Jump to content

Surrealone

HERO Member
  • Content count

    1,222
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Surrealone

  • Rank
    Millennial Master

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Surrealone

    Guns and Ammo

    Umm, I kind of have a problem with that table because a failed result should be something other than 'Grace Under Fire'. i.e. That table should only be populated with positive results since all of the negative results currently within it fail to qualify as 'Grace Under Fire'. It just makes no sense to me to have disgraceful things in a table supposedly about graceful things. The other option is, of course, to change the name of the table and topic to something a bit more fitting, but without either adjustment, we have a bit of a conundrum. P.S. What surprises me is that a lawyer (Steve Long) authored that … since attorneys tend to avoid using conflicting language and/or words in the things they author.
  2. Surrealone

    Guns and Ammo

    I concur that the raw tables work well. I also agree that the STUNx, N STUN, and BODYx are too severe. I tend to lean toward a preference for application of them -AFTER- defenses … as this tends to reduce the impact for those with low defenses -- which in a Heroic or Dark Champs game, is most people.
  3. It was supposed to have been finished more than 7 months ago, since Jason's post was written in the present (not future) tense, at the time (which was Dec 8, 2017). Specifically:
  4. Surrealone

    Guns and Ammo

    I needed the chuckle this gave me, today. Thank you! Disclaimer: This show of appreciation subject to clarification or withdrawl and implies no promise by the thanker to actually implement this show of appreciation.
  5. Surrealone

    Guns and Ammo

    If you're the GM and you choose to adopt them, what about what your players are in for when they try to make sense of them? I ask because players, too, must be familiar with the changes. Thus, a GM's choice to add complexity adds it not only for the GM, but for that GM's players, too … and they might NOT know what they're in for … or might not want it once they find out. (Heck, many players have trouble understanding/following RAW, let alone deltas from it.)
  6. Surrealone

    Guns and Ammo

    I am chill and didn't take it as an accusation. Accounting for the differences IS the added complexity, as a GM must account for RAW plus the delta.
  7. Surrealone

    Guns and Ammo

    You're the one trying to make things more realistic, not me. I'm the guy who was (earlier) trying to keep things simple for ease of gameplay … and -now- you pull this out? I'm having difficulty swallowing that double-standard because either it's ok to keep things unrealistic/simple for gameplay's sake … or it isn't, right? And if it is, then gameplay (not realism) should probably trump/rule since it was the deciding factor, right? I'm not trying to be difficult or contrary, by the way -- I just don't see a point to all of the complexity you're adding if you're not going to go for broke and do it to its logical conclusion/extreme for the sake of realism … since anything less is still only a partially-baked result.
  8. Surrealone

    Considering Teamwork

    Let me put it another way so that it doesn't seem 'arbitrary' (since it wasn't): If you have two 18 DEX people who normally only have 8- Everyman rolls to coordinate … who have 13- rolls as a result of the granting of Teamwork to them in a single action, then you have granted +5 to the roll using a single attack action. Consider what it would cost someone to use a single attack action to do an Aid that brings similar value (i.e. on average … i.e. using STD Effect). To get an extra +5 to the Teamwork roll, you'd have to increase DEX by 25 … which means you'd need an 8d6 AID to DEX costing 40AP (just to start) … then you apply your AoE to it to affect multiple people. Compute the costs of 40AP*AoE versus 3AP*AoE*UBO and there's a huge delta. That's why my observation wasn't arbitrary, at all. It's also why this next observation is also fact-based: Your skill-based build appears to intentionally exploit a low base that is multiplied by stacked advantages to achieve something that is not otherwise achievable, cost-wise. Keep in mind, though, the Aid approach was just to compare cost vs. effect, since by itself it wouldn't actually work (because the added Dex won't actually add Teamwork to the recipients' sheets). For that, we'd need a Minor Transformation attack. To add Teamwork to the sheet of a normal human who lacks it, you need 20 BODY worth of effect. That's a minimum of 7d6 Minor Transform … taking STD Effect -- to reliably get 20 BODY in a single attack action. (But you'd probably need closer to 10d6 for most supers … and even more for bricks, I'd think.) Minor Transform is, of course, 5CP per die … so to do this right it's probably even pricier than the Aid that I used to loosely compare cost vs. effect. I would have expected this to be obvious to someone as familiar with the Champions/Hero system as you are, thus I didn't think I needed to do the math for you. But apparently without someone spelling it out for you, it seems 'arbitrary' to you. I would encourage you to do the math, yourself, next time … before assuming something's arbitrary. I would also expect you to compare the cost of your proposal to the cost of doing it with existing mechanics that are rules-legal without a GM call (which is required to allow your Skill to be treated as a Power) … unless there's no rules-legal way to do it sans GM call -- because that's just prudent planning/comparison to see if your proposal is or isn't 'too good for its cost' before putting it in front of a GM or others. Sorry if you don't like my analysis, but what you've proposed is potentially devastating … and costs next to nothing for the benefits it brings … when compared with existing rules-legal means of achieving said same. Surreal P.S. As for stacked advantages -- I've found one place you tend to need lots of advantages on powers just because there's no other way to do it: making non-mental powers into mental powers. Take a look at the rules for building a mental entangle, if you doubt. Making mental Flashes, Darkness fields, and the like that can be used across Mind Links (like other mental attacks) against DMCV are similarly stacked (to Mental Entangle), advantage-wise … just because they must be in order to make them behave in all respects like a mental power (i.e. ACV, AVAD, LOS, etc.) This is, in fact, the only such situation where I've found highly-stacked advantages to be pretty much required.
  9. Surrealone

    Guns and Ammo

    I don't think increased rates of fire should do more damage. Instead, I think increased rates of fire should ADD to an already low hit probability in order to improve it -- because that's how it basically works in the real world. i.e. A NYPD officer has an abysmal hit rate if fire is being returned, but s/he is statistically more likely to hit his/her target if s/he sends more rounds downrange at the target. Thus, if we want to emulate that bit of reality, we need mechanics that improve hit probabability when multiple rounds are fired at a target. Unfortunately, the autofire rules do the exact opposite by penalizing the hit rate when more shots are taken. Multiple Attack does the same thing with its OCV penalties. This is because the game's base mechanics try to make hits more likely than misses … which is completely backward for gunfighting. So, if you want to add proper realism to gunfights, you need to adjust your house rules so that most shots are misses … and then rework autofire and multiple attack rules so that taking more shots will improve the odds of a hit rather than reduce them. I am, of course, talking about aimed shots, here. Spray&Pray (i.e. Suppression fire) entails no aim, so its hit rate should suffer despite the volume of lead going downrange. That said, I've always felt its hit rate was set a bit too low.
  10. Surrealone

    Considering Teamwork

    I dislike the idea of granting skills of any sort (including skill levels) to others because they are so inexpensive the UBO+AoE construct becomes super-cheap due to the nature of stacking advantage costs on top of a low point base. If I were a GM, I would expect someone to use a variable effects AoE AID to improve the output of others in some way, as I think that better represents enhancement of something the character possesses … rather than giving them something they completely lack on the sheet. I also think it more accurately reflects the appropriate cost of granting things to a massive number of people … since enough Aid to be effective will not fall into the easily-exploitable window of SmallBaseCost*HighAdvantageCost.
  11. Surrealone

    Guns and Ammo

    If you're truly into making firearm use realistic, then the section of your text that I just quoted needs to be tossed out the window and completely reworked. As evidence I cite a firearm accuracy study conducted of 247 (195 male and 52 female) volunteers. The study grouped the volunteers into 3 categories: novice (i.e. minimal/no experience), intermediate (i.e. recreational experience), and expert (i.e. completed law enforcement firearms training). The study found that experts shot only 10% more accurately than novices and intermediates at 3-15 feet. Here's a link to the study: http://www.forcescience.org/articles/naiveshooter.pdf This becomes especially important when you pair it with a firearm evaluation of the NYPD's gunfight performance, as the NYPD is arguably the largest and best-trained police force in the United States, today. In gunfights where fire was returned, these 'experts' have demonstrated an empirical hit rate of a meager 18%. In situations where the officer fired and gunfire was NOT returned, the hit rate was still only a paltry 30%. Here's a link to that report (you'll find these statistics on page 14 as labeled by the report, itself, not by the PDF page counter): http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/RAND_FirearmEvaluation.pdf Given the foregoing, the hit rates you stated (which I quoted above) are WAY too high … and since your efforts are all about adding realism, if you're serious about your efforts, you need to dial your hit rates WAY down for experts … and then dial it down (by about 10% more) for intermediates and novices. If that seems like it's going too far (e.g. "but that wouldn't be fun"), all I can really say to that is that you must not be serious about adding realism, since most rounds discharged in gunfights are (realistically) misses, not hits. Surreal P.S. This is exactly what people and states that try to impose magazine capacity limits fail to consider. i.e. The FBI statistics database shows that most threats are stopped by 2 and change shots (which we'll round up to 3) … with the actual decimal value tending to vary based on the caliber being used. Assuming an 18% hit rate for the best-trained law enforcement officer with, say, a 9mm -- that individual will need to empty the 15 round magazine from his department-issued Glock 17 if under return fire … to score 2.7 hits. This should also help set your 'realism' expectation for making firearms more realistic in your games, since you're both supposedly making an effort to do that. The link to the FBI database should be easy enough to find … if you care to do so.
  12. Surrealone

    Sectional Body Armor: Reality vs. Game Play

    Opinion: I own a level IIIA soft vest and a level III ballistic clipboard. I also know two other non-military, non-LEO individuals who also own level IIIA vests. Let me categorize that properly, though: all three of us are law-abiding 'gun people'. Specifically, the other two both work in gun shops … while I'm a certified firearm instructor and RSO with >800 hours of RSO time on a manned range. (i.e. We're all at higher risk than most ... due to our jobs/hobbies ... and we know it, so we've taken some reasonable precautions.) What I'm getting at is that while available and even inexpensive (i.e. just under $300 for a level IIIA covert/overt vest sans carrier [or with carrier if you're willing to go refurbished] … unless you also want stab and/or taser protection, in which case the cost begins to go up), most people just can't justify they spend -- because they don't have a well-defined need for body armour (like I did/do, for example). I suspect the same is true of criminals -- i.e. most can't justify the spend … and only well-organized criminals tend to make the investment for their nefarious purposes. As for stats: I'm unaware of any specific data gathering that is available to the public on the topic of crimes committed using body armor. Wow, I had no idea. That's an interesting tidbid!
  13. Surrealone

    Superleap (Superland?)

    It makes about as much sense as desolidification or teleportation … which work in a comic book setting, too … and thus, are also in the rules.
  14. Surrealone

    "On Your Feet, Soldier!"

    Minor Transform is cheap enough that enough dice to reliable exceed BODY on those with 10 BODY should be simple enough. Bricks, of course, shouldn't get stunned to begin with (if built properly), so... I think Minor Transform is a pretty clean (albeit imperfect) way to go. That said, while it's messier, I think eepjr24's suggestion is probably best.
  15. Surrealone

    Sectional Body Armor: Reality vs. Game Play

    Incorrect. The body armor worn during the North Hollywood Shootout (as it's known; Google it if in doubt) was Level IIIA soft body armor. One of the robbers wore a level IIIA vest plus a plate carrier with trauma plate. The other of them wore a level IIIA vest with groin guard … as well as home-made (out of level IIIA vests) thigh, shin, and forearm soft armor. None of the aforementioned would qualify as bulky (i.e. "large and unwieldy" per 6e1 p378), IMHO. It certainly isn't bulky enough to warrant 1/2 DCV (which comes with the 'Bulky' limitation), otherwise all of our troops and law enforcement/SWAT officers who wear soft armor with a plate carrier and trauma plate are all at 1/2 DCV, too -- and I just don't see it.
×