Equipment Issues

[Steve Long]

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about rules pertaining to equipment and gear that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about equipment that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

Regardless of whatever opinion I post on an idea, I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise if you think you can do it. ;) The fact that I’m posting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean my mind’s made up on an issue; it just indicates my current thinking on the subject.

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.


Q: Should we change the way Ranged Killing Damage weapons are built?

Steve’s Thoughts: We should. Right now, for some reason dating back to the early days of the rules, they seem to be built with some sort of generic “Killing Damage” power that requires the STR Min Does Not Add To Damage Limitation. The rules should say explicitly that they’re built with RKA and thus don’t qualify for that Limitation.

[James Gillen]

Q: Should we change the way Ranged Killing Damage weapons are built?

Steve’s Thoughts: We should. Right now, for some reason dating back to the early days of the rules, they seem to be built with some sort of generic “Killing Damage” power that requires the STR Min Does Not Add To Damage Limitation. The rules should say explicitly that they’re built with RKA and thus don’t qualify for that Limitation.

Basically that's already the case. You've either got Ranged weapons that do not have STR-added damage and require a STR Limitation (either to pull the bow or resist 'climb' after the shot) or you have weapons that do add STR to damage, which are almost always Melee weapons bought with Ranged Advantage. Like you said, just change the emphasis to make this more clear in the rules.

JG

[Enforcer84]

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about rules pertaining to equipment and gear that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about equipment that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

Regardless of whatever opinion I post on an idea, I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise if you think you can do it. ;) The fact that I’m posting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean my mind’s made up on an issue; it just indicates my current thinking on the subject.

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.


Q: Should we change the way Ranged Killing Damage weapons are built?

Steve’s Thoughts: We should. Right now, for some reason dating back to the early days of the rules, they seem to be built with some sort of generic “Killing Damage” power that requires the STR Min Does Not Add To Damage Limitation. The rules should say explicitly that they’re built with RKA and thus don’t qualify for that Limitation.
I did not know that.

[steamteck]

Q: Should we change the way Ranged Killing Damage weapons are built?

Steve’s Thoughts: We should. Right now, for some reason dating back to the early days of the rules, they seem to be built with some sort of generic “Killing Damage” power that requires the STR Min Does Not Add To Damage Limitation. The rules should say explicitly that they’re built with RKA and thus don’t qualify for that Limitation.


Works for me . go for it. Although some things like bows would still need a ST Min.

[Lightning91]

Pages 196 to 198 of Fantasy Hero addressed the issue of balancing Armor use in Fantasy Hero campaigns. Although several suggestions on handling the issue were provided, I am not entirely sure any of them were entirely satisfactory.

Perhaps the sixth addition would be an appropriate time to provide a definitive resolution to this issue.

[buzz]

I'd love to see better rules for vehicles. Using vehicles with battlemaps is awkward, and I never really grokked how the map-less vehicle rules were supposed to work. The expanded rules found in books like TUV and SH were just too cumbersome and awkward in play.

In general, I think vehicles and bases are way less important than PCs, and thus don't need detailed rules. A set of mechanics that are easy to use and make for fast play would be a priority for me.

[Susano]

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about rules pertaining to equipment and gear that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about equipment that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

Regardless of whatever opinion I post on an idea, I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise if you think you can do it. ;) The fact that I’m posting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean my mind’s made up on an issue; it just indicates my current thinking on the subject.

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.


Q: Should we change the way Ranged Killing Damage weapons are built?

Steve’s Thoughts: We should. Right now, for some reason dating back to the early days of the rules, they seem to be built with some sort of generic “Killing Damage” power that requires the STR Min Does Not Add To Damage Limitation. The rules should say explicitly that they’re built with RKA and thus don’t qualify for that Limitation.

Steve, if you recall, back when you were writing Dark Champions I said that exact same thing. Guns are built with some very questionable Limitations (which at the time you didn't want to change for various reasons). So, with 6th on the horizon I say YES! Ranged weapons should have Focus, Charges, STR Min, Real Weapon (and maybe) Beam. The "STR Min Does Not Add To Damage construct violates the basic rule of HERO in that you can't add damage to an RKA with your STR, so why is it a Limitation? Please, make this change!

[Thia Halmades]

Also, while we're on the topic, can be build guns (and bows, and Atl-Atls, and Slings) as "damage delivery systems" and break out the differing ammunition types properly and build them in a game-sanctioned way? The reason I ask is entirely heroic-specific; for an SH game it likely doesn't matter, but:

When you have a resource pool, you tend to put things like, I dunno, guns into it. Lots of guns. Those guns are built as RKA, with their various advantages. Yah, cool. Including their +1 OCV, what have you.

I buy Armor Piercing Ammunition. The average rifle may have 70 some odd real points in it; building it as an NPA is kind of silly, but there needs to be some way (and it isn't in the book now) to know how much that clip of ammunition costs to put into your resource pool. The rules say "adding AP Ammo makes a weapon AP."

Which is cool! But no one knows how much it costs or how we got there. It's just not answered and we are confounded, so I went ahead and took your [Steve's] suggestion from Fantasy HERO, and did exactly as you suggest: I built Bows and Arrows separately. Works great! But I'd love to see the text-canon version of this design philosophy make it into 6th edition.

Along with things like Hard Points for vehicles (even if its just Extra Limbs, only for carrying weapons, stacked with a vehicular form of Gun Muscles).

[BobGreenwade]

Q: Should we change the way Ranged Killing Damage weapons are built?

Steve’s Thoughts: We should. Right now, for some reason dating back to the early days of the rules, they seem to be built with some sort of generic “Killing Damage” power that requires the STR Min Does Not Add To Damage Limitation. The rules should say explicitly that they’re built with RKA and thus don’t qualify for that Limitation.I'm with you on this 100%, Steve.

Also, I'm strongly of the opinion that the Equipment section should immediately follow the Character Creation section. Let's have all the stuff concerning putting the character together right in one place, instead of having it mostly in one place and then a bit more at the back as it is now.

And most if not all (allowing here that there maybe something I'm forgetting that would make an "impossible construct") of the Power Modifiers currently in this section should go into the Character Creation section. Besides the Automaton Powers, I've come across situations where characters have needed Limited Coverage, Limited Arc Of Fire, and other elements from this section.

[Susano]

I'm with you on this 100%, Steve.

Also, I'm strongly of the opinion that the Equipment section should immediately follow the Character Creation section. Let's have all the stuff concerning putting the character together right in one place, instead of having it mostly in one place and then a bit more at the back as it is now.

And most if not all (allowing here that there maybe something I'm forgetting that would make an "impossible construct") of the Power Modifiers currently in this section should go into the Character Creation section. Besides the Automaton Powers, I've come across situations where characters have needed Limited Coverage, Limited Arc Of Fire, and other elements from this section.

Hmm/.. yes, I'd like to see the Automaton powers allowable for PCs. I can think of a number of fictional characters who have "Does Not Bleed" among other such abilities.

[Thia Halmades]

One of my gripes with 5ER: Not all the limitations are in one place. They really should be, at least in a design sense, so we can find what we're looking for quickly, easily, and above all intuitively. 5ER is a lot of things.

Intuitive is not one of them.

[Susano]

One of my gripes with 5ER: Not all the limitations are in one place. They really should be, at least in a design sense, so we can find what we're looking for quickly, easily, and above all intuitively. 5ER is a lot of things.

Intuitive is not one of them.

Yeah, while its a nice idea to put "STR Does Not Add" only with the Killing Attacks, it would be better if it was with the Limitations, if only to cut down on the book flipping and to make it easier to remember the Limitation is in there in the first place.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Also, while we're on the topic, can be build guns (and bows, and Atl-Atls, and Slings) as "damage delivery systems" and break out the differing ammunition types properly and build them in a game-sanctioned way? The reason I ask is entirely heroic-specific; for an SH game it likely doesn't matter, but:I agree that this is a "better" route to go for such weapons from both a realism standpoint (even dramatic realism) and a flexibility standpoint. However, I don't think it's better from a simplicity standpoint; for games where there needn't be much focus on the nuts-and-bolts of combat (including many Champions games), this would make "damage delivery system" weapons more complicated than necessary. So I'd prefer to see either the "damage delivery system with separate ammo" approach as an optional rule for increasing detail (with the "consolidated weapon-and-ammo as one item" approach as the standard rule), or the consolidated approach as an optional rule for decreasing detail (with the delivery system approach as the standard rule).

[Derek Hiemforth]

One of my gripes with 5ER: Not all the limitations are in one place.


Yeah, while its a nice idea to put "STR Does Not Add" only with the Killing Attacks, it would be better if it was with the Limitations, if only to cut down on the book flipping and to make it easier to remember the Limitation is in there in the first place.This is technically a presentation issue, not a rules issue, but I agree that the separations are less intuitive to me than the "all modifiers in one place" approach was. (Though that may be just because I was more used to the other way.)

Perhaps a reasonable compromise approach, that wouldn't add too much extra page count, would be to simply have complete lists (with page references) of all Advantages, all Limitations, all Adders, etc., and include these reference lists in an appendix or in the indices.

[Lord Liaden]

Over on the Limitations thread I brought up the issue of BODY for "equipment" bought as a Focus, so I think I'll leave that there and move on.

Since Steve's initial thought seems to be well dealt with ;) , I'd like to raise the issue of the equipment doubling adder. Frankly, this is one rule I've had trouble swallowing. The distinction of allowing this for Powers built as Foci, but not without that Limitation, seems to reward someone for taking a Limitation, which are supposed to be detrimental rather than beneficial. AFAICT from the rulebook and the FAQ, these doubled Foci are usable in any way that non-focussed Powers would be - Multiple-Power Attacks, stacked Defenses, and so on. So there's no apparent downside to using it versus building two full versions of the Power.

Anyone want to explore this, especially highlighting points I may have overlooked?

[Opal]

Q: Should we change the way Ranged Killing Damage weapons are built?

Steve’s Thoughts: We should. Right now, for some reason dating back to the early days of the rules, they seem to be built with some sort of generic “Killing Damage” power that requires the STR Min Does Not Add To Damage Limitation. The rules should say explicitly that they’re built with RKA and thus don’t qualify for that Limitation.Huh? STR min requires a minimum STR to use a weapon, reducing the amount useable to add damage to the weapon. STR min on a weapon to which STR doesn't add still requires a minimum STR, but there is no added damage to reduce. Clearly the limitations should be set to a different level, yes?

Not that it's terribly important.

What I'd really like to see is AP and Increased STNx given out consistently with DCs. If a gun does 2d RKA (30 Apts), and you load it with 'Armor Piercing' bullets it should do 1d+1 RKA AP (30 Apts). If the bullet from a gun represents twice the kinetic energy as a 2d RKA gun, it should do 2d+1 RKA (35 Apts), not 2d RKA with +1 STNx (45 Apts). It's nuts. Small arms become extraordinarily high Apts for little aparent reason, once you take into account such advantages - not to mention Autofire, of course.

[Susano]

Huh? STR min requires a minimum STR to use a weapon, reducing the amount useable to add damage to the weapon. STR min on a weapon to which STR doesn't add still requires a minimum STR, but there is no added damage to reduce. Clearly the limitations should be set to a different level, yes?

The Limitations should be applied to things they limit. If you can't add your STR to an RKA, why building a gun with a Limitation that basically says t he same thing? All weapons should have a STR Min Limitation, yes, but STR Min Does Not Add To Damage Limitation shouldn't be applied to things like guns and crossbows.

[Opal]

The Limitations should be applied to things they limit. If you can't add your STR to an RKA, why building a gun with a Limitation that basically says t he same thing? All weapons should have a STR Min Limitation, yes, but STR Min Does Not Add To Damage Limitation shouldn't be applied to things like guns and crossbows.

I really don't understand this. Shouldn't STR min give you less of a limitation if the power in question already doesn't benefit from STR? All it's doing is impossing the minimum, whereas, if the power does benefit from STR, it's impossing the minimum /and/ reducing the final damage of the power.

[Susano]

I really don't understand this. Shouldn't STR min give you less of a limitation if the power in question already doesn't benefit from STR? All it's doing is impossing the minimum, whereas, if the power does benefit from STR, it's impossing the minimum /and/ reducing the final damage of the power.

We're talking past each other here. I'm not talking about STR Min as a Limitation, I'm talking about the validity of assigning "STR Min Does Not Add To Damage" to RKAs when you can't add your STR to an RKA anyway.

As a further note, I used a STR Min of -1/4 for guns and -1/2 for HTH Weapons in my Kazei 5 game for the exact reason you list. With a gun the STR Min affected only your CV, while with a HTH weapon it affected CV and damage. Now, if the firearms STR Min included taking damage for attempting to fire a gun that's too powerful for you, I could see a -1/2 on both.

[BobGreenwade]

I really don't understand this. Shouldn't STR min give you less of a limitation if the power in question already doesn't benefit from STR? All it's doing is impossing the minimum, whereas, if the power does benefit from STR, it's impossing the minimum /and/ reducing the final damage of the power.That's the point of the original question. The way many RKA-based weapons are currently built, the Limitation includes the element that the weapon doesn't benefit from additional STR when the nature of the base Power already does that. Steve's wanting to fix that so RKA-based weapons don't include that element of the Limitation.

[Opal]

We're talking past each other here. I'm not talking about STR Min as a Limitation, I'm talking about the validity of assigning "STR Min Does Not Add To Damage" to RKAs when you can't add your STR to an RKA anyway.

As a further note, I used a STR Min of -1/4 for guns and -1/2 for HTH Weapons in my Kazei 5 game for the exact reason you list. I haven't had occassion to actually build (for points) anything with a STR min for a very long time, so I guess I'm just remembering it wrong. I thought STR min (STR doesn't add) or however it's phrased /was/ the lesser limitation (to be aplied to ranged weapons). :o

Now that I think about it, I haven't even looked at STR min in FRED - I think it was probably '92 the last time I figured the actual total Rpt cost of something with a STR min. Might even have been the 80s. Sure, I've made lists of weapons for games much more recently, but I just paid attention to the DCs, not the Rpts.

[Susano]

I haven't had occassion to actually build (for points) anything with a STR min for a very long time, so I guess I'm just remembering it wrong. I thought STR min (STR doesn't add) or however it's phrased /was/ the lesser limitation (to be aplied to ranged weapons). :o

No, it was added on top of the STR Min Limitation (and number of hands).

[Toadmaster]

What I'd really like to see is AP and Increased STNx given out consistently with DCs. If a gun does 2d RKA (30 Apts), and you load it with 'Armor Piercing' bullets it should do 1d+1 RKA AP (30 Apts). If the bullet from a gun represents twice the kinetic energy as a 2d RKA gun, it should do 2d+1 RKA (35 Apts), not 2d RKA with +1 STNx (45 Apts). It's nuts. Small arms become extraordinarily high Apts for little aparent reason, once you take into account such advantages - not to mention Autofire, of course.

Not sure where you are going with this? Could you elaborate, I'm not sure if I am in agreement or opposed.



Something that should be looked at is vehicles, weapons and equipment in 3rd ed, in many ways heroic combat was better in 3rd edition. Particularly odd weapons like flamethrowers, grenades, shotguns and WP grenades.

Weapons felt like the weapons they were supposed to represent, the current rules are a bit weak here, a hollow point isn't that much different than a shotgun, and a grenade is pretty much the same as a stick of dynamite. 3rd ed grenades were one of the best representations of a grenade in any game I've played.

Vehicle combat in 3rd had issues but it was better than the later editions where they were treated the same as a guy in a cape. Vehicles have always been a weak point in the game which is odd considering how important car, boat, plane etc chases are in the source material. I would suggest having a look at carwars for ideas, I have yet to find a game that handled vehicles as well as that one. As I recall Autoduel Champions mixed the two systems well but it has been a good 20 years so I could be wrong.

[Susano]

Hmm... I can see that. Shotguns could hit more than one person at sufficient range, and Grenades had that cool Autofire shrapnel effect. I really missed that when 4th came out. I still have my copy of The Armory for that very reason. The weapons in there "felt" well... "more real."

[caris]

Ok, here is what I'd like to see dealt with explicitly in the rules. I decided to ignore the Equipment can be doubled for +5 Points, because there isn't a nice clear description defining equipment as anything other than special effect. +5 doubling is not a minor benefit so it needs something more definite and clear cut to define when it could be use. I have two characters that both have an Energy Blast. One defines it as a wrist blaster, and the other defines it as a bio blast. Neither of them are taking the Focus Limitation, the wrist blaster explains that it is rigged to take over an hour to remove by anyone other than themself, a la Dr. Destroyer's armor. Now the rules do not make any provision clearly stating that the one with the wrist blaster can not buy a second wrist blaster for +5 points. Adding to the problem is that the additional equipment in some cases like a wrist blaster can be used as part of a Multiple Power Attack.

[caris]

Ok, here is what I'd like to see dealt with explicitly in the rules. I decided to ignore the Equipment can be doubled for +5 Points, because there isn't a nice clear description defining equipment as anything other than special effect. +5 doubling is not a minor benefit so it needs something more definite and clear cut to define when it could be use. I have two characters that both have an Energy Blast. One defines it as a wrist blaster, and the other defines it as a bio blast. Neither of them are taking the Focus Limitation, the wrist blaster explains that it is rigged to take over an hour to remove by anyone other than themself, a la Dr. Destroyer's armor. Now the rules do not make any provision clearly stating that the one with the wrist blaster can not buy a second wrist blaster for +5 points. Adding to the problem is that the additional equipment in some cases like a wrist blaster can be used as part of a Multiple Power Attack.

You know, forget the explanation, if there are no sacred cows, there are no sacred cows that includes rules made part of the core book in 5th. If the only defining quality is that to get the doubling is Special Effect, than it has to be available to all special effects or none of them.

Yes, I know this rule makes guns, swords, bows, armor, etc. consistent with Vehicles and Computers. The problem is mechanically they are not anything like those two things, mechanically guns are a Killing Attack, which depending on the GM may or may not have a selection of Limitations on it. Computers and Vehicles have character sheets (granted, abbreiviated ones), which make them very much like Multiform, Follower, Duplication and Summon, all which also use the +5 Doubling rule.

If our goal is to make Equipment more like Vehicles does that mean that we want to give guns a Dex and SPD of their own, which interact with the Dex and SPD of the character using them like a Vehicle's Dex and SPD does? I can see a justification for a doing it. I'm just not sure that their is any significant added value in doing so.

[Opal]

Not sure where you are going with this? Could you elaborate, I'm not sure if I am in agreement or opposed.Just that what seem like small, incremental changes - d6-1 STNx to d6 to model a 'magnum' handgun, for instance - can actually represent quite a lot of active points compared to simply adding or a DC.


Vehicle combat in 3rd had issues but it was better than the later editions where they were treated the same as a guy in a cape. Vehicles have always been a weak point in the game which is odd considering how important car, boat, plane etc chases are in the source material. 3rd Ed vehicles could be obscenely powerful, even setting aside absurdities like the 'exhaust' thing that saved you points and gave you a crazy AE attack for free. They were like mobile Force Walls you couldn't knock down and that could be used for move throughs and fired through from inside with impunity. Even when you managed to penetate thier defenses you'd hit 'waste space' or something else meaningless an anoying proportion of the time.

[Vondy]

Hmm/.. yes, I'd like to see the Automaton powers allowable for PCs. I can think of a number of fictional characters who have "Does Not Bleed" among other such abilities.

This was one of the added restrictions that I just sort of... laughed at.

[CorPse]

Is this the place to bring up Vehicle Combat, etc.? [5ER pgs. 471-475]

The Vehicle Build rules are fine... but using the combat rules, the dog-fighting and chase tables... it's not fun or intuitive.

BobG did some wonderful triage in The Ultimate Vehicle, but even that doesn't go far enough. Of all the issues I'd like to see addressed in 6E, it would be this part of the rule set.

Clearly any combat system would have to have a high degree of abstraction, but I'm not sure what it would be. I openly admit I don't know how to fix it... if I did, I would have already implemented it in my own game...

[Toadmaster]

Just that what seem like small, incremental changes - d6-1 STNx to d6 to model a 'magnum' handgun, for instance - can actually represent quite a lot of active points compared to simply adding or a DC.

3rd Ed vehicles could be obscenely powerful, even setting aside absurdities like the 'exhaust' thing that saved you points and gave you a crazy AE attack for free. They were like mobile Force Walls you couldn't knock down and that could be used for move throughs and fired through from inside with impunity. Even when you managed to penetate thier defenses you'd hit 'waste space' or something else meaningless an anoying proportion of the time.

Ok, I can see that. Personally I really like the stun X as a factor, but it certainly is something that looks simple but has a big impact if you don't watch it.

For example, the .45ACP did 1d6+1 with +1 Stun, while a .357 Magnum did 1 1/2 d6 with a standard Stun X, the .45 had a maximum of 7 body and 42 stun, the .357 magnum had a maximum of 9 body and 45 stun. These two guns are similar in effectiveness, both have a reputation of being manstoppers, but they are different, the .45 has a big slow slug, lots of knock down but not so great at penetrating armor, the .357 has a lighter faster slug good at penetrating and good effect on tissue. HERO had a great way to model this, the .357 had the advantage of better overall damage, but the .45 had better average stun. Most games would have just had them do similar damage. I believe 5th ed tinkered with the stats, I pretty much ignored what was done in 5th here because it went against the awesomly simple yet elegant way of modeling weapons in the earlier editions.

You may be correct on vehicles, its been a long time since I read the vehicle rules in 3rd, I just remember running some car chases in DI and at least in my memory it seemed to work much better than 4th ed onward. We gave up on car chases when 4th ed came out, it was just easier to use another game for the vehicle movement rules.

[Opal]

For example, the .45ACP did 1d6+1 with +1 Stun, while a .357 Magnum did 1 1/2 d6 with a standard Stun X, the .45 had a maximum of 7 body and 42 stun, the .357 magnum had a maximum of 9 body and 45 stun. Hmmm... OK, yes, at the lower end, a +1 DC and a +1/2 Advantage aren't hugely different. One of those is a 30 Apt power, the other is 25. If you were talking a 10pt power to start, a +1 STNx and +1 DC would be identical in cost (15 Apts).

[SCUBA Hero]

To add to the +5 / 2x issue:

I understand that the basis for +5 points doubling something (mass, number of people, area of effect, number of items) is that +5 points generally represents a doulbing of power.

(sidebar: given that, doubling an AE attack should be +5 points rather than an Advantage.)

What greatly offends my sense of point balance is that the new items MUST be exactly the same or else the points sequence resets. Example: TUV, p. 67 - the Nimitz class has 62 fighters at a cost of 97 points. Okay, for five more points it could have 128 fighters. But, since it also has eight helicopters, it must pay the base cost (AP / 5) and then start doubling again.

This throws the 'points matter' argument out the window.

Pay points for the most powerful item/vehicle/Power/whatever, and then allow doubling for any item of that Active Point cost or less.

[SCUBA Hero]

Vehicle vs. personal scale:

Some method to differentiate between personal and vehicle scales should be added. For example, TUV p. 63 - a 32-pounder on a galleon does 3d6 RKA. So does a .50 caliber machine gun. But the 32-pdr fires a ball of 6.4" in diameter that weighs 25.6 lbs (taken from Arms and Equipment of the Civil War, 32-pdr howitzer, p. 66). No way are these even close in penetration power or damage.

[SCUBA Hero]

Also, scaling between vehicles needs to be taken to account. For example:

TUV, p. 51, Abrams MBT has Def 30/20, all Hardened.

HSVS, p. 127, Iowa class BB (which has 12.1" belt armor) has DEF 10.

*************

Also, armor stacking needs to be addressed. Throw Hard Body Armor (FReD p. 488 over the Iowa BB and it's DEF is almost doubled! (10 + 9). Obviousy this is an extreme example, but the principle is important... there are characters who are in the proper defensive range provided that they have their Forcefield up or Armor on, but are one-shot knockouts without such defense.

[Toadmaster]

Hmmm... OK, yes, at the lower end, a +1 DC and a +1/2 Advantage aren't hugely different. One of those is a 30 Apt power, the other is 25. If you were talking a 10pt power to start, a +1 STNx and +1 DC would be identical in cost (15 Apts).

I'm not sure I'm following your issue, is this a problem with effect or cost?

If its a point cost issue I've never really dealt with it since I almost exclusively play heroic settings and the point costs of guns doesn't enter the picture. Should it be cheaper, more expensive, just different?

[Opal]

Pay points for the most powerful item/vehicle/Power/whatever, and then allow doubling for any item of that Active Point cost or less. I don't know if you can still do it, but in the past when designing followers you could create a few strong followrs, then 'break one of them up' into a number of weaker ones. So, if you have 4 200 pt followers (or aircraft, whatever), you could 'break one up' into 8 125 pt followers. (IIRC, of course - and I don't RC how far back I'm remembering this from...)

[Chris Goodwin]

Is this the place to bring up Vehicle Combat, etc.? [5ER pgs. 471-475]

The Vehicle Build rules are fine... but using the combat rules, the dog-fighting and chase tables... it's not fun or intuitive.


And I'll disagree on the dogfighting rules, at least. Great fun, the one time I played with them. A good bit quicker than the average superhero combat.

[CorPse]

And I'll disagree on the dogfighting rules, at least. Great fun, the one time I played with them. A good bit quicker than the average superhero combat.

Hey, if it was fun for you, excellent...

... just seems colorless when I try to do anything with it.

[caris]

To add to the +5 / 2x issue:

I understand that the basis for +5 points doubling something (mass, number of people, area of effect, number of items) is that +5 points generally represents a doulbing of power.

(sidebar: given that, doubling an AE attack should be +5 points rather than an Advantage.)

What greatly offends my sense of point balance is that the new items MUST be exactly the same or else the points sequence resets. Example: TUV, p. 67 - the Nimitz class has 62 fighters at a cost of 97 points. Okay, for five more points it could have 128 fighters. But, since it also has eight helicopters, it must pay the base cost (AP / 5) and then start doubling again.

This throws the 'points matter' argument out the window.

Pay points for the most powerful item/vehicle/Power/whatever, and then allow doubling for any item of that Active Point cost or less.

Interesting, did you check and make sure that wasn't an errata in TUV? For Vehicles and Bases, I don't mind them being different too much, but it still doesn't feel quite right. For other equipment, I'm not so sure if I want something like build the sword, +5 points get a sheild, +5 more points get a suit of armor and a crossbow, etc.


I don't know if you can still do it, but in the past when designing followers you could create a few strong followrs, then 'break one of them up' into a number of weaker ones. So, if you have 4 200 pt followers (or aircraft, whatever), you could 'break one up' into 8 125 pt followers. (IIRC, of course - and I don't RC how far back I'm remembering this from...)

Current rules for followers explicitly states that they can be different, up to the maximum number of points paid for. It does seem though that you can not do the break up

[steamteck]

To add to the +5 / 2x issue:


Pay points for the most powerful item/vehicle/Power/whatever, and then allow doubling for any item of that Active Point cost or less.

Works for me.

[SCUBA Hero]

Interesting, did you check and make sure that wasn't an errata in TUV? For Vehicles and Bases, I don't mind them being different too much, but it still doesn't feel quite right. For other equipment, I'm not so sure if I want something like build the sword, +5 points get a sheild, +5 more points get a suit of armor and a crossbow, etc.I am not aware of errata for that.

Good point on the sword/shield/armor + crossbow. Although in that case, I'd be against adding a second sword for +5 points as well.

[Ocelot]

I would really, really, really like to see a "scale" kind of advantage, specifically for vehicles. Or some kind of rule.

I hate having characters who interact in a world with space ships, wanting to know if they can shoot through spaceship walls. In order to stop a normal sniper bullet from hurting the Enterprise's deflector shields, I have to set the deflector shield's FF at 15 ED/PD or so, but then, for other spaceships to damage those, I have to make spaceship weapons that do at least 15 damage classes, which means I'm rolling a dozen dice for every attack, which gets a little old.

Just my thought.

[James Gillen]

Hmm/.. yes, I'd like to see the Automaton powers allowable for PCs. I can think of a number of fictional characters who have "Does Not Bleed" among other such abilities.

Like Jesse Ventura in Predator. ;)

jg

[SAVeira]

Q: Should we change the way Ranged Killing Damage weapons are built?

Yes. The reasoning behind this, is very sound.

[dsatow]

Q: Should we change the way Ranged Killing Damage weapons are built?

Yes, in all cases, I think you should rebuild the powers. Why change the system and keep the old powers in the new book?

[Scott Destroyer]

Hi all,

You know, on the subject of equipment, the whole "STR Minimum" thing has always bothered me. If you have the STR Minimum or higher, then the Limitation is really not a Limitation for you (absent the tiny chance of your STR getting hit by an Adjustment Power), and you thus shouldn't get to take the Limitation (or, more technically, should take it for -0 value). And yet, if some characters can take the Limitation and some can't, that would mean that the exact same piece of equipment would be built differently, and have two different costs, for two different characters, which also seems wrong. I do like the realism the Limitation affords, especially for non-Superheroic campaigns, so I'd hate to see it eliminated outright, but I've not thought of any good way around the dilemma.

[Susano]

My thoughts on STR Min.

I like it. I have fought with various HTH weapons before and I can tell you that yes -- a real heavy weapon can be hard to use properly, while a lighter one can be moved around faster and swung better, allowing one to hit harder. At the same time, the value of the Limitation needs to be examined. Allow me to explain:

If we presume that average human STR is 8-10, then this becomes the baseline for all STR Mins. Thus a STR Min of 8-10 (or 7-12 or so) should be a -0 Modifier, since your average everyday human (and hero) can use the weapon with no problems. A STR Min of less than 8 or should should actually be an Advantage (say +1/4), since it means most anyone can use it and many people can benefit from having more STR then is needed to effectively use it. Weapons with a STR Min of more than 10 (or 12) should have a cumulative -1/4 Limitation for a set value (say for every 3 STR more you need. So, it might look like this:

STR Min of 1-4 (+1/2)
STR Min of 5-7 (+1/4)
STR Min of 8-12 (+0)
STR Min of 13-16 (-1/4)
STR Min of 17-20 (-1/2)

And so on. These are only rough suggestions as I don't have my books handy to see what the current STR Min lims look like.

Now, as to what STR Min does --

For HTH weapons having insufficient STR should cause OCV minuses (you simply cannot move the weapon effectively) and might cost extra END (it's tiring to use the weapon). At a certain point, you should lose DCs from the weapon as you are simply no strong enough to hit with the weapon in an effective manner. Having more STR than the STR Min should allow you to increase the damage as normal.

As for Ranged weapons... I'm no expert, but I think that having insufficient should also cause OCV minuses. The weapon is too big, bulky, heavy, what-have you to aim properly and/or hold steady. There is also the risk of damage to the person firing the weapon since they aren't strong enough to hold the weapon firmly and absorb the recoil. I know people who have misfired shotguns have ended up with dislocated shoulders and broken cheekbones.

Having more than sufficient STR with a ranged weapon can allow the person suing the weapon to pull cinematic stunts -- firing the gun one-handed for example. It would be nice if it also gave OCV bonuses as well, since you can hold the weapon so steady. Actually, the OCV bonuses should be Penalty Bonuses for things like Rapid Fire or Autofire skills (since you can keep the weapon from jumping around).

The Required Hands Limitation should be -0 of 1, -1/4 for 1.5, and -1/2 for 2 (I think it is), with the understanding that certain factors can allow a character to ignore this (STR, size, and so on).

The current "STR Doesn't Add Damage" needs to be discarded for RKAs, since STR doesn't add to an RKA anyway.

Real Weapon should be expanded slightly to include the cavet of "No matter how much damage you do, this weapon won't affect certain targets." I know the comment is (or was) made about hacking through a stone wall with a sword, but perhaps it can be applied to small arms as well. This would kee p people with pistols from shooting holes in tanks and the like. And if used in a supers game, it would allow the GM to state that the M1A1's 8d6 AP RKA cannon still has no effect on Grond 'cause, well, he's Grond.

[Tonio]

A STR Min of less than 8 or should should actually be an Advantage (say +1/4), since it means most anyone can use it and many people can benefit from having more STR then is needed to effectively use it.

How do you figure? If I don't use STR Min, everybody can use it, regardless of STR, and they get to add their full STR if applicable (i.e. for HKAs and HAs). If I add "STR Min: 2", now it's usable by everybody except a tiny subset, and they get to add almost all their STR if applicable. Hardly any difference, sure... but definitely for the worse, in no way better.

[Susano]

How do you figure? If I don't use STR Min, everybody can use it, regardless of STR, and they get to add their full STR if applicable (i.e. for HKAs and HAs). If I add "STR Min: 2", now it's usable by everybody except a tiny subset, and they get to add almost all their STR if applicable. Hardly any difference, sure... but definitely for the worse, in no way better.

This is presuming you even use STR Min and that you have a -0 baseline near human average.

[Tonio]

This is presuming you even use STR Min and that you have a -0 baseline near human average.

I'm not sure I explained myself properly...

Consider two weapons, one built with STR Min, the other without. The one with STR Min is never better than the one without, since the one without can be used by anyone, and everybody gets their full STR added. The one with STR Min can be nearly as good, if it has a low enough STR Min (maybe close enough to warrant a -0 Limitation), but it's never better, so I can't see an Advantage being justified.

[Susano]

I'm not sure I explained myself properly...

Consider two weapons, one built with STR Min, the other without. The one with STR Min is never better than the one without, since the one without can be used by anyone, and everybody gets their full STR added. The one with STR Min can be nearly as good, if it has a low enough STR Min (maybe close enough to warrant a -0 Limitation), but it's never better, so I can't see an Advantage being justified.

It's all or nothing. Either you use STR Mins and thus use the Advantage (if it even warrants such a thing), or you don't use STR Mins for all weapons.

[Tonio]

It's all or nothing. Either you use STR Mins and thus use the Advantage (if it even warrants such a thing), or you don't use STR Mins for all weapons.

In that case, it renders points-comparisons between weapons and non-weapons useless! Strictly speaking, STR Minimum is never an advantage (lowercase "a"), because it never benefits the Power it modifies. The only way it would work is if all Powers had an inherent -0 Limitation to the tune of "STR Min: campaign baseline". Not just HKA, HA, RKA, and EB, but all Powers. Presumably, the cost of Flight is balanced with respects to the cost of HKA. If the cost of HKA were to rise in order for it to be accessible to everyone, regardless of their STR, while Flight were still priced the same, it would create an imbalance. This sort of imbalance may be desired in certain campaigns, but this would be a campaign-specific issue, and shouldn't affect the core rules.

[Susano]

By the same token, STR Min needs to be applied in a logical manner. If equipment is to balance across the board, regardless of genre, then a STR Min of 1-4 should be a -0 Limitation, 5-9 - 1/4, 10-14 -1/2, and so on. The basic gist of my argument still stands -- should it be a Limitation to give a weapon a STR Min of 8-10, when 8-10 is normally campaign baseline?

[Tonio]

By the same token, STR Min needs to be applied in a logical manner. If equipment is to balance across the board, regardless of genre, then a STR Min of 1-4 should be a -0 Limitation, 5-9 - 1/4, 10-14 -1/2, and so on. The basic gist of my argument still stands -- should it be a Limitation to give a weapon a STR Min of 8-10, when 8-10 is normally campaign baseline?

Oh, my apologies if it seemed I was objecting to the whole thing... I only meant the Advantage part.

On the other hand, it really is a limitation to have a STR Min at 8-10, even if it's a campaign baseline (even if it's below campaign baseline, actually), because the STR you can add isn't your whole STR score, but only the excess above the STR Min. So if we set STR Min at 10, someone with 20 STR (decidedly a Very Very Strong Guy!) will add 2 DCs to his weapon attack, half of what he would add without a STR Min. I feel that warrants more than a -0 Limitation. If, on the other hand, you can apply your full STR regardless of STR Min, or if you can't apply STR at all (like for RKAs), then I completely agree a STR Min set at campaign baseline is worth -0 (I'd actually call it a bit more, but not quite -1/4... so -0 it is).

On the other other hand, STR Min is one of those funky Limitations (at least when applied to RKAs and such) which either make the power unusable, or doesn't limit. A guy with 20 STR using an RKA-based weapon with 10 STR Min isn't limited in his use of the power, at all. A guy with 10 STR using an RKA-based weapon with a 20 STR Min can't use it, at all. I really dislike how the actual value of the STR Min Limitation depends on the character's actual STR. It makes it impossible to give the Limitation a useful static value. Moreso, it's value should always be either -0 (if the character has enough STR), or -infinity (i.e., the power should cost 0pts) (if the character doesn't have enough STR). If the character's STR fluctuated frequently, then a value such as -1/2 or -1/4 would be appropriate, based on how often the character's STR would be above/below the power's STR Min.

I dunno, I think we should do away with the "you need X STR or more to be able to use" part, or make it a -0 Limitation, always. That part of STR Min is left to the GM/Campaign Guidelines. "Characters with less than 15 STR can't use the following weapons: Greataxe, Greatsword, yadda yadda..." It's the same as saying "You need the Spell School: Theurgy Perk in order to get Theurgy spells". The other part, the "how much STR I can add"... well, it should be an Adder, I think "Can Add up to 15 STR: 15pts". Or whatever. =)

[Opal]

Even if a weapon is one to which STR doesn't add, and the STR min is 8, and everyone in the campaign has an 8, that 8 STR still costs 1 END (unless your STR is 16+, and it's your casual STR, I guess), so it's like a very minor 'costs END.' That might not be worth an actual limitation (and a -1/4 might not even save any points on a weaopn that's already getting OAF, charges, etc), depending on other campaign factors, but it is not as good as being able to fire your weapon without exerting any STR.

[James Gillen]

Real Weapon should be expanded slightly to include the cavet of "No matter how much damage you do, this weapon won't affect certain targets." I know the comment is (or was) made about hacking through a stone wall with a sword, but perhaps it can be applied to small arms as well. This would kee p people with pistols from shooting holes in tanks and the like.

Or jail cells. Well, maybe you could blow away the lock.


And if used in a supers game, it would allow the GM to state that the M1A1's 8d6 AP RKA cannon still has no effect on Grond 'cause, well, he's Grond.

If Grond has 40 hardened PD, it usually WON'T have much effect. STUN Lotto might take him down for a bit, but I do remember there were a few Hulk comics where he got KOed (but not wounded) by artillery.

JG

[SCUBA Hero]

Personal opinion: the Real Weapon (-1/4) Limitation is being stretched way out of bounds for what it's supposed to do.

It should account for logical real-world issues, not hand-wave away major inconsistancies in the core rules.

[James Gillen]

Personal opinion: the Real Weapon (-1/4) Limitation is being stretched way out of bounds for what it's supposed to do.

It should account for logical real-world issues, not hand-wave away major inconsistancies in the core rules.

If it says '1d6 K' I should be able to cut through wood with a rapier if I damn well want to.

JG

[PhilFleischmann]

To add to the +5 / 2x issue:
There are many examples of problems with that rule, especially in TUV. My favorite is the starship with the one big gun and sixteen little guns. I don't remember what the points were, but let's say the Big Gun was 100 points, and the Little Guns were 50, + 20 for sixteen of them. Total points spent on guns: 170. Why not just spend 25 points on 32 Big Guns? Total: 125. 45 points less for nearly 4x the firepower.

Another one was the Main Life Support System that cost around 20 points, and the Backup Life Support System (shorter duration power supply, and other limitations) for another 10 points (say). For the same price, you could have bought three additional Main LS Systems.

That whole +5 points for 2x pieces of equipment needs to be reworked, if not scrapped entirely. I'm not really sure what to do with it, but that's Steve's problem, not mine :D.

A thought off the top of my head: make the double equipment rule an Advantage, rather than an Adder. That way, the cost is proportional to the additional power you're getting. A second Big Gun should cost more than a second Little Gun. This would probably require the Decimal Power Modifiers rule (see the Advantages and Limitations threads). I'd say about a +.1 Advantage per doubling.

[cutsleeve]

One aspect that i always thought needed tweaking was the firearms construction method. Particularly for those weapons that have selective fire modes. Under the current 5ed rules the autofire advantage is always on. Many of the weapons listed with autofire ability have selectible fire modes. I think if this is the case then the weapon should be made with an autofire naked advantage instead that way it can be turned on or off.

[Pattern Ghost]

You know, I always thought STR Min was an artificial limitation put into old 4th Ed Fantasy Hero (first place I remember seeing it anyway) to enforce some kind of "warriors strong, mages weak" caveman balance to the weapons.

In reality, it's pretty unrealistic. Weapons are designed for the average person to use, with a few notable exceptions. The vast majority of weapons shouldn't have a STR Min over 10, simply because they are designed to be carried by average folks.

STR Min does work for some weapons, such as heavier bows, and great swords, and only rarely on firearms. (Firearms wouldn't be the "great equalizer" if you had to be Arnie to shoot them...)

[CTaylor]

Most weapons are within a fair range, but it doesn't take a genius to work out that a dagger requires less strength to use properly than a halberd.

[Pattern Ghost]

Most weapons are within a fair range, but it doesn't take a genius to work out that a dagger requires less strength to use properly than a halberd.

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

Many of the official weapon write ups are wrongly listing STR Min over human average for the weapons they're depicting.

This isn't as bad as it was in 4th, but a STR Min of 12 on a "broad sword," for example, is a bit high. (Fifth Edition Page 329)

The rifle write ups are off by a bit too. (Fifth Ed. Page 332) An M2 Carbine is listed at 14 STR Min, while an M16 is listed at 12, for example. The .30 Carbine is an extremely mild load, and the weapon is gas cycled. Heck, there are pistols chambered for the round. It's certainly no worse to fire than an M16. Which is also over limited. I've served with plenty of excellent female shooters who'd barely qualify for a 6 STR, who had no problems with the 16.

See what I mean? Some of the weapons are flat out off base with this limitation, particularly more powerful ones.

I believe that Steve knows enough about firearms and weapons in general for this not to be an error of research. Which only leaves using the Limitation to balance the weapons somehow, to keep the better weapons in the hands of the warrior-types.

And that's what I disagree with. It's contrary to the nature of the system to build models of real world items that artificially enforce character roles, and it's not appropriate for the main rulebook's samples.

Discussion of using STR Min this way (unrealistically, or to enforce roles) is something worthy of examining, but it should never become baseline.

[CTaylor]

I see what you're saying.

Right, I lowered most of the strength minimums in my campaign because they were just too high (primarily to prevent really strong characters from being too lethal, I suspect). The weights tend to be too high too, actually.

[Bismark]

Ditto the previous 2 posts - overly-high STR Minima have been a pet hate of mine for some time.

Having a lot more STR than is needed to use a particular weapon can have other uses than just causing extra damage; being able to attack faster, for instance.

The 'you can only increase the damage of a weapon with excess STR to a maximum of double its base damage' is also off; that depends on what the weapon is made of as well as how you are using it. Just consider how much damage you can do thrusting with a 'normal spear' - then make the shaft out of ironwood and see how much harder you can hit a target without the shaft buckling...

[CTaylor]

I've always used this rule:

For each 5 strength above the strength minimum you can raise the weapon damage by 1 DC (and for each 5 strength under you lower by 1 DC) up to double the damage class of the weapon. Then for each 10 strength you raise the damage by 1 DC up to double again, then for each 20 STR... and so on

The logic being Thor could throw a dagger through a battleship. Of course, half the damage you deal to the target is also dealt to the weapon...

[Opal]

In reality, it's pretty unrealistic. Weapons are designed for the average person to use, with a few notable exceptions. The vast majority of weapons shouldn't have a STR Min over 10, simply because they are designed to be carried by average folks. That would be true of many real weapons, yes. Few pole-arms or firearms should have high STR min, for instance, since they're weapons meant for ordinary people. Of course, not meeting the STR min doesn't make you unable to use the weapon, just less accurrate with it, and you can use two hands on a one-handed weapon, IIRC, to reduce the STR min.

When it gets to fantasy or heroic weapons, though STR min makes a lot of sense. A broadsword in the REH sense, or a D&D bastard sword, or the notorious English longbow need more than ordinary strength to use effectively. Even over the top 'Dirty Harry' type handguns could be given a high STR min to make them feel a little more matcho, even though, really, anyone who could lift one could fire it accurately, however unpleasant the recoil might be for them.

[BobGreenwade]

That would be true of many real weapons, yes. Few pole-arms or firearms should have high STR min, for instance, since they're weapons meant for ordinary people. Of course, not meeting the STR min doesn't make you unable to use the weapon, just less accurrate with it, and you can use two hands on a one-handed weapon, IIRC, to reduce the STR min.

When it gets to fantasy or heroic weapons, though STR min makes a lot of sense. A broadsword in the REH sense, or a D&D bastard sword, or the notorious English longbow need more than ordinary strength to use effectively. Even over the top 'Dirty Harry' type handguns could be given a high STR min to make them feel a little more matcho, even though, really, anyone who could lift one could fire it accurately, however unpleasant the recoil might be for them.This brings up a thought on STR Min: the consequences for using a weapon with insufficient STR can vary from one type of weapon to another. Some become inaccurate; some don't do as much damage; some can damage the user. That should be mentioned in the rulebook.

[Tonio]

That would be true of many real weapons, yes. Few pole-arms or firearms should have high STR min, for instance, since they're weapons meant for ordinary people. Of course, not meeting the STR min doesn't make you unable to use the weapon, just less accurrate with it, and you can use two hands on a one-handed weapon, IIRC, to reduce the STR min.

When it gets to fantasy or heroic weapons, though STR min makes a lot of sense. A broadsword in the REH sense, or a D&D bastard sword, or the notorious English longbow need more than ordinary strength to use effectively. Even over the top 'Dirty Harry' type handguns could be given a high STR min to make them feel a little more matcho, even though, really, anyone who could lift one could fire it accurately, however unpleasant the recoil might be for them.

Minor nitpick (I agree with your post in general), polearms weren't meant for "ordinary people", or rather, they weren't meant for people with baseline STR. They were meant for farmers, who were generally stronger than baseline, from all the physical work.

[Susano]

Minor nitpick (I agree with your post in general), polearms weren't meant for "ordinary people", or rather, they weren't meant for people with baseline STR. They were meant for farmers, who were generally stronger than baseline, from all the physical work.

Minor nitpick -- polearms, for the most part, weren't "meant" for farmers, but were derived from some farming tools. Axes, pruning hooks, scythes, and so on.

[Opal]

Minor nitpick (I agree with your post in general), polearms weren't meant for "ordinary people", or rather, they weren't meant for people with baseline STR. They were meant for farmers, who were generally stronger than baseline, from all the physical work.Farmers defined the baseline, at the time, and while they doubtless worked hard, they also often weren't terribly well fed. 10 STR 'average' (lift 220 lbs) is probably more reasonable then than it is now.

[Opal]

This is something that came to me on the limitations thread, but I think it more propperly belongs here.

Hero has long seemed to have three ways of handling equipment, though they've never been carefully and explicitly defined:

1) The Old Champions Way: A point to everything, and everything bought with points. Any equipment that has a meaningful use in the campaign, and that you intend to retain and use for a meaningful period of time must be bought with points. You don't have to pay for the car and house you own in your secret ID, because they are of no use to you as a superhero, but, if by chance they did turn out to be useful for a while (you hide an alien in your home for months or something), you'd have to shell out a few points for a 'base' in the suburbs.

2) The Old Fantasy Hero Way: Significant items are paid for with character points, but, they are 'Independent' of the character who paid for them. They can be lost forever, or new ones found and retained indefinitely without a charater re-write. This gives you something of the feel of other popular fantasy games, most notably the one that started it all: D&D.

3) The Old Star Hero Way: Items about as useful and effective as you could reasonable want are out there - availability varying with wealth, species, and circumstances. If you want to buy a power that is largely duplicated by all the technology out there (that no one pays points for - hey, it's all build in robotic factories), you got a -1/2 'Replaceable' limitation on it, to reflect the reduced usefulness of a power that anyone could get for no pionts by carrying the right gear.


4th and 5th left it to the GM to decide how to handle equipment - generally as a combination of the above.

I think it would be helpful if the three options were named and defined, and GMs given some advice on how to use (or even combine) them. Maybe something like:

Equipment

There are three ways you can handle equipment in your campaign, and you may wish to mix them, to get just the right result. The three aproaches to equipment are:

Personal: All equipment is purchase by the character using it. Equipment defined as 'universal foci' can change hands temporarily, but one way or another it's recovered, returned, lost, breaks down or is re-built such that it ends up (only) in the hands of the characters who paid for it. A character who really wants to retain 'found' equipment can pay points for it. Equipment that isn't important to the game doesn't need to be paid for, but if it becomes important for any meaningful period, it should be paid for. Wealth is basically meaningless, though it can be a perk with social advantages or a motivation for a character with a 'Greedy' psych lim, or a social disadvantage for the poor. Whatever the case, spending points is the only way to become permanently more wealthy. (Good thing most villains don't realize this).

Independent: All universal equipment is 'Independent.' Someone, at least in theory, has paid for it, but it can be used and retained by whoever has it indefinitely. Some powers may have personal 'foci,' but the power does not follow the focus (all personal foci are breakable and replaceable) it stays with the possessor, unuseable until he gets a new focus. Wealth and rare materials in such a game can also be 'independent' - character points in a fungible form, ready for use in creating independent items.

Universal: Universal foci aren't paid for, by anyone. They represent a broadly available 'technological level' determined by the GM, who designs and determines availabilty of all equipment. While items may have a nominal cost, wealth is most likely handled by a perk, and laws and other complications may require additional perks for certain types of items. Wealth, rank, status, responsibilities and so forth determine how a character might be equipped for any given adventure. Skills may also be required to successfully use many sorts of otherwise 'universal' equipment. Personal foci can still be bought by a character, like any other power, and such powers may be given a limitation based on how easily they're duplicated with existing technology.


These can be combined. For instance, a Fantasy Hero campaign could have a baseline of Universal medieval-technology equipment and a baseline silver-standard economy, with magical equipment being independent and very costly, paid for in gold & jewels, and using adamantite, dragon's blood, and the like to create. A galactic superheros campaign could have a bewildering variety of very powerful universal technology out there in the background, and available for one-off use, but anything used regularly might still have to be paid for. A Space Opera campaign might feature unique personal equipment that is still mechanically 'universal' (others can pick up and use, but always makes it's way back to the one who paid the points), a base-line of commonly available equipment, /and/ certain rare technologies that require special materials and talents to create (independent).


Independent, Universal, and Personal are, of course, existing terminology. Something like this might work better with new terminology. Each could be defined by a campaign guideline.

For instance 'Treasure Hunting.' A campaign heavily focused on treasure hunting could use all Independent equipment: every item you acquire might make your character more powerful, while wealth could buy you more customized items, and unwanted items could be sold to finance more desireable ones.

[BobGreenwade]

I rather like this explanation/exploration (Personal/Independent/Universal). It makes some things clear that never were before. I hope something like it shows up in the 6th Edition rulebook. :thumbup:

[CTaylor]

I agree, I think the rules would benefit from this kind of approach toward foci. Foci is something that should take up quite a bit of space in the rules in any case, there's a lot to be said about the limitation and it's uses.

[Tonio]

Minor nitpick -- polearms, for the most part, weren't "meant" for farmers, but were derived from some farming tools. Axes, pruning hooks, scythes, and so on.

But weren't they the ones that made and used them? (Not a rhetorical question... I honestly thought they were, and I'm honestly doubting the correctness of that belief!)


Farmers defined the baseline, at the time, and while they doubtless worked hard, they also often weren't terribly well fed. 10 STR 'average' (lift 220 lbs) is probably more reasonable then than it is now.

True!

[Susano]

But weren't they the ones that made and used them? (Not a rhetorical question... I honestly thought they were, and I'm honestly doubting the correctness of that belief!)

Well, anything that can cut wood can cut flesh, so it would seem that initially, when called to defend their homes, farmers might put a knife on a stick (creating the glaive), or use their wood ax (creating numerous weapons), or a scythe (resulting in... the fauchard?), or a pruning hook (becoming the bill hook). Recognizing the use of reach and cutting power, these weapons went from improvised items to forged and crafted polearms. As armor evolved, so did the polearm, with edged, hammers, and spikes appearing, sometimes all in the same weapon (the poll-ax for example). So while some pole arms started as farming tools, the later examples were specifically crafted for the job of "putting the sharp end in the other guy."

[Vondy]

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

Many of the official weapon write ups are wrongly listing STR Min over human average for the weapons they're depicting.

This isn't as bad as it was in 4th, but a STR Min of 12 on a "broad sword," for example, is a bit high. (Fifth Edition Page 329)

The rifle write ups are off by a bit too. (Fifth Ed. Page 332) An M2 Carbine is listed at 14 STR Min, while an M16 is listed at 12, for example. The .30 Carbine is an extremely mild load, and the weapon is gas cycled. Heck, there are pistols chambered for the round. It's certainly no worse to fire than an M16. Which is also over limited. I've served with plenty of excellent female shooters who'd barely qualify for a 6 STR, who had no problems with the 16.

See what I mean? Some of the weapons are flat out off base with this limitation, particularly more powerful ones.

I believe that Steve knows enough about firearms and weapons in general for this not to be an error of research. Which only leaves using the Limitation to balance the weapons somehow, to keep the better weapons in the hands of the warrior-types.

And that's what I disagree with. It's contrary to the nature of the system to build models of real world items that artificially enforce character roles, and it's not appropriate for the main rulebook's samples.

Discussion of using STR Min this way (unrealistically, or to enforce roles) is something worthy of examining, but it should never become baseline.


Hear! Hear!

Or is it, Here! Here!

Either way, the strength min table (esp. for firearms) blows my mind.

Its bizarre at best.

I've seen moderately small women in average condition (ST 8) handle high-powered handguns, hunting rifles, and riot guns with no problem. Its a question of training.

My wife who is 5'6", skinny (not muscular), and engages in regular moderate-intense exercise can single hand pump a 12 guage with a pistol grip and fire from the hip. I doubt she's more than ST 10 (9 is more likely).

And I have a friend whose younger sister is a sniper. She's average height and build for a woman and in moderate-good condition and has no issues doing her job - and she is not ST 12.

The concept is simply broken - unless we're going to assume, of a sudden, that these people have PSLs to offset strength minimums: which adds yet another annoying thing you'd have to buy to build otherwise average people...

[BobGreenwade]

Hear! Hear!

Or is it, Here! Here!JFYI: The proper usage is the former of the two. :)

[Vondy]

JFYI: The proper usage is the former of the two. :)

I thought so, but sometimes, in the heat of the moment, I lose my head and become addled. :thumbup:

[Chris Goodwin]

Well, anything that can cut wood can cut flesh, so it would seem that initially, when called to defend their homes, farmers might put a knife on a stick (creating the glaive), or use their wood ax (creating numerous weapons), or a scythe (resulting in... the fauchard?), or a pruning hook (becoming the bill hook). Recognizing the use of reach and cutting power, these weapons went from improvised items to forged and crafted polearms. As armor evolved, so did the polearm, with edged, hammers, and spikes appearing, sometimes all in the same weapon (the poll-ax for example). So while some pole arms started as farming tools, the later examples were specifically crafted for the job of "putting the sharp end in the other guy."

They tended to be pretty decent at punching through, shredding, and otherwise removing the armor of overbred sons of nobles with too many dollars and not enough sense. (Hence my comment on RPG.net: "Glaive-guisarme is French for 'Oh my goodness! Here comes a peasant with a bloody huge can opener!'")

[Susano]

They tended to be pretty decent at punching through, shredding, and otherwise removing the armor of overbred sons of nobles with too many dollars and not enough sense. (Hence my comment on RPG.net: "Glaive-guisarme is French for 'Oh my goodness! Here comes a peasant with a bloody huge can opener!'")

I don't think the Glaive-guisarme is a period term. :D I've heard that Gygax got a lot of that from suspect Victorian sources.

Still, the Swiss halberd was feared for a reason! Not to mention Lochaber axes, poll-axes, and bec de corbins.

[Chris Goodwin]

I don't think the Glaive-guisarme is a period term. :D I've heard that Gygax got a lot of that from suspect Victorian sources.

Still, the Swiss halberd was feared for a reason! Not to mention Lochaber axes, poll-axes, and bec de corbins.

Lucerne hammers, morningstars, holy water sprinklers, Bohemian ear spoons (!)...

Is Bohemian ear spoon a real thing? That's gotta be something he just made up!

[Susano]

Lucerne hammers, morningstars, holy water sprinklers, Bohemian ear spoons (!)...

Is Bohemian ear spoon a real thing? That's gotta be something he just made up!

Lucerne Hammer is along the lines of a bec de corbin -- a shall armor-piercing hammer with a top and back spike. Morningstars are maces with spikes instead of flanges. A holy water sprinkler is the same thing. A Bohemian Ear Spoon is pretty much a long-shafted spear with a narrow head (IIRC).

[Susano]

Here:

http://surbrook.devermore.net/gallery/gallarmor/polearms01.jpg

and

http://surbrook.devermore.net/gallery/gallarmor/polearms02.jpg

[Susano]

http://surbrook.devermore.net/gallery/gallarmor/axe.jpg

and

http://surbrook.devermore.net/gallery/gallarmor/flails1.jpg

[Susano]

http://surbrook.devermore.net/gallery/gallarmor/flails2.jpg

and

http://surbrook.devermore.net/gallery/gallarmor/swords.jpg

[Susano]

Want the armor pictures?

[BobGreenwade]

I do not want to allow that Bohemian ear-spoon anywhere near my ear. :eek:

Either of them.

[CTaylor]

Something that's tough to do with weapons of that time period is to get consistent names and descriptions. There wasn't an official book that gave the parameters of each weapon (thou must have one blade thrusting forth along the shaft, no less than one cubit, no less than a hand's breadth) so the names and what the weapons were like is a bit... imprecise. Over time, the weapons that finally survived like Halberd became standardized but some were pretty random.

[Pattern Ghost]

In regards to polearms, I think they're pretty random because the weapons were pretty random in their time. It seems to me there was a huge proliferation of polearms due to constant innovation, so a lot are simply not precisely nameable or identifiable. Things like the pike, halberd, bill/bill hook, lucern hammers, are pretty well known today because of their widespread use. Others were less widespread, and probably not as historically significant anyway.

As far as an RPG goes, I don't think we need to address any more than those more commonly identifiable polearms. You can boil them all down to four functional parts, with different ones having different combinations of same:

1. Hacking: basic KA
2. Piercing: AP KA
3. Impact: KA with extra Stun multiple
4. Hooking/Trapping: Not sure how to model this. Could just handwave it for heroic games.

[IndianaJoe3]

4. Hooking/Trapping: Not sure how to model this. Could just handwave it for heroic games.
UMA models it as an OCV bonus for relevant maneuvers (Grab, Disarm, etc).

[CTaylor]

Yeah, that's how to build the hook weapons, OCV for grab and disarm, and some extra strength for the maneuvers as well to represent how hard they are to get out of (or if you prefer, reduced strength on the victim being grabbed).

[AnotherSkip]

This brings up a thought on STR Min: the consequences for using a weapon with insufficient STR can vary from one type of weapon to another. Some become inaccurate; some don't do as much damage; some can damage the user. That should be mentioned in the rulebook.

i agree, reminds me of the scenes in movies wherein normal guy winds up facing off against "untrained child with gun" (Unbreakable, the George Reeves movie, etc...) And how in HERO the child would be no reasonable threat. Even if the guy was 3 DCV and the child had 3 OCV, the -6 from Str min and no weapon familiarity would give a 5- chance of hitting!!!! most roleplayers would have no fear there!

[Akiva]

i agree, reminds me of the scenes in movies wherein normal guy winds up facing off against "untrained child with gun" (Unbreakable, the George Reeves movie, etc...) And how in HERO the child would be no reasonable threat. Even if the guy was 3 DCV and the child had 3 OCV, the -6 from Str min and no weapon familiarity would give a 5- chance of hitting!!!! most roleplayers would have no fear there!

In this case, to increase the tension and drama, I'd give the kid one shot and one shot only without worrying the STR Min. If he hits, look out; if not, he's more likely to drop the gun or just stand there petrified than to fire again.

[CTaylor]

I had a kid confront the heroes with his hands around a small tree holding the gun against it. They stopped right away, he didn't even really have to hold it up.

[AnotherSkip]

Kind of an inverse post to my previous comment GUNS ARE TOO EFFECTIVE.

Half of My gaming group (250 point supers) have freaking GUNS.:eek:


Now then I think only the gun weilding Vigilante (though most are) the one with 2x the active points of the attack cap who has a custom built "gun power"

I think that in order to really protect the heroism of certain genres toss out the real world guns stats and put them in like "Dark Champions: Bullets and Babes". Most genres dont need charts of guns (built with powers that don't even exist in the book especially!)

[James Gillen]

K
I think that in order to really protect the heroism of certain genres toss out the real world guns stats and put them in like "Dark Champions: Bullets and Babes". Most genres dont need charts of guns (built with powers that don't even exist in the book especially!)

Don't exist in what book?

JG

[Tasha]

Kind of an inverse post to my previous comment GUNS ARE TOO EFFECTIVE.

Half of My gaming group (250 point supers) have freaking GUNS.:eek:

Now then I think only the gun weilding Vigilante (though most are) the one with 2x the active points of the attack cap who has a custom built "gun power"

I think that in order to really protect the heroism of certain genres toss out the real world guns stats and put them in like "Dark Champions: Bullets and Babes". Most genres dont need charts of guns (built with powers that don't even exist in the book especially!)

Sounds like you are the victim of the Stun Lottery. On a good roll (and on powers with increased Stun Multiplier), Killing attacks do incredible amounts of stun. So much so, that it's hard for power gamers to pass up. Add in the popularity of "Heroes" like Wolverine and The Punisher and then you get the Super group with tons of guns.

Good luck

[James Gillen]

Sounds like you are the victim of the Stun Lottery. On a good roll (and on powers with increased Stun Multiplier), Killing attacks do incredible amounts of stun. So much so, that it's hard for power gamers to pass up. Add in the popularity of "Heroes" like Wolverine and The Punisher and then you get the Super group with tons of guns.

Good luck

The thing is, guns ARE that effective, which is why people who do not have superpowers like natural NNDs carry them. So that indicates the Killing Damage rules, including STUN Lotto, are actually pretty realistic. As opposed to (say) the original edition of DC HEROES, where the designer deliberately let heroes resist guns and similar attacks with their BODY (Resistance Value) because otherwise Batman would have become the Bat-Stain against any gang of normals with firearms.

JG

[ajackson]

The thing is, guns ARE that effective, which is why people who do not have superpowers like natural NNDs carry them. So that indicates the Killing Damage rules, including STUN Lotto, are actually pretty realistic.
Sorry, point your second point doesn't follow from your first point. Guns are effective against targets with insufficient armor to resist the bullet. Guns are generally ineffective against targets with enough armor that they wouldn't be taking Body.

[James Gillen]

Sorry, point your second point doesn't follow from your first point. Guns are effective against targets with insufficient armor to resist the bullet. Guns are generally ineffective against targets with enough armor that they wouldn't be taking Body.

That's realistic, isn't it?

JG

[CTaylor]

Yeah that seems logical enough to function in a game system. Even with really heavy armor on you feel the impact of a bullet, it will knock you down and bruise you pretty good.

[James Gillen]

Yeah that seems logical enough to function in a game system. Even with really heavy armor on you feel the impact of a bullet, it will knock you down and bruise you pretty good.

Thus the "STUN Lotto."

JG

[MPT]

I rather like this explanation/exploration (Personal/Independent/Universal). It makes some things clear that never were before. I hope something like it shows up in the 6th Edition rulebook. :thumbup:

Sounds good to me as well.

When I ran a Star Hero campaign I decided to use the 'Equipment Pool' rules as an artificial way of limiting what characters could carry. Without that limitation there was no reason why a character could not pay 0 points for equipment during character creation and then, when the game started, go out and pick up the most powerful laser (or whatever) that they could find. The big problem here is that the equipment could become more important that the character - if a 0pt character who has aquired 500pts of equipment fights a 150pt 'human' character that has spent 50 of those points on equipment then the 0pt character could easily win (the same problem occurs in high level AD&D where the magic items a Fighter carries can be more important that the Fighter's (limited) skills).

Using the Personal/Independent/Universal I could say that (for instance) lasers upto 2d6RKA could be free, but lasers of higher power must be paid for with character points. This is, however, still an artificial limit but I am not certain that any rule can solve this sort of problem. (High cost, limited availability or legal limits seem to be the way to go).

[Shinobi Killfis]

Thus the "STUN Lotto."

JG

Which is cool on the heroic level but on the super heroic it ends up being kind of lame. If you build a character who has more armor than a tank, getting one shot by a 44 automag is fairly absurd. I think a simple fix would be if max damage form a killing attack can not penetrate your defense, the attack does no stun to you. This way killing attacks can still have a big damage a swing but against a well defended targets it just bounces off and they are immune to the attack. When viper agents are more threatening when they pull out real world weapons vs supers tech weapons I think there is a problem with how the weapons scale in the super hero arena.

[Markdoc]

Yeah that seems logical enough to function in a game system. Even with really heavy armor on you feel the impact of a bullet, it will knock you down and bruise you pretty good.

Actually, in real life, many hits to body armour pass unnoticed: often soldiers comment afterwards, when they notice bullet impacts on their body armour that they hadn't even known they'd been hit (usually there's a lot going on, so your attention is elsewhere). And speaking as someone who has both been shot and seen others shot, bullets don't generally "knock people down". They lack the momentum to do so, since after all, the impact of the bullet must be less than the impact of the gun kicking back in your hand.

Look at the North Hollywood shootout: both Phillips and Matasareanu took multiple hits from 9 mm handguns, 12 gauge shotguns and even an M16 and didn't fall down until a bullet actually penetrated their armour. This whole "knockdown" thing is a myth. You can watch them walking through a hail of fire an even pausing to reload on an open street by going to YouTube and searching "North Hollywood shootout"

Now, people usually do fall down when shot, but it's from shock: the "OMG! They got me!" effect. I've seen someone take two AK47 bullets through the chest. He didn't fall down. I don't think he even knew he'd been shot until he saw all the blood. A bullet hitting you feels like a punch, that's all: it takes a moment to realise that you've actually been shot.

Edit: so I am actually in favour of decreasing the Stun done by killing attacks if no body gets through.

cheers, Mark

[Susano]

The question becomes one of Hollywood versus reality, and Hero wants to be more like Hollywood (usually).

[Tonio]

Actually, in real life, many hits to body armour pass unnoticed: often soldiers comment afterwards, when they notice bullet impacts on their body armour that they hadn't even known they'd been hit (usually there's a lot going on, so your attention is elsewhere). And speaking as someone who has both been shot and seen others shot, bullets don't generally "knock people down". They lack the momentum to do so, since after all, the impact of the bullet must be less than the impact of the gun kicking back in your hand.

Minor nitpick (since you're essentially right in your conclusion)... just because the gun kicking back in your hand doesn't knock you down doesn't mean the bullet can't. There are ways of managing recoil (both in the gun itself and by the shooter) when you're shooting, while the victim is usually not prepared for the impact. (Yes, I know bullets don't knock you down.) You can probably build a gun that fires a bullet with enough power to knock a man down (especially if the bullet doesn't penetrate) but still be able to be shot by someone who doesn't fall down.

[CTaylor]

Yeah, being knocked down is primarily being hit in a place or angle you're not ready for - it doesn't take that much to knock someone over when they're unbalanced. What Hollywood shows that's absurd is guns knocking people flying when they're hit: that's not possible nor even plausible. But it looks cool.

[BobGreenwade]

The question becomes one of Hollywood versus reality, and Hero wants to be more like Hollywood (usually).Which is a good intent, and a good default. I do think that options to lean toward reality should be in place, though -- especially for those who like the older, more reasonable films, and the more realistic stance that Hollywood is (very slowly, but still) moving toward.

[Markdoc]

Minor nitpick (since you're essentially right in your conclusion)... just because the gun kicking back in your hand doesn't knock you down doesn't mean the bullet can't. There are ways of managing recoil (both in the gun itself and by the shooter) when you're shooting, while the victim is usually not prepared for the impact. (Yes, I know bullets don't knock you down.) You can probably build a gun that fires a bullet with enough power to knock a man down (especially if the bullet doesn't penetrate) but still be able to be shot by someone who doesn't fall down.

Sure: people can get knocked down by a bullet if they are off balance - just as I've seen a shooter fall over from recoil because he was standing on a slippery slope and poorly balanced (and he had the rifle butt slightly off his shoulder, so it kicked him). But unless you're firing something rocket-propelled, the energy delivered by the bullet is always going to be significantly less than the energy imported backward to the gun (and therefore to the shooter).

All of this talk about "knock-down power" is essentially something invented by gun/ammo manufacturers wanting to sell product and gun magazine writers needing to fill column inches. We should give it exactly as much credence as all that stuff produced by cosmetic industry (and their magazines) that claims "it actually makes your skin (or body part of choice) younger!"

cheers, Mark

[James Gillen]

"It's got electrolytes!"

[Tonio]

"It's got electrolytes!"

It's got what plants crave!

[Beast]

yes you could do this but how would you then build the death star which had 1 big gun and lots of littlle ones

the death star weapon was very limited in arc of fire amd slow firing rate(60 degrees imo)
where as the smaller guns had larger arcs and a much faster firing rate(120 degrees imo)

now if we are going the Star Trek starships they all had pretty much the same sized weapon

different styles of starship construction and different styles of combat

star wars had fighters Star trek did not for the most part(yeah they had them in the big DS9 fight to kick out the Founders in the 2nd to last season but they generally could that a hit or 2 from main starship batteries before being destroyed)

what it really depends on is what floats your boat


There are many examples of problems with that rule, especially in TUV. My favorite is the starship with the one big gun and sixteen little guns. I don't remember what the points were, but let's say the Big Gun was 100 points, and the Little Guns were 50, + 20 for sixteen of them. Total points spent on guns: 170. Why not just spend 25 points on 32 Big Guns? Total: 125. 45 points less for nearly 4x the firepower.

Another one was the Main Life Support System that cost around 20 points, and the Backup Life Support System (shorter duration power supply, and other limitations) for another 10 points (say). For the same price, you could have bought three additional Main LS Systems.

That whole +5 points for 2x pieces of equipment needs to be reworked, if not scrapped entirely. I'm not really sure what to do with it, but that's Steve's problem, not mine :D.

A thought off the top of my head: make the double equipment rule an Advantage, rather than an Adder. That way, the cost is proportional to the additional power you're getting. A second Big Gun should cost more than a second Little Gun. This would probably require the Decimal Power Modifiers rule (see the Advantages and Limitations threads). I'd say about a +.1 Advantage per doubling.

[Beast]

from the picture the Bohemian ear-spoon would just be a different name for a boar spear the cross piece is to stop the boar from running up the shaft to get you after you speared it
something Mordred should have had to keep King Authur from killing him in Excalibur


I do not want to allow that Bohemian ear-spoon anywhere near my ear. :eek:

Either of them.

[PhilFleischmann]

yes you could do this but how would you then build the death star which had 1 big gun and lots of littlle ones
You could do it the way I suggested.

If a Big Gun costs 100 and a Little Gun costs 50, then by the current rules 1 Big Gun and 16 Little Guns costs 170 points, while 32 Big Guns costs 125 points.

If you use the rule as I proposed it (not saying it's necessarily quite right, it may need some tweaking), 1 Big Gun and 16 Little Guns would cost 170, while 32 Big Guns would cost 150. Hmmm... that's still not quite right, but it's a bit closer. What if we raise the Advantage from +0.1 to +0.25?

Then 1 Big & 16 Little costs 100 + (50 x 2) = 200, and 32 Big costs 100 x 2.25 = 225. That's not perfect, but at least it makes more sense. More firepower should cost more.


what it really depends on is what floats your boat
I think it depends more on what is fair and what makes sense.

[Beast]

you could just buy the 32 big guns and just use 31 of them as small guns(don't fire the them at full potential) if you are looking to reduce costs

point being that the 1 big gun is most likely has more limitations on it than the small guns do

take the rate of fire for a 16"/50 gun off an Iowa class BB it can fire 1 round per 30 to 45 seconds depending on the gun crew
where as 1 of the 5"/38s can fire 1 round every 10 to 15 seconds depending on the gun crew
the 5" has a higher possible elevation and faster turret speed use proximity ammo it can also fire closer to the ship at small targets that get inside the 16' guns range
the 20mm phalanyx are even faster firing with an even higher elevation

in other words you have different guns to do different jobs
16"/50 vs any ship,land target that is outside of it's minium range(figure 2 miles for a small ship 100 tons or less)or not having to worry about collateral damage(figure a 100yrd radius)

5"/38 not quite the range or punch of the 16" but a faster rate of fire more choices of ammo can hit targets closer to the ship(figure to within 1/2 mile)
higher possible elevation(to engage flying targets)to conserve the larger ammo for worthy targets
less collateral damage than the 16"

the 20mm phaylanx last line of defence faster rate of fire than 5"(every phase) able to hit targets up to 50 yrds away or over head less collateral damage than the 5"

You could do it the way I suggested.

If a Big Gun costs 100 and a Little Gun costs 50, then by the current rules 1 Big Gun and 16 Little Guns costs 170 points, while 32 Big Guns costs 125 points.

If you use the rule as I proposed it (not saying it's necessarily quite right, it may need some tweaking), 1 Big Gun and 16 Little Guns would cost 170, while 32 Big Guns would cost 150. Hmmm... that's still not quite right, but it's a bit closer. What if we raise the Advantage from +0.1 to +0.25?

Then 1 Big & 16 Little costs 100 + (50 x 2) = 200, and 32 Big costs 100 x 2.25 = 225. That's not perfect, but at least it makes more sense. More firepower should cost more.


I think it depends more on what is fair and what makes sense.

[PhilFleischmann]

you could just buy the 32 big guns and just use 31 of them as small guns(don't fire the them at full potential) if you are looking to reduce costs

point being that the 1 big gun is most likely has more limitations on it than the small guns do
Irrelevant. I'm not looking to reduce costs. I'm looking to make sure that cost equates to utility (i.e. firepower for weapons). I know how to create guns and other pieces of equipment already. And I know how to create variations on them to do different tasks (more dice, fewer dice, additional Advantage, additional Limitation, etc.). The problem I'm addressing is that duplicate pieces of equipment cost 5 points per doubling, regardless of the cost (utility) of the first piece. A second 100-point piece of equipment costs 5 points. A second 20-point piece of equipment also costs 5 points.

Another idea that suddenly occurs to me is to have a chart similar to the Charges table for additional pieces of equpment. Basically starting at +0 for one piece, and going down the Charges table for additional pieces (essentially, the Charges Limitation +2). Thus:


Pieces of
Equipment Advantage
1 +0
2 +1/2
3 +3/4
4 +1
5-6 +1 1/4
7-8 +1 1/2
9-12 +1 3/4
13-16 +2
17-32 +2 1/4
33-64 +2 1/2
65-125 +2 3/4
125-250 +3
Maybe a good idea, maybe not. Or maybe good with some tweaking.

[Beast]

it is to keep the points to build a vehicle within reason

the +5 pt doubling rule is all through the Hero system
+5pts doubles the amount you can lift
+5pts doubles power of an attack

now while the dice thrown don't double it does give you a sense of scale

then you are going to have to tweak duplication, Multiform,bases and vehicles
,followers all of them also use the doubling rule
you also need to have personal to man that equipment

your trying to put all the weapons under 1 point cost even if they have different jobs(advantages and limitations) yet keep the cost the same

if you use it as an advantage the cost will skyrocket and you will need to do it for each different weapon system
I do not see this as broken

or you could have each gunner buy the weapon he mans but they too use the 5 pt doubling rule

then there is the ultimate balancing rule

Let the GM decide the player can take it or leave it




Irrelevant. I'm not looking to reduce costs. I'm looking to make sure that cost equates to utility (i.e. firepower for weapons). I know how to create guns and other pieces of equipment already. And I know how to create variations on them to do different tasks (more dice, fewer dice, additional Advantage, additional Limitation, etc.). The problem I'm addressing is that duplicate pieces of equipment cost 5 points per doubling, regardless of the cost (utility) of the first piece. A second 100-point piece of equipment costs 5 points. A second 20-point piece of equipment also costs 5 points.

Another idea that suddenly occurs to me is to have a chart similar to the Charges table for additional pieces of equpment. Basically starting at +0 for one piece, and going down the Charges table for additional pieces (essentially, the Charges Limitation +2). Thus:


Pieces of
Equipment Advantage
1 +0
2 +1/2
3 +3/4
4 +1
5-6 +1 1/4
7-8 +1 1/2
9-12 +1 3/4
13-16 +2
17-32 +2 1/4
33-64 +2 1/2
65-125 +2 3/4
125-250 +3
Maybe a good idea, maybe not. Or maybe good with some tweaking.

[PhilFleischmann]

the +5 pt doubling rule is all through the Hero system
And is broken/nonsensical/unbalanced in many of those places.


then you are going to have to tweak duplication, Multiform,bases and vehicles
,followers all of them also use the doubling rule
No, I don't. Different things should not be treated as if they were the same. I think Duplication and Multiform probably should be changed, but that's a completely separate topic for a different thread.


your trying to put all the weapons under 1 point cost even if they have different jobs(advantages and limitations) yet keep the cost the same
That isn't even close to what I'm trying to do. I'll say it again:

I'm looking to make sure that cost equates to utility.

That is, a more powerful construct (such as 32 Big Guns) should not cost less than a less powerful contruct (such as 1 Big Gun and 16 Little Guns).


if you use it as an advantage the cost will skyrocket and you will need to do it for each different weapon system
That depends on the Real Cost of the first weapon (or other piece of equipment). If the first peice costs 10 points, each doubling would only be 2.5 additional points. And note that I haven't necessarily fixed the Advantage value at +1/4. That's something that can be adjusted.


I do not see this as broken
That's certainly your perogative. I do see it as broken. It's very simple math: 32 > 17

[AnotherSkip]

40 Stored Maledictor Weapons Package: 60 Point Multipower, OIF (Maledictor Weapons, -1/2)
4u Gun
4u Sharp thing
4u Pointy Thing
4u Ensorcerlled thing
4u Mystical Weapon
4u Grenade
4u Stick
25 16 sets of Stored Maledictor Weapons Package.

is this legitimae according to the rules?

[BobGreenwade]

40 Stored Maledictor Weapons Package: 60 Point Multipower, OIF (Maledictor Weapons, -1/2)
4u Gun
4u Sharp thing
4u Pointy Thing
4u Ensorcerlled thing
4u Mystical Weapon
4u Grenade
4u Stick
25 16 sets of Stored Maledictor Weapons Package.

is this legitimae according to the rules?Though the current rules aren't explicit about it (AFAIK) I would say not, because the Multipower slots are separate foci.

The new rules should address this explicitly and defin.

[Vulcan]

Again, bringing up an older post


Sure: people can get knocked down by a bullet if they are off balance - just as I've seen a shooter fall over from recoil because he was standing on a slippery slope and poorly balanced (and he had the rifle butt slightly off his shoulder, so it kicked him). But unless you're firing something rocket-propelled, the energy delivered by the bullet is always going to be significantly less than the energy imported backward to the gun (and therefore to the shooter).

All of this talk about "knock-down power" is essentially something invented by gun/ammo manufacturers wanting to sell product and gun magazine writers needing to fill column inches. We should give it exactly as much credence as all that stuff produced by cosmetic industry (and their magazines) that claims "it actually makes your skin (or body part of choice) younger!"

cheers, Mark

"Knockdown Power" is a badly named term. What it really refers to is the ability to incapacitate a target with a single penetrating hit.

Case in point: a .22 or .223 (unless it tumbles) have minimal hydrostatic shock effects, tending to 'icepick' and blow straight through a target with minimal (relatively, anyway) tissue trauma. A .45 or tumbling .223 cause much bigger hydrostatic shock effects, and much more tissue trauma.

And the net effect of this trauma is the pain that incapacitates a target, causing them to fall down. Thus, 'knockdown power.'

[Vulcan]

40 Stored Maledictor Weapons Package: 60 Point Multipower, OIF (Maledictor Weapons, -1/2)
4u Gun
4u Sharp thing
4u Pointy Thing
4u Ensorcerlled thing
4u Mystical Weapon
4u Grenade
4u Stick
25 16 sets of Stored Maledictor Weapons Package.

is this legitimae according to the rules?

I think this one falls under the "GM says NO" rules.

[AnotherSkip]

Just trying to build additional weapons for a villians base. Yes that is a MP INSIDE a base.

Just when do I get a H-E Double Hocky sticks no? :D

[Vulcan]

On a non-family-friendly forum.

For example, you would have gotten it from me, if we were face-to-face rather than communicating through this forum.

[AnotherSkip]

So the question is i want multible sets of equipment that can be only used one at a time by each person inside a base, they are less than the owners main powers but equal to the lesser characters weapons.

The items in question are somewhat compatible to the weapons locker in the Library at Sunnydale Highschool.

How would you build them?

[BobGreenwade]

So the question is i want multible sets of equipment that can be only used one at a time by each person inside a base, they are less than the owners main powers but equal to the lesser characters weapons.

The items in question are somewhat compatible to the weapons locker in the Library at Sunnydale Highschool.

How would you build them?That's a question better asked in the Hero System Discussion forum, rather than this one. (You're more likely to get a useful answer there.)

[Klaus Mogensen]

Though the current rules aren't explicit about it (AFAIK) I would say not, because the Multipower slots are separate foci. The new rules should address this explicitly and defin.
IIRC, the rules clearly state that you can only take a limitation on the main Multipower if it is shared by all slots. I think that implies shared focus as well (just as shared charges).

- Klaus

[PhilFleischmann]

40 Stored Maledictor Weapons Package: 60 Point Multipower, OIF (Maledictor Weapons, -1/2)
4u Gun
4u Sharp thing
4u Pointy Thing
4u Ensorcerlled thing
4u Mystical Weapon
4u Grenade
4u Stick
25 16 sets of Stored Maledictor Weapons Package.

is this legitimae according to the rules?
No. Because 25 points would actually get you 32 of them! ;)

[AnotherSkip]

the other 16 are for the good guys to use?


Anyways the concept was based upon the Ships Guns
if you built ships guns with a MP (repersenting multible differing kinds of shells) and put a lot of those weapons on a ship the logical way to do it is to to use the doubling rules. Then, extrapolated from that concept why not have a single weapons locker that can have different weapons popping out of it?


and as an aside no the whole power construct things isn't posted nor will it be later unless the campaign ends. At least one player routinely checks my posts for in game usabiltiy :)

[BobGreenwade]

Anyways the concept was based upon the Ships Guns
if you built ships guns with a MP (repersenting multible differing kinds of shells) and put a lot of those weapons on a ship the logical way to do it is to to use the doubling rules. Then, extrapolated from that concept why not have a single weapons locker that can have different weapons popping out of it?It's fairly regular that something that's permissible for a Vehicle or Base wouldn't be permissible for a regular character -- a statement that, bringing the matter back on topic, would be well stated in this section of the 6E rulebook. This, or something like it, could be used as an example.

[AnotherSkip]

Perhaps the doubling rule should be better examined, after all alot of the OAF sting can get lessened by the doubling rule. (Woot! i got four ninja swords so i can lend one to my buddy, break one, get disarmed and have it land more than five feet away And still only need a Fastdraw roll to get it's use back! and because it is counted separately, im still under the campaign active cost rule!!!!)

[shadowcat1313]

can we please make some changes to the vehicle building rules?

my wish list: and I will happily put my foot where my mouth is and help write and test them, and then see how badly I can break then.

1. Weapon damage scaling... I have never quite made sense out of the 16" gun on an Iowa class battleship doing the same damage as the 120mm gun on an M1 abrams. or is it just some method of building etc I am missing the boat on?

2. Armor/Def Scaling... a way or better way of defining how much def you get from how much material.

3. can we please fix the rules on equipment not taking up volume/space/mass or at least make the options clearer. otherwise its too easy to build ubervehicles without some clear sense of what you can and cant stuff in that vehicle. otherwise whats to stop the characters from mounting a 120mm cannon in their VW beetle.

4. simplified rules for stealth/ew etc, first idea, why cant we go back to the Champions 2 rules, where you bought a point of ECM or ECCM for 5 pts, instead of buying so many dice of ECM etc. I know Champions 2 is way outdated. but it did have some good points about vehicle building over 4th or 5th ed.

The Ultimate Vehicle is a great book, I have worn out one copy and the second is not in great shape either, but there is so much more that can be done.



5.

[AnotherSkip]

3. can we please fix the rules on equipment not taking up volume/space/mass or at least make the options clearer. otherwise its too easy to build ubervehicles without some clear sense of what you can and cant stuff in that vehicle. otherwise whats to stop the characters from mounting a 120mm cannon in their VW beetle.


Expand Bulky?
Gun limitations?

Gm says no?

[BobGreenwade]

2. Armor/Def Scaling... a way or better way of defining how much def you get from how much material.

3. can we please fix the rules on equipment not taking up volume/space/mass or at least make the options clearer. otherwise its too easy to build ubervehicles without some clear sense of what you can and cant stuff in that vehicle. otherwise whats to stop the characters from mounting a 120mm cannon in their VW beetle.These two items are things I'd been hoping to see covered in The Ultimate Armor and The Ultimate Gadgeteer, respectively. Equipment mass isn't just an issue for Vehicles, but for characters as well, and just about everything else. There were some decent rules for it in the first Star Hero book (for 3rd ed Hero), and I'd like to see something like that 'ported forward, even if only as a set of optional rules.

[shadowcat1313]

ok bob, depending on who gets the call to do this, if it gets done, I will happily supply all my notes, help with playtesting and rulebreaking if its needed.

I've not seen first ed star hero, I just have the draft rules for 2E star hero from the Red October BBS file archive, and theres some very useful stuff in there for that matter. there were also some decent rules in Champions 2 for vehicle equipment, and those I have a copy of.

[shadowcat1313]

3. can we please fix the rules on equipment not taking up volume/space/mass or at least make the options clearer. otherwise its too easy to build ubervehicles without some clear sense of what you can and cant stuff in that vehicle. otherwise whats to stop the characters from mounting a 120mm cannon in their VW beetle.

then again the French Army managed to mount and succesfully use a 75mm Recoiless Rifle on a Vespa scooter... course it wasnt exactly concealed.

[Markdoc]

then again the French Army managed to mount and succesfully use a 75mm Recoiless Rifle on a Vespa scooter... course it wasnt exactly concealed.

I've always loved that vehicle. When we played Dark Champions, I had a character with one, just for the fun value. :D
http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/photos/airborne/scotterrecoiless.jpg


cheers, Mark

[shadowcat1313]

yep, that be the one, and I actually wrote up the hero stats, you can find them on surbrooks vehicles page

[Zeropoint]

3. can we please fix the rules on equipment not taking up volume/space/mass or at least make the options clearer. otherwise its too easy to build ubervehicles without some clear sense of what you can and cant stuff in that vehicle. otherwise whats to stop the characters from mounting a 120mm cannon in their VW beetle.


The problem with this is determining how much room the equipment takes up, which changes dramatically based on technology level and game universe. A good example would be comparing an X-Wing starfighter from Star Wars with a WWII-era fighter plane. They're about the same size, yet the X-Wing has sensors, more inches of flight, shields, FTL drive, life support, much better guns, etc.

The Hero system is intended to be universal, and therefore needs to be able to accommodate both the P-38 and the X-Wing

[steamteck]

The problem with this is determining how much room the equipment takes up, which changes dramatically based on technology level and game universe. A good example would be comparing an X-Wing starfighter from Star Wars with a WWII-era fighter plane. They're about the same size, yet the X-Wing has sensors, more inches of flight, shields, FTL drive, life support, much better guns, etc.

The Hero system is intended to be universal, and therefore needs to be able to accommodate both the P-38 and the X-Wing


That doesn't mean some general guidelines and scales ( maybe adjustable by tech and the GMs vision) shouldn't be available. If not in the core certainly in the genre books. My old star HERO and justice INC both have something like that and its very helpful.

[CTaylor]

Sure, they could give some ideas how to do it, but what goes where has to be campaign-specific.

[Vulcan]

A good thing to add into the Genre books.

[Talon]

Q: Should we change the way Ranged Killing Damage weapons are built?
Steve’s Thoughts: We should. Right now, for some reason dating back to the early days of the rules, they seem to be built with some sort of generic “Killing Damage” power that requires the STR Min Does Not Add To Damage Limitation. The rules should say explicitly that they’re built with RKA and thus don’t qualify for that Limitation.

I definitely agree that weapons should be built in a "proper" manner.

Buying Ammo: I agree that costs for Ammo should be specified so that it's easy to buy AP ammo for your Resource Pool.

Standardize Weapon Damage: I agree that a 2d6 RKA loaded with AP ammo should do 1d6+1 AP rather than 2d6 AP (which would make buying ammo a little easier, maybe).

Move all character creation stuff to the Character Creation section: I agree that all Advantages / Limitations / Powers that are in the Equipment section should show up in the Character Creation part of the book.

Weapon Chart: The weapon chart should not punish roleplaying choices. If I choose to base a character around Longsword (1d6+1K, Medium length, STR Min 12), I am at a disadvantage vs a character based around Small Axe (1d6+1K, Medium Length, STR Min 8).

The 5-Point Doubling Rule

I think that allowing this rule for personal Foci is wrong. A character should not be able to gain an MPA by paying 5 points (and then only if his attack has a Focus).

Restricting the rule to Followers/Vehicles/Bases, OTOH, makes a little more sense. It has parallelism with Summon, and such things are less likely to be used simultaneously in combat (and most GMs know to watch out for a horde of powerful Followers on a character sheet).

If you want lots of weapons on a Vehicle, you should pay for them all (since they can all be fired at once) or abstract them into a single large AOE or Autofire (or Missile Deflection, or whatever) power.

Automata

I favor the "incomplete character" rules or something like them -- rather than starting from their own template, Automata should start off the normal set of stats and the removal of each stat explained. (Removing EGO removes free will but provides immunity to mental powers, etc.)

An automaton with an AI brain should be built as a Follower (perhaps using the Automaton Powers)...this is the kind of thing that incomplete character rules would make easier.

Computers

Like Automata, computers should be "defined down" from the standard character sheet.

I think that buying Programs for computers is out of date. If a computer has a Navigation Program, giving it Navigation Skill seems sufficient. If a computer is hard to operate, then a Disadvantage "Requires Systems Operations" (or Computer Programming) makes sense.

Vehicles

Like other forms of equipment, Vehicles should be "defined down" from the standard character sheet. Things that work differently (movement powers being 0 END, for example) should be made to work the same as characters.

Character creation items (like Limited DEF and Stall Speed) should be moved to the character creation section of the book.

IMO Vehicles should have SPD only if they can drive themselves or shoot their own weapons; otherwise, they should move and fire on their operator's Phases. (This becomes much easier if you decouple movement and SPD!)

If weapons should not fire more than a certain number of times per Turn, even in the hands of a SPD 12 character, they should take a Limitation (which should probably be -0 unless the # of times per Turn drops below the PC SPD average for the campaign).

Bases

The Base Location Table should go away; it's an artifact from earlier editions.

Base Powers should work like normal powers; buying Life Support without Advantages lets the Base itself survive without eating (not very useful unless the Base is alive -- which you could do by giving it a SPD score :)). Life Support for a kilometer-size starship should cost more than for a fighter -- it is working for more people.

Vehicle Combat

Passenger CV: If I am in a vehicle moving at non-combat speeds, what is my OCV? What if I am shooting at someone in a nearby car travelling the same speed? It seems to me that there should be some sort of "stable platform" rule wherein a vehicle moving steadily (or with grav-adjusters or whatever) should provide no OCV penalty for passengers or perhaps even crew-fired weapons.

Vehicles fight at noncombat speeds all the time, which is another reason that noncombat velocity should be 1/2 OCV rather than 0 OCV.

There should be some generic system for determining what was struck in a vehicle, or for targeting passengers.

Vehicle Tasks:

Most cinematic car chases don't focus on a street map, but rather on the obstacles that come up during the chase (dodging traffic, going through an alley, etc.). In addition to the current focus on tactical mapped vehicle movement, there should be rules for a more obstacle-based combat sequence. There should be rules for doing things like:

Staying on the road (width, curviness, slipperiness, etc.)
Taking a corner / turn in a given turn radius
Avoid an object
"Follow the leader"
Disguising intent (make it harder for someone to follow you)

For all these things, driver skill and vehicle stats should make a difference. Thus, rather than mapping out the winding cliffside road, the GM and players might just know that it's a Very Difficult road, and the player can decide what speed is worth risking based on the modifiers to his Combat Driving roll.

This would let you use a small-scale (citywide) map to do a car chase without drawing the road on a battlemat.

[Talon]

I think that high STR Minimums are appropriate for dramatic realism -- if weapons do full damage regardless of the character's STR. In this case, a normal character can use a greatsword just fine, but they are a little clumsy. A stronger character is going to have better control. In this sense, the STR Min is basically a threshold between where STR converts to DEX and where STR becomes more damage.

If STR Min subtracts from damage, however, then this is no longer true. In 5th Edition, there is no reason for a 10 STR character to ever use a longsword or a greatsword -- they will do less damage and have a CV penalty to boot. Characters are effectively limited to weapons that they meet the STR Min for.

Thus, I feel that STR Min should work like this:

-- -1 OCV for every 5 points (or fraction) below STR Min
-- no DC penalty
-- +1 END cost for every 5 points (or fraction) below STR Min

This way, a character can do more damage at the cost of lower OCV and higher END cost. Tradeoffs mean more character choices!

Character Size: The equipment rules should cover character size -- what is the STR Min for an Ogre's sword? Can a halfling use it? Does size affect the number of hands required?

Ways of buying equipment: I like the idea in post #72 (page 5) on codifying the ways of buying equipment.

[Talon]

I think that there is a place for a damage scaling rule in Hero. However, I think that it should be an optional rule, for use only in situations where the GM is building larger vehicles and the like. (Since scaling rules provide a way to magnify damage, there's likely no way to point-balance them with the rest of Hero.)

The rules I wrote for Star Hero work like this:

For every 5 size categories that the defender outsizes the attacker, the defender takes x1/2 damage (10 categories = x1/4, 15 = x1/8, etc.). This modifier is applied right after any existing Damage Reduction (to the unrounded post-Damage Reduction amount).

(I didn't give larger ships a bonus, figuring they would already have larger weapons, but that could be changed.)

AOE will counter this reduction; any +1 AOE Advantage counters one level of size difference. Each doubling of area reduces another level. (For example, a 10 category difference, normally x1/4, is reduced to x1/2 by AOE). To simulate a small ship mounting larger ship weaponry, buy them as AOE line.

I also added an extra amount of damage required to "vaporize" a target, equal to (Size category / 5) * BODY. So, a Size 15 vehicle requires 2x BODY to render inoperable but 3x BODY to vaporize.

[Vulcan]

I think that there is a place for a damage scaling rule in Hero. However, I think that it should be an optional rule, for use only in situations where the GM is building larger vehicles and the like. (Since scaling rules provide a way to magnify damage, there's likely no way to point-balance them with the rest of Hero.)

The rules I wrote for Star Hero work like this:

For every 5 size categories that the defender outsizes the attacker, the defender takes x1/2 damage (10 categories = x1/4, 15 = x1/8, etc.). This modifier is applied right after any existing Damage Reduction (to the unrounded post-Damage Reduction amount).

(I didn't give larger ships a bonus, figuring they would already have larger weapons, but that could be changed.)

AOE will counter this reduction; any +1 AOE Advantage counters one level of size difference. Each doubling of area reduces another level. (For example, a 10 category difference, normally x1/4, is reduced to x1/2 by AOE). To simulate a small ship mounting larger ship weaponry, buy them as AOE line.

I also added an extra amount of damage required to "vaporize" a target, equal to (Size category / 5) * BODY. So, a Size 15 vehicle requires 2x BODY to render inoperable but 3x BODY to vaporize.

That's a darn handy idea for vehicles of all types. I like it.

[IndianaJoe3]

The rules I wrote for Star Hero work like this:

For every 5 size categories that the defender outsizes the attacker, the defender takes x1/2 damage (10 categories = x1/4, 15 = x1/8, etc.). This modifier is applied right after any existing Damage Reduction (to the unrounded post-Damage Reduction amount).

I was thinking along similar lines. I was going to treat the smaller-scaled attack as having Reduced Penetration (with a transition area where the smaller-scaled attack is treated as having the "beam" limitation). I also created the, "Oversized (+1/4)" advantage, for small-scaled weapons designed for use against larger targets (LAWs and such).

[tesuji]

the rule for partial coverage on a base should be changed.

currently one can buy size for cheap and by only applying the armor or life support etc to a smaller portion of the base you earn a lim on the cost of armor and life support etc. this creates a case where a base with 100 hexes of well protected stuff and 100 hexes of non-protected stuff can be cheaper than a base with only 100 hexes of stuff.

instead, having armor and def and life support not apply to some of your base should apply as a lim on the additional SIZE cost, not the defense/power cost.

[Vulcan]

On a completly unrelated subject....

A small thing in Dark Champions has annoyed me for two editions now. The game definition of a Flash Supressor.

The purpose of a flash supressor on a rifle is to conceal or deflect the flash of the gunshot away from the sight picture of the shooter. This avoids obscuring the sight picture for follow-up shots and ruining a shooter's night vision. That is why on many modern weapons the flash supressor isn't conical, it is flanged with a the open areas diagonal to the vertical axis of the weapon. The flash then is distributed in distinct lobes (clearly visible in many action movies) away from the sight picture.

What the flash supressor does not do is hide the flash from anyone else. It is just as visble with the supressor as it would be if one wasn't installed.

A silencer, however, will capture much of the flash, just like it captures much of the sound.

So a flash supressor really has no game effect (unless you want to impose penalties to shooters who don't have one). Silencers, on the other hand, should cover both sight and sound.

Just thought I'd throw that out.

[AnotherSkip]

One of My annoyances thath is forming over Eqipment is the Default assumption that all weapons do Killing damage (or Most) Sure it works for DC but how about us that like supers and would like to get away from everybody-must-have-resistant-defenses-so-the-street-cops-can't-kill-you?

I would like to see a short addition to the collum for converted DC's for normal damge (yeah it is easy enough) so we can tell our players use collumn two (Normal) not Collumn one (Killing) for weapons.

[The Main Man]

Sorry if someone already mentioned this (look at the time of this post) but what if 6e had an Equipment book readily published soon after the core book(s)?

HERO 6e can publish a lot of material based on 5e in a more appropriate order if it wanted to.

[SteveZilla]

Though the current rules aren't explicit about it (AFAIK) I would say not, because the Multipower slots are separate foci.

The new rules should address this explicitly and defin.

See the first answer in this FAQ (http://www.herogames.com/rulesFAQ.htm?ruleset=Hero+System+Fifth+Edition%2C+ Revised&section=&keywords=double+equipment&dateString=) (Bob has it right).


3. can we please fix the rules on equipment not taking up volume/space/mass or at least make the options clearer. otherwise its too easy to build ubervehicles without some clear sense of what you can and cant stuff in that vehicle. otherwise whats to stop the characters from mounting a 120mm cannon in their VW beetle.

"120mm Cannon" is a Special Effect. What I believe you are looking for is a chart that correlates Special Effects, Attack Powers, and Volume/Mass. I know of no such chart, as the game system tries to leave Special Effects up to the individual campaigns.


5.

There is no 5.


The 5-Point Doubling Rule

I think that allowing this rule for personal Foci is wrong. A character should not be able to gain an MPA by paying 5 points (and then only if his attack has a Focus).

I agree in part. I like the idea of the rule, but only as a means to have "Spares". IMO Buying a second (or fourth, etc.) power (or framework) in a gadget this way means that it is a spare. if the player wants two wonder-widgets he can use simultaneously, he should have to pay for them.


If you want lots of weapons on a Vehicle, you should pay for them all (since they can all be fired at once) or abstract them into a single large AOE or Autofire (or Missile Deflection, or whatever) power.

I am not familiar enough with the Vehicle Rules to comment in depth. Though at first glance I think it would make a ship with lots of small weapons all over it really, really expensive. Like all the AA batteries on a WWII aircraft carrier.


Automata

I favor the "incomplete character" rules or something like them -- rather than starting from their own template, Automata should start off the normal set of stats and the removal of each stat explained. (Removing EGO removes free will but provides immunity to mental powers, etc.)

Except that Automata are not immune to mental powers designed to affect "machine class" minds because there are rules/FAQ to use INT in its place.


An automaton with an AI brain should be built as a Follower (perhaps using the Automaton Powers)...this is the kind of thing that incomplete character rules would make easier.

That sounds reasonable. I like the sound of "Incomplete Character Rules", though I'll have to read up on the proposal to be sure.


I think that buying Programs for computers is out of date. If a computer has a Navigation Program, giving it Navigation Skill seems sufficient. If a computer is hard to operate, then a Disadvantage "Requires Systems Operations" (or Computer Programming) makes sense.

I think there is still a place for programs. IMO they represent known tasks/procedures the computer can perform that aren't represented by any Skill (except perhaps a Professional Skill?).


Vehicles

IMO Vehicles should have SPD only if they can drive themselves or shoot their own weapons; otherwise, they should move and fire on their operator's Phases. (This becomes much easier if you decouple movement and SPD!)

I haven't been convinced of being able to decouple SPD from movement and still keep it coupled with actions. And without that decoupling, vehicles definatel *do* have their own SPD. You can take a SPD 12 character and put him in the cockpit of a 747 and it won't get any more responsive than when piloted by a SPD 4 normal.


If weapons should not fire more than a certain number of times per Turn, even in the hands of a SPD 12 character, they should take a Limitation (which should probably be -0 unless the # of times per Turn drops below the PC SPD average for the campaign).

While I agree that there is a big disconnect that the Machine Gun fired by SPD 3 guy runs though 4 times the ammo in the same time when taken away and used by the SPD 12 speedster, I see no way around this without overly complicating everything.


Bases

Base Powers should work like normal powers; buying Life Support without Advantages lets the Base itself survive without eating (not very useful unless the Base is alive -- which you could do by giving it a SPD score :)). Life Support for a kilometer-size starship should cost more than for a fighter -- it is working for more people.

But then you'd have to make Armor cost more because it is protecting more people, and the Flight/FTL cost more because it is moving more people -- where does it stop? ;) Wouldn't the scale factor cover this? You propose (later on) that it does essentially this (IMU) for attack powers -- why not everything else?


Vehicle Combat

Passenger CV: If I am in a vehicle moving at non-combat speeds, what is my OCV? What if I am shooting at someone in a nearby car travelling the same speed? It seems to me that there should be some sort of "stable platform" rule wherein a vehicle moving steadily (or with grav-adjusters or whatever) should provide no OCV penalty for passengers or perhaps even crew-fired weapons.

I agree that there needs to be rules for those manning the gun emplacements (bought with the +5 equipment doubling rule ;)) -- to them, they aren't moving at all despite being on a vehicle (piloted by someone else) that is moving at non combat speed.


Vehicles fight at noncombat speeds all the time, which is another reason that noncombat velocity should be 1/2 OCV rather than 0 OCV.

Depends upon what you mean by "fight", IMO. F16s and F14s don't dogfight at supersonic speeds -- I think no fighters dogfight at Mach 1+. There is such a thing as V-max (Maximum Maneuvering Speed) in all aircraft's airframes. Over that speed, full deflection of control surfaces can (and likely will) cause structural/control damage.


Vehicle Tasks:

Most cinematic car chases don't focus on a street map, but rather on the obstacles that come up during the chase (dodging traffic, going through an alley, etc.). In addition to the current focus on tactical mapped vehicle movement, there should be rules for a more obstacle-based combat sequence. There should be rules for doing things like:

Staying on the road (width, curviness, slipperiness, etc.)
Taking a corner / turn in a given turn radius
Avoid an object
"Follow the leader"
Disguising intent (make it harder for someone to follow you)

For all these things, driver skill and vehicle stats should make a difference. Thus, rather than mapping out the winding cliffside road, the GM and players might just know that it's a Very Difficult road, and the player can decide what speed is worth risking based on the modifiers to his Combat Driving roll.

This would let you use a small-scale (citywide) map to do a car chase without drawing the road on a battlemat.

I see this as similar to the mapless dogfighting rules and could be a good addition. :thumbup:


I think that there is a place for a damage scaling rule in Hero. However, I think that it should be an optional rule, for use only in situations where the GM is building larger vehicles and the like. (Since scaling rules provide a way to magnify damage, there's likely no way to point-balance them with the rest of Hero.)

The rules I wrote for Star Hero work like this:

For every 5 size categories that the defender outsizes the attacker, the defender takes x1/2 damage (10 categories = x1/4, 15 = x1/8, etc.). This modifier is applied right after any existing Damage Reduction (to the unrounded post-Damage Reduction amount).

(I didn't give larger ships a bonus, figuring they would already have larger weapons, but that could be changed.)

AOE will counter this reduction; any +1 AOE Advantage counters one level of size difference. Each doubling of area reduces another level. (For example, a 10 category difference, normally x1/4, is reduced to x1/2 by AOE). To simulate a small ship mounting larger ship weaponry, buy them as AOE line.

I also added an extra amount of damage required to "vaporize" a target, equal to (Size category / 5) * BODY. So, a Size 15 vehicle requires 2x BODY to render inoperable but 3x BODY to vaporize.

Nice. I had been contemplating something similar, though I was looking at also assigning OCV bonuses (for small attacking big) and penalties (for the opposite). A weaon can apply an adder to "scale up" the weapon that offsets the reduction in DCs for smaller attacking bigger (but thus causes that weapon to have OCV penalties attacking something smaller than it's scale). A weapon can be "scaled down" from the size of the ship by buying it Penalty Skill Levels to overcome the OCV penalty for size difference.

Also, I was considering having extra DCs (standard effect) for a big weapon attacking a small ship. Makes sense that if a 16" shell happens to hit a PT-Boat, it'll blow it out of the water.

But this does mean that not all 4d6 RKA EXP. attacks aren't the same -- because of scale. This means not making an attack of more base points just because it is on a bigger ship -- scale takes care of that.

Also, Defenses and Movement (just about everything, I think) would also have to scale. 1" Flight for a Star Destroyer is much further than 1" Flight for a TIE Fighter, for instance.


... However, the question then becomes "How does a fleet of small 1-man craft manage to take down a large battleship"? In WWII, it was with a weapon built to damage a large craft/area -- bombs and torpedos. But AFAIKT, in shows like Star Trek/Star Wars/B5 it seems to be possible just from their regular weapons.

[SteveZilla]

I've always loved that vehicle. When we played Dark Champions, I had a character with one, just for the fun value. :D
http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/photos/airborne/scotterrecoiless.jpg


cheers, Mark

It's the FoxBat Scooter! :D

[shadowcat1313]

yep. such a cute little vehicle... and yes I have done stats for it, its in the real vehicles section of Surbrooks site

http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptationsvehicles/realground/coldwar/ACMA_troupes.HTML

[Talon]

I am not familiar enough with the Vehicle Rules to comment in depth. Though at first glance I think it would make a ship with lots of small weapons all over it really, really expensive. Like all the AA batteries on a WWII aircraft carrier.


Imagine using all those AA batteries at once to fire at a flying super...seems like they should be expensive at that point.

That's why I suggested something like AOE or Autofire...if you don't want to worry about using each tiny weapon at once, don't buy them separately. In most games, you aren't going down to that level of detail anyway.

I dunno, maybe the US Army gets a "+5 for 2x" discount on M-16s. :)

[BobGreenwade]

Imagine using all those AA batteries at once to fire at a flying super...seems like they should be expensive at that point.I'd think they'd switch to D cells, or maybe even 9-volts.... ;)

[David Blue]

I'm playing a teen gun bunny who has a teen gun bunny girlfriend who's a sniper, a 1911 fan and a gunsmith, and it's making me aware of a lot of things we can't do, or that it nowhere definitely says we can do, that I think we should be able to do.

I'd like to be able to build recoil-managed (lower-powered, shorter-ranged) ammunition to let our teen characters use the guns they want to and in some cases the specific guns they have a lot of skill levels with. (Moving from the Sidekick numbers to the Dark Champions STR Min numbers was a shock to the system.) Even if you can make the STR number there may be an issue with the size of a character, and you still may want to dabble with reduced recoil ammunition.

In practice, the gamemaster has been very good about this. I just say: normally a solid slug with this 12-gauge would have an effective range limit of 100m, so as it says in the book 50", but in this case (even with STR 12), for roleplaying reasons this guy is using reduced recoil ammunition which it says here has an effective range of 80m, so 40", and the gamemaster just says OK. Or in other cases I take a pip of BODY off, so that Sniper Girl is in effect using a weapon compatible with her STR and body-mass and gets to use her full skill for fancy shots. I think the rules should sanction this. This stuff is on the shelves, and our Dark Champions should be able to do what anyone with a credit card can.

I'll also stick up my hand in support of those who want to revisit the STR minima for guns. You really notice how odd it is when you're playing highly skilled experts whose STR and body size is rightly pegged to ordinary human levels. You should not have to bench 440lbs to fire an M-1 Garand (STR Min 15), or a little less to deal with a Kalashnikov or a .30 cal carbine (STR 14), or a little less (but still too much for a normal teenager) to be able to fire an M-16 (STR 13) without paying a penalty for your puniness.

It's not that there are no options for a STR 10 character. The SKS Carbine is practically a superweapon. But gosh-darn it, that's a Communist gun! In other words, the work-arounds available in the table now assume you will never have strong roleplaying reasons for liking some weapons (like 1911s) and disliking others (like SKS Carbines), and this is definitely not the case.

Magazine capacity envy, which is a problem not only soluble but solved in real life, as the high-cap 1911s on sale in shops show, does seem addressable with gunsmithing, so that's good. Though I'm not sure: is there supposed to be some kind of "bang for a buck" STR Min formula that says if you use a double-stack clip you have to be stronger to hold the gun? I don't see one, and I hope it's not there.

I'd like to be able to build up guns to make them do a bit more damage. It seems like in principle you should be able to do that, or why else is the Glock 17L doing an extra pip of BODY? But nowhere that I see does it say you can.

I also have problems with the special ammunition, but I've done enough complaining for one post.

[SteveZilla]

I'd think they'd switch to D cells, or maybe even 9-volts.... ;)

6v lantern batteries -- to light-up the enemy fighters. :D

[SteveZilla]

Imagine using all those AA batteries at once to fire at a flying super...seems like they should be expensive at that point.

But they can't, unless you put all of them on the same side of the vehicle. If you do, that leaves the other side pretty much with a big "Shoot Me Here!" sign.


I dunno, maybe the US Army gets a "+5 for 2x" discount on M-16s. :)

But they had to pay extra for the special cleaning kits.

[Talon]

But they can't, unless you put all of them on the same side of the vehicle. If you do, that leaves the other side pretty much with a big "Shoot Me Here!" sign.

They don't shoot straight up? (If not, then apply previous argument to "half of them". :))

And sure, it leaves the vehicle open, but you are still getting a lot of damage effect applied against a single target. Now imagine a PC who builds their floating attack platform the same way (with a computer, followers, or whatever to fire the weapons) and pays 60 points for a 4d6 RKA and 30 more points to get 64 of them. (64 50+50 Followers = 40 more points, I believe.)

[AnotherSkip]

I'm playing a teen gun bunny who has a teen gun bunny girlfriend who's a sniper, a 1911 fan and a gunsmith, and it's making me aware of a lot of things we can't do, or that it nowhere definitely says we can do, that I think we should be able to do.


gun bunnies hunh? how many kids are you planning on having? j/k

I think with a lot of the Rules, ya gotta have a GM who understands the rules and the real world implications as well as Game Implications.

I Don't understand guns Nearly as well as you do, And Other people have pointed out that their fellows (men and women) with army training don't Bench 220 and can still fire many of the modern weapons well. So I have Eliminated Str Mins from all weapons but HTH, (otherwise it doesn't make sense as a limitation) because I understand the Game balances better.

Don't worry too much about what the Rules say about X, Y & Z guns The Player May be better off buying
Gun Bunny: +5 Str Only vs. Str mins (-1) and forgetting about some of the other issues.

I personally think the Str Mins are realistically off, there are several arguments for lowering them across the board. However hey may be Dramatically Correct, and I think that that is what Steve is heading for.

[AnotherSkip]

See the first answer in this FAQ (http://www.herogames.com/rulesFAQ.htm?ruleset=Hero+System+Fifth+Edition%2C+ Revised&section=&keywords=double+equipment&dateString=) (Bob has it right).

Good job Bob and Stevezilla but the question still remains how is it truly different to define single item multipower vs. multi-item Multipower and get differing results based upon at best a SFX difference?

[David Blue]

gun bunnies hunh? how many kids are you planning on having? j/k
It's under discussion. :P


I think with a lot of the Rules, ya gotta have a GM who understands the rules and the real world implications as well as Game Implications.
True.


I Don't understand guns Nearly as well as you do,
Whoa! I don't want to come across like I was trying to pretend to be an expert, when I'm not.

I was just saying: I'd like some more gunsmithing problems, and here are some problems that I've encountered that seem to call for these gunsmithing options. In other words, I was trying to answer in advance the question: "But who would ever want to do that? What legitimate reason could there be?"


And Other people have pointed out that their fellows (men and women) with army training don't Bench 220 and can still fire many of the modern weapons well. So I have Eliminated Str Mins from all weapons but HTH, (otherwise it doesn't make sense as a limitation) because I understand the Game balances better.
That makes sense.


Don't worry too much about what the Rules say about X, Y & Z guns The Player May be better off buying
Gun Bunny: +5 Str Only vs. Str mins (-1) and forgetting about some of the other issues.
If the STR Mins don't get fixed, that could be a standard "super-skill" suggestion in the next edition of Dark Champions.


I personally think the Str Mins are realistically off, there are several arguments for lowering them across the board. However hey may be Dramatically Correct, and I think that that is what Steve is heading for.
I don't understand that.

[SteveZilla]

Good job Bob and Stevezilla but the question still remains how is it truly different to define single item multipower vs. multi-item Multipower and get differing results based upon at best a SFX difference?

Perhaps because in this case the SFX difference is *also* a mechanical difference? If it were a single item, destroying/removing it denies the owner all of it's powers. If it were a collection of items, destroying/removing one just means he goes and pulls another one out of the closet.

[Vulcan]

If the STR Mins don't get fixed, that could be a standard "super-skill" suggestion in the next edition of Dark Champions.

Gun Muscle: +10 STR, Only to meet STR modifier for using firearms (-2) Real cost: 3 points. Dark Champions p.112

[Talon]

I don't see the big deal -- if you don't meet the STR Min, you get a -1 OCV (or -2 if you are off by more than 6). In 4th Edition, back before you lost DC as well with melee weapons, I had 13 STR characters who took the -1 in order to do more damage.

It's not "you can't use the weapon", it's just a little harder. People who shoot regularly could buy a PSL and be all set.

[David Blue]

Gun Muscle: +10 STR, Only to meet STR modifier for using firearms (-2) Real cost: 3 points. Dark Champions p.112
Oops! There it is. (Facepalm.)

[AnotherSkip]

I don't see the big deal -- if you don't meet the STR Min, you get a -1 OCV (or -2 if you are off by more than 6). In 4th Edition, back before you lost DC as well with melee weapons, I had 13 STR characters who took the -1 in order to do more damage.

It's not "you can't use the weapon", it's just a little harder. People who shoot regularly could buy a PSL and be all set.

I thought it was -3 whether you were off 1 or 20 Str

[Markdoc]

I thought it was -3 whether you were off 1 or 20 Str

Nope. The -3 is if you lack familiarity with the weapon at all. I don't really have a beef with the STR min rules. If you are 1-5 STR under the Min you do a little training, pay 2 points for +1 OCV or a PSL with that weapon to reflect learning to compensate for the weight/recoil and you're good to go.

Essentially the STR min (to me) reflects the point at which you are so strong that the weight/recoil of a weapon has no effect on your accuracy even if you have never trained with it.

But then, I encourage my players to buy skill levels :D

cheers, Mark

[AnotherSkip]

OK i checked and yup you are right about Str Min, guess I was using 4th Ed Rules or something.
Doesn't sound right though....

Ah
it is -1 OCV AND Damage Class per -5 STR, that makes better sense.

[Talon]

OK i checked and yup you are right about Str Min, guess I was using 4th Ed Rules or something.
Doesn't sound right though....

Ah
it is -1 OCV AND Damage Class per -5 STR, that makes better sense.

4th Edition was just OCV penalties, never DC reduction -- which I prefer. With DC reduction, there's no reason to use a high STR Min (muscle powered) weapon; you do your normal STR damage with an OCV penalty to boot.

(Also, the DC reduction doesn't apply to guns and the like.)

[IndianaJoe3]

One thing that bugs me about the current Base/Vehicle rules is the difference in the way BODY works. Vehicles (even large ones) have a unified BODY score, and any damage it takes counts against it. Bases (even small ones) have separated BODY - each section of wall has its own BODY, and any damage that exceeds a wall's DEF only makes a bigger hole. This bothers me because there are plausible situations where attacks on a large vehicle should be treated like attacks on a base - you blow a hole in the armor, but the vehicle has not sustained significant damage.

Anyone have any ideas on how to fix this problem, or is it a non-issue? :confused:

[Hugh Neilson]

One thing that bugs me about the current Base/Vehicle rules is the difference in the way BODY works. Vehicles (even large ones) have a unified BODY score, and any damage it takes counts against it. Bases (even small ones) have separated BODY - each section of wall has its own BODY, and any damage that exceeds a wall's DEF only makes a bigger hole. This bothers me because there are plausible situations where attacks on a large vehicle should be treated like attacks on a base - you blow a hole in the armor, but the vehicle has not sustained significant damage.

Anyone have any ideas on how to fix this problem, or is it a non-issue? :confused:

Build the large vehicle as a small base with movement instead of a large vehicle? Its SFX is that it's an enormous starship, but reasoning from the effects, the Starship Enterprise is mechanically a base. The Shuttlecraft it carries is a vehicle.

[IndianaJoe3]

Build the large vehicle as a small base with movement instead of a large vehicle? Its SFX is that it's an enormous starship, but reasoning from the effects, the Starship Enterprise is mechanically a base. The Shuttlecraft it carries is a vehicle.

This is mechanically workable, especially if you require mobile bases to buy appropriate levels of Size. It would make large vehicles very durable in combat, since you would need to destroy them wall section by wall section. Maybe mobile bases should have a unified BODY based on their Size?

[SteveZilla]

This is mechanically workable, especially if you require mobile bases to buy appropriate levels of Size. It would make large vehicles very durable in combat, since you would need to destroy them wall section by wall section.

This is an attractive idea for very large vehicles. Though weapons that affect multiple hexes (AoE or Spreading?) would be able to destroy more than one "wall section" at a time.

The (not insurmountable) problem becomes defining when a vechile becomes "very large" as you go up the scale.

[Vulcan]

Personally I think the vehicle rules should be rewritten to reflect the 'breach the wall without destroying the vehicle' thing.

After all, it's possible (in genre) to literally break into something as small a regular car -say, tear the roof or a door off - without destroying the vehicle.

In the current rules, you can't without some GM handwaving. So this needs a fix, in my opinion.

Once you have that, then this whole discussion of mobile bases becomes moot. Besides, defining the difference between bases and vehicles as 'mobility' was done deliberately and for good reason (probably based on the difference in prices on the size charts); I assume the reason still applies

[AnotherSkip]

buy multiple vehices to reflect this? much like the multi headed hydra and duplication.

[Vulcan]

So to make my basic car, I need to buy one vehicle for the main chassie (with the engine and other vital bits), then buy another separate vehicle for each door, plus the hood and the trunk, and even the roof of the car?

I think that's taking things a bit too far, IMO.

[Markdoc]

So to make my basic car, I need to buy one vehicle for the main chassie (with the engine and other vital bits), then buy another separate vehicle for each door, plus the hood and the trunk, and even the roof of the car?

No just no, but hell, no.

The simplest approach is simply to use the standard BOD of a vehicle for working out when it's no longer functioning, how much it costs to transform, etc, but apportion damage appropriately per hex. In other words, it take 13 BOD to crucial systems to disable a compact car - which occupies 2 hexes. If that 13 BOD is delivered to the front of the car, the engine and front tires are smashed up and the car is no longer drivable, but the McGuffin in the back might still be OK.

On the other hand, to smash a window requires just a couple of BOD - it does nothing to the driveablity of the car. Extend that rationale to a battleship (let's say 50 BOD, I have no idea how much it has). I'd use that number to work out how much transform a sorceror supreme needs to turn it into a doughnut. However two guys with RPGs in one passageway are not going to be able to destroy it by shooting holes in the internal walls. They'll need to do 50 BOD to crucial systems - blow up the bridge(s), the engine room or make 50 BOD worth of holes in the hull. It doesn't have to be done in one hit: 50 BOD spread out over crucial systems would be fine. This makes large vehicles hard to destroy - the important bits are usually spread out and well-protected. Subsidary systems (like gun turrets, etc) have their own DEF/BOD and can be destroyed without destroying the vessel.

cheers, Mark

[AnotherSkip]

I kinda like Voltronesque vehicular building. you wouldn't do the "this is my SUV" *hands over a ream of paper* you might have 5 vehicles (Arms Legs and Body) or for battleships say fore, aft, port and Starboard. but only for things big enogh that you need explosions to cover larger than many hex sized areas of attack

[aamybush]

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about rules pertaining to equipment and gear that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about equipment that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

Regardless of whatever opinion I post on an idea, I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise if you think you can do it. ;) The fact that I’m posting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean my mind’s made up on an issue; it just indicates my current thinking on the subject.

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.


Q: Should we change the way Ranged Killing Damage weapons are built?

Steve’s Thoughts: We should. Right now, for some reason dating back to the early days of the rules, they seem to be built with some sort of generic “Killing Damage” power that requires the STR Min Does Not Add To Damage Limitation. The rules should say explicitly that they’re built with RKA and thus don’t qualify for that Limitation.

Good work steve I say. This could be helpful to new people too.

[SteveZilla]

So to make my basic car, I need to buy one vehicle for the main chassie (with the engine and other vital bits), then buy another separate vehicle for each door, plus the hood and the trunk, and even the roof of the car?

I think that's taking things a bit too far, IMO.

Build it Once Piece at a Time just like Johnny Cash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59H4S-a8Wj4

"It's a 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 automobile..." :D

[AnotherSkip]

Sooo what value of extra time is that?

[IndianaJoe3]

This bothers me because there are plausible situations where attacks on a large vehicle should be treated like attacks on a base - you blow a hole in the armor, but the vehicle has not sustained significant damage.


After much reflection and thought, I think the solution to this is to create a new Adder: "Takes damage as Base". 20 points seems about right. This would add to the Vehicle's cost after it's divided by 5. Naturally, this will need the GM to pay close attention to avoid abuse.

[ngross]

The one thing about equipment that has been bugging me is sectional armor. Other than a coverage/activation roll, there is not an official way to write it up. For example, if a fantasy character just wearing a leather vest (locations 10-12), the official write up would be something like "3 rED, 3 rPD armor with activation at 11-". Along with all of the other limitations.

My main reason for being annoyed about this is this: Since there is no way in the game system to say "3 rED, 3 rPD armor - locations 10,11,12", it has not incorporated into Hero Designer.

Yes, I know that this is a small nitpick. But if I cannot get the character generator software to write it up how I need it to be for heroic characters, and it is written about in heroic level books (about 10 pages just in Fantasy Hero), I consider something broken.

[The Main Man]

Something that could be addressed once and for all is the disparity between Equipment and Powers.

Resource Points seem to be approaching a bridge within this glaring rift in the system.

For example, what if base Resource Points could be sold back?

But really, I don't know how to do it.

[Markdoc]

The one thing about equipment that has been bugging me is sectional armor. Other than a coverage/activation roll, there is not an official way to write it up. For example, if a fantasy character just wearing a leather vest (locations 10-12), the official write up would be something like "3 rED, 3 rPD armor with activation at 11-". Along with all of the other limitations.

My main reason for being annoyed about this is this: Since there is no way in the game system to say "3 rED, 3 rPD armor - locations 10,11,12", it has not incorporated into Hero Designer.

Yes, I know that this is a small nitpick. But if I cannot get the character generator software to write it up how I need it to be for heroic characters, and it is written about in heroic level books (about 10 pages just in Fantasy Hero), I consider something broken.

Actually you can out put

[The Main Man]

The one thing about equipment that has been bugging me is sectional armor. Other than a coverage/activation roll, there is not an official way to write it up. For example, if a fantasy character just wearing a leather vest (locations 10-12), the official write up would be something like "3 rED, 3 rPD armor with activation at 11-". Along with all of the other limitations.

My main reason for being annoyed about this is this: Since there is no way in the game system to say "3 rED, 3 rPD armor - locations 10,11,12", it has not incorporated into Hero Designer.

Yes, I know that this is a small nitpick. But if I cannot get the character generator software to write it up how I need it to be for heroic characters, and it is written about in heroic level books (about 10 pages just in Fantasy Hero), I consider something broken.

That's not a problem with the system, it's a problem with the software.

That whole "cause and effect" thing blah blah blah...

[PhilFleischmann]

My main reason for being annoyed about this is this: Since there is no way in the game system to say "3 rED, 3 rPD armor - locations 10,11,12", it has not incorporated into Hero Designer.
Sure there is. You say it the exact way you just did! Hero Designer is a separate issue from the system itself. I don't use it, but I'm sure there's at least some space to put such a notation.

[James Gillen]

Sure there is. You say it the exact way you just did! Hero Designer is a separate issue from the system itself. I don't use it, but I'm sure there's at least some space to put such a notation.

I think he's saying you could do it, you just shouldn't need that level of work-around.

jg

[Steve Long]

Hey folx! It's time for me to start reading all the 6E threads, and that means I need to lock them.

Hopefully 15 months has been plenty of time for anyone who wanted to have a say, to have a say. ;) So please, don't start up other threads to try to continue discussions, send me PMs with points you "just have to make," or anything like that. It's time for y'all to sit back, relax, have a frosty beverage, and let me get 6E written. ;)

We definitely appreciate everyone's interest, participation, and ideas! I'm looking forward to reading the posts and seeing what nuggets of wisdom lurk therein. I have no doubt 6E is going to be even better than it would have been because of our fans' enthusiastic efforts at providing us with input and suggestions. :hex: