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. :(

[Filksinger]

OK, I hope this isn't too long, and I also hope it is useful. I haven't been around online HERO fans in quite a while, but some here will recognize me. Here's hoping my return will not disappoint. :nya:

I noticed that a great many of the posts in this thread were covering falling damage. However, most posts were about changing defenses against or the nature of falling damage. Few dealt with the oddly low-damage nature of short falls. And what I have never seen anybody but me point out is that falling in HERO is overly fast, as well, making super genre standard "hero saves falling victim" more difficult while reducing the rules resemblance to the real world.

I have a partial solution to the problem that makes shorter falls more damaging, and more correct in how fast people fall (giving more time for supers and magic users to perform rescues), without being overwhelming on greater falls. And it is very minor change, so small that it has virtually no effect whatsoever on anything except short falls.

In the real world, a man falling for 1 second will fall about 5 meters. In HERO, he will fall 10 meters. Thus, anybody with the power to do intervene in a game has considerably less time to do so than he would in the real world, over low to moderate height falls. To make matters worse, if he strikes the ground after falling from 10 meters in the air, he will hit at half the speed of the real world (resulting in taking half the damage in game), because he reaches the ground before he can get up to speed. Not only does a super hero have significantly less time to catch a victim of falling in the game world than in the real world, but he is also less relevant, as the victim is much more likely to survive than in the real world.

Now, I realize that HERO doesn't model the real world. Nevertheless, there are very few genres where it is normal for your average person to be able to jump out of a third-floor window, get up, rest for a minute, walk back upstairs, do it again, get up, rest for a minute, walk back upstairs, and do it again, and still have a better than 50/50 chance of living through it without medical help. A genre-neutral gaming system should reflect this.

So here's the change, and it is very simple and straightforward. It is easily made, and in fact changes nothing except the results of falling, and that only slightly except at fairly short heights.

Use real falling distances on the falling chart.


Right now, most people use the falling chart to determine falling
distance and velocity at impact. Most don't use an equation to figure out falling distance. For those people, nothing much changes, except that falling damage becomes somewhat more of a threat and falling takes a bit more time. They look up the numbers on the chart the same as they do now, and use them exactly the same as they do now.

Compare:

Falling chart:

Falling chart:

Segments Falling Falling Falling
Falling Velocity Distance Distance
(Current Rule) (Real World)
-------------------------------------------------------
1 5" 5" 3" (technically 2 1/2")
2 10" 15" 10"
3 15" 30" 23"
4 20" 50" 40"
5 25" 75" 63"
6 30" 105" 90"

Under 3" take 1d6 per meter.

Under 3" take 1d6 per meter.

Note that this change has almost all its significant effects within a falling distance of about 130 feet (40 meters) (20"). A perfectly average man falling 5 inches in the old method and taking 5d6 normal damage (unlikely to be fatal unless hit locations are used and he hits his head or vitals) now takes 10d6 (still probably not fatal, but could be even without hit location rules, and will reliably Impair or Disable a normal if hit location rules are use). However, a brick falling from a tall building will notice very little difference most of the time.

This change makes light armor less effective against falls, makes dangerous falls in the real world scary in the game world again, and has virtually no effect on anything outside this tiny part of the rules. Even falls from greater heights have only a small change, which becomes insignificant within distances that are just at the edge of real-world skyscrapers.

For those who do use equations, the real-world equation for distance fallen over time is, IMHO, about as hard as the game world equivalent.

So, what do you think?

[PhilFleischmann]

That sounds pretty good. And it works well with the idea of scrapping "inches" and just measuring everything in meters. So you won't even have to deal with the 2.5" for a one-segment fall.


Under 3" take 1d6 per meter.
OK, so how much damage for falls of more than 6 meters?

It seems to me that 1d6 per meter is a good rule for falls of *any* distance (up to the point where one reaches terminal velocity), because Kinetic Energy is directly proportional to distance fallen (again with the exception of reaching terminal velocity).

On a related note, HERO (and AFAIK, all other RPG systems) assumes that all ranged attacks land at essentially the same time as they are fired. A bullet travels from the gun to the target essentially instantaneously. For guns, that's usually good enough, but for other types of attacks, it doesn't necessarily make sense. An arrow fired from a bow for a long distance may take a few seconds (segments) to reach its target. Likewise for various other fantasy/super/sci-fi attacks, like fireballs. In many campaigns, particularly Champions games, this probably doesn't matter and can safely be ignored, as it can for games where most or all ranged attacks actually are near-instantaneous, like "lasers". But in some games, most notably fantasy, where there are longer-ranged attacks fired in a high arc, this could be incorporated in a realistic way, that has an impact on tactics. And the falling rules, if realistic enough, can be easily generalized into ballistics rules.

[SteveZilla]

Or one could make a custom limitation for attacks and call it "Hang Time(-?)".

[Filksinger]

OK, so how much damage for falls of more than 6 meters?

They've got that one covered already. Under the current rules, you take 1d6/1" up to 5", then beyond that you go up by 5d6 and fall to the next distance increment. So, at 2.5", or 3" if you are rounding off, you take 5d6 and hit within 1 segment. The next segment, you go up to 10d6 and then fall to the distance the chart says, just like the regular rules. The next segment, 15d6, and so on.



It seems to me that 1d6 per meter is a good rule for falls of *any* distance (up to the point where one reaches terminal velocity), because Kinetic Energy is directly proportional to distance fallen (again with the exception of reaching terminal velocity).


Kinetic energy isn't even close to being proportional to the distance fallen. The further you fall, the faster you are going, and the individual meters of distance matter less and less. Damage is determined by velocity, and the longer you fall, the greater the number of falling inches to get 1" of velocity.

Besides, if you made it 1d6/1" distance fallen, before you reached terminal velocity, you'd have people slamming into the ground for 60d6. Not only would even the toughest bricks in most games balk at that one, but a falling man would go right through several meters of reinforced concrete.



On a related note, HERO (and AFAIK, all other RPG systems) assumes that all ranged attacks land at essentially the same time as they are fired. A bullet travels from the gun to the target essentially instantaneously. For guns, that's usually good enough, but for other types of attacks, it doesn't necessarily make sense. An arrow fired from a bow for a long distance may take a few seconds (segments) to reach its target.

At what range? A speed of an arrow varies considerably depending upon the weight of the arrow, the pounds of pull of the bow, the bow materials, the length of the bow, whether or not it has a pulley system, etc. However, even the heaviest of arrows will go about 50 meters in a second. For most one on one fights, that's plenty.

Range modifier, and the relative ease with which one can buy Missile Deflection vs slower missiles vs. faster missiles already gives you advantages vs. slower attacks. If you wished to create such a limitation for muscle-powered weapons, I'd recommend a Limitation.



Likewise for various other fantasy/super/sci-fi attacks, like fireballs.


Who says magically created fireballs are slower than bullets? Except for primitive missile weapons, like bows, spears, knives, and such, I know of no reason to assume that any fantasy/super/sci-fi attack is slow, unless it is written as such. If so, that is SFX or a Limitation, and should be written as such.



In many campaigns, particularly Champions games, this probably doesn't matter and can safely be ignored, as it can for games where most or all ranged attacks actually are near-instantaneous, like "lasers". But in some games, most notably fantasy, where there are longer-ranged attacks fired in a high arc, this could be incorporated in a realistic way, that has an impact on tactics. And the falling rules, if realistic enough, can be easily generalized into ballistics rules.

Compared to reality, these falling rules are simplistic. Compared to ballistics, they are silly. If you wish to put a limitation on Real Weapons that they have to have a real time for an arrow or thrown weapon to arrive, that's fine, but I doubt it will come up outside of massed combat often enough to matter. At shorter ranges, if they have that problem, give them a reduced Range Modifier.

[SteveZilla]

Besides, if you made it 1d6/1" distance fallen, before you reached terminal velocity, you'd have people slamming into the ground for 60d6. Not only would even the toughest bricks in most games balk at that one, but a falling man would go right through several meters of reinforced concrete.

Maybe we could apply the object breakage rule to falling people vs. concrete? I.e., that Mr. Falling Man cannot do more damage to the concrete than his DEF + BODY? ;) :D

[PhilFleischmann]

They've got that one covered already. Under the current rules, you take 1d6/1" up to 5", then beyond that you go up by 5d6 and fall to the next distance increment. So, at 2.5", or 3" if you are rounding off, you take 5d6 and hit within 1 segment. The next segment, you go up to 10d6 and then fall to the distance the chart says, just like the regular rules. The next segment, 15d6, and so on.
That seems like a rather silly emilination of granularity. If you fall 6 meters, you take 6d6, and if you fall 7 meters you take 10d6. If you fall 20 meters, you take 10d6, and if you fall 21 meters you take 15d6. Calculating damage from distance fallen is much easier, since that's the figure a GM is most likely to know.


Kinetic energy isn't even close to being proportional to the distance fallen. The further you fall, the faster you are going, and the individual meters of distance matter less and less. Damage is determined by velocity, and the longer you fall, the greater the number of falling inches to get 1" of velocity.
Actually, kinetic energy is exactly proportional to distance fallen (until you get up to terminal velocity). Individual meters of distance fallen matter less and less to the *velocity*, but not to the Kinetic Energy. The only argument is whether Damage should be proportional to Kinetic Energy or to Velocity. Unfortunately, there's no quantitative way to measure this and find out. Either way is workable, I just prefer KE because it's so much easier (and I also happen to think it's more realistic).


Besides, if you made it 1d6/1" distance fallen, before you reached terminal velocity, you'd have people slamming into the ground for 60d6. Not only would even the toughest bricks in most games balk at that one, but a falling man would go right through several meters of reinforced concrete.
As SteveZilla pointed out, the maximum damage an object can do is it's DEF+BODY. A normal man has no resistant DEF and only 8 BODY. That might make a small dent in concrete, but that's it.


Who says magically created fireballs are slower than bullets?
Every bit of source material I've ever seen on the subject. And personal observation of gouts of fire - they don't move nearly as fast as bullets. I've also seen objects hurled by trebuchets for long distances. They take longer than one second to land.


Except for primitive missile weapons, like bows, spears, knives, and such, I know of no reason to assume that any fantasy/super/sci-fi attack is slow, unless it is written as such.
Written as such by whom? By the game rules? Then of course not. But by the source material, yes. And some players and GMs might want to more accurately simulate the source material.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Actually, kinetic energy is exactly proportional to distance fallen (until you get up to terminal velocity). Individual meters of distance fallen matter less and less to the *velocity*, but not to the Kinetic Energy.
Exactly. Potential energy is proportional to altitude, and this gets converted to kinetic energy.


The only argument is whether Damage should be proportional to Kinetic Energy or to Velocity. Unfortunately, there's no quantitative way to measure this and find out. Either way is workable, I just prefer KE because it's so much easier (and I also happen to think it's more realistic).
I think neither of these are workable.

Say that damage is directly proportional to kinetic energy. Then damage should be proportional to the mass of an object and to the square of its speed. So if you take e.g. 3d6 if hit by a 100 kg person ramming you at 20 kph, you would need to take 270d6 if you get hit by a 1000 kg small car going 60 kph. That seems absurdly excessive.

Making damage proportional to velocity means it is proportional to the square root of the kinetic energy. I did an analysis of this (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1645335&postcount=635) a while back, and it doesn't work much better.

I think we rather need to consistently make damage proportional to the logarithm of the energy, with each +1d6 corresponding to x2 energy. It fits with +5 STR both doubling lifting capacity (double potential energy) and adding 1d6 to damage. I have also done an analysis of this (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1712116&postcount=1035). It has a character taking 2d6 damage by falling 2m, and +1d6 for each doubling of this distance.

- Klaus

[PhilFleischmann]

Say that damage is directly proportional to kinetic energy. Then damage should be proportional to the mass of an object and to the square of its speed. So if you take e.g. 3d6 if hit by a 100 kg person ramming you at 20 kph, you would need to take 270d6 if you get hit by a 1000 kg small car going 60 kph. That seems absurdly excessive.
Remember that an object cannot do more damage than its DEF+BODY. And your also comparing ramming damage with falling damage. These are not necessarily the same thing. If you fall to the ground, the ground doesn't give way, and you take the full impact of the fall. If you are rammed by something, you gain some of it's momentum, reducing the amount of damage you take.

[Filksinger]

That seems like a rather silly
emilination of granularity. If you fall 6 meters, you take 6d6, and
if you fall 7 meters you take 10d6. If you fall 20 meters, you take
10d6, and if you fall 21 meters you take 15d6. Calculating damage
from distance fallen is much easier, since that's the figure a GM is
most likely to know.


I didn't intend to eliminate any granularity. That is the official rule, except that I forgot the original official rule went for the first 10", not 5". All I suggested changing was falling distances to match reality. The rest of the rules remain as per the book.

Which was the point of the exercise. I wished to make a very minor rules change that altered almost nothing, except the most glaring failure of the falling rules.



Actually, kinetic energy is exactly proportional to distance fallen
(until you get up to terminal velocity). Individual meters of
distance fallen matter less and less to the *velocity*, but not to the
Kinetic Energy. The only argument is whether Damage should be
proportional to Kinetic Energy or to Velocity. Unfortunately, there's
no quantitative way to measure this and find out. Either way is
workable, I just prefer KE because it's so much easier (and I also
happen to think it's more realistic).

Doh!

Sorry, of course you are right. My brain rebelled when I considered falling from a great height doing insane damage, and didn't think it through. Of course, objects falling from space do not reach the truly insane amounts of damage because of the inverse square law governing gravity changes the acceleration rate, not because there isn't a 1-1 correspondence between kinetic energy and distance traveled at a certain acceleration. However, as I will discuss below, I do not think that kinetic energy, straight up, in a 1-1 conversion like this, is a good method for determining damage.



As SteveZilla pointed out, the maximum damage an object can do is it's
DEF+BODY. A normal man has no resistant DEF and only 8 BODY. That
might make a small dent in concrete, but that's it.


I don't care only about the damage a normal man does. That amount of damage should not be done by that fall by anything the mass of a human falling that distance. I don't care if it is stone, steel, or Unobtainium. A block of indestructible material weighing what a man does should not, upon hitting a bank vault, go through it, out the bottom, and into bedrock, just because it fell 75". Not only is that not normal in the real world, but it isn't normal in any genre I know of. The Thing, when he jumps off a building and plummets to the ground may do considerable damage to the sidewalk, but he doesn't, and shouldn't, go right through concrete, sewers, subway tunnels, and into bedrock. (Sewers, maybe. :) )

Which is the real problem with using kinetic energy. If you use kinetic energy straight up to calculate damage in the game, on a directly proportional scale, then you quickly get into the realm where a sufficiently tough plane would be traveling fast enough to go through mountains, or a sufficiently tough asteroid of modest size would destroy Mercury, if they happened in the game world. Neither happens, either in real life or in most genres I know. On the flip side, it makes creating super beings with the toughness to survive great falls, or a plane crash into a mountain side, not only too expensive to create, but far too tough compared to "normal" supers in most games.



Every bit of source material I've ever seen on the subject. And
personal observation of gouts of fire - they don't move nearly as fast
as bullets. I've also seen objects hurled by trebuchets for long
distances. They take longer than one second to land.


You've seen magical fireballs? When? :) You might want to take a closer look at what I said. I specified magical fireballs. You said "fantasy/modern/sci-fi", not "historical", and so I was talking about fantasy. Specifically, I was speaking of magical fireballs, which may or may not shoot out of someone's hand, may or may not take significant time to do so, and may or may not follow a ballistic path (without which the application of the falling rules is moot).

Further, you mentioned sci-fi weapons, as well. Very few sci-fi weapons are slower than modern bullets. (Most of them are also silly, but that's the source material, and thus that's just the way it is when working from that source material.)



Written as such by whom? By the game rules? Then of course not. But
by the source material, yes. And some players and GMs might want to
more accurately simulate the source material.

In which case, that would be either be optional rules to simulate source material, or Limitations specific to those weapons. I definitely would not try to build such things accurately into the core rules, as ballistics in an atmosphere is tricky at best. And the only thing I am addressing here is the core rules, and specifically a very small change to them.

[Filksinger]

Remember that an object cannot do more damage than its DEF+BODY. And your also comparing ramming damage with falling damage. These are not necessarily the same thing. If you fall to the ground, the ground doesn't give way, and you take the full impact of the fall. If you are rammed by something, you gain some of it's momentum, reducing the amount of damage you take.

His argument still holds. If two cars, both weighing 1000 kg and traveling at 30 kph hit head on, by the same reasoning as you use for falling, if they are tough enough, then the weaker could take up to 270d6 of damage. Or, if my supermobile can take more damage than the Hover Dam, then the Hoover Dam can't take a 60 KPH collision from my supermobile.

Sorry, but directly turning kinetic energy into damage classes has been tried before. It breaks the system, really badly.

[Filksinger]

I think we rather need to consistently make damage proportional to the logarithm of the energy, with each +1d6 corresponding to x2 energy. It fits with +5 STR both doubling lifting capacity (double potential energy) and adding 1d6 to damage. I have also done an analysis of this (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1712116&postcount=1035). It has a character taking 2d6 damage by falling 2m, and +1d6 for each doubling of this distance.

- Klaus
The problem with this is that terminal velocity is reached after falling roughly 200 meters, or, using your suggestion, at about 8 1/2 d6 damage. That means that a normal 8 BODY man with 2 PD stands better than a 50-50 chance of surviving falling from any building in the world, without medical aid. Characters supposedly within the range of "normal human" could do it with nothing worse than a twisted ankle being likely.

Sorry, but falling in Hero is already too weak, so much that it was put in the "Murphy's Rules" collection as a joke. Your suggestion, I'm afraid, would make it far worse.

[Vulcan]

I think we rather need to consistently make damage proportional to the logarithm of the energy, with each +1d6 corresponding to x2 energy. It fits with +5 STR both doubling lifting capacity (double potential energy) and adding 1d6 to damage. I have also done an analysis of this (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1712116&postcount=1035). It has a character taking 2d6 damage by falling 2m, and +1d6 for each doubling of this distance.

- Klaus

Really good idea there, and it's simple to implement. Repped.

[Filksinger]

Sorry, but falling in Hero is already too weak, so much that it was put in the "Murphy's Rules" collection as a joke. Your suggestion, I'm afraid, would make it far worse.

I think I worded this poorly. I didn't meant to imply that the idea was a joke. It has a number of good elements. The problem with it is that Hero was designed to allow a supposedly non-superhuman martial artist to have a chance in a fist fight with a guy who punches holes in concrete and whose skin can stop light anti-tank weapons, and this makes any attempt at a consistent damage system pointless.

Hero System damage is massively unrealistic, in some areas. A tough man (8 PD) with a suit of full plate armor (8 PD Armor) can be thrown clear through a reinforced concrete wall while taking no BODY damage. Try this in the real world, and said man becomes a crushed, flattened, blood-leaking tin can. If he caught a blow full-on from a fist that can go through the same concrete wall in one blow, then again, in the game, he is uninjured, but in the real world, he is probably split into two entirely separate pieces.

Unfortunately, while we allow that for gameplay (mostly not due to genre; in the comics, the "normal human" heroes survive by being too good and lucky to ever get solidly hit, not by being tougher than concrete), we still balk at things like, "That guy with the gun is probably going to kill me, because I am a normal, though tough, human. So, I will jump off a four-story building directly onto a concrete sidewalk, because that will probably allow me to get up and walk away, and certainly won't kill me."

The result is that we end up with two types of suggestions for fixing Hero System damage that don't quite work.

On the one hand, Phil's suggestion is great for realism. Kinetic energy is probably the very best way to simulate damage by what is, after all, a kinetic weapon. However, to make it work, you need ordinary concrete walls with 200 DEF and 100 BODY, because that is the amount of dice it is going to have to survive to be a remotely realistic concrete wall. Hoover Dam requires far more to survive things it would in the real world.

Klaus' idea, OTOH, is also very good, in the other way. It does a very good job of simulating the sort of damage typically done in HERO games, at least when used for supers. Unfortunately, in some areas, it reveals the weaknesses too clearly. A falling system based upon his suggestion results in far too little damage. It puts us in a situation where a Rambo-clone might elect to jump out of a plane at 15,000 feet because it does significantly less damage to him than a gun in the hands of a competent enemy.

Unfortunately, neither quite work for all situations, because HERO has, and its players require, a non-consistent damage system. They want a world where falling out of a building window is a serious threat to a normal man, but this same normal man can fight people who can throw tanks. It is the way the system has been designed, from the ground up. Anything else requires massive changes, just starting with impact damage.

I still can't believe we went into all of this when all I suggested was a simple tweak to falling rules to make them more believable and closer to most genres. Could somebody, please, give me either tell me that my little tweak is worth it in comparison to the current rules, or if not, exactly why it isn't? I'm trying for a small change to make falling work better, not a complete rewrite of the impact damage system.

[Klaus Mogensen]

The problem with this is that terminal velocity is reached after falling roughly 200 meters, or, using your suggestion, at about 8 1/2 d6 damage. That means that a normal 8 BODY man with 2 PD stands better than a 50-50 chance of surviving falling from any building in the world, without medical aid. Characters supposedly within the range of "normal human" could do it with nothing worse than a twisted ankle being likely.

Sorry, but falling in Hero is already too weak, so much that it was put in the "Murphy's Rules" collection as a joke. Your suggestion, I'm afraid, would make it far worse.
I'm aware of this problem. It can be partly solved by having falls be Killing Damage after the first 2m: 1d6K at 4m, +1 DC per doubling hereafter. If we take the advanced damage rules into account (bleeding, incapacitation, etc.), then falling a terminal velocity (~ 3d6K) can be quite deadly - though you might still just get up and walk away after hitting the ground. Better, not perfect.

- Klaus

[Chris Goodwin]

I think I worded this poorly. I didn't meant to imply that the idea was a joke. It has a number of good elements. The problem with it is that Hero was designed to allow a supposedly non-superhuman martial artist to have a chance in a fist fight with a guy who punches holes in concrete and whose skin can stop light anti-tank weapons, and this makes any attempt at a consistent damage system pointless.

Hero System damage is massively unrealistic, in some areas. A tough man (8 PD) with a suit of full plate armor (8 PD Armor) can be thrown clear through a reinforced concrete wall while taking no BODY damage. Try this in the real world, and said man becomes a crushed, flattened, blood-leaking tin can. If he caught a blow full-on from a fist that can go through the same concrete wall in one blow, then again, in the game, he is uninjured, but in the real world, he is probably split into two entirely separate pieces.

As I've pointed out many times in the 6e forum, the HERO System is not Real World: the RPG. No physics books, no micrometers and milligram masses and squares and cube roots. I want to see that guy go through the wall because in a movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bruce Willis in it the guy would go through the wall.


I still can't believe we went into all of this when all I suggested was a simple tweak to falling rules to make them more believable and closer to most genres. Could somebody, please, give me either tell me that my little tweak is worth it in comparison to the current rules, or if not, exactly why it isn't? I'm trying for a small change to make falling work better, not a complete rewrite of the impact damage system.

It isn't because... it's more work on top of a system that already takes a lot of work, and whose purpose is to emulate source material where unbelievable things happen on a regular basis.

The system we have works well enough for the level of resolution we expect out of it. People need to stop expecting real world emulation out of the HERO System, because that's not what the HERO System is for.


I think we rather need to consistently make damage proportional to the logarithm of the energy, with each +1d6 corresponding to x2 energy. It fits with +5 STR both doubling lifting capacity (double potential energy) and adding 1d6 to damage. I have also done an analysis of this (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1712116&postcount=1035). It has a character taking 2d6 damage by falling 2m, and +1d6 for each doubling of this distance.

Please. No logarithms. :sick:

We're dealing with a system in which, for nearly 30 years, 64 times 2 is 125.

[nexus]

Why not just consider long distance Falling Damage Killing for "Gritty" settings?

[Markdoc]

Why not just consider long distance Falling Damage Killing for "Gritty" settings?

The method I use is to simply reduce DEF by 1 for each dice rolled. So, a 1" fall will likely do no BOD to an unprotected normal, a 2" fall or further will usually do some injury, and so on. This means that falling damage at the lower end of the scale is not too punitive, but long falls are going make even very tough characters go splat (of course, most very tough characters are also strong enough to avoid that simply by landing on their feet...)

cheers, Mark

[PhilFleischmann]

I don't care only about the damage a normal man does. That amount of damage should not be done by that fall by anything the mass of a human falling that distance. I don't care if it is stone, steel, or Unobtainium.
What about neutron star matter? The density of such an object matters very much as to how much damage it would do to the object it hits. As would the object's hardness. Hardness and density are roughly reflected in an object's DEF. And the more DEF an object has, the more damage it can do according to the rules.


Which is the real problem with using kinetic energy. If you use kinetic energy straight up to calculate damage in the game, on a directly proportional scale, then you quickly get into the realm where a sufficiently tough plane would be traveling fast enough to go through mountains, or a sufficiently tough asteroid of modest size would destroy Mercury, if they happened in the game world.
Maybe the problem is on the other side: the mountain/Mercury isn't given enough BODY (or DEF) in the system. Maybe it's the whole "Breaking Things" rules that need to be re-evaluated.


You've seen magical fireballs? When? :) You might want to take a closer look at what I said.
Sure. Haven't you? You might want to take a closer look at what I said: in the source material. Ever see a movie/tv show where a dragon breathed fire, or a wizard threw a fireball? How fast did it move? I know of another game system that uses "fireballs" frequently, and specifically allows certain characters the ability to dodge (or "evade") the fireball. It seems to me that if you can dodge it, it moves slower than a bullet.


...and may or may not follow a ballistic path (without which the application of the falling rules is moot).
"Ballistic" was perhaps a poor choice of word on my part. The arcing path, I'm sure, is irrelevent. The point that may be significant is the time taken to reach the target, which is why I compared it to the falling rules, and your proposal, which refers to how long it takes to hit the ground from a certain height.


Further, you mentioned sci-fi weapons, as well. Very few sci-fi weapons are slower than modern bullets.
You can frequently see the moving blaster/phaser pulse on TV and in movies.

[Vulcan]

You can frequently see the moving blaster/phaser pulse on TV and in movies.

That's beacuse a semi-realistic laser-type weapon would be really really boring to watch. No bright flashes of light, no nifty sound effects, just a 'click' as the trigger is pulled and the target has a hole burned in him. It would be that fast, and that uneventful.

And really a really boring action movie.

[Markdoc]

Sure. Haven't you? You might want to take a closer look at what I said: in the source material. Ever see a movie/tv show where a dragon breathed fire, or a wizard threw a fireball? How fast did it move? I know of another game system that uses "fireballs" frequently, and specifically allows certain characters the ability to dodge (or "evade") the fireball. It seems to me that if you can dodge it, it moves slower than a bullet.

To be fair, in that game system, you can dodge (with exactly the same mechanic and chance of success), a lightning bolt, a laser or a rolling cloud of gas, suggesting that speed of the attack doesn't have much to do with it :D

This is, of course, because it's merely a special effect. I'd suggest that adding mechanical effects to special effects is a path we do not wish to tread. It's an area for house rules, if one wishes to model it.

cheers, Mark

[Klaus Mogensen]

Range, Scaling, and an Extended Range Table

As mentioned above, I think it may be a good idea to extend the Range Table to cover distances less than 1" in order to give very small characters bonuses at very small distances. In order to keep the logic of x2 distance ~ -2 penalty, some changes are required to the existing table. Currently, you get the first two doublings for free - the penalty at 4" is the same as at 1". 1" is roughly the range at which you throw darts (2.37m); going to four times that distance should make the game rather a bit more difficult, I imagine. Hence I think it is realistic to introduce penalties even within this range. The revised, extended Range Table comes to look like this:

Range: Modifier:
x½ . . . . +2 more
1/8" . . . +6
1/4" . . . +4
½" . . . . +2
1" . . . . . 0
2" . . . . -2
4" . . . . -4
8" . . . . -6
x2 . . . . -2 more
When attacking at ranges shorter than your own height (1" for normal characters), use modifier for range = height.
Targets of non-normal size get a DCV modifier equal to the range modifier for their size (i.e., a 4" tall character gets -4 DCV)

Note that range penalties at long ranges are -4 greater than normal. In return, we can now use the same table for size and range modifiers.

Scale
We can use this table to work out how to handle campaigns that take place at non-human scales, e.g. mecha scale or mouse scale.

Each +1 scale step gives:
- x10 hex size (20m, 200m, etc.)
- x1000 normal character mass (100 tons, 100 kilotons, etc.)
- x100 lifting ability at STR 10 (10 tons, 1 kiloton, etc.)
- +10 DC per scale step against smaller-scale targets
- -7 OCV per scale step against smaller-scale targets

Each -1 scale step gives:
- x1/10 hex size (20cm, 2cm, etc.)
- x1/1000 normal character mass (100 grams, 100 milligrams, etc.)
- x1/100 lifting ability at STR 10 (1 kg, 10 grams, etc.)
- -10 DC per scale step against larger-scale targets
- +7 OCV per scale step against larger-scale targets

Note 1: The discrepancy between mass and lifting ability is because of the square-cube law: when you increase scale, mass increases as the cube of the scale, while muscle cross section (and hence the force you can apply) only increases as the square of the scale. Damage follows the cube of the scale (like mass) because energy ~ force x distance.

Note 2: The +7/-7 OCV modifiers roughly corresponds to what you would get as a size modifier from attacking a target of x10/x0.1 size from the range table above; it is not in addition to this modifier.

- Klaus

[PhilFleischmann]

That's beacuse a semi-realistic laser-type weapon would be really really boring to watch. No bright flashes of light, no nifty sound effects, just a 'click' as the trigger is pulled and the target has a hole burned in him. It would be that fast, and that uneventful.

And really a really boring action movie.


To be fair, in that game system, you can dodge (with exactly the same mechanic and chance of success), a lightning bolt, a laser or a rolling cloud of gas, suggesting that speed of the attack doesn't have much to do with it :D

This is, of course, because it's merely a special effect. I'd suggest that adding mechanical effects to special effects is a path we do not wish to tread. It's an area for house rules, if one wishes to model it.

cheers, Mark
Both of which are irrelevent to the point I was making. This happens in the source material, regardless of why or how. And it happens in real life/history as well with things like gouts of flame, seige engines, and long-distance volleys of arrows.

It would be nice to have some mention of this in the system, in those cases when it matters, and when the players/GM would like to include it.

[Vulcan]

Both of which are irrelevent to the point I was making. This happens in the source material, regardless of why or how. And it happens in real life/history as well with things like gouts of flame, seige engines, and long-distance volleys of arrows.

It would be nice to have some mention of this in the system, in those cases when it matters, and when the players/GM would like to include it.

Actually both are quite relavent to the situation at hand.

The HERO System is not really a univeral roleplaying system. It is a universal ACTION roleplaying system. This is distinctly different from a 'Really Gritty Uber-Realistic' rollplaying system in that it sometimes subordinates realism for the dramatic.

Sure, if you want to make your game 'Really Gritty Uber-Realistic' then that's your option. But it's not the default setting of the system, nor should it be!

[PhilFleischmann]

Actually both are quite relavent to the situation at hand.

The HERO System is not really a univeral roleplaying system. It is a universal ACTION roleplaying system. This is distinctly different from a 'Really Gritty Uber-Realistic' rollplaying system in that it sometimes subordinates realism for the dramatic.

Sure, if you want to make your game 'Really Gritty Uber-Realistic' then that's your option. But it's not the default setting of the system, nor should it be!
I don't know who you're having a conversation with, but this also has nothing to do with any point I was making. I am not talking about "gritty" or "uber-realistic."

[Vulcan]

I don't know who you're having a conversation with, but this also has nothing to do with any point I was making. I am not talking about "gritty" or "uber-realistic."

So when you said...


On a related note, HERO (and AFAIK, all other RPG systems) assumes that all ranged attacks land at essentially the same time as they are fired. A bullet travels from the gun to the target essentially instantaneously. For guns, that's usually good enough, but for other types of attacks, it doesn't necessarily make sense. An arrow fired from a bow for a long distance may take a few seconds (segments) to reach its target. Likewise for various other fantasy/super/sci-fi attacks, like fireballs. In many campaigns, particularly Champions games, this probably doesn't matter and can safely be ignored, as it can for games where most or all ranged attacks actually are near-instantaneous, like "lasers". But in some games, most notably fantasy, where there are longer-ranged attacks fired in a high arc, this could be incorporated in a realistic way, that has an impact on tactics.

(which was the start of the subject I've been responding to)

... you were not trying to say that various ranged attacks should be handled in a more realistic way?

[PhilFleischmann]

So when you said...

(which was the start of the subject I've been responding to)

... you were not trying to say that various ranged attacks should be handled in a more realistic way?
No. I was saying they could be handled in a more realistic way. If the GM/players so desire, and when it makes a difference, because it might add some interesting drama or tactics to the game.

[Vulcan]

Fair enough. I'll concede the point then. Options like that certainly wouldn't hurt things.;)

[Filksinger]

As I've pointed out many times in the 6e forum, the HERO System is not Real World: the RPG. No physics books, no micrometers and milligram masses and squares and cube roots. I want to see that guy go through the wall because in a movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bruce Willis in it the guy would go through the wall.


I agree about not changing how damage is done. However, your suggestion that this is to simulate Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bruce Willis movies is a poor one, IMHO. I have never seen either of those where a supposedly normal man wearing supposedly real-world armor went through a concrete wall without any significant injury. And if I did, it had better be a comedy, because otherwise I'd walk out of the theater.



It isn't because... it's more work on top of a system that already takes a lot of work, and whose purpose is to emulate source material where unbelievable things happen on a regular basis.


How does my suggestion make it "more work"? I suggested changing some numbers on a chart. Will the new numbers somehow be harder to read or understand?

Seriously, if this makes anything harder, I just don't get how. How, exactly, is my method harder?



The system we have works well enough for the level of resolution we expect out of it. People need to stop expecting real world emulation out of the HERO System, because that's not what the HERO System is for.


No. Its for simulating comic books, movies, and books, where in virtually all cases, the people in the movie behave as if a 50 foot drop onto concrete was a serious threat to their lives, even the tough (non-super) guys. It is for simulating genre staples, like "Superhero catching the falling man", or "Normal people trapped by a three-story fall to concrete", both staples of movies, TV, and comic books, both of which are more doable under my suggested change.

So far, your objections seem to be two. If I am missing something, please let me know.

One, you objected to my suggestion being closer to reality than the previous rule, accusing it of being a "physics simulation". However, unless that in some way makes the rule less usable or less like the genres being imitated, I don't see how that is a problem, and as best I can tell, my suggestion makes the rules more like the movies, TV, and books I have seen.

Two, you seem to think that my rule is in some way less like the source material. Yet in the source material, people routinely act as if falls are a serious threat to their lives, at heights where, in HERO, they just aren't. Unless you can come up with examples that are actually affected by my suggested change, I'm afraid I don't see this as a problem, either.


What about neutron star matter? The density of such an object matters very much as to how much damage it would do to the object it hits.


Neutron star material would go right through concrete even if it didn't fall at all. That's density, not DEF. If you want to come up with special rules for dense materials that are falling, go right ahead.



As would the object's hardness. Hardness and density are roughly reflected in an object's DEF. And the more DEF an object has, the more damage it can do according to the rules.


The densest materials on Earth are things like lead, gold, osmium, and iridium, all of which are not high-DEF materials. The toughest materials known are things like carbon nanotubes and diamonds, which are much less dense. In comics, the relationship is even looser, as super beings no more dense than a human being but tougher than steel are found all over the place.

So, no, DEF and density are not necessarily related.



Maybe the problem is on the other side: the mountain/Mercury isn't given enough BODY (or DEF) in the system. Maybe it's the whole "Breaking Things" rules that need to be re-evaluated.


Only if you wish to change this into an entirely new damage system. You'd have to re-evaluate everything related to damage, and I doubt you could build a good system that is realistic in the way you suggest and that still simulated comic books and allowed for "Sort-of-not-super Normal Man" to battle "Made-of-really-tough-rock Guy".



Sure. Haven't you? You might want to take a closer look at what I said: in the source material. Ever see a movie/tv show where a dragon breathed fire, or a wizard threw a fireball? How fast did it move? I know of another game system that uses "fireballs" frequently, and specifically allows certain characters the ability to dodge (or "evade") the fireball. It seems to me that if you can dodge it, it moves slower than a bullet.


Not when the game explicitly allows people to dodge bullets, it doesn't. Nor does the visual representation in a movie impress me. That's for the audience. Until someone in the movie explicitly points out or demonstrates that lasers are slower than bullets, I'm going to assume that sci-fi examples with energy weapons is a visual effect, not the actual speed in the story.



"Ballistic" was perhaps a poor choice of word on my part. The arcing path, I'm sure, is irrelevent. The point that may be significant is the time taken to reach the target, which is why I compared it to the falling rules, and your proposal, which refers to how long it takes to hit the ground from a certain height.


Hmm. I'm not sure I agree that makes them very related, but I guess I see where you are coming from.



You can frequently see the moving blaster/phaser pulse on TV and in movies.

I can also see in absolute darkness in movies. Somehow, I don't think that is evidence that movie characters have bad eyesight. Nor do I want the game to have rules for hearing normal sound in space.

Further, when they are lit up, as with tracers, I can see bullets in the real world. Yes, they look like streaks of light much longer than the real bullet, but what makes you think the same isn't true of your blasters?

All in all, I see this as a possible Limitation, or a niche rule aimed at mass combat with medieval weaponry. As either, I'm all for it. But just because a TV show shows lasers as slow doesn't mean that I or my players would accept that in a game, any more than my players would accept sounds they can hear in space.

[PhilFleischmann]

The densest materials on Earth are things like lead, gold, osmium, and iridium, all of which are not high-DEF materials. The toughest materials known are things like carbon nanotubes and diamonds, which are much less dense. In comics, the relationship is even looser, as super beings no more dense than a human being but tougher than steel are found all over the place.

So, no, DEF and density are not necessarily related.
It has nothing to do with the "densest materials on Earth". Concrete is denser and harder than wood, and sure enough, right there in the book, wooden walls have less DEF than concrete walls. And the same goes for most other materials as well. Yes, there are exceptions, that's why I said, "Hardness and density are roughly reflected in an object's DEF." (emphasis added)


Only if you wish to change this into an entirely new damage system.
Huh? Increasing the amount of BODY or DEF, or both of certain objects does not require an entirely new damage system.


You'd have to re-evaluate everything related to damage, and I doubt you could build a good system that is realistic in the way you suggest and that still simulated comic books and allowed for "Sort-of-not-super Normal Man" to battle "Made-of-really-tough-rock Guy".
What are you talking about? What does this have to do with anything I said? Normal squishy human battling the Thing? What?


Not when the game explicitly allows people to dodge bullets, it doesn't. Nor does the visual representation in a movie impress me. That's for the audience. Until someone in the movie explicitly points out or demonstrates that lasers are slower than bullets, I'm going to assume that sci-fi examples with energy weapons is a visual effect, not the actual speed in the story.
What is this in responce to? I talked about dragon breath and you give me lasers.

[Filksinger]

It has nothing to do with the "densest materials on Earth". Concrete is denser and harder than wood, and sure enough, right there in the book, wooden walls have less DEF than concrete walls. And the same goes for most other materials as well. Yes, there are exceptions, that's why I said, "Hardness and density are roughly reflected in an object's DEF." (emphasis added)

I read that the first time. Maybe I am not being clear enough. IMO, the fact that density may be related to hardness at times, and hardness is related to DEF, does not mean that DEF represents density in any way, shape, or form. Not even roughly. Clearer?



Huh? Increasing the amount of BODY or DEF, or both of certain objects does not require an entirely new damage system.


Yes, it does, if we 1) start with the falling damage generation system you described, in which kinetic energy directly determined dice of damage, 2) continue on to determining damage done by any moving object the same way, then 3) increase the defenses of things like brick, concrete, and steel to prevent them taking excessive damage from moving objects, and lastly 4) try to apply it to a supers game.

1. You suggested 1d6 of damage per 1" fallen for a normal man (100kg). This means 1960 ergs would do 1d6 of damage. Following this same reasoning, the same man falling 92" reaches 30"/segment, game terminal velocity, and will do 92d6 damage. Only if he is tough enough, true, but in a medium- or high-powered supers game, some supers will likely be tough enough, even if only the big villain bosses.

2. If we continue with this reasoning, a sufficiently tough Porsche Type 997 G2 traveling at that same speed (30"/segment is 134 MPH, easily doable even without dropping it off a building) would do over 1300d6 damage. Granted, finding such a tough Porsche would be hard in any game, but it should be obvious that this far exceeds the amount of damage an object of this mass and velocity should do, regardless of the amount of DEF and BODY of the moving object, when used against the materials described in the rulebook.

3. So, we increase the amount of damage that materials in the rulebook can take to make up the difference. We make concrete, brick, steel, stone, etc tough enough to survive these impacts. Since even an unbreakable car could not drive completely through a concrete freeway pylon, even at over 130 mph, this means reinforced concrete ends up with a combined DEF and BODY of over 1300.

4. Now, this is not unreasonable, if one wants realism, because this is how well reinforced concrete takes kinetic energy. But we are talking about HERO, a system originally used for supers. So, what happens to supers? Well, this now means that your brick who can destroy a freeway pylon with one punch has to do over 1300d6 damage with a single punch. To withstand a fist fight with his double, he needs roughly 4500 PD, or one of the combatants would be one-punched into a permanent coma.



What are you talking about? What does this have to do with anything I said? Normal squishy human battling the Thing? What?


Sorry if I was unclear.

What happens when the brick described above, the one who has the strength and durability to act as a brick in such a world, fights a guy whose shtick is being a normal human with, for example, great combat skills but no super powers? The normal human can't live through even a single punch from the brick, and the brick won't even feel the normal human's blows. It would be like having a real-world fight between a boxer and a wrecking ball. One bad die roll, and you get to create a new martial artist. Find Weakness and Martial Strike maneuvers don't even begin to cover it.



What is this in responce to? I talked about dragon breath and you give me lasers.

It is in response to your own claim. You claimed that by watching a TV show or movie, you could tell the velocity of magical fireballs and SF weapons. So, if your arguments are correct, they have to apply to SF energy weapons, including lasers, just as well as they apply to magic fire.

[Chris Goodwin]

I agree about not changing how damage is done. However, your suggestion that this is to simulate Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bruce Willis movies is a poor one, IMHO. I have never seen either of those where a supposedly normal man wearing supposedly real-world armor went through a concrete wall without any significant injury. And if I did, it had better be a comedy, because otherwise I'd walk out of the theater.

Neither Bruce Willis nor Arnold Schwarzenegger in their respective action movies are "normal".


How does my suggestion make it "more work"? I suggested changing some numbers on a chart. Will the new numbers somehow be harder to read or understand?

It's a chart lookup. In fact it's a necessary chart lookup. (Unless it's physics equations, because ew.) Currently I don't need a chart. There's a chart I can use if I want, but if I know how high they are I can just count their velocity over segments.


No. Its for simulating comic books, movies, and books, where in virtually all cases, the people in the movie behave as if a 50 foot drop onto concrete was a serious threat to their lives, even the tough (non-super) guys. It is for simulating genre staples, like "Superhero catching the falling man", or "Normal people trapped by a three-story fall to concrete", both staples of movies, TV, and comic books, both of which are more doable under my suggested change.

In the movies, there are two types of people: normals and heroes. (I'll briefly note that we're here talking about the HERO System.) Normals go splat when they fall off buildings. Heroes don't have to worry about falling because they surf out of the building on an explosion.

In the earlier post I quoted, you said this:


I still can't believe we went into all of this when all I suggested was a simple tweak to falling rules to make them more believable and closer to most genres. Could somebody, please, give me either tell me that my little tweak is worth it in comparison to the current rules, or if not, exactly why it isn't? I'm trying for a small change to make falling work better, not a complete rewrite of the impact damage system.

I used to have a quote in my signature here, lost to the mists of history, but it went something like this: does the suggested change pay for itself? In other words, does the added complication of learning and using the new rule, and remembering to use it every time it's applicable, and explaining it to everyone in your game, justify the amount of additional fun you get out of it? In my opinion, yours doesn't. Maybe for you it does, but then maybe yours should be your own house rule for your own games.

If someone is the sort of person who will go into Die Hard and complain because it took Alan Rickman 17.4 seconds to fall off of the building because clearly it should have taken 23.7, perhaps the HERO System isn't for them. And, for the love of God, I hope the HERO System never caters to them in that respect. GURPS does that very well, and continues to do so throughout its editions.

[Chris Goodwin]

It is in response to your own claim. You claimed that by watching a TV show or movie, you could tell the velocity of magical fireballs and SF weapons. So, if your arguments are correct, they have to apply to SF energy weapons, including lasers, just as well as they apply to magic fire.

Phil made no such claim.

[Thia Halmades]

Phil made no such claim.

Agreed; quite the opposite in fact. He was commenting on time-on-target in terms of genre (i.e., how long does it take an arrow volley from a set group of archers to arrive?) vs, say, a laser, which really is 'instant' for all intents and purposes. But it had nothing to do with him pulling a number out of thin air, and everything to do with genre simulation.

[PhilFleischmann]

I read that the first time. Maybe I am not being clear enough. IMO, the fact that density may be related to hardness at times, and hardness is related to DEF, does not mean that DEF represents density in any way, shape, or form. Not even roughly. Clearer?
The problem isn't that you've been unclear. It's that you're wrong. Both on the rules interpretations of the DEF of objects, and on what I've been saying. I never said that hardness correlates with density. Nor did I say that DEF "represents" density.

What do you think would happen if you dropped a one-pound water balloon off of a tall building? How much damage would it do to the concrete sidewalk below? What if it were a one-pound rock? Or a one-pound ball of iron? Or a one-pound diamond? How much damage would those do to the sidewalk? How about a one-pound stuffed animal, or a one-pound block of wood?


Yes, it does, if we 1) start with the falling damage generation system you described, in which kinetic energy directly determined dice of damage, 2) continue on to determining damage done by any moving object the same way,
2 does not follow from 1. I made no such claim that other types of damage should be determined from kinetic energy. I was talking about Falling Damage only. There is no reason to assume that falling damage in the "gold standard" and all other forms of damage are calculated the same way, from bullets to swords to thrown rocks to clubs to fists.


1. You suggested 1d6 of damage per 1" fallen for a normal man (100kg). This means 1960 ergs would do 1d6 of damage.
Just to be perfectly clear, no it doesn't. It only means 1960 ergs of a falling person onto a presumably hard surface will do 1d6 of damage. It does not mean that 1960 ergs of a moving bullet into human flesh will also do 1d6 of damage, or that 1960 ergs of a car hitting a pedestrian will do 1d6 of damage, or anything else.


What happens when the brick described above, the one who has the strength and durability to act as a brick in such a world, fights a guy whose shtick is being a normal human with, for example, great combat skills but no super powers?
What happens is determined by the HERO System rules and the dice rolls. (And it still has nothing to do with either falling damage or the time it takes for a projectile to reach it's target.)


It is in response to your own claim. You claimed that by watching a TV show or movie, you could tell the velocity of magical fireballs and SF weapons. So, if your arguments are correct, they have to apply to SF energy weapons, including lasers, just as well as they apply to magic fire.
As Thia and Chris correctly said, I made no such claim. Here's another example from the sci-fi genre: The Millenium Falcon was able to fly away from the expolding core of the Death Star with nary a scratch. It takes time for the explosion to spead out.

[Lord Liaden]

Following a request from Bob Greenwade, I'm resposting a concept that I brought up on this thread (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1755871) as it deals with environmental issues, particularly their interaction with Change Environment.

The following are links to three category scales commonly used to classify the severity of wind speed and its related effects, with descriptions of those effects: the Beaufort Scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort_scale), usually applied to winds below hurricane strength; the Saffir-Simpson Scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffir-Simpson_Hurricane_Scale) for hurricanes; and the Fujita Scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujita_scale) for tornadoes. The descriptions of environmental disturbance and damage in each category would make it easy for an observer to recognize the severity of a given storm.

I propose combining these into a unified scale of "Storm Levels" analogous to the existing Temperature Levels for Change Environment, starting with the Beaufort Scale and extending into the Saffir-Simpson and/or Fujita Scales. Besides providing an easy reference for the effects of large-scale weather phenomena, this would allow one to purchase CE to increase or decrease Storm Levels in the same way it can increase or decrease Temperature Levels, making for an easily adjudicated weather manipulating mechanic.

[IndianaJoe3]

I propose combining these into a unified scale of "Storm Levels" analogous to the existing Temperature Levels for Change Environment, starting with the Beaufort Scale and extending into the Saffir-Simpson and/or Fujita Scales.

Good idea. I just have the minor quibble that they might be more properly called, "Wind Levels". "Storm" implies additional weather phenomena (precipitation, lightning, etc).

[Filksinger]

Neither Bruce Willis nor Arnold
Schwarzenegger in their respective action movies are "normal".


OK, then what is the relevance of your comment? I pointed out a basic fact about normals in the Hero System, and have repeatedly stated this was a comment about normals. Nor does my comment have the slightest to do with "heroic" characters. If Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis aren't normals in their movies, then your comment has literally nothing to do with what I said.



It's a chart lookup. In fact it's a necessary chart lookup. (Unless
it's physics equations, because ew.) Currently I don't need a chart.
There's a chart I can use if I want, but if I know how high they are I
can just count their velocity over segments.


OK, so let me get this straight. I think I figured out what you are saying here, but if not, let me know. Don't take this wrong. I am simply trying to make sure that I understand.

To find out how far someone has fallen under either rule, you start with s (segments character has been falling), and figure out d (maximum distance fallen in that period of time). Beyond s>6, the two are functionally identical, so we'll just compare them where they are different.

Under the current rules, you calculate d=(1*5") + (2*5")+(3*5")+.... until you reach (S*5").

Under my system, you would do x = 2.5" *s*s.

This, as you see it, is added complexity. This is sufficiently more complex that it would require you to look up the falling distance on a chart, where you now just work it out on the spot. And it is specifically this that you are referring to when you objected that my suggestion added complexity.

Is this essentially correct?



In the movies, there are two types of people: normals and heroes.
(I'll briefly note that we're here talking about the
HERO System.) Normals go splat when they fall off
buildings.


They do? Really?

Bull. If it were true that normals go splat when they fall off a building, I wouldn't have created a new rule.

Under the Hero System, a 0-point "Notable Normal", with 2 PD and 10 BODY, will probably live through any fall up to and including 14 stories onto solid concrete, without medical aid. Not because he fell through a bunch of awnings, or was caught by some structural detail, or landed in a pile of trash, or anything you see happen to save key characters in a movie when they take great falls. Just straight to concrete, from 14 floors up.



Heroes don't have to worry about falling because they
surf out of the building on an explosion.


Any hero that can do that in the original rules can do that with my suggested rules, too. So I fail to see the relevance.

Nothing about my suggestion makes heroes unable to be heroes, and your saying it does doesn't change that. If your objection is that my suggestion somehow prevents heroes from being heroic, show an actual example of something you think is appropriate for a "hero" (whatever it is you think that means) that a non-super action hero did in a TV show, movie, comic, or book, that my suggestion makes impossible. Or even difficult.



In my opinion, yours
doesn't. Maybe for you it does, but then maybe yours should be your
own house rule for your own games.


Make a house rule for falling? You mean like almost everybody does? Falling is so broken that when I suggested my rule change, at least three people jumped up and suggested their own house rules instead. People have been complaining that falling was broken for at least the past 25 years. In my experience, "fixing" falling is the single most common house rule out there. If something is that widely seen as screwed up, then I think more than a house rule is called for.

I've even had at least one would-be player refuse to play HERO simply because they had read "Murphy's Rules" and figured that any game with falling rules that stupid was a waste of his time.



If someone is the sort of person who will go into Die Hard and
complain because it took Alan Rickman 17.4 seconds to fall off of the
building because clearly it should have taken 23.7, perhaps the
HERO System isn't for them. And, for the love of God, I hope the HERO
System never caters to them in that respect. GURPS does that
very well, and continues to do so throughout its editions.


Tell me, did you think that ridiculous straw man argument would work better if you said "someone", instead of admitting you were just trying to call me an obsessive nitpicking idiot?

The fact that my suggestion is a more accurate representation of the real world is just a bonus, as far as I am concerned. If I cared heavily about "realism", I wouldn't be playing HERO. I even expressly stated I wanted to keep a system where a supposedly "normal" man in ordinary plate armor would go though a concrete wall without significant injury, which is frankly ridiculous.

My complaint against the Hero System falling chart isn't that it is inaccurate. It is that falling chart is badly broken, and a really lousy fit to almost every genre. So much so that outside of HERO circles, falling in HERO is literally a joke, as in published in a magazine (and book) for people to laugh at.

Under the current rules, your average police officer, or even a 0-point normal will more likely than not live through a 14 story fall to concrete. Not super heroes. Not "action heroes". Not even exceptionally strong and fit people. Just a 0-point normal. Exceptionally strong and fit people, within the official range for "normal", can do 52 story falls to concrete, receive no medical aid, and live more likely than not.

Sorry, but IMO, that's just plain broken. People have been complaining it is broken for many years. If you don't like my (partial) solution, that's fine, but its still broken.

What's your solution?

[Katherine]

I think what Chris Goodwin is suggesting is that "normals" falling from great heights would just be assumed to die or be horribly injured as the plot demands. Noteworthy characters (PCs, important NPCs) would use the falling rules as they stand.

That's how I read his post and if I'm putting words in his mouth, I apologize it's not intentional

[Filksinger]

The problem isn't that you've been unclear. It's that you're wrong. Both on the rules interpretations of the DEF of objects, and on what I've been saying. I never said that hardness correlates with density. Nor did I say that DEF "represents" density.


I apparently read too much into the statement "Hardness and density are roughly reflected in an object's DEF." While I still think I disagree, rather than argue the meaning of that phrase, I will simply apologize for the confusion.



What do you think would happen if you dropped a one-pound water balloon off of a tall building? How much damage would it do to the concrete sidewalk below? What if it were a one-pound rock? Or a one-pound ball of iron? Or a one-pound diamond? How much damage would those do to the sidewalk? How about a one-pound stuffed animal, or a one-pound block of wood?


I have never suggested that the falling rules, as written, are universally applicable to all objects. They are missing a lot, in fact. I only claimed that 92d6 from a sufficiently durable human-sized and human-density object dropped off a tall building was excessive, whether for the game, genre recreation, or simulation of the real world.



2 does not follow from 1. I made no such claim that other types of damage should be determined from kinetic energy. I was talking about Falling Damage only. There is no reason to assume that falling damage in the "gold standard" and all other forms of damage are calculated the same way, from bullets to swords to thrown rocks to clubs to fists.


Sorry if I misunderstood you. While I didn't think that you wanted to use kinetic energy for bullets to get damage the same way you did from falling, I assumed that you would want damage from collisions, at least, to remain consistent across all forms of otherwise similar collisions.

To do otherwise intoduces a significant inconsistency in the damage rules. If this rule for doing damage by kinetic energy only applies to falling, and not to other moving objects, then a sufficiently durable man falling out of control onto a sidewalk at 30"/segment does far more damage than if he were doing a deliberate Move-through directly into a wall at the same speed. In fact, the falling man would do more damage to whatever he falls onto than a car traveling at 8 times the falling man's velocity is capable of doing, even if, just as with the falling man, it went directly into a flat unyeilding surface.

Personally, I still think this is introduces a situation where falling damage is excessive compared to other impacts. However, lets suppose we decided to accept this as a workable compromise. We still have a large problem. Even if we apply your rule only to falling human-sized and human-massed objects, we still end up in a severe escalation of PD, BODY, and DC of attacks for characters in a supers campaign.

Bricks in the comics not infrequently do things like fall off tall buildings, or even out of airplanes. The toughest will then get up and continue on, apparently not significantly injured, or even more than very temporarily unconscious. Occasionally, they do this on purpose, apparently quite confident that even a terminal velocity fall won't kill them, or hurt them badly enough to prevent them from continuing on. Given what they routinely survive in the comics, this is actually reasonable.

Under your suggestion, such a brick, of normal human size and mass, doing as he would 92d6 of damage from a terminal velocity fall, would go through about 9 meters of solid concrete just because he was dropped out a high window. We agreed that this was too high. So, how about we limit the damage to what is done under the current rules? Under the current rules (which is still much higher than fits the real world, but that isn't important), he'd instead normally go through about two meters of solid concrete instead. So, lets make that our target.

We increase the DEF and BODY of the concrete so that the falling man won't destroy any more concrete then he does under the current falling rules. If we apply your rule, under which a terminal velocity fall is 92d6, but try to keep the damage to what you fall on to no worse than it is now, concrete would have to be able to take about 90 BODY of damage per two meters of concrete, which means that the concrete has to have a PD and DEF totaled together of about 90 pts. All other structural materials, from wood to dirt to steel to Questonite, require similar increases to avoid the same problem. So, you need approximately a 3x increase in the durability of all such materials.

To make a brick who, like the Thing or Colossus, is able to fairly easily take terminal velocity falls, apparently without serious injury, we'd need bricks with 90 PD+, minimum (a bad damage roll could still be seriously damaging, or possibly fatal, unless he has a high BODY). This is so high that not one of Michael Surbrook's wonderful adaptations of Superman from his current webpage would be able to survive this fall, were he unable to fly temporarily and landed on a solid-enough surface. In addition, as these bricks often get right back up after these impacts, they now need another 200+ PD and/or STUN, or somewhat less and high-level damage reduction, as such a fall would average over 300 STUN damage.

Further, to account for the fact that most bricks can easily punch through a concrete wall, and the concrete wall is now three times as tough as it used to be, you have to give the bricks three times as much damage per punch to keep their abilities equivalent to what they used to be. Everybody else, of course, follows the same path with their characters in order to keep up, giving everybody insanely high durability and damage in order to keep up with bricks.

Whether you apply your suggestion about kinetic energy to other damaging kinetic energy or not, something still breaks when a falling object the mass, size, shape, and density of a human being, no matter how tough, does 92d6 of damage. I think there are better ways to fix this.

Mine, I'll admit, arguably doesn't go far enough. IMO yours goes too far.



What happens is determined by the HERO System rules and the dice rolls. (And it still has nothing to do with either falling damage or the time it takes for a projectile to reach it's target.)


Sorry if I am being unclear. The point was that bricks who are beefed up to survive falls as well under your rules as they do in the comics will, if facing "non-super" superheroes, be essentially invulnerable. In the comics they write around this, but in a game, it is a bit more difficult, and it becomes really kludgy.



As Thia and Chris correctly said, I made no such claim. Here's another example from the sci-fi genre: The Millenium Falcon was able to fly away from the expolding core of the Death Star with nary a scratch. It takes time for the explosion to spead out.

I am willing to accept that I misread a joke about seeing blaster fire move in movies, and thought you were saying more than you did. Again, my apologies.

As for the Death Star explosion, regardless of the explanation, is an explicit showing that the explosion wasn't instantaneous in genre. Which, as I already said, I am quite willing to accept, so long as it is explicit, rather than SFX. If it is shown explicitly in a movie, then we can accomodate that with some sort of rule to simulate that genre, or that particular example.

After a bit of consideration, I am now thinking that basic ballistic rules, at least, may in fact be a good idea for the core book. We need a system to determine how fast a thrown car, teammate, or grenade will reach an enemy for supers, and arguably it would be similarly important in a fantasy game. It could then be applied to any Power if the GM felt it appropriate, as SFX if the velocity rarely matters, or with a Limitation if combat takes place at that distance often enough to be worth a Limitation.

[Filksinger]

I think what Chris Goodwin is suggesting is that "normals" falling from great heights would just be assumed to die or be horribly injured as the plot demands. Noteworthy characters (PCs, important NPCs) would use the falling rules as they stand.

That's how I read his post and if I'm putting words in his mouth, I apologize it's not intentional

Maybe so. But "noteworthy characters" includes DNPCs, sidekicks, and similar characters. All of which are noteworthy enough to use the rules instead of just being declared dead. Such characters are, in comics, movies, books, and TV shows, threatened with death by falling on a regular basis from heights which, in the Hero System, simply won't kill them.

I've had people in my supers campaigns complaining because falls from lower heights weren't damaging enough to them for 25 years.

[PhilFleischmann]

....The descriptions of environmental disturbance and damage in each category would make it easy for an observer to recognize the severity of a given storm.

I propose combining these into a unified scale of "Storm Levels" analogous to the existing Temperature Levels for Change Environment, ... Besides providing an easy reference for the effects of large-scale weather phenomena, this would allow one to purchase CE to increase or decrease Storm Levels in the same way it can increase or decrease Temperature Levels, making for an easily adjudicated weather manipulating mechanic.
Excellent idea! It's a good thing to be able to quantify this power more than it has been. CE has always been a little too vague in most areas. Whether we call them "Storm Levels" or "Wind Levels", and whether we use the precise scales that you mention, this would be very useful.

And maybe we can come up with other "level scales" to quantify other aspects of the environment, such as humidity.

[PhilFleischmann]

I have never suggested that the falling rules, as written, are universally applicable to all objects. They are missing a lot, in fact. I only claimed that 92d6 from a sufficiently durable human-sized and human-density object dropped off a tall building was excessive, whether for the game, genre recreation, or simulation of the real world.
I was pointing out the differing damage that would be done to the sidewalk, based on the density and hardness of the falling object.


Sorry if I misunderstood you. While I didn't think that you wanted to use kinetic energy for bullets to get damage the same way you did from falling, I assumed that you would want damage from collisions, at least, to remain consistent across all forms of otherwise similar collisions.
And it depends on what we consider "similar collisions." The game already distinguishes between collisions in a way that relates to falling damage: Move Thrus that do knockback and those that don't do differing amounts of damage to the person doing it. When a character falls to the ground, it is usuallysafe to assume that the Earth takes no knockback. When a person is hit by a fist, even if no inches of knockback are achieved, the struck bady part moves back a little, even if it's considerably less than two meters. This makes it in at least one very important way, a dissimilar collision.


Sorry if I am being unclear. The point was that bricks who are beefed up to survive falls as well under your rules as they do in the comics will, if facing "non-super" superheroes, be essentially invulnerable. In the comics they write around this, but in a game, it is a bit more difficult, and it becomes really kludgy.
I don't see how that necessarily follows.


I am willing to accept that I misread a joke about seeing blaster fire move in movies, and thought you were saying more than you did. Again, my apologies.
No problem. But just to be clear, there was no "joke".

[Filksinger]

I was pointing out the differing damage that would be done to the sidewalk, based on the density and hardness of the falling object.


I agree. And every bit of it is irrelevant.

My entire contention is that the single most common falling situation in the game, a human being or close approximation, super or not, falling from a height, is broken in your suggestion. If falling in the game cannot handle a human being falling in a reasonable fashion, the rest is irrelevant.

First, you keep bringing in the damage done by dense objects. Even if objects of high density can do the damage you describe from falling, they have nothing to do with a super of ordinary human size and mass falling to the ground.

Next, you keep bringing up hardness. Not only would a human-sized and mass object falling at 60 meters a second not go through 9 meters of solid concrete even if it was as hard as diamond, but even if it would do so, this fact would still be completely irrelevant. Even if high Resistant PD equated to hardness (IMHO it does not), non-resistant PD, BODY, and Damage Reduction don't. However, a super who used those to survive the same fall would do the same over-the-top damage, without the excuse of "hardness".

No matter what happens when dense and or hard objects fall, a suggested rule where a human-sized, -shaped, -massed, and -density being who is sufficiently durable, can go through 9 meters of solid concrete is, IMHO, broken. It will not become any less broken no matter how often you talk about objects that are not like said falling being.



And it depends on what we consider "similar collisions." The game already distinguishes between collisions in a way that relates to falling damage: Move Thrus that do knockback and those that don't do differing amounts of damage to the person doing it. When a character falls to the ground, it is usually safe to assume that the Earth takes no knockback. When a person is hit by a fist, even if no inches of knockback are achieved, the struck bady part moves back a little, even if it's considerably less than two meters. This makes it in at least one very important way, a dissimilar collision.


I point out that similar collisions should do similar damage, and you dodge the point by deliberately picking dissimilar collisions, one colliding out of control into a flat unyielding surface, the other colliding in a controlled fashion into an irregular yielding surface.

I said I was talking about similar collisions. Dissimilar collisions are therefore, by definition, not what I was talking about. So, how about if I suggest actually relevant similar collisions, and you can explain to me the justification for the massively different amounts of damage?

Hero slams at 30"/segment into a dam. By your suggestion, if he does it because he was thrown at the dam, or flew at it, or by any method except falling onto it, his damage is 50d6+ less than if he fell onto it. Why?

A hero flies into the air to catch a friend being thrown from a plane. If the friend hits him at 30"/segment because of the velocity of the plane, they both take 50d6+ less than if the friend hits him at the same speed because of falling from the plane. Why?

A hero attempts a Move-through on the ground, by flying at it at 30"/segment. He does 50d6+ less damage then if he had just fallen into the same patch of ground. Why?

The same hero (or rather his player) realizes he can do much more damage if he just falls than if he flies. He falls at the ground to get velocity, and tries a Move-through on the ground. Does he do Move-through damage or falling damage? If Move-through damage, then this becomes a way to survive falls from incredible heights, because he will take far less damage than if he just fell. If falling damage, then heroes will fall limply onto things they want to destroy, because it will do more damage than diving into them in a controlled manner intended to do damage. Either way you go, it causes problems, and I still can't see the justification.

Or, what about two identical collisions? A villain whose only real power is fairly high-speed flying with incredibly sharp turning ability wants to kill the unconscious brick with Life Support. He can't smother him, and he can't punch him hard enough to hurt. So, he grabs him and flies him straight into the ground at 30"/segment, letting go and turning sharply at the last second. The brick is undamaged. So, the villain does the same thing, but instead of flying him into the ground at 30"/segment, he drops him onto the ground and lets him fall until he again slams into the ground at 30"/segment. The brick bursts like a water balloon. Why?

Sorry, but I can think of a lot of ways of increasing damage from falls that work better, IMHO. I still consider this rule broken.



I don't see how that necessarily follows.


You don't see how it follows that a character who can 92d6 of normal damage without being knocked unconscious, or seriously injured, is all but invulnerable, or how it follows that such a character is all but unstoppable by non-powered heroes who beat villains with their martial arts skills and bare hands? I'm not sure which you mean.



No problem. But just to be clear, there was no "joke".

In that case, I don't understand you at all on this point.

You said, "An arrow fired from a bow for a long distance may take a few seconds (segments) to reach its target. Likewise for various other fantasy/super/sci-fi attacks, like fireballs." You also said, "Ever see a movie/tv show where a dragon breathed fire, or a wizard threw a fireball? How fast did it move?" Then, you said, "You can frequently see the moving blaster/phaser pulse on TV and in movies."

You stated you were talking about fantasy/super/sci-fi attacks. You indicated you could judge that magical attacks were slow because you saw how fast they moved in the movies/TV. You also pointed out that you could see energy weapon beams move in movies/TV.

To me, this suggests that this means that you are claiming to be able to tell how fast both fantasy and SF attacks travel by being viewed in a movie or TV. Yet when I suggest this, I am told by no less than three people that you didn't say this.

So, no, I don't understand your point here at all. They appear to get it, but I don't. Sorry.

[PhilFleischmann]

I agree. And every bit of it is irrelevant.
It's not irrelevent. You're the one who keeps insisting that the rules mean that a normal person falling at terminal velocity would punch through nine meters of concrete. A normal human has 8 BODY and 0 DEF, which means, by the rules, that it could do a maximum of 8d6 Normal damage to the concrete surface. I don't remember off hand what the DEF of concrete is, but assuming it's 6, that means the surface takes about 2 BODY - a fairly small dent. Definitely not a nine-meter-deep hole.

OTOH, if RockMan (20 DEF, 20 BODY) were to fall onto concrete at a sufficient velocity, he might well do 40d6 to the surface he lands on. An average of maybe 34 BODY. Is that a nine-meter deep hole? It could well be appropriate for such a thing to happen. Since RockMan doesn't exist in real life, and since it would be dangerous and destructive to drop a life-sze stone statue of a man off of a skyscraper onto concrete, it's fairly difficult to know for sure how big a hole it would make. But it's well within the superhero genre for a falling RockMan to make a good size crater, or fall through to the sewer system or subway tunnels underneath Campaign City.


I point out that similar collisions should do similar damage, and you dodge the point by deliberately picking dissimilar collisions, one colliding out of control into a flat unyielding surface, the other colliding in a controlled fashion into an irregular yielding surface.
I guess I misunderstood you. It seemed to me that you were implying that all collisions are similar. You're the one who make the assumption that the whole damage system would have to be changed, seemingly because all forms of damage are equivalent to the kinetic energy of falling damage. So just to be clear, I'll ask you: What collisions are you talking about that you consider similar?


Hero slams at 30"/segment into a dam. By your suggestion, if he does it because he was thrown at the dam, or flew at it, or by any method except falling onto it, his damage is 50d6+ less than if he fell onto it. Why?

A hero flies into the air to catch a friend being thrown from a plane. If the friend hits him at 30"/segment because of the velocity of the plane, they both take 50d6+ less than if the friend hits him at the same speed because of falling from the plane. Why?

A hero attempts a Move-through on the ground, by flying at it at 30"/segment. He does 50d6+ less damage then if he had just fallen into the same patch of ground. Why?
I don't know how you're getting any of these results from my suggestion.


You don't see how it follows that a character who can 92d6 of normal damage without being knocked unconscious, or seriously injured, is all but invulnerable, or how it follows that such a character is all but unstoppable by non-powered heroes who beat villains with their martial arts skills and bare hands? I'm not sure which you mean.
Both. A fall and a karate chop are "dissimilar collisions".


In that case, I don't understand you at all on this point.
....
To me, this suggests that this means that you are claiming to be able to tell how fast both fantasy and SF attacks travel by being viewed in a movie or TV. Yet when I suggest this, I am told by no less than three people that you didn't say this.

So, no, I don't understand your point here at all. They appear to get it, but I don't. Sorry.
Well, I can't explain your reasoning to you. I don't underststand why you draw those conclusions either. I don't know why you read, "You can sometimes see (in Star Trek or Star Wars) the energy pulse of a weapon moving," and conclude, "I can tell how fast the attacks are moving."

It's not brain surgery.

Lasers, and other light beams, move at the speed of light. For all intents and purposes, particularly for RPGs, the time to reach the target is so small that it can be ignored.
Bullets fired from a gun also travel at high velocity, depending on the type of gun (I'm not a gun expert). The time-to-target is also negligible for most situations.
Arrows fired a short distance (say 10") from a bow also be considered instantaneous.
Arrows fired a long distance (say 100") could be considered to take a game-significant amount of time to reach their target.
Gouts of flame, whether created by magic or mundane means, could also be considered to take a bit of time to reach their target.
Sci-fi blaster weapons could be "instantaneous", like a laser beam, or fast enough to be essentially instantaneous, like a gun, or they could be slower than that, and take a segment or more to reach the target, depending on the distance, and how the weapon is defined, and the standards for the setting that the GM has set up.

These considerations may come up frequently, rarely, or not at all, depending on the circumstances of the game.

[IndianaJoe3]

I propose combining these into a unified scale of "Storm Levels" analogous to the existing Temperature Levels for Change Environment, starting with the Beaufort Scale and extending into the Saffir-Simpson and/or Fujita Scales. Besides providing an easy reference for the effects of large-scale weather phenomena, this would allow one to purchase CE to increase or decrease Storm Levels in the same way it can increase or decrease Temperature Levels, making for an easily adjudicated weather manipulating mechanic.

You could probably apply the, "level" concept to other things in the environment, like light. Light Level 5 would be normal daylight, LL 6 would be bright daylight, and LL 4 would be normal indoor light. -1 to PER rolls for every level above 6 (glare) or below 4 (darkness). Sound levels would be similar.

[SteveZilla]

You could probably apply the, "level" concept to other things in the environment, like light. Light Level 5 would be normal daylight, LL 6 would be bright daylight, and LL 4 would be normal indoor light. -1 to PER rolls for every level above 6 (glare) or below 4 (darkness). Sound levels would be similar.


Hmmm... We could also apply the "level" concept to things like Atmospheric Pressure (and "Oxygen" Content). Though that might be overkill...

[BobGreenwade]

Hmmm... We could also apply the "level" concept to things like Atmospheric Pressure (and "Oxygen" Content). Though that might be overkill...Possibly. Personally I'd like to see the basic structure in place, and let the details be filled in by an updated Star Hero or maybe The Ultimate Environment (as if we could talk Steve into writing such a book, or letting someone else do so).

[Filksinger]

It's not irrelevent.

I had a post, written out thoroughly, that I wrote in response to your remarks about two weeks ago. I posted it here, then got caught up in life and didn't look on this forum until now, when I discover it went poof! Apparently having your eldest move out, moving yourself, changing jobs, and becoming a grandpa at the same time keeps you busy. My sincere apologies.

Because I dislike writing in the forum window, I actually have my entire reply preserved in the file I actually wrote it up in. However, to you, it has been a full month since the last comments, and I doubt you really care anymore.

If you are interested, I can post it here. Or, I can just make it closing remarks. Or, we can just let it lie. It is up to you.

Again, apologies for the delay.

[AnotherSkip]

Change Environment Vs. Drain. Inside a Changed environment movement can be reduced without any defense being applied against the effect, in essence a AOE NND Drain with Succor like abilities (when the leave the environment the change ends.

the thought is perhaps there should be a comment somewhere about using one vs the other especially when Selective is applied to Change Environment.

[AnotherSkip]

Other CE thoughts How about a Ce that imposes a negative penalty to Necromancy rolls to repersent the strength of a characters faith being so strong they alter the area around them.
everything from Ye of Little Faith (-1 to necromancy rolls, 1 hex)
to the Gods watch over me (-4 to necromancy rolls, if an undead fails a Skill roll they turn to dust + much larger AOE).

All counterable with :
Accentuate the Negative, Life Support: Intense Faith Fields.

orFaithless AKA No Dushku character takes no penalty for being in intensive faith fields.

[PhilFleischmann]

Other CE thoughts How about a Ce that imposes a negative penalty to Necromancy rolls to repersent the strength of a characters faith being so strong they alter the area around them.
everything from Ye of Little Faith (-1 to necromancy rolls, 1 hex)
to the Gods watch over me (-4 to necromancy rolls, if an undead fails a Skill roll they turn to dust + much larger AOE).
A fine idea, and perfectly appropriate for a paladin's "holy aura" power. However, I don't see how Life Support is a counter. A Necromancer doesn't suffer bodily harm just because his spells are harder to cast. The appropriate counter would be another CE - an "unholy aura" - +1 (to +4) to Necromancy rolls in the area. And there could be a number of ways to describe and impliment it.

A bit off the subject, but your post started me thinking about this stuff: A paladin-type might have this kind of power bought 0 END and even Persistant, and could even have a Long Lasting Advantage applied. Normally, a Persistant power won't shut off unless the user wants it to, or is killed, or in the case of an affected area that moves with the user, it stops affecting that area as soon as he leaves. With Long-Lasting, the holy aura might stick around for a little while even after the paladin leaves. And more importantly (more dramatically) might stick around even after the paladin dies. How long could depend on the circumstances of his death. If he sacrifices himself to save the rest of his band of adventurers, it might last for a few hours. If he makes his noble sacrifice to save a whole town (mostly complete strangers), the aura might last for days, months, or even years. If with his dying breath, he manages to kill the Ultimate Dark Lord once and for all, the spot where he fell might maintain the holy aura forever. Or perhaps long enough that a holy temple or shrine is built on the site, and the priests ferform periodic rituals of remembrance of the hero's sacrifice, thus renewing and maintaining the holy aura power as long as they continue to remember.

I've just now decided, I'm going to have to incorporate this into my campaign.

CE can be a really cool power, if you let it! :cool:

[IndianaJoe3]

Dark conditions give a -1 Sight PER modifier for every light level below 4. If the light level is less than 0, no sight perception rolls may be made (pitch blackness). Extremely bright conditions give a -1 penalty for every light level above 6. Some types of Sight Flash Defense may reduce this penalty at the GM's discretion.

Listening for a quiet sound (less than the ambient sound level) incurs a -1 penalty for every sound level the sound is below ambient. Conversely, there is a +1 bonus for every level the sound is above ambient.

[Hugh Neilson]

Dark conditions give a -1 Sight PER modifier for every light level below 4. If the light level is less than 0, no sight perception rolls may be made (pitch blackness). Extremely bright conditions give a -1 penalty for every light level above 6. Some types of Sight Flash Defense may reduce this penalty at the GM's discretion.

Why not establish 0 as the level that applies no bonus or penalty? At -5 Light, you take a -5 penalty. "Pitch Blackness" is the Darkness power.


Listening for a quiet sound (less than the ambient sound level) incurs a -1 penalty for every sound level the sound is below ambient. Conversely, there is a +1 bonus for every level the sound is above ambient.

Again, we need to establish a baseline "ambient sound level", but that shouldn't be hard. A table from "Complete Silence" to "Three toddlers running about" to "Rock Concert" shouldn't take up that much space.

[PhilFleischmann]

Listening for a quiet sound (less than the ambient sound level) incurs a -1 penalty for every sound level the sound is below ambient. Conversely, there is a +1 bonus for every level the sound is above ambient.
It isn't necessarily just volume that makes sounds easier or more difficult to hear, but pitch and timbre as well. A high-pitched sound could still be heard over a loud, but low-pitched ambient noise.

[IndianaJoe3]

Why not establish 0 as the level that applies no bonus or penalty? At -5 Light, you take a -5 penalty. "Pitch Blackness" is the Darkness power.

Actually, I defined Darkness (to Sight) as having a Light Level of -1. (This was in my Change Environment post.) I consider LL5 to be normal daylight.


Again, we need to establish a baseline "ambient sound level", but that shouldn't be hard. A table from "Complete Silence" to "Three toddlers running about" to "Rock Concert" shouldn't take up that much space.I was thinking that the Sound Level would be equal to db/10, at least as a baseline. (Sound Level -1 would be Darkness to Hearing.) I agree that we need a reference.

[ghost-angel]

There are levels of light brighter than daylight that humans can still see in. So, how high does the LL scale go?

[IndianaJoe3]

There are levels of light brighter than daylight that humans can still see in. So, how high does the LL scale go?

As high as it needs to go, same as Temperature Levels. I did include a glare penalty, but that only applies to Perception rolls - the character isn't blind, just squinting.

[ghost-angel]

Ok, I can buy that. We start with Daylight at 5, there's no top. Is -1 the bottom end of the Blackest Black? Or is there a Blacker Than Black level of light and no bottom end either?

IOW - can you use Change Environment to lower Light below -1? or is that the hard cap?

(I'm not trying to dispute BTW, Just trying to get a grasp of the full idea and its implications Mechanically.)

[Vulcan]

Ok, I can buy that. We start with Daylight at 5, there's no top. Is -1 the bottom end of the Blackest Black? Or is there a Blacker Than Black level of light and no bottom end either?

IOW - can you use Change Environment to lower Light below -1? or is that the hard cap?

(I'm not trying to dispute BTW, Just trying to get a grasp of the full idea and its implications Mechanically.)

Actually I would want CE to stop at 1 (that is, -4 to PER). Otherwise what is the point of the Darkness power (where no amount of PER will help...)?

[SteveZilla]

Why not establish 0 as the level that applies no bonus or penalty? At -5 Light, you take a -5 penalty. "Pitch Blackness" is the Darkness power.



Again, we need to establish a baseline "ambient sound level", but that shouldn't be hard. A table from "Complete Silence" to "Three toddlers running about" to "Rock Concert" shouldn't take up that much space.

...To Saturn 5 Launch from 128 meters away, to Meteorite That Killed The Dinosaurs Impact from 131072 meters away. :D

Making a unified scale system is made a little more complicated by the fact that sight depends upon an environment with some light (I can't see the ninja if there is no light around for my eyes to pick up), but hearing can happen in an environment without any other sound.

Or to put it another way, for Normal Humans and Normal Senses, things in motion tend to be emitters of Sound, but not Light. Ergo, unless the Sensory emission (light or atmospheric vibrations) is actively suppressed (or the sense that would receive it is disabled), Hearing can happen in an environement without other sound.

If -1 were to represent the level where the transmission of said sensory stimuli is actively suppressed (like with Invisibility/Darkness), 0 could be the level where there is no *environmental* stimuli. And Humans (and many animals) just have a requirement for certain levels of light to avoid Sight Penalties.

It would be a good idea to also include what level of stimuli output the various powers emit as part of their SFX...



It isn't necessarily just volume that makes sounds easier or more difficult to hear, but pitch and timbre as well. A high-pitched sound could still be heard over a loud, but low-pitched ambient noise.

That gets into the level of contrast between overlapping signals. Like wearing a bright orange jumpsuit while trying to hide in the brush (high contrast) as compared to a camoflauge jumpsuit (low contrast).


Actually I would want CE to stop at 1 (that is, -4 to PER). Otherwise what is the point of the Darkness power (where no amount of PER will help...)?

I can see it going down to zero if -1 is the point of total blocking of the sensory stimuli.

However, what about the SFX of Darkness being "Blinding Field Of Light"? Is it a -1 -- the same as a "Field of Pitch Black Lightlessness" -- or is it a 10000000000000?

[IndianaJoe3]

IOW - can you use Change Environment to lower Light below -1? or is that the hard cap?

You could not use CE to go below LL 0 (which I mentioned in my CE post). It's a hard floor.

[Vulcan]

However, what about the SFX of Darkness being "Blinding Field Of Light"? Is it a -1 -- the same as a "Field of Pitch Black Lightlessness" -- or is it a 10000000000000?

If the effect is to block sight, then it is Darkness, and effectively a light level of -1. Even if the FX is a light level of 10000000000000...:D

Edit: The long and short is, if it still allows a PER roll then it's CE. If it totally blocks the sense than it's darkness...

Hmm. Perhaps having 'default' be 0 isn't such a bad idea after all...

[PhilFleischmann]

That gets into the level of contrast between overlapping signals. Like wearing a bright orange jumpsuit while trying to hide in the brush (high contrast) as compared to a camoflauge jumpsuit (low contrast).
Right. My point is that it's more complicated than just a one-dimensional scale from quiet to loud.

In regards to the Light Level concept: Just for the sake of consistancy, level 0 should be defined as the level where there is No Penalty (or bonus), just like it is with the Temperature Levels.

Also, there is no need for a "hard bottom" to the scale, because going beyond a certain level will have rapidly diminishing returns. Buying the LL down to a -20 penalty is not going to give much significant advantage over, say -5.

However, such drastically reduced levels can have one possible use: against characters with Enhanced Vision. If "The Eye" has +10 to his Sight PER rolls, your measly -5 Light Levels CE isn't going to bother him too much. And for ever ability in HERO, there should be a way to counter it.

[AnotherSkip]

orFaithless AKA No Dushku character takes no penalty for being in intensive faith fields.

Forgot to add this ability is Environmental movement ability

[Chris Goodwin]

Ok, I can buy that. We start with Daylight at 5, there's no top. Is -1 the bottom end of the Blackest Black? Or is there a Blacker Than Black level of light and no bottom end either?

None more black.

[Markdoc]

None more black.

There is a problem with this, in that a -5 penalty is not going to prevent some characters making PER roll.s - which mean they can see (with normal sight) in perfect blackness.

Maybe I'm missing it, but why arbitrarily start at 5 and why arbitrarily make the axis light/darkness? That's a very SFX-directed, non-hero approach.

I like the general concept, but I'd start at 0 (default) and allow an unlimited bonus/penalty buy. That way, you have a smooth mechanical fit. A penalty to PER can be darkness, blinding light or smoke, or a sonic effect that makes everything generally blurry.

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

There is a problem with this, in that a -5 penalty is not going to prevent some characters making PER roll.s - which mean they can see (with normal sight) in perfect blackness.

Maybe I'm missing it, but why arbitrarily start at 5 and why arbitrarily make the axis light/darkness? That's a very SFX-directed, non-hero approach.

I like the general concept, but I'd start at 0 (default) and allow an unlimited bonus/penalty buy. That way, you have a smooth mechanical fit. A penalty to PER can be darkness, blinding light or smoke, or a sonic effect that makes everything generally blurry.

I like this approach, although it needs to be priced so that the same cost as equivalent Darkness generates a pretty huge PER roll penalty.

[IndianaJoe3]

Maybe I'm missing it, but why arbitrarily start at 5 and why arbitrarily make the axis light/darkness? That's a very SFX-directed, non-hero approach.

Well, I made the axis light/dark because I'm trying to quantify lightness and darkness. There are other ways to enhance or inhibit visual perception, but they are outside of what I am trying to cover.

Labeling LL 5 as, "Normal Daylight" may seem arbitrary, but it's actually derived from the 5e Sight Modifiers table. It lists, "Dark Night" as a -4 penalty. It seemed like a reasonable boundary for darkness perception penalties (how much darker can things get?), so I used that for LL 0. Now, the penalties are reduced for every LL above zero, and we wind up with no penalties at LL 4.

This is where things get... empirical. ;) Normal interior lighting is less bright than daylight, and daylight itself can vary. To simulate this, I assigned LL 4 to, "Normal Interior Light", LL 5 to, "Normal Daylight", and LL 6 to, "Full Sun". The human eye can adapt to all of those situations, so there is no penalty. If things get brighter than that, we have difficulty seeing in the glare (resulting in penalties for LL 7+).

[Markdoc]

Well, I made the axis light/dark because I'm trying to quantify lightness and darkness. There are other ways to enhance or inhibit visual perception, but they are outside of what I am trying to cover.

Well, OK, that's fair enough, but if we're talking about mechanisms, or rules, then they should be generally applicable, IMO.


Labeling LL 5 as, "Normal Daylight" may seem arbitrary, but it's actually derived from the 5e Sight Modifiers table. It lists, "Dark Night" as a -4 penalty. It seemed like a reasonable boundary for darkness perception penalties (how much darker can things get?), so I used that for LL 0. Now, the penalties are reduced for every LL above zero, and we wind up with no penalties at LL 4.

This is where things get... empirical. ;) Normal interior lighting is less bright than daylight, and daylight itself can vary. To simulate this, I assigned LL 4 to, "Normal Interior Light", LL 5 to, "Normal Daylight", and LL 6 to, "Full Sun". The human eye can adapt to all of those situations, so there is no penalty. If things get brighter than that, we have difficulty seeing in the glare (resulting in penalties for LL 7+).

Ah, OK. I follow your reasoning. Now I just disagree. :eg:

If Daylight is default (no penalty) then 0 seems like the right starting place (ie: no penalty). Every level below that inflicts a -1 PER penalty. That way you don't get stuck with the maximum being "slightly darker than a dark night" and you don't have a problem with penalties jumping from -4 to "infinite" in one step. Night scopes and animal eyes demonstrate that there is in fact plenty of light on a dark night (if your PER roll is good enough), and indeed, our cat has no trouble navigating inside the house with closed blinds on a dark night, so "Darker than a dark night" is clearly not "cannot see". In contrast (heh, heh) every level above gives a +1 to PER rolls, so that you can easily adjudicate if Tiny Carl Jung's Lamp of Diogenes (+3 levels) is bright enough to illuminate the shadows in the Cave of Plato (-4 levels: so he can see but darkly :))

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

I like this approach, although it needs to be priced so that the same cost as equivalent Darkness generates a pretty huge PER roll penalty.

I was thinking that if we used this approach, we could dispense with Darkness entirely, and simply buy it as the appropriate penalties. -5 to your PER rolls would incapacitate most people's sight, and -10 would incapacitate pretty much anybody.

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

I was thinking that if we used this approach, we could dispense with Darkness entirely, and simply buy it as the appropriate penalties. -5 to your PER rolls would incapacitate most people's sight, and -10 would incapacitate pretty much anybody.

How do we get to a complete absence of light (ie the guy with IR vision can see perfectly, but the guy with +20 PER rolls can't see at all, even if he rolls a 3)? I recall this being an issue in an old Avengers comics (wasn't even the Darkness power).

[Vulcan]

I like this approach, although it needs to be priced so that the same cost as equivalent Darkness generates a pretty huge PER roll penalty.

Agreed. CE 'darkness' only imposes penalites, not prevents the roll entirely - but at the same base cost, the penalties from CE should be pretty hefty....

[PhilFleischmann]

Right. Which is why I posted this:


Just for the sake of consistancy, level 0 should be defined as the level where there is No Penalty (or bonus), just like it is with the Temperature Levels.

Also, there is no need for a "hard bottom" to the scale, because going beyond a certain level will have rapidly diminishing returns. Buying the LL down to a -20 penalty is not going to give much significant advantage over, say -5.

However, such drastically reduced levels can have one possible use: against characters with Enhanced Vision. If "The Eye" has +10 to his Sight PER rolls, your measly -5 Light Levels CE isn't going to bother him too much. And for every ability in HERO, there should be a way to counter it.

[Chris Goodwin]

Sorry, I was quoting Spinal Tap, not making a rules suggestion. Which apparently went over like... some sort of normally floating object, only made of metal...

[IndianaJoe3]

Night scopes and animal eyes demonstrate that there is in fact plenty of light on a dark night (if your PER roll is good enough), and indeed, our cat has no trouble navigating inside the house with closed blinds on a dark night, so "Darker than a dark night" is clearly not "cannot see".

OK, we may need to move the the point at which sight perception rolls become impossible because there's no light. However, such a point does exist (kind of like absolute zero on a temperature scale). Neither cats nor humans can see when there's no light to see by.


I was thinking that if we used this approach, we could dispense with Darkness entirely, and simply buy it as the appropriate penalties. -5 to your PER rolls would incapacitate most people's sight, and -10 would incapacitate pretty much anybody.

Darkness is good for building things that block perception rolls. It doesn't matter how well Eagle Eye can see - the smoke cloud still blocks his vision. All he can do is see the cloud in incredible detail.

[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: