Combat Issues

[IndianaJoe3]

Not sure I agree with scaling like that, but back to the Sped chart discussion I think scaling is perfect.

Maybe you have 3 "scales" of speed to play under, and the chart adapts.

On one level, for normal level games you have a chart that covers Speeds 1, 2 and 3. This would flip things a bit as the order of actions would shift some....
<snip>

Next you could have the Heroic speed level, for Speeds 1 through 4.
<snip>

Next you could have the Superheroic scale based on 6 speeds. It would be like the current system, but basically cut in half.
I think we have diametrically opposing views on what the problem is. You seem to be trying to reduce granularity, making characters more like each other. I think we need to increase granularity, so characters become more distinct. In an earlier post, I suggested expanding the speed chart, putting 15 or 20 segments in a turn.

[ajackson]

HERO gets weird when it deals with large objects. Personal-scale weapons are much too effective against large-scale objects, and some large-scale weapons aren't effective enough against individual-scale objects, unless they're handwaved.
A lot of that is genre issues; in a realistic setting, a 60 Str squeeze (choosing squeeze to make it purely strength, with no issues of kinetic energy to worry about) should turn a human to tomato paste in one action.

One way to deal with scaling in a way that's game-consistent is to have a 'reduce attacks by X DCs' power, and generally give objects one level of that advantage per level of Size, rather than increasing Bod/Def. Thus, for a Naval Combat game, you might subtract 18 DCs from all attacks, and battleships have their attacks reduced from 8dK to 2dK.

[Opal]

A lot of that is genre issues; in a realistic setting, a 60 Str squeeze (choosing squeeze to make it purely strength, with no issues of kinetic energy to worry about) should turn a human to tomato paste in one action.A normal human getting squeezed with 60 STR would take 10 BOD, on average, vs 2 PD (and, really, many 'normals' and 'mooks' likely have less than 10 BOD), he could still be saved by prompt medical attention, but will die from his injuries in a couple of minutes. Squeeze number two would be 'tomato paste,' I guess. That doesn't seem that badly off. Maybe it's the 8 PD normal that's a genre issue - not a lot of people can jump off a 40' cliff with minimal risk of injury.

One way to deal with scaling in a way that's game-consistent is to have a 'reduce attacks by X DCs' power, and generally give objects one level of that advantage per level of Size, rather than increasing Bod/Def. Thus, for a Naval Combat game, you might subtract 18 DCs from all attacks, and battleships have their attacks reduced from 8dK to 2dK.While I'm not sure exactly what the value of that would be, other than increasing the randomness of damage rolls, it would be perfectly workable. If the attacks at a certain scale represent 1000x the power of attacks at a lower scale, that's a 10 DC difference (x1024, IIRC). All you have to do is lop off 10 DCs and 10 DEF at that scale, and add them back in when a smaller scale entity interacts.

[ajackson]

While I'm not sure exactly what the value of that would be, other than increasing the randomness of damage rolls, it would be perfectly workable.
It actually reduces the randomness of damage rolls; the standard deviation on 2d6 is 2.42, on 8d6 is 7.64. The reason this matters is because 2d6+1 vs 2d6 is a much bigger percentage difference than 8d6+1 vs 8d6.

Oh, the other thing is that objects should generally have the same BOD, regardless of size.

[i3ullseye]

I think we have diametrically opposing views on what the problem is. You seem to be trying to reduce granularity, making characters more like each other. I think we need to increase granularity, so characters become more distinct. In an earlier post, I suggested expanding the speed chart, putting 15 or 20 segments in a turn.

Well, you could have 100 phases... but if characters speeds are still all 1 through 3, you will only be using 3 lines off the speed chart. I think letting the complexity increase as the potential within the characters increases makes sense. The only real difference in what I propose versus the current speed chart, is the order of actions shifts a bit to balance things out some.

[Susano]

A normal human getting squeezed with 60 STR would take 10 BOD, on average, vs 2 PD (and, really, many 'normals' and 'mooks' likely have less than 10 BOD), he could still be saved by prompt medical attention, but will die from his injuries in a couple of minutes. Squeeze number two would be 'tomato paste,' I guess. That doesn't seem that badly off. Maybe it's the 8 PD normal that's a genre issue - not a lot of people can jump off a 40' cliff with minimal risk of injury..

This is why we use the 1 BODY for 20 STUN taken rule. A 60 STR squeeze would, on average, 12 BODY and 42 STUN. Versus joe normal 8 BODY and 2 PD he'd take 10 BODY and 40 STUN, which means he'd take another 2 BODY for a total of 12. This puts him at -4 BODY and well on his way to dead.

Versus a 10 BODY, 2 PD mook, the end result is a total of 12 BODY (8 + 2 for all that STUN [40/20=2]) and 40 STUN. Versus a 10 BODY 4 PD mook, you get a base of 8 BODY with +1 for taking 20 STUN in a single shot. Not dead, but he's down to a mere 1 and at -18 STUN.

[IndianaJoe3]

One way to deal with scaling in a way that's game-consistent is to have a 'reduce attacks by X DCs' power, and generally give objects one level of that advantage per level of Size, rather than increasing Bod/Def. Thus, for a Naval Combat game, you might subtract 18 DCs from all attacks, and battleships have their attacks reduced from 8dK to 2dK.
I'm playing with the idea of halving/doubling damage for every four levels of difference in size. AoE attacks are treated as being in a higher size class, and beam attacks in a smaller one.

[GloryFox]

Please add "Does Knockdown" as a +1/4 naked modifier or power advantage usable for Super HERO games as an official power advantage.

Found on page 122-123 in HERO System Combat Handbook.

[Niles]

The terminology for actions ought really to be changed. 1/2 phase actions that currently end your phase(such as attacks) and those that do not (such as half moves) should have different names to avoid confusion.

[CTaylor]

I'd like to see block changed to be against the DCV the attacker hit, not their OCV. In other words, instead of trying to block Bob's OCV of 7 every time, you block the DCV he hit, be it your DCV or 5 more. The better he rolls an attack, the harder the block will be.

Recovery levels (being knocked out so bad you recover slower) could be based on CON instead of a straight 10, so you have to be knocked out by more than your CON to start recovering post 12 only, by 2x your CON to recover once per minute, and so on.

[Markdoc]

I'd like to see block changed to be against the DCV the attacker hit, not their OCV. In other words, instead of trying to block Bob's OCV of 7 every time, you block the DCV he hit, be it your DCV or 5 more. The better he rolls an attack, the harder the block will be.

This is a house rule we've been using for years. It removes the glitch where a person fighting at a severe disadvantage can still block normally and also encourages "feinting" : if you can get someone to lower their DCV, they are less able to block your riposte.

Recovery levels (being knocked out so bad you recover slower) could be based on CON instead of a straight 10, so you have to be knocked out by more than your CON to start recovering post 12 only, by 2x your CON to recover once per minute, and so on.

This is a nice idea - and would restore some value o CON if figureds are decoupled.

cheers, Mark

[GamePhil]

I'd like to see block changed to be against the DCV the attacker hit, not their OCV. In other words, instead of trying to block Bob's OCV of 7 every time, you block the DCV he hit, be it your DCV or 5 more. The better he rolls an attack, the harder the block will be.


I'd specifically not like to see that change, as it makes blocking so difficult that you almost always want to just Dodge.

[Aroooo]

Recovery levels (being knocked out so bad you recover slower) could be based on CON instead of a straight 10, so you have to be knocked out by more than your CON to start recovering post 12 only, by 2x your CON to recover once per minute, and so on.

I generally do this in my Heroic level games...

Aroooo
(1,000th post!)

[Markdoc]

I'd specifically not like to see that change, as it makes blocking so difficult that you almost always want to just Dodge.

Not really: dodging when you are (for example) on the ground (or similarly impaired) and your DCV is halved ain't such a great option. With this approach, blocking is harder, but still the better option. This rule merely changes the balance slightly: it means there are times when it's better to block and times when it's better to dodge.

cheers, Mark

[nexus]

On the subject of name changes, I think Block and Dodge might benefit from one. As it stands now, they imply a specific things which isn't necessarily what the maneuvers have to be. Maybe

Full Defense= Dodge
Active Defense=Block

[GamePhil]

Not really: dodging when you are (for example) on the ground (or similarly impaired) and your DCV is halved ain't such a great option. With this approach, blocking is harder, but still the better option. This rule merely changes the balance slightly: it means there are times when it's better to block and times when it's better to dodge.

cheers, Mark

That's just it: it doesn't change the balance slightly. The fact that Blocking is better under unusual circumstances but worse under most others doesn't particularly appeal to me. Needing to find out what the DCV is hit before making the Block check also doesn't appeal to me. I see no benefit to doing it, the dichotemy that you use in your example is seen in the current rules. Block already takes a penalty per new Block made and only affects HTH, all for the benefit of possibly going before the blocked person next phase (which is an uncommon benefit in my experience, perhaps others are different). I'm also pretty sure that your odds of success (not getting hit) with Block working this way are pretty close to making a Dodge, without the benefit of a permanent bonus that works in Range and HTH.

So, I don't like it.

[ajackson]

I'd like to see block changed to be against the DCV the attacker hit, not their OCV. In other words, instead of trying to block Bob's OCV of 7 every time, you block the DCV he hit, be it your DCV or 5 more. The better he rolls an attack, the harder the block will be.
That makes block significantly (about 2 points) worse than it currently is, and given that block is already frequently worse than dodge, that's a reduction it doesn't need. Give block a +2 OCV and rolling vs the OCV the attacker hit becomes reasonably balanced.

[CTaylor]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

One more time: hell no.

Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?

I'd be fine with that.

Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

You could turn it into a skill like you presented, as long as you don't change the mechanic. Might be easier for some to figure out.

Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

No, I like the two kinds of damage, I likes em a lot.

Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?

I'm not sure how you could streamline this without significant changes in the system but if you can, that's a good idea. D20 suffers from this now (get the right feats stacked and one-shot dragons). A few levels, a few martial maneuvers, and suddenly the dice get sick.

That makes block significantly (about 2 points) worse than it currently is, and given that block is already frequently worse than dodge, that's a reduction it doesn't need. Give block a +2 OCV and rolling vs the OCV the attacker hit becomes reasonably balanced.

I agree, block as written is too hard already and this makes it even harder; but it makes sense (and works well, I can assure you from playtesting). Maybe +1 to the roll would be ok, but certainly not -1 OCV.

[Netzilla]

Size Modifiers to DCV

The current system applies a DCV penalty if you are larger than human sized and a DCV bonus if you are below below. The problem with this system is that DCV values can never drop below 0. This is to avoid problems with those manuevers that drop DCV by 1/2 or to 0. Unfortunately, this means that a size 30 Star Ravager (TUV 101), a size 22 Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier (TUV 67) and a size 6 Armored Car (TUV 48) are all equally easy to hit. This just doesn't make sense to me.

My proposal to fix this would be to change the DCV modifier to an OCV modifier for anyone attacking that target. Thus anyone attacking a Star Ravager would be +20 OCV to hit it, anyone attacking a Nimitz would be +14 and anyone attacking an Armored Car would be +4. Likewise, smaller than human-sized targets would confer an OCV penalty on the attacker. This avoids the logical disconnect of widely different size targets all being equally easy to hit.

I have thought about the idea of this Size Modifier being relative: [Defender's Size Mod] - [Attacker's Size Mod] = [Final Size Mod]. Thus a Star Ravager attacking a Nimitz would be 14 - 20 = -6 to hit. When the Nimitz attacks, it would be at +6. The main problem with making this relative, however, is that larger than human targets not only get an effective DCV penalty, but they also take an OCV penalty. Likewise, smaller targets get both an effective DCV bonus and OCV bonus. As a result you'd have to significantly re-cost Growth, Shrinking and Vehicle Size. At best, this modifier being relative should be an optional rule.

[mudpyr8]

Size Modifiers to DCV

My proposal to fix this would be to change the DCV modifier to an OCV modifier for anyone attacking that target. Thus anyone attacking a Star Ravager would be +20 OCV to hit it, anyone attacking a Nimitz would be +14 and anyone attacking an Armored Car would be +4. Likewise, smaller than human-sized targets would confer an OCV penalty on the attacker. This avoids the logical disconnect of widely different size targets all being equally easy to hit.

I second that. I use a flat cost of 7 points per Size Modifier in my games. This is a modifier to both PER and OCV - smaller characters are -1 or more Size Mod and larger are +1 or more. The cost is from +1 DCV and +1 PER (sight group). This would only ever be halved in situations when the hit location modifier would be halved.

As for making it relative - I would say no. My partner GM and are were arguing about this and found an paper on the net about this topic. We wrote the neuroscientist who basically said that even though and object might seem larger or smaller, your ability to interact with it is based on its objective size. This fundamentally means that two halflings in a fist fight will hit each other less often than two equally skilled humans. I'm fine with that, and it is easier to model.

As for relative size... think about a range bonus instead of a penalty for bringing something closer to you. As the distance is halved, you get a +2. This is why you bring a page of small print closer to your eye. So, while a mouse would have a hard time seeing another mouse 2m away, when he is adjacent (i.e. 1 mouse-hex or 5cm away) the range bonus would be +12 which offsets the size mod of -12 to see the other mouse. Since this doesn't come up much in regular human sized games, it is more of a mental exercise, and a generic size modifier is adequate for modeling.

[ajackson]

I would probably change it from an OCV modifier to a bonus vs Range -- i.e. against a target with 12 levels growth you have +8 vs range, or no range penalties out to 64 hexes. Large objects might also have a low Dex, but that's not specifically required.

This deals with the problem of large creatures always hitting other large creatures, without just giving large creatures no OCV.

[mudpyr8]

The current system for making multiple attacks in a single phase is more complicated than I think it needs to be. I know from introducing players to Hero that the many options for modeling multiple attacks is confusing to some, and at a minimum burdened by so many GM option judgements it is hard to understand what the "official" line is.

Let's do away with Sweep, Rapid Fire, and Multiple Power Attack. Autofire stays. To replace the former 3 options, here is what I propose:

Ambidexterity: 6 points
No off-hand penalty (normally -3).
9 points is just too expensive. 6 points seems about right since it really isn't 3 point PSLs w/ all attacks vs. a mod, it is only PSLs w/ attacks made in the off-hand vs. a mod.

Multiple Attacks: requires 2 skill levels (must be 3/5/8/10 point levels).
Make an extra attack as full phase action at 1/2 DCV.
An additional 2 skill levels will:
1. Reduce time to half-phase action.
2. Eliminate DCV penalty.
Levels with DCV only cannot be used to perform a multiple attack accept to eliminate the DCV penalty.
All attack rolls are made, regardless of how many fail.
If the number of attacks made against a single target do not exceed the number of different attack modes/weapons, there is no DCV penalty. Additionally, if all attack modes/weapons can strike the target simultaneously, the attacker has the option of making a single attack roll and applying the result to all attacks.

These are skill levels, not OCV. This follows the same paradigm as Bouncing an attack. Natural OCV or 2-point skill levels cannot be used in this manner. It rewards having skill levels vs. having just high dex and it simplifies the whole issue. I realize it is adding one more thing to CSLs but this just seems like an ideal solution. It also limits people performing multiple attacks against disadvantaged targets since they can't use their base OCV. It puts an organic limit on the number of attacks as well as the OCV.

Rapid Attack: 3/5/8 points (restricted as skill levels of equivalent value)
Multiple attacks as a half-phase action with appropriate skill group.

Full Attack: 3/5/8 points (restricted as skill levels of equivalent value)
Multiple attacks at full DCV with appropriate skill group.

Gone would be Rapid Attack as it is built and no more Two-Weapon Fighting. Just one mechanic to replace all different kinds of multiple attacks.

[Netzilla]

I would probably change it from an OCV modifier to a bonus vs Range -- i.e. against a target with 12 levels growth you have +8 vs range, or no range penalties out to 64 hexes. Large objects might also have a low Dex, but that's not specifically required.

This deals with the problem of large creatures always hitting other large creatures, without just giving large creatures no OCV.

Unfortunately that would make an Aircraft Carrier at 0 range just as hard to hit as a normal human at 0 range which still doesn't make any sense.

[ajackson]

Unfortunately that would make an Aircraft Carrier at 0 range just as hard to hit as a normal human at 0 range which still doesn't make any sense.
Only if you give the Aircraft Carrier a Dex of 10.

[Hugh Neilson]

Unfortunately that would make an Aircraft Carrier at 0 range just as hard to hit as a normal human at 0 range which still doesn't make any sense.

Only if you give the Aircraft Carrier a Dex of 10.

OK, the aircraft carrier is as hard to hit as a single grain of salt. Does that make more sense?

[Netzilla]

Only if you give the Aircraft Carrier a Dex of 10.

The most you can sell back DEX is to a 1. Unfortunately, this also affects OCV. Normal humans have a DEX of 8 and selling back DEX is really only meaningful in steps of 3. As a result, you eventually end up with Destroyers being no more maneuverable than monster cruise ships and oil tankers. All of the big dinosaurs would end up at 1 or 2 DEX. I doubt a T Rex was as clumsy as a Brontosaurus. I don't see why a Storm Giant shouldn't have an easier time hitting another Storm Giant than it does a relatively small human. Do you really think that they should have sub-human DEX?

Not only that, but look at how applying size mods as range mods interacts with Shrinking: a rifle scope becomes the optimum way to hit a flea.

I used to be a proponent of applying size mods as a modifier on range. Conceptually it makes sense because the farther away something is, the smaller it looks. Unfortunately, you run into too many goofy scenarios with large objects at range 0 and with small objects interacting with PSLs vs Range.

[Netzilla]

OK, the aircraft carrier is as hard to hit as a single grain of salt. Does that make more sense?

Concise! Must learn to be concise!

[Repped]

[ajackson]

I don't see why a Storm Giant shouldn't have an easier time hitting another Storm Giant than it does a relatively small human. Do you really think that they should have sub-human DEX?
I think most creatures should have OCV and DCV equal. A giant monster fast enough to reliably hit a human target is probably also fast enough to dodge human attacks. In addition, when making ranged attacks, a range modifier of 0 should be about 4 times the creature's height.

[Doc Democracy]

Have spent some time reading all the posts so far. There are a number of things that resonate with me and some that don’t – I thought I’d write a synthesis of what I think.

Speed chart – I have decided (though not actually played with yet) to use the speed chart in reverse – I will count down from 12 rather than up from 1 for phases. It makes some differences, keeps the begin on segment 12, keeps the active segments for phases that we are all used to but does not give a free recovery after the first action in a combat – it does mean the phrase post-segment 12 recovery has to go out the window!

I’m for keeping the speed chart for games where speeds vary – I have run a few games where I have hidden the speed characteristic from the players – I told them that they all went twice a round except for one or two characters who had action bonuses and they had extra actions (no exact segments revealed but everyone had speeds 2 or 3). It is an easy way to take the emphasis off the segments.

Combat – this is a wish for the new edition and relates to superheroes more than other genres. In superheroes, Hero follows a path that many other point based systems follow, where attacks and defences are balanced to within an inch of their lives – all the players want to be competitive and so in a usual round there is usually little variation on damage done etc. It is difficult, when rolling large numbers of dice, to break out of a small range of damage done in a round. There is also little in the game whereby a character can exceed himself (pushing and haymakers excepted). It is in genre that in exceptional circumstances, heroes get to deliver a much more effective attack – when DNPC threatened, when Psych limit triggered etc., but there is nothing in game to reflect this.

I like the fact that Superman, Green Lantern etc can all be on their last legs and it is only when the villain actually gloats and pushes at their personal strengths that their powers become effective enough for them to win.

I realise that their powers can be designed to work that way but it would provide the system with a bit more soul if such things were built into the combat/powers system in some way.

Doc

[Netzilla]

I think most creatures should have OCV and DCV equal. A giant monster fast enough to reliably hit a human target is probably also fast enough to dodge human attacks.

Bears, bulls, rhinos and other larger than human animals are known for having very swift attacks (as fast or faster than a human's) but you don't hear much about them being hard to hit.

In addition, when making ranged attacks, a range modifier of 0 should be about 4 times the creature's height.

So, a normal human (theoretically 2m tall) would not impart any range mods out to 8m. A 3m tall ogre (roughly 10 ft) is 0 mod out to 12m. Like I said before, conceptually, this seems to make sense. Unfortunately, this still leaves us with 7m tall giants just as hard to hit at close range as a normal human (which I have problems with as outlined above).

Going in the other direction, a 1m (3'3") tall halfling is -0 RMod out to 4m and is just as easy to hit as a normal human in HtH. Likewise, a 1/2m target (1 1/2ft; like a cat) is -0 to be hit at 2m (again HtH range). A mosquito sitting on your arm (direct skin to skin and thus 0m range) can be hit with no penalty. No matter how small you make something, there's always a 0 range at skin to skin contact and thus a 0 RMod.

[Hugh Neilson]

In fairness, I have little difficulty swatting a mosquito which has landed on my arm, but one which is flying is much tougher. Perhaps the rules should provide that DCV bonuses from smaller size do not apply if the target is making no effort to avoid being struck (ie has been reduced to DCV 0, is out of combat, etc.).

[mudpyr8]

I disagree with the size discussion as is going on. Reality is objective (as reinforced by the neuroscientist we spoke to). This means the size mod is objective and independent of attacker size. The system, as presented, is based on human sized hexes and scale. So, an aircraft carrier (Size +12) is very easy to hit. The weapon systems on board will have no problem hitting the target.

Getting down to a more fantasy scale, a giant (size +2 to size +3) is going to be easy to hit for everyone equally, including other giants.

Why can you hit a mosquito? Area Affect. Large creatures have AE attacks. The charging rhino is doing an AE 1 hex move through - it doesn't matter what your DCV is, if you are in the hex he will most likely hit you.

I've seen a guy step on a mouse. This wasn't because of the guy's DEX, it was because he was making an AE attack against the mouse. Hitting a mouse would be -12, but putting my foot in an area that covered the mouse might only be -4 to -6, and if I set and so on my chances are pretty good.

On variant might be to allow Brace to offset size modifiers and hit location as well, so if you were trying to step on a mouse or something you could get a small bonus for going to half DCV.

[Netzilla]

In fairness, I have little difficulty swatting a mosquito which has landed on my arm, but one which is flying is much tougher. Perhaps the rules should provide that DCV bonuses from smaller size do not apply if the target is making no effort to avoid being struck (ie has been reduced to DCV 0, is out of combat, etc.).

That I can somewhat see. Once the moquito has started drinking, it's mobility is greatly reduced. Swatting one that hasn't yet bitten (landed or not) is much harder. Likewise, trying to hit a fly that's landed on you is very hard without the assistance of a flyswatter or similar.

Actually I can see the case for immobile targets having a reduced RMod in general, though I don't think it should ever be completely eliminated. However, I suspect that's largely accounted for in the DCV adjustment down to 1/2 or 0.

I will say this, moving the size-based DCV mod over to OCV or an RMod does change the way 1/2 and 0 DCV modifiers interact with small-scale targets. On the large scale, the target was already 0 DCV, thus there's no real difference. However, on the small scale, DCV modifiers from size are canceled/reduced by 1/2 and 0 DCV modifiers. This wouldn't happen with an OCV or Range mod. I'm not sure what to do about that, except rule that size-based penalties to hit are treated as DCV in those situations. Feels like a kludge but would work mechanically and I still feel it's better than the current 0 DCV limit we currently run up against.

Another possible solution to the issue of Size and to-hit rolls would be to allow DCV to drop below 0. Then you have to make a change so that all 1/2 and 0 DCV modifiers are instead as expressed as -1/2 abs(DCV) and -abs(DCV) respectively. Thus a target with a -8 DCV would end up at -12 and -16 DCV respectively and a target with an 8 DCV would end up at 4 and 0 DCV just like with the current system. This may actually be a better solution.

[Netzilla]

I disagree with the size discussion as is going on. Reality is objective (as reinforced by the neuroscientist we spoke to). This means the size mod is objective and independent of attacker size. The system, as presented, is based on human sized hexes and scale. So, an aircraft carrier (Size +12) is very easy to hit. The weapon systems on board will have no problem hitting the target.

Sure, but the aircraft carrier is no easier to hit than an armored car under the current system, so I think some change is needed.

Getting down to a more fantasy scale, a giant (size +2 to size +3) is going to be easy to hit for everyone equally, including other giants.

I, as is probably obvious from my previous posts, largely agree here.

Why can you hit a mosquito? Area Affect. Large creatures have AE attacks. The charging rhino is doing an AE 1 hex move through - it doesn't matter what your DCV is, if you are in the hex he will most likely hit you.

I've seen a guy step on a mouse. This wasn't because of the guy's DEX, it was because he was making an AE attack against the mouse. Hitting a mouse would be -12, but putting my foot in an area that covered the mouse might only be -4 to -6, and if I set and so on my chances are pretty good.

On variant might be to allow Brace to offset size modifiers and hit location as well, so if you were trying to step on a mouse or something you could get a small bonus for going to half DCV.

Or make a ruling that if the attacking "object" is as large or larger than the total area of the target, the target's DCV is halved. Thus if you use an AE 1 Hex attack against a human (rather than the hex he's standing in) that human's DCV is halved. That might work.

Actually, now that I think about this, I think I like the following better: If the attacking "object" is as large or larger than the total area of the target, the attack can be "spread" like an Energy Blast.

I don't know, I'm just thinking "out loud" at this point in the discussion.

[CTaylor]

]Sure, but the aircraft carrier is no easier to hit than an armored car under the current system

It is? I understand the rules to say that the larger an object is the lower its functional DCV.

[Netzilla]

Sure, but the aircraft carrier is no easier to hit than an armored car under the current system

It is? I understand the rules to say that the larger an object is the lower its functional DCV.

However, the current system does not allow DCVs to go below 0. "A character's DCV cannot be reduced below 0, regardless of how many modifiers are applied." (5er pg 373).

Interestingly enough, the rules do currently support using Size as a modifier to the attacker's OCV (pg 382) and the concept of relative size modifiers canceling each other out (pg 126). So, the rules on size vs DCV currently vary depending on if it's an object with no DCV (pg 382) or not. All the more reason, in my mind, to consolidate this down to a single rule:

For every x2 human size the target is, the attacker gets +2 OCV. For every x1/2 human size the target is, the attacker gets -2 OCV. If both the Attacker and the Defender have a Size Modifier, subtract the Attacker's Size Modifier from the Defenders to determine the final Size Modifier.

Example: A Storm Giant (+4 to attacker's OCV) is fighting a Hill Giant (+2 to attacker's OCV). The Storm Giant is (2-4) -2 to hit the Hill Giant. The Hill Giant is (4-2) +2 to hit the Storm Giant.

Example2: A halfling (-2 to attacker's OCV) is fighting a pixie (-4 to attacker's OCV). The halfling is (-4 - (-2)) -2 to hit the pixie. The pixie is (-2 - (-4)) +2 to hit the halfing.

[cutsleeve]

I would like to see a small modification in how damage is handled in the hero system. The killing and normal should be handled as separate methods for calculating body and stun output. Normal and resistant defenses should be handled differently though. Normal pd and ed should only cover stun damage and resistant defenses should handle both stun and body damage.

Basically I would like to see all killing/Body damage require resistant defenses and stun would be covered by both resistant and nonresistant.

This is more of a system thing. Killing damage should just be Body damage and Normal damage should be considered stun damage.

[CTaylor]

If you can't hit a DCV 0 object you got problems anyway, I wouldn't be opposed to negative DCV, but ... it's not a real issue, is it?

[Hugh Neilson]

If you can't hit a DCV 0 object you got problems anyway, I wouldn't be opposed to negative DCV, but ... it's not a real issue, is it?

Well, if I want to shoot you in they eye with my 5 OCV, that -12 penalty means it makes a big difference whether you have a 0 DCV or a negative 10 DCV.

At extremes of range, the differentiation could also be relevant.

If lack a targeting sense or attack while moving at NCM speeds, so I'm OCV zero, it also becomes relevant.

[SCUBA Hero]

If you can't hit a DCV 0 object you got problems anyway, I wouldn't be opposed to negative DCV, but ... it's not a real issue, is it?It's an issue with range - sure, you pretty much can't miss an armored car or aircraft carrier if they're right next to you, but when the range penalty is -8 or -10? The two targets are still both just as easy/difficult to hit.

[CTaylor]

I would say that you could apply the excess lower DCV to offset range modifiers and hit location penalties without needing negative DCV in the game, but it's effectively the same thing. GOod points.

[James Gillen]

However, the current system does not allow DCVs to go below 0. "A character's DCV cannot be reduced below 0, regardless of how many modifiers are applied." (5er pg 373).

Interestingly enough, the rules do currently support using Size as a modifier to the attacker's OCV (pg 382) and the concept of relative size modifiers canceling each other out (pg 126). So, the rules on size vs DCV currently vary depending on if it's an object with no DCV (pg 382) or not. All the more reason, in my mind, to consolidate this down to a single rule:

For every x2 human size the target is, the attacker gets +2 OCV. For every x1/2 human size the target is, the attacker gets -2 OCV. If both the Attacker and the Defender have a Size Modifier, subtract the Attacker's Size Modifier from the Defenders to determine the final Size Modifier.

Example: A Storm Giant (+4 to attacker's OCV) is fighting a Hill Giant (+2 to attacker's OCV). The Storm Giant is (2-4) -2 to hit the Hill Giant. The Hill Giant is (4-2) +2 to hit the Storm Giant.

Example2: A halfling (-2 to attacker's OCV) is fighting a pixie (-4 to attacker's OCV). The halfling is (-4 - (-2)) -2 to hit the pixie. The pixie is (-2 - (-4)) +2 to hit the halfing.

Sorta like how D&D/D20 does it. Of course that's one of the things D20 does right.

JG

[Markdoc]

Sorta like how D&D/D20 does it. Of course that's one of the things D20 does right.

JG

Hey, I'm not too proud to swipe good ideas from other sources. It's a good idea, we should swipe it.

cheers, Mark

[Chris Goodwin]

Sorta like how D&D/D20 does it. Of course that's one of the things D20 does right.

JG

It's also how I've more or less always done it in my Robot Warriors conversions, dating back to 4e era.

[James Gillen]

OK then, we're using it from now on. :D

JG

[mudpyr8]

I disagree. That would imply that an Elephant cannot see a mouse, and that simply is not the case. The size of an object is an objective value and not a relative value. Fundamentally, this means the Size Modifier is 1-sided (only an OCV modifier), making big targets easier to hit and smaller targets harder to hit.

Watch 2 cats fight - until they start wrestling, it is rare for a claw to land. Bear catch salmon with their mouths.

By making the mods relative, you create a situation where a halfling is suddenly much better in combat than any other human. A +2 OCV is very significant, and that just doesn't make sense. You put an equally skilled halfling and human side by side shotting bows and they should have an equal chance to hit a bullseye downrange. The size affects them equally (as supported by actual scientific testing).

I think the d20 solution on its face looks clean and seems to jive with our perceptions, but I think it is wrong.

[Netzilla]

By making the mods relative, you create a situation where a halfling is suddenly much better in combat than any other human. A +2 OCV is very significant, and that just doesn't make sense. You put an equally skilled halfling and human side by side shotting bows and they should have an equal chance to hit a bullseye downrange. The size affects them equally (as supported by actual scientific testing).

I think the d20 solution on its face looks clean and seems to jive with our perceptions, but I think it is wrong.

This is why, in my original post, I suggested making the OCV modifier relative should be an optional rule. The OCV modifier being absolute should be the norm. Otherwise you have increase the price of shrinking (to account for both an offensive and defensive advantage) and decrease the price of growth (to account for both an offensive and defensive weakness). I know I didn't explicitly re-iterate this in my most recent post.

[Tonio]

I disagree. That would imply that an Elephant cannot see a mouse, and that simply is not the case. The size of an object is an objective value and not a relative value. Fundamentally, this means the Size Modifier is 1-sided (only an OCV modifier), making big targets easier to hit and smaller targets harder to hit.

Watch 2 cats fight - until they start wrestling, it is rare for a claw to land. Bear catch salmon with their mouths.

By making the mods relative, you create a situation where a halfling is suddenly much better in combat than any other human. A +2 OCV is very significant, and that just doesn't make sense. You put an equally skilled halfling and human side by side shotting bows and they should have an equal chance to hit a bullseye downrange. The size affects them equally (as supported by actual scientific testing).

I think the d20 solution on its face looks clean and seems to jive with our perceptions, but I think it is wrong.

Well, I disagree with what you call scientific testing. Or rather, I believe you misinterpreted the findings. How hard something is to hit for me depends, in part, on my perception of it. Consider the extreme case: I can't see something, so it'll be incredibly hard for me to hit it. The better I can see something, the easier it is for me to aim properly.

Additionally, size differences DO matter. If I'm right next to a battleship, in order for me to miss it, I'd have to swing in a pretty odd direction (straight up/down, or backwards). Any blow aimed roughly forwards will hit the battleship. Now consider a humongous giant, to which the battleship is as big as, say, a dog is to us. His range of movement is wider; there are many "roughly forward" directions he can swing at and miss the battleship. He has to aim better. Hence, it's harder for him to hit it.

If your claim is correct, two sufficiently big creatures will never miss each other, and two sufficiently small ones will never hit each other. If we keep the range the same, that might be true (two giants will never miss at 1m distance, since they're basically already touching each other... any movement is a "hit"; two gnats at 1m can't hit each other, they can't reach), but if you put both creatures within "melee range" of each other (probably a couple of meters for the giants, mebbe half a millimiter for the gnats?), their chances of hitting each other are just about the same (except, of course, for combat ability).

In any case, we don't want realism, we want dramatic realism. Two creatures of equal size fighting each other will find each other equally hittable whether they grow or shrink. Reach is an issue, though... two halflings will miss each other more often if they're two human's arms-lengths away, but that's because they're not close enough. Put them two halfling's arms-lengths away, and they'll hit each other as much as two humans would. According to dramatic realism, anyway.

[CTaylor]

Bear catch salmon with their mouths.

Well what's your DCV while leaping? ;)

[Opal]

I'm afraid the relative size thing really does make a certain amount of sense for 'dramatic realism.' If two normal-size character are shrunk or growthed to exactly the same degree - along with everything around them - why should they suddently find it tremendously harder or easier to hit eachother. (Never mind the cube-squared law, BTW, this is dramatic realism, not real realism ;) )

One way to handle it is with size affecting reach and range mods. Very small characters must stand closer to eachother to fight in melee, so thier improved range mods are negated. Very large characters melee at the limit of thier reach, so maybe that 'distance' normalizes thier DCV relative to eachother, as well.

When a small character gets to within his own reach of a very large character, he's /very/ close, compared to that character's normal melee distance.


Just a thought, not sure how the numbers would work out.

[mudpyr8]

I agree with two small characters being closer adding to their ability PER each other, but not hit.

If I use a magnifying glass to view my miniature as I paint, It allows me to see better BUT it is still just as difficult to be precise as it was without the magnifying glass - my hand isn't any steadier and the brush isn't any smaller. Precision is still required, and the object is still small.

Using a scope eliminates range penalty and allows me to see where I am going to hit, assuming I can control the weapon properly, and for something 300m away that is a big deal. However, it's not going to improve beyond my ability to hit the same target 25m away. If the target is small - it's just small. There is less area for me to strike, and I have to be more precise, there's just no two ways about it.

The thing that really makes this hold true is the fact that hero is baselined on a human scale. If it were baselined on a relative scale, and you changed everything to match the new scale (say, defining 1 hex = .25m) then i would agree with you. But, it isn't, and an OCV of 3 is a human-sized OCV of 3, regardless of the actual size of the attacker.

[Tonio]

If I use a magnifying glass to view my miniature as I paint, It allows me to see better BUT it is still just as difficult to be precise as it was without the magnifying glass - my hand isn't any steadier and the brush isn't any smaller. Precision is still required, and the object is still small.

Try painting it without the magnifying glass. I guarantee it'll be harder, and/or you'll make a mess out of it. Regardless of how you explain this phenomenon, not being able to perceive the figurine as well results in higher difficulty at being precise.

Now try to imagine you painting the figurine if you were the size of an ant. I'd say it'd be immensely easier, no? Your broadest stroke would still be precise enough to stay "within the lines" (so to speak).

To use an extreme example, imagine you were small enough so that your entire reach would only span an atom. Now you can paint the figurine with 100% precision, since it's literally impossible for you to paint an area other than the one you want to. (Sure, it might take forever, but that's a different story.)

Using a scope eliminates range penalty and allows me to see where I am going to hit, assuming I can control the weapon properly, and for something 300m away that is a big deal. However, it's not going to improve beyond my ability to hit the same target 25m away. If the target is small - it's just small. There is less area for me to strike, and I have to be more precise, there's just no two ways about it.

The target being small creates two problems: there's less of it to hit, and it's harder to see (and therefore aim at). Using a scope eliminates (or lessens, rather) the second problem. Perceiving the target better invariably results in better accuracy.

[mudpyr8]

The target being small creates two problems: there's less of it to hit, and it's harder to see (and therefore aim at). Using a scope eliminates (or lessens, rather) the second problem. Perceiving the target better invariably results in better accuracy.

Yes, but the accuracy cannot be improved beyond your ability to hit the target in the first place at a distance where range is not a factor. In Hero, that range is out to 8m, which is a pretty good distance. At that range the scope is going to be more of a hindrance than a help.

Think of a squirrel leaping on to you. A squirrel is, let's say, a -8 Size Modifier and probably 5 OCV? 6? Even so, if the size mod were relative, there would be no way for a normal man to dodge a squirrel (or a cat, or similarly sized animal) leaping at him, and that isn't the case. With an OCV of 5 or 6 and a relative size mod that gives him an OCV total of 13 or 14. Versus a DCV 3 or 4 man, there is just no way of missing, even if the man dodges. The animal's ability to hit the target is still based on the standard human-sized scale because that's the baseline that was established for the system. Everything is already size relative to that baseline.

Relative size modifiers creates a whole bunch of other issues that are extremely unbalancing, especially when you have a game where 1m characters are involved often with 3-4m characters, so now Ogres (+2 size mod) essentially can't hit an halfling (-2 size mod).

[Vondy]

Yes, but the accuracy cannot be improved beyond your ability to hit the target in the first place at a distance where range is not a factor. In Hero, that range is out to 8m, which is a pretty good distance. At that range the scope is going to be more of a hindrance than a help.

Think of a squirrel leaping on to you. A squirrel is, let's say, a -8 Size Modifier and probably 5 OCV? 6? Even so, if the size mod were relative, there would be no way for a normal man to dodge a squirrel (or a cat, or similarly sized animal) leaping at him, and that isn't the case. With an OCV of 5 or 6 and a relative size mod that gives him an OCV total of 13 or 14. Versus a DCV 3 or 4 man, there is just no way of missing, even if the man dodges. The animal's ability to hit the target is still based on the standard human-sized scale because that's the baseline that was established for the system. Everything is already size relative to that baseline.

Relative size modifiers creates a whole bunch of other issues that are extremely unbalancing, especially when you have a game where 1m characters are involved often with 3-4m characters, so now Ogres (+2 size mod) essentially can't hit an halfling (-2 size mod).

Gray Squirrels of Doom!!!

[Tonio]

Yes, but the accuracy cannot be improved beyond your ability to hit the target in the first place at a distance where range is not a factor. In Hero, that range is out to 8m, which is a pretty good distance. At that range the scope is going to be more of a hindrance than a help.

Think of a squirrel leaping on to you. A squirrel is, let's say, a -8 Size Modifier and probably 5 OCV? 6? Even so, if the size mod were relative, there would be no way for a normal man to dodge a squirrel (or a cat, or similarly sized animal) leaping at him, and that isn't the case. With an OCV of 5 or 6 and a relative size mod that gives him an OCV total of 13 or 14. Versus a DCV 3 or 4 man, there is just no way of missing, even if the man dodges. The animal's ability to hit the target is still based on the standard human-sized scale because that's the baseline that was established for the system. Everything is already size relative to that baseline.

Relative size modifiers creates a whole bunch of other issues that are extremely unbalancing, especially when you have a game where 1m characters are involved often with 3-4m characters, so now Ogres (+2 size mod) essentially can't hit an halfling (-2 size mod).

That sounds more like a balance issue (size giving modifiers that are too big, the bell-curve giving widely different CVs exaggerated effects), though.

A squirrel, if you're within its melee range, really should hit you VERY often. A 4m-tall ogre should have a harder time hitting a 1m-tall halfling than a 2m-tall human should, I think. The halfling occupies a smaller segment of the ogre's total hittable area than it would a human's.

If we could only strike in three directions (straight ahead, ahead-left (30 degrees off dead-center), and ahead-right (again, 30 degrees off)), an ogre would miss a halfling with the two side shots, while another halfling would hit. The ogre is more likely to miss with a random, unaimed shot. Hence, the ogre has to aim more precisely to hit. Hence, he has a harder time hitting. The halfling would always hit the ogre, while another ogre would miss with the side shots.

[ajackson]

I will note that a cat can hit a squirrel; in fact, if the squirrel doesn't leave mighty quick, the cat will hit the squirrel on the first try. If a cat has an OCV of 5 (no size bonus to OCV) and the squirrel has a DCV of 13 (size bonus to DCV) the cat can only hit the squirrel on a 3, which is obviously untrue.

I would be tempted to just have each halving of mass give +1 Dex, each doubling give -1, thus halving the CV modifiers.

[CTaylor]

The thing is, in real life, it's actually pretty easy to hit with a hand to hand attack. Missing is not very common, except in movies. Up close, you're pretty much unlikely to miss with a ranged attack as well. It's just in games that can be a problem.

[ajackson]

Missing is not very common, except in movies.
A hit that was blocked or parried is basically a miss in Hero terms; the block maneuver is for taking extra effort, just like the dodge maneuver.

[dugfromthearth]

I like the spd chart. It makes hero different.

My issue with speed is that 2 is too low of a base. Going from spd 2 to spd 3 is a 50% increase in number of actions.

If speed 4 were the base speed raising it by 1 would be only a 25% increase - half as big a step. Characters would still have different speeds but heroic characters would have around a 6 and supers 8-10. You would get the effects of the speed chart without making characters get so many more actions than they do now.

[Netzilla]

A hit that was blocked or parried is basically a miss in Hero terms; the block maneuver is for taking extra effort, just like the dodge maneuver.

An average human (OCV 3) swinging/shooting at an average human (DCV 3) will only hit 62.5% of the time if the target doesn't block or dodge. That's considerably lower than it should be. Me and my buddies in grade school had no troubles knocking each other around and we had absolutely no training and I don't think we ever much thought about defense. Heck, by the current rules, if the attacker attempts a Grab (-1 OCV) he only has a 50% chance of success. Me and my friends must have been damn good since I'm pretty sure we had a better than 50% success rate at tackling each other to wrestle around.

It's an artifice of the game system that people are harder to hit/better at defense than they actually should be. It's also a game balance issue. If you raise the frequency of hits, people either need to become more durable or do less damage.

[GamePhil]

An average human (OCV 3) swinging/shooting at an average human (DCV 3) will only hit 62.5% of the time if the target doesn't block or dodge. That's considerably lower than it should be. Me and my buddies in grade school had no troubles knocking each other around and we had absolutely no training and I don't think we ever much thought about defense. Heck, by the current rules, if the attacker attempts a Grab (-1 OCV) he only has a 50% chance of success. Me and my friends must have been damn good since I'm pretty sure we had a better than 50% success rate at tackling each other to wrestle around.

It's an artifice of the game system that people are harder to hit/better at defense than they actually should be. It's also a game balance issue. If you raise the frequency of hits, people either need to become more durable or do less damage.

You may be right in your overall conclusion, you may not be, but your example doesn't prove it. Yes, you as kids could easily hit one another, but you weren't approaching each other with potentially lethal force, either, and presumably trusted one another. I think you may have tried much harder to get out of one another's way in other circumstances.

And, yes, that could be considered Dodging or Blocking, but would not be if you are able to retaliate at or about the same time.

[Netzilla]

You may be right in your overall conclusion, you may not be, but your example doesn't prove it. Yes, you as kids could easily hit one another, but you weren't approaching each other with potentially lethal force, either, and presumably trusted one another. I think you may have tried much harder to get out of one another's way in other circumstances.

And, yes, that could be considered Dodging or Blocking, but would not be if you are able to retaliate at or about the same time.

Have you ever seen two kids fight with the serious intent to hurt one another? How about two untrained adults in a bar fight? The only time I've ever seen missing nearly 40% of the time involved alcohol or one or both parties fighting defensively (bocking and dodging). Even in professional fights, when you have two opponents getting into a slug-fest (rather than bobbing, weaving, shoulder shrugging, etc) they end up hitting each other closer to 90+% of the time.

The hero system does not really distinguish between hitting someone with the intent to kill and hitting someone just to lay a finger on them. Both are equally hard in Hero System terms. The amount of damage intended is not at all port of the to-hit system but more appropriately part of the damage/defense system.

Now, keep in mind that I am not arguing in favor of changing the Hero Systems odds of hitting someone. In fact, I'm strongly against it either way because the current damage/defense system is balanced around the current hit frequencies. Changing the hit frequency would require a major reworking of the combat system as a whole. Likewise, in dramatic reality people don't hit each other that often unless they're the hero or main villain.

My main point is that attempting to use real world analysis about how hard/easy something is to hit (such as cats catching much smaller mice) is of limited value when discussing Hero System mechanics because they're already skewed away from reality. Plus real life doesn't operate within a 3d6 bell curve.

[Susano]

I'll point out that "missing" in Hero doesn't mean "I swing and hit only air." Hero is all about SFX. So a "miss" in Hero could mean you connect and simply don't do any damage.

[Chris Goodwin]

An average human (OCV 3) swinging/shooting at an average human (DCV 3) will only hit 62.5% of the time if the target doesn't block or dodge. That's considerably lower than it should be.

Swinging, I don't know about... but shooting? Try it sometime. I'd say let it average out. We're not talking real realism here, but dramatic and cinematic realism.

[CTaylor]

I agree with Mr Goodwin ;) We want a cross between realism and enjoyment in that land called "believability" and to really simulate combat very closely you need an insanely detailed system that nobody could really know well enough to play off the top of their heads.

[Shike019]

I'll point out that "missing" in Hero doesn't mean "I swing and hit only air." Hero is all about SFX. So a "miss" in Hero could mean you connect and simply don't do any damage.

I have to Agree with Susano here, I would say that an average human swinging at an average human will hit EFFECTIVELY about 62% of the time. From what I remember taking martial arts, Most if not all of my attacks "landed" but most grazed an arm/shoulder, were blocked/dodged, didn't make it through defenses, etc. Yes you hit about 90% of the time, but of those hits, how many are effective hits that actually cause damage.

[nexus]

I'll point out that "missing" in Hero doesn't mean "I swing and hit only air." Hero is all about SFX. So a "miss" in Hero could mean you connect and simply don't do any damage.

Yep or your opponent parries your attack.

[ajackson]

An average human (OCV 3) swinging/shooting at an average human (DCV 3) will only hit 62.5% of the time if the target doesn't block or dodge.
Incorrect. If the target is actually not blocking or dodging, he's 0 DCV and an average human hits 90% of the time. A character who is maintaining a non-zero DCV is still blocking or dodging blows, he's just not using enough effort to consume an action doing so.

[Netzilla]

We're not talking real realism here, but dramatic and cinematic realism.

I made that point in my last two paragraphs.

[GamePhil]

Yeah, all this was apparently what he was getting at in the first place: Reality is not necessarily a good measure of how to make a game work.

[Netzilla]

{Removed because A) I let myself get sidetracked into the damage/to hit roll split argument and B) GamePhil got my main argument and pointed it out much more succinctly than I did. I'd rep him but I "have to spread more around".}

[Hugh Neilson]

An average human (OCV 3) swinging/shooting at an average human (DCV 3) will only hit 62.5% of the time if the target doesn't block or dodge. That's considerably lower than it should be. Me and my buddies in grade school had no troubles knocking each other around and we had absolutely no training and I don't think we ever much thought about defense. Heck, by the current rules, if the attacker attempts a Grab (-1 OCV) he only has a 50% chance of success. Me and my friends must have been damn good since I'm pretty sure we had a better than 50% success rate at tackling each other to wrestle around.

It's an artifice of the game system that people are harder to hit/better at defense than they actually should be. It's also a game balance issue. If you raise the frequency of hits, people either need to become more durable or do less damage.

You may be right in your overall conclusion, you may not be, but your example doesn't prove it. Yes, you as kids could easily hit one another, but you weren't approaching each other with potentially lethal force, either, and presumably trusted one another. I think you may have tried much harder to get out of one another's way in other circumstances.

And, yes, that could be considered Dodging or Blocking, but would not be if you are able to retaliate at or about the same time.

Incorrect. If the target is actually not blocking or dodging, he's 0 DCV and an average human hits 90% of the time. A character who is maintaining a non-zero DCV is still blocking or dodging blows, he's just not using enough effort to consume an action doing so.

GamePhil and ajackson quoted for accuracy. That 37.5% miss doesn't mean you connect with nothing but air. The fact that a person is actively avoiding being hit does not mean he is using up his phase to do so. The fact that your target dodges and blocks does not mean he is Dodging or Blocking as a combat maneuver.

Similarly, the 50% Grab chance also goes beyond " we were able to wrestle". A successful grab pins two limbs, preventing your target from retaliating with those limbs. The fact you could wrestle around afterwards means the Grab did not, in fact, succeed. Note also that if you were intending to wrestle around, you would both be taking the Grab penalty to DCV, as well as OCV. Taken together, these enhance the prospects of a successful Grab.

While I agree with the premise that a combat system cannot cover all the real-world variables (including people who fall from airplanes and live, while others slip in the kitchen and die from the fall), I don't think the system is as far off reality as you make it out to be.

[GamePhil]

{Removed because A) I let myself get sidetracked into the damage/to hit roll split argument and B) GamePhil got my main argument and pointed it out much more succinctly than I did. I'd rep him but I "have to spread more around".}

Only sorry I didn't understand your point the first time.

[CTaylor]

An attack that doesn't get through defenses on a target is one that hit but rolled poorly: if you hit with hero, you hit. Blocks and dodges are another matter, blocks are not terribly hard, dodges more so.

However, the system as is works fine as a compromise.

[ideasmith]

Some possible changes to Presence Attacks:


Specify that the target’s player chooses what emotion is inspired by the Presence Attack.
Limit the effects of a PRE of EGO +30 to a full Turn.
These suggested changes have the same purpose: to increase player control over the PC's without overly impacting the usefulness of Presence Attacks.

[Mini-Nukette]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think so. While the SPD system can be a touch cumbersome at times, it’s one of the defining elements of the HERO System and I think it works just fine most of the time. Furthermore, removing it would require all sorts of other changes throughout the rules, and that’s not desireable.


The Speed Chart is one of the HERO System's quintessential rules, so should remain. As stated in Combat Time, GM's may wish to ignore the SPD Chart to make combat go more quickly and smoothly. Simply allow each character to act once per "combat round." So the rule is (like all the others) at the GM's discretion.

I might suggest, as a possible option, Reflex tests.

Each player can make a Reflex test on 1d6 on any segment in which they don't have a Phase.
If the roll is under or equal their character's SPD, and not a 6, they can move any upcoming Phases back up to that many segments plus one (minimum of one) divided between those Phases as they wish. Each Phase must occupy a separate segment.
It is possible to move an upcoming Phase into the current active segment, enabling them to declare and take an Action as normal.
Once a player has made a successful Reflex test, they cannot make another that Turn for that character. On the following Turn, moved Phases return to their normal segments, and the player can begin Reflex tests again.

This gives every player something extra they can do on segments in a combat in which they otherwise might lose interest if there are large variations in SPD amongst the participants, and adds a little randomness to the normally rigid Speed Chart.

Maybe this could be incorporated as some kind of "Fast Reflexes" Power, or such a power providing a bonus to the Reflexes test.

[CTaylor]

You could use a D12 to check each phase too; the problem is the more you surrender control of your character to dice, the worse it can suck. Sometimes people just have no luck at all - I'm usually one of them.

[Mini-Nukette]

By making the mods relative, you create a situation where a halfling is suddenly much better in combat than any other human. A +2 OCV is very significant, and that just doesn't make sense. You put an equally skilled halfling and human side by side shotting bows and they should have an equal chance to hit a bullseye downrange. The size affects them equally (as supported by actual scientific testing).

I sincerely doubt someone found a halfling to make an actual scientific test. ;)

Personally, I would expect a halfling archer at a human archery tournament to be at a disadvantage. Not due to the two races difference of size, but to the size of the bows they could efficiently handle, and the relative pull each can put into the release of the arrow. The halfling might have a higher DEX and therefore better hand-eye coordination and basic accuracy, but the humans STR would enable them to fire a longer distance with more power, and less loss of deviation on the arrows flight on closer distances.

If the two races each had an established archery tournament, then they would have over the years modified the target sizes, ranges, etc. to best suit their own race, so that skill becomes the most important factor. An archer from another race wishing to join the tournament might be given penalties, probably quite heavy ones, or only invited to join in a 'friendly' capacity rather than an actual competing one. As a penalty, for example, the human might be given a halfling bow and quiver of arrows, with which he has little familiarity, and as such would be unsure of a number of factors like how much pull he should use. He may easily undershoot or overshoot the target whilst he adjusts.

Outside an archery tournament, the halfing and human archers have no such rulings to balance their respective natural gifts or hindrances with their actual archery skill. I'd expect the human to be a superior archer to the halfling one, just as I'd expect an elven archer to be superior to them both.

[Netzilla]

You could use a D12 to check each phase too; the problem is the more you surrender control of your character to dice, the worse it can suck. Sometimes people just have no luck at all - I'm usually one of them.

If you really want to randomize the turn order, I'd recommend using a deck of cards: one each of Ace through Queen (1-12). The GM then shuffles the cards between each Post Segment 12. Each Segment, a card is drawn. If your speed is equal to or higher than the value of the card, you can act. Once all cards have been drawn, PS12 occurs. It's simple in concept and execution, no one acts more or less often than they should and you don't have to worry about rolling a '12' twelve times in a row.

Of course, you run into some problems when randomizing the turn order no matter how you do it: Held actions can become a problem as you don't know when you might lose one. You can potentially get high Speed characters getting to act 3+ times back-to-back uninterrupted, which can be highly unbalancing. There's others, but those two strike me as the biggest reason not to do a random turn order.

If everyone's nearly the same Speed (such as a Heroic game where everyone is Spd 3 or 4) then randomizing the Speed Chart won't be as unbalancing, but then it also won't have much effect at all.

[archermoo]

If you really want to randomize the turn order, I'd recommend using a deck of cards: one each of Ace through Queen (1-12). The GM then shuffles the cards between each Post Segment 12. Each Segment, a card is drawn. If your speed is equal to or higher than the value of the card, you can act. Once all cards have been drawn, PS12 occurs. It's simple in concept and execution, no one acts more or less often than they should and you don't have to worry about rolling a '12' twelve times in a row.

Of course, you run into some problems when randomizing the turn order no matter how you do it: Held actions can become a problem as you don't know when you might lose one. You can potentially get high Speed characters getting to act 3+ times back-to-back uninterrupted, which can be highly unbalancing. There's others, but those two strike me as the biggest reason not to do a random turn order.

If everyone's nearly the same Speed (such as a Heroic game where everyone is Spd 3 or 4) then randomizing the Speed Chart won't be as unbalancing, but then it also won't have much effect at all.

I've played with a system very much like that one in the past. The only reason I stuck around past the first combat was because I really liked the people I was playing with.

[jye42]

I have an issue that i dont think anyone else has raised (maybe its just me :P) i tend to GM alot of games with my group ive been playing since 4th, and i find its hard to get a OCV/DCV/DC balance in the party for combat.
it is not at all uncommon in say a super hero game for one character to achieve 7-8 OCV/DCV and good damage while another may have 10 or more CV and just as much damage. on the whole it isnt a massive problem except were designing adventures goes. if i create a bad guy who has as much as the upper guy the lower one will never hit and feel like his character sux by the same token if i make it lower closer to the scope of the other guy the upper guy hits all the time and wipes the floor with them.
Now although i dont want to limit players ability to go an innacurate hard hitter or a precision soft hitter. but there's no control to stop a single character domineering over the others.
So we use as a house rule somthing we have called combat rating and its basically max OCV potential + max DCV potential + max DC potential and then we set a limit on what the combat rating is, for example we may say no more than 40 combat rating. it makes the power gamers in the group have a cap and the other players have an idea what the combat giants will have so they can build on the combat rating to make themselves equal.
Its still a mostly untested system and im not sure what could be done to take DEF and EGO powers into consideration

[CTaylor]

I do see what you're saying, but I'd hate to play a game where combat was the only metric of a character's usefulness. Chances are, if a character has lower damage and the same CV (or even lower CV) they make up for it by having other useful powers that might have nothing to do with combat like long distance flight for the group, healing, change environment etc.

[Hugh Neilson]

If you really want to randomize the turn order, I'd recommend using a deck of cards: one each of Ace through Queen (1-12). The GM then shuffles the cards between each Post Segment 12. Each Segment, a card is drawn. If your speed is equal to or higher than the value of the card, you can act. Once all cards have been drawn, PS12 occurs. It's simple in concept and execution, no one acts more or less often than they should and you don't have to worry about rolling a '12' twelve times in a row.

Of course, you run into some problems when randomizing the turn order no matter how you do it: Held actions can become a problem as you don't know when you might lose one. You can potentially get high Speed characters getting to act 3+ times back-to-back uninterrupted, which can be highly unbalancing. There's others, but those two strike me as the biggest reason not to do a random turn order.

If everyone's nearly the same Speed (such as a Heroic game where everyone is Spd 3 or 4) then randomizing the Speed Chart won't be as unbalancing, but then it also won't have much effect at all.

Use the Kings as PS 12 and the randomization increases. Now, whether that's a problem or a benefit depends on perspective. A more random system creates the possibility of several actions in a row, or an extended drought. If you like more randomness, that's a benefit. If not, it's a detriment.

Yes, you might lose your next phase if you delay too long. Maybe that's a good thing - do real people actually know when Segment 3 ends and Segment 4 begins? If you can take an action every 3 seconds (Spd 4), does it make sense that you can take one action at Second 5.9 and another at Second 6.0 ? I find this a common result of held actions - "Oh, this is the end of Phase 5 so I may as well do something before Phase 6", or even announcement of Phase 6 followed by "Wait, I move before the end of Phase 5", as if a banner announcing the change of phase is carried across the sky by cherubs.

[Mini-Nukette]

The idea behind my Reflex Test was to give the Speed Chart a little randomization, with the players being able to control the results somewhat. Its just one dice, and a quick check against SPD, so easy to remember. To flesh out Reflexes a little more:

A d6 Reflexes Test can be made at the beginning of any current segment in which the player does not have a Phase, as long as their character has at least one upcoming Phase left later in the same Turn.
If the roll is under or equal the characters SPD, barring a 6 which is an automatic fail, they can advance any upcoming Phases by the number rolled plus one.
A Phase can be advanced into the current segment, though the character acts as if his DEX is halved when determining order of Action. If that Action requires additional time, then DEX is still considered to be halved when the Action is resolved in a later segment.
If the characters SPD if under 6, then the player cannot advance Phases to more than two current/upcoming consecutive Phases in row. If SPD 6 to 8, then the player cannot have more than three current/upcoming consecutive Phases in a row.
Once a player has made a successful Reflexes test, they cannot make another in the same Turn.
After a Turn ends, all advanced Phases move back to their original position on the Speed Chart, and players can begin to make Reflexes tests again.

A Swift Reflexes Power may enable a player to continue to make Reflex tests after his first success in a Turn, one per segment. Each success on a Reflex test beyond the first is at -2 on the roll for how far the player can advance upcoming Phases, to a minimum of one.

[IndianaJoe3]

For those that care, here is a sample Speed chart I made up for a 15-segment turn. I haven't playtested it yet, but I don't think it has any weird bends.

[Netzilla]

Okay, this is a pet peeve of mine regarding the Speed Chart: I really want to change the following rule under “Optional Speed Change” (5ER 357):

“After he has changed his SPD, a character cannot act (though he may Abort; see below) until the next Segment that's a Phase for both the SPDs.”

By this ruling if you apply a 10 AP Aid to someone to bring them from SPD 3 to SPD 4, they cannot act again until Segment 12. That's fine if the Aid goes off in segment 9 or later. Do it prior to Segment 4 and you've just reduced the target to 1 action at the end of the Turn. There are other similar SPD combinations that will have basically the same result. If the target is SPD 1, it's worse as a final SPD of anything other than 7, 9, 11 or 12 will keep the target from ever acting again until the Aid wears off.

Really, Aid SPD is not something you should want to apply to one of your opponents.

You get the same results in reverse from a Drain, making Drain SPD insanely over-powered against low-SPD characters.

I believe that the ruling should be: “After he has changed his SPD, a character cannot act (though he may Abort; see below) until a Segment for each of the SPDs has occurred.”

Then the Storvak example changes to:

“Storvak is in his humanoid form (SPD 3). On Segment 4, he has a Phase, and decides to change into his cheetah form (SPD 6). He can now only act when a Segment has occurred for both SPDs 3 and 6. SPD 6 gives Storvak a Phase on Segment 6, but because a Segment has not occurred for SPD 3, he cannot take an Action – he must wait until Segment 8, the next Segment that occurs for SPD3. Thereafter, he acts on SPD 6's Phases.”

[CTaylor]

Another option would be to do what I always have. You go on the phase following the one you'd have gone on in your last speed.

So you have Bob who is speed 3 who is boosted to speed 4. He would normally move next on phase 4, but because of his speed change, he has to wait for the next phase, which will be 6.

Basically you skip one of your old phases and go on the next new phase.

[nexus]

Suggestions:

Change the name of Haymaker to something like All out Attack. Since it can be used with all attacks, a more general use name seems appropriate.

Have making a Haymaker reduce physical or Mental DCV as appropriate in all cases.

Change Ego Combat Value to Mental Combat Value. it seems clearer.

[BobGreenwade]

Change Ego Combat Value to Mental Combat Value. it seems clearer.While this has some appeal for the reason you say, we also have options (in TUM) for Intelligence Combat Value and Presence Combat Value (and I've been working up a structure for Comeliness Combat Value), so keeping Ego Combat Value under that name makes those alternate CVs easy to name.

[James Gillen]

While this has some appeal for the reason you say, we also have options (in TUM) for Intelligence Combat Value and Presence Combat Value (and I've been working up a structure for Comeliness Combat Value),

That would be good for America's Top Model HERO.

JG

[Klaus Mogensen]

Okay, this is a pet peeve of mine regarding the Speed Chart: I really want to change the following rule under “Optional Speed Change” (5ER 357):

“After he has changed his SPD, a character cannot act (though he may Abort; see below) until the next Segment that's a Phase for both the SPDs.”

In 4th Ed, the rule is: "After he has changed his SPD, the character cannot act until he has had a phase for both of the SPDs."

I think that's what's meant to be the rule in 5th Ed as well - it is just badly worded.

[Klaus Mogensen]

One staple of superhero comics is strong guys picking up heavy object like lamp posts and cars and bashing people with them. Hero doesn't support this really well - the most you can get is the ability to attack an entire hex if you use a large enough object.

I propose replacing the Haymaker maneuver with something more like what is seen in comics:

Bashing
A character can do extra damage by picking up a heavy object and bashing targets with it. Bashing attacks get a damage bonus equal to half the STR required to lift the object. Damage is limited by the object's DEF+BODY, and the object will take the same damage as it deals.

For every 25% (rounded off) of the character's STR that is needed to lift the object, a -1 DCV penalty is incurred. If the object is unwieldy, attacks incur an extra -2 OCV penalty. On the other hand, if the object is large enough, the attack can count as an area attack.

If the wielded object is longer than 1", the character may choose to do extra Knockback instead of extra damage. When calculating KB for such a batting attack, add BODY equal to one-fifth the STR needed to lift the object (e.g., swinging a 100kg lamp post will add 2 BODY when calculating KB). Batting incurs an extra -1 OCV penalty for every 1" of object length.

The reason why I think this maneuver (or something like it) should replace Haymaker, rather than simply supplement it, is that otherwise there wouldn't be much idea in using Bashing instead, since Haymaker does at least as much damage and doesn't cause collateral damage.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

[Hugh Neilson]

One staple of superhero comics is strong guys picking up heavy object like lamp posts and cars and bashing people with them. Hero doesn't support this really well - the most you can get is the ability to attack an entire hex if you use a large enough object.

I propose replacing the Haymaker maneuver with something more like what is seen in comics:

Bashing
A character can do extra damage by picking up a heavy object and bashing targets with it. Bashing attacks get a damage bonus equal to half the STR required to lift the object. Damage is limited by the object's DEF+BODY, and the object will take the same damage as it deals.

For every 25% (rounded off) of the character's STR that is needed to lift the object, a -1 DCV penalty is incurred. If the object is unwieldy, attacks incur an extra -2 OCV penalty. On the other hand, if the object is large enough, the attack can count as an area attack.

If the wielded object is longer than 1", the character may choose to do extra Knockback instead of extra damage. When calculating KB for such a batting attack, add BODY equal to one-fifth the STR needed to lift the object (e.g., swinging a 100kg lamp post will add 2 BODY when calculating KB). Batting incurs an extra -1 OCV penalty for every 1" of object length.

The reason why I think this maneuver (or something like it) should replace Haymaker, rather than simply supplement it, is that otherwise there wouldn't be much idea in using Bashing instead, since Haymaker does at least as much damage and doesn't cause collateral damage.

If we replace Haymaker, we're back to "only Bricks can augment their damage with this maneuver". I liked the 5e move to make maneuvers more universal.

[Klaus Mogensen]

The superheroic origins of HERO shows itself in the way STUN damage is healed. Unless a character is beaten into a coma, all STUN damage is recovered in at most few minutes of rest. This does not fit well with most non-super campaigns. There are rules for long-term Endurance - why not add a rule for long-term STUN?

I see two options for handling long-term STUN in heroic and gritty camapigns:

All STUN damage takes longer to recover.
When a character gets Stunned, half the STUN damage taken in the attack is considered long-term STUN and takes longer to recover.

I like the second option best, but the first is simpler. Perhaps both options could be included in a sidebar?

Recovery times for long-term STUN in both options could be REC per hour for heroic campaigns and REC per day for gritty campaigns.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

[Klaus Mogensen]

If we replace Haymaker, we're back to "only Bricks can augment their damage with this maneuver". I liked the 5e move to make maneuvers more universal.
Well, I admit I haven't read 5e. When I heard that the Characteristics imbalances wouldn't be touched, I didn't bother buying it. However, the Bashing rules are based on how you do extra damage by wielding weapons, which already is something restricted to muscle types.

One option is to partly decouple damage from STR so that you can only use your STR fully for damage if you wield heavy objects; otherwise you only do STR/10. This will also make Move Through less of a damage-cap breaker (Or has Move Through also been changed in 5e?).

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

[nexus]

The superheroic origins of HERO shows itself in the way STUN damage is healed. Unless a character is beaten into a coma, all STUN damage is recovered in at most few minutes of rest. This does not fit well with most non-super campaigns

I'd say it doesn't fit well for more "gritty" games but it does for cinematic ones. In action movies, Die Hard for example, major characters tend to recover from pretty bad abuse quickly. They might look beat up but they're rarely actually impaired unless they've taken major injury (Body damage/Impairing wound in Hero Terms). And often bounce back after a short rest or scene change. It works for dramatic realism.

That said, I think optional "grittier" recovery rules are good idea and widely applicable enough to be included in the core book(s).

[Netzilla]

In 4th Ed, the rule is: "After he has changed his SPD, the character cannot act until he has had a phase for both of the SPDs."

I think that's what's meant to be the rule in 5th Ed as well - it is just badly worded.

Actually, I had asked Steve Long to clarify this back before 5ER was released in this post (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15582):

The wording & example on HSR 233 (specifically "...until the next Segment which is a Phase for both of the of the SPDs.") have left some of us wondering.

Using the example (on Segment 2 a SPD 3 character is boosted to SPD 4), should this rule be interpreted as:

A) Both the old SPD score and the new SPD score have to have a common phase. Therefore the boosted character cannot act until Segment 12 (the only phase SPDs 3 & 4 have in common).

B) Both the old SPD score and the new SPD score have had the opportunity for a phase. Therefore the boosted character's next action is on Segment 4 (having already passed Seg 3 for SPD 4).

It means exactly what it says: the next Segment which is a Phase for both of the of the SPDs. Look at the SPD Chart, determine the next Segment in which both of those SPDs ordinarily have a Phase, and that's the one. In your example, it would be Segment 12.

The current rule really is the way I described it. Prior to Steve's answer, I interpreted it the same way you did. Unfortunately that wasn't true for everyone and a discussion of the topic over on rec.games.frp.super-heroes prompted me to post the question.

The language and example in 5ER were changed to reflect Steve Long's ruling.

[Hugh Neilson]

The superheroic origins of HERO shows itself in the way STUN damage is healed. Unless a character is beaten into a coma, all STUN damage is recovered in at most few minutes of rest. This does not fit well with most non-super campaigns. There are rules for long-term Endurance - why not add a rule for long-term STUN?

I see two options for handling long-term STUN in heroic and gritty camapigns:

All STUN damage takes longer to recover.
When a character gets Stunned, half the STUN damage taken in the attack is considered long-term STUN and takes longer to recover.

I like the second option best, but the first is simpler. Perhaps both options could be included in a sidebar?

Recovery times for long-term STUN in both options could be REC per hour for heroic campaigns and REC per day for gritty campaigns.

I like the idea of a Long Term STUN optional rule. I'd like to see it dovetail with the Long term END rules (which probably means some adjustment to both the above proposal and the existing LTE rules).

Well, I admit I haven't read 5e. When I heard that the Characteristics imbalances wouldn't be touched, I didn't bother buying it. However, the Bashing rules are based on how you do extra damage by wielding weapons, which already is something restricted to muscle types.

One option is to partly decouple damage from STR so that you can only use your STR fully for damage if you wield heavy objects; otherwise you only do STR/10. This will also make Move Through less of a damage-cap breaker (Or has Move Through also been changed in 5e?).

I don't see it as beneficial to enhance an existing imbalance in heroic campaigns by further restricting the use of STR without weapons. While Move Through remains an STR ability, I find the substantial OCV penalty, coupled with the damage taken by the attacker, prevents it being a gamebreaker.

In particular, the targets that are easy to hit with a move through tend to be large, and thus resistant to knockback. I find most characters that can likely be hit with a move through also have an ability to reduce knockback (Brace with STR or root with flight). That results in the attacker sharing the pain, reducing their incentive to undertake a move through in the future.

[BobGreenwade]

This ruling on SPD change is broken, then.

The basic scenario as presented: I have a SPD 3 character. Through an Aid SPD on Segment 2 (from, say, a colleague with SPD 6), he gets a boost to SPD 4. And his next Phase is... 12??? And then the next Turn, the first 5 points of that Aid wear off, reducing his SPD to 3 -- so again the character's next Phase is 12. The Aid means that, instead of six actions over two turns, I get two.

Let's try something different: I have a speedster character who is SPD 6. On Segment 6 he activates his SPD Aid, boosting his SPD to 7. The next segment on which both SPD 6 and SPD 7 operate is 12. The next Turn, the top 5 points wear off on Segment 6, and he's back to SPD 6, but again he has to wait until Segment 12. Instead of 12 actions over two turns, I get 8.

Hm. Shouldn't Aid be something advantageous? Shouldn't Aid SPD give a character more actions per Turn, not fewer?

I'd propose changing to SPD change rule so that, at the very worst, the character moves on the next phase of the new SPD that takes place on or after the next segment in which the old SPD moves. With that, our first sample character would at least move on segments 6 and 9 of the first Turn as well as 12, and on his usual 4, 8, and 12 the next Turn. Our second sample character would move on 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 12 on the first Turn, and his normal range on his second. While not a real improvement, at least they're not losing anything by improving.

[CTaylor]

One staple of superhero comics is strong guys picking up heavy object like lamp posts and cars and bashing people with them. Hero doesn't support this really well - the most you can get is the ability to attack an entire hex if you use a large enough object.

Really? I think it does a great job, I treat these as really big weapons with a high strength minimum. I mean, think about it. A baton adds 2D6 to your attack, a baseball bat adds 4D6. How much would a light pole add? Sure, it's going to be high enough strength min that nobody but a brick can really use it as a weapon, but it still will do more damage than the strength it took away.

You don't want to go too far with this, or the brick will constantly tear up the scene for weapons, but they're always going to be worth a few more dice in a pinch.

[Klaus Mogensen]

One thing that has been a part of HERO from the start is that damage is a logarithmic function of energy. However, this is far from consistent (at least in 4e; sorry if these things have been cleared up in 5e):

Damage based on strength is +1 DC per doubling of energy, measured as lifing capacity. However, damage from explosives is +2 DC per doubling of energy, measured as the number of e.g. dynamite sticks. You also get +2 DEF for each doubling of armor weight.
Damage based on velocity (Move By, Move Through) is linear to velocity and thus proportional with the square root of the energy rather than the logarithm.
Velocity damage bonus is based on inches per phase, which means higher actual velocity with higher SPD.
Haymaker damage (4e) is 1½ x STR, which means that the energy multiple is greater with greater STR.
Move By (4e) does STR/2 damage, which is a greater energy divisor with greater STR.
Damage to self with Move By and Move Through (4e) is one-third and one-half the damage done to targets; again, a greater energy divisor for greater damage.
Knockback distance is proportional to damage rather than doubling with every +1 or +2 DC.

I suppose this could just be ignored and the rules simply drop any mention of a relationship between damage and energy. However, there are other options which I discuss below. They may be more far-reaching than most people will like, but unlike the current rules, they are consistent.

Logarithmic relationship between damage and energy

In this, double the energy always corresponds to +1 DC.
I propose that movement powers be bought as kph rather than inches per phase. Under the current system, high-SPD characters get more movement per point than low-SPD characters, which has always bothered me. 10 kph corresponds to about 16"/turn (actually 16.67). Characters would simply divide their movement per turn with their SPD to find how far they can move in a phase. Damage would be based on actual velocity. Note: I would like to see this done even without the changes below.
Double the velocity corresponds to four times the energy or +2 DC.
The HERO philosophy is to pay linearly for damage. This would mean that you would pay linearly for doubling all movement, rather than just non-combat movement. A cost structure for e.g. Flight could be: Flight. 5 Character Points per Velocity Rank (VR). VR 1 = 10 kph = 16"/turn. Every + 2 VR doubles velocity; +1 VR multiplies velocity by 1.4. Velocity Damage Bonus = VR. Extra Flight VRs that only can be used non-combat get a -1 limitation.
Optional Velocity DCV would simply be 2*VR - 3. This corresponds exactly to the 4e chart.
Movement attacks could look like this: Move Through. Phase: ½. OCV/DCV penalty: VR/2. Damage: STR/5 + VR. The character performing the Move Through will take the same damage, with a PD bonus of +10 if the target is knocked back. Move By (can move on after attack) is the same as Move Through, only with -2DC.
Knockback distance would be 1 meter if the KB roll is 1 and double for every +1 in the roll.

There are some problems inherent in the logarithmic scale, however. You e.g. do much more damage by throwing two dynamite sticks one at a time than at the same time. Two walls one meter apart are much more difficult to break through than one wall of double the thickness.

An alternative to the logarithmic relationship is to say that DC is proportional to the square root of the energy. This will be better suitable for most heroic campaigns. The consequences of this are:
Square-root relationship between damage and energy

Lifting capacity would equal STR^2 in kg. (100kg at STR 10, 400kg at STR 20, same as now). Extra Superstrength that only can be used to lift (no damage) would cost 1 Character Point per +5 Superstrength. A STR 50 character would be able to lift 2.5 ton; to be able to lift 25 tons would require about STR 150, so the character would have to pay 20 points extra for +100 Superstrength.
Each point paid for Growth would give +1 STR and +1 Size (base Size 10). The mass of a Grown character would be Size^2 kg; i.e., a character with 10 points of Growth would get +10 STR and weigh 400 kg.
Damage from velocity would be directly proportional to velocity and Size (E_kin = ½m*v^2 => square root of E_kin = 0.7*Size*v). A reasonable damage figure for Move Through might be STR/5 + (Size/10)*(kph/10). A normal-sized human running 20 kph (~32"/turn) would thus get a damage bonus of 2d6. A car (1600 kg = size 40) running 60 kph would do 24d6 (it has Superstrength only and does no direct STR damage). A good house rule to make massive objects less deadly is to let them do half as many dice, but double knockback.
Damage from falling would use the same rule; i.e., a normal-sized character would take 1d6 per 10 kph of falling velocity. Falling velocity is rougly 30 kph for every second spent falling (v=g*t) up to a terminal velocity of 200-300 kph (see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity)). Falling velocity is also 16 kph times the square root of the distance fallen in meters, which comes to 10 kph at ½ m, 20 kph at 1.5 m, 30 kph at 3.5 m, 40 kph at 6 m, 50 kph at 10 m, 60 kph at 14 m, etc. (BTW, the falling table in 4e got this relationship between distance and velocity wrong. Has this been corrected in 5e?).
Knockback distance in meters would be the square of the amount the KB roll was made by.


This is mainly intended as food for thought. I would like to see some of the ideas here implemented, but I doubt anywhere near all will make it into 6e.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

[Klaus Mogensen]

Really? I think it does a great job, I treat these as really big weapons with a high strength minimum. I mean, think about it. A baton adds 2D6 to your attack, a baseball bat adds 4D6. How much would a light pole add? Sure, it's going to be high enough strength min that nobody but a brick can really use it as a weapon, but it still will do more damage than the strength it took away.

You don't want to go too far with this, or the brick will constantly tear up the scene for weapons, but they're always going to be worth a few more dice in a pinch.

What I would like to see is this option being stated expressly in the rules, with guidelines for how much CV would be influenced by wielding heavy objects (as for Throwing).

Anyway, tearing up the scenery is a superhero staple. :)
I like the computer game Freedom Force, where strong characters have to wield or throw cars or sign posts to do damage, but get negative popularity points for being too destructive.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

[Opal]

I guess I never 'converted' to the 5E rule on SPD change. What was the problem with the 4E rule? One of the 6E commandments is no reverting to older rules, so the 4E rule must have something really horribly wrong with it if the scenarios Bob laid out are better...

Maybe 6E could go completely the other way and rule that all SPD changes are realized only after post-segment 12. So if a character is SPD 3, and has 2 points of SPD drained, the drain doesn't have any effect (and doesn't begin fading) until the next turn. If, before seg 12, the character is Aided for +4 SPD, then the next turn his SPD would be 3 - 2 + 4 = 5 for the entire turn. I'm sure that'd be abuseable, too. Presumably there'd also need to be a rule that a SPD change has no effect if it doesn't affect the character for at least a turn.

[Tonio]

I guess I never 'converted' to the 5E rule on SPD change. What was the problem with the 4E rule? One of the 6E commandments is no reverting to older rules, so the 4E rule must have something really horribly wrong with it if the scenarios Bob laid out are better...

Maybe 6E could go completely the other way and rule that all SPD changes are realized only after post-segment 12. So if a character is SPD 3, and has 2 points of SPD drained, the drain doesn't have any effect (and doesn't begin fading) until the next turn. If, before seg 12, the character is Aided for +4 SPD, then the next turn his SPD would be 3 - 2 + 4 = 5 for the entire turn. I'm sure that'd be abuseable, too. Presumably there'd also need to be a rule that a SPD change has no effect if it doesn't affect the character for at least a turn.

Yeah, having them take effect post12 would sorta work, although it might be iffy to deal with multiple Drains/Aids within a Turn, and can definitely be abused (you Drained my SPD on Segment 3? I'll wait till 12 to Aid it, and suffer no ill effects!). And what would you do if SPD is Suppressed for 3 Segments?

Getting rid of the SPD Chart (*gasp*) would help, but would turn the whole thing into a bookkeeping nightmare. SPD 4 would mean you act 3 Segments after you last acted, which might not be the same segments each Turn, especially if you Abort or get your SPD adjusted. Rolling a d12 and acting only if the roll is less than or equal to your SPD would also work, but the randomness might not be desired (I'm not sure I'd like it). Plus, we LIKE the SPD Chart!

Of course, one quick fix (a hack, really!) is to disallow Adjusting SPD on Segments other than 12, hehe.

[Opal]

Yeah, having them take effect post12 would sorta work, although it might be iffy to deal with multiple Drains/Aids within a Turn, and can definitely be abused (you Drained my SPD on Segment 3? I'll wait till 12 to Aid it, and suffer no ill effects!).That doesn't strike me as terrible abuse, not compared to losing segments in a turn as a result of increasing your SPD or acting more times in a turn than your enhanced SPD, anyway. There's lots of 'finesse' in using the SPD chart to maximum advantage, and timing things vs segment 12 definitely comes up at times.

And what would you do if SPD is Suppressed for 3 Segments?I'm thinking absolutely nothing. Any modification of SPD would have to have a durration, one way or another, in turns, it would be aplied at the start of the turn after it hit, and would count it's durration or fade rate or whatever starting when it took effect.

Problem is, multi-turn combats are hardly the norm. Unless you count suprise segments as a prior turn.


Plus, we LIKE the SPD Chart!
Yep!


Of course, one quick fix (a hack, really!) is to disallow Adjusting SPD on Segments other than 12, hehe.
I guess that's what I'm proposing, SPD adjustments on other phases are just delayed to then. I'm becoming more accepting of patches, hacks, and kludges in my old age. As long as they work, I don't mind so much if they're a little ugly. Used to make me crazy.

[Tonio]

That doesn't strike me as terrible abuse, not compared to losing segments in a turn as a result of increasing your SPD or acting more times in a turn than your enhanced SPD, anyway. There's lots of 'finesse' in using the SPD chart to maximum advantage, and timing things vs segment 12 definitely comes up at times.

Oh definitely. Abusable, yes. Worse than the current system, no. I wasn't implying your suggestion was worse than the current system. =)

I'm thinking absolutely nothing. Any modification of SPD would have to have a durration, one way or another, in turns, it would be aplied at the start of the turn after it hit, and would count it's durration or fade rate or whatever starting when it took effect.

Problem is, multi-turn combats are hardly the norm. Unless you count suprise segments as a prior turn.

So you're saying I "turn on" my Suppress SPD now, using up my action, but I don't start paying END (and the SPD doesn't actually go down) until post-12? Yah, that'd be consistent.

I guess that's what I'm proposing, SPD adjustments on other phases are just delayed to then. I'm becoming more accepting of patches, hacks, and kludges in my old age. As long as they work, I don't mind so much if they're a little ugly. Used to make me crazy.

Well, I meant actually disallowing the usage of them before segment 12, rather than delaying the effect. I kinda dislike the "I used a power now, but it doesn't take effect until later, even though I didn't take Extra Time or anything" effect. (Of course, I also dislike the "huh? why can't I use my Drain SPD power now?" effect....)

[BobGreenwade]

I guess I never 'converted' to the 5E rule on SPD change. What was the problem with the 4E rule? One of the 6E commandments is no reverting to older rules, so the 4E rule must have something really horribly wrong with it if the scenarios Bob laid out are better...I should point out that the scenarios I spelled out are, admittedly, worst-case scenarios -- though on the other hand they're not particularly unlikely ones either.

[James Gillen]

This ruling on SPD change is broken, then.

The basic scenario as presented: I have a SPD 3 character. Through an Aid SPD on Segment 2 (from, say, a colleague with SPD 6), he gets a boost to SPD 4. And his next Phase is... 12??? And then the next Turn, the first 5 points of that Aid wear off, reducing his SPD to 3 -- so again the character's next Phase is 12. The Aid means that, instead of six actions over two turns, I get two.

Let's try something different: I have a speedster character who is SPD 6. On Segment 6 he activates his SPD Aid, boosting his SPD to 7. The next segment on which both SPD 6 and SPD 7 operate is 12. The next Turn, the top 5 points wear off on Segment 6, and he's back to SPD 6, but again he has to wait until Segment 12. Instead of 12 actions over two turns, I get 8.

Hm. Shouldn't Aid be something advantageous? Shouldn't Aid SPD give a character more actions per Turn, not fewer?

I'd propose changing to SPD change rule so that, at the very worst, the character moves on the next phase of the new SPD that takes place on or after the next segment in which the old SPD moves. With that, our first sample character would at least move on segments 6 and 9 of the first Turn as well as 12, and on his usual 4, 8, and 12 the next Turn. Our second sample character would move on 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 12 on the first Turn, and his normal range on his second. While not a real improvement, at least they're not losing anything by improving.

This is another reason I don't like the SPD chart, but nobody listens to me. :D

JG

[Vondy]

This is another reason I don't like the SPD chart, but nobody listens to me. :D

JG


One of my players ran a game without it when he subbed to give me some time off once. It worked fine. The combat options, skills, and maneuvers, let alone hero's robust power rules, were more than able to simulate concpets that normally leverage the speed chart. I was neutral to it (I'm simply accustomed to the speed chart so its not something I care strongly about one way or the other), but some of my players freaked out and declared the sky would fall if the heretical practice continued. Dumping it isn't as simple as one would like to think, however: you have to rework time-based limitations and related parts of the system. That's not super hard, but it does need to be done. You also have to designate some sort of "turn/round/segment/whatever" measure. And that touches movement in terms of calculating actual speed. That's the part I'm not sure of. How long is the new measure of time? Is it "a frame in a comic?" or a concrete measure like 1 second? How would you handle it?

[CTaylor]

Every game has some measure of time and sequence of actions, Hero just makes it more streamlined and sequential. You never really get rid of the speed chart, you just use a different one, that's less precise and predictable (and thus less easy on the GM, and less useful in terms of tactics for the players).

[ajackson]

Use a shot system, as I've described elsewhere, and speed change goes away as as problem. If your 'shot interval' is 12/Spd, a 3 spd character has a shot interval of 4, a 4 spd character has a shot interval of 3. Thus, if the speed 3 character (normally goes on shots 0, 4, 8, 12, etc) is aided to Spd 4 on or before his action on shot 4, his next shot will be 7, then 10, then 1, then 4, etc.

12/spd works for heroic games; for superhero games 24/spd probably works better.

[Opal]

The shot interval sounds fine for SPD 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12 charachters. What about 5,7,8,9,10 & 11?

[ajackson]

The shot interval sounds fine for SPD 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12 charachters. What about 5,7,8,9,10 & 11?
It won't deeply hurt a fantasy game to not have any characters at speeds 5, 7, 8, etc. For the superhero game, that's why I went with 24/spd, which also works for Spd 5 and 8, and again, lack of the other spd scores isn't really all that destructive.

Note that the 12/spd shot system also allows a meaningful Spd between 2 (shot interval 6) and 3 (shot interval 4), and 24/spd allows a meaningful Spd between 3 (shot interval 8) and 4 (shot interval 6). I would submit that the increased flexibility at the low end makes up for the loss of flexibilityi at the high end.

[Opal]

You might just want to give a basic shot interval of 6 (equiv SPD 2), and let people pay to reduce it directly - or take a disad to be worse - inst