DEF/BODY of inanimate objects

[Nelijal]

I'm moving this topic from the "What do you want to see?" thread so Steve doesn't have to wade thru it. This is a subject that I've pondered on and I think it deserves some attention.

Originally posted by Old Man

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mancer
The issue of weapons hacking through Oak doors, Stone walls, etc is dealt with on pg. 328 of Fred with the "-1/4 Real Weapon" limitation (which most Fantasy Hero weapons should have by default)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "Real Weapon" limitation is a useless piece of handwaving that says nothing more than "it is up to the GM to determine how this should work," which is how things were in 4th ed., or for that matter, Basic D&D. It does nothing to help the GM with an argumentative player who has a different idea of just how many hacks it takes to get through an oaken door in "real life".

The DEF/BODY of common materials seems to me also to be low compared to the damage HTH weapons do. I don't have an answer but my brain cell just had a thought: What if the ability to damage an inanimate object were based on the relative DEFs (and perhaps BODYs) of the weapon and target.

In most cases (sword vs stone wall, for example) the rules take care of themselves since the sword's damage will never get thru the wall's DEF, but what about the gray areas that aren't so obvious (sword vs oak door)? Should the DEFs be compared, or should we simply up the DEF of common materials like wood?

I'm spitballing here, so if it sounds like I haven't thought this all the way thru, you're right. I'm posting this to get a discussion going. Two heads are better than one, so a few more can't hurt, as long as too many cooks don't spoil the broth. . .

[Markdoc]

Oldguy has a point, but I have found no real alternative to handwaving it.

A 2d6 great axe could be expected to go through an oaken door right smartish, but a 2d6 sword will likely embed itself in the door and then have to be *carefully* wiggled free (a process likely to take several turns) or it'll go "kwa-PEENG" and you'll be left holding the stump of a sword.

Swords are fragile, remember!

A 2d6 RKA morning star will take ages to batter down the door, if it does anything more than scar the surface up, while imagine trying to destroy a door with a 2d6 RKA pike (poke, poke, poke, poke .... repeat 60 times).

The GM has to use common sense.

Cheers, Mark

[Greenstar]

It's still a handwave, but maybe you could rule on the type of damage needed - for example, to chop down a door, you need cutting damage. The DEF/BODY of the door is normal against this damage. Ditto for, say, fire (it's wood, after all). For "inappropriate" damage types apply a multiplier to the BODY of the item. Say, 5x BODY if you are going at it with a sword, and even 20X if a spear.

[Chris Goodwin]

I believe that's part of the Real Weapon Limitation. A sword can't cut through an oak door, and a spiky macey clubby thing can't cut rope.

[Gary]

Def and body of inanimate objects are too low. Imagine Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime (21-23 str) with a great axe. He'll do 4d6 hka with a haymaker without pushing. That means vs the side armor of a M-1 Abrams tank (def 16), he'll do body about 24% of the time. It'll take him about 2 minutes to demolish the tank.

[Vondy]

Too bad his sword was built with the real weapon limitation.

[Gary]

Originally posted by D-Man
Too bad his sword was built with the real weapon limitation.

You're right. He'd actually have to fall on the tank to destroy it, while wearing heavy kevlar.

Assuming he has 18 body, 5 pd, 11 def kevlar, he'll do the full 30d6 terminal velocity damage to the tank vs its 16 pd. 14 body through defenses on average.

[Monolith]

I think the Real Weapon limitation should indicate that the DEF of the weapon cannot do damage to something which has a greater DEF value. So if you state that a broadsword has 4 DEF it should not be able to do BODY damage to an inanimate object of greater than 4 DEF. So if you hit a 5 DEF Oak door (5 being the value listed in FREd for heavy wood) with a broadsword the sword should bounce.

[Nelijal]

That's right along the same lines I was thinking, Monolith. I would suggest that, instead of an all-or-nothing cutoff where the DEF values cross, a weapon could do minimal damage to objects with DEF equal to some multiple of the weapon's DEF, say 1/2 damage for targets up to 2x the weapon's DEF?

Also, part of the problem with getting thru the oak door is that a sword is awkward in that situation, whereas an axe isn't. A better comparison would be trying to cut down a tree with either a sword or an axe. The axe will obviously do better.

There's no getting around the GM having to adjudicate these situations--after all, that's his job. For consistency's sake, though, it would be nice to have some guidelines.

My brain cell is starting to hurt.

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by D-Man
Too bad his sword was built with the real weapon limitation.

Thats one of the things I don't like about the real weapon lim, it adds too much to the GM side of the equation. Needs to be cleaned, oiled, should not be dropped from 20,000 feet I can buy for real weapon but you can't hurt that even though you can easily damage it by the rules is a bit too far for me, that is the GM's job to determine, putting this into the real weapon lim goes to far for me and seems to excuse the GM from being practical. If it is obvious to the players and the GM that the situation is not right despite the rules, then you can't do it, if it is not so cut and dried to both the gM and players then it deservs at least a little discussion, I'd hate to see the GM duck out of defending a "you can't do that, end of argument" based solely on the real weapon lim.

I think real weapon has actually caused a problem because def typically is too low compared to weapons, but in most discussions surrounding raising def the new def is compared to things such as "well then the Abrams could survive a fall from orbit" which is silly any GM should rule that the tank is unservicable and the crew is jelly, yet from the other side "weapons can cut right through a tank" Real weapon is pulled out as a defense of the low defenses.

I don't know the solution and am probably off on a tangent but I don't like "real weapon" as the reasoning behind preventing damage SFX should be all that is required for that.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Nelijal
That's right along the same lines I was thinking, Monolith. I would suggest that, instead of an all-or-nothing cutoff where the DEF values cross, a weapon could do minimal damage to objects with DEF equal to some multiple of the weapon's DEF, say 1/2 damage for targets up to 2x the weapon's DEF?

The problem with using 2x or 1.5x is that you get into the "unreasonable effect" range fairly quickly. If you assume a broadsword has 4 DEF, then you are saying it can possibly cut into 6-8 DEF items.
5 DEF is considered Very Heavy Wood or Bricks.
6 DEF is considered Concrete and Heavy Bar Metal.
7 DEF is considered Reinforced Bricks or Plate Armor.
8 DEF is considered Casting Metal or Reinforced Concrete.

So can a broadsword bite into Very Heavy Wood or Bricks? I would think you could use a sword to chip away at those substances with a broad sword. Do I think a broadsword would be useful for Concrete or Heavy Bar Metal? No, not at all.

A good rule could be that the weapons can do damage to inanimate items up to the weapon's own DEF value, but can only do 1 point of damage to substances 1 DEF value higher, and no damage to substances greater than that. So a 4 DEF broadsword can attack 4 DEF items, but can only do 1 point of damge to 5 DEF items and cannot hurt 6+ DEF items.

As far as the reason an axe works better than a sword would be because it has a higher DEF value.

Daggers: 1-2 DEF
Spears: 2-3 DEF
Standard Swords: 3-4 DEF
Two-handed/Great Swords: 4-5 DEF
Polearms: 5-6 DEF
Axes/Maces: 6-7 DEF

These are just estimates, but probably pretty close to what I would do if I played a fantasy game.

[Greenstar]

Why do polearms have so much more DEF than spears? I can see a bit more, but more than double? Either spears are too low, or polearms are too high.

Anyone else notice that it's ridiculously easy to break a foe's weapon? A broadsword is usually 4 DEF, 4 BODY. Someone with a greatsword doing no extra STR damage will almost destroy one in a single blow. Somehow, I don't think they were that fragile.

Also, isn't heavy plate listed as rPD=8? That's the same DEF as a bank vault? Huh?

Methinks the DEF and BODY values *are* seriously off.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Greenstar
Why do polearms have so much more DEF than spears? I can see a bit more, but more than double? Either spears are too low, or polearms are too high.

After watching Conquest, I gave them a higher value because many polearms had heavily constructed axe-like heads at the ends. While it is true that both shafts are made of wood, a spear has a rather simple head whereas a polearm has a heavy and well-constructed head. Thus a greater DEF value.

Anyone else notice that it's ridiculously easy to break a foe's weapon? A broadsword is usually 4 DEF, 4 BODY. Someone with a greatsword doing no extra STR damage will almost destroy one in a single blow. Somehow, I don't think they were that fragile.

I have no idea how fragile those weapons were, but when you consider that few human ever had a 20 STR in real life, you can see that few would get lots of extra damage with those weapons in the real world.

Also, isn't heavy plate listed as rPD=8? That's the same DEF as a bank vault? Huh?

FREd lists a vault door as having 16 DEF on page 304.

Methinks the DEF and BODY values *are* seriously off.

DEF and BODY of weapons, or DEF and BODY of other items?

The problem is the genre itself. In one book Conan breaks chains and knocks over oak doors with his bare hands. In another book he is chained for month and is forced to eat rats to stay alive. Which of those stories should the examples in FREd try to emulate?

[Greenstar]

The problem is the genre itself. In one book Conan breaks chains and knocks over oak doors with his bare hands. In another book he is chained for month and is forced to eat rats to stay alive. Which of those stories should the examples in FREd try to emulate?

Good point. My preference would be for realism, but that's just me. So in my world, he eats rat

For the FH campaighn I'm working on, I may tweak the DEF and BODY of things a bit with some house rules to make 'em a bit more durable.

[Nelijal]

Originally posted by Greenstar
Methinks the DEF and BODY values *are* seriously off.

I think one problem is that HERO assumes DEF to be a function of material type only, and BODY to be a function of how much of that material is in an object. In reality, DEF is also affected by the amount of material present.

For example, a sword or .45ACP can do a lot of damage to a steel car body (they still exist, don't they?), but the same weapons used against a battleship turret will do nothing more than chip the paint (even assuming the two were made of the same grade of steel).

I think this is somewhat taken into account in the rules, it's just that those of us running Heroic level games find flaws with the values given in the book. I don't fault Steve and the gang; I've toyed with some numbers before, looking for a way to scale game attributes so that a single standard could be applied to everything: humans to elephants, Faberge egg to aircraft carrier. It can be done, but the results look like the Fractionary Speed Chart, and who wants to play that?

Probably the best to hope for is to come up with a set of values that work within the frame of a given game. If you can come up with something that works for swords, axes, oak doors, and castle walls, but not with artillery and battleships, run with it (assuming you're running heroic fantasy). And that's why I started this thread, to get you guys to give me some good ideas for my game.