item is harder/tougher than normal for its weight/mass.

HM


5ER page 447, in the environmental section. If your damageis higher than the DEF of the object you are hitting with it will take some damahe, and if that damage is in excess of its BODY, it falls apart atthat point, so additional damage is wasted.

As far as Mr Incredible goes I can see two possible explanations that don't require a damage bonus:

1. the omnidroid's armour had a vulnerability to whatever it was made of, or
2. using a spiky but allowed himt to use 40 STR AP rather than 60 STR on the omnidroid: it converted the damage

[Hyper-Man]

5ER page 447, in the environmental section. If your damageis higher than the DEF of the object you are hitting with it will take some damahe, and if that damage is in excess of its BODY, it falls apart atthat point, so additional damage is wasted.

As far as Mr Incredible goes I can see two possible explanations that don't require a damage bonus:

1. the omnidroid's armour had a vulnerability to whatever it was made of, or
2. using a spiky but allowed himt to use 40 STR AP rather than 60 STR on the omnidroid: it converted the damage

So are you going to apply a similar rule everytime Grond picks up one Abrams tank (DEF=30/20, BODY=25) and smashes it into another one?

Grond is strong enough (STR 90) to lift a Navy Destroyer but by you application of the rule the 1st Tank would bounce off the second one unless he was pushing or using a haymaker and even in those cases he would barely put a dent in the total of 25 BODY!

:nonp:
HM

[Champsguy]

As I think someone has already pointed out, this is NOT a change in the rules. I recallthis from well before 5e.

Yes, it is a change. I have previous editions of the rules as well. Page cite, please.

[Champsguy]

Years ago I built a character called Fortress for a friend of mine (his name is Matt and he's just undergone brain surgery: I'm pretty sure the evens are not connected. Any good thoughts sent his way through the ether would be much appreciated)

Anyway, the concept was that 40 years ago he was Superman, basically the most powerful being on the planet. A lot had changed since he helped win WWII though: for one thing he got old and developed heart trouble (actually the military game him drugs which damaged his heart as they were becoming frightened of how powerful he was becoming).

Even then he was enormously strong. I described his outlook to Matt as seeing himself as if he lived in a paper world: there was almost nothing that wouldn't rip, tear or break if he handled it too roughly.

I think the idea of scenery smashing if it isn't strong enough to stand up to what you are using it for is entirely appropriate and in-genre, otherwise every brick would carry around a medium sized family saloon at all times.

Just think how desperately powerful these beings are: imagine being hit by a telephone pole swung by the arm of a catapult: your average brick is far far stronger than the catapult. They really can do more damage hitting something with a fist than with a bit of scenery: the scenery just isn't up to it.

And that's all fine. I'm agreeing with you there. Superman doesn't get a damage bonus for using a car. That's because Supes has a Str of 125, while the car only has 3 Def and 15 Body. So the car can only do 18D6. But, when a guy with a 60 Str swings the car, he's not far stronger than the object he's using. He's not strong enough so that the car is mere tissue paper. Sure, it's only gonna hold up to one swing, but it's still strong enough to make a difference (i.e., add to damage) for that one swing.

[Champsguy]

5ER page 447, in the environmental section. If your damageis higher than the DEF of the object you are hitting with it will take some damahe, and if that damage is in excess of its BODY, it falls apart atthat point, so additional damage is wasted.

As far as Mr Incredible goes I can see two possible explanations that don't require a damage bonus:

1. the omnidroid's armour had a vulnerability to whatever it was made of, or
2. using a spiky but allowed himt to use 40 STR AP rather than 60 STR on the omnidroid: it converted the damage

or...

Mr Incredible has (estimated) a 70 to 75 Str. He's attacking an object with 20 Defense and lots of Body. The arm has 20 Def and X Body. Thus, he can add a couple of dice from the arm, as long as it doesn't exceed 20+X.

[Champsguy]

So are you going to apply a similar rule everytime Grond picks up one Abrams tank (DEF=30/20, BODY=25) and smashes it into another one?

Grond is strong enough (STR 90) to lift a Navy Destroyer but by you application of the rule the 1st Tank would bounce off the second one unless he was pushing or using a haymaker and even in those cases he would barely put a dent in the total of 25 BODY!

:nonp:
HM

Those stats are so screwed it's not even funny.

[Dr. Anomaly]

I think there is some major confusion about the line highlighted in blue above. It does not state that (STR/5)d6 is an upper limit. It says that (DEF+BODY)d6 does not get added to (STR/5)d6. The 'it' being referred to appears to be DEF+BODY. Going back to your example: (STR 60 + object/DEF + BODY of 14) I would say the rules above support the STR 60 character doing 14d6 with this object in combat.
Y'know, Hyper-Man, you may have a point. I've always understood it to mean that you could do either your STR damage, or total damage classes equal to the combined DEF and BODY of the object, whichever is less.

Guess it's time to ask Steve.
Steve,

Got a question for you regarding bricks using objects to hit people with. I thought I understood how it worked in regards to damage, but someone brought up an interpretation that makes me wonder if I do understand it or not...so I thought I'd go right to the horse's mouth.

All of the following examples assume normal attacks, no Haymakers or using any skill levels to add damage classes or anything like that.


Brick has a STR of 60; if he punches someone, he does 12d6 damage.


Brick picks up an object with a combined DEF + BODY of 10, and uses it as a club. The most damage he can do using it is 10d6, because at that point the object breaks...it's just not durable enough to take the full application of his STR.


Brick picks up an object with a combined DEF + BODY of 14, and uses it as a club. The most damage he can do with it is 12d6, because that's the limit of his STR. Just because the object's DEF + BODY exceeds the DCs he can do with his STR, he does not get any extra DCs for using the object as a club.


...do I have that correct? Or is the 2nd example wrong, and he would do more than 12d6 damage?
You have it correct.There you have, straight from The Man himself. :(

[Hugh Neilson]

Yes, it is a change. I have previous editions of the rules as well. Page cite, please.

Given you're using your old rules and mine are at home, how about you cite the rule from whatever edition you're using?

[Champsguy]

There you have, straight from The Man himself. :(

Won't be the first time I've thought he was wrong.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Won't be the first time I've thought he was wrong.Nor me. In this case, though, I would have rather been wrong than been right.

[Champsguy]

Nor me. In this case, though, I would have rather been wrong than been right.

I'm gonna keep doing it the way I've been doing, just like I'm gonna ignore the "double dipping" of Hand Attack that is apparently now the official rule.

[RDU Neil]

There you have, straight from The Man himself. :(

I'm probably confused here, but is this saying that there is no way a brick can get extra dice of damage from an object they pick up? Not even a die or two?

(Yes... the GM can choose to give whatever they want... but by the rules?)

If so... how does this translate down to low level strength? So... how does a baseball bat add damage when I swing it as a normal guy? Why does a brick get boned by this rule? At what point does STR become something that an object can't add to the damage. 25 STR? 30 STR?

Yep... really confused here.

[Hyper-Man]

There you have, straight from The Man himself. :(
Well Doc,
Normally I would go along with you on this. But I have seen too many examples of Steve reversing himself, on questions like that when worded differently*, to take that as his final answer. If he posts an explicit objection to something like the "14d6/STR 60" example to the FAQ that's fine. But until then I would lean towards the opinions of Champsguy and others.

*Search for his older 5E rulings on hardened vs. multiple AP, Penetrating and Indirect.

Regarding my Grond vs. Tank example:
I agree that the Tank stats do seem a little out of whack but no more so than giving them less than say a total BODY+DEF=24. 24d6 being Grond's Haymaker with 10 points of pushing thrown in.

Anyway, Decisions on the behavior of objects of oportunity ultimately rest with a GM. I think it is fair to limit any potential bonuses from using them to within a range of about +0 to +4d6 above a Bricks normal STR damage depending on whether circumstances warrant it.

HM

[Champsguy]

I'm probably confused here, but is this saying that there is no way a brick can get extra dice of damage from an object they pick up? Not even a die or two?

(Yes... the GM can choose to give whatever they want... but by the rules?)

If so... how does this translate down to low level strength? So... how does a baseball bat add damage when I swing it as a normal guy? Why does a brick get boned by this rule? At what point does STR become something that an object can't add to the damage. 25 STR? 30 STR?

Yep... really confused here.

Yeah, that's what it means, and yeah, I don't understand why, either.

[Hyper-Man]

...snip....

If so... how does this translate down to low level strength? So... how does a baseball bat add damage when I swing it as a normal guy? Why does a brick get boned by this rule? At what point does STR become something that an object can't add to the damage. 25 STR? 30 STR?

Yep... really confused here.

I would hazard a guess that the "rules" as such regarding high STR are really an extension of the "Superhero Genre Conventions" that include "all focus must be paid for" except in the case of using large objects to turn STR into a Ranged and/or AOE attack for purposes of increasing the odds for the usually low DEX/SPD brick to be effective against other arch-types.

HM

[Dr. Anomaly]

I would hazard a guess that the "rules" as such regarding high STR are really an extension of the "Superhero Genre Conventions" that include "all focus must be paid for" except in the case of using large objects to turn STR into a Ranged and/or AOE attack for purposes of increasing the odds for the usually low DEX/SPD brick to be effective against other arch-types.I would hazard a guess you're right, Hyper-Man, and echo RDU Neil's confusion...it's something that never made sense to me.

There are just too many genre examples in the comic books of bricks using things as clubs against opponents that aren't dangerous to touch and that were easily within "half-move" range for me to believe they were using the clubs 'just cause it looked kewl!!!" -- they had to be getting more damage out of it!

[nexus]

I have to agree. It doesn't seem to make alot of sense that if I pick up something big and heavy with my "normal" strength I can do a little extra damage with it, but if a brick hits somene with a tank it does his normal damage. I can see the object shattered if it does too much damage of course. It feels a bit along the lines of making some pay for the ability to inflict falling damage by tossing someone into the air.

[Sean Waters]

Steve is quite right IMO: that's the way it should be.

If you want more dice, treat the big object as if you are doing a haymaker: you get an extra 4d6, same as the energy blaster gets if he haymakers his blast: the brick is hardly getting boned because you are not letting him have extra damage AND increased OCV AND range on his strength AND, if you chuck the thing right, ballistic indirect too. If you think so, you've lost perspective.

As to smacking two tanks together, and damage getting through a vehicle's defence will damage systems. Vehicles are 'real' (in the limitation sense), so I'd probably say smacking two tanks together would be enough to effectively destroy them as tanks, although it would take several blows to destroy them as objects. The Abrams MBT has 30/20 DEF, so you'd probably be getting some damage through every few smacks, assuming that the lower value applies. I think that is actually far too much defence, but that's an argument for a different thread. Swinging a tank around and smacking it into another would certainly do for the crew even if the tank survived it.

This isn't something that we are going to resolve in discussion though, I fear. You want more damage: the rules don't give it to you. You want it anyway: pay for it as additional limited strength or consider it haymaker territory. Realistically to pick up a tank is going to take at least a full phase: you can't just grab the gun and swing it. That's not me being a real physics freak: if I was suggesting any 'real physics' application, it would probably take at least a turn.

You want extra damage for big objects without the extra segment and the half DCV? +4d6 strength 20 Active points, No figured (-1/2) Objects of opportunity (-1/2) Not for lifting or throwing (-1/2) Only use objects with body+def in exces of STR/5 (-1/2) Real points 7.

Now is that such a big sacrifice? 7 points? Buy twice as much and stick it in your brick tricks multipower, and it'll cost you 1 additional point. Why, honestly, do you begrudge that? Because the game ought to give you extra damage? :rolleyes:

I mean you can hand out all the bonuses you want to high str characters, hand them out like candy, but if you don't make sure that everyone gets some goodies you are unbalancing the game(and, with the exception of TK, there aren't any other powers or characteristics you'd even think about this kind of mularkey with, be honest; with examples).

Again, be honest, this isn't a brick power trick, is it, you do it whenever you can: it makes sense to use your environment.

Strength is already the biggest bargain in the game, and one of the most flexible power/concepts outside VPPs and transformation.

Finally, honestly, do you think there is any way to wean me off my obsession with the word 'honest'? :)

[Sean Waters]

There are just too many genre examples in the comic books of bricks using things as clubs against opponents that aren't dangerous to touch and that were easily within "half-move" range for me to believe they were using the clubs 'just cause it looked kewl!!!" -- they had to be getting more damage out of it!

Or a better chance to hit, or reach so the sucker can't counter-punch him. Or maybe he's scared of going direct hand to hand with someone who can tear down buildings (even though he can himself). You're making assumptions about reasons, which may be appropriate, but are certainly not inevitable.

I'd say that a large part of the reason is because if someone is swinging a car around to hit an opponent, it is an excellent graphic demonstration of the strength of the character: an important consideration given the medium. A punch doesn't look so impressive. So 'this looks kewl' may not be what the character is thinking, but bet your bottom doughnut it was what the artist was thinking.

[austenandrews]

Who says other powers don't get goodies? They do in my games.

Here, we're talking about something that every brick does in every comic book that has a brick. It needs to have a place in the game. If the current rules don't account for it adequately, let's discuss a better rule. And personally I think it's silly to pretend that large-objects-as-weapons aren't played as, well, weapons in the comics. Of course they are.

[RDU Neil]

Anyway, Decisions on the behavior of objects of oportunity ultimately rest with a GM. I think it is fair to limit any potential bonuses from using them to within a range of about +0 to +4d6 above a Bricks normal STR damage depending on whether circumstances warrant it.

HM

Being the GM, I'm wondering how I'd rule in general, as normally, I just hand wave "a couple extra dice!" when it feels right.

While I have no desire to constantly check DEF/Body tables for objects... what if something like the following.

An object can add Def + Body - STRd6 up to half of STR d6.

A 100 STR brick would need at least a 21 points of DEF/Body object to get a single d6 more of damage.

So... a 70 STR Brick, hitting with a 30D/20B tank, could get up to 7d6 more... while a 100 STR brick with the same tank could get up to 10d6 more. The dice never top 50d6 in either case.

A 100 STR brick with a 6/4 light pole could only get 10d6 total, as the pole wasn't strong enough to support the massive STR.

A 100 STR brick with a 12/9 vault door... that gets her 21d6 damage.

So... the higher the strength, the "harder" (read, greater DEF+Body) the object must be to add damage.

This is hardly perfect... and it might allow for some STR types to get some "free damage" but hey, just an idea. I'll leave it to the math types to poke holes in it.

Of course, I realize how this breaks down at lower levels of STR... because now my 10 STR guy can never add more than 1d6 with an object... even if that object is a Great Maul. :nonp: So... never mind.

(Unless of course we differentiate between Weapons and Objects... and a GM has to make a call on whether an "object of opportunity" could be considered a Weapon... but then we are right back to "Hand wave it" by the GM. Yeesh...)

[Sean Waters]

I have to agree. It doesn't seem to make alot of sense that if I pick up something big and heavy with my "normal" strength I can do a little extra damage with it, but if a brick hits somene with a tank it does his normal damage. I can see the object shattered if it does too much damage of course. It feels a bit along the lines of making some pay for the ability to inflict falling damage by tossing someone into the air.

Yes, but the difference is that the falling damage thing can be done by anyone: fliers can pick up and drop, martial artists can throw off tall buildings.

Consider it may be less to do with logic (whatever that is in a superhero context) and more about balance in the game. :)

[nexus]

Yes, but the difference is that the falling damage thing can be done by anyone: fliers can pick up and drop, martial artists can throw off tall buildings.


And blasters can do Knockback someone off a building



Consider it may be less to do with logic (whatever that is in a superhero context) and more about balance in the game. :)

And anyone can pick a pipe, club, brick, etc and bash someone in the head with it. Bricks can just do with Buses. Brick can also toss you MUCH higher in general and its harder to get out of their grab when they do it.

I don't feel in "imbalances" the game anymore than falling damage imbalance the game. Its a tactic. Everyone can try it or some variation on it.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Consider it may be less to do with logic (whatever that is in a superhero context) and more about balance in the game. :)
Oh, I'm quite aware it's for game balance reasons...it just feels so counter-genre to me, though, that it annoys me. That's all. :)

[Dr. Anomaly]

AAnd anyone can pick a pipe, club, brick, etc and bash someone in the head with it. Bricks can just do with Buses.If I had to come up with a rationale for it, I'd say that in the case of bricks and large objects, the large object is so much larger and bulkier than the brick it's unwieldy and awkward and that's why he doesn't get any extra damage -- he's a bit off balance using it; but by buying Sean's +4d6 construct, this represents the practice necessary to effectively wield such a large object to its full effectiveness.

[Sean Waters]

Who says other powers don't get goodies? They do in my games.

I stuck the 'with examples' bit in for good reason: what goodies do you hand out to other character types that they haven't paid for? :)



Here, we're talking about something that every brick does in every comic book that has a brick. It needs to have a place in the game. If the current rules don't account for it adequately, let's discuss a better rule. And personally I think it's silly to pretend that large-objects-as-weapons aren't played as, well, weapons in the comics. Of course they are.


Fine. Pay for them, because the rules don't give it for free. You are making the mistake, I believe, of assuming that the Hero rule set is physics for superheroes, and that superhero physics work the way you think they do. The rules are clear enough: you don't get extra damage, but you can buy extra damage to use in limited situations.

Still not happy? The Ultimate Martial Artist page 139: non weapon weapon skill rules. Use them. I don't think it is appropriate in a superhero game, but you do, so knock yourself out.

Sorry if I'm sounding a bit snappy: it isn't directed at anyone in particular - I probably ought to get some sleep :uranus:

[Sean Waters]

And blasters can do Knockback someone off a building



And anyone can pick a pipe, club, brick, etc and bash someone in the head with it. Bricks can just do with Buses. Brick can also toss you MUCH higher in general and its harder to get out of their grab when they do it.

I don't feel in "imbalances" the game anymore than falling damage imbalance the game. Its a tactic. Everyone can try it or some variation on it.

Oh please (as I think someone said earlier). Anyone can do falling damage in the right situation, and about the same amount.

There is no comparison betweer a 15 STR blaster getting +2d6 from an improvised club and a 60 STR brick getting +2d6. The first just makes no difference, the second is likely to have a significant effect. You're not handing out +2d6 damage to the blaster's 12d6 EB, are you, just because he picks up a commonly available item?

[Sean Waters]

Oh, I'm quite aware it's for game balance reasons...it just feels so counter-genre to me, though, that it annoys me. That's all. :)

OK, voluntarily reduce your brick's strength by 10 points and I'll give him free bonus damage for wielding a large object Say 2 or 3d6. Maybe even 4 for the right object. Both game balance and genre fairly served. Fair enough? :)

[Champsguy]

You're not handing out +2d6 damage to the blaster's 12d6 EB, are you, just because he picks up a commonly available item?

Well, that depends on the occasion. I will give the electricity-thrower a free Explosion on his attack if he shoots it into water. I'll give the same to the fire guy when he shoots at gas tanks. It's all the same--using your environment intelligently.

[nexus]

Oh please (as I think someone said earlier). Anyone can do falling damage in the right situation, and about the same amount.


Not really. A flier has to grab you and take you up high. A blaster has to have on the edge of a building. Exactly how high can most MA's throw compared to a brick?



There is no comparison betweer a 15 STR blaster getting +2d6 from an improvised club and a 60 STR brick getting +2d6. The first just makes no difference, the second is likely to have a significant effect. You're not handing out +2d6 damage to the blaster's 12d6 EB, are you, just because he picks up a commonly available item?

How about a 10d6 Martial artist getting a +2d6 for using a convient peice of pipe for a tonfa? Or the blaster that shoots a convient car, explodes and get a area effect attack? Or one that drops the roof on a bunch of people.

So the brick gets +2d6. Maybe. Probably once. Big Whoop. Against most other bricks he'd be using such tactics against, that means slightly more then jackshit. Given the fragility of most items, they're going break after one use anyway, sometimes there isn't anything handy nearby you want to use to whack someone with, etc. I've been doing this years and my game has yet to burst into flames and crumble. Everyone isn't a brick now so forgive mie I don't think its instant doom to a Champions games to give out the dreaded extra damage for a big heavy object.

Yeah, I'm being an asshole but I sick and tired of taking shit today.

[Champsguy]

I gotta spread rep before I give it to nexus again.

[Sean Waters]

Well, that depends on the occasion. I will give the electricity-thrower a free Explosion on his attack if he shoots it into water. I'll give the same to the fire guy when he shoots at gas tanks. It's all the same--using your environment intelligently.

OK, but large solid objects are far more common than pools of water or gas tanks in most games, and you are handing out explosions.

The brick gets ranged, +OCV/AE attack and possibly indirect (throwing it over the top). AND you want to add damage?

OK, you go and add damage. I'm going to bed.

G'night all. :o

[Gary]

As a note, adding +2d6 is NOT jack shit. It increases Stunning chances tremendously for typical damage ranges in a superheroic game.

For example, a 12d6 attack vs a 25 def 23 con target has a 13.8% chance of Stunning said target. A 14d6 vs the same target has a 53.1% chance!

[nexus]

As a note, adding +2d6 is NOT jack shit. It increases Stunning chances tremendously for typical damage ranges in a superheroic game.

For example, a 12d6 attack vs a 25 def 23 con target has a 13.8% chance of Stunning said target. A 14d6 vs the same target has a 53.1% chance!

I'm talking about Bricks. Most of the bricks IMG with 60 strength, have 30-38 Physical and Cons in the high 20s, low 30s. Against them it hasn't played out as much of a big deal. Its made fights go a little faster, but that's not nessecarily a bad thing.

[Gary]

I'm talking about Bricks. Most of the bricks IMG with 60 strength, have 30-38 Physical and Cons in the high 20s, low 30s. Against them it hasn't played out as much of a big deal. Its made fights go a little faster, but that's not nessecarily a bad thing.


IME, it's usually the low def MAs and Speedsters who get whacked by objects from a brick. That's usually the only way a brick could hit one. Against other bricks, they don't need the help.

[Champsguy]

IME, it's usually the low def MAs and Speedsters who get whacked by objects from a brick. That's usually the only way a brick could hit one. Against other bricks, they don't need the help.

Against other bricks, they use it for dice.

[Gary]

Against other bricks, they use it for dice.


Not in the games I've played in. We've interpreted that you did the minimum of the target's Str and the Def+Body of the object.

[nexus]

IME, it's usually the low def MAs and Speedsters who get whacked by objects from a brick. That's usually the only way a brick could hit one. Against other bricks, they don't need the help.

In those cases, the MA usasally dives for cover and uses his superior speed to strike back. Sometimes they do get nailed and squished, but that's the risks of fighting someone how can benchpress a tank. :)

Bricks wail on each other with objects when their damage can't keep up with their opponents Defense and Recovery, so they're trying eke any little more they can. It ususally happen with the fight's getting desperate or time is of the essence. I've found it pretty dramatic and makes the fights "feel" more like a comic book, but that's just been my experience.

[Gary]

In those cases, the MA usasally dives for cover and uses his superior speed to strike back. Sometimes they do get nailed and squished, but that's the risks of fighting someone how can benchpress a tank. :)

Bricks wail on each other with objects when their damage can't keep up with their opponents Defense and Recovery, so they're trying eke any little more they can. It ususally happen with the fight's getting desperate or time is of the essence. I've found it pretty dramatic and makes the fights "feel" more like a comic book, but that's just been my experience.


Another use is to nail that flyer that the brick can't reach any other way. ;)

[Ki-rin]

There you have, straight from The Man himself.

...(from another post by same person) Nor me (would this be the first time I thought SL was wrong). In this case, though, I would have rather been wrong than been right.



Won't be the first time I've thought he was wrong.

ROTFLMAO... ...So when someone else disagrees with a SL ruling, they're "clueless", "deluded", "F*cked up", etc, etc, but when SL disagrees with <b>your</b> POV, then SL is wrong? That's a great example of Hypocrisy.

I 100% agree with Sean that Game Balance must be paramount. However, I also agree with others that say the it's unreasonable for "staples" of the genre not to be modeled reasonably well and in a game balanced way by the system. How to resolve the on-the-surface inconsistency?

AP cost and the Master Game Balance Equation. When using a weapon, you can't do more than 2x your base AP class in damage with it <b>including Advantages</b>. Thus swinging or throwing a Tank could do considerably more AP than just your Str strike does. It also gives your Str Strike the Ads of Area Affect and perhaps a few others (Ranged, +1 OCV, +1 STUNx, Penetrating, etc, all come to mind as candidates). If the the attack is into a "volatile" environment, that environment may itself generate further damage (Champsguy's excellent fire attack into gas tanks example). This can indeed allow a brick to generate some awe inspiring damage in one shot. But it is NOT for free, and it's not unlimited.

The genre examples are fairly clear that these kinds of attacks usually involve the brick pushing themself (increased END cost) and/or taking extra time to make the attack (Haymaker-like slowness to the attack) as well as the fact that said object is usually damaged pretty severely by such use (The more extreme examples show the object to be a "one shot" weapon.)

So via these methods the brick gets an attack that does up to 2x the AP of their STR that is likely to be slower than their standard attack and of extremely limited number of "charges". ...Not to mention the more subtle negatives the such extensive property damage can have...

In practice, crunching the numbers ends up coming close to what Sean has been posting.

[Champsguy]

ROTFLMAO... ...So when someone else disagrees with a SL ruling, they're "clueless", "deluded", "F*cked up", etc, etc, but when SL disagrees with <b>your</b> POV, then SL is wrong?

Yep.


That's a great example of Hypocrisy.

There's a story to it, but that's for another thread.

[Dr. Anomaly]

ROTFLMAO... ...So when someone else disagrees with a SL ruling, they're "clueless", "deluded", "F*cked up", etc, etc, but when SL disagrees with <b>your</b> POV, then SL is wrong? That's a great example of Hypocrisy.
(sigh)

First, I didn't say all those things about or to you. Don't try and make it look like I did.

Second, I may have disagreed with his ruling, but I said I wished I'd been wrong -- meaning I've been playing the game by the rules, as written -- and, unlike you, I didn't insist that the way I wished things were was in fact the One True Path That Everyone Must Follow. Nor did I call on Steve to change his ruling for for DOJ Games to immediately issue an errata.

There's worlds of difference there, chum.


Someone else can deal with this [self-censored]. The only further thing I have to say to him is

PLONK

[Hugh Neilson]

For interest, this thread (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18418&page=1&pp=15) discussed some possible rules for objects of opportunity in some depth (before it degenerated, as they all seem to).

While I agree that "DEF + BOD" is the rule, I don't agree it is appropriate. And I likethe idea RDU Neil mentioned of requiring the object to have DEF+BOD in excess of the DC the character could do with STR alone.

I would still cap any bonus damage, for two easons. First, that's 4x the force in Hero rules. Second, as Gary says, an extra 7 STUN on average is by no means insignificant.

Perhaps an object of significant hardness (by comparison to Our Hero's fists) might do +1d6, and a truly massive object might do +1d6, for a total maximum of +2d6. Add in a cap of ([Def+BOD] - [STR DC])/2 ,and that would seem a reasonable damage rule.

All we need now is OCV modifiers ("I'm sorry Brickman, you lack WP: Aiurcraft and therefore stricke at -3 OCV"), DCV (the encumbrance penalties may work well here) and time requirements.

[lemming]

We generally used full STR damage in games with objects as long as they were somewhat sturdy, but generally they would be destroyed with that one shot. I don't think we ever came up with a hard rule, but the GM would limit the number of dice. And almost always it was a brick trying to flatten a martial artist.
And there was also the using of a large downed opponent that would come up.

I like Sean's ideas for how to buying the extra damage. Not sure if I would implement it, but it's a good way to get about it.

[lemming]

IME, it's usually the low def MAs and Speedsters who get whacked by objects from a brick. That's usually the only way a brick could hit one. Against other bricks, they don't need the help.
That's been my experience as well. It's the area effect item used to toss on top of the pesky MA.

[Gary]

Of course if someone evil wants a legal way to do increased damage with a large hard object like a tank or vault door, it's easy. Just do a Movethrough with the vault door vs a DCV 3 hex. Even a slow brick can usually leap 20" and add +6d6 damage and still hit the hex with a -4 penalty. And a slightly better brick can leap 30", add +10d6 and all he has to do is essentially hit DCV 9. :eg:

I did that once before the GM banned the tactic. :weep:

[Dr. Anomaly]

Of course if someone evil wants a legal way to do increased damage with a large hard object like a tank or vault door, it's easy. Just do a Movethrough with the vault door vs a DCV 3 hex. Even a slow brick can usually leap 20" and add +6d6 damage and still hit the hex with a -4 penalty. And a slightly better brick can leap 30", add +10d6 and all he has to do is essentially hit DCV 9. :eg:
Oy!

[Ki-rin]

The thing I like about figuring out what the "right" thing to do from The Master Game Balance Equation is that it seems to keep all parties happy:

The Bricks get an attack that can conceivably have higher AP than even their Haymaker, since the max AP on thrown objects is 2x their base Str AP, rather than the 1.5x of the Haymaker, keeping The Combat Monster (tm), The Mad Slasher (tm), and The Pro from Dover (tm) happy.

The game genre is respected, keeping The Copier (tm) and The Genre Fiend (tm) happy.

...and the limits on AP cost and other logical consistency points keep The Rules Rapist (tm) from ruining everyone else's good time.

This is one of the things I <b>really</b> like about the HERO system. The system itself is strong enough that if you enforce it in a logically consistent manner it usually comes very close to working out correctly. No matter what <b>anyone's</b> opinion/ruling/religion on the matter says.

<b>That's</b> the hallmark of a very well designed system.

[zornwil]

Years ago I built a character called Fortress for a friend of mine (his name is Matt and he's just undergone brain surgery: I'm pretty sure the evens are not connected. Any good thoughts sent his way through the ether would be much appreciated)

Anyway, the concept was that 40 years ago he was Superman, basically the most powerful being on the planet. A lot had changed since he helped win WWII though: for one thing he got old and developed heart trouble (actually the military game him drugs which damaged his heart as they were becoming frightened of how powerful he was becoming).

Even then he was enormously strong. I described his outlook to Matt as seeing himself as if he lived in a paper world: there was almost nothing that wouldn't rip, tear or break if he handled it too roughly.

I think the idea of scenery smashing if it isn't strong enough to stand up to what you are using it for is entirely appropriate and in-genre, otherwise every brick would carry around a medium sized family saloon at all times.

Just think how desperately powerful these beings are: imagine being hit by a telephone pole swung by the arm of a catapult: your average brick is far far stronger than the catapult. They really can do more damage hitting something with a fist than with a bit of scenery: the scenery just isn't up to it.
I really, really like this character concept!

[zornwil]

I'm probably confused here, but is this saying that there is no way a brick can get extra dice of damage from an object they pick up? Not even a die or two?

(Yes... the GM can choose to give whatever they want... but by the rules?)

If so... how does this translate down to low level strength? So... how does a baseball bat add damage when I swing it as a normal guy? Why does a brick get boned by this rule? At what point does STR become something that an object can't add to the damage. 25 STR? 30 STR?

Yep... really confused here.
By the rules yes, but...even the rules define "club" as a weapon. So I think it depends a lot, by the rules, as to just how we define that - is it a "stick", a generic "object", or a "club"?

[zornwil]

I would hazard a guess you're right, Hyper-Man, and echo RDU Neil's confusion...it's something that never made sense to me.

There are just too many genre examples in the comic books of bricks using things as clubs against opponents that aren't dangerous to touch and that were easily within "half-move" range for me to believe they were using the clubs 'just cause it looked kewl!!!" -- they had to be getting more damage out of it!
To be fair, don't you just call that stuff SFX then? IOW, it's his own STR, this is just a little show, a little meaningless "non-focus".

[zornwil]

Yes, it is a change. I have previous editions of the rules as well. Page cite, please.
Page 177 in the Big Blue Book. Last paragraph.

"Note that if characters use an object as a weapon, the maximum amount of damage that can be done with the object is equal to the combined DEF and BODY - any additional damage and the object simply breaks."

[Hyper-Man]

Page 177 in the Big Blue Book. Last paragraph.

"Note that if characters use an object as a weapon, the maximum amount of damage that can be done with the object is equal to the combined DEF and BODY - any additional damage and the object simply breaks."

What you quoted is essentially the same as the section of 5ER that I quoted earlier. The statement, by itself, is not limiting a STR 60 character to 12d6 if he is using an object with 7 DEF + 7 BODY (total 14).

My copy of ol' Big Blue and most of my older champions books are buried behind stacks of boxes. Can you check to see if there is any references with regard to DEF+BODY exceeding a characters base damage dice for STR?

HM

[Dr. Anomaly]

What you quoted is essentially the same as the section of 5ER that I quoted earlier. The statement, by itself, is not limiting a STR 60 character to 12d6 if he is using an object with 7 DEF + 7 BODY (total 14).No, Steve's ruling does that. (Apart from house rules, of course.) And yes, I know what you said ... Steve has reversed himself in the past. Maybe he will this time. I dunno. Right now, though, the Official Word From On-High is that a brick is so limited. (shrug)

[Dr. Anomaly]

To be fair, don't you just call that stuff SFX then? IOW, it's his own STR, this is just a little show, a little meaningless "non-focus".
Every so often, I get hung up on something that bothers me. In this case, it seems like a clash between genre and rules. If my players prefer the official rules in a case like this, that's how I run it. If they don't care, then I call it "clever use of the environment" and give the brick an extra d6 or so. Either way, it's something that I can live with without it being a federal case. It's just one of those things that causes a "hitch" in my...I suppose you'd call it 'suspension of disbelief'? In time it'll die down and the "hitch" will go out of my concious mind. It'll return later (maybe in a year or two). Until then, I'll debate it, make suggestions about it, listen to opinions about it, and so on. :)

[zornwil]

What you quoted is essentially the same as the section of 5ER that I quoted earlier. The statement, by itself, is not limiting a STR 60 character to 12d6 if he is using an object with 7 DEF + 7 BODY (total 14).

My copy of ol' Big Blue and most of my older champions books are buried behind stacks of boxes. Can you check to see if there is any references with regard to DEF+BODY exceeding a characters base damage dice for STR?

HM
I didn't see one when I looked around. I think this statement means what it does in 5th, but isn't stated so clearly.

[zornwil]

Every so often, I get hung up on something that bothers me. In this case, it seems like a clash between genre and rules. If my players prefer the official rules in a case like this, that's how I run it. If they don't care, then I call it "clever use of the environment" and give the brick an extra d6 or so. Either way, it's something that I can live with without it being a federal case. It's just one of those things that causes a "hitch" in my...I suppose you'd call it 'suspension of disbelief'? In time it'll die down and the "hitch" will go out of my concious mind. It'll return later (maybe in a year or two). Until then, I'll debate it, make suggestions about it, listen to opinions about it, and so on. :)
I'm just playing devil's advocate. Personally I often will add 1-2d6 of damage.

[lemming]

Page 177 in the Big Blue Book. Last paragraph.

"Note that if characters use an object as a weapon, the maximum amount of damage that can be done with the object is equal to the combined DEF and BODY - any additional damage and the object simply breaks."
3rd edition Page 82:
"The maximum amount of damage that can be done by a thrown object is equal to the character's STR damage or the object's total DEF and BODY, whichever is less."

This was in the throwing objects area.

[Hyper-Man]

3rd edition Page 82:
"The maximum amount of damage that can be done by a thrown object is equal to the character's STR damage or the object's total DEF and BODY, whichever is less."

This was in the throwing objects area.

Well, at first glance this wording appears to be far more clear on the subject than either 4E, 5E or 5ER. But, it is talking specifically about thrown objects, not objects being used as a club HTH. Since real world muscle powered weapons in 5ER are built with STR Minimums and exceeding these minimums does not increase the damage of the ranged attack this is a reasonable concept. It's effectively the real world rule for ranged muscle powered weapons being scaled up (unlike the real world rule for HTH muscle powered weapons) . I still think there might be an exception (in some pre-5th edition) for HTH objects of oportunity.

:) good nite all.
HM

[AmadanNaBriona]

Hmmm... a potentially groovy way to handle this issue in a campaign just sort of popped into my head... its easy enough to make additional "optional" combat manuvers with the martial arts rules, and WF: Clubs is an everyman skill IIRC. It'd be easy enough to write up a few "brick trick" manuvers that are expressly intended for improvised weapons...
Must think on this more when I have my books handy...

[Dr. Anomaly]

It'd be easy enough to write up a few "brick trick" manuvers that are expressly intended for improvised weapons...I believe that was what Sean was saying with his 7-pt. construct a few posts back. :)

[Phil]

I believe that was what Sean was saying with his 7-pt. construct a few posts back. :)

Personally, while I liked the construct, something that is *that* common shouldnt need a construct. I've found a lot of the arguments here very persuasive, but to my mind it's been a conflict of game mechanical balance / physics vs. genre (an over-simplified trolling statement for sure!), and in such circumstances - for me - genre wins.

This has actually been a problem in other supers games: I remember Marvel SH, particularly, but possibly Mayfair's DC as well. Technically it strikes me as broadly correct: force is experienced equally by striker and strikee, therefore any force in excess of the force required to break an object cannot be transmitted. However, this is clearly an oversimplification, ignoring how force is transmitted, elasticity, etc. etc. (must... resist... using... american... 'yadda'... phrase.. :) ). Apart from anything else, is there not some issue with momentum and levers (at least as far as the classic telegraph pole / lampost is concerned)?

Aw, who cares. Bricks hit other bricks with objects when game rules say there is little or no benefit (after all, bricks generally dont have a problem hitting each other, so AoE seems to provide very little). I'm wondering, however, whether the effect is not so much extra damage as extra knockback? Certainly, that's the comic book effect that I would associate with this sort of maneuver, the brick 'swat' of bus vs. supervillain. So perhaps the only necessary modification is subtracting x from the knockback roll for every whole hex of size (length) that an object is? (where x=2?) This can still produce extra damage - from the KB itself, and from KB straight down, but the main effect is to get a bit of distance or to get your opponent prone so you've got time to level that haymaker.

Just thought I'd throw something new into the melting pot.

[austenandrews]

I stuck the 'with examples' bit in for good reason: what goodies do you hand out to other character types that they haven't paid for? :)
Ranged attacks can shoot high objects from their supports and drop them on bad guys. Attacks with Knockback can knock large objects into bad guys. Attacks that punch through floors can drop bad guys to the next floor down. Heat attacks can boil liquids, Force Field bubbles can hold water, Entangles can bar doors, electrical powers can boost the performance of some devices... need I go on? These are off the top of my head.

Maybe I'm unusual, but I do what I can to reward creativity from players. Nothing's more boring than a PC only doing exactly what's written on his character sheet.

[Sean Waters]

Ranged attacks can shoot high objects from their supports and drop them on bad guys. Attacks with Knockback can knock large objects into bad guys. Attacks that punch through floors can drop bad guys to the next floor down. Heat attacks can boil liquids, Force Field bubbles can hold water, Entangles can bar doors, electrical powers can boost the performance of some devices... need I go on? These are off the top of my head.

Maybe I'm unusual, but I do what I can to reward creativity from players. Nothing's more boring than a PC only doing exactly what's written on his character sheet.

Blimey, seems there have been a few 'hot topics' lately, and this one seems to be getting there too. In fact there has been a lot of traffic on this board, which is really nice. :) Well done, everyone.

I'm with you on rewarding creativity, but I would have a caveat: the difference, as i see it, is that the average large heavy object is very common, be it a car in the city, a boulder in the desert or a chunk of machinery in the villain's base. Whilst other powers can certainly take advantage of the environment it requires the GM to put the materials there as they lack the same ubiquity. That or some darned spiffy player set-up.

The other thing about dropping stuff on villains (to take one example) is that it requires the villain to stand under the object and away from innocent bystanders. Strength gives far more control to the object that moving it with knockback or shearing it off and letting it drop. Not suggesting that you can not use other powers in a creative and reward-worthy way, but i do think that the opportunity is far more readily available for high strength characters.

To be quite clear, if this is not a problem in the group, and noone feels the brick heroes and villains are over-powered or getting more easter eggs than anyone else, no worries.

Equally I'm not insensitive (despite everything I say and do.... :) ) to the genre needs: a game system should conform to your expectations without necessarily having to add bells and whistles in the design stage. The problem arises, as always, when people have different expectations. My approach to this, and the one the system seems to take, is to set things up in favour of balance (or, setting the base rules at relatively restrictive) and allow the design of genre concepts.

AmadanNaBriona mentioned using martial arts manouvres (rather than power constructs in a multipower) to simulate 'brick tricks' and this may not be a bad idea at all; you could require the manoeuvres to be used with appropriate weapons of opportunity, so swinging a truck at someone is considered an offensive strike, swinging a telephone pole could be a defensive strike or a legsweep...Of course it begs the question why not just spend the extra point so you can use the manouvres weaponless? I guess the answer would be because it is not 'in genre' :D

[zornwil]

3rd edition Page 82:
"The maximum amount of damage that can be done by a thrown object is equal to the character's STR damage or the object's total DEF and BODY, whichever is less."

This was in the throwing objects area.
Yeah, I was looking through 3rd ed. also and only saw that, couldn't find a more general reference.

[zornwil]

Personally, while I liked the construct, something that is *that* common shouldnt need a construct. I've found a lot of the arguments here very persuasive, but to my mind it's been a conflict of game mechanical balance / physics vs. genre (an over-simplified trolling statement for sure!), and in such circumstances - for me - genre wins.

This has actually been a problem in other supers games: I remember Marvel SH, particularly, but possibly Mayfair's DC as well. Technically it strikes me as broadly correct: force is experienced equally by striker and strikee, therefore any force in excess of the force required to break an object cannot be transmitted. However, this is clearly an oversimplification, ignoring how force is transmitted, elasticity, etc. etc. (must... resist... using... american... 'yadda'... phrase.. :) ). Apart from anything else, is there not some issue with momentum and levers (at least as far as the classic telegraph pole / lampost is concerned)?

Aw, who cares. Bricks hit other bricks with objects when game rules say there is little or no benefit (after all, bricks generally dont have a problem hitting each other, so AoE seems to provide very little). I'm wondering, however, whether the effect is not so much extra damage as extra knockback? Certainly, that's the comic book effect that I would associate with this sort of maneuver, the brick 'swat' of bus vs. supervillain. So perhaps the only necessary modification is subtracting x from the knockback roll for every whole hex of size (length) that an object is? (where x=2?) This can still produce extra damage - from the KB itself, and from KB straight down, but the main effect is to get a bit of distance or to get your opponent prone so you've got time to level that haymaker.

Just thought I'd throw something new into the melting pot.
I think the problem is there are different interpretations even of what is "genre". One school appears to be that what is genre is that only bricks of certain levels do this and that for them a 7 point ability or such is entirely balanced between genre and cost. One could argue as well that even in genre that doesn't mean that the brick gets any additional damage beyond what they can do hand-to-hand, that it's just a flashy gimmick and SFX of their ability. I don't argue this, but that's how I understand the opposing viewpoint.

[RDU Neil]

I think the problem is there are different interpretations even of what is "genre". One school appears to be that what is genre is that only bricks of certain levels do this and that for them a 7 point ability or such is entirely balanced between genre and cost. One could argue as well that even in genre that doesn't mean that the brick gets any additional damage beyond what they can do hand-to-hand, that it's just a flashy gimmick and SFX of their ability. I don't argue this, but that's how I understand the opposing viewpoint.

What this raises is the question... "Is the entire concept of Maneuvers (those free actions any character can attempt) genre based?"

Move-Through and Move-by certainly seem to be... but the fact that these also scale for any genre is why they are so great. Any movement power plus str... with mods... go! It isn't like you are saying Move Through is only available to characters who have bought "Flight"

One of the great concepts that I love about Hero is the Maneuvers. Without even getting into special training maneuvers (Martial Arts which you have to buy with points) these maneuvers provide options and flavor that ABSOLUTELY (IMO) reinforces the "cinematic action" feel that Hero is supposedly designed to reflect.

That is why this "object as weapon" ruling is so weird. It seems like a straight forward "Maneuver" that any character... no matter their strength... should be able to perform. Whether I'm a back alley brawler... a space cowbow... or a metahuman "brick"... I should be able to pick up an object and hit someone with it to get a little more damage.

The fact that a brick does NOT get more dice for a big stick... but my back alley brawler does is ALSO genre, because "added damage" is relative. The item needs to provide a level of nasty beyond the open hand ability of the person swinging it.

Thus it seems a standard maneuver should exist that is scalable.

Step one: Is the character strong enough to pick up the object. (My brawler can hit you with a bat... but swinging a refrigerator is bit beyond him.) Easy enough to figure... no rule changes here.

Step two: Determine "does the object STR+Body exceed the STR DC that would happen normally with open hand?" comes into it. I think this works well, but hey, it's my idea. :) If the object isn't "hard enough" then it doesn't do more than the empty hand.

Step three: (if the first step qualifies) is "how much damage does it add?" I think Hugh's idea of a flat DC amount... maybe 2DC flat, I dunno. Something that just goes on top of normal STR... NO MATTER HOW STRONG THE CHARACTER IS.

This is consistent (IMO) with the generic maneuvers already in existance in the rules. It scales, as do other maneuvers.

The only thing here is that it does emphasize a problem we already know exists, which is that STR is very effective for it's cost. But already, a brick who decides to lower a couple DCs to get a +1 to hit is already getting a benefit for cheap STR... this isn't any worse. (I don't want to take this into the STR is TOO CHEAP rant... just point out that this is no more unbalancing a concept as other canon maneuvers or uses of STR.)

YMMV of course.

[austenandrews]

My approach to this, and the one the system seems to take, is to set things up in favour of balance (or, setting the base rules at relatively restrictive) and allow the design of genre concepts.
That's probably the source of the disconnect. Game balance to me is a secondary consideration (unless it gets out of hand). That's not to say that I think my viewpoint is unbalanced, of course. Just that I'm more concerned that the game represent the genre. Rules serve that purpose, first and foremost. Where they run directly counter to that purpose, they need work. For my part, notions like overall mathematical balance and system design metarules are low on my list of considerations when I'm running a game.

Hero has never been one of those systems where everything works exactly as desired out of the box. If it was, we wouldn't have all those optional rules and stop signs. So to me, avoiding a commonsense rule because it's potentially "unbalancing" is not in the spirit of the Hero System. Flag it as such, but don't leave it out.

YMMV.

[zornwil]

That's probably the source of the disconnect. Game balance to me is a secondary consideration (unless it gets out of hand). That's not to say that I think my viewpoint is unbalanced, of course. Just that I'm more concerned that the game represent the genre. Rules serve that purpose, first and foremost. Where they run directly counter to that purpose, they need work. For my part, notions like overall mathematical balance and system design metarules are low on my list of considerations when I'm running a game.

Hero has never been one of those systems where everything works exactly as desired out of the box. If it was, we wouldn't have all those optional rules and stop signs. So to me, avoiding a commonsense rule because it's potentially "unbalancing" is not in the spirit of the Hero System. Flag it as such, but don't leave it out.

YMMV.
You raise a good point, I also tend to find balance as a secondary concern. Lemming has said (and I repeat it because I'm proud of it and the meaning behind it) that I run one of the best "balanced unbalanced" campaigns he's been in, in that while I allow for what might well be imbalances I deal with those in gameplay to limit them from actually being unbalancing in play, or at least ensuring that all have their fun.

So where one prioritizes balance against genre/flavor and even SFX is a big deal. There's no right way, and even if HERO indicates a priority, it's still an individual choice thing, and very, very much so, something that will be powerfully revealed by how a GM implements the toolkit.

HERO indicates some sort of priority in indicating, on p. 558, "The goal was to keep the mechanics reasonably simple, encourage roleplaying, and create a flavor similar to that in books, movies, and comics. Most important was giving the game the "feel" of a good action novel or a movie. When realism conflicted with that goal, realism took second place - gaming is about adventure and excitement and larger-than-life deeds. Then the rules were made as simple as reasonably possible (without sacrificing game balance or the details necessary for play) so the game mechanics wouldn't get in the way of having fun."

This seems to indicate a priority more oriented towards giving 1-2 DC for a makeshift club. However, some would argue that "game balance" (certainly nidicated above) is too greatly sacrificed. I really challenge that assertion, but there you are.

Of course the design considerations on the same page go on to relate, "Above all, the HERO System is intended to be flexible and open-ended - capable of simulating any real or fictional situation." So we do have a call to realistic simulation here, as well.

Then it does go on to state that there are two basic considerations - in summary, one is that it's "wrong to remove or change a worthwhile or fun rule just because some gamers can exploit or abuse it." (personally, I believe a logical corollary to this is that it's equally wrong to explicate a rule simply to account for all possible abuses or exploitations, but 5ER's approach flies in the face of this a bit) But the other consideration is "it's equally wrong to make it easy for players to abuse rules." It goes on to admit "there's a fine line...between leaving good rules in and making rules as "bulletproof" as possible...".

So there will always be a waffle according to who owns DOJ and that fine line. I believe that RDU Neil's post above is really more of how it should be, though, and this one I'd probably go so far as to codify as change if I owned HERO. And while I discuss a lot of changes, there are relatively few I'd actually make if I were writing 6th Edition.

[Dr. Anomaly]

What this raises is the question... "Is the entire concept of Maneuvers (those free actions any character can attempt) genre based?"

(snip)
:hail: Bravo! Excellent! I think you hit the nail on the head, RDU Neil! And further, I :love: your idea. It may need a bit of tweaking to suit personal taste, but I think the general idea is sound! :celebrate:

You'll be getting some rep from me tomorrow! :D

[AmadanNaBriona]

I just caught up with this thread, and in rereading parts of it, I had another "devils advocate" thought pop up that messes with the established cannon...
While I realize that this falls into the "Its a weapon, so it can ignore the rules" category, think for a second about a bullet.
A little hunk of lead, 1 body tops. I don't know the DEF for lead, but seeing as you can cut it with a 1 pip HKA pocketknife, I'd say thet its got a pretty low DEF...say 2
So wouldn't that limit damage to 3dc for all guns?
No?
Why?
Because somebody paid points for it is the "official" answer.
Because its designed as a weapon is the "rules justification answer.
Because the bullet imparts more energy than it can sustain in damage and in the process destroys itself is the "real world" answer...
the last of which is a decent argument for why you should be able to inflict more damage with an item than the def+ body
say max DC with an improvised attack as DEF+ (BODY X2)... enough body to "Destroy" the object, not just "Break" it. Any attack exceeding DEF+BODY breaks the item and renders it useless for further actions... but for that one shot, you should be able to inflict more grief with it than its mass based damage, to reflect the force involved as well.
I agree that Genre conventions should support Bricks doing more damage with improvized weapons... I'm in the Why else would they use them camp. On the point balance scale... would you allow a character to take advantage of the extra DEF from hiding behind a high DEF/BODY item without paying for the extra defenses? Hows it different?

Heres a few "Optional Standard Genere manuvers" I quickly threw together..

all manuvers use the default WE: Improvised weapons group
all manuvers are built at 0-1 pt cost as per "standard manuvers" listing in UMA, pg 150
perhaps assume that all manuvers have a +/- 0 limit that any improvised weapon must have def+body= at least (Str/5)/2 to gain any additional dice
Bash +0 OCV -1 DCV +1d6 damage
Smash +0 OCV -2 DCV +2d6 damage
Crash +0 OCV -2 DCV +3d6 damage, unbalancing
Wallop -1 OCV -2 DCV +4d6 damage, unbalancing, time+
Fling +0 OCV -2 DCV +2d6 damage, ranged manuver
Hurl +0 OCV -2 DCV +4d6 damage, -2 RNG mod, time+, half move required, ranged manuver

[AmadanNaBriona]

and as a post script...I'm leaning more towards the "any manuver you can write up for 0-1 point is OK by me for you to use if you can justify the effects" school of combat manuvers. Something I saw in DH, IIRC. Seems to fit the genre conventions well, and allows for more combat flexibility. With the addition of ranged MA manuvers usable as "standard" manuvers, it allows for tricks like an Energy Projector cutting the legs out from under a fleeing opponent without requiring the character to pay points for the manuver.

[Gary]

and as a post script...I'm leaning more towards the "any manuver you can write up for 0-1 point is OK by me for you to use if you can justify the effects" school of combat manuvers. Something I saw in DH, IIRC. Seems to fit the genre conventions well, and allows for more combat flexibility. With the addition of ranged MA manuvers usable as "standard" manuvers, it allows for tricks like an Energy Projector cutting the legs out from under a fleeing opponent without requiring the character to pay points for the manuver.

With the exception of Fmove and V/x maneuvers of course.

[Gary]

One thought if you want to allow bricks (or anyone else for that matter) to do more damage is to treat base OCV as inherent 'combat skill levels'. This will allow characters to trade -2 OCV to get +1 DC.

This has the advantage of consistency and fairness since every character type can take advantage of this trade. The advantage for a brick to use a large object in this case would be that he'll be hitting a base DCV of 3, thus giving him the luxury of sacrificing some OCV to add damage and still have a reasonable chance of hitting.

[AmadanNaBriona]

With the exception of Fmove and V/x maneuvers of course.
Nahhh.. I don't have problems with either as part of standard manuvers... they cost enough that the balancing negative elements would work it out... there are already several FMove +V/x standard manuvers...Move By, Move Through, and Grab By. Why couldn't you make another as long as it balanced?

[Gary]

Nahhh.. I don't have problems with either as part of standard manuvers... they cost enough that the balancing negative elements would work it out... there are already several FMove +V/x standard manuvers...Move By, Move Through, and Grab By. Why couldn't you make another as long as it balanced?


1) Fmove +V/5 -2 OCV -2 DCV. 0 pt maneuver.

This is essentially the same thing as a moveby, except that your Str isn't halved and you don't take 1/3 damage. Essentially there would never be any reason for any character to ever do a moveby again.

2) Fmove + V/3 -2 OCV -2 DCV character takes 1/2 damage. 1 pt maneuver.

A better (and highly unbalancing) version of movethrough. Only 2 pt OCV penalty instead of -V/5, and -2 DCV instead of -3. Also, your character automatically takes only 1/2 damage instead of a risk of full damage if the target isn't knocked back. Nobody would ever do a movethrough again.

At a cost of 1 pt for V/5, as soon as a character has 10" or more velocity, it's unbalanced. Similarly at a cost of 3 pts for V/3, the cost becomes unbalanced at 12" velocity.

[Hyper-Man]

One thought if you want to allow bricks (or anyone else for that matter) to do more damage is to treat base OCV as inherent 'combat skill levels'. This will allow characters to trade -2 OCV to get +1 DC.

This has the advantage of consistency and fairness since every character type can take advantage of this trade. The advantage for a brick to use a large object in this case would be that he'll be hitting a base DCV of 3, thus giving him the luxury of sacrificing some OCV to add damage and still have a reasonable chance of hitting.

That's a very interresting idea. I am trying to think of what the negatives are of implementing this but I'm coming up with much so far.

HM

[austenandrews]

That's a very interresting idea. I am trying to think of what the negatives are of implementing this but I'm coming up with much so far.

HM
DEX-monsters could dish Brick damage with impunity, since their DCV wouldn't be affected?

[AmadanNaBriona]

1) Fmove +V/5 -2 OCV -2 DCV. 0 pt maneuver.

This is essentially the same thing as a moveby, except that your Str isn't halved and you don't take 1/3 damage. Essentially there would never be any reason for any character to ever do a moveby again.

2) Fmove + V/3 -2 OCV -2 DCV character takes 1/2 damage. 1 pt maneuver.

A better (and highly unbalancing) version of movethrough. Only 2 pt OCV penalty instead of -V/5, and -2 DCV instead of -3. Also, your character automatically takes only 1/2 damage instead of a risk of full damage if the target isn't knocked back. Nobody would ever do a movethrough again.

At a cost of 1 pt for V/5, as soon as a character has 10" or more velocity, it's unbalanced. Similarly at a cost of 3 pts for V/3, the cost becomes unbalanced at 12" velocity.

you have a point there, and thinking about it, I seem to remember the Digital Hero article addressing the same problem, with the ultimate suggestion of adopting approximately the same manuvers you just suggested in place of the current ones if you're going to play with freeform standard manuvers, as the basic versions of the various Fmove manuvers are among the few that don't balance out, pointwise.
Worth pondering still...

[Gary]

DEX-monsters could dish Brick damage with impunity, since their DCV wouldn't be affected?


Hmm, good point. Perhaps you should penalize both OCV and DCV? This would also allow real CSLs to keep one of their very few advantages over Dex.

[RDU Neil]

Hmm, good point. Perhaps you should penalize both OCV and DCV? This would also allow real CSLs to keep one of their very few advantages over Dex.

This crosses a fundamental game design issue (not just with Hero, but with many systems) ... that being linking damage to the ability to "hit well."

Essentially, if you link both hitting well, and doing big damage to one stat (in this case DEX) then that stat becomes the UBER-stat. Nothing else, combat wise, really matters. I hit well, and the better I hit, the more damage I do. That is really scary. Trading off "to hit" for "more damage" is not as bad, but really starts to blur the line.

If you can trade DEX for STR (effectively) when advantageous for you... and maybe trade STR for DEX (effectively) when advantageous... then distinction between the two really starts to blur.

(This is really a problem with all "figured characteristic" concepts in general... but that is an issue for another thread.)

[Sean Waters]

What this raises is the question... "Is the entire concept of Maneuvers (those free actions any character can attempt) genre based?"
.....

That is why this "object as weapon" ruling is so weird. It seems like a straight forward "Maneuver" that any character... no matter their strength... should be able to perform. Whether I'm a back alley brawler... a space cowbow... or a metahuman "brick"... I should be able to pick up an object and hit someone with it to get a little more damage.


Me again...apologies for the edit above but I just wanted to point out that even manoeuvres are balanced, in that there are no basic manouvres that add damage that don't have a corresponding negative, like reduced OCV or DCV, or both. Even there there is balance. The very genre enhancing manouvres that we all know and love only work because of that balance: otherwise the only one that would ever get used would be the best one.

If hitting something with a huge slab of concrete were a basic manouvre it would have those negatives built in, but no one has suggested that there should be any kind of penalty for a brick wielding something like this.

I mean if the space cowboy (or possibly the gangster of love?) picks up an improvised weapon they may get a couple extra dice damage, but they take a -3 OCV for an unfamiliar weapon (unless you consider it a club AND that WF:clubs is an everyman skill). The brick is getting OCV or AE bonuses for wielding a huge thing that would negate this penalty and turn it into a bonus, so is getting bonuses not available to lower strength characters.

Now I know you get bricks pounding each other with big stuff in the comics, but not on every panel: far from it. More often than not they don't use big objects or other handy 'weapons' at all. If they were getting increased damage and OCV, not using improvised weapons would be barmy, so, looking at the genre, could it be that we (and by 'we', I mean 'you' :) ) have misinterpretted the reasons behind these tactics?

Incidentally, I was looking for the official line on using large objects and whether they are counted as AE or increased OCV or whatever: couldn't find it in 5ER: anyone got a reference (I don't have TUB: my bad)?

[RDU Neil]

Me again...apologies for the edit above but I just wanted to point out that even manoeuvres are balanced, in that there are no basic manouvres that add damage that don't have a corresponding negative, like reduced OCV or DCV, or both. Even there there is balance. The very genre enhancing manouvres that we all know and love only work because of that balance: otherwise the only one that would ever get used would be the best one.

If hitting something with a huge slab of concrete were a basic manouvre it would have those negatives built in, but no one has suggested that there should be any kind of penalty for a brick wielding something like this.

I mean if the space cowboy (or possibly the gangster of love?) picks up an improvised weapon they may get a couple extra dice damage, but they take a -3 OCV for an unfamiliar weapon (unless you consider it a club AND that WF:clubs is an everyman skill). The brick is getting OCV or AE bonuses for wielding a huge thing that would negate this penalty and turn it into a bonus, so is getting bonuses not available to lower strength characters.

Now I know you get bricks pounding each other with big stuff in the comics, but not on every panel: far from it. More often than not they don't use big objects or other handy 'weapons' at all. If they were getting increased damage and OCV, not using improvised weapons would be barmy, so, looking at the genre, could it be that we (and by 'we', I mean 'you' :) ) have misinterpretted the reasons behind these tactics?

Incidentally, I was looking for the official line on using large objects and whether they are counted as AE or increased OCV or whatever: couldn't find it in 5ER: anyone got a reference (I don't have TUB: my bad)?

Good point... and that could be a factor figured into the "Bash 'em with the nasty bits" maneuver. I'm not looking at the rules, but say a flat -1 OCV for each +1d6 of damage up to 3d6 total. Again... just a suggestion. I wasn't (and I'm not now) claiming to have calculated out a balanced maneuver... just that such a maneuver seems like it would fit the core axiom of "cinematic action."

[Gary]

This crosses a fundamental game design issue (not just with Hero, but with many systems) ... that being linking damage to the ability to "hit well."

Essentially, if you link both hitting well, and doing big damage to one stat (in this case DEX) then that stat becomes the UBER-stat. Nothing else, combat wise, really matters. I hit well, and the better I hit, the more damage I do. That is really scary. Trading off "to hit" for "more damage" is not as bad, but really starts to blur the line.

If you can trade DEX for STR (effectively) when advantageous for you... and maybe trade STR for DEX (effectively) when advantageous... then distinction between the two really starts to blur.

(This is really a problem with all "figured characteristic" concepts in general... but that is an issue for another thread.)


Dex is already an uberstat. :D Still, trading 2 OCV and 2 DCV might be enough of a penalty that this tactic shouldn't be overused.

This aspect certainly comes into play though if you allow called shots on hit locations.

[Sean Waters]

Good point... and that could be a factor figured into the "Bash 'em with the nasty bits" maneuver. I'm not looking at the rules, but say a flat -1 OCV for each +1d6 of damage up to 3d6 total. Again... just a suggestion. I wasn't (and I'm not now) claiming to have calculated out a balanced maneuver... just that such a maneuver seems like it would fit the core axiom of "cinematic action."

An eminently sensible and acceptable compromise. Does this mean that this debate is actually arriving at a destination? How odd :D

I think AmadanNaBriona's suggestions for specific manouvres are good too, subject to some of the fair criticism raised if you try to take the concept too far.

Good discussion guys. Group hug. :)

[Gary]

Thinking about this subject some more.

1) There are further dangers in allowing custom 0 pt maneuvers. For example, what brick wouldn't take a +2 OCV -2 DCV maneuver when fighting a speedster or martial artist?

2) Here's a proposal for a new maneuver, expanding on my earlier thoughts (Rep to whomever can think of a good name for it). This maneuver allows +1 DC per -2 OCV and -2 DCV taken, with no one allowed to lower their DCV by more than half. So a Dex 23 person could add +2 DC to an attack, at the cost of lowering his base OCV and DCV to 4. A Dex 35 person could add +3 DC at the cost of lowering his base CVs to 6.

The penalties are pretty harsh, but first of all, I didn't want to make Dex an even greater bargain than it already is compared to CSLs. Trading CV for damage is one of the very few things that CSLs can do better than Dex, and I didn't want to infringe on this. Secondly, the penalties should be comparable to haymaker. The penalties are actually harsher, but it has the enormous advantage that it can act immediately rather than waiting until the end of the next segment. Also, players wouldn't use this maneuver unless they were desparate or perceived it to be to their advantage. Thus 'situational modifiers' mitigate some of the harshness. Finally, I would rather err on the side of harshness on optional maneuvers to maintain game balance.

Thoughts?

[austenandrews]

Now I know you get bricks pounding each other with big stuff in the comics, but not on every panel: far from it. More often than not they don't use big objects or other handy 'weapons' at all. If they were getting increased damage and OCV, not using improvised weapons would be barmy, so, looking at the genre, could it be that we (and by 'we', I mean 'you' :) ) have misinterpretted the reasons behind these tactics?
Why don't you bring a 2x4 to every fight you get into? I mean, what's the drawback?

You're thinking like a gamer, not like a writer. The reason they don't do it all the time in the comics is because they're big attacks reserved for big moments. If they did it all the time, it would lose its dramatic appeal. Not to mention that wanton property destruction is not something most heroes like to do.

[Hyper-Man]

Thinking about this subject some more.

1) There are further dangers in allowing custom 0 pt maneuvers. For example, what brick wouldn't take a +2 OCV -2 DCV maneuver when fighting a speedster or martial artist?

2) Here's a proposal for a new maneuver, expanding on my earlier thoughts (Rep to whomever can think of a good name for it). This maneuver allows +1 DC per -2 OCV and -2 DCV taken, with no one allowed to lower their DCV by more than half. So a Dex 23 person could add +2 DC to an attack, at the cost of lowering his base OCV and DCV to 4. A Dex 35 person could add +3 DC at the cost of lowering his base CVs to 6.

The penalties are pretty harsh, but first of all, I didn't want to make Dex an even greater bargain than it already is compared to CSLs. Trading CV for damage is one of the very few things that CSLs can do better than Dex, and I didn't want to infringe on this. Secondly, the penalties should be comparable to haymaker. The penalties are actually harsher, but it has the enormous advantage that it can act immediately rather than waiting until the end of the next segment. Also, players wouldn't use this maneuver unless they were desparate or perceived it to be to their advantage. Thus 'situational modifiers' mitigate some of the harshness. Finally, I would rather err on the side of harshness on optional maneuvers to maintain game balance.

Thoughts?

I like the idea. Seems somewhat balanced by the fact that it would be considered a true manuever, unlike the use of CSL's for extra DC's, and could not be combined with any other maneuvers.

Here's a possible name:
Roundhouse (since it is very similar to a Haymaker)

HM

[Gary]

I like the idea. Seems somewhat balanced by the fact that it would be considered a true manuever, unlike the use of CSL's for extra DC's, and could not be combined with any other maneuvers.

Here's a possible name:
Roundhouse (since it is very similar to a Haymaker)

HM


Repped! Thanks, good name. :)

[Sean Waters]

Why don't you bring a 2x4 to every fight you get into? I mean, what's the drawback?

You're thinking like a gamer, not like a writer. The reason they don't do it all the time in the comics is because they're big attacks reserved for big moments. If they did it all the time, it would lose its dramatic appeal. Not to mention that wanton property destruction is not something most heroes like to do.

Well I don't get into many fights, but in this country, carrying a 2x4 is illegal, so I'd get arrested: not a consideration in most superhero games. :)

With respect though (what a swingeing phrase, eh? What I really mean is much more pithy, but you get the gist...:D ) I'm not thinking like a gamer although you may be thinking like a reader and assumung that a writers dramatic conventions have more meaning than they do. The comic brick doesn't pick up a car for combat bonuses, he does it because it looks good on the page. Comics might be the source material but it is a mistake to try and interpret them into game form too closely. We seem to agree on this, albeit from slightly different directions. If we do agree, then my thesis is that there are not combat considerations in the comic, but flavour considerations. Why, in a translation to a game do you need combat bonuses? You don't.

In any event some writers are better than others. :)

You are translating your interpretation, coloured by your experience. So am I, but hopefully retaining the point: it IS a translation into a game. There has to be balance or the use of objects becomes ubiquitous and you lose your own thread: it no longer mirrors the source material. I'm not advocating not using massive objects in combat, just saying there has to be a downside to doing so, or it would be done all the time. :)

[Hugh Neilson]

The comic brick doesn't pick up a car for combat bonuses, he does it because it looks good on the page.

Extrapolate that out. Maybe he's doing it for a PRE attack bonus. "My lord, he just hit that guy with a 747! What can I do against that? I give up, Mr. Hero - here's my gun!"

And maybe we'll even impress the other Brick enough to be able to act before him next phase.

[Sean Waters]

Extrapolate that out. Maybe he's doing it for a PRE attack bonus. "My lord, he just hit that guy with a 747! What can I do against that? I give up, Mr. Hero - here's my gun!"

And maybe we'll even impress the other Brick enough to be able to act before him next phase.

Very good point. I'd certainly need a change of underwear. :nonp:

[austenandrews]

I'm not thinking like a gamer although you may be thinking like a reader and assumung that a writers dramatic conventions have more meaning than they do. The comic brick doesn't pick up a car for combat bonuses, he does it because it looks good on the page.
In my experience (which granted is a decade old) using large objects as weapons serves one of three dramatic purposes:

- To show the wielder's strength and end the fight (or threaten the end, if he hits the target);
- To show the target's toughness by shrugging it off; and
- To add interest in a particularly high-powered fight.

The first two argue for increased damage. The third is debatable.


There has to be balance or the use of objects becomes ubiquitous and you lose your own thread: it no longer mirrors the source material. I'm not advocating not using massive objects in combat, just saying there has to be a downside to doing so, or it would be done all the time. :)
I'm all for a downside, for just that reason. As I said before, to me the numbers should drive the game in a direction that mirrors the genre. I think a DCV penalty is the most obvious start (maybe the Grab DCV penalty?). Make it a Full Phase action as well.

I also don't think there should be a one-size-fits-all rule here, either. Off the top of my head I can imagine a list of options when you use a large object as a weapon. Pick one:

- AE based on size of object, no damage bonus
- OCV bonus based on size of object, no damage bonus
- damage bonus based on size/hardness of object

That should cover most cases.

[zornwil]

Extrapolate that out. Maybe he's doing it for a PRE attack bonus. "My lord, he just hit that guy with a 747! What can I do against that? I give up, Mr. Hero - here's my gun!"

And maybe we'll even impress the other Brick enough to be able to act before him next phase.
To this whole thread regarding the usage of a nearby object as really SFX + Presence Attack (good catch, Hugh), I would just say, then, that I think that while this is entirely a valid point, said brick ought not be penalized! The rules as they stand would penalize a brick who normally may strike with 12d6 and grabs a nearby flagpole or such which only has DEF+BOD of 6. Or even a brick with a 20d6 STR is penalized with an automobile (18 DEF+BOD, so not much of a penalty obviously). I think this is counter to the "it's just comic book flash, no bonus" school. It's not counter to the "realism" school, but I think the realism school is a bit off the mark in entirety since although we must respect some level of realism this game is to emulate heroic fiction, not the mundane world.

[RDU Neil]

Pick one:

- AE based on size of object, no damage bonus
- OCV bonus based on size of object, no damage bonus
- damage bonus based on size/hardness of object

That should cover most cases.

This is actually EXACTLY how I have done it for years... I just don't have math formulas to calculate them... I just "wing it" in terms of +X OCV or +Xd6 damage... combination of the two, sometimes. (And +x could be a negative number... so +3d6, but -3 OCV as an example.)

Going the "art more than a science" route, I think that those three "suggested combat concepts" should have an fourth, which is "added bonus should be relatively offset by penalties in another area"

There you have four guidelines... and as always the GM then makes the call as situation dictates in the game.

Guidelines trump hard rules almost every time, because guidelines exist to help the Game Rule and Play Experience level... where as hard rules exist at the more theoretical Axiom and Mechanic level. That's just my opinion, of course.

[zornwil]

This is actually EXACTLY how I have done it for years... I just don't have math formulas to calculate them... I just "wing it" in terms of +X OCV or +Xd6 damage... combination of the two, sometimes. (And +x could be a negative number... so +3d6, but -3 OCV as an example.)

Going the "art more than a science" route, I think that those three "suggested combat concepts" should have an fourth, which is "added bonus should be relatively offset by penalties in another area"

There you have four guidelines... and as always the GM then makes the call as situation dictates in the game.

Guidelines trump hard rules almost every time, because guidelines exist to help the Game Rule and Play Experience level... where as hard rules exist at the more theoretical Axiom and Mechanic level. That's just my opinion, of course.
That's a good way to put it.

I guess that's what I've wanted to see in HERO for a long time, to put it in your terms - rules, with the customary warning and stop signs, and guidelines. And I'd like to see something like 30%-50% of 5ER as guidelines rather than rules - stuff such as the Classes of Minds should be GUIDELINES. If you tell players what the rules are versus the guidelines, that also helps them, and it reduces rules lawyering greatly (GM - "That's just a guideline and based on that here's how I do it...") as well as debates. If we had a clearer understanding of the "hard" rules versus the suggestions, we'd be better off, and so would the system. Plus you can easily create volumes of "guidelines" works without affecting the core system. Genre books are a good example of documents that are basically 90% if not 100% guidelines - good ones, but all non-essential to the rules system itself.

So from a HERO perspective, the perfect tome on the HERO toolkit would include a volume on the axioms, a volume on mechanisms, a volume on rules, and a volume on guidelines - of course the structure might be different (in particular, the rules and guidelines would almost certainly be mixed together). The guidelines bring us closer to informing actual play experience in a real and granular way than the rules or more base components do, actually.

BTW, to be clear, I'm not suggesting that guidelines are a formal part of the "Levels of RPG Development", they are very much enmeshed with Game Rules, but they pragmatically form an important lower level. Though I think a case could be made that they fall between and are distinct from either Game Rules or Play Experience, and perhaps should be a formalized high level part of the typology. Consider also that Guidelines can be informal - they can be developed from years of commonly-accepted practices in Play Experience. While 5ER did an excellent job of compiling many of the commonly-accepted guidelines that most experienced HERO gamers were using, there are still many modifiers we commonly accept values for that aren't codified, but serve as guidelines oft-repeated on these boards.

[RDU Neil]

That's a good way to put it.

I guess that's what I've wanted to see in HERO for a long time, to put it in your terms - rules, with the customary warning and stop signs, and guidelines. And I'd like to see something like 30%-50% of 5ER as guidelines rather than rules - stuff such as the Classes of Minds should be GUIDELINES. If you tell players what the rules are versus the guidelines, that also helps them, and it reduces rules lawyering greatly (GM - "That's just a guideline and based on that here's how I do it...") as well as debates. If we had a clearer understanding of the "hard" rules versus the suggestions, we'd be better off, and so would the system. Plus you can easily create volumes of "guidelines" works without affecting the core system. Genre books are a good example of documents that are basically 90% if not 100% guidelines - good ones, but all non-essential to the rules system itself.

So from a HERO perspective, the perfect tome on the HERO toolkit would include a volume on the axioms, a volume on mechanisms, a volume on rules, and a volume on guidelines - of course the structure might be different (in particular, the rules and guidelines would almost certainly be mixed together). The guidelines bring us closer to informing actual play experience in a real and granular way than the rules or more base components do, actually.

BTW, to be clear, I'm not suggesting that guidelines are a formal part of the "Levels of RPG Development", they are very much enmeshed with Game Rules, but they pragmatically form an important lower level. Though I think a case could be made that they fall between and are distinct from either Game Rules or Play Experience, and perhaps should be a formalized high level part of the typology. Consider also that Guidelines can be informal - they can be developed from years of commonly-accepted practices in Play Experience. While 5ER did an excellent job of compiling many of the commonly-accepted guidelines that most experienced HERO gamers were using, there are still many modifiers we commonly accept values for that aren't codified, but serve as guidelines oft-repeated on these boards.

Yup. My general response is "That's what I was thinking!" :)

[nexus]

In my experience (which granted is a decade old) using large objects as weapons serves one of three dramatic purposes:

- To show the wielder's strength and end the fight (or threaten the end, if he hits the target);
- To show the target's toughness by shrugging it off; and
- To add interest in a particularly high-powered fight.

The first two argue for increased damage. The third is debatable.


I'm all for a downside, for just that reason. As I said before, to me the numbers should drive the game in a direction that mirrors the genre. I think a DCV penalty is the most obvious start (maybe the Grab DCV penalty?). Make it a Full Phase action as well.

I also don't think there should be a one-size-fits-all rule here, either. Off the top of my head I can imagine a list of options when you use a large object as a weapon. Pick one:

- AE based on size of object, no damage bonus
- OCV bonus based on size of object, no damage bonus
- damage bonus based on size/hardness of object

That should cover most cases.

That's pretty much how I handle it. I ususally just wing it for the most part depending on the situation and how the character using the object in question. It seems to work fairly well.

A rule of thumb (If anyone cares)

If the object is approaching your maximum lift, DCV penalty, maybe OCV if its particularly cumbersome. If you can lift it with your casual strength, its generally not a DCV penatly or a full phase action.

It has to be something REALLY big to get an Area of effect, genereally bigger than a car but sfx vary.

[Hugh Neilson]

I think that while this is entirely a valid point, said brick ought not be penalized! The rules as they stand would penalize a brick who normally may strike with 12d6 and grabs a nearby flagpole or such which only has DEF+BOD of 6. Or even a brick with a 20d6 STR is penalized with an automobile (18 DEF+BOD, so not much of a penalty obviously).

I would have no problem treating the attack as an ordinary strike (no penalties to damage) or other maneuver, provided the character gets no bonus either. The flagpole doesn't let him hit a target 2 hexes away, the car is used to strike, not to throw, etc. All within the realm of common sense - if Grond hits you with a fluffy pillow, he's not doing 18d6. But then, how impressive is it to hit someone with a fluffy pillow anyway?

[Dr. Anomaly]

But then, how impressive is it to hit someone with a fluffy pillow anyway?"Bring out...The Comfy Chair!!!"

[Hugh Neilson]

"Bring out...The Comfy Chair!!!"

I did know that was coming...it was only a case of who and when. :)

[Dr. Anomaly]

I did know that was coming...it was only a case of who and when. :)Me...about a minute after you posted... :D