New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

[UltraRob]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

Well, a few thoughts to toss into the pot...

 

Personally, I don't like the idea that the armour my mage wears is useless just because I have a force field up, that just doesn't fit logically. I think stacking is natural within the game, and the GM should use other methods to keep it from getting out of hand...

 

Off the top of my head, I see two fairly easily solutions to this recurring problem...

 

1) END costs, make all DEF spells cost END, and in fact, make them cost LOTS of END (X5 END minimum sounds nice...) that way the wizard can do it, but they require a lot of focus and effort to pull off. If they wanna blow their END on a Force Field that leaves them Mr. Invulnerble, let them. If the combat runs like HERO combat often does, they'll be gasping for END in no time flat unless they use their defenses very carefully and only when necessary.

 

2) I once heard somewhere a neat concept where using magic generates a ton of heat around the users's body, and therein unless they wear loose clothes they will quickly start to suffer from heat exhaustion. About 1D6 STUN Drain per 1 DEF of armour worn on each phase a mage is manipulating magic sounds nice (Or END, or whatever suits your campaign best.)...and of course those Forcefields are requiring him to manipulate magic EVERY phase he's active.... Of course they can solve this by wearing very light, loose fitting or revealing clothes....(Which suddenly explains all those half-naked female mages running around in chainmail bikini's)

 

Anyways. Just some ideas.

Rob

[Captain Obvious]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

I've never like the anti stacking rules, I personally think they're extremely stupid.

 

A mage in armor, with a force field up .. why wouldn't they stack? The arrow has to pass through both to hurt him? Does it somehow mysteriously bypass the armor if the force field is the higher defense?

 

 

Good points overall, but this in particular is a big tripping point for a lot of people. The fact is, within the framework of the Hero System, doubling the amount of armor does not double the amount of DEF. A mage in full plate (DEF 8) who puts up a spell of protection (DEF 8) would be nearly as well armored as a tank if the points were to stack, and that with the equivalent of two suits of plate armor, or essentially 3mm of steel, as opposed to the couple hundred up to 1000 mm steel equivalent tanks carry around.

 

A good house rule to allow limited stacking might be that base DEF is equal to the highest individual DEF in use, and each doubling of DEF by other factors provides a +2 overall DEF.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

I agree, although I allow FF to stack with Armor. Within our current magic systems, FF generally do not get above 4-5.

 

However, Hero is a geometric progression. Each level of DEF is a doubling of protective value. If that is the case, it should not stack unless the special effect makes it fit.

 

If you layer 2 iron plates of 5 DEF, you get 6 DEF not 10, just like if you have 2 people lifting something you get 15 STR not 20.

 

My stacking rule is that if the DEF is within 2 points, it adds 1 to the highest value. Otherwise, it doesn't contribute to the DEF. This is based on the idea that if a STR 5 person aids a STR 20 person, effectively you still have about 20 STR of lift (450 kg), which isn't even half way to 23 STR (600 kg). Therefor 3 points is too much of a difference and is like adding leather to steel. Does it help? Maybe a little, but realistically if something is doing enough damage to penetrate steel, adding leather is probably not going to help.

[Galadorn]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

I've never like the anti stacking rules, I personally think they're extremely stupid.

 

A mage in armor, with a force field up .. why wouldn't they stack? The arrow has to pass through both to hurt him? Does it somehow mysteriously bypass the armor if the force field is the higher defense?

 

I think this illustrates a cogent point. There is no logical reason, based on physics, why a forcefield would not stack with armor. This can ruin the suspension of disbelief for many.

 

I think logic and sepcial effects should prevent stacking, you can't wear two breast plates for example.

 

Of course you should take an additional dex penalty (including figured DCV penalties) for wearing such clumsy assembled armor.

 

If I were having a problem with the defenses getting out of hand in my game I would ask the players nicely to please refrain from doing such things as wearing plate armour and tossing up the high defense force wall spell with the stone skin spell. Simply for dramatic sake, or story. If they didn't comply I'd stomp them so far into the ground they'd pop out the other side.

 

At some point players and GMs alike need to step back, abandon what "is possible with in the scope of the rules" and go with what would make the better story/game/scene/daramtic sense. Forcing them into this role with arbitrary restrictions will only tick them off and make cause for arguements.

 

If you get that one player who insists on maxing the defenses every single time start hitting him with penetrating or exotic attacks. Mr PD isn't going to be protecting from Mr Psion's Ego Blast no matter how many force wall spells he's got up.

 

From my experience and point of view there are many more in game ways to work around this issue than doing something like "Sorry, it just doesn't work because I said so."

 

I agree, this is what I am trying to avoid in my game. And I think the best way to achieve it, is with a "gentleman's agreement." For the sake of the game, don't stack on super-high defenses, unless it's part of a character concept (i.e. magically impervious character).

 

Second of all, I think people have forgotten the economies of scale in Hero. So what if the character has 14 rPD and 22 nPD? Hit him with a bigger attack! If you're throwing kobolds with daggers at such a character, your scenario deserves to be laughed at!

 

And I think this comes to my first option: power levels restrict super-high defenses, because GMs and players alike, want a GOOD game. Im my twenty-some years of playing hero, this has worked excellently well.

[tesuji]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

I would advise against it.

 

Instead i would suggest implementing stacking rules based on power source and make it not a matter of points at all.

 

Reasons for the first.. it brings in a very bad mathematical flaw already in error in FRED and makes it more an element of your game. I call it the "buy low, save high."

 

It works like this...

 

Buy a big expensive power. (Say an 8/8 force field in a fantasy game.)

Buy a little bitty cheap power (say combat luck for 3 pts.)

Take a limitation on the big expensive power to the effect of "doesn't work with the smaller power" and viola!, you save more points than it cost you to buy the small power.

 

Net result is having A or B cost less than just having A, which is wrong.

 

In this case, the savings may or may not be obviously out of line. It really depends on the power costs involved and the other limitations. If it were a -1/2 lim and 8/8 ff vs 3 cp luck, you would save about 6 pts after spenbding 3... so the point is visible.

 

So, for 16 cp i can have a force field that, when up, gives me 8/8. When its down i got zippo

 

OR

 

for 14 pts i can have an 8/8 force field (that doesn't work when combat luck is up -1/2 11 rp) AND have combat luck (3 rp?) when the ff not up

 

2 pts less for covering my butt when the ff is down?

 

But what it really boils down to is: that model is wrong. Shaving points off a big power because of interaction with a lesser power is generally backwards.

 

A better approximation and more consistent power scheme would be to say nothing stacks with anything by default and require an advantage for "will stack with" for those things you want to have stack.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

Just to illustrate how difficult this issue is...I will buy armor as a spell instead' date=' special effect: force field. [/quote']

My implication was that spells that provide any defensive powers, FF being the most obvious and common, don't exist, but I think you knew that already.

 

Well, I think there must be a solution. But pat rules like this don't address the issue. I have no problem with saying a certain level of defense, isn't available to players. Was there armor better the plate armor in the middle ages? Nope. The high defenses simply aren't available rule, is sounding pretty good and justifiable right now...

Eh? My rule doesn't address the issue? But then you paraphrase back the same thing I said and that sounds good to you?

 

There may be circumstances in the game, in an adventure, where the best armor in the world isn't enough. 8 DEF plate armor isn't going to save you from the 6d6 RKA Dragon's breath. How do you handle this? Well, there can be defensive spells (that stack with armor) which might grant reasonable protection (say a total of 21 rED - you take a few BODY on an above average roll), but these spells should be difficult to use in some way* so that player's characters aren't walking around all the time with near-total immunity to an orc's sword.

 

*such as: very high END cost, Only works during a full moon, Charges recover once per year, Very rare expendible focus, significant Side Effects, etc. That way, on those rare occasions where you have to defeat a dragon, you've got a fighting chance, but you're not going to waste your extremely difficult spell fighting orcs, or even orges.

[nelay]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

In my game, I do several things to try to combat this problem.

First, I do allow defenses to stack, since logic dictates in many instances it should.

Second, I use the Does Not Stack limitation you describe on many of the magical defensive items the party may find. This allows me to tailor the defenses provided by magic items the character did not spend point for.

Third, I put a campaign rule in place to discourge mages from wearing armor. If a mage decides to wear armor, each Defense over 3 increases the difficulty of all his magic skill roll by 1. I also prohibit spellcaster from buying combat luck.

Fourth, I put a limitation on combat luck on how much of it will stack with armour, for example if your in heavy armour DEF > 5 then only 1 level of combat luck will work. I reduce it down until a completly unarmored non-spell caster can have 4 levels.

Fifth, I also keep a close eye on what spells the magic users are allowed to buy, since that is the

Since I impose these campagin rules, many of my spell casters voluntarily take the Does Not Stack limitation since they don't the penalty to their skill rolls.

Overall, this method seems to balance the armor between the different archtypes, while allowing the occassional uber-badguy to wear platemail and have defensive spells up while taking the skill roll penalty.

[Galadorn]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

My implication was that spells that provide any defensive powers' date=' FF being the most obvious and common, don't exist, but I think you knew that already.[/quote']

 

I could surmise you meant any resistant defense powers, but that's not what you said. You want me to put words in your mouth? I don't think so.

 

Eh? My rule doesn't address the issue? But then you paraphrase back the same thing I said and that sounds good to you?

 

Your rule was unclear to me, except something about the dramatic sense of things. Which is fine. But I said a GOOD game, and drama is part of a good game, I would say. But to me, a good game includes many other elements:

 

• Creative and efficient character design and development.
  
• Balanced and challenging antagonists, that don't rely of 5000 points to be scary.
  
• Familiarization with the rules enough to play a sort of "chess" game with resistant defenses and killing attacks. This prolongs attacks: "Now you take 2 body, and you miss the arch-villian." (The PC knows he is in trouble). "Now you take another 4 body, and you miss the arch-villian again."(Tension builds) "You finally hit the villian, and stab into his shoulder doing some damage. But, you take 3 body." (Tension builds some more). Etc.
   
  In short, incremental combat (i.e. instead of "he hits you and your dead!").

 

There may be circumstances in the game, in an adventure, where the best armor in the world isn't enough. 8 DEF plate armor isn't going to save you from the 6d6 RKA Dragon's breath. How do you handle this? Well, there can be defensive spells (that stack with armor) which might grant reasonable protection (say a total of 21 rED - you take a few BODY on an above average roll), but these spells should be difficult to use in some way* so that player's characters aren't walking around all the time with near-total immunity to an orc's sword.

 

This is exactly what happened in Medieval Times, until the advent of guns. Knights on armor were feared. Why? Very little could penetrate the armor of a knight in plate armor, except a longbow arrow, a pick on a pickaxe, and a few other weapons. In short, common soldiers would run away from a knight, in many instances. The average soldier simply couldn't effectively attack him, one on one, or even three on one.

[James Gillen]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

This is exactly what happened in Medieval Times' date=' until the advent of guns. Knights on armor were [i']feared[/i]. Why? Very little could penetrate the armor of a knight in plate armor, except a longbow arrow, a pick on a pickaxe, and a few other weapons. In short, common soldiers would run away from a knight, in many instances. The average soldier simply couldn't effectively attack him, one on one, or even three on one.

 

Exactly. And at the same time, before modern firearms, there were very few "he hits you and you're dead!" one-shot kills. Most casualties were troops who were wounded or demoralized and taken off the field before death. This is the way it's worked in most of the combats I ran in Fantasy HERO.

 

JG

[Galadorn]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

Exactly. And at the same time' date=' before modern firearms, there were very few "he hits you and you're dead!" one-shot kills. Most casualties were troops who were wounded or demoralized and taken off the field before death. This is the way it's worked in most of the combats I ran in Fantasy HERO.[/quote']

 

Yep. There was one exception to the pre-gun period: longbows. At the battle of Agincourt by Henry the Vth, a longbow arrow pierced through a fully armored knight, his horse and into the ground. The longbow was the death of many a knight from this time onward.

 

But soldiers didnt have a longbow, they used a shortbow or crossbow. And crossbows were expensive, so most soldiers had only shortbows, which would bounce off plate armor, for the most part.

 

Again the question stands, how much realism do you want? I don't think killing Lancelot in full plate, by a longbowman, is very heroic. But making Lancelot take cover behind a rock, so he can advance on a longbowman, boulder-cover by boulder-cover, would be pretty heroic if Lance got an arrow in the arm at one point.

 

It all depends on the realism you want. The point of heroic fantasy, IMO, is to shine on the heroic, and realism might be shadowed or downplayed a little bit, for the sake of face-paced drama.

[James Gillen]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

But soldiers didnt have a longbow, they used a shortbow or crossbow. And crossbows were expensive, so most soldiers had only shortbows, which would bounce off plate armor, for the most part.

 

Again the question stands, how much realism do you want? I don't think killing Lancelot in full plate, by a longbowman, is very heroic. But making Lancelot take cover behind a rock, so he can advance on a longbowman, boulder-cover by boulder-cover, would be pretty heroic if Lance got an arrow in the arm at one point.

 

Lancelot might also have a shield up while advancing.

 

JG

[Galadorn]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

Lancelot might also have a shield up while advancing.

 

JG

 

Speaking from a real-world reality matrix: I think the example I gave of the longbow arrow piercing through full armor and a horse, would mean that it will pierce through shield and armor, as well. Given that most shields in the Middle Ages were made of wood, sometimes with a thin metal overlay.

[James Gillen]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

It would still serve as a deflective surface (which is why shields are given a DCV bonus in HERO), or soak the missile so that your armor doesn't have to. On the other hand, it wouldn't deflect a bullet as well.

 

JG

[Galadorn]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

It would still serve as a deflective surface (which is why shields are given a DCV bonus in HERO), or soak the missile so that your armor doesn't have to. On the other hand, it wouldn't deflect a bullet as well.

 

JG

 

No it wouldn't. It would pierce right through the shield and armor, both. You think it matters that you have a deflection device, when the material the deflective device is made of, cannot stop the projectile? That would make no sense...

 

Now for game purposes, we call a bow is like any bow, and arrow is like any arrow, and a shield is like any shield. This is to avoid myriad rules on different weapons and armor. But in reality and historically, it's a whole different ball of wax...

[Arthur]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

I've never like the anti stacking rules, I personally think they're extremely stupid.

 

A mage in armor, with a force field up .. why wouldn't they stack? The arrow has to pass through both to hurt him? Does it somehow mysteriously bypass the armor if the force field is the higher defense?

[/b]

 

The problem is that Hero is not linear. Like STR, DEF is logarithmic. Based on armor weight, each +2 DEF is twice the linear protection. Hence DEF 10 is "really" sixteen times as much protection as DEF 2.

 

In a different thread (the one about armor) on this same board, I presented the formula I derived for stacking armor. In many cases, it does reduce to "defenses do not stack". In many other cases, two layers of armor yield only a +1 to DEF (for instance. DEF 6 and DEF 4 layered together yield DEF 7).

 

Now, last time I had some folks declare "Hero really is linear, not logarithmic!". Fine. That means that four STR 15 characters working together can lift 100 tons, right?

 

STR 15 + STR 15 + STR 15 + STR 15 = STR 60. STR 60 can lift 100 tonnes. Isn't that right?

[ghost-angel]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

[/b]

 

The problem is that Hero is not linear. Like STR, DEF is logarithmic. Based on armor weight, each +2 DEF is twice the linear protection. Hence DEF 10 is "really" sixteen times as much protection as DEF 2.

 

In a different thread (the one about armor) on this same board, I presented the formula I derived for stacking armor. In many cases, it does reduce to "defenses do not stack". In many other cases, two layers of armor yield only a +1 to DEF (for instance. DEF 6 and DEF 4 layered together yield DEF 7).

 

Now, last time I had some folks declare "Hero really is linear, not logarithmic!". Fine. That means that four STR 15 characters working together can lift 100 tons, right?

 

STR 15 + STR 15 + STR 15 + STR 15 = STR 60. STR 60 can lift 100 tonnes. Isn't that right?

 

Even if HERO is logarithmic it still doesn't state why I can't put on a breast plate and put up a force field.

 

Now .. it would be logical that I can't put on two breast plates, the idea of one large enough to fit over another should make the enemy laugh at me and then I fall over because I'm wearing half a ton of steel.

 

I would also concede that two magical force fields don't stack on the same character because the magic spells don't work well together.

 

And I don't agree that DEF is completely logarithmic, it's definately not exactly linear either. even at 10 DEF a 2D6 KA can get through which is only +3 DCs, or 6 DCs total.. saying it's 16x times higher would imply that it requires an attack 16x higher to penetrate than an attack needed to hit a 2DEF character... assuming KAs a single KA = 3 DCs .. 16x3 = 54 DCs ... which would squish the 10 DEF guy, the 20 DEF guy the 30 DEF guy and put a hurting to the 40 DEF guy and the 50 DEF guy ... using standard effect only... forget a good high roll. And with a normal attack on an average of 1 Body per DC 1 DEF blocks 1 DC, 2 DEF blocks 2 DC ... with your scale a 10 DEF would block a 32DC attack? no. not really.

 

and if you don't like the way Armor Weight is presented CHANGE IT. Really, in your world heavy plate could weight 2 pounds if you wanted. "Based on weight" does not make a system logarithmic or linear .. it assigns a weight value based on a number we call Resistant Defenses in game terms.

 

Weight may be logarithmic, defenses are not.

 

(yes, STR is not linear, that is very true. but still means squat in this discussion.)

[Markdoc]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

Well, Hero, as pointed out is not linear, but (this appears to be news to some of you) neither is real life. As tank designers have known for more than a half century, doubling the thickness of armor does NOT double the protection offered. It doesn't even come close.

 

It's also why as armour technology got better in the middle ages, armour got thinner (overall). The extra thickness added extra weight, but practical experience showed it added only a small amount of extra protection.

 

That was the basis for my rule that armour doesn't stack. Anything that hits hard enough to deform steel, will go through leather like it's not there. If that's the case, anything that hits hard enough to deform steel will likely also go through a Def3 FF like it's not there. Once you get closer to the actual stopping power (say a DEF8 FF over plate), then that argument becomes weaker. It would certainly add something in terms of protection - but equally certainly not another 8 DEF - as pointed out, that would give the eqvivalent in protection as the frontal armour of a modern main battle tank. In my case, I simply rulled that the "extra" protection was not enough to push you over into DEF9.

 

That argument has kept both me and the players happy: it makes both game-sense and reality-sense. And it has kept the defence wars from spiralling out of control, without stopping players who want to invest lots of points in mega-protection spells from doing so.

 

cheers, Mark

[Arthur]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

Even if HERO is logarithmic it still doesn't state why I can't put on a breast plate and put up a force field.

 

It doesn't say you can't. It says they don't add up linearly, because the numbers for DEF don't represent integers - they represent powers of sqrt(2). Similarly, STR does not stack because the numbers don't represent integers, they represent powers of 2 (in 5 point increments).

 

 

Now .. it would be logical that I can't put on two breast plates, the idea of one large enough to fit over another should make the enemy laugh at me and then I fall over because I'm wearing half a ton of steel.

 

What if your character has a STR of 30? That would be an easy load for someone that strong.

 

I would also concede that two magical force fields don't stack on the same character because the magic spells don't work well together.

 

How in the world do you reality-check THAT? Do you have access to real magic force-fields to test? Magic is a GAME CONSTRUCT that can do whatever you want it to do. However, if force fields stack with armor in a Heroic game, be aware that you are representing many times the protection, not just adding them up.

 

and if you don't like the way Armor Weight is presented CHANGE IT. Really, in your world heavy plate could weight 2 pounds if you wanted. "Based on weight" does not make a

 

You're missing the point completely. I used the armor weight as a guideline. Since I know that Hero is non-linear (the +5 STR = double the STR was pretty much the basic building block of the whole system), I needed to determine how much DEF was the increment for doubling. I had already derived a formula for combining STR (e.g., a STR 10 and a STR 15 character working together have an effective STR of 18). I simply changed the 5's to 2's in the STR formula to get layered DEF totals.

 

As far as your examples about adding up damage: those values all represent exponents when comparing to real-world energy (or at least they did before FRED, when some of the designers were engineers; they still do in most cases, still).

 

(yes, STR is not linear, that is very true. but still means squat in this discussion.)

 

It means plenty. It is used to carry said armor. A 25 STR can lift 8x as much as a STR 10; it should also be able to carry 8x the protection (all else being equal). Also, remember STR was the basic building block of the whole game system.

[ghost-angel]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

What if your character has a STR of 30? That would be an easy load for someone that strong.

 

 

 

How in the world do you reality-check THAT? Do you have access to real magic force-fields to test? Magic is a GAME CONSTRUCT that can do whatever you want it to do. However, if force fields stack with armor in a Heroic game, be aware that you are representing many times the protection, not just adding them up.

 

that's my point .... the game is about Genre Simulation .. not Real Life Simulation.

 

I've yet to see proof that within the construct of the game 10DEF provides 16x the protection of 2DEF. [an Abrams MBT is listed as DEF 20 Hardened btw not 10 in FREd.]

 

A game can ramp things up .. if the "doesn't stack" rule works for you and your group - cool, go with it. It is a Kludge at best.

 

If your players feel they need a 10+ DEF in a Heroic Fantasy game, I personally believe something went wrong somewhere. I ended up in a Cyberpunk Game where damages started scaling up towards 9D6 Killing .. wasn't happy about that as we had taken a wrong turn somewhere.

 

The system is designed to simulate MANY genres, a 10DEF may be high for Heroic, gut could be pitifully low in a Super game. "The System" is not your issue.

[Galadorn]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

It means plenty. It is used to carry said armor. A 25 STR can lift 8x as much as a STR 10; it should also be able to carry 8x the protection (all else being equal). Also' date=' remember STR was the basic building block of the whole game system.[/quote']

 

Yes, but there are other considerations, than just STR considerations. If a character is strong enough, he might be able to carry the weight more easily, but the armor is still constricting. He might rip his way out of the armor if he uses his full STR, as well.

[Arthur]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

that's my point .... the game is about Genre Simulation .. not Real Life Simulation.

 

I've yet to see proof that within the construct of the game 10DEF provides 16x the protection of 2DEF. [an Abrams MBT is listed as DEF 20 Hardened btw not 10 in FREd.]

 

Two points:

 

1. If DEF 20 is "really" ten times the protection of DEF 2, then the Abrams tank armor is equivalent to ten layers of medieval leather armor or 2-3 layers of medieval plate. Using my derived logic, the tank armor is equivalent to about 500 layers of leather or about 50 layers of platemail. Which one do you think is more accurate?

 

2. Damage is also logarithmic. A medium tank gun does about 4d K or DC 12. A handgun does about 2d K or DC 6. Are you honestly trying to tell me that a 90mm Tank Gun has only twice the energy of a .45? In point of fact, up to about DC 15, each +1 DC for guns represented twice the KE (at least pre-FRED: as wonderful a job as DOJ has done, they don't seem to grasp the underlying mathematical model of the system). However, even now, +1 DC is FAR closer to x2 damage than anything resembling a linear progression. Note that this matches nicely with +5 STR exerting twice as much force. Once again, a doubling.

[ghost-angel]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

Two points:

 

1. If DEF 20 is "really" ten times the protection of DEF 2, then the Abrams tank armor is equivalent to ten layers of medieval leather armor or 2-3 layers of medieval plate. Using my derived logic, the tank armor is equivalent to about 500 layers of leather or about 50 layers of platemail. Which one do you think is more accurate?

 

2. Damage is also logarithmic. A medium tank gun does about 4d K or DC 12. A handgun does about 2d K or DC 6. Are you honestly trying to tell me that a 90mm Tank Gun has only twice the energy of a .45? In point of fact, up to about DC 15, each +1 DC for guns represented twice the KE (at least pre-FRED: as wonderful a job as DOJ has done, they don't seem to grasp the underlying mathematical model of the system). However, even now, +1 DC is FAR closer to x2 damage than anything resembling a linear progression. Note that this matches nicely with +5 STR exerting twice as much force. Once again, a doubling.

 

Sound logic. can't disagree. Works in terms of describing types of armor and how they work. Makes for a logical "From Game to Reality Reasoning" line of thought.

 

Doesn't explain why I can't cast a force field over my chain armor, which is the point of this thread.

 

IN GAME TERMS if your character have a Def of 12 because of a +6 Def to Chain mail and a +6 Force Field Spell and your sword only does 1D6+1 killing damage make it a "super sharp blade" and add Armor Piercing, now your character has 6 Def and that D6+1 might hurt. Make the goober weilding the sword a guy that can add lots of STR, say up a 2D6 KA, now that looks like it might draw blood. Or add Peircing to the arrow/spear, a point always gets through.

 

Between talking it over and coming to an agreement players shouldn't feel the need to stack them in normal combat and still have the option when facing that really big dragon later on.

 

And use it against them as well, no reason the enemy can't do the same and everyone is invulnerable to swords .. players will have to find another route or stop using everything all the time. I've always said "most problems are not inherent in the system, they are inherent in the people using it."

 

But hey - it's your house, use whatever rules you see fit to use. that's my last pair of pennies.

[Markdoc]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

>>>ound logic. can't disagree. Works in terms of describing types of armor and how they work. Makes for a logical "From Game to Reality Reasoning" line of thought.

 

Doesn't explain why I can't cast a force field over my chain armor, which is the point of this thread.<<<

 

Ah, but it does, if you follow the argument. The argument goes:

 

1. In real life, adding extra thickness to real armour does NOT proportionately increase its protection.

2. In Hero system, an increase of 1 DC or +2 DEF is taken as roughly a doubling (the Abrams versus leather armour discussion)

3. Therefore, adding another thin layer of equivalent protection to your armour via forcefield is NOT going to double its DEF - indeed, the protective benefit will be (at most) +2 DEF (probably less - see #1 above).

 

Therefore:

a. You CAN cast a force field over your armour - if you like.

b. A +6 DEF FF will not add +6 DEF to 6 DEF chainmail - that would give a total of 12 DEF - or the equivalent a 10 cm thick hardened steel door safe. It will give a small benefit - +2 DEF at most. Adding a +5DEF FF would give almost no benefit at all, while conversely if you added a +7DEF FF, the chain would contribute little.

 

It's simple math. Hero system is built around an arithmetic progression, not a linear one - therefore you are not intended to (linearly) add. So the "no stacking" argument is not a kludge - it boils down to "the benefit of stacking two identical defences is so small - in both real life and game terms - that it does not warrant giving any extra DEF".

 

Now I realise that that's an oversimplification - adding an extra layer of protection, would probably give you a small benefit. But frankly, I am too lazy to work out a mathematical formula for calculating the difference. Somebody posted one such on a related thread a day or two ago - as noted above it suggests that adding two defences of equivalent DEF together gives about 1 point extra of DEF. That's the most elegant approach I have seen, but I think I'll stick with "doesn't stack" simply because the result is almost the same and requires far less work.

 

And if the math doesn't convince you, here's a real life example: Early plate armour was worn over chain mail - mostly because the plate was an addon and armourers weren't skilled enough at that point to make articulated joints, so the chain covered any embarassing gaps. Whoah - hoah! DEF8 plate over DEF6 Chain. DEF14 right? Well, no. The extra protection given by chain under plate was so neglible (while the extra weight was so noticeable) that chain started to disappear from under the plate-covered bits almost instantly, and as articulation improved, it vanished entirely. In other words, in real life, DEF8 plate plus DEF6 Chain was considered inferior to DEF8 plate alone - no significant extra protection, but extra weight.

 

If chain mail + plate is no better than plate, why should FF + plate be better than plate?

 

cheers, Mark

[tesuji]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

 

If chain mail + plate is no better than plate, why should FF + plate be better than plate?

 

cheers, Mark

 

So, do i get this right, (letting slide the whole issue of using real world notions for magic force field spell interactions)...

 

in your games PD and ED from the character does not add in with defenses from armor or force fields to reduce damage? (This presumes you dont make an exception for skin + plate defenses adding.)

 

How has that worked in play? Any issues or problems you have encountered with this?

 

Thanks

[Markdoc]

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

 

I take it you are being sarcastic, but PD and ED does of course add into armour - because it's a totally different thing.

 

Having a PD of 8 (within the normal human range) does NOT mean that your skin is 8x as thick or tough as the skin of a normal person. Nor does it mean that you have some kind of wierd armour on your outer surface. It reflects the overall toughness of the individual.

 

You are partially right however: if a creature had natural armour, I would not stack this with free metal or leather armour: the same argument applies in that case to stacking armour types: anything that goes through steel is unlikley to be significantly affected by a layer of horny scales underneath.

 

cheers, Mark