Damage class

[Outsider]

Oh, I am not entirely happy with the STR min rules either.  I think the minimums are often too high, especially on two handed weapons, and double especially if one is in the "20 STR is on the edge of supernatural, and you need a crazy supernatural reason to justify going over it" camp in regard to NCM rather than the "20 STR is the most a person gets before they become really remarkable"camp.   Most of the FH I played was back under (I think) 4th Edition, where a large pole-arm like a Halberd had an 18 STR Min.   That's near NCM, yet somehow the Swiss turned out entire blocks of them.  This argues to me that either near "maximum" STR ins't that uncommon, or the STR min is too high.  They certainly wouldn't be so stupid as to be regularly equipping their troops with weapons that lost them DCs and OCV both,and were, after those penalties, less effective than a different pole-arm that had a lower STR min.

 

A house-rule thought experiment I came up with  (thought experiment because I never got to actually play with it)

 

The damage listed for a weapon represents the percentage of one's STR score (in blocks of 10%) that one does with a particular weapon.  So a Great Sword at 2D6 does 20-120% of the wielder's STR in BODY.  Damage dice only get adjusted if one is using a weapon made for an entirely different size class of wielder.

 

Advantage :

1) Anyone can use any weapon.

2) Largely elliminates "sweet spot" STR stats.

 

Disadvantage"

1) Really, really makes high STR an effective thing to buy.  

2) Extreme damage variability is no longer mitigated on high damage attacks because high damage attacks no longer use more dice.

3) One more calculation at the table.

 

 

To address disadvantage 1, I also thought about having STR in excess of 10 count as only half as much for the calculation... so a STR 20 character would do only 150% of what a STR 10 one would, rather than 200%. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah I dropped a lot of the strength minimums to lower levels than the official listed numbers for my Fantasy Hero campaign.

[Nolgroth]

The Strength minimums (page 249 Fantasy Hero Complete [FHC]) never made sense when you compare them to the Lift column in the Strength chart (page 17 of FHC). Those values have carried over for some time. Even when you count Casual Strength (Casual Use of Abilities; page 15 FHC) they more often don't make sense. I used to simply drop 5 off of all published weapon stats but that isn't the best of solutions. Perhaps a percentage of the published stat would be better. 

 

Edit: Just ran some numbers to find that about 75% (normal rounding rules) of the published Strength minimums are about right IMO. That puts a Greatsword in the 13 Str Min category. That is not too difficult to get to for a starting character and you don't start to see bonus damage from Strength until 18. A Broadsword gets reduced to 9, so any starting character (assuming no Strength sellback) can pick one up. Bonuses don't start until 14. Keep in mind, I require a full five points of Strength to get a +1 DC bonus so if you are using the 3 point breakpoints, that would be 16 for the Greatsword and 12 for the Broadsword.

 

As a note of comparison, Grognak the Barbarian has a Strength of 20.  With a....

 

....Greatsword he can do 2d6+1 (2d6 base, +1 DC at 18)

....Bastard Sword he can do 2d6+1 (1 1/2d6 base, +1 DC at 15, +1 DC at 20)

....Broadsword he can 2d6 (1d6+1 base +1 DC at 14, +1 DC at 19)

....Dagger he can do 1d6+1 (1d6-1 base, +1 DC at 10, +1 DC at 15, Maxed Out DC if using the Double Base Damage rule)

....Dagger he can do 1 1/2d6 (1d6-1 base, +1 DC at 10, +1 DC at 15, +1 DC at 20, if using the Campaign Limits rule)

 

Based only on Strength, Grognak's best option is to slap a shield on and use a Broadsword. It is only by using CSLs, Martial Maneuvers and other goodies to get the most out of the Great or Bastard swords. This is exactly how I think it should work out. And now I have myself a nice little house rule to go forward with.

[Hyper-Man]

Similar topic from a couple of old threads:

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/90348-champions-complete-max-human-strength/

http://www.herogames...m-a-little-low/

 

bigdamnhero, on 04 Dec 2013 - 3:57 PM, said:

Yeah, I had a rant about this awhile back on (I think) the FB page. I totally see why Steve set the scores where they are based on canon and creator's guidelines. The book states Owen can lift 400 lbs => he has a 15 STR, QED. Julie & Holly both use weapons with Strength Minimums of 12 => they have 12 STR, QED.

 

But it's problematic from an RPG perspective when the entire range of STR among the human hunters is all of 3 points. Personally, I've always thought the Max Lift weights make no sense for most heroic campaigns, especially when compared to the Weapon Strength Minimums. I can shoot an M16 just fine, thank you; but even when I was in my best shape I couldn't lift 300 pounds without seriously pushing!

 

My solution for most modern heroic games is to simply redefine lifting STR one down on the STR table:

10 STR => 75 kg

13 STR => 100kg

15 STR => 150 kg

18 STR => 200 kg

20 STR => 300 kg

 

That would give Owen an 18 STR, and by extrapolation give Franks a 23 or 25. Julie & Holly can keep their 12s. I think that fits the feel of the books better.

 

No need to change anything else (damage, STR minimums, etc..)

 

HM

[Christopher R Taylor]

I see it as opposite.  Changing strength minimums is a matter of a very small adjustment on a list of weapons.  Changing the lift for characters is a complete shift in the established rules of Hero Games since it was first printed.

[Hyper-Man]

I see it as opposite.  Changing strength minimums is a matter of a very small adjustment on a list of weapons.  Changing the lift for characters is a complete shift in the established rules of Hero Games since it was first printed.

 

Changing STR Minimums on HTH weapons will also change the final amount of damage a character can do with the weapons.

Changing how much a given value of STR can actually lift (in a heroic level game only) only changes how much a character can lift.

 

HM

[bigdamnhero]

Heh, thanks for saving me from having to look up that old thread H-M!

 

Changing the lift for characters is a complete shift in the established rules of Hero Games since it was first printed.

Meh. Either a rule makes sense on its own merits, or it doesn't; the fact that "we've always done it that way" doesn't really concern me that much. YMMV, obviously.

 

The thing is STR is really the only characteristic that is benchmarked in reality in any meaningful way. If I say I have a DEX of 13, that number is meaningless except in comparison to other characters' DEXs. So for heroic games, it's very easy to have a full spread of DEXs from 10-20 because they're just numbers. But because STR is pegged to Max Lift, either everyone is a weightlifter, or you wind up with everyone being in a narrow STR band with hardly any granularity (as the MHI examples above demonstrate), or else you set everyone at realistic lifting weights which means most characters wind up in the 8-13 range and fistfights take all damn day. Changing the Weapons STR Minimums takes them out of line with unarmed damage, whereas lowering Max Lift has no impact on any other game mechanic. (And how much does Max Lift really come up in most games anyway?) I don't know if I'd make that change for the system default, but as a house rule for modern heroic games, I think it works pretty well.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Either a rule makes sense on its own merits, or it doesn't; the fact that "we've always done it that way" doesn't really concern me that much

Yeah, well the point wasn't "we should never change!!!" but rather "this has been part of a very successful solid game we love and play for every setting for decades."  That makes me pretty hesitant to make changes at a fundamental level to the rules just because it seems to work in one setting.  Make the stats do different stuff in different genres and its not a system that ports across genres any more.

[Hugh Neilson]

Oh, I am not entirely happy with the STR min rules either.  I think the minimums are often too high, especially on two handed weapons, and double especially if one is in the "20 STR is on the edge of supernatural, and you need a crazy supernatural reason to justify going over it" camp in regard to NCM rather than the "20 STR is the most a person gets before they become really remarkable"camp.   Most of the FH I played was back under (I think) 4th Edition, where a large pole-arm like a Halberd had an 18 STR Min.   That's near NCM, yet somehow the Swiss turned out entire blocks of them.  This argues to me that either near "maximum" STR ins't that uncommon, or the STR min is too high.  They certainly wouldn't be so stupid as to be regularly equipping their troops with weapons that lost them DCs and OCV both,and were, after those penalties, less effective than a different pole-arm that had a lower STR min.

Perhaps they would if you got some benefit out of using the weapon even if you lacked the STR to make full, best use of it. And what is the STR to make full, best use of it? As noted above, a 20 STR wielder can get almost same damage from Broadsword and Shield as he can from a Greatsword, so why not get the added defense of the Shield? This is the same question as "why should anyone ever use a Greatsword if it ends up only one DC higher than a Knife".

 

To the question of changing max lift, the baseline has been that 10 STR lifts a normal person, who weighs 100kg. The 100kg is also higher than reality would indicate. However, to the question "when does maximum lift ever come up?" how about "when you need to get an incapacitated teammate out of harm's way, or you wish to Throw a target, for starters, and are you using Encumbrance rules"?

[Outsider]

Brawny the Barbarian doing 1DC less with his Broadsword as compared to his Greatsword seems a lot more reasonable in my mind than him doing 1DC less with his camp knife.     The Broadsword is a lot larger than a knife, is still pretty difficult to conceal, and from an RP perspective is still obviously an implement of war.

 

As to the "he'd rather use a shield" thing, yeah, gaining 3 DCV (assuming a large shield) is probably usually preferable to gaining 1 DC and 1 OCV.  But it might not be preferable to gaining 2 DC and 1 OCV, which would be the case if we partially adopted Nolgroth's  'knock 5 off the published STR min" thing to apply only to 2 handed weapons.   After all, if a one handed lift shift things 5 STR out of the lifter's favor, why shouldn't a "two handed wield" shift them 5 into the wielder's favor?    The Swiss wouldn't have to have to have either been stupid or to have recruited entire battalions of Brawny the Barbarians to explain halberdiers this way.

 

Also, if you're playing with weapon breakage, (and weapon breakage works more or less the same way it did in previous editions) the whole thing becomes a bit moot.  I don't actually have access to my books right now (I've lent them to a guy I am trying to woo into playing HERO system) but IIRC the typical DEF of a weapon was 1 per DC, and you got triple DEF on strikes (double on blocks, and single if the weapon was attacked directly) meaning that one can only possibly do 7 BODY with a knife (3*2 for striking, plus 1 for he BODY that breaks the weapon) anyway, which, by coincidence is the max roll on 1D6+1... or the 4DC you can get on a 2DC knife while using the no more than double rule.

[NuSoardGraphite]

I also adjusted STR minimums. I started with a Broadsword at base 10. Since a sword is 4 DC, for every DC above that add +3 to the STR min. For every DC below, remove 3 from the STR min. So a shortsword at 3 DC is str min 7. A dagger is Str Min 4.

 

I adjust the other weapons based on how their balance compares to a sword. Axes at the same DC level have +2 Str min compared to a sword. A mace or a hammer has +1 dc. It works. This puts the Greatsword at 16 STR and the great axe at 18 DC.

[bigdamnhero]

Yeah, well the point wasn't "we should never change!!!" but rather "this has been part of a very successful solid game we love and play for every setting for decades."  That makes me pretty hesitant to make changes at a fundamental level to the rules just because it seems to work in one setting.  Make the stats do different stuff in different genres and its not a system that ports across genres any more.

Fair enough, but I guess I just don't see changing the Max Lift values as making "changes at  fundamental level." Impact on the rest of the system is pretty negligible.

 

As for portability to different genres, normally I agree 100% and that's one of the things that drew me to Hero in the first place. If it were up to me I'd change it across the board. It's easy enough to ignore in other genres, so I find it's not worth monkeying with; but in heroic modern games it just gets so glaring that it becomes impossible for me to ignore. Especially once I started teaching Hero to new players at conventions and got tired of hearing "Wait, you're telling me I'm barely average Strength but I can lift 220 pounds without Pushing? Seriously?" And again, the alternative is to hand out a lot of 8 STR PCs which is...problematic at best.

 

To the question of changing max lift, the baseline has been that 10 STR lifts a normal person, who weighs 100kg. The 100kg is also higher than reality would indicate. However, to the question "when does maximum lift ever come up?" how about "when you need to get an incapacitated teammate out of harm's way, or you wish to Throw a target, for starters, and are you using Encumbrance rules"?

You're right about the 100kg "normal" being the sticking point. The obvious fix IMO is to also change the default for how much a normal person weighs to something better representative of humanity. Average adult body weight around the world ranges from 58 kg in Asia to 80kg in North America, so 75kg actually turns out to fit fairly well. In fact, 75 kg was the average adult male body weight in the US before the obesity epidemic got going. [shrug] I dunno. Personally I always felt like they picked 100kg because it's a nice round number, and as a superhero game it doesn't come up enough to make a difference.

 

Good point about Encumbrance tho. I don't normally track Endurance too closely in modern games (compared to say Fantasy games), so I'd have to run some numbers to see how bad the impacts would be.

[IndianaJoe3]

I see it as opposite.  Changing strength minimums is a matter of a very small adjustment on a list of weapons.  Changing the lift for characters is a complete shift in the established rules of Hero Games since it was first printed.

 

It's not unprecedented. APG1 has several options for changing lift capacities, including one where a 10 STR character has a maximum lift of 50 kg.

[Nolgroth]

It's not unprecedented. APG1 has several options for changing lift capacities, including one where a 10 STR character has a maximum lift of 50 kg.

 

I was almost going to mention that.

 

The problem with APG and other methods of changing Hero baseline characteristics was already brought up; compatibility. That can be a problem, but since there is no hardline published Hero campaigns, per se, almost every campaign I have ever run or seen run is a unique entity unto itself. Even with the standards laid out in the basic rule book(s) in place, there is still enough customization that a character from one fantasy campaign may not be usable in another. The APG's are absolutely stunning resources that further encourage this division by encouraging GM's to tailor their campaigns to an inch of their life. Even the 5th edition precedents of the Turakian and Valdorian Age campaigns, we see much different rules in place. All in all, I think that there has been a misconception that Hero characters built for one campaign/game are going to automatically translate well into another. They really are not.

 

That said, I've noticed a growing division between Superheroic vs. Heroic attitudes. The game core was written for super heroes. It really shows that when trying to dial down to low-powered heroes. Consequently you have folks trying to tailor the system to make it more Heroic friendly. I wonder why there is not already a guideline in place to change the sorts of things that we are talking about in this thread. There are already concessions made towards the differences ( Knockback vs. Knockdown, END cost for Strength optionally being stiffer, etc.). Why not, at a core level, acknowledge that the broad brush of the Superheroic game is not granular enough for the Heroic level of play? Changing the Strength chart to reflect a more granular lift ability is not beyond the pale. The problem comes with trying to translate a character across genres or campaigns, which I've already stated, is a problem anyway.

[Christopher R Taylor]

The problem with APG and other methods of changing Hero baseline characteristics was already brought up; compatibility. 

 

That, and the other point people have brought up, that Strength is the benchmark that you determine values for other stats, based on brute lifting force and real life experience.  Vary that and it throws all the other stats out of whack.  Too big a change for too little value when you can just alter strength minima to a more reasonable level.  I mean, seriously, you can't use a dagger properly unless you can dead lift 80kg over your head?

[Hyper-Man]

But which action is really more work?

 

Changing lifting values for STR is a single change.

 

Changing STR minimums across the board for multiple weapons seems like a LOT more work to me.

 

HM

[Christopher R Taylor]

Changing strength minimums is a matter of adjusting one column on a chart.

Changing the strength stat means rebuilding every single character you've ever made and everyone else has ever made to match up with the redefined values for strength.  

 

No, Hulk, you don't lift 100 tons any more, the new chart says 72.573.  And your INT, based on that STR chart as a benchmark?  Its lower now too.  Rebuy.

[Hyper-Man]

Nobody has suggested that the change would affect supers. Since we are discussing STR minimums from weapon charts I thought it was pretty clear that this was a Heroic Level ONLY type of change.

 

HM

[Christopher R Taylor]

OK that makes an even bigger problem because then you can't port between genres or games.  Now each game has its own different ruleset.

 

And supers just exaggerates the problem; its still an issue if you wanted the guy that can lift a horse.  Now he can lift a goat.

[NuSoardGraphite]

But which action is really more work?

 

Changing lifting values for STR is a single change.

 

Changing STR minimums across the board for multiple weapons seems like a LOT more work to me.

 

HM

I did it very simply by creating a baseline and placing everything in relation to the base. I dont even have to write it out. Just give me a weapon class and the DC and I can tell you the STR min.

[Hyper-Man]

OK that makes an even bigger problem because then you can't port between genres or games.  Now each game has its own different ruleset.

 

And supers just exaggerates the problem; its still an issue if you wanted the guy that can lift a horse.  Now he can lift a goat.

 

Well that's already the case if you've been following the latest stuff in the Rules Forum.

 

see these 3 threads for details:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/93309-extra-weapon-and-combined-attack/

http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/93319-re-extra-weapon-and-combined-attack/

http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/93321-extra-weapon-and-combined-attack-iii/

 

Whether a focus is paid for with points (supers) or free equipment (heroic) makes a difference in what combat maneuvers are available.when 2 weapons are being used simultaneously.

 

HM

[Hyper-Man]

Changing strength minimums is a matter of adjusting one column on a chart.

Changing the strength stat means rebuilding every single character you've ever made and everyone else has ever made to match up with the redefined values for strength.  

 

No, Hulk, you don't lift 100 tons any more, the new chart says 72.573.  And your INT, based on that STR chart as a benchmark?  Its lower now too.  Rebuy.

 

Ignoring the supers/heroic thing for a moment, your argument works against changing the weapon minimums just as much if the heroic characters are built with their equipment on the character sheet (which some folks do).

 

I did it very simply by creating a baseline and placing everything in relation to the base. I dont even have to write it out. Just give me a weapon class and the DC and I can tell you the STR min.

 

It just boils down to house rule preference.  Changing the weapon charts seems like a bigger change to me since characters will actually do MORE damage.  Changing the lift value X STR just corrects the one part of the stat that seems a bit high. Tomato Potato.

 

HM

[Nolgroth]

Heroic and Superheroic might as well be two distinct games. That they are compatible is a misconception that needs to be buried and fast. Sir Percival, Knight of the Round Table, in a gritty take on Arthurian legend has absolutely no place next to the Hulk. For that matter, I will repeat that most games of a specific power level are not even entirely compatible either. Hero was marketed and pushed as a gamers' toolkit since at least 5th Edition. There was the opposite of trying to establish a baseline standard outside of the internal consistency needed for a campaign. As I mentioned earlier, even official publications vary widely in terms of the power levels and rules used. Just take a look at the three "Age" books and Tuala Morn. You cannot easily transplant a character from one into another. Translating Sir Percival into a comic character would take about as much effort as translating a barbarian from Valdorian Age into an Atlantean Age campaign. It can be done but you are probably better off just recreating the character from concept.

 

I would personally love to see a sharper division between Heroic and Superheroic in official publications. My 100 point warrior is not going to be fighting Grond anytime soon anyhow.

 

Back to the Strength minimum argument, even reducing the lifting capacity still makes the official Str Min's too high. Using the Heroic Strength chart in the APG, a 10 Strength character can still lift "most melee weapons" with 1/5 of his strength. The official Strength minimums still make no sense to me. That house rule preference Hyper-Man mentioned I guess.

[Christopher R Taylor]

your argument works against changing the weapon minimums just as much if the heroic characters are built with their equipment on the character sheet (which some folks do).

Yes, it makes them require less strength to do the same damage.  not exactly going to be a problem, is it?

[NuSoardGraphite]

Heroic and Superheroic might as well be two distinct games. That they are compatible is a misconception that needs to be buried and fast. Sir Percival, Knight of the Round Table, in a gritty take on Arthurian legend has absolutely no place next to the Hulk. For that matter, I will repeat that most games of a specific power level are not even entirely compatible either. Hero was marketed and pushed as a gamers' toolkit since at least 5th Edition. There was the opposite of trying to establish a baseline standard outside of the internal consistency needed for a campaign. As I mentioned earlier, even official publications vary widely in terms of the power levels and rules used. Just take a look at the three "Age" books and Tuala Morn. You cannot easily transplant a character from one into another. Translating Sir Percival into a comic character would take about as much effort as translating a barbarian from Valdorian Age into an Atlantean Age campaign. It can be done but you are probably better off just recreating the character from concept.

 

I would personally love to see a sharper division between Heroic and Superheroic in official publications. My 100 point warrior is not going to be fighting Grond anytime soon anyhow.

 

Back to the Strength minimum argument, even reducing the lifting capacity still makes the official Str Min's too high. Using the Heroic Strength chart in the APG, a 10 Strength character can still lift "most melee weapons" with 1/5 of his strength. The official Strength minimums still make no sense to me. That house rule preference Hyper-Man mentioned I guess.

Using an Arthurian character for that analogy is misleading, considering that various versions of the Arthurian tales range between the mundane and the fantastic. In some versions of the tale, characters shapeshift. Gawain possesses super strength. Arthur has a tunic which renders him invisible. Lancelot wears faerie forged armor which makes him practically invincible and both Galahad and Percival possess supernatural level of skill at arms and the entire kingdom is laid waste by divine wrath (thus necesitating the quest for the Grail) so the power level of even the mundane seeming arthurian saga is all over the place.