Can Worldbeaters beat the military?

[Metaphysician]

I couldn't completely make out the deal with 4th vs 5th ed haymakers, and don't have my corebook with me but it seems like there needs be some mechanic to "haymaker" non-hand to hand attacks. Perhaps use the 1.5 times DC rule, but with a limit that the haymaker can't do more than the theoretical maximum of the base attack??

 

IOW, Firewing and his 20d6 EB. On average it inflicts 20 Body and 70 Stun. Theoretically, it could inflict 40 Body and 120 Stun. If he Haymakered, he'd roll 30d6, for an average of 30 Body and 105 Stun. However, no matter how high he rolled, he couldn't exceed 40 Body, 120 Stun.

 

This has the additional effect of evening out normal vs killing attacks a bit, since normal attacks would benefit alot more against objects.

[Kintara]

Originally posted by Champsguy

I don't know about Lord Liaden, but it's never mattered in our games. After all, army soldiers don't pay points for their weapons.

 

It is not something that I'd have heroes put on their weapons. Even if Sharpshooter buys a 2D6+1 compound bow, I wouldn't have him put "real weapon" on it. He paid points for it, so the bow can do things that a normal bow wouldn't (including do Stun to somebody with 15 rPD).

Well, sure, I know it won't often come up, but then again, it can. For example, I'm in a game where the supers are controlled by the US and USSR in a sort of Cold War arms race. One of the things granted is a gadget VPP for military gear. An increased limitation opens up more space in the VPP. In fact, adding this change to Real Weapon increases the viability of adding it to VPP powers.

[Guest Champsguy]

Originally posted by Kintara

Well, sure, I know it won't often come up, but then again, it can. For example, I'm in a game where the supers are controlled by the US and USSR in a sort of Cold War arms race. One of the things granted is a gadget VPP for military gear. An increased limitation opens up more space in the VPP. In fact, adding this change to Real Weapon increases the viability of adding it to VPP powers.

 

Well... umm... okay. You've convinced me.

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by Kintara

I like this No Body/No Stun thing for Real Weapon, but then Real Weapon should, of course, be worth more, don'cha think? I mean, -1/2 seems more fair. I like this rule, so I was just curious if you change the value.

 

Hmm... I'm not sure I would want to raise the value of the Limitation. It's more of a clarification of what the weapon wouldn't be effective against, which is already part of Real Weapon. What it's really defining is circumstances under which it would not be effective, said circumstances not applying all the time. In that sense it works like a Conditional Limited Power. Looking at the examples of those on FREd. p. 194, I don't think it would be limiting more often than "Power Does Not Work In Water," for example, which is only -1/4. Still, that would also depend on how often troops armed with Real Weapons would be going up against foes too tough for those weapons in your own games.

[Chuckg]

Here's a compromise method...

 

Instead of making it a limitation... instead make it a point break.

 

As in...

 

"RKAs paid for with character points uses the standard rules, via the laws of Dramatic Necessity."

 

"RKAS /not/ paid for with character points uses the rules that it must do BODY to the target in order to do stun."

 

"Only agents are allowed to use RKAs not paid for with character points, and only for real-world equipment."

 

i.e. -- soldier and agent writeups no longer need to pay points for M-16s and suchlike, even though they still need to pay points for their VIPER and UNTIL blaster rifles. But the blaster rifles have a chance to Stun targets even if they don't do BODY, and the ordinary rifles don't.

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by Metaphysician

I couldn't completely make out the deal with 4th vs 5th ed haymakers, and don't have my corebook with me but it seems like there needs be some mechanic to "haymaker" non-hand to hand attacks. Perhaps use the 1.5 times DC rule, but with a limit that the haymaker can't do more than the theoretical maximum of the base attack??

 

IOW, Firewing and his 20d6 EB. On average it inflicts 20 Body and 70 Stun. Theoretically, it could inflict 40 Body and 120 Stun. If he Haymakered, he'd roll 30d6, for an average of 30 Body and 105 Stun. However, no matter how high he rolled, he couldn't exceed 40 Body, 120 Stun.

 

This has the additional effect of evening out normal vs killing attacks a bit, since normal attacks would benefit alot more against objects.

 

Just to clarify, Haymaker in 5E already can be used for HTH and Ranged attacks, unless the GM rules that's not appropriate (e.g. for guns). It was only under 4E that Haymakers only applied to HTH. I was proposing also allowing them to work for HTH and Ranged, but to allow a change in damage structure like that in 4E. Is there something about that version of Haymaker which you'd like clarified?

 

As for your suggestion re max damage, I really like it. That keeps the damage from a Haymaker using x1.5 from becoming completely overwhelming. (Frankly I was scared to think what Dr. Destroyer would do with it.)

 

Thanks for the suggestion, Meta!

[Kintara]

Originally posted by Lord Liaden

Hmm... I'm not sure I would want to raise the value of the Limitation. It's more of a clarification of what the weapon wouldn't be effective against, which is already part of Real Weapon. What it's really defining is circumstances under which it would not be effective, said circumstances not applying all the time. In that sense it works like a Conditional Limited Power. Looking at the examples of those on FREd. p. 194, I don't think it would be limiting more often than "Power Does Not Work In Water," for example, which is only -1/4. Still, that would also depend on how often troops armed with Real Weapons would be going up against foes too tough for those weapons in your own games.

Hmm, I'm unconvinced that Real Weapon has the scope you say it does. Maybe it just makes more sense to make bullets take a standard effect [for the Stun multiplier roll], if used by grunts.

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by Chuckg

Here's a compromise method...

 

Instead of making it a limitation... instead make it a point break.

 

As in...

 

"RKAs paid for with character points uses the standard rules, via the laws of Dramatic Necessity."

 

"RKAS /not/ paid for with character points uses the rules that it must do BODY to the target in order to do stun."

 

"Only agents are allowed to use RKAs not paid for with character points, and only for real-world equipment."

 

i.e. -- soldier and agent writeups no longer need to pay points for M-16s and suchlike, even though they still need to pay points for their VIPER and UNTIL blaster rifles. But the blaster rifles have a chance to Stun targets even if they don't do BODY, and the ordinary rifles don't.

 

I get where you're coming from, Chuck. I'm not sure how I feel about that, though. The normal guns that agents might walk around with would be effectively useless against characters above a certain Defense cutoff, true, but still wholly effective against characters below that point - and that category would likely include other agents, as well as true supers such as Martial Artists and others whose main defense is not getting hit. If you're running a superheroic campaign where characters pay for their equipment with points, I don't know about letting soldiers and agents carry some weapons that could still be useful in-game without paying for them.

[Chuckg]

[snip]

> and that category would likely include other agents, as well

> as true supers such as Martial Artists and others whose

> main defense is not getting hit.

 

Well, if your main defense is not getting hit, then when the dice come up craps it doesn't matter whether you're getting clocked by 50 APs worth of stuff or 0 APs, if the DCs are equal.

 

But yes, you can certainly call it the other way. I was just trying to hipshoot a "cell phone rule" for mundane small arms.

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by Kintara

Hmm, I'm unconvinced that Real Weapon has the scope you say it does. Maybe it just makes more sense to make bullets take a standard effect [for the Stun multiplier roll], if used by grunts.

 

Fair enough. With Killing Attacks you still have the vagaries of the Stun Multiplier to contend with, of course, even with Standard Effect - unless you make that Standard Effect, too.

 

But really, if you think increasing the value of the Real Weapon Lim with these effects is appropriate to your game, I'm certainly not going to tell you you're wrong. None of this is canon anyway.

[Metaphysician]

Originally posted by Lord Liaden

Just to clarify, Haymaker in 5E already can be used for HTH and Ranged attacks, unless the GM rules that's not appropriate (e.g. for guns). It was only under 4E that Haymakers only applied to HTH. I was proposing also allowing them to work for HTH and Ranged, but to allow a change in damage structure like that in 4E. Is there something about that version of Haymaker which you'd like clarified?

 

As for your suggestion re max damage, I really like it. That keeps the damage from a Haymaker using x1.5 from becoming completely overwhelming. (Frankly I was scared to think what Dr. Destroyer would do with it.)

 

Thanks for the suggestion, Meta!

 

Yes, I cannot remember the 5th Ed haymaker rules clearly. I *thought* they only applied to strength-based attacks, and had the effect of increasing the strength bonus by 1.5 ( and using the DC rules for KAs ). How do they work, then, for non-strength based attacks?? Or, better, just what are the 5th Ed haymaker rules, period??

[Chuckg]

Rules Discussion Board would work better for this, I think.

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by Chuckg

[snip]

> and that category would likely include other agents, as well

> as true supers such as Martial Artists and others whose

> main defense is not getting hit.

 

Well, if your main defense is not getting hit, then when the dice come up craps it doesn't matter whether you're getting clocked by 50 APs worth of stuff or 0 APs, if the DCs are equal.

 

But yes, you can certainly call it the other way. I was just trying to hipshoot a "cell phone rule" for mundane small arms.

 

And your efforts are appreciated. I'm really enjoying how this thread has turned into a brainstorming session exploring various options.

 

I've never been one to demand that characters pay points for commonly available articles like cell phones. OTOH I think I'd have trouble swallowing an M-16 as "mundane small arms."

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by Metaphysician

Yes, I cannot remember the 5th Ed haymaker rules clearly. I *thought* they only applied to strength-based attacks, and had the effect of increasing the strength bonus by 1.5 ( and using the DC rules for KAs ). How do they work, then, for non-strength based attacks?? Or, better, just what are the 5th Ed haymaker rules, period??

 

They add up to 4 Damage Classes to the base attack (whether the base attack is STR based, Energy Blast, whatever), but can't do more than double the base damage of the attack. The Haymaker lands at the bottom of the Segment after the Phase on which it starts, after any other characters who have actions in that Segment have acted. The character doing the Haymaker is at -5 DCV, and if the target moves 1" or more before the Haymaker lands, or if the Haymakering character takes any Knockback, the maneuver fails and the action is wasted.

[Chuckg]

Originally posted by Lord Liaden

I've never been one to demand that characters pay points for commonly available articles like cell phones. OTOH I think I'd have trouble swallowing an M-16 as "mundane small arms."

 

In a world where any VIPER agent who can show sufficient cause can get a 14d6 EB blaster rifle?

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by Chuckg

Rules Discussion Board would work better for this, I think.

 

You might be right. If anyone has something more to add to this, maybe you'd do best to start another thread on Rules Discussion. If it continues there I'll be along presently.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by TheRealVector

Can Worldbeaters Beat The Military??

 

Let's see...Worldbeaters by definition must be able to do what?

Ah, BEAT the world, or at least give it a good fight.

The world has many nations which each, to varying degrees, have militaries.

Therefore, Worldbeaters can beat the military. If they cannot then they are mislabled as "Worldbeaters".

 

If one is willing to accept the vehicle and weapon write-ups in TUV and other Champion books as "official" for their campaign, then any true worldbeaters will have to be able to overcome a military so equiped. Apparently, this can have all sorts of undesired implications for game balance and "realism".

 

I agree with a number of posters that the current write-ups for weapons and vehicle seem overpowered. If the military can deal with all these supervillians, then why are all those superheroes getting in the way? A campaign world where superheroes aren't needed sounds a little anti-climantic.

Excellent post.

[Metaphysician]

I posted my alternate haymaker rule idea over on Rules Discussion.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Chuckg

In a world where any VIPER agent who can show sufficient cause can get a 14d6 EB blaster rifle?

Not in my world. 14 damage class attacks for Viper Agents - How does this reconcile at all with the genre?

[Chuckg]

Because 'the genre' is about more than just stepping on mere human opponents like they were roaches?

[Doug McCrae]

Originally posted by Agent X

I'm not underestimating it. I'm arguing it's a bad way to go. At some point, we might as well play superagents vs. the supervillains and laugh when the superheroes offer to help.

Stormwatch: Team Achilles

[Doug McCrae]

On superheroes vs. RL military I think it's a genre thing. What sort of genre do you want to play in? The standard comic book universe where the conventional military is no use against Hulk/Ultron/Avengers level threats or something like Stormwatch: Team Achilles where superheroes are incompetent idiots that get trashed by sufficiently prepared special forces teams?

 

My taste inclines towards the former, worlds where 'special' (ie superheroes/villains) can only be beaten by other 'special'. It makes the PCs more important, I feel. YMMV.

[Chuckg]

I much prefer the type of genre where neither gets hosed.

 

I mean, where's the sense of accomplishment if you /know/ the DM is dumbing down vast segments of the population just to make you look cool?

[caris]

Originally posted by Chuckg

I much prefer the type of genre where neither gets hosed.

 

I mean, where's the sense of accomplishment if you /know/ the DM is dumbing down vast segments of the population just to make you look cool?

 

When fighting the millitary, very little, but I don't play a super hero game to fight the millitary.

 

Occasionally, there is a nice simple pleasure in taking out an easy opponent, that is what Bulldozer is for.

[Kintara]

Well, I think most of us agree that, usually, no dumbing down is required. Paramilitary forces might be used as goons, but they ain't the US Armed Forces. And if you do come up against the military, maybe you pissed them off, then you are probably fighting a team of unique super-normals. Sending the marines, or tanks, or jets are probably simply the wrong tools for the job.

 

Anyway, regardless of the method, if the entire US Government, or Armed Forces, wants you dead, then you'll probably get dead (well, unless you have a similarly large organization protecting you). The method is probably going to vary considerably, depending on the circumstances. I don't think many people here will argue that the US Government can easily kill a group of 4-10 people, even if they have super-powers (this doesn't include Cosmics, or such beastlies). And they will use the best tools available to do so, which probably won't be the army.