Hitting things with Thrown Things

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

Page 177 in the Big Blue Book. Last paragraph.

 

"Note that if characters use an object as a weapon, the maximum amount of damage that can be done with the object is equal to the combined DEF and BODY - any additional damage and the object simply breaks."

 

What you quoted is essentially the same as the section of 5ER that I quoted earlier. The statement, by itself, is not limiting a STR 60 character to 12d6 if he is using an object with 7 DEF + 7 BODY (total 14).

 

My copy of ol' Big Blue and most of my older champions books are buried behind stacks of boxes. Can you check to see if there is any references with regard to DEF+BODY exceeding a characters base damage dice for STR?

 

HM

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

What you quoted is essentially the same as the section of 5ER that I quoted earlier. The statement' date=' by itself, is not limiting a STR 60 character to 12d6 if he is using an object with 7 DEF + 7 BODY (total 14).[/quote']No, Steve's ruling does that. (Apart from house rules, of course.) And yes, I know what you said ... Steve has reversed himself in the past. Maybe he will this time. I dunno. Right now, though, the Official Word From On-High is that a brick is so limited. (shrug)

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

To be fair' date=' don't you just call that stuff SFX then? IOW, it's his own STR, this is just a little show, a little meaningless "non-focus".[/quote']

Every so often, I get hung up on something that bothers me. In this case, it seems like a clash between genre and rules. If my players prefer the official rules in a case like this, that's how I run it. If they don't care, then I call it "clever use of the environment" and give the brick an extra d6 or so. Either way, it's something that I can live with without it being a federal case. It's just one of those things that causes a "hitch" in my...I suppose you'd call it 'suspension of disbelief'? In time it'll die down and the "hitch" will go out of my concious mind. It'll return later (maybe in a year or two). Until then, I'll debate it, make suggestions about it, listen to opinions about it, and so on.

[zornwil]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

What you quoted is essentially the same as the section of 5ER that I quoted earlier. The statement, by itself, is not limiting a STR 60 character to 12d6 if he is using an object with 7 DEF + 7 BODY (total 14).

 

My copy of ol' Big Blue and most of my older champions books are buried behind stacks of boxes. Can you check to see if there is any references with regard to DEF+BODY exceeding a characters base damage dice for STR?

 

HM

I didn't see one when I looked around. I think this statement means what it does in 5th, but isn't stated so clearly.

[zornwil]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

Every so often' date=' I get hung up on something that bothers me. In this case, it seems like a clash between genre and rules. If my players prefer the official rules in a case like this, that's how I run it. If they don't care, then I call it "clever use of the environment" and give the brick an extra d6 or so. Either way, it's something that I can live with without it being a federal case. It's just one of those things that causes a "hitch" in my...I suppose you'd call it 'suspension of disbelief'? In time it'll die down and the "hitch" will go out of my concious mind. It'll return later (maybe in a year or two). Until then, I'll debate it, make suggestions about it, listen to opinions about it, and so on. [/quote']

I'm just playing devil's advocate. Personally I often will add 1-2d6 of damage.

[lemming]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

Page 177 in the Big Blue Book. Last paragraph.

 

"Note that if characters use an object as a weapon, the maximum amount of damage that can be done with the object is equal to the combined DEF and BODY - any additional damage and the object simply breaks."

3rd edition Page 82:

"The maximum amount of damage that can be done by a thrown object is equal to the character's STR damage or the object's total DEF and BODY, whichever is less."

 

This was in the throwing objects area.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

3rd edition Page 82:

"The maximum amount of damage that can be done by a thrown object is equal to the character's STR damage or the object's total DEF and BODY, whichever is less."

 

This was in the throwing objects area.

 

Well, at first glance this wording appears to be far more clear on the subject than either 4E, 5E or 5ER. But, it is talking specifically about thrown objects, not objects being used as a club HTH. Since real world muscle powered weapons in 5ER are built with STR Minimums and exceeding these minimums does not increase the damage of the ranged attack this is a reasonable concept. It's effectively the real world rule for ranged muscle powered weapons being scaled up (unlike the real world rule for HTH muscle powered weapons) . I still think there might be an exception (in some pre-5th edition) for HTH objects of oportunity.

 

good nite all.

HM

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

Hmmm... a potentially groovy way to handle this issue in a campaign just sort of popped into my head... its easy enough to make additional "optional" combat manuvers with the martial arts rules, and WF: Clubs is an everyman skill IIRC. It'd be easy enough to write up a few "brick trick" manuvers that are expressly intended for improvised weapons...

Must think on this more when I have my books handy...

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

It'd be easy enough to write up a few "brick trick" manuvers that are expressly intended for improvised weapons...

I believe that was what Sean was saying with his 7-pt. construct a few posts back.

[Phil]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

I believe that was what Sean was saying with his 7-pt. construct a few posts back.

 

Personally, while I liked the construct, something that is *that* common shouldnt need a construct. I've found a lot of the arguments here very persuasive, but to my mind it's been a conflict of game mechanical balance / physics vs. genre (an over-simplified trolling statement for sure!), and in such circumstances - for me - genre wins.

 

This has actually been a problem in other supers games: I remember Marvel SH, particularly, but possibly Mayfair's DC as well. Technically it strikes me as broadly correct: force is experienced equally by striker and strikee, therefore any force in excess of the force required to break an object cannot be transmitted. However, this is clearly an oversimplification, ignoring how force is transmitted, elasticity, etc. etc. (must... resist... using... american... 'yadda'... phrase.. ). Apart from anything else, is there not some issue with momentum and levers (at least as far as the classic telegraph pole / lampost is concerned)?

 

Aw, who cares. Bricks hit other bricks with objects when game rules say there is little or no benefit (after all, bricks generally dont have a problem hitting each other, so AoE seems to provide very little). I'm wondering, however, whether the effect is not so much extra damage as extra knockback? Certainly, that's the comic book effect that I would associate with this sort of maneuver, the brick 'swat' of bus vs. supervillain. So perhaps the only necessary modification is subtracting x from the knockback roll for every whole hex of size (length) that an object is? (where x=2?) This can still produce extra damage - from the KB itself, and from KB straight down, but the main effect is to get a bit of distance or to get your opponent prone so you've got time to level that haymaker.

 

Just thought I'd throw something new into the melting pot.

[austenandrews]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

I stuck the 'with examples' bit in for good reason: what goodies do you hand out to other character types that they haven't paid for?

Ranged attacks can shoot high objects from their supports and drop them on bad guys. Attacks with Knockback can knock large objects into bad guys. Attacks that punch through floors can drop bad guys to the next floor down. Heat attacks can boil liquids, Force Field bubbles can hold water, Entangles can bar doors, electrical powers can boost the performance of some devices... need I go on? These are off the top of my head.

 

Maybe I'm unusual, but I do what I can to reward creativity from players. Nothing's more boring than a PC only doing exactly what's written on his character sheet.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

Ranged attacks can shoot high objects from their supports and drop them on bad guys. Attacks with Knockback can knock large objects into bad guys. Attacks that punch through floors can drop bad guys to the next floor down. Heat attacks can boil liquids, Force Field bubbles can hold water, Entangles can bar doors, electrical powers can boost the performance of some devices... need I go on? These are off the top of my head.

 

Maybe I'm unusual, but I do what I can to reward creativity from players. Nothing's more boring than a PC only doing exactly what's written on his character sheet.

 

Blimey, seems there have been a few 'hot topics' lately, and this one seems to be getting there too. In fact there has been a lot of traffic on this board, which is really nice. Well done, everyone.

 

I'm with you on rewarding creativity, but I would have a caveat: the difference, as i see it, is that the average large heavy object is very common, be it a car in the city, a boulder in the desert or a chunk of machinery in the villain's base. Whilst other powers can certainly take advantage of the environment it requires the GM to put the materials there as they lack the same ubiquity. That or some darned spiffy player set-up.

 

The other thing about dropping stuff on villains (to take one example) is that it requires the villain to stand under the object and away from innocent bystanders. Strength gives far more control to the object that moving it with knockback or shearing it off and letting it drop. Not suggesting that you can not use other powers in a creative and reward-worthy way, but i do think that the opportunity is far more readily available for high strength characters.

 

To be quite clear, if this is not a problem in the group, and noone feels the brick heroes and villains are over-powered or getting more easter eggs than anyone else, no worries.

 

Equally I'm not insensitive (despite everything I say and do.... ) to the genre needs: a game system should conform to your expectations without necessarily having to add bells and whistles in the design stage. The problem arises, as always, when people have different expectations. My approach to this, and the one the system seems to take, is to set things up in favour of balance (or, setting the base rules at relatively restrictive) and allow the design of genre concepts.

 

AmadanNaBriona mentioned using martial arts manouvres (rather than power constructs in a multipower) to simulate 'brick tricks' and this may not be a bad idea at all; you could require the manoeuvres to be used with appropriate weapons of opportunity, so swinging a truck at someone is considered an offensive strike, swinging a telephone pole could be a defensive strike or a legsweep...Of course it begs the question why not just spend the extra point so you can use the manouvres weaponless? I guess the answer would be because it is not 'in genre'

[zornwil]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

3rd edition Page 82:

"The maximum amount of damage that can be done by a thrown object is equal to the character's STR damage or the object's total DEF and BODY, whichever is less."

 

This was in the throwing objects area.

Yeah, I was looking through 3rd ed. also and only saw that, couldn't find a more general reference.

[zornwil]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

Personally, while I liked the construct, something that is *that* common shouldnt need a construct. I've found a lot of the arguments here very persuasive, but to my mind it's been a conflict of game mechanical balance / physics vs. genre (an over-simplified trolling statement for sure!), and in such circumstances - for me - genre wins.

 

This has actually been a problem in other supers games: I remember Marvel SH, particularly, but possibly Mayfair's DC as well. Technically it strikes me as broadly correct: force is experienced equally by striker and strikee, therefore any force in excess of the force required to break an object cannot be transmitted. However, this is clearly an oversimplification, ignoring how force is transmitted, elasticity, etc. etc. (must... resist... using... american... 'yadda'... phrase.. ). Apart from anything else, is there not some issue with momentum and levers (at least as far as the classic telegraph pole / lampost is concerned)?

 

Aw, who cares. Bricks hit other bricks with objects when game rules say there is little or no benefit (after all, bricks generally dont have a problem hitting each other, so AoE seems to provide very little). I'm wondering, however, whether the effect is not so much extra damage as extra knockback? Certainly, that's the comic book effect that I would associate with this sort of maneuver, the brick 'swat' of bus vs. supervillain. So perhaps the only necessary modification is subtracting x from the knockback roll for every whole hex of size (length) that an object is? (where x=2?) This can still produce extra damage - from the KB itself, and from KB straight down, but the main effect is to get a bit of distance or to get your opponent prone so you've got time to level that haymaker.

 

Just thought I'd throw something new into the melting pot.

I think the problem is there are different interpretations even of what is "genre". One school appears to be that what is genre is that only bricks of certain levels do this and that for them a 7 point ability or such is entirely balanced between genre and cost. One could argue as well that even in genre that doesn't mean that the brick gets any additional damage beyond what they can do hand-to-hand, that it's just a flashy gimmick and SFX of their ability. I don't argue this, but that's how I understand the opposing viewpoint.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

I think the problem is there are different interpretations even of what is "genre". One school appears to be that what is genre is that only bricks of certain levels do this and that for them a 7 point ability or such is entirely balanced between genre and cost. One could argue as well that even in genre that doesn't mean that the brick gets any additional damage beyond what they can do hand-to-hand' date=' that it's just a flashy gimmick and SFX of their ability. I don't argue this, but that's how I understand the opposing viewpoint.[/quote']

 

What this raises is the question... "Is the entire concept of Maneuvers (those free actions any character can attempt) genre based?"

 

Move-Through and Move-by certainly seem to be... but the fact that these also scale for any genre is why they are so great. Any movement power plus str... with mods... go! It isn't like you are saying Move Through is only available to characters who have bought "Flight"

 

One of the great concepts that I love about Hero is the Maneuvers. Without even getting into special training maneuvers (Martial Arts which you have to buy with points) these maneuvers provide options and flavor that ABSOLUTELY (IMO) reinforces the "cinematic action" feel that Hero is supposedly designed to reflect.

 

That is why this "object as weapon" ruling is so weird. It seems like a straight forward "Maneuver" that any character... no matter their strength... should be able to perform. Whether I'm a back alley brawler... a space cowbow... or a metahuman "brick"... I should be able to pick up an object and hit someone with it to get a little more damage.

 

The fact that a brick does NOT get more dice for a big stick... but my back alley brawler does is ALSO genre, because "added damage" is relative. The item needs to provide a level of nasty beyond the open hand ability of the person swinging it.

 

Thus it seems a standard maneuver should exist that is scalable.

 

Step one: Is the character strong enough to pick up the object. (My brawler can hit you with a bat... but swinging a refrigerator is bit beyond him.) Easy enough to figure... no rule changes here.

 

Step two: Determine "does the object STR+Body exceed the STR DC that would happen normally with open hand?" comes into it. I think this works well, but hey, it's my idea. If the object isn't "hard enough" then it doesn't do more than the empty hand.

 

Step three: (if the first step qualifies) is "how much damage does it add?" I think Hugh's idea of a flat DC amount... maybe 2DC flat, I dunno. Something that just goes on top of normal STR... NO MATTER HOW STRONG THE CHARACTER IS.

 

This is consistent (IMO) with the generic maneuvers already in existance in the rules. It scales, as do other maneuvers.

 

The only thing here is that it does emphasize a problem we already know exists, which is that STR is very effective for it's cost. But already, a brick who decides to lower a couple DCs to get a +1 to hit is already getting a benefit for cheap STR... this isn't any worse. (I don't want to take this into the STR is TOO CHEAP rant... just point out that this is no more unbalancing a concept as other canon maneuvers or uses of STR.)

 

YMMV of course.

[austenandrews]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

My approach to this' date=' and the one the system seems to take, is to set things up in favour of balance (or, setting the base rules at relatively restrictive) and allow the design of genre concepts.[/quote']

That's probably the source of the disconnect. Game balance to me is a secondary consideration (unless it gets out of hand). That's not to say that I think my viewpoint is unbalanced, of course. Just that I'm more concerned that the game represent the genre. Rules serve that purpose, first and foremost. Where they run directly counter to that purpose, they need work. For my part, notions like overall mathematical balance and system design metarules are low on my list of considerations when I'm running a game.

 

Hero has never been one of those systems where everything works exactly as desired out of the box. If it was, we wouldn't have all those optional rules and stop signs. So to me, avoiding a commonsense rule because it's potentially "unbalancing" is not in the spirit of the Hero System. Flag it as such, but don't leave it out.

 

YMMV.

[zornwil]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

That's probably the source of the disconnect. Game balance to me is a secondary consideration (unless it gets out of hand). That's not to say that I think my viewpoint is unbalanced, of course. Just that I'm more concerned that the game represent the genre. Rules serve that purpose, first and foremost. Where they run directly counter to that purpose, they need work. For my part, notions like overall mathematical balance and system design metarules are low on my list of considerations when I'm running a game.

 

Hero has never been one of those systems where everything works exactly as desired out of the box. If it was, we wouldn't have all those optional rules and stop signs. So to me, avoiding a commonsense rule because it's potentially "unbalancing" is not in the spirit of the Hero System. Flag it as such, but don't leave it out.

 

YMMV.

You raise a good point, I also tend to find balance as a secondary concern. Lemming has said (and I repeat it because I'm proud of it and the meaning behind it) that I run one of the best "balanced unbalanced" campaigns he's been in, in that while I allow for what might well be imbalances I deal with those in gameplay to limit them from actually being unbalancing in play, or at least ensuring that all have their fun.

 

So where one prioritizes balance against genre/flavor and even SFX is a big deal. There's no right way, and even if HERO indicates a priority, it's still an individual choice thing, and very, very much so, something that will be powerfully revealed by how a GM implements the toolkit.

 

HERO indicates some sort of priority in indicating, on p. 558, "The goal was to keep the mechanics reasonably simple, encourage roleplaying, and create a flavor similar to that in books, movies, and comics. Most important was giving the game the "feel" of a good action novel or a movie. When realism conflicted with that goal, realism took second place - gaming is about adventure and excitement and larger-than-life deeds. Then the rules were made as simple as reasonably possible (without sacrificing game balance or the details necessary for play) so the game mechanics wouldn't get in the way of having fun."

 

This seems to indicate a priority more oriented towards giving 1-2 DC for a makeshift club. However, some would argue that "game balance" (certainly nidicated above) is too greatly sacrificed. I really challenge that assertion, but there you are.

 

Of course the design considerations on the same page go on to relate, "Above all, the HERO System is intended to be flexible and open-ended - capable of simulating any real or fictional situation." So we do have a call to realistic simulation here, as well.

 

Then it does go on to state that there are two basic considerations - in summary, one is that it's "wrong to remove or change a worthwhile or fun rule just because some gamers can exploit or abuse it." (personally, I believe a logical corollary to this is that it's equally wrong to explicate a rule simply to account for all possible abuses or exploitations, but 5ER's approach flies in the face of this a bit) But the other consideration is "it's equally wrong to make it easy for players to abuse rules." It goes on to admit "there's a fine line...between leaving good rules in and making rules as "bulletproof" as possible...".

 

So there will always be a waffle according to who owns DOJ and that fine line. I believe that RDU Neil's post above is really more of how it should be, though, and this one I'd probably go so far as to codify as change if I owned HERO. And while I discuss a lot of changes, there are relatively few I'd actually make if I were writing 6th Edition.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

What this raises is the question... "Is the entire concept of Maneuvers (those free actions any character can attempt) genre based?"

 

(snip)

Bravo! Excellent! I think you hit the nail on the head, RDU Neil! And further, I your idea. It may need a bit of tweaking to suit personal taste, but I think the general idea is sound! :

 

You'll be getting some rep from me tomorrow!

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

I just caught up with this thread, and in rereading parts of it, I had another "devils advocate" thought pop up that messes with the established cannon...

While I realize that this falls into the "Its a weapon, so it can ignore the rules" category, think for a second about a bullet.

A little hunk of lead, 1 body tops. I don't know the DEF for lead, but seeing as you can cut it with a 1 pip HKA pocketknife, I'd say thet its got a pretty low DEF...say 2

So wouldn't that limit damage to 3dc for all guns?

No?

Why?

Because somebody paid points for it is the "official" answer.

Because its designed as a weapon is the "rules justification answer.

Because the bullet imparts more energy than it can sustain in damage and in the process destroys itself is the "real world" answer...

the last of which is a decent argument for why you should be able to inflict more damage with an item than the def+ body

say max DC with an improvised attack as DEF+ (BODY X2)... enough body to "Destroy" the object, not just "Break" it. Any attack exceeding DEF+BODY breaks the item and renders it useless for further actions... but for that one shot, you should be able to inflict more grief with it than its mass based damage, to reflect the force involved as well.

I agree that Genre conventions should support Bricks doing more damage with improvized weapons... I'm in the Why else would they use them camp. On the point balance scale... would you allow a character to take advantage of the extra DEF from hiding behind a high DEF/BODY item without paying for the extra defenses? Hows it different?

 

Heres a few "Optional Standard Genere manuvers" I quickly threw together..

 

all manuvers use the default WE: Improvised weapons group

all manuvers are built at 0-1 pt cost as per "standard manuvers" listing in UMA, pg 150

perhaps assume that all manuvers have a +/- 0 limit that any improvised weapon must have def+body= at least (Str/5)/2 to gain any additional dice

Bash +0 OCV -1 DCV +1d6 damage

Smash +0 OCV -2 DCV +2d6 damage

Crash +0 OCV -2 DCV +3d6 damage, unbalancing

Wallop -1 OCV -2 DCV +4d6 damage, unbalancing, time+

Fling +0 OCV -2 DCV +2d6 damage, ranged manuver

Hurl +0 OCV -2 DCV +4d6 damage, -2 RNG mod, time+, half move required, ranged manuver

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

and as a post script...I'm leaning more towards the "any manuver you can write up for 0-1 point is OK by me for you to use if you can justify the effects" school of combat manuvers. Something I saw in DH, IIRC. Seems to fit the genre conventions well, and allows for more combat flexibility. With the addition of ranged MA manuvers usable as "standard" manuvers, it allows for tricks like an Energy Projector cutting the legs out from under a fleeing opponent without requiring the character to pay points for the manuver.

[Gary]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

and as a post script...I'm leaning more towards the "any manuver you can write up for 0-1 point is OK by me for you to use if you can justify the effects" school of combat manuvers. Something I saw in DH' date=' IIRC. Seems to fit the genre conventions well, and allows for more combat flexibility. With the addition of ranged MA manuvers usable as "standard" manuvers, it allows for tricks like an Energy Projector cutting the legs out from under a fleeing opponent without requiring the character to pay points for the manuver.[/quote']

 

With the exception of Fmove and V/x maneuvers of course.

[Gary]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

One thought if you want to allow bricks (or anyone else for that matter) to do more damage is to treat base OCV as inherent 'combat skill levels'. This will allow characters to trade -2 OCV to get +1 DC.

 

This has the advantage of consistency and fairness since every character type can take advantage of this trade. The advantage for a brick to use a large object in this case would be that he'll be hitting a base DCV of 3, thus giving him the luxury of sacrificing some OCV to add damage and still have a reasonable chance of hitting.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

With the exception of Fmove and V/x maneuvers of course.

Nahhh.. I don't have problems with either as part of standard manuvers... they cost enough that the balancing negative elements would work it out... there are already several FMove +V/x standard manuvers...Move By, Move Through, and Grab By. Why couldn't you make another as long as it balanced?

[Gary]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

Nahhh.. I don't have problems with either as part of standard manuvers... they cost enough that the balancing negative elements would work it out... there are already several FMove +V/x standard manuvers...Move By' date=' Move Through, and Grab By. Why couldn't you make another as long as it balanced?[/quote']

 

 

1) Fmove +V/5 -2 OCV -2 DCV. 0 pt maneuver.

 

This is essentially the same thing as a moveby, except that your Str isn't halved and you don't take 1/3 damage. Essentially there would never be any reason for any character to ever do a moveby again.

 

2) Fmove + V/3 -2 OCV -2 DCV character takes 1/2 damage. 1 pt maneuver.

 

A better (and highly unbalancing) version of movethrough. Only 2 pt OCV penalty instead of -V/5, and -2 DCV instead of -3. Also, your character automatically takes only 1/2 damage instead of a risk of full damage if the target isn't knocked back. Nobody would ever do a movethrough again.

 

At a cost of 1 pt for V/5, as soon as a character has 10" or more velocity, it's unbalanced. Similarly at a cost of 3 pts for V/3, the cost becomes unbalanced at 12" velocity.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Hitting things with Thrown Things

 

One thought if you want to allow bricks (or anyone else for that matter) to do more damage is to treat base OCV as inherent 'combat skill levels'. This will allow characters to trade -2 OCV to get +1 DC.

 

This has the advantage of consistency and fairness since every character type can take advantage of this trade. The advantage for a brick to use a large object in this case would be that he'll be hitting a base DCV of 3, thus giving him the luxury of sacrificing some OCV to add damage and still have a reasonable chance of hitting.

 

That's a very interresting idea. I am trying to think of what the negatives are of implementing this but I'm coming up with much so far.

 

HM