Combat Issues

[ajackson]

Well, I think the logic behind a hammer doing killing damage is the high level of body and the low level of the ability of a normal person to defend against it.
Sure, but that could just be that it does a lot of damage. Generally speaking, attacks that normal people can defend well against are attacks that don't do very much damage.

[CTaylor]

The thing is, a hammer doesn't do much more damage in the big scheme of things than a fist, it just does it on a smaller area, in fact a martial artist probably hits a lot harder than I would with a hammer. The way the damage is being dealt is what changes, and that's what turns it into a KA I think.

[Gary]

The thing is, a hammer doesn't do much more damage in the big scheme of things than a fist, it just does it on a smaller area, in fact a martial artist probably hits a lot harder than I would with a hammer. The way the damage is being dealt is what changes, and that's what turns it into a KA I think.

Actually, it does do a lot more damage than the fist because of the leveraging effect of swinging the hammer. A warhammer with the same surface area as a fist will still do lots more damage because the handle gives greater leverage and greater velocity to the attack.

[CTaylor]

Eh, a baseball bat has even more leverage and it doesn't do killing damage in my book. The leverage makes it hit harder than it would in a different shape, but the area of impact is small, thus increasing the potency (pounds per square inch and all that).

[Gary]

Eh, a baseball bat has even more leverage and it doesn't do killing damage in my book. The leverage makes it hit harder than it would in a different shape, but the area of impact is small, thus increasing the potency (pounds per square inch and all that).

Why would a warhammer do killing damage if a baseball bat doesn't? I think both would do normal damage.

Physicswise, it all boils down to F=MA and E=.5*mv^2. A warhammer is much heavier than a bat and when swung, it's just about the same or possibly slightly less velocity. So it tends to do more damage. A bat also has more give than the hammer, so the deceleration when it hits a target is less than the hammer. More of the energy is spent in knocking back the target and less is spent in actual damage compared to the warhammer.

This means that the warhammer does more dice of damage, not necessarily that the damage type is different.

[Vondy]

I think it has nothing to do with physics equations and everything to do with how you want the weapon to function in terms of genre, playstyle, and personal aesthetics.

[Klaus Mogensen]

The difference between damage from an arrow, a slashing sword, a warhammer, and a baseball bat is how concentrated the impact is. The more concentrated, the more "killing" it is. Exactly where the dividing line is between "normal" and "killing" is a matter of interpretation. A slashing sword is more likely than a warhammer to do surface damage, but less likely to break bones or do organ damage. This argues that the warhammer is killing, while the slashing sword isn't. But you could also argue the opposite it you consider bleeding wounds more "killing" than heavy bruises. This is the uncertainty you get from having a very basic damage representation system.

Games with more realistic damage representation than Hero (e.g. Rolemaster/HARP, HârnMaster, Riddle of Steel) breaks physical attack types down into slashing, piercing, and crushing, and damage effects down into stun/concussion, bleeding, broken bones, and organ damage.

I don't think very many of us wants Hero to go to that level of complexity. This means that in return, we must accept a certain level of unrealism in damage representation. Ultimately, what matters is what is balanced and playable more than which of several unrealistic representations is the least unrealistic.

- Klaus

[nexus]

I think it has nothing to do with physics equations and everything to do with how you want the weapon to function in terms of genre, playstyle, and personal aesthetics.

I have to agree. I think the conversation might be drifting more towards "realism" than "Dramatic realism".

[ajackson]

In terms of dramatic realism, if a brick wants to break through a wall, he punches his way through it, he doesn't break out a special attack. If punching is supposed to be normal damage, this argues that normal damage should be pretty effective vs objects.

[Mini-Nukette]

A quick thought for normal/resistant defense applied against normal/killing attacks:

Normal ED and PD typically represent softer, more flexible protection that absorbs STUN damage better, whilst Resistant ED and PD usually represents tougher protection designed to easier deflect BODY damage.

Normal Defense is halved when applied versus BODY damage, so each point of normal Defense stops half a point of BODY damage, and one point of STUN damage.

Resistant Defense is halved when applied versus STUN damage, so each point of Resistant Defense stops one point of BODY damage, and half a point of STUN damage.

For example, if a character with 6 PD and 2 RPD is hit with a normal physical attack which hits for 25 points of STUN and 4 BODY, they reduce the STUN damage to 17 (25 minus 6 PD and 1 RPD halved) and take no BODY damage (4 damage minus 3 PD halved and 2 RPD.)

A Killing Attack ignores normal Defense for the portion of the attack which deals BODY Damage - the above as a killing physical attack would have dealt 2 BODY (only the 2 RPD would have counted.)

However, on a Killing Attack, STUN damage is also reduced by the amount of BODY damage that the Resistant Defense stops, so the attack would have dealt 15 STUN.

[Vondy]

In terms of dramatic realism, if a brick wants to break through a wall, he punches his way through it, he doesn't break out a special attack. If punching is supposed to be normal damage, this argues that normal damage should be pretty effective vs objects.

I've always allowed max damage vs. stationary inanimate objects.

[Gary]

I've always allowed max damage vs. stationary inanimate objects.

It would kinda make it way too easy to destroy things like vault doors and tanks. A martial artist can easily do 10d6 offensive strike damage or greater. If he's allowed to do max damage, that's 20 body. A few kicks to the side or rear of a tank would pulverize it.

[ajackson]

I've always allowed max damage vs. stationary inanimate objects.
Interesting house rule, but not really relevant to the problem, which is Killing vs Normal damage.

[CTaylor]

Why would a warhammer do killing damage if a baseball bat doesn't? I think both would do normal damage.

Like I said, it could go either way, but I would define the warhammer as killing because (again) it does its damage on a smaller surface area, thus concentrating the pressure in a more potent blow.

As I said earlier: killing attacks do more permanent damage, normal attacks do more pain, temporary damage. That's the dividing point for me, and apparently for the system.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I'm thinking if perhaps killing damage might be a +1/4 advantage that makes the Body damage armor piercing. This would be the reverse of Reduced Penetration, which makes for nice symmetry.

Resistant defense would then simply be hardened defense. Against attacks that are both killing and armor-piercing (defenses quartered vs. Body), you would need double-hardened defenses to get full protection; such an attack would become killing against single-hardened defense.

- Klaus

[Trebuchet]

It would kinda make it way too easy to destroy things like vault doors and tanks. A martial artist can easily do 10d6 offensive strike damage or greater. If he's allowed to do max damage, that's 20 body. A few kicks to the side or rear of a tank would pulverize it.I'd simply disallow that on the basis of sfx. Most martial artists, even super ones in the comics, simply can't punch out a tank or bank vault. Those that can accomplish that tend to have Find Weakness or other defense reducing method of attack.

[Gary]

I'm thinking if perhaps killing damage might be a +1/4 advantage that makes the Body damage armor piercing. This would be the reverse of Reduced Penetration, which makes for nice symmetry.

Resistant defense would then simply be hardened defense. Against attacks that are both killing and armor-piercing (defenses quartered vs. Body), you would need double-hardened defenses to get full protection; such an attack would become killing against single-hardened defense.

- Klaus

Nice idea! I'll have to give it some thought.

[Vondy]

It would kinda make it way too easy to destroy things like vault doors and tanks. A martial artist can easily do 10d6 offensive strike damage or greater. If he's allowed to do max damage, that's 20 body. A few kicks to the side or rear of a tank would pulverize it.

It would kinda be you tmaking assumptions about whether or not that is genre and style appropriate for a game you know nothing about. I've never found it problematic; it achieved exactly what it was intended to. Its used for superheroic games where many characters are supposed to be able to break things with relative ease. Many supers throw or blast tanks and vault doors to bits with little effort. You shouldn't have to ramp your game up to ridiculous power levels to get genre moderate results.

And I've never felt obligated to write "common sense is the guiding light" as an opening caveat on every post I make. Its an FX and common sense driven house-rule - like all rules. If it doesn't make sense for the attack to be able to destroy an object it doesn't. That's what the little gray cells in our noggins are for. On the other hand, having the hulk stand around banging on a vault door waiting for a high body roll doesn't make much sense, either. And why shouldn't a superhero be able to trash a tank outright? It happens all the time. And maybe that martial artist is iron first with his amazing chi punches...

Then again, I've never understood the mindset that seems to think you need to roll everything out, especially things like chopping through a door with an ax. I mean, who sits around rolling each hit on the door tracking body and defenses? I mean you can if you want, but why assume the rest of us sweat this stuff. Not only does that produce patently weird results in many cases, but its boring as hell. Its monkey work. You just announce how long it will take character X to hack around the lock on the door and call it a day. And if the player has a rapier and the door is iron bound and three inches thick you tell them "no."

[Vondy]

I'd simply disallow that on the basis of sfx. Most martial artists, even super ones in the comics, simply can't punch out a tank or bank vault. Those that can accomplish that tend to have Find Weakness or other defense reducing method of attack.

Yup.

[Vondy]

Interesting house rule, but not really relevant to the problem, which is Killing vs Normal damage.

Part of the discussion is how killing and normal damage interact with inanimate objects. In some genres the problems that crop up in terms of how you go about breaking things - and which method you need to employ - can be dealt with by simple house rules like this one. In other genres, not so much.

[Gary]

It would kinda be you tmaking assumptions about whether or not that is genre and style appropriate for a game you know nothing about. I've never found it problematic; it achieved exactly what it was intended to. Its used for superheroic games where many characters are supposed to be able to break things with relative ease. Many supers throw or blast tanks and vault doors to bits with little effort. You shouldn't have to ramp your game up to ridiculous power levels to get genre moderate results.

And I've never felt obligated to write "common sense is the guiding light" as an opening caveat on every post I make. Its an FX and common sense driven house-rule - like all rules. If it doesn't make sense for the attack to be able to destroy an object it doesn't. That's what the little gray cells in our noggins are for. On the other hand, having the hulk stand around banging on a vault door waiting for a high body roll doesn't make much sense, either. And why shouldn't a superhero be able to trash a tank outright? It happens all the time. And maybe that martial artist is iron first with his amazing chi punches...

Then again, I've never understood the mindset that seems to think you need to roll everything out, especially things like chopping through a door with an ax. I mean, who sits around rolling each hit on the door tracking body and defenses? I mean you can if you want, but why assume the rest of us sweat this stuff. Not only does that produce patently weird results in many cases, but its boring as hell. Its monkey work. You just announce how long it will take character X to hack around the lock on the door and call it a day. And if the player has a rapier and the door is iron bound and three inches thick you tell them "no."

Gotcha. You "fix" this by discriminating against certain character conceptions. If Batman and Iron Fist do exactly the same amount of damage and paid exactly the same amount of points for their Str and MA, Batman can't punch apart a tank whereas Iron Fist can. Sniper with a .50 cal sniper rifle (3d6 RKA) can't do squat vs a vault door but Eyebeam Man who pays the exact same 45 pts for a 3d6 RKA can melt it easily given enough time.

I also guess from what you wrote that you NEVER have a time sensitive situation where it's important to track how quickly an inanimate object gets destroyed. Such as getting into a locked control room to be able to deactivate a bomb. I wonder what kind of scenarios you run where time is never a factor in the plot. I guess I don't understand the mindset where you handwave everything. That sounds more like Amber rather than Champions.

[Gary]

I'm thinking if perhaps killing damage might be a +1/4 advantage that makes the Body damage armor piercing. This would be the reverse of Reduced Penetration, which makes for nice symmetry.

Resistant defense would then simply be hardened defense. Against attacks that are both killing and armor-piercing (defenses quartered vs. Body), you would need double-hardened defenses to get full protection; such an attack would become killing against single-hardened defense.

- Klaus

Thinking it over, the only problem I can see is that there would be some issues with very low level KAs. A 1 pip KA wouldn't do any damage to normal people. And a 1/2d6 KA can't do anything to very tough normal humans with 5+ PD.

I'm not sure what would be a good fix for this.

[Tonio]

It would kinda be you tmaking assumptions about whether or not that is genre and style appropriate for a game you know nothing about. I've never found it problematic; it achieved exactly what it was intended to. Its used for superheroic games where many characters are supposed to be able to break things with relative ease. Many supers throw or blast tanks and vault doors to bits with little effort. You shouldn't have to ramp your game up to ridiculous power levels to get genre moderate results.

And I've never felt obligated to write "common sense is the guiding light" as an opening caveat on every post I make. Its an FX and common sense driven house-rule - like all rules. If it doesn't make sense for the attack to be able to destroy an object it doesn't. That's what the little gray cells in our noggins are for. On the other hand, having the hulk stand around banging on a vault door waiting for a high body roll doesn't make much sense, either. And why shouldn't a superhero be able to trash a tank outright? It happens all the time. And maybe that martial artist is iron first with his amazing chi punches...

Then again, I've never understood the mindset that seems to think you need to roll everything out, especially things like chopping through a door with an ax. I mean, who sits around rolling each hit on the door tracking body and defenses? I mean you can if you want, but why assume the rest of us sweat this stuff. Not only does that produce patently weird results in many cases, but its boring as hell. Its monkey work. You just announce how long it will take character X to hack around the lock on the door and call it a day. And if the player has a rapier and the door is iron bound and three inches thick you tell them "no."

I dunno, I think an extension of the Casual Strength rules (to include Casual EB, Casual RKA, etc) would be more in line. The Hulk rips open the vault door in a single blow not because he did as much damage as he could do, but because he can do so much damage that ripping open a vault door is trivially easy for him.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Thinking it over, the only problem I can see is that there would be some issues with very low level KAs. A 1 pip KA wouldn't do any damage to normal people. And a 1/2d6 KA can't do anything to very tough normal humans with 5+ PD.

I'm not sure what would be a good fix for this.
Perhaps it isn't a problem. In a lot of fiction, tough guys shrug off surface wounds like they weren't there (Die Hard being a good example).

1 Body is quite a lot of damage to normal humans - one-tenth of the way to dying. Scratches are much less than one Body.

- Klaus

[CTaylor]

1 body would still be ignored by normal humans not heroes, not bodybuilders, not MMA fighters. Someone with 1 PD would simply ignore a knife blow that was minor damage, and as you point out, 1 body is quite a lot of damage.

No, I do not agree with that idea. The present system works fine, and has for decades.

[Chris Goodwin]

Instead of trying to figure out whether swords can hack through stone walls... why not just build the stone walls with +6 DEF, Only Vs. Swords? Generalize it a bit; +6 DEF, Only Vs. Non-Ideal Attacks.

[Mini-Nukette]

Using an inappropriate tool for the job isn't a good idea - hacking a swordblade against a brick wall is more likely to wreck the sword before you make appreciable progress through the wall.

Punching a brick wall, if a character has super-strength, likewise is likely to leave them with bruised and bloody knuckles unless they have sufficient natural defense.

[nexus]

Using an inappropriate tool for the job isn't a good idea - hacking a swordblade against a brick wall is more likely to wreck the sword before you make appreciable progress through the wall.


That's probably where "Real Weapon" would come into play.


Punching a brick wall, if a character has super-strength, likewise is likely to leave them with bruised and bloody knuckles unless they have sufficient natural defense.

This would be GM call based on genre/drama and balance. Though I suppose you could give a "realistic" limitation of some kind for a character that had to worry about this sort of thing in a more cinematic/comic book universe.

The rules aren't going to be able to cover everything and every contingency or else they'll be the size of a set of encyclopedias. The GM is going to have to make calls at some point.

[Trebuchet]

Gotcha. You "fix" this by discriminating against certain character conceptions. If Batman and Iron Fist do exactly the same amount of damage and paid exactly the same amount of points for their Str and MA, Batman can't punch apart a tank whereas Iron Fist can. Sniper with a .50 cal sniper rifle (3d6 RKA) can't do squat vs a vault door but Eyebeam Man who pays the exact same 45 pts for a 3d6 RKA can melt it easily given enough time.I would think a little common sense would go a long way here. Who says Batman and Iron Fist do anywhere near the same damage in the first place? They have very different sfx and power concepts; and at the very least it's obvious Iron Fist dishes out a lot more damage blow for blow than Batman; and it's probably AP to boot. It's not a matter of damage dice; it's adherence to concept: Batman doesn't smash tanks. He'd find another less violent method to disable it or take out the crew. If Batman's GM designed a scenario where Batman had to physically smash a tank, he would be violating the player's character concept of his character. Not everything is about dice.

As for the bank vault scenario, I'd probably go the other way around. Fifty caliber rounds were originally designed to pierce armor plate, so a .50 rifle would probably punch nice neat 1/2" holes in a vault door but by no means "destroy" it. Eyebeam Man might manage to melt his way through - eventually.

[Trebuchet]

That's probably where "Real Weapon" would come into play.

This would be GM call based on genre/drama and balance. Though I suppose you could give a "realistic" limitation of some kind for a character that had to worry about this sort of thing in a more cinematic/comic book universe.

The rules aren't going to be able to cover everything and every contingency or else they'll be the size of a set of encyclopedias. The GM is going to have to make calls at some point.Maybe there should be a Limitation similar to Real Weapon for Champions MAs called "Real Martial Art" which prohibits breaking inappropriate objects (like tanks) no matter how many dice the character does on paper.

[The Main Man]

This idea is from the current "Missile Deflection" thread, in which Blocking, and thusly by extension, Missile Deflection, would instead have to target the DCV that the attacker hit so that a good hit is harder to Block while a bad hit is easier to Block.

[Gary]

I would think a little common sense would go a long way here. Who says Batman and Iron Fist do anywhere near the same damage in the first place? They have very different sfx and power concepts; and at the very least it's obvious Iron Fist dishes out a lot more damage blow for blow than Batman; and it's probably AP to boot. It's not a matter of damage dice; it's adherence to concept: Batman doesn't smash tanks. He'd find another less violent method to disable it or take out the crew. If Batman's GM designed a scenario where Batman had to physically smash a tank, he would be violating the player's character concept of his character. Not everything is about dice.

The issue isn't about different amounts of damage. It's about 2 characters with the EXACT same damage who paid the EXACT same points for their Str and MA. Only the one who's special effect is Chi gets to do more than the one who's special effect is intense training.

Just imagine 2 characters who both have 20 Str, Offensive Strike, and 2 DCs and paid the same points. Both do 10d6 damage, but because one uses Chi, he somehow is more effective than the other?



As for the bank vault scenario, I'd probably go the other way around. Fifty caliber rounds were originally designed to pierce armor plate, so a .50 rifle would probably punch nice neat 1/2" holes in a vault door but by no means "destroy" it. Eyebeam Man might manage to melt his way through - eventually.

It would have to be a pretty thin vault door. From what I read, a .50 cal can penetrate roughly 3/4" at close range. At longer range or at an angle, the penetration decreases significantly. Their armor pentration is pretty good against most halftracks and armored cars, but they don't do squat vs anything with real armor.

BTW, a Panther tank has 16 Def, the same as a vault door in Hero terms. That should tell you something about how tough vault doors are.

[Gary]

The disconnect is that Killing Attacks should only do more body to soft targets. A 2d6 KA is far more likely to break down a concrete wall than a 6d6 NA even though the NA is probably superior in reality.

Maybe against inanimate objects, we can standard effect most killing attacks for all except the last d6. So a .50 cal against a vault door wouldn't roll 3d6, but would roll 1d6+6 Body. A 2d6 KA would roll 1d6+3. A 4d6 KA would roll 1d6+9, etc.

[Trebuchet]

The issue isn't about different amounts of damage. It's about 2 characters with the EXACT same damage who paid the EXACT same points for their Str and MA. Only the one who's special effect is Chi gets to do more than the one who's special effect is intense training.

Just imagine 2 characters who both have 20 Str, Offensive Strike, and 2 DCs and paid the same points. Both do 10d6 damage, but because one uses Chi, he somehow is more effective than the other?Those were your choices to use as examples. If Batman and Iron Fist don't do the same damage, you should have selected better sample characters.

Let me point out there are already differences built into the system solely due to SFX. It costs more to Missile Deflect a laser than an arrow or bullet even though all three attacks might well be built identically as RKAs with precisely the same Advantages and Limitations and do the same damage.

It would have to be a pretty thin vault door. From what I read, a .50 cal can penetrate roughly 3/4" at close range. At longer range or at an angle, the penetration decreases significantly. Their armor penetration is pretty good against most halftracks and armored cars, but they don't do squat vs anything with real armor.

BTW, a Panther tank has 16 Def, the same as a vault door in Hero terms. That should tell you something about how tough vault doors are.All that tells me is that Hero has no real idea of how tough a tank really is; the DEF numbers for both tank armor and bank vaults in Hero are totally arbitrary (and IMHO way off base). You've wargamed World War Two combat for decades; do you really think the average modern bank vault would even slow down a 75mm round from an M4 Sherman? It's not like bank vaults are designed to stop antitank weapons; they're built to stop safecrackers. Most of them have layers of copper inside to prevent cutting through with cutting torches, but copper would be a lousy metal to use as armor.

[nexus]

Maybe there should be a Limitation similar to Real Weapon for Champions MAs called "Real Martial Art" which prohibits breaking inappropriate objects (like tanks) no matter how many dice the character does on paper.

Yeah, I think that could work.

[Gary]

Those were your choices to use as examples. If Batman and Iron Fist don't do the same damage, you should have selected better sample characters.

BTW, who says Batman doesn't use Chi? He trained in the Orient and does many things more traditional martial artists.

Even though the very example you quoted had them with the same damage?

Whether Batman has Chi or not, I suspect he'd be one of those people that you would declare can't damage a tank with an Offensive Strike. Still, he's never demonstrated any ability to do so and it would be trivial if max damage to inanimate objects were allowed.



All that tells me is that Hero has no real idea of how tough a tank really is; the DEF numbers for both tank armor and bank vaults in Hero are totally arbitrary (and IMHO way off base). You've wargamed World War Two combat for decades; do you really think the average modern bank vault would even slow down a 75mm round from an M4 Sherman? It's not like bank vaults are designed to stop antitank weapons; they're built to stop safecrackers. Most of them have layers of copper inside to prevent cutting through with cutting torches, but copper would be a lousy metal to use as armor.

A Panther has probably about 100mm or 4" of frontal armor. A large vault door can be 6" or more thick. The Panther armor is sloped which helps, but the armor is thinner. I would imagine they'd be in the same ballpark with the Panther having slightly greater defense. I could easily see a 6" thick vault door stopping a 75mm Sherman round.

I guess you're conceding that a .50 cal has essentially 0 chance of penetrating. :D

[Trebuchet]

Whether Batman has Chi or not, I suspect he'd be one of those people that you would declare can't damage a tank with an Offensive Strike. Still, he's never demonstrated any ability to do so and it would be trivial if max damage to inanimate objects were allowed.Probably. In a Champions game I'd probably base it on the player's concept of his character. I know I wouldn't let any of the PC MA's I've played smash a tank; max damage or not.

I agree allowing max damage automatically against inanimate objects opens a real can of worms. I might allow it against obviously flimsy objects without Armor or which are clearly not designed to absorb damage. Obviously tanks and bank vaults would not fall into that category.

A Panther has probably about 100mm or 4" of frontal armor. A large vault door can be 6" or more thick. The Panther armor is sloped which helps, but the armor is thinner. I would imagine they'd be in the same ballpark with the Panther having slightly greater defense. I could easily see a 6" thick vault door stopping a 75mm Sherman round.

I guess you're conceding that a .50 cal has essentially 0 chance of penetrating. :DA Panther front glacis plate has 80mm of armor sloped at 55 degrees, which effectively doubles its thickness. If a bank vault was solid steel I could see it plausibly stopping a 75mm round of solid shot; although HEAT or other AT rounds might be a different story. Since bank vaults also incorporate less sturdy materials I suspect they're considerably less effective at resisting tank projectiles. I'm also sure just like tanks not all bank vaults are created equal.

[James Gillen]

And if the player has a rapier and the door is iron bound and three inches thick you tell them "no."

I pick the lock with the rapier!

[BobGreenwade]

Some of the issues of one weapon vs another, or one martial art vs another, are a matter of Special Effect, wherein some abilities have bonuses and limitations based on how they work. A weapon might be better at one thing than another weapon, while the other weapon is better at something else.

Not all of the issues being raised are like that, but it looks to me like several are.

[CTaylor]

Yeah I agree, special effect covers a lot of sins, as it were: you can use the concept as a GM to prohibit and allow some crazy stuff. Like picking a lock with a rapier!

[Klaus Mogensen]

Maybe there should be a Limitation similar to Real Weapon for Champions MAs called "Real Martial Art" which prohibits breaking inappropriate objects (like tanks) no matter how many dice the character does on paper.
I think that limitation should be a part of standard Martial Arts (which are already quite cheap enough). If you want "super" Martial Arts, you should buy HA instead.

- Klaus

[BobGreenwade]

We got the DVD edition of The Princess Bride a while back, and I think doing the same should be a "must-do" before re-examining the rules for Presence Attacks.

First, of course, in the movie itself, there are several classic examples, the most familiar being:

1. "Everybody MOVE!"

2. "The Dread Pirate Roberts... comes for your SOULS!"

3. "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

4. "Drop... your... sword."

But then there's another example from one of the Special Features, featuring recollections by key members of the cast.

Mandy Patinkin tells a story of when the cast was getting ready to film the scene ascending the Cliffs of Insanity. Wallace Shawn was terribly afraid of heights, and worried out loud that this fear was going to ruin the scene and thereby the entire movie. After a while Andre the Giant went to him, put his hand on Wallace's head, stroked him gently, and said very earnestly, "Don't worry. I'll take care of you." After that Wallace had no problems.

That, I think, is the type of thing that, while not mentioned explicitly by name, should be clearly possible as a type of Presence Attack. I know that type of thing is already possible, but there's an assumption (probably based on earlier editions) that Presence Attacks are necessarily fear-based, and I'd like to see more done to break that assumption.

[Klaus Mogensen]

One test I often use to test the realism of a combat system is what I call The Boxing Match Test. As most of you are probably aware, a boxing match consists of a number (3-12) rounds of three minutes each with 1-minute breaks between them. It is rare that combatants are knocked out in the first three rounds, but also rare that both combatants last the full 12 rounds of a professional top-level match.

The test is: Following the combat rules, will a typical boxing match between two strong characters last between 3-12 x three minutes?

In Hero, we have 5 turns per minute, or 15 turns per match round.

Let's say two heavy-weight boxers have human max in all physical characteristics: 20 STR, 20 CON, 20 DEX, 20 BODY, 4 SPD, 8 PD, 10 REC, 50 STUN, 50 END. They also have the Boxing martial arts package, which includes Martial Strike and Offensive Strike. They have the same CV.

A Martial Strike will do 6d6 (~ 6 Body, 21 Stun), an Offensive Strike 8d6 (~ 8 Body, 28 Stun); either will cost 4 End. Dodging or Blocking costs 1 End.

Let's say both attempt to punch each other three out of four phases (dodging or blocking in the last). This way they won't run out of End in a match round.

With Martial Strike, they will hit on 9-, or 37.5% of the time. This is roughly one hit per turn, for about 13 Stun through defenses. Hits will on the average do 0.04 Body, or about 1 Body per 20 hits. There's a 3.6% chance (~ 1/28) of Stunning the opponent. Net Stun loss per turn is 3, or 45 Stun per match round. A combatant thus has to hit a little harder or more often than average to wear an opponent down within a round and has a slight chance of stunning his opponent within the round. He has a better than even chance of doing one Body. Offensive Strikes won't hit very often (unless the opponent is Stunned), but has a better chance of Stunning or doing Body).

This actually seems quite right. However, if a combatant survives a match round, he will recover all Stun before the next match round. If long-term End is applied, combatants will take 3 long-term End per match round - nothing to worry about. Barring Body damage, it is impossible to wear an opponent out over a sequence of rounds. Every match rounds starts with fresh combatants. This I don't find very realistic.

This suggests the need for optional rules for long-term Stun to match those for long-term End. Here are two suggestions (which aren't mutually exclusive):

Normal characters recover Stun every 5 minutes. Heroic characters recover Stun every minute. Normal and Heroic characters that take Recovery actions only recover End.
Whenever a character is Stunned, half the Stun taken is long-term Stun. For every Body taken, 1 long-term Stun is also taken. Long-term Stun recovers every 5 hours (same as long-term End).


With rule #1, boxers (Heroic characters) will only get to recover Stun three times in a match round and once between rounds. They will have to spend more phases blocking attacks, or they are almost certain to run out of Stun in the first round. This seems to fit boxing matches well.

With rule #2, the boxers will take 10+ long-term Stun every time they get Stunned, so the fourth or fifth time they are 'down for the count', they will be knocked out for a very long time. This also seems realistic.

- Klaus

[CTaylor]

Generally speaking when you try to simulate sports with a game it gets very difficult and the rules tend to fall apart (try simulating baseball some time).

[Trebuchet]

One test I often use to test the realism of a combat system is what I call The Boxing Match Test. As most of you are probably aware, a boxing match consists of a number (3-12) rounds of three minutes each with 1-minute breaks between them. It is rare that combatants are knocked out in the first three rounds, but also rare that both combatants last the full 12 rounds of a professional top-level match.

[snippage]

With rule #2, the boxers will take 10+ long-term Stun every time they get Stunned, so the fourth or fifth time they are 'down for the count', they will be knocked out for a very long time. This also seems realistic.While this may seem a worthwhile analysis, it is flawed in two very fundamental aspects:

1) Real boxers, like most characters in Hero, are seldom if ever identical in all relevant aspects. It is precisely those minor differences which make a fight require tactics and strategy on the part of each participant to defeat his opponent. Matches at anything between identical opponents often take absurdly long to conclude.

2) Hero isn't supposed to be a "realistic" system for combat; instead it attempts to create cinematic or fictional fighting. It succeeds at that pretty well as is.

[Sentry]

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I think we should. Expressing it more like a Skill Roll (11+ OCV = your “Skill”; the amount you make the roll by indicates the DCV you hit) is more consistent, probably easier for newcomers to learn, and doesn’t require the GM to do any work or reveal a target’s DCV if he doesn’t want to.

I would propose that the whole "to-hit" calculation be expressed differently. I'm not a mathmagician so I could very well be wrong but I believe that you can express the formula as;

OCV+3d6 >= DCV+10 = Hit

This formula uses the "meet-or-beat" method of rolling which I think is easier for the average new player to grasp. I know that some people consider the current way to calculate a hit roll to be sacred but I honestly feel there's advantages to using this formula.

Advantages

Easier Process - This formula is dead simple to do, a player only has to add their roll to their OCV (+ any levels) and let the GM know what it is. GM then compares the roll and verify's it's >= the targets DCV+10 (+ levels).
Backwards Compatible - No supplement will be invalidated by adopting this formula, no character sheet will need to change, the sky will not fall.
Natural - Arguably it's more natural to see if one number is larger than another (really a point to be argued from a sociological standpoint than a mathematical)


Warning: Math content

The curve on 3d6 is;
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t145/Bulljive/3d6.jpg
(Thanks to Netzilla for posting this image in another thread)

In order to make the formula work you have to use 10 as the constant. If you were to use 11 like the current formula you would be on the bottom (depending on your vantage) half of the curve when performing the calculation, which would mean that the attacker would have less (12.5%) chance to hit a defender then the current system.

Put another way; assume that both attacker and defender have equal CV values (no levels), say 8. Now, in order for the attacker to hit the roll must be 11-. Looking at the above chart (start at 11, add up all the percentages moving up the chart) that means that the attacker has 62.49% chance to hit.

Using the formula I propose would mean that the attacker would need to roll an 10+ in order to hit the defender. So looking at the chart again, starting at 10 and moving down that would mean the attacker would have a 62.49% chance to hit the defender (tada!).

Below is hit matrix similar to the one that appears in the Hero system book as it appears now;
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t145/Bulljive/hit-matrix-current.gif

And here is a revised version using my formula;
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t145/Bulljive/hit-matrix-revised.gif

Use these to play around with the numbers and see if it makes sense to you. You should find that either expression nets the same result. For example take an attacker with a OCV of 9 and a defender with a DCV of 5, use the charts and add up the % chance each system has to hit. Old formula: 95.35% chance to hit, new formula: 95.35%

To be clear; I realize that there's years of tradition to the current formula and many people will be opposed to this on that basis alone. To this I would counter that there was also a tradition associated with THAC0, and that didn't work out so well either :thumbdown Clinging to something on the more convoluted end of the spectrum for no apparent reason other than "this is the way it's been done and shall always be" is not in our best interests if there's something easier and clearer. I don't expect Steve is interested in changing how the formula is calculated anyways but I would humbly submit that this system be offered as an alternative one. Much like how on page 244 of my book (I don't have the revised one) has an alternate way to calculate a combat roll.

[MPT]

...A related issue is attacks of opportunity. As it stands now, once you make your attack you have to stand motionless until your next action comes up, even if an enemy in front of you turns his back to pick something up, walks around you, or does something else that "realistically" would present an easy target. I'd like to see some rule where extra attack actions can be granted so that people can't just waltz around the battlefield with impunity the way they can now. I admit I don't have any great ideas for the mechanics of it, only that it shouldn't require you to abort your next action to do it. Maybe each character could get a number of attacks of opportunity per turn based on Speed or some other factor? These attacks could only be used when an enemy disengages or otherwise moves through the character's attack range. This could of course present play balance issues but this is something that's bothered me about Hero for a long time.

I am surprised that no one has picked up on this post as it is the one thing about HERO combat that bugs me. The example I have is where someone is swinging a double-handed sword around in combat - another character can walk past them with no chance of getting hit if the swordsman has already attacked that turn.

One possibility is that when an AOO occurs that both characters make a DEX roll, if the potential attacker makes their roll by a greater amount then they get a free attack. This reuses the existing DEX roll rule that is used to determine who acts first in certain combat situations.

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.

As I am one of those that think that SIZE should be added to the character sheet, your rule on relative Size Modifiers is just what I was thinking, only put more elegantly.

[BobGreenwade]

I would propose that the whole "to-hit" calculation be expressed differently. I'm not a mathmagician so I could very well be wrong but I believe that you can express the formula as;

OCV+3d6 >= DCV+10 = Hit
You're not the first to propose this, and even many who support the traditional "roll-low" method have come to see its advantages. To those you listed, I can also add that this formula hides the target's DCV from the player (or, when the PC is the target, the attacker's OCV).The curve on 3d6 is;
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t145/Bulljive/3d6.jpg
This table really should appear somewhere in the new rulebook. It can be very handy for translating Hit Locations to Activation Rolls.

[nexus]

A related issue is attacks of opportunity. As it stands now, once you make your attack you have to stand motionless until your next action comes up, even if an enemy in front of you turns his back to pick something up, walks around you, or does something else that "realistically" would present an easy target. I'd like to see some rule where extra attack actions can be granted so that people can't just waltz around the battlefield with impunity the way they can now. I admit I don't have any great ideas for the mechanics of it, only that it shouldn't require you to abort your next action to do it. Maybe each character could get a number of attacks of opportunity per turn based on Speed or some other factor? These attacks could only be used when an enemy disengages or otherwise moves through the character's attack range. This could of course present play balance issues but this is something that's bothered me about Hero for a long time.

Personally, I think allot of the issues that people have with Hero combat come from visualization (which the mechanics definitely effect). Your character isn't standing motionless after they attack, the might be moving, blocking/evading other blows, jockeying for position, looking around for other targets or opening but the mechanic DO give a feeling of "freeze frame" action like you see in some computer games.

Remember a phase is usually a few seconds. Allot of thing are happening, if not simultaneously, then so close together that it would almost look like it. Your target is beginning to turn or reach for something as the character throws a punch or whatever. The dice, miniatures and rules are just an approximation (IMO) of a very confusing situation to make it gameable not a hard and fast representation of exactly what is happening "on screen" so to speak.

I'm not saying the system is perfect. There is the Interposing issue for example but I think that trying to picture combat as a continuous flow (which can be difficult) helps.

Divorcing movement from Speed might help dispel the freeze frame image of combat a little?

Not to mention look at the can of worms AOO opened in D20. Because it caused trouble in another game system isn't a reason to trash the idea in and of itself but should be considered.

[nexus]

One test I often use to test the realism of a combat system is what I call The Boxing Match Test.

Hero System isn't intended to be realistic. Its meant to be cinematic/dramatic. Now I'm all for optional rules to up the level of "realism" if desired but I don't think that should be a design goal for the default rules.

[James Gillen]

I'm not saying the system is perfect. There is the Interposing issue for example but I think that trying to picture combat as a continuous flow (which can be difficult) helps.

Divorcing movement from Speed might help dispel the freeze frame image of combat a little?

Not to mention look at the can of worms (attacks of Opportunity) opened in D20. Because it caused trouble in another game system isn't a reason to trash the idea in and of itself but should be considered.

Oh, I'd say it's enough reason. :D

JG

[MPT]

Originally Posted by nexus

Not to mention look at the can of worms (attacks of Opportunity) opened in D20. Because it caused trouble in another game system isn't a reason to trash the idea in and of itself but should be considered.

Oh, I'd say it's enough reason. :D

JG


Why? I can name lots of RPGs which handle certain common aspects of roleplaying badly (character creation, combat, magic, combat) but that does not mean that there are not good RPGs which 'solve' each of these problems.

As most HERO GMs are, I suspect, mature and intelligent, we do not need to define every situation when an AOO would occur. Below is a (bad) very rough first draft of what the rules might say.

An AOO occurs whenever a character could normally attack another character in Melee combat but can not do so because they move away from them. This may occur:

a) Whenever a character is attacking another character and that character moves away (the AOO happens before the character moves).

b) Whenever a another character moves past the player's character (i.e. within their melee weapon range) and the player's character is not currently involved in melee combat (the AOO happens during the move - but after any 'Move By' attack by the moving character).

To make an AOO ... (whatever rule we decide - e.g. my Opposed DEX roll then a normal attack --- or perhaps a normal attack at -2 (which is the normal penalty for multiple attacks after the first)).

The character making the AOO can not change the Combat Manoeuvre they used in their last attack, nor can they reallocate the Combat Skill Levels. To do either of these they must instead Abort to another action which, in this case, may be an attack action. This Abort can be used even if they have attacked in the current Phase, but can not be used if they Aborted to this Action in that Phase.

(The above needs rephrasing as I can see that I am using the word 'character' too much. But you can hopefully see the point I am making.)

I do agree that the above does not cover every situation (e.g. Should 0 Phase Attacks also be allowed AOO) but then again I am not a rules writer.

[nexus]

Another thing that should be considered is that this could an entirely new series of steps to a combat engine that is (pretty unfairly, IMO) consider slower and more cumbersome if one of the goals is to bring in new players. Speaking for myself, I often play mapless so an AOO rule would just add complexity for me for no real gain from my POV. Then you'd have to consider how it's going to interact with Powers and other segments of the system.

[Netzilla]

Personally, I think the use of Held Actions pretty well covers the issue of preventing people from running past you free from attack. This simulates the fact that you're ready for someone to try to move by you. If you don't have a held action (either they act before you and are thus too quick to catch as they go by; or you've already performed another action and are thus too distracted to catch them) then they get by. Yes, this does require a roll-off to interrupt their movement, but that (again) goes toward the fact that they may be too quick and your reflexes too slow to catch them as they go by. Keep in mind that the hex you're standing in is 2m (6.5 ft) across and the hex they're moving through is another 2m (6.5 ft) across. So, that's probably somewhere around 1-3m (3.25-9.75ft) between you and your target. If they're trying to run past you, it's a fair bet that they're on the outside edge of that range. It's not so easy to stop someone running past you when you've got a 10ft gap to cover and you're not ready for it (have a held action). If it were all that easy, quarterbacks would get sacked more often, dunks would be near impossible and a goalie's job would be a lot easier.

If you really want to eliminate the DEX roll-off, then I'd suggest a variation on the Cover maneuver. Let someone Cover their melee area (typically their 3 front-adjacent hexes) and thus get to attack the first foe passing through one of those hexes.

[Gary]

Hero system does have a few problems with regard to AoO. If 2 characters with the same SPD simply trade melee attacks and start off facing each other, then you can easily have the following:

1) Character A runs behind Character B and attacks his rear.
2) Character B runs behind Character A and attacks his rear.
3) Repeat steps 1 and 2 as needed.

This is a simple artifact of the system. When one character goes, time is basically frozen until he completes his actions unless someone else aborts or uses a held action.

[rreay]

Take a step back and look at this from a meta standpoint. The Attack of Opportunity (AoO) system models the character opening themselves up for an attack. It's there to enforce some tactical thinking in movement and action. It does this by adding the risk of an extra attack against the character for maneuvers that are risky.

Hero already has a system for doing this. Held actions can force the more tactical movement and risky actions reduce DCV. In fact the Hero system has finer grained control of the risk of maneuvers. In the AoO system the risk is either a free swing against you or nothing. Hero allows finer grained control by various levels of DCV penalties. This makes some actions riskier than others. You can also mitigate the risk by taking certain precautions like moving levels around or choosing a related but less risky maneuver (Strike vs. Offensive Strike)

A more specific discussion follows:

The AoO movement limitations prevent characters from running willy nilly all over the place and add risk to moving close to melee-ing combatants. It doesn't prevent you from running by someone, it only makes it risky. Held actions cover a good chunk of this with the dice off to react. If you want to make movement require more tactical thinking, Netzilla's idea of Cover for melee ranges is pretty clever.

The action triggers of AoO do a couple of things. AoO makes certain combat moves like disarm, grapple, or trip, risky. In hero the way to make a specific maneuver risky is to reduce the characters DCV. A haymaker is a great example, but so is the DCV penalty of a martial offensive strike, or a grab maneuver, or even just simply moving levels around.

The action triggers of AoO limits unrealistic actions in melee; if you try dig through your backpack for a carefully wrapped glass vial while that guy with a sword is menacing you you're going get cut. This is not enumerated in the Hero system, but this kind of risk can modeled in hero by the GM assigning an inappropriate action DCV penalty.

Finally AoO limits spell casters by making casting most spells in melee risky. Other spells, specifically quickened spells don't trip an AoO. A "Concentration" check can protect against an AoO; lower level spells are easier to make that check for. This basically makes a distinction between spells that are safe to cast in melee or spells that have reduced risk. In Hero this is modeled with the concentration limitation. If you want to make spell casting style actions risky in melee make concentration a campaign requirement.

[Tonio]

I dislike the AOO concept because it violates the general frequency of attack. If I can attack four times per Turn, or once per Round, or whatever, why can I execute an additional attack when someone runs by me, or starts casting a spell, or whatever? I'm not fast enough for that. If it's implemented as an "Abort to Offensive Maneuver", why can I hurry up enough when they run by me, but not when they're standing right there?

As I see it, if I can't attack someone standing next to me because I'm not quick enough, I shouldn't be able to attack anybody else.

[BlackSword]

I dislike the AOO concept because it violates the general frequency of attack. If I can attack four times per Turn, or once per Round, or whatever, why can I execute an additional attack when someone runs by me, or starts casting a spell, or whatever? I'm not fast enough for that. If it's implemented as an "Abort to Offensive Maneuver", why can I hurry up enough when they run by me, but not when they're standing right there?

As I see it, if I can't attack someone standing next to me because I'm not quick enough, I shouldn't be able to attack anybody else.
I think its based on the idea that you don't just stand around for 6 seconds and throw a single attack, then stand around like a statue for another six seconds. During that six seconds all parties are moving and active, the 1, 2, 3, or 4 attacks are how many effective attacks you can make that deliberately are trying to get past a person's defenses. If the opponent does a risky manuveur that lowers his defense (such as try to cast a spell) then it gives the attacker an opportunity to bypass his defenses.

[Tonio]

I think its based on the idea that you don't just stand around for 6 seconds and throw a single attack, then stand around like a statue for another six seconds. During that six seconds all parties are moving and active, the 1, 2, 3, or 4 attacks are how many effective attacks you can make that deliberately are trying to get past a person's defenses. If the opponent does a risky manuveur that lowers his defense (such as try to cast a spell) then it gives the attacker an opportunity to bypass his defenses.

That does sort of break with reality, tho... wouldn't you then be able to constantly attack a bound (Entangled) target? Or at least more often than your SPD would indicate. If SPD indicates how often you can act, why should this be affected by how well your target is defending himself, or worse yet, by whether you're attacking someone or doing something else? Why do you get opportunities to bypass your target's defenses if he lowers them, but don't get opportunities to, say, create more Images if people are particularly gullible in the area?

I think the concept of AOOs is sound, speaking from a non-mechanical point of view. I also think holding actions accurately models that. If you're going all-out in your attacks on someone (that is, attacking as soon as you're able), you won't get to react to other events (such as someone else running by you, or your target doing something that lowers his defenses... you're already attacking as often as you can). If you decide to hold back a bit, and look for openings and such, you'll be able to react better to other events.

[Klaus Mogensen]

If 2 characters with the same SPD simply trade melee attacks and start off facing each other, then you can easily have the following:

1) Character A runs behind Character B and attacks his rear.
2) Character B runs behind Character A and attacks his rear.
3) Repeat steps 1 and 2 as needed.

My group houseruled that non-moving characters can turn in place to face opponents even if it isn't their turn (unless surprised, of course). This counts as an Action Which Takes No Time, I guess.

About AoO: Hero already has rules for aborting future phases to do defensive actions. An AoO rule could simply be an extension of this. E.g., you can abort to attack a character that tries to move past you or tries to get out of closed combat. AoOs would thus not be extra attacks, merely faster ones.

- Klaus

[nexus]

Another issue is: Why would you only be able to do this with HTH attacks? Why not ranged or mental combat? What about a Ranged Power brought with No Range or vice versa?

I am being somewhat pedantic here to illustrate a point. Porting over AoO would open a pretty big can of worms that would have be taken into account.

I could see the Cover rules being expanded to allow a character to "cover" an area and try to make an attack if anyone passed through it, maybe 1 hex base with a penalty of more since it's hard to focus on a wider area on the confusion of combat. This Maneuver could be used with any attacks the character has.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Another issue is: Why would you only be able to do this with HTH attacks? Why not ranged or mental combat? What about a Ranged Power brought with No Range or vice versa?
My suggestion (a few posts back) is to treat opportunity attacks the same way as aborting future phases for defensive purposes. Hero already has rules for acting out of turn; it makes sense to extend these rules rather than inventing entirely new ones.

The tricky part is deciding what situations might trigger opportunity attacks. Some ideas for discussion:

Opponent tries to disengage from close combat with you. You can abort to any attack.
Opponent tries to move by you within 1". You can abort to any attack.
Opponent is unaware of you. You can abort to any attack. E.g., if you sneak up behind somebody, you can attack in the next segment rather than having to wait until your next phase.
Opponent tries to attack somebody you want to protect. You can abort to throw yourself between the attacker and the target. (This happens all the time in fiction.)
Spend a hero point. You can abort to a full phase for any purpose.

- Klaus

[Klaus Mogensen]

A lot of suggestions have been made about how to do Killing attacks. Some have been various advantages to normal attacks, others have suggested other ways of rolling dice.

Though I myself have made some suggestions for Killing as an advantage, I dislike the idea for several reasons:

In campaigns where characters use muscle-driven weapons, the conversion +5 STR = +1 DC is easy. If Killing becomes a +1/4 or +½ advantage, swords and other Killing weapons will have to use conversions like +6.25 STR = +1 DC or +7.5 STR = +1 DC. Not very nice.
If Killing is an advantage, armor-piercing becomes relatively cheaper for Killing attacks than for comparable Normal attacks.


Then there's the discussion of how destructive Killing attacks should be against objects. The consensus seems to be that Killing attacks shouldn't be more destructive except against 'soft' objects like ropes and cloth; some have even suggested that it would be okay if Killing attacks are less destructive in general.

Finally, there's the question of impact: how forceful is a hit. Killing weapons are usually lighter than blunt weapons that do similar damage. Killing attacks are sharper, but do less impact: if an arrow doesn't penetrate armor, it bounces harmlessly off. Right now, Killing attacks do less knockback through the somewhat artificial mechanism of rolling an extra die as protection. I would rather have Killing attacks do less impact/knockback by nature.

To sum things up, I would like to see:

Killing attacks where one die costs 5 points
Killing attacks that a bit less destructive than normal attacks against non-soft objects
Killing attacks that intrinsically do less knockback (no need for modifying KB rolls)


Here is one way to do it:

Killing damage is 1d6-1 Stun for 5 points. Body is calculated as for normal damage (i.e., 1 Body on rolls of 2-5). Only Resistant defense works against the Stun and Body from Killing damage. Every Body that goes through armor does extra +1 Body, +1 Stun. Armor Piercing is a +1 advantage for Killing attacks.

In practice, rather than subtracting 1 from every die rolled, you would simply count a 6 as 0.

Killing attacks will thus do an average of 2/3 Body per die, and hence do less knockback. Against unarmored characters, a die will do an average of 4/3 Body. Since Body that makes it through armor is doubled and does +1 Stun, Armor Piercing is worth twice as much as normal.

It might be worth introducing Semi-resistant defenses that work at half value against Killing attacks. This would be a -1/4 limitation on normally resistant defense like Armor and FF and a +1/4 advantage on normally non-resistant defense like PD and ED. This can simulate soft armor like leather and semi-hard objects like wooden doors.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

To sum things up, I would like to see:

Killing attacks where one die costs 5 points
Killing attacks that a bit less destructive than normal attacks against non-soft objects
Killing attacks that intrinsically do less knockback (no need for modifying KB rolls)


Here is one way to do it:

Killing damage is 1d6-1 Stun for 5 points. Body is calculated as for normal damage (i.e., 1 Body on rolls of 2-5). Only Resistant defense works against the Stun and Body from Killing damage. Every Body that goes through armor does extra +1 Body, +1 Stun. Armor Piercing is a +1 advantage for Killing attacks.

In practice, rather than subtracting 1 from every die rolled, you would simply count a 6 as 0.

Well, let's try it out. Let's assume a 12d6 attack, and a target with 20 defenses, 10 of which are resistant.

12d6 Normal Attack: Average roll 42 STUN, 12 BOD. Target takes 22 STUN, 0 BOD.

12d6 Killing Atttack: Average roll is 30 Stun and 12 BOD. Target takes 22 (30 - 10 rDEF + 2 BOD through) STUN and 4 BOD.

Same STUN, higher BOD.

More rDEF will make the normal attack superior. More normal defense and the normal attack wins out. This looks like standard Supers to me.

What if we had, say, a 6d6 KA, and a target with 6 PD and 6 Armor. We can compare that to a 6d6 Normal attack. This looks like a reasonable Fantasy game.

Normal attack does 21 STUN, 6 BOD, so 9 STUN, 0 BOD

KA rolls 15 STUN and 6 BOD. So that's 9 STUN and 0 BOD.

What if we catch the poor sucker without his armor?

21 STUN, 6 BOD normal inflicts 15 STUN, 0 BOD.

15 STUN and 6 BOD inflicts 21 STUN and 12 BOD.

Add more armor, and the target still takes the same STUN, and no BOD, from either attack. The normal attack is never superior, and sometimes inferior. Should they be priced the same?

Let's make them both AP.

Normal Attack rolls 14 and 4. 14 - 6 - 8 STUN and 0 BOD

KA gets 3d6, so it averages 7.5 STUN and 3 BOD. It gets 4.5 STUN and 0 BOD through.

Catch him with no armor, and the normal attack does 11 STUN, 3 BOD. KA? 10.5 STUN and 6 BOD.

Not thinking we've found that sweet balance.

BTW, how does the KA do intrinsically less knockback if they roll the same BOD?

[Klaus Mogensen]

Well, let's try it out. Let's assume a 12d6 attack, and a target with 20 defenses, 10 of which are resistant.

12d6 Normal Attack: Average roll 42 STUN, 12 BOD. Target takes 22 STUN, 0 BOD.

12d6 Killing Atttack: Average roll is 30 Stun and 12 BOD. Target takes 22 (30 - 10 rDEF + 2 BOD through) STUN and 4 BOD.

Same STUN, higher BOD.

[...]

BTW, how does the KA do intrinsically less knockback if they roll the same BOD?
They don't.

Since the Killing attack is d6-1, there's 1/3 chance (0, 1) of rolling 0 Body and 2/3 chance (2, 3, 4, 5) of rolling 1 Body. That's an average of 2/3 Body, as I wrote.

12d6 Killing vs. rDEF 10 would with an average roll do 20 Stun, 0 Body. (8 Body before defenses.)

6d6 Killing vs. no armor would with an average attack do 4+4=8 Body and 15+4=19 Stun. Against 6 DEF armor it would do 0 Body, 9 Stun.

Compare this to a current 2d6KA. Against no armor, an average attack will do 7 Body, 18.67 Stun. Against 6 DEF armor + 6 PD it will do 1 Body, 6.67 Stun. That's pretty much comparable.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

They don't.

Since the Killing attack is d6-1, there's 1/3 chance (0, 1) of rolling 0 Body and 2/3 chance (2, 3, 4, 5) of rolling 1 Body. That's an average of 2/3 Body, as I wrote.

12d6 Killing vs. rDEF 10 would with an average roll do 20 Stun, 0 Body. (8 Body before defenses.)

6d6 Killing vs. no armor would with an average attack do 4+4=8 Body and 15+4=19 Stun. Against 6 DEF armor it would do 0 Body, 9 Stun.

Compare this to a current 2d6KA. Against no armor, an average attack will do 7 Body, 18.67 Stun. Against 6 DEF armor + 6 PD it will do 1 Body, 6.67 Stun. That's pretty much comparable.

Ahhhh...we're ignoring the 6 entirely, not just for STUN. My misinterpretation there. Let's revisit my calcs

Well, let's try it out. Let's assume a 12d6 attack, and a target with 20 defenses, 10 of which are resistant.

12d6 Normal Attack: Average roll 42 STUN, 12 BOD. Target takes 22 STUN, 0 BOD.

12d6 Killing Atttack: Average roll is 30 Stun and 8 BOD. Target takes 20 (30 - 10 rDEF) STUN and 0 BOD.

Normal attack gets 10% more STUN and no BOD.

KA loses at average defense levels. Now against a low DEF super, the KA will do BOD, and probably STUN. But that low DEF target probably gets stunned, if not KO'd, by an equivalent normal attack, so what difference does it make?

Let's make them AP.

8d6 normal attack rolls 28 STUN, 8 BOD and does 18 STUN, no BOD.

6d6 KA rolls 21 STUN, 4 BOD and does 0 BOD, 11 STUN

That's even worse! No more supers with killing attacks, then.

What if we had, say, a 6d6 KA, and a target with 6 PD and 6 Armor. We can compare that to a 6d6 Normal attack. This looks like a reasonable Fantasy game.

Normal attack does 21 STUN, 6 BOD, so 9 STUN, 0 BOD

KA rolls 15 STUN and 4 BOD. So that's 9 STUN and 0 BOD.

Seems pretty comparable.

What if we catch the poor sucker without his armor?

21 STUN, 6 BOD normal inflicts 15 STUN, 0 BOD.

15 STUN and 4 BOD inflicts 19 STUN and 8 BOD.

Add more armor, and the target still takes the same STUN, and no BOD, from either attack. So if you can knife the target in his sleep, you win.

Let's make them both AP.

Normal Attack rolls 14 and 4. 14 - 6 - 8 STUN and 0 BOD

KA gets 3d6, so it averages 7.5 STUN and 2 BOD. It gets 4.5 STUN and 0 BOD through.

Catch him with no armor, and the normal attack does 11 STUN, 3 BOD. KA? 11.5 STUN and 4 BOD.

Not thinking we've found that sweet balance. AP KA's appear to be neutered, although they are marginally superior if the target isn't wearing any armor to pierce.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Ahhhh...we're ignoring the 6 entirely, not just for STUN. My misinterpretation there. Let's revisit my calcs
(Calcs cut)
The idea is that Killing attacks should be more deadly if you don't have a lot of rDEF, but less deadly if you have. Most of your examples have rDEF enough to swallow all the Body from Killing attacks, so of course Killing attacks don't seem efficient enough.

It may be that Armor Piercing should be +3/4 rather than +1 for Killing attacks. Or perhaps each Body through defenses should do +1 Body, +2 Stun. Have to do more calculations. It's not enough to use average attacks as examples; that way you don't see problems like the current Stun Lotto for KAs.

Probably won't get the time to do in-depth calculations in the next week or so, but my gut feeling is that the system works alright for typical power levels. Killing attacks should do less Stun than normal attacks against typical defenses (unlike how they work now); they are meant to be deadly against characters without armor, and I think the system does that.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

(Calcs cut)
The idea is that Killing attacks should be more deadly if you don't have a lot of rDEF, but less deadly if you have. Most of your examples have rDEF enough to swallow all the Body from Killing attacks, so of course Killing attacks don't seem efficient enough.

My examples have typical levels of rDEF for the genre in question. In fact, I think 10 rDEF for a Super is on the low side in most games I've played, but IIRC 20 def, 10 of which is resistant, is in the chart in 5e and 5er. Now, my recollection is that you're operating from 4e, where the suggested average defense levels were higher, not lower.

My example of 6 and 6 is a Fantasy structure. The normal defense is, if anything, a touch high for non-warriors, but chain mail or mystic force field, 6 rDEF strikes me as the norm. Dropping it to 4 and your 6 DC KA still does not get a single point of BOD through on average, although a 3 DC AP KA might finally have a chance. Of course, making that FF Hardened is pretty trivial, but presumably we would police AP pretty carefully.

It may be that Armor Piercing should be +3/4 rather than +1 for Killing attacks. Or perhaps each Body through defenses should do +1 Body, +2 Stun. Have to do more calculations. It's not enough to use average attacks as examples; that way you don't see problems like the current Stun Lotto for KAs.

Elimination of the Stun Lotto and 5 point KA DC's is easy. Each 5 points rolls 1d6. The STUN is counted as normal, but half the DC's subtracted from it. The BOD is counted as 1-5 is 1 and 6 is 2 (or 1 is 0, 2-4 is 1 and 5-6 is 2). Apply rDEF vs BOD, all DEF vs STUN as long as you have some rDEF and subtract an extra die from knockback and you have an attack with very similar averages to the current KA, but without the stun multiple and the inherently greater volatility created by both the multiple and the smaller number of dice rolled.

Probably won't get the time to do in-depth calculations in the next week or so, but my gut feeling is that the system works alright for typical power levels. Killing attacks should do less Stun than normal attacks against typical defenses (unlike how they work now); they are meant to be deadly against characters without armor, and I think the system does that.

Philosophically, I can see the argument. From a playability stance, if KA's are pretty much useless against credible opponents, and take down mooks about as effectively as normal attacks, why would any character want to pay for a killing attack instead of a normal attack?

[Gary]

Killing damage is 1d6-1 Stun for 5 points. Body is calculated as for normal damage (i.e., 1 Body on rolls of 2-5). Only Resistant defense works against the Stun and Body from Killing damage. Every Body that goes through armor does extra +1 Body, +1 Stun. Armor Piercing is a +1 advantage for Killing attacks.

In practice, rather than subtracting 1 from every die rolled, you would simply count a 6 as 0.

Killing attacks will thus do an average of 2/3 Body per die, and hence do less knockback. Against unarmored characters, a die will do an average of 4/3 Body. Since Body that makes it through armor is doubled and does +1 Stun, Armor Piercing is worth twice as much as normal.

It might be worth introducing Semi-resistant defenses that work at half value against Killing attacks. This would be a -1/4 limitation on normally resistant defense like Armor and FF and a +1/4 advantage on normally non-resistant defense like PD and ED. This can simulate soft armor like leather and semi-hard objects like wooden doors.

- Klaus

Since Killing is not an Advantage, there's no need to increase the cost of AP to +1. +1/2 should be fine with your method. I think a further tweak on your method would be that 1-5 does 1 Body. That way, the average would be 5/6 Body and 2.5 Stun per attack, and it would balance a little better with normal attacks.

[Gary]

Philosophically, I can see the argument. From a playability stance, if KA's are pretty much useless against credible opponents, and take down mooks about as effectively as normal attacks, why would any character want to pay for a killing attack instead of a normal attack?

People who pay points for resistant defenses should get their money's worth and should be less vulnerable to killing attacks than people who don't pay the points. Sorta like people who have Power Defense are far less vulnerable to Drains than people who don't pay the points. In both cases, the attacks are far better against targets without the proper defense.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I decided to take the time to do the calculations for my suggested new Killing damage for low-powered characters (where the numbers are easy enough to handle without writing a dedicated program).

To recap, KA is rolled with d6-1 per DC, with Stun and Body calculated as for normal attacks (0 Body on rolls of 0-1, 1 Body on rolls of 2-5). Only resistant defenses subtract from Body and Stun, and Body that gets through defenses is doubled (I decided not to add extra Stun, after all, and let armor-piercing remain a +½ advantage).

5e, p15 has the following guidelines for standard heroic characters: DC 3-8, DEF/rDEF 10/5. Let's pick DC 6 - a little above average.

Target has armor on (10/5):
6d NA: Average Body = 0.006, average Stun ~ 11
6d KA: Average Body = 0.088, average Stun ~ 10
Not a lot of difference

Target has no armor on (5/0):
6d NA: Average Body = 1.254, average Stun ~ 16
6d KA: Average Body = 8.000, average Stun = 15
KA does way more Body, but is comparable with the current system (average Body 7)

Target somehow has fully resistant DEF (10/10):
6d NA: Average Body = 0.006, average Stun ~ 11
6d KA: Average Body = 0.000, average Stun ~ 5
KA is now far less effective than NA

Attacks are armor-piercing; target has armor on (effectively 5/3):
4d apNA: Average Body = 0.104, average Stun ~ 9
4d apKA: Average Body = 0.198, average Stun ~ 7
Neither do much Body, but KA does a bit less Stun

Attacks are armor-piercing; target has no armor on (effectively 3/0):
4d apNA: Average Body = 1.549, average Stun ~ 11
4d apKA: Average Body = 5.333, average Stun ~ 10
KA does a lot more Body, but once again comparable with the current system (Average Body 4.5)

Attacks are armor-piercing; target somehow has fully resistant DEF (effectively 5/5):
4d apNA: Average Body = 0.104, average Stun ~ 9
4d apKA: Average Body = 0.000, average Stun ~ 5
KA is again far less effective than NA

It seems that against typical defenses where half is resistant, this KA is about comparable to NA. If target has no rDEF, the KA is (not surprisingly) a lot more deadly. Against targets where all the DEF is resistant, the KA is a lot less effective. This seems reasonable to me.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

People who pay points for resistant defenses should get their money's worth and should be less vulnerable to killing attacks than people who don't pay the points. Sorta like people who have Power Defense are far less vulnerable to Drains than people who don't pay the points. In both cases, the attacks are far better against targets without the proper defense.

The problem is that resistant defenses have become pretty much universal, where power defense remains relatively rare. A change to up the price of a KA because it's defended by rDEF needs to be accompanied by scaling back the frequency of rDEF. Really, resistant defenses are more of a surtax on the cost of defenses than a special defense under the current model.

[Gary]

The problem is that resistant defenses have become pretty much universal, where power defense remains relatively rare. A change to up the price of a KA because it's defended by rDEF needs to be accompanied by scaling back the frequency of rDEF. Really, resistant defenses are more of a surtax on the cost of defenses than a special defense under the current model.

If we're changing killing attacks, perhaps it's time for this paradigm to change.

[CTaylor]

The problem is that resistant defenses have become pretty much universal

You keep asserting that as if what you experience in your games is true for everyone. I have not found that to be true in my games, I imagine other people have other experiences.

[Markdoc]

If we're changing killing attacks, perhaps it's time for this paradigm to change.

You keep asserting that as if what you experience in your games is true for everyone. I have not found that to be true in my games, I imagine other people have other experiences.

Exactly. It's certainly not true in most of the games I have played in/run. This is very much a campaign/group dependant issue.

cheers, Mark

[Klaus Mogensen]

Exactly. It's certainly not true in most of the games I have played in/run. This is very much a campaign/group dependant issue.
Agreed. I have seen a few superhero characters with all-resistant defense, but they are the exception rather than the rule. In non-super campaigns, you generally only get resistant defense from wearing armor, and this rarely covers the entire body.

What I like about my suggested KA is that the dice are read the same way as for NA, except that you discard 6's before counting.

However, a solution that is more backwards compatible (and hence more likely to be used) is to replace the d6-1 Stun multiplier with d3 or even a flat 2, but let non-res defenses be ineffective against this Stun.

I could live with that, even though I prefer my own solution (which among other things means that you don't have to treat KAs differently for knockback).

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

If we're changing killing attacks, perhaps it's time for this paradigm to change.

If we're changing killing attacks, I believe it is definitely time for this paradigm to change.

[Hugh Neilson]

You keep asserting that as if what you experience in your games is true for everyone. I have not found that to be true in my games, I imagine other people have other experiences.

Exactly. It's certainly not true in most of the games I have played in/run. This is very much a campaign/group dependant issue.

Agreed. I have seen a few superhero characters with all-resistant defense, but they are the exception rather than the rule. In non-super campaigns, you generally only get resistant defense from wearing armor, and this rarely covers the entire body.

In respect of the published characters, and the manner in which the rules evolve - most notably the formal addition of combat luck - I believe it is pretty much universal that everyone has at least some resistant defenses. Having no resistant defenses whatsoever - no armor, no force field, no damage resistance, no combat luck, etc. etc. etc. is, in my experience extremely uncommon in the published material.

Perhaps I might better phrase that it is nearly universal that resistant defenses are nearly universal. Markdoc, how ,many characters in your fantasy game lack any rDEF - no spells that would give them any rDEF, no armor, no combat luck - nothing. I can certainly see where your game may be the exception, but I would consider this exceptional, rather than the "hero standard". By comparison, what % have at least some rDEF, at least some mental defense, at least some power defense and at least some flash defense? My belief is that rDEF are much more common than these exotic defenses, and therefore the cost of attacking rDEF should not be as high as the cost of attacking those exotic defenses.

Changing the standard to make rDEF much less universal, coupled with a change to the KA costs because they will be more dangerous is an approach I could certainly get behind.

A game could certainly be designed to generally avoid people having rDEF at all, but I don't see a lot of games in that vein, and the evolution of the Hero system seems to move the other way. Much like a Supers game could have much lower average DEX and SPD, but that's not the way the game has evolved, and people tend to follow published examples.

There are a few genres where it would seem reasonably common. Modern action-adventure (but I suspect a lot of those characters end up with Combat Luck), westerns and horror (and I again expect combat luck should Hero officially tackle those genres) come to mind. Much science fiction as well. But most have tropes to make the major characters survivors, and that has commonly been rationalizing some rDEF for these characters, combat luck being the most official approach.

[Klaus Mogensen]

If we're changing killing attacks, I believe it is definitely time for this paradigm to change.
This is in part why I have suggested introducing semi-resistant defenses (which work at half value vs. killing attacks) as either a -1/4 limitation on normally resistant defenses or a +1/4 advantage on non-resistant defenses.

I think it is a problem now that defenses other than the figured characteristics PD and ED are resistant per default. I don't think I've ever seen anybody buy Armor or FF with a non-resistant limitation. Perhaps these should be non-resistant as default, with semi-resistant and resistant as suggested possible advantages. Semi-resistant is strictly not necessary, but it avoids the rather messy use of partially advantaged powers and implicitly suggests semi-resistant as an option for 'real' armor and objects.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

This is in part why I have suggested introducing semi-resistant defenses (which work at half value vs. killing attacks) as either a -1/4 limitation on normally resistant defenses or a +1/4 advantage on non-resistant defenses.

Or we could make half the defense power non-resistant, or resistant, as the case may be.

[CTaylor]

If we're changing killing attacks

We're not changing anything and I sincerely hope Mr Long doesn't try something that foolish in 6th edition.

[Gary]

We're not changing anything and I sincerely hope Mr Long doesn't try something that foolish in 6th edition.

We're obviously going to be changing many things if 6th edition is made. We're merely discussing hypothetical parameters of possible changes.

[Klaus Mogensen]

We're obviously going to be changing many things if 6th edition is made. We're merely discussing hypothetical parameters of possible changes.
Well said. In this stage of the design process, even the wildest ideas should be put on the table. Later comes the time where the ideas should be sifted through, sorted after merit, and mostly discarded until a small number remains that will transform HERO in a positive manner without making it an entirely new system.

- Klaus

[Markdoc]

Markdoc, how ,many characters in your fantasy game lack any rDEF - no spells that would give them any rDEF, no armor, no combat luck - nothing. I can certainly see where your game may be the exception, but I would consider this exceptional, rather than the "hero standard".

2 have combat luck, the rest .... bupkiss. So that's 28% with rDEF. Now, of course armour is available, but given that the game involves adventuring in or around society, that's only rarely an option.

You could consider it exceptional, but it's not greatly different from 3 of the last 4 campaigns I've played in - so given that 75% of the games I've played in fit that paradigm, I'm guessing it's not as exceptional as you seem to think.

I would agree that rDEF is not as uncommon as some of the other exotic defences, but I think it's a terrible idea to build the rules on the assumption that everyone has resistant defence, because often .... they don't.

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

2 have combat luck, the rest .... bupkiss. So that's 28% with rDEF. Now, of course armour is available, but given that the game involves adventuring in or around society, that's only rarely an option.

How rare is it when the characters are likely to be attacked using killing attacks? Are they likely to be taking BOD damage every session, every other session, only every 10th session in which armor is not a viable option?

You could consider it exceptional, but it's not greatly different from 3 of the last 4 campaigns I've played in - so given that 75% of the games I've played in fit that paradigm, I'm guessing it's not as exceptional as you seem to think.


Of I could guess that the group you game with falls outside the norm. To me, it certainly falls outside the standard set by published Hero characters. Would you disagree with that last interpretation?

For me, I would like to see the rules built around the assumption that it will often be the case that characters lack resistant defenses. However, at present, I believe they are designed to encourage or mandate every character to have resistant defenses, with Combat Luck being the latest addition to provide a case for characters who seem to have no rDEF in the source material to nonetheless justify buying it. I think that approach makes a lot more sense than trying to shoehorn everyone into having rDEF by use of constructs like combat luck, "stout leather jerkins" worn as everyday apparel, etc.

[Klaus Mogensen]

How rare is it when the characters are likely to be attacked using killing attacks? Are they likely to be taking BOD damage every session, every other session, only every 10th session in which armor is not a viable option?
In my experience, characters make sure they have at least one point of rDEF not because they are afraid of taking Body, but because then they their natural PD/ED works against the Stun from killing attacks.

It has always bothered me that one point of rDEF had that effect. I would prefer if KA's did less Stun, but that only rDEF protected against it (as for Body).

- Klaus

[steamteck]

2 have combat luck, the rest .... bupkiss. So that's 28% with rDEF. Now, of course armour is available, but given that the game involves adventuring in or around society, that's only rarely an option.

You could consider it exceptional, but it's not greatly different from 3 of the last 4 campaigns I've played in - so given that 75% of the games I've played in fit that paradigm, I'm guessing it's not as exceptional as you seem to think.

I would agree that rDEF is not as uncommon as some of the other exotic defences, but I think it's a terrible idea to build the rules on the assumption that everyone has resistant defence, because often .... they don't.

cheers, Mark

My campaigns seem to run halfway between yours and Hugh's Now my supers pretty much all have some resistant defense but my age of sail fantasy game rarely sees much armor where everybody is using swords and pistols. My SF game though most characters do have tailor bulletproof super conducting cloth suits.

maybe you should be only able to count 2x your resist defense of your PD vs. stun?

[lapsedgamer]

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

Having been knocked out in a boxing match and batteredfuriously in another, I don't know if I agree with that. I got up fresh as a daisy after the knockout. I didn't even know what had happened and was ready to complete the remaining rounds, if the fight had not been stopped. After getting wailed on, I was tired and sore, but I wasn't loopy all day. If I had been, that would have meant a concussion, which is serious BODY damage. (By the way, I did win a few matches before I gave up on the whole thing. Just in case you thought I was just a total palooka.)

I do, however, wonder if there should be some kind of ablative property to REC. Is it harder to recover after taking a lot of punishment in the same day? I could see that.

[nexus]

I'm working on a rule where each time the character gets knocked below 0 Stun their Recoveries are shifted up one level on the time table. The first time is normal so up to `-10 once per phase, then the next up to -10 onve per turn, etc.

[James Gillen]

I get knocked down
And I get up again
You ain't ever gonna keep me down
I get knocked down
And I get up again
You ain't ever gonna keep me down

[AnotherSkip]

I get knocked down
And I get up again
You ain't ever gonna keep me down
I get knocked down
And I get up again
You ain't ever gonna keep me down

Okay Donnie Boy

[nexus]

The idea is emulate how in certain genres (and arguably real life) that a person can be battered to a point where they're not essentially comatose but they can't muster the ability to stand and continue fighting (or don't want to but that is rarely a problem with PCs). I don't mean it for all genres. Superheroes, for instance don't tend to give up until they're comatose. :)

[Psylint]

Some tweaks I'd like to see:

1. Abort to act - Seems to me if you can abort to dodge an attack outside of your normal Speed/Actions alotment, it makes sense that you could abort to attack the suddenly unprotected posterior of you opponent, or make a grab for the falling damsel in distress. It is kinda tragic when you really downer a game session by having the bad guy actually toss the hostage off the building when you realize that the only person capable of catching the victim before she's road pizza all ready acted that phase.

For my two-bits, I'd impose a -2 OCV, -1 DCV, or -1/2 "travel" to the action, so that if one were to abort to a flying grab in the previous example the character would be at -2 OCV for the grab and would only travel a "full" move of 1/2 their movement rate. I think this might help alleviate the problem of higher speed characters rushing in, attacking, and rushing back out before shower antagonists get a phase.

Defenses, particularly resistant defenses are an issue for me, because they get exponentially more powerful as power levels increase, while damage tends to actually regress. Just with regression toward the mean and all that statistics junk. Though it would add complexity, I wouldn't mind at least a side bar with an exponential increase in defense costs to represent their exponentially increased value. [In a 12 DC game, 30 rpd simply is a heck of a lot more than +50% effective as 20 rpd]

Grabs, I think a character should not be able to grab and throw in the same action unless the object is something he or she could toss with casual strength. Though I would add a "non-martial" sacrifice throw to the standard maneuvers, i.e. you could grab someone and then slam them and yourself to the ground in one action like some wrestling take downs.

Cheers

[Klaus Mogensen]

Some tweaks I'd like to see:

1. Abort to act
I have suggested this as a way of implementing attacks of opportunity and aborting to save innocent bystanders or loved ones. I'm leery about allowing aborting to any action, but I can see it work with penalties like you suggest.
Defenses, particularly resistant defenses are an issue for me, because they get exponentially more powerful as power levels increase, while damage tends to actually regress. Just with regression toward the mean and all that statistics junk. Though it would add complexity, I wouldn't mind at least a side bar with an exponential increase in defense costs to represent their exponentially increased value. [In a 12 DC game, 30 rpd simply is a heck of a lot more than +50% effective as 20 rpd]
"Exponentially" is a wee bit exaggerated. If you double defenses and attacks, an average attack will do double the damage. With very high defenses (> ~3/DC), the damage average through defenses over many attacks will less than double, but I'd say such defenses are too high. I would probably limit defenses to 30 points in a 60-point campaign; the problem will be minimal then.

Here's a house rule you can adopt if this bothers you:

Never roll more than 10 dice for attacks. For DC > 10, replace 3d6 with 1d20 until the number of dice falls below 10. (For DC > 30, you could replace 5d20 with d100).

A 16 DC normal attack would thus be 3d20 + 7d6.

- Klaus

[Markdoc]

How rare is it when the characters are likely to be attacked using killing attacks? Are they likely to be taking BOD damage every session, every other session, only every 10th session in which armor is not a viable option?

Obviously it varies: the last several sessions were a "sneak job" and nobody took BOD for 4 sessions. The two prior were "fight jobs" and every party member but one (the mage, who wasn't actually in the fight) took BOD. "Every other session" seems about right.

Of I could guess that the group you game with falls outside the norm. To me, it certainly falls outside the standard set by published Hero characters. Would you disagree with that last interpretation?

Yeah, I would. Many supers fall into that generalization, but looking through the Heroic level publications, there are many published characters without rDEF, so one certainly can't assume that having rDEF is the default. You can say that our games are the outliers, but we have already had multiple posters in the thread say "Yeah, me too". If multiple GMs in my experience plus multiple GMs/players here play the game that way, that suggests that it is something that many people do. In that case, by definition, it doesn't fall outside the norm.

For me, I would like to see the rules built around the assumption that it will often be the case that characters lack resistant defenses. However, at present, I believe they are designed to encourage or mandate every character to have resistant defenses, with Combat Luck being the latest addition to provide a case for characters who seem to have no rDEF in the source material to nonetheless justify buying it. I think that approach makes a lot more sense than trying to shoehorn everyone into having rDEF by use of constructs like combat luck, "stout leather jerkins" worn as everyday apparel, etc.

I certainly agree that we shouldn't try and shoehorn everyone into "must have rDEF". But fortunately, as long as we don't build the rules under the assumption that everyone must have rDEF, that's not a problem.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

My campaigns seem to run halfway between yours and Hugh's Now my supers pretty much all have some resistant defense but my age of sail fantasy game rarely sees much armor where everybody is using swords and pistols. My SF game though most characters do have tailor bulletproof super conducting cloth suits.

Right, but 3 of the last 4 games I have played in have been heroic "style" (even if not all heroic level points). I'm not - by any means - suggesting that rDEF is uncommon. It's very common indeed. It's just not a given that all characters will have rDEF.

cheers, Mark

[Shinobi Killfis]

As promised, more grist for the mill. For all I know someone's raised this one already, but I'm waiting to read most of these threads until I'm ready to begin writing. ;)

Q: Should we change Grab to get rid of the free Squeeze/Throw option?

Steve's Thoughts: I think this one is worth considering, though I can't say I'm 100% sold on it yet. It's a little unfair to give someone two "attacks" in one Phase, and it leads to some confusion and annoying questions. It might work better if you have to wait for your next Phase to Squeeze/Throw. OTOH, this might be a change that doesn't really add anything and so isn't worth making.

How do you do the action movie neck snap then? :) I think mechanically it may be a bit too good, but there should be some way to pull it off. i got no idea how though. A flat penalty to effective strength maybe.

[Wishfullthinker]

My two cents...

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

The speed system is a bit cumbersome, especially when running more than a couple of characters at once. I do think it adds something to the game, but could use a bit of tweaking. Perhaps use a system like deadlands where players drew cards and the value on the cards were the turns they could activate in. Although I think that system would make the DM’s job even harder, as numerous NPC’s in a fight would be a nightmare it might be a good direction to look in. There could be a die rolling system, where characters would roll a number of dice equal to their speed, and then spend dice to act in that phase. If a player has multiple dice of the same number, each player gets to act in dex order, then each player that has additional dice gets to act again in Dex order, Repeat until all dice have been used. Of course that could also be a nightmare, and the number of dice required to run the game shoots up dramatically. The last thing I can think of, would be simply, a person with speed one acts in Phase 1, a person with speed two acts in phase 1 and 2, etc… This would require that high speed is more expensive than low speeds, or you could reverse it, so that phase one goes on 12, phase 2 goes on 11, and 12, etc… The last two probably have some balance issues, but it would make combats a bit easier.


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

Attack and move is a tricky thing to balance. It would necessitate the need for increased cost of movement powers. Perhaps even refiguring how non-combat movement is done, turning it into more of a full phase action, allowing no combat actions during it. (Not even move throughs.)


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

I think some minor redesign to make the DCV into a target number will save some figuring, and overall improve the game.

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

This is a bit of a nuisance. I would say that the Stun multiplier doesn’t quite fit with the rest of the system. The major issues arise when you start to add it weapon damages, pushing, and other miscellaneous extras. You could just make killing damage treat the dice as d3’s when dealing body damage. Or in the long run it might just be easier to make it deal half the die roll in body (roll 20 stun, you deal 10 body).


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

Yea, damage classes are a headache. Not sure what to do about them, other than what you suggested.

[MPT]

I get knocked down
And I get up again
You ain't ever gonna keep me down
I get knocked down
And I get up again
You ain't ever gonna keep me down

This reminds me of another problem with Hero combat, namely that being knocked down in a 1 on 1 melee combat is no disadvantage if the two combatants have the same speed.

Say they have a speed of 4 and A has a better DEX than B. 'A' has an attack that does knock down.

Segment 3 - A hits B, B falls down. B gets up and attacks A.
Segment 6 - A hits B, B falls down. B gets up and attacks A.
Segment 9 - A hits B, B falls down. B gets up and attacks A.
etc.

The fact that 'B' is knocked down in no way reduces his ability to attack, nor does it give 'A' any advantage in hitting 'B'. I feel that some form of penalty/advantage should apply, but don't know exactly what it should be.

[Tonio]

This reminds me of another problem with Hero combat, namely that being knocked down in a 1 on 1 melee combat is no disadvantage if the two combatants have the same speed.

Say they have a speed of 4 and A has a better DEX than B. 'A' has an attack that does knock down.

Segment 3 - A hits B, B falls down. B gets up and attacks A.
Segment 6 - A hits B, B falls down. B gets up and attacks A.
Segment 9 - A hits B, B falls down. B gets up and attacks A.
etc.

The fact that 'B' is knocked down in no way reduces his ability to attack, nor does it give 'A' any advantage in hitting 'B'. I feel that some form of penalty/advantage should apply, but don't know exactly what it should be.

Well, there is a disadvantage to being knocked down... you still use up half a phase getting back up, reducing your options. If all you were doing was standing there and punching when your Phase came up, then sure, it doesn't make much of a difference, but then you're really not maximizing your combat potential anyway. You could, for example, Hold your Phase, and two segments before your next Phase, Haymaker your punch, knocking your opponent down, then on your normal Phase you have a knocked down opponent who's either gonna get smacked while on the ground, or Abort his Phase to defend himself.

[nexus]

This reminds me of another problem with Hero combat, namely that being knocked down in a 1 on 1 melee combat is no disadvantage if the two combatants have the same speed.

Say they have a speed of 4 and A has a better DEX than B. 'A' has an attack that does knock down.

Segment 3 - A hits B, B falls down. B gets up and attacks A.
Segment 6 - A hits B, B falls down. B gets up and attacks A.
Segment 9 - A hits B, B falls down. B gets up and attacks A.
etc.

The fact that 'B' is knocked down in no way reduces his ability to attack, nor does it give 'A' any advantage in hitting 'B'. I feel that some form of penalty/advantage should apply, but don't know exactly what it should be.

I recall an optional rule back in 4th (?) where a Maneuver with the Throw element acted like a Block in that the fallen target couldn't act until after his attack if they acted on the same phase unless the target used a skill to instantly stand back up/never actually "fall" in the first place.

Another option would be to make standing an Phase ending or Full Phase action unless the character has Breakfall or Acrobatics and makes a successful roll. That would make Groundfighting a more useful Talent as well. These options do run the risk of making Martial Maneuvers with the Throw and Target Falls elements really powerful, maybe even unbalanced.

[Markdoc]

It's only a problem if A and B just stand there and whale on each other. If A delays a segment, he can probably hit B while B is down. If he moves-by and knocks B down, B can't attack next phase if A's even 1" away. Basically that DEX advantage gives A a small edge - if he's smart enough to use it.

cheers, Mark

[James Gillen]

I recall an optional rule back in 4th (?) where a Maneuver with the Throw element acted like a Block in that the fallen target couldn't act until after his attack if they acted on the same phase unless the target used a skill to instantly stand back up/never actually "fall" in the first place.

It's now official that a Martial Throw maneuver (as opposed to a Grab-and-Throw) will have the same initiative effect as Block. (HERO 5er, p. 400)

JG

[Klaus Mogensen]

Segment 3 - A hits B, B falls down. B gets up and attacks A.
Segment 6 - A hits B, B falls down. B gets up and attacks A.
Segment 9 - A hits B, B falls down. B gets up and attacks A.
etc.

The fact that 'B' is knocked down in no way reduces his ability to attack, nor does it give 'A' any advantage in hitting 'B'. I feel that some form of penalty/advantage should apply, but don't know exactly what it should be.
There has been talk about allowing to abort to attack in some situations. Knocking your opponent down could be one such situation:

Segment 3 - A hits B, B falls down.
Segment 4 - A aborts his segment-6 action to hit B with a bonus for prone target.
Segemnt 6 - B gets up and attacks A, A falls down
Segment 7 - B aborts his segment-9 action to hit A with a bonus for prone target.
Segment 9 - A gets up and attacks B.

- Klaus

[MPT]

It's only a problem if A and B just stand there and whale on each other. If A delays a segment, he can probably hit B while B is