Environment Issues

[Steve Long]

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about rules pertaining to the environment 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 the environment 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 give objects (including equipment like Vehicles and Bases) PD and ED rather than just DEF?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this is definitely worth considering. Obviously DEF is simpler, but it’s a rather imprecise way to describe objects. I don’t think it would cause any difficulties to switch to PD and ED.

[JakSpade]

Q: Should we give objects (including equipment like Vehicles and Bases) PD and ED rather than just DEF?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this is definitely worth considering. Obviously DEF is simpler, but it’s a rather imprecise way to describe objects. I don’t think it would cause any difficulties to switch to PD and ED.

I believe equipment DEF is as simple and straight forward as I like. If I'm dealing with something fragile I'd lower the defense, or if it's something such as an electronic device that is susceptible to energy damage, adding a "Takes extra from electricity" modifier works just as well as defining ED for the item.

jak

[Xotl]

EDIT: a part removed due to redundant info. Thanks Marcus :)

I definitely support replacing DEF with PD/ED. More flexibility, more consistency.

[L. Marcus]

Xotl, I believe that was taken care of in 5ER.

Edit: Yup -- Temp Level Zero is called the Comfort Zone.

[yamamura]

Q: Should we give objects (including equipment like Vehicles and Bases) PD and ED rather than just DEF?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this is definitely worth considering. Obviously DEF is simpler, but it’s a rather imprecise way to describe objects. I don’t think it would cause any difficulties to switch to PD and ED.

I would say yes if we are to keep PD/ED separate and not made into a single attribute. Of course you could give vehicles PD/ED and give people DEF;)

[steamteck]

Objects should be given PD/ED I believe. Makes it easier to model real objects ( rubber for example)

More attention should be made to somehow scaling object defenses with supers. maybe something like Lord Liaden's house rules if no numbers are changed.

[Comic]

I've always viewd DEF as a convenience, not an absolute.

Keeping the convenience of DEF as a default, but with suggested options for those very common situations where DEF is imprecise, seems a good way to go.

It's not nearly so useful a detail as to compell a lot of extra work to bring it into a game world, but too useful to ignore, either.

[Super Squirrel]

On one hand:

8 DEF; Half Defense Against Energy Attacks (-1/2) works fine.

On the other hand, 8 PD/4 ED is so much more elegant.

However, I'd think breaking it down to PD/ED is a better choice because I also think there should be an easy way to go from a vehicle that takes BODY damage only to a vehicle that takes body and stun damage (Transforms, living cars, etc...)

[nexus]

Q: Should we give objects (including equipment like Vehicles and Bases) PD and ED rather than just DEF?
.

I support this idea. It’s more consistent, IMO, and models some real life issues better. Even in the sense of dramatic realism some objects are going to be more vulnerable to energy attacks than physical and vice versa.

I’d also like to see, if not in the core rules a supplement more rules for environmental effects like hunger, dehydration, fatigue, disease, infection, ete for grittier games and genre.

IMO, Falling Damage should probably be Killing.

[Edsel]

I printed off all of Steve's original posts in all of the 6th Edition threads and spent hours reading them last night and thinking. It is amazing how little I came up with to respond with though. However the opinions in this post are based only on what Steve has posted in message #1 of this thread, I haven't been influenced by what others have posted subsequently since I haven't read them yet. I will try to keep my comments brief since there is a hellava lot to read in these discussions.
Q: Should we give objects (including equipment like Vehicles and Bases) PD and ED rather than just DEF?
Yes, it unifies the system better.

[Chris Goodwin]

I'm all for unifying PD and ED into just DEF, myself. Physical and Energy then become SFX rather than game mechanical constructs. Only Vs. (one or the other) could be a Limitation, or it could be possible to buy DEF that only protects against one or the other at half cost without resorting to a Limitation, but I seldom see characters with different PD and ED scores (and they could easily be handled by limiting DEF).

So, count me as against giving objects PD and ED.

[Thia Halmades]

I'm pro-granularity, which means that I think DEF should just be abolished and that PD/ED should Rule the Rink. A car getting whapped with a 1d6 Electrical Attack is a very different creature than a 1d6 solid slug to the door.

Then again, I think that the rules from Ultimate Energy Projector should be adopted as universals to the system for the purpose of granularity and differentiation. :D

But yes. Abolish DEF for purposes of vehicle/base/etc. development and we'll have one LESS stat to worry about, which actually makes MORE sense to me in the long run.

[Vondy]

I think you should keep the distinction. Its critical in superheroic games (and some games where big FX powers get thrown around). Its not critical in a lot of genres, but it is often enough to leave it alone.

[Lord Liaden]

If the character/vehicle/etc. generation will continue to distinguish between PD and ED, then I would favor making the distinction for objects as well. However, I'd also like to see objects whose Defense, or at least part of it, is non-Resistant. There are many objects that people can encounter or use, e.g. cloth, rope, fur, canvas, which may be very tough versus blunt-force blows, but much easier to damage with cutting or penetrating weapons.

Besides providing stats for such objects, I also suggest extending the Nonresistant DEF Limitation from Entangle to objects we can build under the system, including Foci, and optionally even Vehicles (flying carpets) ;) or Bases (e.g. tents or Japanese paper-wall houses).

[Enforcer84]

I think I like the Objects have PD/ED idea better than DEF.



...I don't know what that says about me.

[Thag13]

I think I like the Objects have PD/ED idea better than DEF.



...I don't know what that says about me.

That you are kinda weird and funny looking.....:):):D

I KEED I kEED!!!!!

Making fun of 84 aside, I like PD/ED for objects. I think having such a rating for a lot of objects that player will interact with makes the game more fun and gives a GM a better tool to model the envioment.

Granted I think a couple of pages of objects with ratings would be a big help.

[BobGreenwade]

Q: Should we give objects (including equipment like Vehicles and Bases) PD and ED rather than just DEF?I personally have some resistance to the idea, but if you implement it I'll probably use it and like it. Certainly it would more accurate depict things like pillows, which (typically) have differing values for PD and ED, and less Resistant than Normal defense.

That said, I'd still prefer DEF for Vehicles, Bases, and such, with the Armor Power to represent variations. Even that is only a mild preference, though.

Another issue, though. Since Senses are also covered under Envirionment, I guess this is the place to bring it up.

In reality, and in every fiction I can think of where the matter's brought up, Touch is a Targeting Sense. If I have my left hand on something and can feel where it is, I can hit it with my right hand. It's a No Range Sense, but anything I can feel, I can hit, and being unable to do so should be a Physical Limitation. Saying otherwise, with all due respect, just looks silly.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Q: Should we give objects (including equipment like Vehicles and Bases) PD and ED rather than just DEF?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this is definitely worth considering. Obviously DEF is simpler, but it’s a rather imprecise way to describe objects. I don’t think it would cause any difficulties to switch to PD and ED.I think either objects should switch to using PD/ED, or characters should switch to using DEF. I'd like the system to handle this aspect consistently. I don't have a strong preference either way, but if pressed, would probably prefer objects using PD/ED. It would be more compatible with older material, and probably a less disruptive change than switching characters to using DEF.

[Enforcer84]

I think either objects should switch to using PD/ED, or characters should switch to using DEF. I'd like the system to handle this aspect consistently. I don't have a strong preference either way, but if pressed, would probably prefer objects using PD/ED. It would be more compatible with older material, and probably a less disruptive change than switching characters to using DEF.
Are Hero Rhinos Flammable? :winkgrin:




get it? Flam...aw shoot. I'll show myself out.

[Markdoc]

Put me down in the "Objects should have PD/ED, rather than players having DEF" camp. I've been doing this for a long time - until now, it never even occurred to me that this was a house rule. Duh!

At any rate, it makes no sense to me that a light aluminium-based flame retardent suit, which is only a few mm thick should bounce bullets just because it gives you good protection against fire, nor that a dry thatched roof should be fireproof simply because it's thick and tough enough to stop bullets.

It's important to realize that "streamlining the rules" is not synonymous with "taking stuff out". DEF is no more streamlined than PD/ED - since the two seperate concepts are really easy to explain and once explained are - well, self-explanatory. They give extra flexibility at the cost of no extra complexity. Saying "You can still have PD and ED you just do it by having DEF and limiting it to not vs physical attacks or not vs energy attacks" is true - but it gives you the flexibility at the cost of extra complexity. Clearly not the way to go, however appealing it may be æsthetically.

Cheers, Mark

[BobGreenwade]

I think either objects should switch to using PD/ED, or characters should switch to using DEF.In reading this sentence I suddenly realized where my resistance to the idea comes from.

Ever since the dichotomy was introduced, I've associated PD/ED with targets that are living, and DEF with those that are unliving. It's just one of those things that separates those two classes of target, and giving both of them the same Characteristic(s) would make them more like the same thing.

As I say, the resistance is a minor one, and I won't raise a big stink if it's done. In fact, from most standpoints it's probably best to just ditch DEF and go with PD/ED for everything. That's just my instinctive feeling on it.

[Supreme Serpent]

I'm all for PD/ED for objects where appropriate.

For vehicles, etc. buy each seperately.

For normal objects, if even just list one def, if different split them. So:

Item Def Body
A 5 5
B 6/2 8
C 3/8 3

etc.

[BobGreenwade]

On a slightly different topic... and I'm only guessing that this is the section where it would go...

We really are starting to need some decent rules for sleeping, distinct from rules covering unconsciousness. Nothing extensive, of course -- maybe a half-column to a column, if that -- but something that sleep-oriented powers (or spells, or whatever) can work with that doesn't interact with STUN.

[Chris Goodwin]

Sleeping, yes. Also breathing (Steve has mentioned a Suffocation Power as a possible addition) and gravity. Anything else?

[BobGreenwade]

Sleeping, yes. Also breathing (Steve has mentioned a Suffocation Power as a possible addition) and gravity. Anything else?Ah, yes, gravity. Modeling it with STR/TK is a decent kludge for 5th Edition, but as long as we're getting a 6th Edition we might as well get a decent way of doing it. Maybe as a part of Change Environment.

[ajackson]

Ah, yes, gravity. Modeling it with STR/TK is a decent kludge for 5th Edition, but as long as we're getting a 6th Edition we might as well get a decent way of doing it. Maybe as a part of Change Environment.
Problem with gravity is that it's really hard to balance because it's dependent on the mass of the object.

Let's say I have the ability to create a 1G gravity field, in a one hex area.

If there's a person in the area, I am effectively applying 10 Str to that person.

Now, if there's a 1 hex chunk of steel (say, a 1m steel ball), it weighs 30-odd tons, so I'm applying a bit over 50 Str to that steel ball.

Now, let's say there's a cubic centimeter of neutronium in that hex. At typical neutron star density, it weights about 100 million tons, so now I'm applying 160 Str to that chunk of neutronium (the chunk of neutronium, incidentally, has a gravitational field of about 0.7 Gs at 1 meter).

So, how much Str should I buy for my gravity control power?

[BobGreenwade]

Problem with gravity is that it's really hard to balance because it's dependent on the mass of the object.

Let's say I have the ability to create a 1G gravity field, in a one hex area.

If there's a person in the area, I am effectively applying 10 Str to that person.

Now, if there's a 1 hex chunk of steel (say, a 1m steel ball), it weighs 30-odd tons, so I'm applying a bit over 50 Str to that steel ball.

Now, let's say there's a cubic centimeter of neutronium in that hex. At typical neutron star density, it weights about 100 million tons, so now I'm applying 160 Str to that chunk of neutronium (the chunk of neutronium, incidentally, has a gravitational field of about 0.7 Gs at 1 meter).

So, how much Str should I buy for my gravity control power?It's not that hard to balance; all you've demonstrated is why I consider the STR/TK build a "kludge." Chris and I are in agreement: Hero needs a proper build on gravity that actually models gravity.

[CorPse]

I'd like to see a little more granularity from Terrain/Environment types. (Perhaps this already exists in FH or some other supplement.) In the core book you get Water, Mud, Zero-G and maybe a coupe of others.

I wouldn't mind seeing a slightly fuller exploration of other sorts of effects: underbrush, heavy forest, etc.

[SAVeira]

Q: Should we give objects (including equipment like Vehicles and Bases) PD and ED rather than just DEF?

Only, if you do not merge PD & ED into DEF for Characters, Vehicles and Bases. I prefer the it being just DEF, but if the rest of the system does not match it, then it should change.

[PhilFleischmann]

A sledgehammer applied to a boulder can break it, but a blowtorch won't do any damage at all. It seems quite obvious to me that objects don't have the same PD and ED. And I've never seen an example of "cinematic reality" in which fire hurts rock.

And I will also second what Lord Laiden said: Not all object defense is Resistant. The strongest person in the world can't cut a rope by punching it, but I can take out my mini-Swiss army knife (1-pip HKA) and cut the rope. This suggests to me that the rope has very high *non-resistant* defenses, but virtually no resistant defenses.

Flexible, rubbery, bouncy objects in general should be considered non-resistant. How much normal damage does a ball take in the course of a game? Baseball, football, basketball, tennis, soccer, etc. Yet again, my little knife can destroy any of these easily.

Punch your pillow, jump on your mattress. How much BODY damage did you do? Now try damaging them with a small, sharp knife.

[steamteck]

Agreeing with Phil here. Those changes would make modeling lots of real world objects easier.

[PhilFleischmann]

And while we're on the subject, various types of armor shouldn't necessarily provide the same PD as ED. A suit of plate armor might be very effective against swords and other physical weapons, but shouldn't provide much defense against fire, and if anything, would make the wearer more vulnerable to lightning.

[David Blue]

I prefer PD and ED to DEF, because then the cost of giving them odd numbers like 7 PD 6 ED is completely uncontroversial. Doing it with limitations isn't as good, because different numbers can fall into the same bracket of "loses about X of its value".

[CTaylor]

Q: Should we give objects (including equipment like Vehicles and Bases) PD and ED rather than just DEF?

Sure, would make interacting with their defense a little easier using drains and such as well.

[Blue Jogger]

Definitely like ditching DEF, although DEF is technically Armor (not PD/ED), so it is 7 PD/6 ED Armor which costs 19.5 points, not 7 PD/6 ED which costs 13 points and is not resistant.

Maybe 1 PD/1 ED Armor will change to cost 4 points to make the math easier.


On Gravity Control, I go with the Star Hero rule that it costs 10 points to raise or lower gravity by 1. If they are using it routinely to cause damage, then they need to buy Energy Blast or TK with the appropriate Advantages and Limitations.

Clinging with the special effect (gravity) also works and is also 10 points.

[GamePhil]

Definitely like ditching DEF, although DEF is technically Armor (not PD/ED), so it is 7 PD/6 ED Armor which costs 19.5 points, not 7 PD/6 ED which costs 13 points and is not resistant.


DEF could also be considered PD and ED with Damage Resistance. This is more consistent for Vehicles, since you then buy PD and ED the same way as everyone else. It also allows you to buy non-resistant defenses for objects without taking a Limitation on them.

[CTaylor]

Defense of objects probably ought to cost a bit more just because of how it works. It is effective against normal weapon attacks, for example (you shouldn't do as much damage against a brick wall with a dagger as you do a hobbit).

I've always built my armor with lower energy defense past leather, though. Sometimes it has different normal defense than resistant as well for that matter.

[Chris Goodwin]

Defense of objects probably ought to cost a bit more just because of how it works. It is effective against normal weapon attacks, for example (you shouldn't do as much damage against a brick wall with a dagger as you do a hobbit).

I dunno. Hobbits are pretty squishy; you might never get through a brick wall using a hobbit.

...What?

[CTaylor]

You're probably right. Although if you spread frosting on the wall, he might eat his way through.

[AnotherSkip]

And while we're on the subject, various types of armor shouldn't necessarily provide the same PD as ED. A suit of plate armor might be very effective against swords and other physical weapons, but shouldn't provide much defense against fire, and if anything, would make the wearer more vulnerable to lightning.

Im not certain, If you are wearing your gambeson properly then you should definately count as being insulated against electricity.

i would like to see a way to repersent someone pulling a "spidey in front of a Electrical junction box trick", or other uses of the environmental against enemies, this is a classic staple of many genres and unless you buy a VPP technically you cannot use it (too wide to model as almost any indidvidual power) maybe once, but if you do then you can't ever do it again. and for games that don't have KB this could be serious storytelling flaw...

[PhilFleischmann]

Im not certain, If you are wearing your gambeson properly then you should definately count as being insulated against electricity.
You may be right, but I certainly wouldn't want to be the subject of the experiment to test your theory!

[AnotherSkip]

Mythbusters Phil, Mythbusters.

best way to test things ever.

[jeffkmills]

In reality, and in every fiction I can think of where the matter's brought up, Touch is a Targeting Sense. If I have my left hand on something and can feel where it is, I can hit it with my right hand. It's a No Range Sense, but anything I can feel, I can hit, and being unable to do so should be a Physical Limitation. Saying otherwise, with all due respect, just looks silly.

I agree with Bob. If I can touch it, I can hit it. Of course, "it" may not really be what I think "it" is - in the dark, for example - so if that was really Lois Lane I hit, and not Wonder Woman... oops. :eek:

[SteveZilla]

We really are starting to need some decent rules for sleeping, distinct from rules covering unconsciousness. Nothing extensive, of course -- maybe a half-column to a column, if that -- but something that sleep-oriented powers (or spells, or whatever) can work with that doesn't interact with STUN.

Sleeping, yes. Also breathing (Steve has mentioned a Suffocation Power as a possible addition) and gravity. Anything else?

Put me down for Sleeping rules as well. Sleeping is very different from being Knocked Out -- if for no other reason that (IMO) when you wake up from sleep, you have not only your full STUN but full END as well. And we have Life Support that reduces/eliminated the need for Sleep, but no rules (AFAIK) on what happens when a character goes without sleep that they need? Sleep deprivation should cause penalties to the character's abilities (and something like Long-Term STUN Loss similar to LTEL for exertion), and need a "Breakout" Roll to resist falling asleep.

IIRC, research has shown that the need for sleep is primarily in the brain -- and it tied to a hormone that the brain secretes at certain times as part of the natural biorhythm. So sleep seems to be a Mental effect, and inducing it prematurely like with a Sleep Spell (EGO Resists), or a Tranquilizer Dart (CON Resists) should be done with a Mental power as the starting point.

Is there a reason why we can't put some sort of Ranged Modifier onto the Choke Hold Martial Maneuver to generate a "Strangulation Power"?

A sledgehammer applied to a boulder can break it, but a blowtorch won't do any damage at all. It seems quite obvious to me that objects don't have the same PD and ED. And I've never seen an example of "cinematic reality" in which fire hurts rock.

And I will also second what Lord Laiden said: Not all object defense is Resistant. The strongest person in the world can't cut a rope by punching it, but I can take out my mini-Swiss army knife (1-pip HKA) and cut the rope. This suggests to me that the rope has very high *non-resistant* defenses, but virtually no resistant defenses.

Objects should be defined with PD and ED instead of the lumpy "DEF" stat. I am in favor of them starting with no inherent resistant defense just because they are of the F/X of "made with metal or other hard material". BUt they can buy Damage Resistance like a character to make their PD/ED (determined the same way as DEF is now) into rPD/rED.

The only downside to this is that it becomes necessary to assign character points to things like rocks (to buy their PD, ED, and Damage Resistance).

And last but not least, the Environmental effects of Gravity need to be better defined, and a balanced way to "generate" a gravity field (like for spaceship interiors). Because I view gravity as a very, very powerful effect (especially so as its power increases), I would favor a geometic pricing plan similar to that for Damage Reduction.

[AnotherSkip]

I agree with Bob. If I can touch it, I can hit it. Of course, "it" may not really be what I think "it" is - in the dark, for example - so if that was really Lois Lane I hit, and not Wonder Woman... oops. :eek:

dam! I wouldn't be hittin either of those, hitting on but not hitting. ;)

[Hugh Neilson]

I agree with Bob. If I can touch it, I can hit it. Of course, "it" may not really be what I think "it" is - in the dark, for example - so if that was really Lois Lane I hit, and not Wonder Woman... oops. :eek:

If you're feeling around in the dark and find either one of those, you better either back off quietly or take them out with the first hit - before she finds out whose hand that was!

[Chris Goodwin]

Put me down for Sleeping rules as well. Sleeping is very different from being Knocked Out -- if for no other reason that (IMO) when you wake up from sleep, you have not only your full STUN but full END as well.

Man, what are you smoking? I'm lucky I have any INT when I wake up in the morning.... (Variable Limitation: 8- Activation or Requires Caffeine)

[palaskar]

I don't know why this hasn't been brought up yet:

Falling, car crashes, etc. should do the same damage as if an object of the appropriate size (human, car w/passengers) hit with the appropriate speed. Speed damage should scale logarhythmically (sp!) (Damn it! I can't spell anymore.)

Basically, this means that you'll being doing STR damage, and not some obscene Falling damage. Same with Move-by and Move-through.

Unfortunately, my Math-Fu is gone, and I can't crunch the numbers to find out how much damage that is. IIIRC, I once calculated that a 40 kph crash of a 3.2 ton (metric) car does 45 STR damage or 9d6. This means that your average 60mph/100kph car crash does 10d6 or 11d6 worth of damage.

I don't know if that's right, though. It feels right; how many times have we seen a brick KO'ed by a car hitting them in the comics?

There should probably be some hero-level rules from dying from lack of sleep. IIRC, a human dies after not sleeping for 16-17 days.

[AnotherSkip]

Man, what are you smoking? I'm lucky I have any INT when I wake up in the morning.... (Variable Limitation: 8- Activation or Requires Caffeine)

Yeah but that limit doesn't go away after a few recoveries.....

[Hugh Neilson]

Yeah but that limit doesn't go away after a few recoveries.....

zzzzzzing :D

[Klaus Mogensen]

Put me down for Sleeping rules as well. Sleeping is very different from being Knocked Out -- if for no other reason that (IMO) when you wake up from sleep, you have not only your full STUN but full END as well.
Remember that it generally only takes a dozen seconds to recover all Stun and End if you are conscious. That seems much like waking from sleep.

A normal human e.g. has 20 End, 20 Stun, SPD 2, and Rec 4. Starting on segment 12 as usual, you take a recovery and get a ps12 recovery. Take two recoveries in the next turn, and get a second ps12. That's 13 seconds from 0 End, 0 Stun to full recovery.

What's really needed (as I've argued before) is some kind of long-term Stun for non-super characters. There's currently no middle ground between Body damage, where recovering a single point takes days or even weeks, and Stun damage, from which you generally recover fully in seconds.

A simple change would be to say that in heroic campaigns, half the Stun you take is long-term Stun where you only get REC back every 5 hours (like long-term End). So you can get back up from being knocked out a few times, but eventually, you stay down. This can replace the "GM option" recovery for being knocked down to -31 Stun, and it also makes Stun-healing powers/drugs interesting out of combat.

- Klaus

[Vulcan]

Usually STUN drugs are done as drains, bought down the time chart a level or two (or more?).

[Klaus Mogensen]

Falling, car crashes, etc. should do the same damage as if an object of the appropriate size (human, car w/passengers) hit with the appropriate speed. Speed damage should scale logarhythmically (sp!) (Damn it! I can't spell anymore.)

Basically, this means that you'll being doing STR damage, and not some obscene Falling damage. Same with Move-by and Move-through.
I agree that it would be nice to have consistent damage reasoning. Right now, it's a crude mix of logarithm, square roots and linear. The question is if it can be done without making damage rules too complex.

Let's see if we can derive consistent logarithmical damage
What you can lift scales exponentially with STR, which suggests that the energy you deliver in a punch does the same.

The energy required to lift a mass a certain height off the ground is E = mgh (mass times gravity times height). With a gravity of 10 m/s^2 and a height of 1 m, E = m x 10 m^2/s^2, and log2(E) = log2(m) + k, where k is a constant and log2 is the logarithm based on 2 rather than 10. From this we derive that DC = STR/5 = log2(E) - k. The value of k depends on units of measurement and on the zero-point of STR.

Now to derive velocity-based damage from this. The kinetic energy of a moving object is E = ½mv^2, so log2(E) = log2(m) + 2log2(v) -1. (log2(½) = -1). So the DC from impacts is DC = log2(m) + 2log2(v) -(1+k). This seems simple enough: Damage from impacts is the STR needed to lift an object plus a value derived from velocity minus a constant. The last two items can be put into a velocity table, so we have DC = (STR to lift)/5 + Velocity Index. This does give the odd result that very heavy objects will do damage even without moving, but if this formula is only used for moving objects, that problem vanishes.

Now to find the constant 1+k. Let's make the assumption that a normal human (100 kg, STR 10) does equal damage when punching someone and when running into them with 10 kph. So DC 2 = 2 + 2log2(10 kph) - (1+k), from which we get that Velocity Index = 0 for 10 kph. Using Mass as the STR required to lift something of a given mass and VI for velocity Index, we get:

Velocity DC = Mass/5 + VI

Velocity . . VI
10 kph . . . 0
20 kph . . . 2
40 kph . . . 4
80 kph . . . 6
160 kph . . 8
320 kph . 10
640 kph . 12
Etc.

A rough conversion is 4"/phase = 5 kph (assuming SPD 4 as standard).

How do we add STR damage and velocity damage in e.g. Move Through? You can't really add logarithms. A good first-order approximation is to ignore the lower of two parts; i.e. you either do STR damage (move and attack normally) or velocity damage (DC = Mass/5 + VI).

Thus, if you're hit by a small car (1600 kg) doing 80 kph, you will take 12d6 damage - half from Mass, half from velocity. If you're hit by a normal-sized person running 32" (~ 40 kph), you take 6d6 - 2d6 from Mass, 4d6 from velocity.

When adding equal-sized attacks (like dynamite sticks), each doubling of the number of attacks will add +1d6. So 4 dynamite sticks will do +2d6 compared to a single stick, etc. Similarly, the Body of walls or DEF of armor should increase +1 per doubling of mass/thickness.

- Klaus

Edit: End of post was lost for some reason. It is now restored.

[AnotherSkip]

A sledgehammer applied to a boulder can break it, but a blowtorch won't do any damage at all. It seems quite obvious to me that objects don't have the same PD and ED. And I've never seen an example of "cinematic reality" in which fire hurts rock.


Indiana Jones second movie mini mine train scenes?

[AnotherSkip]

Oooh better yet, if the rock was really coal then yes it would have an effect.

Perhaps worse than intended.

[SteveZilla]

Oooh better yet, if the rock was really coal then yes it would have an effect.

Perhaps worse than intended.


Like here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_Mountain), here (http://www.offroaders.com/album/centralia/the-story.htm), and here (http://johnhbradley.com/pictures2.asp?var=070707darvaza) (to name a few)?

[BobGreenwade]

Oooh better yet, if the rock was really coal then yes it would have an effect.

Perhaps worse than intended.

Like here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_Mountain), here (http://www.offroaders.com/album/centralia/the-story.htm), and here (http://johnhbradley.com/pictures2.asp?var=070707darvaza) (to name a few)?In my graphic novel story (which I've recently finished, and begun sharing with my fellow Haymaker contributors) I have a scene where a superhero team that includes a flame-slinger is in a coal mine, and another character screws up in a way that causes the flame-slinger to lose her temper, with the result you can probably imagine. I don't know if this kind of thing should be covered in the core rulebook, but it's the kind of thing to keep in mind when dealing with environments.

[Talon]

I think that objects and characters should have the same defense stat or stats, whether it's PD/ED or DEF.

Falling and Velocity Damage: Having movement damage be linear is a huge problem in Hero. I think that making the Optional Velocity Damage rules mandatory (i.e., replacing the existing velocity rules) would be an excellent idea.

Moreover, if SPD and movement are decoupled, the fact that the character's Velocity Factor is based on Inches per Turn links in with the rest of the system much better.

Falling Damage and Defenses: Right now it's a little weird that high PD characters can fall moderate distances with no chance of taking BODY. Falls are very random --
toughness matters, sometimes it does not. I would like to see this randomness recognized in some manner, perhaps like this:

Falling Roll = 6- roll, or use Breakfall if you have it. Even unconscious or incapacitated characters get the 6- roll.


Falling Roll Result Damage Effect
Make by half (Breakfall only) No damage [existing rule]
Make Apply damage as normal damage
Make (Breakfall only) x1/2 damage after defenses [new rule]
Miss Apply damage as normal damage
Miss by 5 STUN is AVLD; BODY is normal
Miss by 10 STUN and BODY are AVLD

Modifiers: -1 / 2" fallen

AVLD: Defense is resistant PD without a "Real Armor" Limitation.

Sleeping in Armor: There should be rules for this kind of thing. The rule in (1st Edition) FH is pretty vague (-3 DEX, maybe).

[BobGreenwade]

Since much about Senses, particularly normal senses and perception, is currently in the Environment section, I'll post this here, even though it affects other sections of the book (such as Powers A-E and Combat).

The name of the Smell/Taste Sense Group is just a tad awkward, at least for typing it out -- the slash isn't that hard to reach on the keyboard, of course, but it makes for unwieldy hyphenation. Plus, it's the only one with a slash.

I know that biologists tend to refer to these as chemical senses, but the term Chemical Sense Group could be a tad confusing (at first glance it looks like it has to do with special Detects). But I think Olfactory Sense Group would work; most people have at least an inkling of what the word olfactory means, and those who don't can figure it out from context.

[SteveZilla]

Falling and Velocity Damage: Having movement damage be linear is a huge problem in Hero. I think that making the Optional Velocity Damage rules mandatory (i.e., replacing the existing velocity rules) would be an excellent idea.

I would tend to agree that linear damage from velocity is not always optimal in a game system.

Falling Damage and Defenses: Right now it's a little weird that high PD characters can fall moderate distances with no chance of taking BODY. Falls are very random --
toughness matters, sometimes it does not. I would like to see this randomness recognized in some manner, perhaps like this:

Falling Roll = 6- roll, or use Breakfall if you have it. Even unconscious or incapacitated characters get the 6- roll.


Falling Roll Result Damage Effect
Make by half (Breakfall only) No damage [existing rule]
Make Apply damage as normal damage
Make (Breakfall only) x1/2 damage after defenses [new rule]
Miss Apply damage as normal damage
Miss by 5 STUN is AVLD; BODY is normal
Miss by 10 STUN and BODY are AVLD

Modifiers: -1 / 2" fallen

AVLD: Defense is resistant PD without a "Real Armor" Limitation.


Reminds me of the variability of Teleportation Damage. If velocity damage is made non-linear, I think something like this would need to be implimented so falls stay about as dangerous as they are currently (maybe a little more).

Sleeping in Armor: There should be rules for this kind of thing. The rule in (1st Edition) FH is pretty vague (-3 DEX, maybe).

The mage may not sleep in armor, but if he's sleeping on cobblestones, he's not getting a good night's sleep either.

Because we have a Life Support governing Sleep (the amount of it), there should be some rules/guidelines for the more general conditions of not getting good/restful sleep, good but insufficient sleep, or just no sleep at all.

There could be Talents like Can Sleep Anywhere, and/or Can Sleep Though Anything that works to offset various poor conditions.

[BobGreenwade]

Because we have a Life Support governing Sleep (the amount of it), there should be some rules/guidelines for the more general conditions of not getting good/restful sleep, good but insufficient sleep, or just no sleep at all.

There could be Talents like Can Sleep Anywhere, and/or Can Sleep Though Anything that works to offset various poor conditions.I really, really like this idea. Really. A whole lot. :thumbup:

[PhilFleischmann]

I would tend to agree that linear damage from velocity is not always optimal in a game system.
Well, looking at actual physics, the kinetic energy of a falling object is directly proportional (linearly) to the disance fallen.

But, yes, falls are hardly ever as dangerous as they should be. Consider that no matter how tough your skin is, if your body is moving at 60 mph and comes to an instant stop, your internal organs are impacting your tough skin with just as much force as they would with weaker skin. Or your squishy body is impacting the inside of your armor, no matter how tough your armor is.

I'd prefer to call falling damage Penetrating (or maybe some "worse" form of it) it ignores to some extent any PD you may have. Maybe there coulf be a Life Support entry for "internal toughness" that protects you from falling damage. An earth elemental or golem that has no internal organs wouldn't me hurt that much from a sudden impact with the ground.

[Chris Goodwin]

Well, looking at actual physics,

That's the problem right there. Despite the close physical resemblance, the HERO System is not in fact a physics textbook but a roleplaying game of cinematic action.

[PhilFleischmann]

That's the problem right there. Despite the close physical resemblance, the HERO System is not in fact a physics textbook but a roleplaying game of cinematic action.
I must strongly disagree. Physics is important, and should be considered as the "baseline" for any game that has at least some reasonable amount of simulation in it. Once this baseline of reality is established, the cinematicness can be added on as desired - both for flavor, and for simplicity. (and you can't get much simpler than linear falling damage.)

Remember that "cinematic" is a moving target. The degree of realism varies between genres, between settings, between subgenres, and even between authors/GMs in the same setting and subgenre, and also between different works/games with the same author/GM - even when in the same setting/genre/subgenre.

"Cinematic" is not at one fixed level. Therefore, the only baseline that we have in common to start from is reality.

[Chris Goodwin]

I must strongly disagree. Physics is important, and should be considered as the "baseline" for any game that has at least some reasonable amount of simulation in it. Once this baseline of reality is established, the cinematicness can be added on as desired - both for flavor, and for simplicity. (and you can't get much simpler than linear falling damage.)

Remember that "cinematic" is a moving target. The degree of realism varies between genres, between settings, between subgenres, and even between authors/GMs in the same setting and subgenre, and also between different works/games with the same author/GM - even when in the same setting/genre/subgenre.

"Cinematic" is not at one fixed level. Therefore, the only baseline that we have in common to start from is reality.

Agreed, but the place to start is not by writing up reality to five decimal places.

By starting with "reality" and adding "cinematicness," you get GURPS. IMO, HERO goes the other way.

[CTaylor]

What you want is plausibility or "believability" within the framework of the game setting. Presume magic and dragons and so on for the setting then make it work as well as possible without insulting anyone or being just goofy (unless that's the genre). Realism is a terrible metric for a game system.

[PhilFleischmann]

Agreed, but the place to start is not by writing up reality to five decimal places.
True. Fortunately, no one is proposing that.

By starting with "reality" and adding "cinematicness," you get GURPS. IMO, HERO goes the other way.
I don't see what you mean by this. My point is that by starting with cinematicness and trying to add reality, you get a convoluted mess. Western cinematicness and Golden-Age comic book cinematicness are probably the opposite ends of the cinematicness spectrum.

Realism is a terrible metric for a game system.
Unfortunately, it's the only one we have.

Here's another way to look at it:

Start with reality.
Simplify it - remove cumbersome details, so that we're left with a playable and consistant game system.
Add in the elements of the fantastic - super powers, aliens, magic, monsters, sci-fi technology, etc.
Modify the system further (usually this involves more simplification), to achieve the desired level of cinematicness for the particular genre/setting/game.

[SteveZilla]

Well, looking at actual physics, the kinetic energy of a falling object is directly proportional (linearly) to the disance fallen.

But, yes, falls are hardly ever as dangerous as they should be. Consider that no matter how tough your skin is, if your body is moving at 60 mph and comes to an instant stop, your internal organs are impacting your tough skin with just as much force as they would with weaker skin. Or your squishy body is impacting the inside of your armor, no matter how tough your armor is.

I'd prefer to call falling damage Penetrating (or maybe some "worse" form of it) it ignores to some extent any PD you may have. Maybe there coulf be a Life Support entry for "internal toughness" that protects you from falling damage. An earth elemental or golem that has no internal organs wouldn't me hurt that much from a sudden impact with the ground.

IMO by this reasoning we would wind up with a game system that enforces damage on a Speedster every time he did a hard turn at high speed.

[CTaylor]

Unfortunately, it's the only one we have.

I would argue that what you want is plausibility and believability, not realism. We don't want games to be realistic, we want them to be plausible, given the setting.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I would argue that what you want is plausibility and believability, not realism. We don't want games to be realistic, we want them to be plausible, given the setting.
Which setting? Hero is supposed to be a generic system. Given a great variety of genres, styles and settings, reality seems like the logical baseline - unless striving for realism makes the rules too unwieldy.

- Klaus

[PhilFleischmann]

IMO by this reasoning we would wind up with a game system that enforces damage on a Speedster every time he did a hard turn at high speed.
By whose reasoning? Certainly not mine. Please don't put words in my mouth.

[PhilFleischmann]

I would argue that what you want is plausibility and believability, not realism. We don't want games to be realistic, we want them to be plausible, given the setting.
Fair enough. I think that's just semantics. If you like, feel free to replace the word "realism" with "plausibility" or "believability" if you like, or use one of my favorite words: "verisimilitude."

[steamteck]

I would argue that what you want is plausibility and believability, not realism. We don't want games to be realistic, we want them to be plausible, given the setting.

I understand what you mean . A larger than life Heroic setting not what would happen if real people tried these things PCs do in our real world...
I get your GURP statement also. GURPS is a kind of closer to life scale system that can be forced bigger with a little effort. HERO's natural state is cinematic or larger than life. You want it to have its own larger than life plausibility and believability not the nuts and bolts of the real world.

[SteveZilla]

By whose reasoning? Certainly not mine. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I did not intend to put words in your mouth -- just to make a logical extrapolation from what you were proposing. Specifically, these portions:

Consider that no matter how tough your skin is, if your body is moving at 60 mph and comes to an instant stop, your internal organs are impacting your tough skin with just as much force as they would with weaker skin.

I'd prefer to call falling damage Penetrating (or maybe some "worse" form of it) it ignores to some extent any PD you may have. Maybe there could be a Life Support entry for "internal toughness" that protects you from falling damage. An earth elemental or golem that has no internal organs wouldn't me hurt that much from a sudden impact with the ground.

If sudden stops (like falling) cause damage in part because of the "internal organs are impacting your insides" special effect, then (to me) it stands to reason that when a Speedster is running at "falling velocity" (say ~30") and makes a hard turn, their internal organs would impact their insides just as hard as if they had taken a fall.

[PhilFleischmann]

I did not intend to put words in your mouth -- just to make a logical extrapolation from what you were proposing. Specifically, these portions:



If sudden stops (like falling) cause damage in part because of the "internal organs are impacting your insides" special effect, then (to me) it stands to reason that when a Speedster is running at "falling velocity" (say ~30") and makes a hard turn, their internal organs would impact their insides just as hard as if they had taken a fall.
I don't know why you'd come to such a conclusion. Starting from reality, "speedsters" don't exist. And yes, a person moving horizontally at terminal velocity who makes a sudden stop or an instant 90-degree turn would tkae damage just like someone hitting the ground at terminal velocity. That's reality. Starting from reality, we can then add in elements of the fantastic, such as superpowers and magic and aliens, etc., which don't necessarily follow these rules of reality. For example, a speedster can move his legs so fast that he can run at hundreds of miles per hour. It would be perfectly reasonable to conclude that if his feet and legs can take such rapidly repeating impacts, that the rest of his body can take such rapid impacts as well. Or it could be justified that his body is infused with "The Speed Force" - his body acts and reacts in sped-up time: if a distance can be run in 1000th the time it would take a normal person, a 1/100 of a second sudden stop to a normal person could feel like a 10 second stop to him.

[SteveZilla]

But should he have to buy a Life Suppport: Internal Toughness to actually have that?

I dunno, perhaps I'm missing the point -- it just seemed inconsistent to me to allow/disallow PD depending upon the special effect of the damage (or of having the LS: IT).

[Vulcan]

I don't know why you'd come to such a conclusion. Starting from reality, "speedsters" don't exist.

And that is where the problem begins.

And yes, a person moving horizontally at terminal velocity who makes a sudden stop or an instant 90-degree turn would tkae damage just like someone hitting the ground at terminal velocity. That's reality. Starting from reality, we can then add in elements of the fantastic, such as superpowers and magic and aliens, etc., which don't necessarily follow these rules of reality. For example, a speedster can move his legs so fast that he can run at hundreds of miles per hour. It would be perfectly reasonable to conclude that if his feet and legs can take such rapidly repeating impacts, that the rest of his body can take such rapid impacts as well. Or it could be justified that his body is infused with "The Speed Force" - his body acts and reacts in sped-up time: if a distance can be run in 1000th the time it would take a normal person, a 1/100 of a second sudden stop to a normal person could feel like a 10 second stop to him.

But is said speedster, whose body is immune to such impacts, thereby immune to falling damage? For that matter, would any character who can reach a speed of 360"/turn (30"/segment, terminal velocity in HEROS) be immune to falling damage?

Actually modeling reality into a game is the beginning of the system, not the system itself. For a cinematic/superhero game, reality has to give way to genere conventions.

[Hugh Neilson]

IMO by this reasoning we would wind up with a game system that enforces damage on a Speedster every time he did a hard turn at high speed.

By whose reasoning? Certainly not mine. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I believe IMO stands for "In My Opinion", so it would be SteveZilla's reasoning - not putting words in your mouth, but extrapolating from your premise that the system should place realism on a higher standard.

The explanations subsequently provided nail it - if sudden deceleration or acceleration of a living person causes damage, then this means characters with enhanced movement speed take such damage. If a fall at 6" velocity does 6d6 Penetrating damage, a normal person running full out and then stopping on a dime (or hitting a wall), or turning sharply, should take the same damage in the same manner. As knockback and move throughs are also velocity damage, they should have the same advantage.

If a speedster who can run at terminal velocity is immune to these effects fro, his own speed, then "realistically" he must be tough enough to withstand them when applied from an outside source.

If Sun Boy has life support allowing him to stand in the heart of the sun with no ill effects, he can't possibly be injured by a house fire or a flamethrower - these are far less hot than the heart of the sun.

I get lots of realism in reality, thanks. Here, a person occasionally survives a fall from an aircraft, and another might fall less than 6' and die (that's slipping in the shower - your head fell less than 6' unless you are quite tall). Games make compromises to reality for playability. The former must, in my opinion, give way to the latter.

[BobGreenwade]

But should he have to buy a Life Suppport: Internal Toughness to actually have that?

I dunno, perhaps I'm missing the point -- it just seemed inconsistent to me to allow/disallow PD depending upon the special effect of the damage (or of having the LS: IT).I think the point is that not all defenses should protect against falls just because they're defenses. Maybe an Advantage should be called for in some cases, or a Limitation in others, but it has bothered me that nearly any game system (with, yes, a few exceptions) doesn't recognize this basic fact of reality.

[PhilFleischmann]

But should he have to buy a Life Suppport: Internal Toughness to actually have that?
Off hand, I'd say no. It's a comic-book superhero game, after all. But an individual GM can make that call for their games depending (as I feel like I've already said several times) on genre, setting, and the desired amount/type of "cinematicness."

I dunno, perhaps I'm missing the point -- it just seemed inconsistent to me to allow/disallow PD depending upon the special effect of the damage (or of having the LS: IT).
It seems you are missing my point. Whether or not defenses count vs various SFX has nothing to do with the point. It's just an example of realistic consistancy. You can ignore it, change it, add to it, etc., based on the individual game. The point is to start with a set of rules that are reasonably consistant with reality, because a rule set that reflects Iron-Age superhero comic book reality doesn't have the same type of cinematicness as is seen in other types of source material, nor is it necessarily even the same as the type of game any give GM wants to run, or player wants to play in.

[PhilFleischmann]

And that is where the problem begins.
What problem?

But is said speedster, whose body is immune to such impacts, thereby immune to falling damage? For that matter, would any character who can reach a speed of 360"/turn (30"/segment, terminal velocity in HEROS) be immune to falling damage?
That would be a GM call.

Actually modeling reality into a game is the beginning of the system, not the system itself. For a cinematic/superhero game, reality has to give way to genere conventions.
Exactly. The problem then is that genre conventions are not consistent with each other. Not accross different genres, nor different games in the same genre. The system shouldn't dictate what genre conventions to use. Nor should it be based on specific assumptions of specific genre conventions. Yes, reality should be "the beginning of the system," giving a baseline to which genre conventions can be "added".

I've never seen characters in any genre of source material jumping off of heights, knowing that they won't be seriously harmed. It's not a genre convention in any genre that I know of. Sure, the occasional really tough brick might be able to pull it off, but nobody says the in-game equivalent of, "It's only twenty meters to the ground, I won't take any BODY damage if I fall, and probably not enough STUN to stun me. So I'll just jump off. It's faster than taking the elevator."

[Hugh Neilson]

I've never seen characters in any genre of source material jumping off of heights, knowing that they won't be seriously harmed. It's not a genre convention in any genre that I know of. Sure, the occasional really tough brick might be able to pull it off, but nobody says the in-game equivalent of, "It's only twenty meters to the ground, I won't take any BODY damage if I fall, and probably not enough STUN to stun me. So I'll just jump off. It's faster than taking the elevator."

Giant Sized X-Men #1, Colossus walks out of their aircraft. His reply to Storm's exclamation that he can't fly? "No, but I can land with the best of them"

No danger - they were sending one flier and one non-flyer for each group, with the last two non-fliers landing the craft.

[PhilFleischmann]

I believe IMO stands for "In My Opinion", so it would be SteveZilla's reasoning
And "this reasoning" refers to the reasoning in my post. It's his opinion of what my reasoning leads to.

- not putting words in your mouth, but extrapolating from your premise that the system should place realism on a higher standard.
That's not my premise at all. My premise is that realism should be the baseline. There's no "higher" or "lower" standard here.

The explanations subsequently provided nail it - if sudden deceleration or acceleration of a living person causes damage, then this means characters with enhanced movement speed take such damage. If a fall at 6" velocity does 6d6 Penetrating damage, a normal person running full out and then stopping on a dime (or hitting a wall), or turning sharply, should take the same damage in the same manner. As knockback and move throughs are also velocity damage, they should have the same advantage.
Yes, that's what would happen in *reality*.

If a speedster who can run at terminal velocity is immune to these effects fro, his own speed, then "realistically" he must be tough enough to withstand them when applied from an outside source.
If that's what the GM decides, fine. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, since I've never seen a speedster in a comic book hurt by his own sudden accelerations/decelerations/turns.

Games make compromises to reality for playability. The former must, in my opinion, give way to the latter.
Of course. That was the first part of what I said before. Reality has to be greatly simplified to make a playable game. But if the simplification results in an unreasonable lack of falling damage, that's a problem. It seems to me a more logical and consistant approach to start with reality and add in the cinematicness, than to start with cinematicness and try to retro-fit some elements of reality back in. It seems to me the latter approach leads to more compication and hidden loopholes and confusion.

[Hugh Neilson]

If that's what the GM decides, fine. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, since I've never seen a speedster in a comic book hurt by his own sudden accelerations/decelerations/turns.

Yet they tend to still be hurt by a sudden stop they didn't plan. Why would that be?

[PhilFleischmann]

Giant Sized X-Men #1, Colossus walks out of their aircraft. His reply to Storm's exclamation that he can't fly? "No, but I can land with the best of them"

No danger - they were sending one flier and one non-flyer for each group, with the last two non-fliers landing the craft.
Yes, that would be an example of the really tough brick that I mentioned.

[David Blue]

I think the point is that not all defenses should protect against falls just because they're defenses. Maybe an Advantage should be called for in some cases, or a Limitation in others, but it has bothered me that nearly any game system (with, yes, a few exceptions) doesn't recognize this basic fact of reality.
There is already an excellent way to simulate this: take a Vulnerability.

If Inner Toughness is needed to simulate activities normal to superheroics, so that everybody from Tony Stark (flying as Iron Man) to the Incredible Hulk (leaping and landing) to Quicksilver (running) to Spider-Man (swinging with slingshot moves and surviving falls) can function, but a few characters, contrary to genre, don't have that ability, then they should get points for taking damage in a situation where others don't.

This is true for many characters besides superheroes. What is everybody's first memory of Selene the beautiful vampire in the Underworld movies? Her taking the express route from her high perch to the street, and this was obviously a common ability in her world.

When the action in a movie is going to be wild enough, anybody who's anybody makes light of violent accelerations and decelerations. That seems to be how it works.

[Chris Goodwin]

Of course. That was the first part of what I said before. Reality has to be greatly simplified to make a playable game. But if the simplification results in an unreasonable lack of falling damage, that's a problem. It seems to me a more logical and consistant approach to start with reality and add in the cinematicness, than to start with cinematicness and try to retro-fit some elements of reality back in. It seems to me the latter approach leads to more compication and hidden loopholes and confusion.

Why focus on falling damage?

In source material, characters routinely shoot destructive energies from their eyes. If we were strictly looking at physics, either their brains would cook or their eyes would be blasted out through the backs of their heads.

We have characters who get their powers from of their DNA, wielding energies that would scramble and destroy DNA.

We have characters who can fly and ships that can travel faster than light. We have damage of improvised weapons top out at max DEF + BODY (what happens when that faster-than-light ship hits a fleck of dust? How much DEF + BODY do you think that fleck of dust has?)

Knockback.

Action heroes routinely surf explosions out of buildings, to fall from great heights (heh, falling) and get back up.

This game was designed from the ground up to emulate these sorts of things. Not to strictly account for every penny worth of falling damage. If you want that, go play GURPS.

[PhilFleischmann]

Why focus on falling damage?
I'm not the one who brought up falling damage. I was just using it as an example. In many, and probably most, genres, it is not appropriate for characters to jump off of great heights, knowing that they won't take much damage at all. (We used to do this all the time back when we played that other system. "I've got 100 hit points, I'll only take about 20 from this fall, which I can heal back with very little effort, so why not just jump?" And it wasn't appropriate to that genre, either.)

In source material, characters routinely shoot destructive energies from their eyes. ...
We have characters who get their powers from of their DNA, wielding energies that would scramble and destroy DNA.
We have characters who can fly and ships that can travel faster than light. ...
Knockback.

Action heroes routinely surf explosions out of buildings, to fall from great heights (heh, falling) and get back up.
Most of those things don't have any impact on other aspects of the reality modeled by the game. You shoot energy beams out of your eyes, you just buy the EB, and define it that way. It doesn't cause any other contradiction in the game.

This game was designed from the ground up to emulate these sorts of things. Not to strictly account for every penny worth of falling damage. If you want that, go play GURPS.
Well I think HERO needs to be more than just Champions. Not all genres and games emulate these sorts of things. The system needs a way of handling some things more realistically (such as falling damage) when that's appropriate to the style of the particular game.

[Vulcan]

Well I think HERO needs to be more than just Champions. Not all genres and games emulate these sorts of things. The system needs a way of handling some things more realistically (such as falling damage) when that's appropriate to the style of the particular game.

That is an excellent point. What is appropriate for Champions is not always appropriate for HEROS as a whole.

For fixing falling specifically... an optional rule involving a roll for a disability (say, a turned ankle or broken leg) if BODY damage is taken from a fall?

[Markdoc]

I think the point is that not all defenses should protect against falls just because they're defenses. Maybe an Advantage should be called for in some cases, or a Limitation in others, but it has bothered me that nearly any game system (with, yes, a few exceptions) doesn't recognize this basic fact of reality.

Shrug. Obsessing over falls when you have characters who can survive a punch to the stomach, that would shatter reinforced concrete and fling a human body 10 metres backwards or a 90 degree turn at Mach 2 seems silly to me. Yes, you are right, it's a violation of real physics. As pointed out "realism" really doesn't scan well into any game system I have ever seen. Even gritty, heroic level games don't match terribly well with reality - when was the last time someone in such a game tore a tendon running and had to have 8 months rest and physiotherapy to walk normally again? Died from a 2 meter fall? Caught a cold from an all-night stakeout? Got the 'flu? Had problems with the IRS?

Internal consistency is (I think) important. Realism? Not so much.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Giant Sized X-Men #1, Colossus walks out of their aircraft. His reply to Storm's exclamation that he can't fly? "No, but I can land with the best of them"

Jakeela does the exact same thing in Planetary (Monster Island Episode), and the Thing in FF, Kevin Matchstick in Mage*, etc. I've seen it in other places too. It's a fairly common trope for Bricks to ignore falling damage and just leap off tall buildings.

cheers, Mark

* I do like the way that when he does it Matchstick closes his eyes and says "Can't be hurt, can't be hurt, can't be hurt..." all the way to the bottom.

[Markdoc]

Well I think HERO needs to be more than just Champions. Not all genres and games emulate these sorts of things. The system needs a way of handling some things more realistically (such as falling damage) when that's appropriate to the style of the particular game.

This, OTOH, is fair enough - in my fantasy games, I ignore the effect of real armour on falling damage (that's part of the real armour limitation, IMO). Same for Combat Luck. But that's merely out of a desire to prevent PCs from leaping off tall objects. I'm not kidding myself it's particularly realistic.

cheers, Mark

[Klaus Mogensen]

The falling damage issue could be handled by saying that damage from falls and other sudden stops count as armor piercing.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

This, OTOH, is fair enough - in my fantasy games, I ignore the effect of real armour on falling damage (that's part of the real armour limitation, IMO). Same for Combat Luck. But that's merely out of a desire to prevent PCs from leaping off tall objects. I'm not kidding myself it's particularly realistic.

I like both of these. Real armor does not protect you from a fall, so the Real Armor limitation removing that protection seems more than reasonable. Combat Luck is pretty ill-defined anyway, and that "luck-based" limitation could reasonably leave out falling damage - how does the impact "luckily just graze you"? Combat Luck probably needs its parameters defined on a game by game basis anyway.

The falling damage issue could be handled by saying that damage from falls and other sudden stops count as armor piercing.

So a character whose PD comes from being spongy and soft should take extra damage from falling because his defenses aren't hardened? I think the rules we have now - PD protects from falling damage - work fine. A character whose defenses should not protect from falling damage can limit them accordingly.

[Tonio]

Combat Luck is pretty ill-defined anyway, and that "luck-based" limitation could reasonably leave out falling damage - how does the impact "luckily just graze you"? Combat Luck probably needs its parameters defined on a game by game basis anyway.

I dunno, I would seriously consider any luck-based defenses when adjudicating falling damage. Falling on your feet hurts considerably less than falling on your head, and falling damage appears to be pretty luck based to begin with, what with accounts of people falling from amazing heights and suffering no more than scratches, versus people dying from relatively low heights.

Combat Luck defined as something like near-precognitive reactions wouldn't apply, but actual luck-based ones would (e.g. the character was lucky enough to fall in such a way that his more malleable parts deformed and absorbed most of the damage, without letting his bones and more fragile organs be hurt much).

A big "YMMV" sign on all this, though... and I would certainly agree Combat Luck has to be looked at in more detail.

[Hugh Neilson]

I dunno, I would seriously consider any luck-based defenses when adjudicating falling damage. Falling on your feet hurts considerably less than falling on your head, and falling damage appears to be pretty luck based to begin with, what with accounts of people falling from amazing heights and suffering no more than scratches, versus people dying from relatively low heights.

Combat Luck defined as something like near-precognitive reactions wouldn't apply, but actual luck-based ones would (e.g. the character was lucky enough to fall in such a way that his more malleable parts deformed and absorbed most of the damage, without letting his bones and more fragile organs be hurt much).

A big "YMMV" sign on all this, though... and I would certainly agree Combat Luck has to be looked at in more detail.

I'm pretty much convinced that the -1/2 "luck based" limitation should be done away with in favour of a series of possible limitations the character might wish to apply, or the GM might require. Some possibilities might include a need to be aware of the attack, a requirement the defender be conscious and mobile, not against self-inflicted damage, or what have you. "Luck based" is not only very subjective, it's also not how most games seem to run the ability anyway.

[Tonio]

I'm pretty much convinced that the -1/2 "luck based" limitation should be done away with in favour of a series of possible limitations the character might wish to apply, or the GM might require. Some possibilities might include a need to be aware of the attack, a requirement the defender be conscious and mobile, not against self-inflicted damage, or what have you. "Luck based" is not only very subjective, it's also not how most games seem to run the ability anyway.

Yup. I've mostly seen "Combat Luck" to be used as a conscious ability involving lightning-fast reflexes and such.

[Markdoc]

I dunno, I would seriously consider any luck-based defenses when adjudicating falling damage. Falling on your feet hurts considerably less than falling on your head, and falling damage appears to be pretty luck based to begin with, what with accounts of people falling from amazing heights and suffering no more than scratches, versus people dying from relatively low heights.

Combat Luck defined as something like near-precognitive reactions wouldn't apply, but actual luck-based ones would (e.g. the character was lucky enough to fall in such a way that his more malleable parts deformed and absorbed most of the damage, without letting his bones and more fragile organs be hurt much).

A big "YMMV" sign on all this, though... and I would certainly agree Combat Luck has to be looked at in more detail.

I wouldn't let special effect dictate immunity to such a common special effect as "falling" - I tend to see it not as a luck based power (for that, buy luck) as a special effect of armour (despite the name). In other words, it's Combat luck. It protects you in combat, not when attacked while asleep, tied up, or similarly "unable to actively avoid damage". The rules state Combat Luck depends on a character’s ability to dodge, block, or otherwise avoid damage, it doesn’t work if he’s asleep, unconscious, or deliberately throws himself in the way of an attack and I'd put plummeting in that category.

Edit: pretty much what Hugh said. For many years, I've used two forms of defence like this in heroic games. One of them is pretty much combat luck as written (though we used to call it "superdodge") and the other is "toughness". They cost the same, except that superdodge is limited by the fact that it only protects against things you can actually dodge and toughness always works, but always lets the first point of BOD damage through (it converts a more serious wound to a flesh wound, in fine cinematic style)

cheers, Mark

[Tonio]

I wouldn't let special effect dictate immunity to such a common special effect as "falling" - I tend to see it not as a luck based power (for that, buy luck) as a special effect of armour (despite the name). In other words, it's Combat luck. It protects you in combat, not when attacked while asleep, tied up, or similarly "unable to actively avoid damage". The rules state and I'd put plummeting in that category.

cheers, Mark

By "luck-based" I meant the "Luck Based" Limitation which is used to build Combat Luck. I was saying I thought it could concievably apply: the character could twist and turn, cat-like, to fall in such a way as to partially avoid falling damage (i.e. to apply defenses with the "Luck Based" Limitation to falling damage).

[Klaus Mogensen]

So a character whose PD comes from being spongy and soft should take extra damage from falling because his defenses aren't hardened?
A spongy and soft character probably has Damage Reduction, which would work against falling damage.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

A spongy and soft character probably has Damage Reduction, which would work against falling damage.

He likely has damage reduction and PD. Hitting him with a baseball bat will do nothing, not 1/4 damage.

[BobGreenwade]

Shrug. Obsessing over falls when you have characters who can survive a punch to the stomach, that would shatter reinforced concrete and fling a human body 10 metres backwards or a 90 degree turn at Mach 2 seems silly to me. Yes, you are right, it's a violation of real physics. As pointed out "realism" really doesn't scan well into any game system I have ever seen. Even gritty, heroic level games don't match terribly well with reality - when was the last time someone in such a game tore a tendon running and had to have 8 months rest and physiotherapy to walk normally again? Died from a 2 meter fall? Caught a cold from an all-night stakeout? Got the 'flu? Had problems with the IRS?

Internal consistency is (I think) important. Realism? Not so much.The issue isn't really "realism," but "verisimilitude" -- "realism" is just easier to say, and to type. Or, perhaps, "believability."

Even in most source material (certainly anything I can think of), someone wearing plate armor will still die after falling off a cliff just as easily as someone wearing no armor at all. That's the case whether people "can survive a punch to the stomach, that would shatter reinforced concrete and fling a human body 10 metres backwards or a 90 degree turn at Mach 2" or not -- and the majority of settings do not have that feature.

[Tonio]

The issue isn't really "realism," but "verisimilitude" -- "realism" is just easier to say, and to type. Or, perhaps, "believability."

Even in most source material (certainly anything I can think of), someone wearing plate armor will still die after falling off a cliff just as easily as someone wearing no armor at all. That's the case whether people "can survive a punch to the stomach, that would shatter reinforced concrete and fling a human body 10 metres backwards or a 90 degree turn at Mach 2" or not -- and the majority of settings do not have that feature.

But that's because falling off a cliff does enough damage to kill you, even after applying "plate armor" defenses.

The problem, I think, is that source material doesn't have a lot of instances of "light" falling damage, which one could inspect to see whether armored characters were uninjured while non-armored ones weren't. It's either a lot of falling damage (enough to kill even through defenses), or nearly no falling damage (not enough to seriously injure non-armored targets).

[SteveZilla]

I dunno, I would seriously consider any luck-based defenses when adjudicating falling damage. Falling on your feet hurts considerably less than falling on your head, and falling damage appears to be pretty luck based to begin with, what with accounts of people falling from amazing heights and suffering no more than scratches, versus people dying from relatively low heights.

Combat Luck defined as something like near-precognitive reactions wouldn't apply, but actual luck-based ones would (e.g. the character was lucky enough to fall in such a way that his more malleable parts deformed and absorbed most of the damage, without letting his bones and more fragile organs be hurt much).

A big "YMMV" sign on all this, though... and I would certainly agree Combat Luck has to be looked at in more detail.

Very often, for those who survive very long falls, they have one or more mitigating conditions. In-Game this would be just the GM taking that into account and reducing the amount of dice or applying a fraction to the result of the dice a-la Damage Reduction.

[minor off-topic rant]Combat Luck (the talent) should go away. There's too many problems with it. for example, what happens if the attack isn't vs PD or ED?[/m.o.t.r.]

[Chris Goodwin]

The issue isn't really "realism," but "verisimilitude" -- "realism" is just easier to say, and to type. Or, perhaps, "believability."

Even in most source material (certainly anything I can think of), someone wearing plate armor will still die after falling off a cliff just as easily as someone wearing no armor at all. That's the case whether people "can survive a punch to the stomach, that would shatter reinforced concrete and fling a human body 10 metres backwards or a 90 degree turn at Mach 2" or not -- and the majority of settings do not have that feature.

But that's because falling off a cliff does enough damage to kill you, even after applying "plate armor" defenses.

The problem, I think, is that source material doesn't have a lot of instances of "light" falling damage, which one could inspect to see whether armored characters were uninjured while non-armored ones weren't. It's either a lot of falling damage (enough to kill even through defenses), or nearly no falling damage (not enough to seriously injure non-armored targets).

Very often, for those who survive very long falls, they have one or more mitigating conditions. In-Game this would be just the GM taking that into account and reducing the amount of dice or applying a fraction to the result of the dice a-la Damage Reduction.

[minor off-topic rant]Combat Luck (the talent) should go away. There's too many problems with it. for example, what happens if the attack isn't vs PD or ED?[/m.o.t.r.]

The HERO System is designed to emulate source material where people take long falls and go splat, or take long falls and land catlike on their feet. It's not designed to emulate source material where people occasionally take long falls, go splat and survive (like reality), or where people occasionally fall two meters and die (again, like reality).

[Markdoc]

The issue isn't really "realism," but "verisimilitude" -- "realism" is just easier to say, and to type. Or, perhaps, "believability."

Even in most source material (certainly anything I can think of), someone wearing plate armor will still die after falling off a cliff just as easily as someone wearing no armor at all. That's the case whether people "can survive a punch to the stomach, that would shatter reinforced concrete and fling a human body 10 metres backwards or a 90 degree turn at Mach 2" or not -- and the majority of settings do not have that feature.

They have equivalents, though. Falling comes up in this debate because we all know what falling is. You fall 20 metres and you'll likely die: we know that. And plate armour won't help. We know that too. However, being swatted by a giant's club, doing 12d6 normal damage and 12 metres of knockkback (or knockdown) is going to exert the same internal acceleration on your organs as the sudden stop at the end of the fall. Realistically, plate armour wouldn't help you there either. But I've never met a FH game where armour didn't protect against weapon impact even from massive weapons. That at least in part because we don't know - in the same inbuilt way we do with falling damage - what being swatted like a giant is. So we can accept that armour protects in that situation, even if realistically, it makes no sense at all.

As you noted, realism isn't the goal. Verisimilitude is. But they are NOT the same thing. I penalise armour against falling damage in a way I do not penalise other acceleration damage because our inbuilt knowledge of falling means not doing so hinders verisimilitude - it just feels wrong. But it's got little or nothing to do with realism which I blithely ignore in the case of other forms of damage.

cheers, Mark

[AnotherSkip]

I like both of these. Real armor does not protect you from a fall

I'm Sorry you just set off My BS Meter on the high end.

Having fallen in armor onto cement (kneecops locked together while walking) it DIDN'T HURT. I fall often enough to know that falling hurts, however I was pleasently surprised when upon falling this tiime it didn't hurt. Yes this was Loaner SCA Fighter gear, and a mere trip but there ya go, people die from those too.

Perhaps it only took off a little but it made a huge difference to MY perceptions.

If you just have metal plates with no padding then yes there is no protection.

if you have suficient impact resistance between you and the plating it doesn't hurt. Otherwise it does.

Note: Im not saying Jump out of a building with the armor on but If I had a choice between going out with and without armor I would jump out of a building with the armor especially at 20 feet or less!

the only reason WHY that i can think of that people think Armor does no good is because of D&D and a lack of experience with armor. Armor didn't help against falls there just like any other kind of damage, it only helped them miss you and the planet isn't gonna miss!

[Chris Goodwin]

The purpose of armor is to spread out the impact so that it's less likely to hurt you. Push on your arm; doesn't even leave a mark. Use the same amount of force, only push on your arm with a thumb tack....

Anyway, point being, yeah, agree with AnotherSkip.

I have yet to see proposals for not allowing armor to protect against falling damage that don't amount to ten pages of exceptions and "mother-may-I's" and freaking physics equations.

[nexus]

Perhaps count falling damage as Armor Piercing or Penetrating by default against Armor (and maybe other defenses) with the Real Armor limitation. The question is complicated, I agree.

[Hugh Neilson]

The purpose of armor is to spread out the impact so that it's less likely to hurt you. Push on your arm; doesn't even leave a mark. Use the same amount of force, only push on your arm with a thumb tack....

Anyway, point being, yeah, agree with AnotherSkip.

I have yet to see proposals for not allowing armor to protect against falling damage that don't amount to ten pages of exceptions and "mother-may-I's" and freaking physics equations.

Slip and skin your knee - armor likely helps. Fall from three stories? I anticipate much less help from that armor. So now we're even more complicated, needing to divide into damage types one can take, and damage types any given defensive device provides.

But I have to agree that some armor must protect against falls - otherwise, why wear a helmet when bicycling or rock climbing?

[Talon]

Helmets, I believe, are specifically designed to absorb impact damage by crumpling. I recall hearing about helmets in the 70s where the foam sprung back after being compressed by impact and so just transmitted the force straight to the skull.

[SteveZilla]

The purpose of armor is to spread out the impact so that it's less likely to hurt you. Push on your arm; doesn't even leave a mark. Use the same amount of force, only push on your arm with a thumb tack....

Anyway, point being, yeah, agree with AnotherSkip.

I have yet to see proposals for not allowing armor to protect against falling damage that don't amount to ten pages of exceptions and "mother-may-I's" and freaking physics equations.

Slip and skin your knee - armor likely helps. Fall from three stories? I anticipate much less help from that armor. So now we're even more complicated, needing to divide into damage types one can take, and damage types any given defensive device provides.

But I have to agree that some armor must protect against falls - otherwise, why wear a helmet when bicycling or rock climbing?

Helmets, I believe, are specifically designed to absorb impact damage by crumpling. I recall hearing about helmets in the 70s where the foam sprung back after being compressed by impact and so just transmitted the force straight to the skull.

There is more than one kind of "armor" in terms of protecting a person from impacts. Hard armor like a breastplate is good at stopping "small scale" impacts like weapons and small-caliber bullets. Padding armor is good at absorbing larger-scale impacts. Padding, modern bicycle (and all sports) helmets, and crumple zones in cars all work the same way -- they slow the impact and spread it out in duration. Hard armor works not to spread the duration, but the area. If the area is already your whole body, where's it going to spread *to*?

Many Medieval armors included both the hard and the padded armors into a single "suit" to get the best of both worlds, as it were.

[Chris Goodwin]

All that aside; if you want to build some type of protection that doesn't protect very well against falls, observe: +5 PD, +15 PD Not Vs. Falls.

You can build a form of protection that protects very well against falls: +20 PD, Only Vs. Falls.

What I'd like not to see is that the system treats falling as a special case. This should be a GM driven thing; a particular type of small-a armor within the setting doesn't protect as well from falls because it's built that way, not because falling itself is special.

[nexus]

I haven’t read the entire thread so if this has been discussed I apologize and if it's been beaten to death I apologize deeply. I think a useful tool to include in the 6th Edition core are examples of certain general environmental effects like various levels of storms, natural disasters and other effects. This would be a great assistance in constructing effects for Change Environment and general Adventuring detail.

[AnotherSkip]

Ooooh Maybe 6th should have Environmental HERO or The Ultimate Environment covering all the nifty things you can do with environmental effects.....



(heh, Volunteering for playtesting of Porn Hero... :))

[BobGreenwade]

Ooooh Maybe 6th should have Environmental HERO or The Ultimate Environment covering all the nifty things you can do with environmental effects.....Already proposed (by me) and rejected. :(