Logic v Balance

[Sean Waters]

I have this character who has a multipower with (amongst other stuff) slots for flight, gliding and growth. She is a shapechanger. monster Girl. I have mentioned her before.

Now MG has about 40 point sin this pool, which means that she can get up to a fair old lick with gliding.

A question arises:

What if MG flies up in the air, switches to gliding for the extra velocity then, just before she hits, switches to growth for the extra strength and mass?

Her move through could well be....monstrous.

There are a number of ways to handle it:

1. She retains the velocity, and gets the advantage of the mass and strength.

2. She loses the velocity but gets the advantage of the mass and strength.

3. She is treated as being in uncontrolled movement and can't do a move through.

4. Something I have not thought of.

#1 seems the most 'logical' - afterall, if she is falling off a building and switches on her growth power, she doesn't suddenly slow down, and if she was in a dive and only changes at the last moment, it is not as if she is suddenly going to change vector, but then again, from a balance POV she's getting the advantage of two MP slots simultaneously.

Thoughts?

[BNakagawa]

From a pure legal standpoint, if you have taken the points out of gliding, then you are now falling and have an OCV of 0.

This makes you a very large and lethal projectile when aimed at a small terrain feature, medium building or large vehicle.

Against any hex with DCV 3, you'll be relying on the bonus OCV from size, which coupled with the penalty for an ~40" velocity move through, leaves you scattering somewhere within the appropriate zip code.

Uncontrolled movement, like uncontrolled falling, has a negative influence on your combat values, but I concede that you can still ram things. Accuracy is of course an issue, as is the massive amount of damage you can expect to eat if, or rather inevitably, when you end up ramming into something that doesn't give, like oh, say, a planet. I can only hope that the negative reinforcement of having to sit out the rest of a game session causes this to be a desperation only tactic.

[Flames]

They could call your character "Bunkerbuster."

[Sean Waters]

They could call your character "Bunkerbuster."

Not sure she'd apprciate that :)

Mind you, at full diving gliding mode, she can get up to 80", which is an absolutely horrible amount of damage. That's if she hits: the penalties mean that she is lucky to land at all.

[DocSamson]

I have my GM hat on atm so I am low on Logic. If the slots are ultras, I would say you have to pick one power or the other to determine your damage. If they are flexible slots, then I would allow you to mix and match how many points you have in each slot to achieve the best effect (i.e. velocity damage scales faster than STR but at the cost of accuracy).

[Ockham's Spoon]

What we have here is a question of the conservation of momentum. By the laws of physics (which are very rubbery around a character who can alter her mass, but bear with me), momentum is:

p=mv

where m is your mass and v is your velocity. So if Monster Girl increases her mass by a factor of 8, then her velocity drops by a factor of 8 to conserve momentum. Maybe that is more than you were looking for, but that addresses the logic half of your question.

Because effects in HERO are nonlinear with respect to STR and mass and such, by this logic she is probably better off keeping the velocity rather than shifting it to mass, regardless of potential OCV issues.

__________________________________________________ _______________
The difference between being in a rut and being dead is six feet.

[Sean Waters]

What we have here is a question of the conservation of momentum. By the laws of physics (which are very rubbery around a character who can alter her mass, but bear with me), momentum is:

p=mv

where m is your mass and v is your velocity. So if Monster Girl increases her mass by a factor of 8, then her velocity drops by a factor of 8 to conserve momentum. Maybe that is more than you were looking for, but that addresses the logic half of your question.

Because effects in HERO are nonlinear with respect to STR and mass and such, by this logic she is probably better off keeping the velocity rather than shifting it to mass, regardless of potential OCV issues.

__________________________________________________ _______________
The difference between being in a rut and being dead is six feet.

So I can switch on my growth at the last moment, if I'm falling, and reduce my velocity for falling damage.

Cool.

[Hugh Neilson]

A question arises:

What if MG flies up in the air, switches to gliding for the extra velocity then, just before she hits, switches to growth for the extra strength and mass?

Her move through could well be....monstrous.

There are a number of ways to handle it:

1. She retains the velocity, and gets the advantage of the mass and strength.

2. She loses the velocity but gets the advantage of the mass and strength.

3. She is treated as being in uncontrolled movement and can't do a move through.

4. Something I have not thought of.

#1 seems the most 'logical' - afterall, if she is falling off a building and switches on her growth power, she doesn't suddenly slow down, and if she was in a dive and only changes at the last moment, it is not as if she is suddenly going to change vector, but then again, from a balance POV she's getting the advantage of two MP slots simultaneously.

Thoughts?

My first thought is that this takes a long time - first she needs to fly up (at half her flight speed), then glide back down. My second is -16 OCV from velocity constrains likely targets considerably. My third is that you also get to take half the damage, and then slam into the ground at 80" velocity. All of this combines to a pretty rarely used ability, so is it really that big a deal?

I'm also inclined to suggest that Gliding should not provide extra downward velocity anyway - how do you "glide" straight down, using air currents to enhance your velocity? Remember that your primary support for getting the benefits of both slots is "logic", so I think you need to telll me how this is a "logical" result.


From a pure legal standpoint, if you have taken the points out of gliding, then you are now falling and have an OCV of 0.

That's my answer as well - which is a variant of Sean's #3 option. No one said you can't do it, just that your rolls suck. You'll make a nice crater hitting the ground at 80" (for 80d6), though - maybe the shockwave will knock the guy you were targetting over.

[pinecone]

Yeah, from a "ballence" outlook...ya aint supos'da change your multi mid phase, so if'n you do...well strange things happen.
It's no differant than an other character doing a movethrough while invisable, so the target can't defend, but wanting to change to a Density slot (or a big HA slot) at the moment of impact....Logic? sure, good idea? Not so sure...:)

[The Rose]

Going on the idea that She could reasonably change powers on her turn to slam into the target. Also assuming that any accumulated velocity(speed + direction) is maintained in doing so. Once she changes, she would(base mostly on how 'big' she gets) be suffering from major drag forces that she wouldn't have had time to get use to. Ie, if she was falling she would slowly be introduce to wind resistance, based on her overall surface area, but not in this case. So it is more than reasonable to allow her continue with the attack but at the sever -16 OCV ('freefall' 0 OCV and the -16 from velocity). If by chance she rolls a crit hit, the stunt works. But otherwise she willl just simply take a major hit from: Increased drag, and movethough impact with the Earth.

And on a simular note, I have never seen anyone who can preform a successful movethough on the Earth. Well not that isn't near cosmic levels.

La Rose

[Nekkidcarpenter]

And on a simular note, I have never seen anyone who can preform a successful movethough on the Earth. Well not that isn't near cosmic levels.


That depends on your definition of 'successful'.

[Zeropoint]

What if you throw yourself at the ground, but miss?

[caris]

3. She is treated as being in uncontrolled movement and can't do a move through.

4. Something I have not thought of.

#1 seems the most 'logical' - afterall, if she is falling off a building and switches on her growth power, she doesn't suddenly slow down, and if she was in a dive and only changes at the last moment, it is not as if she is suddenly going to change vector, but then again, from a balance POV she's getting the advantage of two MP slots simultaneously.

Thoughts?

#3 seems most logical one to me. One of the things that you are not accounting for is what her target (assuming it is another up and active character) is doing. I've always assumed that DCV represented the character moving around in the hex they are in (hence the penalties to DCV for being Entangled, Grabbed, etc.). So without access to their Gliding the character couldn't make the minor adjustments in their trajectory to compensate for the moving of their target. Now, yes the growth could cause some issues, but if I were going to give her any chance at all to benefit from this I'd have her make either a Dex roll at penalties (to make sure she was positioned correctly/timed things right) or a Luch roll.

[ghost-angel]

What if you throw yourself at the ground, but miss?

That's Flight, different Power

:D

[sbarron]

What if you throw yourself at the ground, but miss?Then you hit the air instead. And as air has no body, if your attack does any body at all you destroy the universe. Infinite doublings of area damaged or some such... :rolleyes:

To the OP's question. I have such strange thoughts on this stuff these days. You buy powers to interact with the game world in the manner described in the power. So if you buy 20" of gliding, you can glide 20". You buy growth, you can get bigger. Trying to "game" the worlds physics to your benefit just doesn't seem that fun to me anymore.

My advice is: If you want to have an attack that allows you to glide at high velocity into a target while enlarged to do megadamage, buy some extra dice with move-throughs and leave the physics to the scientists. :thumbup:

[Hyper-Man]

I have this character who has a multipower with (amongst other stuff) slots for flight, gliding and growth. She is a shapechanger. monster Girl. I have mentioned her before.

Now MG has about 40 point sin this pool, which means that she can get up to a fair old lick with gliding.

A question arises:

What if MG flies up in the air, switches to gliding for the extra velocity then, just before she hits, switches to growth for the extra strength and mass?

Her move through could well be....monstrous.

There are a number of ways to handle it:

1. She retains the velocity, and gets the advantage of the mass and strength.

2. She loses the velocity but gets the advantage of the mass and strength.

3. She is treated as being in uncontrolled movement and can't do a move through.

4. Something I have not thought of.

#1 seems the most 'logical' - afterall, if she is falling off a building and switches on her growth power, she doesn't suddenly slow down, and if she was in a dive and only changes at the last moment, it is not as if she is suddenly going to change vector, but then again, from a balance POV she's getting the advantage of two MP slots simultaneously.

Thoughts?

I bet the answer is #4. Has anyone considered the skydiving skill? A skilled skydiver can achieve horizontal ground speeds of 100+ mph. The character should be able to have something above a 0 OCV for purposes of hitting a ground target while using growth.

[DocSamson]

I bet the answer is #4. Has anyone considered the skydiving skill? A skilled skydiver can achieve horizontal ground speeds of 100+ mph. The character should be able to have something above a 0 OCV for purposes of hitting a ground target while using growth.

Good stuff but I'm pretty sure a skydiver would have a pretty hard time hitting a moving target as most of the time they can't even land on a giant bullseye (1 Hex, DCV 3). However, if the character bough AE for his STR while grown, then he need only target the hex to anyway.

[Maur]

A skydiver isn't in free fall anymore once they open their 'chute. Now they are using their Transfam and appropriate skill for flying the 'chute to a target.

[Hyper-Man]

A skydiver isn't in free fall anymore once they open their 'chute. Now they are using their Transfam and appropriate skill for flying the 'chute to a target.

I was only referring to the free fall before opening the 'chute.

[dsatow]

Just thought I note some things other people may not have from a quick perusal.

Strictly rules lawyer speaking, when you switch from a controlled movement to falling, by game mechanic your velocity changes to a standard falling rate. Thus if you do the opposite and fly up at 900" per phase and stop paying end, you immediately start to fall accelerating at 5" per phase down. Note, most GMs, myself included, will abide by Newton's First Law and have you slow down in uncontrolled freefall.

Next again rules lawyer speaking you can only change your multipower once per phase. So the action you describe needs to be done over two phases.

Lastly, maximum terminal velocity is 30" per segment. Your speed would get reduced by that amount.

Now lets say I am the GM and Monster Girl(MG) tries this stunt against Pretty Boy(PB). She takes her two phases and comes at PB to attack. PB decides to abort his phase and dive out of the hex. Per a ruling by Steve relating to Haymaker (if the target moves out of the hex, even if within reach of the attacker during a Haymaker, the Haymaker fails) I would GM that this would also apply to MG since she no longer has control over her movement.

[Sidume]

As a GM, I would allow you to keep the momentum, but with the following restrictions:

- Your base OCV is 0. If you are attempting to hit a building, that won't be a problem, but hitting a moving target will be real tough. But I would apply velocity disads as if you were hitting a moving target (except you are moving, instead of the target).

- You could offset this if you have an appropriate skill roll (skydiving, or something else appropriate).

And a move-by is not an option. It's move-through or nothing. And with a 0 DCV, getting thrown is a real threat with the damage you might be faced with.

[eternal_sage]

i'd say "sure!" let her do it once, miss and nearly die (if not outright die) and never ask again.

she should have ludicrous penalties because of her free fall (fine trajectory manipulation is out of the question, especially at the scale and speeds we are talking about), it should take 2 phases, giving the target plenty of time to simply leave the hex, and her speed should be reduced towards 30" for the drag on her large form for an entire phase.

so you get a miss, only thing she can do with such a miss is hit the ground, and she takes fall damage (or the move through damage) which ever is... well higher or lower, depends on how much you wich to teach her a lesson. i would vote higher, because the idea is insane at best.

[Sean Waters]

Just thought I note some things other people may not have from a quick perusal.

Strictly rules lawyer speaking, when you switch from a controlled movement to falling, by game mechanic your velocity changes to a standard falling rate. Thus if you do the opposite and fly up at 900" per phase and stop paying end, you immediately start to fall accelerating at 5" per phase down. Note, most GMs, myself included, will abide by Newton's First Law and have you slow down in uncontrolled freefall.

Next again rules lawyer speaking you can only change your multipower once per phase. So the action you describe needs to be done over two phases.

Lastly, maximum terminal velocity is 30" per segment. Your speed would get reduced by that amount.

Now lets say I am the GM and Monster Girl(MG) tries this stunt against Pretty Boy(PB). She takes her two phases and comes at PB to attack. PB decides to abort his phase and dive out of the hex. Per a ruling by Steve relating to Haymaker (if the target moves out of the hex, even if within reach of the attacker during a Haymaker, the Haymaker fails) I would GM that this would also apply to MG since she no longer has control over her movement.

Some nice points.

I think that you can, perfectly legally, re-assign points in your MP once per phase, so you can switch OFF the gliding and ON the growth by shifting the points as a single action.

Whilst we do not have a Pretty Boy in the game, we do have a Golden Boy :)

The target can still abort to 'dive for cover', if he notices, but gliding costs no END and therefore has no visible sfx and is, amongst other things, silent. Growth might not be though....

OTOH, in the 'grown' state, MG would fill at least 2 hexes, so would presumably only need to hit a DCV of 0 (hexes only being DCV 3 when you aim at them from the side, IIRC, and certainly only DCV 0 if you are aiming from adjacent, which, arguably, you are). Your OCV wonl;t go below 0, no matter what modifiers you apply, again, IIRC.

Even if the DCV of the hex is 3, there is very limited scope to miss by much if you were using powered flight in a straight dive up until that point, and given the size of the grown MG, a near miss is as good as a hit.

[Hugh Neilson]

OTOH, in the 'grown' state, MG would fill at least 2 hexes, so would presumably only need to hit a DCV of 0 (hexes only being DCV 3 when you aim at them from the side, IIRC, and certainly only DCV 0 if you are aiming from adjacent, which, arguably, you are). Your OCV wonl;t go below 0, no matter what modifiers you apply, again, IIRC.

Even if the DCV of the hex is 3, there is very limited scope to miss by much if you were using powered flight in a straight dive up until that point, and given the size of the grown MG, a near miss is as good as a hit.

By the same logic, any "hurl my entire body" attack by a character with Growth should automatically have AoE, and yer growth doesn't come with an AoE advantage.

I think I would rule that the character cannot direct such an attack like a typical Move Through and, at a minimum, takes damage equal to the damage inflicted (ie cannot knock the target back to get down to half damage). As the character also remains in uncontrolled flight, I'd be inclined to have them impact the ground for falling damage shortly thereafter.

However "logical" it may be, a lot of logic is superseded by game balance, and rightly so. Logically, the cube square law kicks in and a character with 30 points of growth can't move their own bulk, or draw enough air to oxygenate their blood. You can't just turn on the logic switch when it's to your benefit and ignore it otherwise.

[Sean Waters]

By the same logic, any "hurl my entire body" attack by a character with Growth should automatically have AoE, and yer growth doesn't come with an AoE advantage.

I think I would rule that the character cannot direct such an attack like a typical Move Through and, at a minimum, takes damage equal to the damage inflicted (ie cannot knock the target back to get down to half damage). As the character also remains in uncontrolled flight, I'd be inclined to have them impact the ground for falling damage shortly thereafter.

However "logical" it may be, a lot of logic is superseded by game balance, and rightly so. Logically, the cube square law kicks in and a character with 30 points of growth can't move their own bulk, or draw enough air to oxygenate their blood. You can't just turn on the logic switch when it's to your benefit and ignore it otherwise.

Back to logic v balance, Hugh - if you are 'splatting' then you WILL fill (at least) 2 hexes. If anything in those hexes cannot leave those hexes, then the will be hit, just as if a huge object had been thrown into them, and filled them. Game balance be damned - if the ceiling falls on you , you get out of the room or get hit, no matter what your DCV.

I strongly disagree that game balance should supercede logic, and I don't think your example of not being able to move or breathe works: logic is based on assumptions and the assumption of a game with growth is that the extra strength you gain allows you to move and breathe (or the power itself confers those abilites). The premise may be unrealistic but it can still have logical consequences, based on that premise. Otherwise the growth power would read: you become 8 times taler, and suffocate to death, whilst being crushed under your own mass. Presumably the fact that it does not read like that indicates that you are able to infer that the power grants implicit abilities.

Mind you, it doesn't, as you say, grant AoE attacks an if you can not infer them, like the ability to breathe whilst gown - and you probably can't - rather than saying 'well you can't have it then', the logical approach that also satisfies game balance, is to buy AoE attacks for characters with growth.

A better approach though would probably be to have a more thorough approach to defining the 'growth' power.

Game balance considerations once more intrude though - to be thorough, you should buy a naked AoE advantage to cover the entire range of damage you could do - impractical in most cases.

[Hugh Neilson]

Back to logic v balance, Hugh - if you are 'splatting' then you WILL fill (at least) 2 hexes.

And if you fill two hexes, shouldn't any opponent only have to roll to hit the hex (DCV 3, DCV 0 if the hex is adjacent to him, with a 1 in 6 chance of hitting the adjacent hex which you also fill if he misses by 1)? A simple reduction in DCV doesn't really fulfill all the logical results of growth. If you want the benefits that logically flow from filling multiple hexes, you should also be prepared to accept the drawbacks as well, right?


Otherwise the growth power would read: you become 8 times taler, and suffocate to death, whilst being crushed under your own mass. Presumably the fact that it does not read like that indicates that you are able to infer that the power grants implicit abilities.

Mind you, it doesn't, as you say, grant AoE attacks and if you can not infer them, like the ability to breathe whilst gown - and you probably can't - rather than saying 'well you can't have it then', the logical approach that also satisfies game balance, is to buy AoE attacks for characters with growth.

If I'm going to infer AoE from growth, why should I not infer the drawbacks as well? If logic is to be applied, it should be applied consistently. Same for game balance. The answer is, exactly as you say, purchase some form of AoE if you want that ability for your character.


A better approach though would probably be to have a more thorough approach to defining the 'growth' power.

Growth has been through several iterations. The original model incorporated more of the "logical effects" of Growth, though not all of them. Bonus running, bonus PRE, A o E at extreme levels. It also cost 10 points per level, rather than 5 points per level.

If you add a bunch more abilities to Growth, you also need to increase the cost.

I prefer the current model - an affordable base power level for Growth and, if you want more abilities, you add them on yourself. You should be more intimidating? Buy bonus PRE, only for offense, linked to Growth. You get AoE at a certain level of growth? Shell out the points. And if, at maximum growth, your molecules are so dispersed you can become desolid, you buy that.

This is the Hero system - if you envision your character being able to do something, logically, you pay the points for that logical ability. It doesn't come for free. If you can't afford those points, then your logical character concept may be overpowered for the campaign and need to be toned down.


Game balance considerations once more intrude though - to be thorough, you should buy a naked AoE advantage to cover the entire range of damage you could do - impractical in most cases.

Should it apply to all damage you can do? If the character carries a laser gun, does the beam become more powerful as the character becomes lkarger? Depends on how you envision the character.

And why is that naked advantage impractical? It's simply purchased at the highest level of damage you can convert to AoE. It may be too expensive to fit the points budget, but that simply means you want to build a character who is too powerful for the campaign.

And, at the end of the day, that seems to be what is desired here. You want the point savings from having Gliding and Growth in a multipower, but you want to preserve the advantages of having both powers operational at the same time. "Logically", if both powers can be used to full effect in combination, they should both be available at the same time, so you should "logically" not buy them in such a fashion that they cannot both be available at the same time. If you purchase the powers in such a fashion that they can be combined under the game rules, you will pay considerably more points, providing "balance" to the application of logic.

In other words, I think you are applying "logic" at the wrong step of the process. It should be applied at character design - "This is my concept. It should logically work like this. I will purchase my abilities so that, mechanically, the logic of my concept is realized." You are applying it too late: "This is my concept. I have purchase my abilities. They do not bring my concept to fruition. The rules should be varied to realize my concept logically."

[Sean Waters]

And if you fill two hexes, shouldn't any opponent only have to roll to hit the hex (DCV 3, DCV 0 if the hex is adjacent to him, with a 1 in 6 chance of hitting the adjacent hex which you also fill if he misses by 1)? A simple reduction in DCV doesn't really fulfill all the logical results of growth. If you want the benefits that logically flow from filling multiple hexes, you should also be prepared to accept the drawbacks as well, right?

Yes. I can see a case for retaining a decent DCV, perhaps even an enhanced one, for HtH combat - after all reach is a huge advantage in real melee combat - but against missile weapons, you are basically a large target and should suffer appropriate penalties, and you should be treated as a large object, a hex target, as you suggest. DCV may play a small part - perhaps you are considered a hex, with a small DCV bonus.

Large targets should eb really easy to hit with missle weapons.




If I'm going to infer AoE from growth, why should I not infer the drawbacks as well? If logic is to be applied, it should be applied consistently. Same for game balance. The answer is, exactly as you say, purchase some form of AoE if you want that ability for your character.

I think that we tend to ignore the real drawbacks of growth and density increase in practice - weighing several tonnes will mean that very few surfaces can take your weight - you'd sink in tarmac, if you did not grow, and be almost useless indoors if you did.




Growth has been through several iterations. The original model incorporated more of the "logical effects" of Growth, though not all of them. Bonus running, bonus PRE, A o E at extreme levels. It also cost 10 points per level, rather than 5 points per level.

If you add a bunch more abilities to Growth, you also need to increase the cost.

I prefer the current model - an affordable base power level for Growth and, if you want more abilities, you add them on yourself. You should be more intimidating? Buy bonus PRE, only for offense, linked to Growth. You get AoE at a certain level of growth? Shell out the points. And if, at maximum growth, your molecules are so dispersed you can become desolid, you buy that.

This is the Hero system - if you envision your character being able to do something, logically, you pay the points for that logical ability. It doesn't come for free. If you can't afford those points, then your logical character concept may be overpowered for the campaign and need to be toned down.

This is where we will need to diverge. A 'logical' grown character WILL be expensive, but is unlikely to be overpowered. Just look at the 'large character templates' if you doubt it.

My view is that growth is not worth the points. Sure you can make it work well enough if you use it as a base power to link stuff to, but, point for point a 'growth' brick and a normal brick, it is no contest - the normal one wins every time.

Gowth is a flavour power, not a balanced one.




Should it apply to all damage you can do? If the character carries a laser gun, does the beam become more powerful as the character becomes lkarger? Depends on how you envision the character.

And why is that naked advantage impractical? It's simply purchased at the highest level of damage you can convert to AoE. It may be too expensive to fit the points budget, but that simply means you want to build a character who is too powerful for the campaign.

And, at the end of the day, that seems to be what is desired here. You want the point savings from having Gliding and Growth in a multipower, but you want to preserve the advantages of having both powers operational at the same time. "Logically", if both powers can be used to full effect in combination, they should both be available at the same time, so you should "logically" not buy them in such a fashion that they cannot both be available at the same time. If you purchase the powers in such a fashion that they can be combined under the game rules, you will pay considerably more points, providing "balance" to the application of logic.

In other words, I think you are applying "logic" at the wrong step of the process. It should be applied at character design - "This is my concept. It should logically work like this. I will purchase my abilities so that, mechanically, the logic of my concept is realized." You are applying it too late: "This is my concept. I have purchase my abilities. They do not bring my concept to fruition. The rules should be varied to realize my concept logically."

No, I don't see it like that, but then I would not.

Ignore the growth for a moment, what hapens if I am barrelling towards someone (using gliding) and then I turn the gliding off?

Do I instantly slow down (arguably yes, but then it depends on the deceleration rules, I suppose. Do I instantly fall to the ground. Arguably yes, but it depends on the falling rules.

So, if I wait until the very last segment before I switch off my gliding, and I'm diving straight down, I'll hit a given hex, whether I'm using contolled movement or not. And if I'm big enough to fill that hex, presumably I have to hit everything in it.

That's not trying to bend the rules, or shape them to my advantage, that is just trying to apply them.

You might not allow a move through to apply strength (but you have to let it apply mass, and all the added strength from growth mirrors the mass adds, and a velocity factor.

So the question is not so much whether the logic is being applied at the wrong step - I'd argue it is being applied in accordance with the rules - but whether game balance is so powerful a force that it circumvents both logic and the rules to make such a result impossible.

Judging by the comments posted, many people seem to think that it should.

MG may well go splat along with her target, but is that not truly heroic?

[Hugh Neilson]

Yes. I can see a case for retaining a decent DCV, perhaps even an enhanced one, for HtH combat - after all reach is a huge advantage in real melee combat

Here again, I question whether this sees the advantage (reach) and not the drawback (having to stoop down to be able to target the shrimp-sized opponents). Conceptually, if Reach provides this advantage, shouldn't a Shrunken character take an OCV penalty?


- but against missile weapons, you are basically a large target and should suffer appropriate penalties, and you should be treated as a large object, a hex target, as you suggest. DCV may play a small part - perhaps you are considered a hex, with a small DCV bonus.

Large targets should eb really easy to hit with missle weapons.


I'd be inclined to give the hex a velocity bonus, so its DCV is computed like that of a vehicle.

As a GM, I would be be prepared to consider allowing the character to have the AoE move through if they accepted being targeted as a hex, rather than a character, when grown to that size.


I think that we tend to ignore the real drawbacks of growth and density increase in practice - weighing several tonnes will mean that very few surfaces can take your weight - you'd sink in tarmac, if you did not grow, and be almost useless indoors if you did.

Absolutely - and this is consistent with the rules. But the rules also ignore several of the "logical" ramifications of Growth. If you want to apply logic to obtain these benefits I think it is reasonable to expect you will also accept the logical drawbacks as a counterbalance.


This is where we will need to diverge. A 'logical' grown character WILL be expensive, but is unlikely to be overpowered. Just look at the 'large character templates' if you doubt it.

If he doesn't get the various advantages for free, I suspect he would not be overpowered. If he gets a bunch of extra freebies for Growth, then he becomes overpowered - he got something for nothing and the rest of the characters didn't.


My view is that growth is not worth the points. Sure you can make it work well enough if you use it as a base power to link stuff to, but, point for point a 'growth' brick and a normal brick, it is no contest - the normal one wins every time.

I'm at a disadvantage not having the book in front of me. The straight Brick gets +2 PD, +2 REC, and +5 Stun per 10 points STR, so 11 points of benefits, correct? Growth adds, IIRC, 2 BOD and 2 STUN (4 points - buying a BOD gets a free Stun) and 2 points of Knockback Resistance (6 points), so there's 10 points of "figured characteristics". He loses DCV and pays END, so there are some drawbacks there. He gets some reach (Stretching). I'd have to look closer, but I think the balance is closer than you make it out to be.


Ignore the growth for a moment, what hapens if I am barrelling towards someone (using gliding) and then I turn the gliding off?

Do I instantly slow down (arguably yes, but then it depends on the deceleration rules, I suppose. Do I instantly fall to the ground. Arguably yes, but it depends on the falling rules.

So, if I wait until the very last segment before I switch off my gliding, and I'm diving straight down, I'll hit a given hex, whether I'm using contolled movement or not. And if I'm big enough to fill that hex, presumably I have to hit everything in it.

And you have to hit the ground, don't you? A target that won't move back, so that's full damage to you on impact.

Getting back to the Gliding, by the way, how, logically, does gliding straight down increase your velocity? Isn't Gliding about converting the air pressure from downward momentum into horizontal momentum?


That's not trying to bend the rules, or shape them to my advantage, that is just trying to apply them.

You might not allow a move through to apply strength (but you have to let it apply mass, and all the added strength from growth mirrors the mass adds, and a velocity factor.

Now we get into the physics. Does 1 oz of foam rubber travelling at the same speed as 1 oz of lead (say, the speed of a bullet) do the same damage? Maybe that spread-out huge body does less damage than a nice focused fist moving at the same speed.


So the question is not so much whether the logic is being applied at the wrong step - I'd argue it is being applied in accordance with the rules - but whether game balance is so powerful a force that it circumvents both logic and the rules to make such a result impossible.

Ultimately, there needs to be some maintenance of game balance. What are your opponent's defenses and their SFX? If he's got a rigid exoskeleton, should you take AP damage, or even killing damage, flying down on him like that, as you impale your extra large body onto his non-yielding point of impact? We can draw a lot of strange results out of "logical consequences". But the Hero System says you need to buy those logical consequences - they don't come free.

[Sean Waters]

Both strength and growth give you the advantages of 30 points worth of extra damage and lifting ability, so let us ignore that part and just look at fringe benefits.

30 points of growth give you:

+6 Body (no figured): 8 points
+6 stun: 6 points
+6" KBR: 12 points
+2" stretching (reach only): 6 points

Total 'advantages' = 32 points

And you take penalties:

-4 DCV: 20 points
+4 to be perceived: 8 points (? this is a guess)
Costs END: 3 points (? again a guess)
Limtiations of large size: 5 points (? again, a guess)

Total 'penalties' - 36 points

Net gain for a 30 point expenditure: -4 points i.e. you are 4 points worse off than if you had not spent the points.

Spending the points on strength will get you

+6 PD: 6 points
+6 REC: 12 points
+6 STUN: 6 points
+6" leaping: 6 points

That's 30 points of benefit .

It really is no contest, if you look at it in terms of point utility. Even if you add in 30 points of STR (no figured): 20 points to the growth, you still only have an overall 16 points of utility for a 30 point expenditure: you are giving points away.


There are certain nebulous advantages to growth - it can go in a framework, for example, which make a perfect cost comparison difficult, but even if the 'character cost' of growth were only 15 points (it would ahve to be a BIG EC to approach this!) then you are still only getting 1 point of utility net.

[Sean Waters]

Here again, I question whether this sees the advantage (reach) and not the drawback (having to stoop down to be able to target the shrimp-sized opponents). Conceptually, if Reach provides this advantage, shouldn't a Shrunken character take an OCV penalty?

Yes indeed. A substantial penalty, at least in HtH combat.




I'd be inclined to give the hex a velocity bonus, so its DCV is computed like that of a vehicle.

As a GM, I would be be prepared to consider allowing the character to have the AoE move through if they accepted being targeted as a hex, rather than a character, when grown to that size.

That sounds reasonable.




Absolutely - and this is consistent with the rules. But the rules also ignore several of the "logical" ramifications of Growth. If you want to apply logic to obtain these benefits I think it is reasonable to expect you will also accept the logical drawbacks as a counterbalance.

Agreed - I think we could manage a far higher degree of logic/balance harmony with this power.




If he doesn't get the various advantages for free, I suspect he would not be overpowered. If he gets a bunch of extra freebies for Growth, then he becomes overpowered - he got something for nothing and the rest of the characters didn't.



I'm at a disadvantage not having the book in front of me. The straight Brick gets +2 PD, +2 REC, and +5 Stun per 10 points STR, so 11 points of benefits, correct? Growth adds, IIRC, 2 BOD and 2 STUN (4 points - buying a BOD gets a free Stun) and 2 points of Knockback Resistance (6 points), so there's 10 points of "figured characteristics". He loses DCV and pays END, so there are some drawbacks there. He gets some reach (Stretching). I'd have to look closer, but I think the balance is closer than you make it out to be.

I posted my view of the advantages and penalties in the post above - I don;t think it is that close at all :)




And you have to hit the ground, don't you? A target that won't move back, so that's full damage to you on impact.

Heroism has its drawbacks, but sometimes it is ebtter to take downt he big bad even if it takes you out too.


Getting back to the Gliding, by the way, how, logically, does gliding straight down increase your velocity? Isn't Gliding about converting the air pressure from downward momentum into horizontal momentum?

You may not be able to double your downward velocity (although the rules technically allow you to, I agree that it si illogical for you to be able to) with gliding but it enables you to accurately target a hex as you plummet and you should be able to exceed terminal velocity in a dive, at least by a bit, if you tuck in to reduce drag, which I would certainly allow someone with gliding to do. Completely plucked out of the air, but I'd probably allow you to add 1/4 of your gliding velocity to terminal velocity. Bear in mind that if you can manage gliding speeds of several hundred mpg (which you can, and far more cheaply than you would with flight) then changing your vector shouls allow massive dive speeds. I agree though that is not logical and should be strongly discouraged.




Now we get into the physics. Does 1 oz of foam rubber travelling at the same speed as 1 oz of lead (say, the speed of a bullet) do the same damage? Maybe that spread-out huge body does less damage than a nice focused fist moving at the same speed.

Well there is a reason bullets are shaped like that, penetration does internal injury out of proportion to energy transfer.

Bear in mind though that this huge body, going a controlled move through, may well be hitting in exactly the same way, but still does the damage.

I have a penetration based system of damage, where you divide an attack into a penetration and a damage value, but it requires quite a major rethink of character design so it is not something I've posted. I'm not so worried about the game balance implications as the fact that it is more complex to administer and so affects play speed.




Ultimately, there needs to be some maintenance of game balance. What are your opponent's defenses and their SFX? If he's got a rigid exoskeleton, should you take AP damage, or even killing damage, flying down on him like that, as you impale your extra large body onto his non-yielding point of impact? We can draw a lot of strange results out of "logical consequences". But the Hero System says you need to buy those logical consequences - they don't come free.

I think that we are too caught up with game balance. Sure, if we just throw it out fo the window, then there are many who will take advantage of the chaos, and it would comlpetely change the face of the game. However, I do grind my teeth when I see a rule that is obviously there for balance and defies logic (like needing to make attack rolls to damage someone you have already grabbed around the throat).

I remain convinced that logic should play a greater part in Hero, even if it needs to be incorporated more thoroughly at the design stage, or possibly better entrenched in the bones of the game. The problem with such an open system is that you rarely think through the consequences of every design decision, which is why logical consequnces so often clash with balance issues in play.

[Hugh Neilson]

I think that we are too caught up with game balance. Sure, if we just throw it out fo the window, then there are many who will take advantage of the chaos, and it would comlpetely change the face of the game. However, I do grind my teeth when I see a rule that is obviously there for balance and defies logic (like needing to make attack rolls to damage someone you have already grabbed around the throat).

I remain convinced that logic should play a greater part in Hero, even if it needs to be incorporated more thoroughly at the design stage, or possibly better entrenched in the bones of the game. The problem with such an open system is that you rarely think through the consequences of every design decision, which is why logical consequnces so often clash with balance issues in play.

So are you OK with your reciprocal move through damage (which is not halved as, logically, the target on the ground when you land on him cannot be meaningfully "knocked back") being converted to AP or killing damage because your target had fairly high defenses which would imply the character was rigid, and woudn't "give" when you slammed into him?

After all, we're applying logic here, right? You'd take normal damage if you hit a normal person (even one who is especially resiliant) of course, and maybe even reduced damage if you hit an especially yielding target (landing on Blobbo the Rubber Man, for example, might allow you to get partial effect from his Damage Reduction).

[Hugh Neilson]

Both strength and growth give you the advantages of 30 points worth of extra damage and lifting ability, so let us ignore that part and just look at fringe benefits.

Agreed - that's where my discussion starts as well.


30 points of growth give you:

+6 Body (no figured): 8 points
+6 stun: 6 points
+6" KBR: 12 points
+2" stretching (reach only): 6 points

Total 'advantages' = 32 points

I'd call it 30 points in that I'd call the +6 BOD and +6 STUN a natural +6 BOD (but I also feel No Figured is undervalued for all stats besides DEX).


And you take penalties:

-4 DCV: 20 points
+4 to be perceived: 8 points (? this is a guess)
Costs END: 3 points (? again a guess)
Limtiations of large size: 5 points (? again, a guess)

Total 'penalties' - 36 points

Is -4 DCV the same "value" as +4 DCV? On the one hand, it's mechanically consistent. On the other hand, aren't the penalty tpo DCV, the bonus to be perceived and the other limitations of a larger size the "Large Creature" physical limitation? What's that worth at this size? I'm guessing a lot less than 33 points.

Most Growth characters are Bricks, and most Brick characters rely on soaking the damage, not avoiding it, so their DCV's tend to start out pretty lousy. Would you give a 20 DEX Brick 20 points back for selling off 4 DCV?

There are also some nebulous Growth advantages, in that the character's extra mass hampers some UAA powers and being grabbed and thrown, but these are pretty limited.

In practice, my experience is that Growth-based Bricks don't suffer all that much in comparison to their normal-sized "cousin" Bricks. But play experiences can certainly differ. In particular, if the GM wishes to hose the Growth character, he simply places many encounters in cramped spaces so the character can't grow. Funny...the Growth character never seems so constrained in the comics.

[Vorsch]

I find a game suffers if logic or game balance is pushed to far.

Logic allows for alot of things to be accomplished with most powers, which is done as one off uses of powers in comics, refelcted in hero by the power skill.

Overdone in can make a power like transform godlike.

Game balance is good for allowing all characters to keep there areas of expertese, pushed to far no one can do anything interesting with there powers ever. " No you cant keep people warm in this freezer room with your flame aura, no change enviroment"

Both style would set my teath on edge in a game.

[Sean Waters]

I find a game suffers if logic or game balance is pushed to far.

Logic allows for alot of things to be accomplished with most powers, which is done as one off uses of powers in comics, refelcted in hero by the power skill.

Overdone in can make a power like transform godlike.

Game balance is good for allowing all characters to keep there areas of expertese, pushed to far no one can do anything interesting with there powers ever. " No you cant keep people warm in this freezer room with your flame aura, no change enviroment"

Both style would set my teath on edge in a game.


Balance balance. I like it :)

[Sean Waters]

So are you OK with your reciprocal move through damage (which is not halved as, logically, the target on the ground when you land on him cannot be meaningfully "knocked back") being converted to AP or killing damage because your target had fairly high defenses which would imply the character was rigid, and woudn't "give" when you slammed into him?

After all, we're applying logic here, right? You'd take normal damage if you hit a normal person (even one who is especially resiliant) of course, and maybe even reduced damage if you hit an especially yielding target (landing on Blobbo the Rubber Man, for example, might allow you to get partial effect from his Damage Reduction).

Well, yes, if it made sense then killing damage would be appropriate. Mind you, the reverse of that is also true, if we take the 'logic' right the way through. If the target is hit by a spiky armoured monstrosity then killing damage would also be appropriate against the target.

Goose, meet gander. Have something good for both of you.

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, yes, if it made sense then killing damage would be appropriate. Mind you, the reverse of that is also true, if we take the 'logic' right the way through. If the target is hit by a spiky armoured monstrosity then killing damage would also be appropriate against the target.

And it would be appropriate for the spiky armored monstrosity to have paid for a killing attack because it's spiky. If I describe muy character as bursting into flame and controlling fire, I still need to pay for the Energy Blast, Damage aura, Force field, etc. that comes of these abilities. If your appearance grants unpaid-for powers, buy Shape Shift so you can do absolutely anything.

After all, "logically", if I can duplicate your DNA, I should be able to duplicate your non-focused powers, and if I can duplicate your clothing and accessories, I should be able to duplicate your focused powers, so now I can do anything.

[Sean Waters]

And it would be appropriate for the spiky armored monstrosity to have paid for a killing attack because it's spiky. If I describe muy character as bursting into flame and controlling fire, I still need to pay for the Energy Blast, Damage aura, Force field, etc. that comes of these abilities. If your appearance grants unpaid-for powers, buy Shape Shift so you can do absolutely anything.

After all, "logically", if I can duplicate your DNA, I should be able to duplicate your non-focused powers, and if I can duplicate your clothing and accessories, I should be able to duplicate your focused powers, so now I can do anything.

I'm not sure that is logical at all - it depends how powers work, and if they are based in your DNA. If they are, then that would be logical, but then if you want to do that you should buy a VPP or a multiform or some such. I mean, that is something you are likely to do a lot. The move through thing isn't.

This business about the move through and whether one or the other oparty to it should take killing damage is a red herring, in any event. There is no reason that moving through a target should cause killing damage unless they have a damage shield, unless you think that killing damage follows as a matter of logic (and the cost of 1DC of normal and of killing damage are identical, so it shouldn't really make any difference if the game was properly balanced anyway), but if you decide as a matter of 'logic' that MG should take killing damage because the target is wearing hard armour then you should apply the same logic to the target. It is not really a necessary step, IMO, and, like I said, if balance was what Hero was really all about, would make no difference anyway.

[Hugh Neilson]

I'm not sure that is logical at all - it depends how powers work, and if they are based in your DNA. If they are, then that would be logical, but then if you want to do that you should buy a VPP or a multiform or some such. I mean, that is something you are likely to do a lot. The move through thing isn't.

Unless, of course, I describe myself as spiky and hard, don't buy a KA, and buy some Move Through levels. "But it's logical I should get killing damage - I'm sharp and pointy". My answer? "Then it's logical you should have bought a killing attack. Why didn't you?"


This business about the move through and whether one or the other party to it should take killing damage is a red herring, in any event.

It's the next extension of your own override of the rules with logic. You want the ability to benefit from Gliding and Growth at the same time, even though you bought them in a fashion that precludes them being used at the same time by the rules. You want your gliding to enhance your downward velocity because the rules say so, even though it isn't logical.

A GM might justifiably apply logic in a similarly selective fashion, denying you the ability to use Gliding to accelerate downward due to logic, but enforcing the Multipower rules to deny access to growth and gliding velocity at the same time.

Vorsch makes the valid point that there is a line to be drawn here. To me, that line is drawn to allow minor benefits (and detriments) not directly covered by the rules. When the reason some "logical" result is denied due to the manner in which you built the power, the "logical" answer is that you built the power wrong. Rebuild MG to be able to use her growth and gliding at the same time, and you can use gliding and growth to enhance your move through damage at the same time. If the powers should be usable at the same time, why did you buy them in an MP and make them mutually exclusive?


There is no reason that moving through a target should cause killing damage unless they have a damage shield

And my answer to Pointy Pete would be that he should have paid for that damage shield if it's a "logical" outgrowth of his powers. But I also believe you should have paid for the ability to use gliding and growth together if, logically, your character should be able to do this.


you decide as a matter of 'logic' that MG should take killing damage because the target is wearing hard armour then you should apply the same logic to the target.

EXACTLY - I should apply logic equally to all the characters, and I should apply game balance equally to all the characters. So if you get the logical ability to use your gliding and growth in tandem, despite not having paid for that ability, other characters should similarly get the abilities they didn't pay for, but that logically flow from the abilities they do have.

As an aside, I'm reminded of an old D&D article where a DM mentioned a player whose character was described as morbidly obese. He asked if the character suffered a slower movement rate because it was harder to run. The answer? "No, it's just description."

A couple of sessions later, he was grappling with an opponent and said "Shouldn't he have a tougher time getting my character off him? My character weights over 300 pounds!". The DM's answer: "Shouldn't your character have a slower movement rate because it's harder for him to run?"

[Sean Waters]

OK, Hugh, straightforward question: you are using flight, and moving forward at 50" per phase (say), high up in the atmosphere. You switch your flight off. What happens to your lateral velocity?

[Vorsch]

Picky picky

i think the RULES would say you come to a dead halt( actaully advantage as you dont have to decelerate )

as to monstergirl, i t would be better described by flight to NCM levels direct at atarget, after getting up a whooping 300" turn your growth on, or Density increase for that matter.

I would rule you keep your velocity and hit with appropriate increased force +1d6 for either.

100d6 +6 for str+6for growth orwhat ever

pretty imaterial, hero rules would suggest you hit a hex and cause no damage whatso ever to ajoining hexs. ( balance you didnt buy Area of affect ) also complete crap by logic.

My rule against this kind of abuse is that VELOCITY is the defining stat of Move thrus or falling. thus falling from a plane and hitting the ground at 200mph is not the same as being hit buy Dr Ds main weapons array(30d6)

Hero falling rules and Kb rules are the worst ive ever seen, tripe of the highest order.

but so entrenched that to argue against them is almost heresy

not helped buy the fact two characters travelling at the same VELOCITY can hit something with different damage levels, thanks to the speed chart

[Vorsch]

double post

[Sean Waters]

Picky to make a point: the rules do not make a lot of sense on that point, they leave it to you whether you stop dead (thus circumventing the decelleration rules) or continue ina parabola. Once you have decided which way you are going you have to apply that decision consistently, whether it produces good or bad results in a given situation.

My contention is that if you change the application of the rules on a case by case basis to acheive 'game balance' then you are making a nonsense of the game world. You can't get it right every time and you should not try.

[Hugh Neilson]

OK, Hugh, straightforward question: you are using flight, and moving forward at 50" per phase (say), high up in the atmosphere. You switch your flight off. What happens to your lateral velocity?

In my view, it becomes uncontrolled and you start decelerating. You also start losing altitude. While you are still moving at a hefty velocity, you have no control over that movement, so you have a 0 OCV, and may not even be in the right hex to target something you were trying to hit before your flight shut off.

I don't believe I've suggested MG stops dead in flight. I do question whether she has any ability to accurately target, whether her change from gliding to growth can be timed so precisely that it happens 1/4" from her target, whether Gliding can effectively be used straight down to double velocity and whether her new size can be used to make her an AoE attack when dive bombing from above.

And I believe that either:

- allowing her to attack using AoE rules (ie just hit a hax) and requiring her to be targeted using AoE rules (ie one has only to hit the hex)

OR

- both her OCV and DCV continue to apply based on non-AoE rules

are consistent applications for purposes of such rulings.

Sean, an equally pointed question: Should a player who's good at arguing the logic be allowed to obtain a huge advantage his character paid no points for? Similarly, should a player who's glib and persuasive get large bonuses on in-character interaction because the player is persuasive, even if his character lacks any such skills and has a 5 PRE?

A game that operates 100% on the "logically this should happen" premise moves from being a game with specific rules to being a sandbox game of "let's pretend".


Another thought: if MG is flying straight down at 60", how is she logically targetting? What impact is the wind, and tiny particles in the air, having on her vision? The rules don't address this, but logic should.

Does she fill a hex 2 meters wide when taken in profile? ie are her head and shoulders that massive? She's moving straight down, so her height doesn't have the same impact on her area.

Apply logic enough, and the game stops as we work out every permutation of every issue which needs to be assessed logically.

[Sean Waters]

The problem with the clever player and stupid PC (or the charismatic player/thuggish PC) is a role playing one - the player is failing to role play, and should be pulled up on it. It doesn't have a lot to do with the mechanics or their application. The GM can just rule that the PC does not say what the player says or does not express it as well, or better yet, if the player is incapable of proper role playing, ensure that they do not play inappropriate characters.

The problem with mechanical application of the game world is an entirely different one. The game world is entirely in the purview of the GM and should be implemented consistently and, in my view, as closely as possible in accordance with real world physics, biology and chemistry, otherwise players can't make realistic assumptions about the game world.

You'll never get it absolutely right, and shouldn't try - but you do need to create a consensus reality between the players and the GM, and everyone needs to know what to expect, at least broadly. Now arguably, 'I will apply game balance over consistency and logic' IS a position that allows you to predict the game world. Game Balance World is not a game world that interests me at all.

Just for clarification, this is not something MG has done, I am using her as an example to make a point. I probably wouldn't suggest it, except in dire circumstances when I'm the last Girl standing, and there is no other chance. As a one off tactic, if I was GMing (and obviously I wouldn't be as she is my character) I'd let the attempt be made, probably at a nasty sort of penalty, or with a power roll or somesuch. I mean, succed or fail, it is going to HURT her. You can't BUY that kind of heroism.

[Hugh Neilson]

The problem with the clever player and stupid PC (or the charismatic player/thuggish PC) is a role playing one - the player is failing to role play, and should be pulled up on it. It doesn't have a lot to do with the mechanics or their application. The GM can just rule that the PC does not say what the player says or does not express it as well, or better yet, if the player is incapable of proper role playing, ensure that they do not play inappropriate characters.

Sean, as I have implied before, I think there can also be a character design problem. If I envision my character having the charisma to persuade the other character to go along with my plans, I should have purchased decent interaction skills. Failure to do so indicates my design of the character was poor - I didn't buy him the abilities necessary to have him meet my vision of the character.

Similarly, if I envision my character being able to use the benefits of both Gliding and Growth at the same time, it was an error in design to purchase the two powers in a manner that prevents their simultaneous use. The multipower means that, while I have my glider wings out and operable, I can't also use my shapeshifting powers to grow. Presumably, I only have so much extra mass available. If I retract the wings and increase my size, I still have momentum, but it's now completely uncontrolled, so I can't accurately target it. That means I can't control where my two hex sized body is going to land. I might just crash into the ground headfirst beside my desired target, and fall over, filling half of the hex my target was in (HE doesn't fill an entire hex), all of the next hex over and half of the hex after that. Those hexes don't get the same momentum, however - I absorbed a lot of that with my head when I hit the ground.

During the game, the answer may be to allow a power stunt (possibly using Power Skill) to accomplish this once, with the promise that the character will dedicate future xp to mechanically allowing the character to combine their Gliding and Growth abilities in the future, so that this ability I envision logically will be supported by the character design mechanically. The only change from your comment is the spending of future xp to realize the logical conception in mechanical terms.