Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Giant snakes aside, when I'm GMing and there are large objects around being damaged, I usually assume they have some Damage Reduction vs certain types of attacks. Like for sailing ships, they get it against all small arms, and all solid shot cannon. Shell guns affect them normally, which can be devastating. Castle walls get DR vs all small arms and pre-gunpowder artillery. Modern ships get DR vs everything short of a missile.

 

Expanding this, then, the Earth would get DR against most things. Probably anything short of a Death Star class laser, or attacks that had enough Area Effect to cover the planet anyway.

[Warp9]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

That's because multi-megaton nukes aren't 20D6 RKAs. Steve Long likes his dice when it comes to military equipment. That's why we get 8D6 RKA Explosion tank guns (5th edition, page 326). That's why we get the 1 million D6 RKA that is the surface of the sun. Nukes should be in the 10-13D6 RKA range. That'll give you about 45 Body (for the 13D6) per hit. Now, if you say the Earth is mere stone, that's 6 Def, 13 Body per hex. That gives you 26 Body remaining. +2 Body doubles the depth of the hole, and +1 Body doubles the diameter. 26/3=9 (rounding up). So that's 9 doublings. That's a half-kilometer deep (and wide) hole in the ground. That's pretty big, but it ain't world destroying. You can then tweak the rules as much as you want so you get a blast crater that exactly mirrors the effects of a real nuke.

 

You can bomb the Earth with that stuff all day. To really blow it up, you've got to do the 86 Body IN ONE SHOT. That's the thing that everyone here seems to be forgetting.

Again, very good points!

[Fox1]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Okay' date=' if you find it do let me know ,whether PM or via the thread.[/quote']

 

Found it.

 

Page 447 5th revised.

 

"On the object BODY Table, an object's BODY depends ont its total mass; each doubling of mass is +1 BODY. The GM may wish to increase an objects's BODY based on its size or the materials it is made of."

 

Note it doesn't say increase or decrease due to materials.

 

I will note that seems to fly in the face of the destroying multiple hexes example given in the same book. But it still stands rather well for the concept that, yep- STR is intended to double in power as well as lift for 5 points.

 

Edit: I believe I know why it doesn't match the example. It's a way of controlling the fact that the character hasn't bought AE for his attack, but is still due some blow through because of his overwhelming power.

 

Edit: Note I don't think one should make character pay for using falling damage, but then again I think the problem is mosting a creation of the lift progression. Alter the lift progression by house rule and the tactic becomes far less useful (as well as matching some non-DC genres better anyway).

[Ki-rin]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

No, the wall body table, both in 4th edition and in 5th edition, included a +2 per doubling of thickness. Just as we can calculate the Str of a character with 100 levels of growth, we can calculate the Body of a wall with the thickness of the Earth. The system scales. I've played in games where we did encounter walls that were thicker than planets, so I feel the wall Body chart is certainly useful here.

But that's part of the point. A "wall" is noticably thinner in one dimension than the other two. Once this property is invalidated, it's no longer a "wall". With the sole exception of the screw-up in Star Hero 2nd ed, =ALL= HERO object breaking write-ups have been about a) small objects, or objects that are noticably thinner in one dimension. Other than the aberrant SH 2nd ed reference, THERE IS NO OFFICIAL HERO GAMES WRITE UP ON BREAKING LARGE SCALE SIZED OBJECTS THAT ARE APPROXIMATELY EQUAL IN ALL DIMENSIONS. This is a serious reference citing. Pay attention please.

 

Everything I wrote was based on extrapolating the rules in a logically consistent way from the domain where there is official HERO canon to this problem which does =NOT= exist in any official HERO canon (other than the previously mentioned aberrant SH 2nd ed write up). My entire write up is based on reference citings and evidence.

 

There's absolutely zero evidence of this. Besides, who says a 100D6 energy blast isn't on a scale to vaporize planets? Now you're bitching about special effects, and you're out of the realm of system discussion. Damage is damage. Special effects are special effects. Remember to keep the two seperate.

That's not a SFX, it's an immense Area Effect Advantage. Pay the AP for the power or don't get the attack. I refer you every write up on Area Attacks ever written.

 

You've got no evidence here either, but then, I didn't even reference Star Hero. The fact that you're unfamiliar with the development of 5th edition and Star Hero is evident.

LOL! I just gave references to variant of every official edition of HERO ever made (I even have copies of the pre-production Samurai Hero), and _I'm_ unfamilar with HERO? That's simply delusional.

 

So, you're giving Earth 11 Body per hex. This is close to the 10 Body per hex that dirt is listed as having in 5th edition. Note that I gave the Earth 19 Body per hex, the same as metal, in my example.

A HERO system hex is a) a 2D construct, and considerably bigger in sectional area than a 1 cm^3 volume, being 2 +METERS+ wide. I'm given the Earth 5.5 Body per cm^3. The rules say it take 2x body to "vaporize" (as in "reduce to -small- particles") an object.

 

We're not attacking the entire Earth at once, because we're using the doubling rules for blowing a hole in a surface. So we don't need to worry about the advantages.

Once you are trying to "blow a hole" in something that is as big as the something, that's called "attacking the entire something", not blowing a hole in it. Now if you want to talk about what it would take system-wise to =drill= a hole through the earth and out the other side, that's a different discussion.

 

 

Knockback happens after damage is dealt. End of story.

Knockback happens +to what is left+ after damage is dealt. If the object is too small/light/etc to absorb the majority of the Force, you have blow through (it breaks at the contact area) or it goes flying.

 

I got nailed by both hoofs of horse when I was 8 or 9. That blow sent me sailing the length and height of the barn I was in and left a bruise covering my entire chest. If got hit like that now, it would likely cave in my ribs and probably kill me on the spot. Why? Because I weighed ~25Kg then and I weigh ~100Kg now. I couldn't absorb the energy then and since it _must_ be conserved, it got translated into moving me rather than damaging me. Same story with an attack affecting a substantial percentage of the earth. A big enough meteor hit to destroy the earth's structure would have to be overkill since the first thing that would happen to the earth if it suffered an attack on that scale is that it would knocked from its orbit. Simple Mechanics and Conservation of Energy.

 

I did crunch the numbers. The rules are already available for determining damage to large objects and surfaces. You have no support to show that one would have to purchase an Area Effect attack on that magnitude. You also have nothing to show why the Earth would have a Def above 20.

There's tons of support to show a) that the rules as written do not apply to large, equi-dimensional solids, that if you want to attack an entire area at once that you have to buy the Area Effect Ad at the appropriate level, and c) that object DEF takes into account the composition, shape (particularly thickness at the attack point), and size of the object you wish to break.

 

You crunched the wrong numbers.

 

The right numbers system-wise indicate that "making an Earth sized hole in the Earth" requires an Area Effect attack of Earth Size that does at least 5.5 Body per cm^3 of the Earth. That's at least 5.5*90= 495 Body after we overcome Earth's DEF. Since Supers are walking around with DEFs of 20+, and they are squisher, less spherical, more complex, and considerably smaller that the Earth, Earth should get a DEF +at least+ as high as the highest DEF you are willing to hand out in your campaign (and probably higher since the Earth can damage said Max DEF character.)

 

Thus =based on reading the rules in a logically consistent manner=, you need an attack whose AP is based on attacking an area the size of Earth for 495 Body after overcoming it's DEF. Given the likely DEF, it would probably be more point efficient (see, I'm even helping you min-max the construction of this Monty Hall attack) to make this a Killing Atack and use Ads like Armor Piercing and Penetrating rather than just put more dice into the attack.

 

The Area Effect Ad will increase the costs by (+1 and +1/4 for each doubling of radius) and have to affect ~3,000,000 hexes. That's 21 or 22 doublings for a (+6.5) Ad to the AP cost.

 

The final AP cost will be in the >= 100K range.

 

Show me, specifically, why my method wouldn't work.

QED ("quod erat demonstrandum". It literally translates as "which was to be demonstrated")

[Warp9]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

But that's part of the point. A "wall" is noticably thinner in one dimension than the other two. Once this property is invalidated' date=' it's no longer a "wall". With the sole exception of the screw-up in Star Hero 2nd ed, =ALL= HERO object breaking write-ups have been about a) small objects, or objects that are noticably thinner in one dimension. Other than the aberrant SH 2nd ed reference, THERE IS NO OFFICIAL HERO GAMES WRITE UP ON BREAKING LARGE SCALE SIZED OBJECTS THAT ARE APPROXIMATELY EQUAL IN ALL DIMENSIONS. [/quote']

 

If small objects follow a given formula (they have +1 BODY per each doubling of Mass), why shouldn't large objects be the same way?

 

If the difference between 1 KG and 2 KG is 1 point of BODY, and if the difference between 100 KG and 200 KG is 1 point of BODY, and if the difference between 10 tons and 20 tons is 1 point of BODY, why shouldn't the same formula apply to larger objects as well?

 

And if it does not apply to "large" objects, then where is the "magic" cut off for this formula?

 

For example, how many levels of growth does my character need before he becomes a "large" object? (Note: with 75 levels of Growth he'd be big enough to hold the earth like a beach ball)

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Not all our games are that high powered. We like a little variety in our supers games, and sometimes, variety says it's time for cosmic-level adventures.

 

I've also played characters with 8D6 attacks, though honestly, I didn't have quite as much fun in those.

I almost always start at a low-medium superhero level and build it up to very high-powered. Though like you I enjoy all sorts of changes of pace.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Found it.

 

Page 447 5th revised.

 

"On the object BODY Table, an object's BODY depends ont its total mass; each doubling of mass is +1 BODY. The GM may wish to increase an objects's BODY based on its size or the materials it is made of."

 

Note it doesn't say increase or decrease due to materials.

 

I will note that seems to fly in the face of the destroying multiple hexes example given in the same book. But it still stands rather well for the concept that, yep- STR is intended to double in power as well as lift for 5 points.

 

Edit: I believe I know why it doesn't match the example. It's a way of controlling the fact that the character hasn't bought AE for his attack, but is still due some blow through because of his overwhelming power.

 

Edit: Note I don't think one should make character pay for using falling damage, but then again I think the problem is mosting a creation of the lift progression. Alter the lift progression by house rule and the tactic becomes far less useful (as well as matching some non-DC genres better anyway).

Okay, but given how BODY damage actually affects a target, I don't think you can claim that each 1 BOD of damage inflicted is x2 mass affected. If that were the case, the damage rule would not be that 0 BOD = a human-sized hole and then the hole increases x2 for each -1 BOD.

[Fox1]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

And if it does not apply to "large" objects, then where is the "magic" cut off for this formula?

 

HERO is confused about the subject.

 

If one is attacking a character, there isn't offical one that I know of. You can have as many levels of growth as you want. The damage from any attack is resolved normally.

 

If one is attacking dirt, the rulebook states that it's 1 hex with each point of damage thereafter only destroying another hex worth.

 

If on insists on applying logic to the question...

 

Anything that exists as a single object that could be seriously damaged by the loss of 1 hex of it's structure should be treated as a single target with the standard application of damage to it's body based upon it's mass.

 

Anything else (such as dirt/rock/etc. and by extension the huge amount of dirt/rock/etc. that makes up a planet) should be treated by the latter method. Consider the old Wall ruling to the remains of an outdated and no longer useful rule construct that still exists in the system (like having 'str does not add damage' on RKAs with a STR Min limit).

 

 

But logic doesn't need to apply here. HERO is attempting to have the best of both worlds- comics where Superman can punch Uber-Gianto Man-Bee on the jaw for full effect and at least a passing nod to reality where affecting big stuff is really really hard.

 

So perhaps it's best to go with Genre. If you're playing a game where the characters should be able to crack the earth with one shot- treat it one way. If not, treat it the other way. Until there is a official ruling on the subject.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

PS note - the whole issue of how organic versus inorganic BOD is reacted to is also important. There's a real dichotomy here, and what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander - for example, a person at 0 BOD, of course, does not have a human-sized hole in them!

 

Although there are some consistency issues here and from an ideal standpoint it should be resolved more elegantly, from a playability standpoint I don't have any serious issues with this. There is an implicit playability issue in that such inconsistencies force people to look at rulebooks on occassion, so the "ideal" is not simply an academic issue here, by the way.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

The problem isn't large objects. The problem isn't objects that can be approximated by a wall, or a box, or any other container. Nor is it complex, relatively squishy objects like characters. Etc, etc.

 

The problem is large, equi-dimensional (or close to) solids. The rules as published do not address or attempt to address the issue. It is in fact, notable in its absence.

 

The good news is that one can use logic to extrapolate from what has been written to correctly deal with the unaddressed issue of large, equi-dimensional, solids. That's one of the traits of a good system.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

To the Ki-rin, Champsguy debate, I don't have a feeling at this point as to which way is "really" correct to me, but I will say that it's just as logical to extrapolate from the existing object rules to the planetary level as it is to take other things into account. I don't think that it's at all clear that the rules for walls and objects breaks down when the object dimension aspect is spherical as opposed to a linear sort of construct. That being said, there's certainly room to argue against this, I am just saying that I don't think the system supports a categorical denial of such an approach, either.

 

Once again, I will point out that if we had a text book that explicated the axioms, rules, and mechanics underlying the toolkit, we could answer this question much more intelligently, even if there were still room for debate. Right now all we can do is make inferences from HERO 5th Edition and the corresponding Star HERO edition.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

The problem isn't large objects. The problem isn't objects that can be approximated by a wall, or a box, or any other container. Nor is it complex, relatively squishy objects like characters. Etc, etc.

 

The problem is large, equi-dimensional (or close to) solids. The rules as published do not address or attempt to address the issue. It is in fact, notable in its absence.

 

The good news is that one can use logic to extrapolate from what has been written to correctly deal with the unaddressed issue of large, equi-dimensional, solids. That's one of the traits of a good system.

Just to be clearer on my point above, yes, I agree one can use logic, but two sides of an argument can both be eminently "logical", logic does not dictate right and wrong per se. In fact it doesn't even rule out a blatantly illogical argument as "wrong", a lack of logic merely indicates that the reasoning by which the decision is arrived at is incorrect, not necessarily that the decision is incorrect.

[Fox1]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Okay' date=' but given how BODY damage actually affects a target, I don't think you can claim that each 1 BOD of damage inflicted is x2 mass affected. If that were the case, the damage rule would not be that 0 BOD = a human-sized hole and then the hole increases x2 for each -1 BOD.[/quote']

 

No it doesn't fully match the body. It indicates that the effect is actually much more powerful. Increasing the hole at x2 for each body isn't doubling the effect, it's squaring it (assuming a constant value across depth). Doubling it would have only knocked down an increasing line of hexes in the wall (which wouldn't make much sense if the wall was higher then 1 hex).

 

There likely consider it a case of the wall losing major support and gravity taking over from there.

 

 

Meanwhile kicking Dirt around is a pure linear event according to the rules with each additional point of body only gaining one hex each.

 

But I don't think the Designers were worried about matching x2 mass = 1 body in either rule. They were worried about genre and game balance. Genre because high strength characters should do such things with their strength just like they do in comics. And game balance because they haven't brought AoE to do those effects (in the case of the linear dirt example).

 

 

The point at hand however isn't about either case. It's about the effect of STR from a man-sized target on a man-sized target. Here the outcome is clear: +5 strength lifts twice as much, and does +1 body that is defined as damaging x2 mass.

 

For the case under consideration consisting of the MA vs. Brick debate, that should settle that.

 

Edit: Typos

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

But that's part of the point. A "wall" is noticably thinner in one dimension than the other two. Once this property is invalidated' date=' it's no longer a "wall".[/quote']

 

First, I disagree with your assertion that a "wall" must be thinner in one dimension. Now you're arguing semantics that have no relevance to the system.

 

Again, I've been in games where we've shot holes in walls that were as thick as the Earth. Ever blasted a Jupiter-sized hole in a Dyson Sphere? We have. There's absolutely zero support to show that the Earth should be any different.

 

Imagine you have a wall that's as thick as the Earth. It's also infinitely long. Now if my attack is powerful enough to blow an Earth-sized hole through that, then it's powerful enough to blow up the Earth. The only difference between the wall and the Earth is that there's more material in the wall that extends out from the targeted area. The wall is just like the Earth, only bigger.

 

With the sole exception of the screw-up in Star Hero 2nd ed, =ALL= HERO object breaking write-ups have been about a) small objects, or objects that are noticably thinner in one dimension.

 

No, they haven't. First of all, it's not a screw-up. Second, look at the Body table. As objects double in mass, they increase in Body by +1. There's NEVER any cut-off given for this. Sorry, Charlie.

 

Other than the aberrant SH 2nd ed reference, THERE IS NO OFFICIAL HERO GAMES WRITE UP ON BREAKING LARGE SCALE SIZED OBJECTS THAT ARE APPROXIMATELY EQUAL IN ALL DIMENSIONS. This is a serious reference citing. Pay attention please.

 

No, they never said "to blow up a really big ball, use this". They didn't have to. They've given rules for scaling, and that's enough. They never gave specific rules about buying attacks that were larger than 30 dice, either, but that doesn't mean the rules somehow magically change once you go above that. "Well, they didn't say that Energy Blast doesn't become 10 points per die once you get past 30 dice..." EB is 5 points per die, no matter how many freakin' dice you buy. Body is +1 per doubling, no matter how many doubles you have.

 

Everything I wrote was based on extrapolating the rules in a logically consistent way from the domain where there is official HERO canon to this problem which does =NOT= exist in any official HERO canon (other than the previously mentioned aberrant SH 2nd ed write up). My entire write up is based on reference citings and evidence.

 

No, it's not. You're out there in Ki-Rin land, or something. You haven't cited anything.

 

 

That's not a SFX, it's an immense Area Effect Advantage. Pay the AP for the power or don't get the attack. I refer you every write up on Area Attacks ever written.

 

What the hell are you talking about? I don't need an Area Effect attack to shoot a big object. I don't need to affect the whole thing at once. All I have to do to blast the object to bits is to do more Body than it has, or to do enough Body to blow an it-sized hole through it. End of story. Area Effect has nothing to do with it.

 

Show me where in the book it says I need Area Effect.

 

 

LOL! I just gave references to variant of every official edition of HERO ever made (I even have copies of the pre-production Samurai Hero), and _I'm_ unfamilar with HERO? That's simply delusional.

 

You're unfamiliar with Hero 5th, and you're unfamiliar with the new Star Hero version. I don't care how long you've been playing or if you've got Steve Peterson's jock strap under your pillow. You never gave any citation to any Hero product. There were no page numbers. You said "oh, yeah, I've got a bunch of junk and I'm right." So what? I've been on this board for years. I was heavily involved in the previous big debates about blowing up the Earth. Is that important? No. But it does mean that I know why they said the Earth has 86 Body. It's because I was there when they decided it, and I was there when they said why. And every time you speak on the subject, it's like waving a big red sign that says "Hey, I haven't read that book and I don't know what you're making reference to!"

 

 

A HERO system hex is a) a 2D construct,

 

No, it's not. I refer you to the Ultimate Brick.

 

and considerably bigger in sectional area than a 1 cm^3 volume, being 2 +METERS+ wide. I'm given the Earth 5.5 Body per cm^3. The rules say it take 2x body to "vaporize" (as in "reduce to -small- particles") an object.

 

Sorry, I started skimming once you started talking numbers. You weren't referencing anything in any Hero product, and were pulling numbers out of your ass. Granite has 19 Body per hex. The Ultimate Brick, pg 104. The highest Body per cubic hex is 25, which is had by substances such as titanium, nickel, and diamond. The Ultimate Brick, pgs 104-105. Mere dirt has 10 Body per hex. The Ultimate Brick, pg 104. You've given no Hero references for how you've determined the Body the Earth has, at all.

 

Once you are trying to "blow a hole" in something that is as big as the something, that's called "attacking the entire something", not blowing a hole in it.

 

Semantics. So if I were blowing an Earth-sized hole in a wall a billion miles long, and 20,000 miles thick, my attack would work? But now it doesn't, because you say so? Nuh-uh.

 

Now if you want to talk about what it would take system-wise to =drill= a hole through the earth and out the other side, that's a different discussion.

 

No, it's the same discussion. +1 Body doubles the diameter of the crater. Hero 5th, pg 304.

 

Knockback happens +to what is left+ after damage is dealt. If the object is too small/light/etc to absorb the majority of the Force, you have blow through (it breaks at the contact area) or it goes flying.

 

So what?

 

I got nailed by both hoofs of horse when I was 8 or 9. That blow sent me sailing the length and height of the barn I was in and left a bruise covering my entire chest. If got hit like that now, it would likely cave in my ribs and probably kill me on the spot. Why? Because I weighed ~25Kg then and I weigh ~100Kg now. I couldn't absorb the energy then and since it _must_ be conserved, it got translated into moving me rather than damaging me. Same story with an attack affecting a substantial percentage of the earth. A big enough meteor hit to destroy the earth's structure would have to be overkill since the first thing that would happen to the earth if it suffered an attack on that scale is that it would knocked from its orbit. Simple Mechanics and Conservation of Energy.

 

No. You're dead wrong. Don't give me a lecture about physics, because we're talking about a role playing game where people have heat vision, throw Kamehamehas because they feel like it, and turn to organic steel. I roll damage. Then I roll 2D6 for knockback. That's the way it works. A horse kicks for 6 or 7D6 of damage. He rolled low when he kicked you when you were a kid. Who cares. You're trying to use arguments that don't stem from the game system.

 

There's tons of support to show a) that the rules as written do not apply to large, equi-dimensional solids, that if you want to attack an entire area at once that you have to buy the Area Effect Ad at the appropriate level, and c) that object DEF takes into account the composition, shape (particularly thickness at the attack point), and size of the object you wish to break.

 

Tons of support? Oh wow, I didn't know that. In that case, I was wro... wait a minute. WHERE??? Give me a page number.

 

The right numbers system-wise indicate that "making an Earth sized hole in the Earth" requires an Area Effect attack of Earth Size that does at least 5.5 Body per cm^3 of the Earth.

 

Where are those numbers, besides your post? Give me a page cite.

 

That's at least 5.5*90= 495 Body after we overcome Earth's DEF. Since Supers are walking around with DEFs of 20+, and they are squisher, less spherical, more complex, and considerably smaller that the Earth,

 

I've fought the Midgard Serpent. It was neither smaller, nor squishier, than the Earth. Earth ain't all that damn tough. Nukes vaporize large sections of Earth. I've got characters who survive nukes.

 

Earth should get a DEF +at least+ as high as the highest DEF you are willing to hand out in your campaign (and probably higher since the Earth can damage said Max DEF character.)

 

No, actually, the Earth can't really damage some of our characters. Falling damage? Maybe the character will take a few Stun. Your entire line of reasoning here is not only flawed, but there's no evidence at all to support it. In fact, there's loads and loads of evidence directly against it. See the Ultimate Brick, pages 104-105 for a list of substances and their Def/Body.

 

Thus =based on reading the rules in a logically consistent manner=, you need an attack whose AP is based on attacking an area the size of Earth for 495 Body after overcoming it's DEF.

 

I see no evidence that such is needed.

 

Given the likely DEF, it would probably be more point efficient (see, I'm even helping you min-max the construction of this Monty Hall attack) to make this a Killing Atack and use Ads like Armor Piercing and Penetrating rather than just put more dice into the attack.

 

Killing Attack yes. It averages higher Body per die. Armor Piercing, no. We're trying to get as much Body as we can past the Earth's defenses. Even if you give it a Def of 40, Armor Piercing will only reduce the Def by 20. That's a +1/2 Advantage on an attack that you say needs to do 500+ Body. Just toss on about 6 more D6 of RKA and it's much, much, much more efficient.

 

Note the title: Munchkin King.

 

The Area Effect Ad will increase the costs by (+1 and +1/4 for each doubling of radius) and have to affect ~3,000,000 hexes. That's 21 or 22 doublings for a (+6.5) Ad to the AP cost.

 

I'd do it Megascaled if I were to do it that way. Much cheaper. But again, I disagree that I'd need it at all.

 

The final AP cost will be in the >= 100K range.

 

And yet, I did it for 500 Active Points my way.

[Warp9]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

The problem isn't large objects. The problem isn't objects that can be approximated by a wall, or a box, or any other container. Nor is it complex, relatively squishy objects like characters. Etc, etc.

Then would you agree that a 200d6 EB could destroy a planet sized monster?

 

And how about the following example: Imagine that Galactus put a wall around the the solar system, and imagine that this wall was as thick as the Earth. Would you agree that according to the rules, as written, a 200d6 EB would make a Planet sized whole in that wall?

[atlascott]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Ok, let me throw my hat into the ring. Let's define what we mean by "Blowing up the Earth."

 

An EB with no adders, may be assumed to have an active area of effect of less than a hex, without an area effect advantage. This makes sense, since a standard EB hits a charcater standing in a hex, but does affect the desk, the wall, the telephone in the hex, without the area effect advantage.

 

So, a naked energy blast of sufficient power could blow a hole in the Earth. That would RESULT in the destruction of the Earth, very likely. But the EB would not affect all of the earth equally and simultaneously. It would 'kill' the Earth, however.

 

If you wanted to affect the entire Earth simultaneously, you would have to buy an EB with an Area Effect advantage sufficient to cover the diameter of the Earth. Then, the EB would be affecting the Earth simultaneuously over the entire covered area of effect, and that would allow the EB to blast the entire sphere into smithereens.

 

Either is "Blowing Up The Earth," I guess, but the second description is more accurate described what I think of when someone says "Blow up the Earth."

 

The next issue is one of thickness or depth. Let's say Earth averaged has a BODY of 15. You cannot just assume that the entire thickness of the Earth is 15--it has many, many, many thickness layers. I dont have the books in front of me, but I am sure there MUST be some rules about how thick a material is in order to have 'x' BODY. Once you know this, you divide total thickness by this number, and multiply the result by the BODY for the material. You need to know the DEF as well. Roll your damage. Subtract 'layer one' defense and body. Subtract layer 2 DEF, the Body. Proceed until it becomes clear that you blew the sucker up, or stopped somewhere. That's how you do it.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

No it doesn't fully match the body. It indicates that the effect is actually much more powerful. Increasing the hole at x2 for each body isn't doubling the effect' date=' it's squaring it (assuming a constant value across depth). Doubling it would have only knocked down an increasing [b']line[/b] of hexes in the wall (which wouldn't make much sense if the wall was higher then 1 hex).

 

There likely consider it a case of the wall losing major support and gravity taking over from there.

 

 

Meanwhile kicking Dirt around is a pure linear event according to the rules with each additional point of body only gaining one hex each.

 

But I don't think the Designers were worried about matching x2 mass = 1 body in either rule. They were worried about genre and game balance. Genre because high strength characters should do such things with their strength just like they do in comics. And game balance because they haven't brought AoE to do those effects (in the case of the linear dirt example).

 

 

The point at hand however isn't about either case. It's about the effect of STR from a man-sized target on a man-sized target. Here the outcome is clear: +5 strength lifts twice as much, and does +1 body that is defined as damaging x2 mass.

 

For the case under consideration consisting of the MA vs. Brick debate, that should settle that.

 

Edit: Typos

I agree except for "It's about the effect of STR from a man-sized target on a man-sized target. Here the outcome is clear: +5 strength lifts twice as much, and does +1 body that is defined as damaging x2 mass."

 

How is it clear that +1 BOD is damaging x2 mass of a person?

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

As another tangent, I wonder what the effect of drilling even a small hole (say even only inches wide but very stable, not filling back in) all the way through the Earth, one end to the other, would be? And what would the effect of a large hole, say a mile wide, be?

 

I think even a small hole would create some serious issues, but I might be dead wrong. I'm pretty positive a mile-wide hole (setting aside the impact issue and just assuming it was done "safely") would create some serious issues.

[Fox1]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

I agree except for "It's about the effect of STR from a man-sized target on a man-sized target. Here the outcome is clear: +5 strength lifts twice as much, and does +1 body that is defined as damaging x2 mass."

 

How is it clear that +1 BOD is damaging x2 mass of a person?

 

Very to my mind given the quote from the rules. To assume otherwise is to go looking for justification for a different approach, much like someone who questions if that "no smoking sign" applies to that table over there too.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Very to my mind given the quote from the rules. To assume otherwise is to go looking for justification for a different approach' date=' much like someone who questions if that "no smoking sign" applies to that table over there too.[/quote']

The quote from the rules was in regard to the mass of an "object", in the section on objects, and it also indicated that BOD could be increased according to other conditions. Also, it was not stated in regard to inflicting damage - as you yourself indicated, the actual damage of +1 BOD (but only once we get past 0 BOD remaining) is not even a doubling.

[atlascott]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

"As objects double in mass, they increase in Body by +1."

 

This, if true, is a terrible rule.

 

Let's say we have a wall that take 15 body (between BODY and DEF) to destroy.

 

So now, lets double the wall's thickness. With one more BODY rolled, we go thru both walls? And on and on? Terrible.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

"As objects double in mass, they increase in Body by +1."

 

This, if true, is a terrible rule.

 

Let's say we have a wall that take 15 body (between BODY and DEF) to destroy.

 

So now, lets double the wall's thickness. With one more BODY rolled, we go thru both walls? And on and on? Terrible.

 

Going through walls takes +2 Body per doubling of thickness. Remember, Champions does not have a linear damage system. Each damage class is an exponential increase (how much of an exponential increase is a topic that you can see debated in this very thread).

[Trebuchet]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

As another tangent, I wonder what the effect of drilling even a small hole (say even only inches wide but very stable, not filling back in) all the way through the Earth, one end to the other, would be? And what would the effect of a large hole, say a mile wide, be?

 

I think even a small hole would create some serious issues, but I might be dead wrong. I'm pretty positive a mile-wide hole (setting aside the impact issue and just assuming it was done "safely") would create some serious issues.

The hole itself would have minimal (probably negligible) effect on the Earth as a whole. Since Earth has a core of molten rock, magma would quickly fill in and repair the damage. You'd probably have a couple big volcanoes at the two termini of the bore.

 

Of course, the effect on humans, plants and animals (and possibly weather patterns) might be catastrophic, at least near two the holes.

[Fox1]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

The quote from the rules was in regard to the mass of an "object"' date=' in the section on objects, and it also indicated that BOD could be increased according to other conditions..[/quote']

 

To allow for special conditions such as object with redundent systems to name but one example. We're not interested in special conditions, we're interested in a general rule.

 

And we have that general rule.

 

 

Also, it was not stated in regard to inflicting damage - as you yourself indicated, the actual damage of +1 BOD (but only once we get past 0 BOD remaining) is not even a doubling.

 

For Walls it much more than doubling, for dirt it's much less.

 

But again those rules are for affects on areas and thus beyond the scope of the question before us.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

The hole itself would have minimal (probably negligible) effect on the Earth as a whole. Since Earth has a core of molten rock, magma would quickly fill in and repair the damage. You'd probably have a couple big volcanoes at the two termini of the bore.

 

Of course, the effect on humans, plants and animals (and possibly weather patterns) might be catastrophic, at least near two the holes.

For this speculation, I am assuming that somehow the hole remains open "somehow" - which would mean the magma just keeps flowing out onto the surface! Oh, wait, you just said a big volcano, okay, yeah! Along the lines of what you indicate, massive eruptions have had major climatic effects - so what would be the ongoing climate changes from 2 volcanoes that simply never stop oozing is an interesting question. I think that would have serious consequences for "the Earth" speaking just as a hole, but I agree it wouldn't be prohibitive to the planet itself in that the planet would keep going. I'm sure even if somehow such a system would result in a complete greenhouse effect there'd be plenty of life forms that would continue to survive, just very different life forms.