Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

[atlascott]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

My god you're a jackass. .

 

 

Hey, its one thing to tell the guy he's wrong. Its another to call him names. Take it down a notch.

 

No one is saying that you need to attack the earth from every angle simultaneously. You just gotta do enough to penetrate it.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

If your brick punches someone in the face' date=' do their kneecaps get bruised?[/quote']

 

If I hit them for 100 dice, they sure as hell do.

 

If the answer is no, then, a non-area-affect power only affects a small area where it is applied.

 

It hits what the rules say it hits.

 

If you energy blast someone in a hex, do you also energy blast everything else in the hex?

 

Same thing--since it is not area affect, it only hits your target.

 

My target here IS the hex. If I shoot a car, the car takes damage. I don't care how big it is.

 

If you energy blast a car's gas tank, and it explodes, does the whole car become non-functional, or just the gas tank?

 

It depends how much Body I do.

 

The whole car because it is an explosion. that ends up affecting the whole car. Your energy blast didnt hit every square inch of the car.

 

I did more Body than the car had. That's all that matters.

 

If your brick punches a normal surrounded by a group of super villans, and you do +8 Body beyong what you need to take the normal to -10 BODY, do you hit all the surrounding supervillans too?

 

Nope. The rules don't state that extra Body lets me hit additional targets. The rules do state that extra Body increases the size of the hole.

 

If you shoot your energy blast at a wall and exceed it's BODY and DEF by +4 BODY, do you cause damage to some guy standing 10' away, leaning up against the wall?

 

It all depends on where he's standing and how I'm aiming. If I'm shooting at him, yes I do. If I'm just shooting at the wall, he just falls down.

 

Can you just shoot your non AE energy blast at the ground where the supervillans are standing, and roll enough body so that it creates a 5" hole that swallows all the villans? If they are standing there, right wherer the EB is affecting the ground they are standing on, shouldnt they take the EB damage too?

 

Yes, I can blow a hole in the ground and they'll fall. They don't get hit by the EB because I didn't target them. Really, this is all in the rules. It's not hard.

 

Under the rules, some of these silly effects may apply. Yuk.

 

You don't like some of that. I understand. I don't like that they don't allow stats in an EC to give you figured characteristics anymore. We may not like things about the rules, we may choose to ignore them, but that doesn't mean they aren't the rules.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

There's no such thing as a Hero "bible". You're making crap up.

My apologies for attempting humor on the evidently humor-impaired. The HERO "bible" (Note the quotes J@ck @ss) is of course the official rules and system book(s). And the analogy to The Bible is particularly appropriate for you since you evidently can't to do anything but read it literally with no regard for logic, nuance, or vocabulary.

 

My god you're a jackass. You ARE the guy who was on here before.

Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong again. I've been very polite up until now despite your foaming at the mouth.

 

I'm quoting directly from the book now. Listen and know how wrong you are.

 

"The area is 1" in radius in all three dimensions for every 10 character points in the Power not counting the Area of Effect Advantage.

 

A 1" radius is thus one hex, a 2" radius has a 7-hex "footprint", a 3" radius has a 19-hex footprint, and so on. An Area of Effect (Radius) is spherical, reaching "up" and "down" in addition to the four cardinal directions.

 

Area of Effect (Radius) is a +1 Advantage; you can double the radius for an additional +1/4 Advantage."

The first cited sentence defines the minimum space affected by the power. This is a volume.

 

The second and third continues that definition.

 

The last sentence does NOT imply that 2x the radius increases the height of the effect in any way.

 

In fact, the use of the word "area" rather than "volume" strongly suggests otherwise.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

In fact' date=' the use of the word "area" rather than "volume" strongly suggests otherwise.[/quote']

An Area of Effect (Radius) is spherical, reaching "up" and "down" in addition to the four cardinal directions.

The last time I checked, a sphere was 3 dimensional and occupied volume.

 

As for your love of term "strongly suggests", I've got one for you: the "phrase 'up' and 'down' in addition to the 4 cardinal directions" strongly suggests 3 dimensions, and 3 dimensions make it a volume.

 

Unless of course you'd like to point out now how that passage doesn't actually exist, or argue what the meanings of "up", "down", and "cardinal" are.

 

Or what the meaning of the word "is", is.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

pardon the error on the sentence count. It's the last sentence (the fourth) that defines the cost and game mechanic for increasing area effect.

 

That's the one that implies that the (+1/4) Ad does NOT result in a 3D, but rather only in 2D increase in radius.

 

I've edited that post and made the appropriate correction.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

pardon the error on the sentence count. It's the last sentence (the fourth) that defines the cost for and game mechanic for increasing area effect. I;ve edited my post and made the correction.

 

That's the one that implies that the (+1/4) Ad does NOT result in a 3D, but rather only in 2D.

I still don't see how you can come to that conclusion. This sentence

 

Area of Effect (Radius) is spherical

 

is the defining bit. A sphere has a radius that's the same in all 3 dimensions. If you increase the radius, the sphere gets bigger in all 3 dimensions.

 

The 4th sentence tells you how to modify the radius; it does not tell you to stop treating it as a sphere.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

My apologies for attempting humor on the evidently humor-impaired. The HERO "bible" (Note the quotes J@ck @ss) is of course the official rules and system book(s). And the analogy to The Bible is particularly appropriate for you since you evidently can't to do anything but read it literally with no regard for logic, nuance, or vocabulary.

 

Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong again. I've been very polite up until now despite your foaming at the mouth.

 

You've been condescending and arrogant, and you've tried to play it off that you've been polite. You've avoided questions and posted as if your word were divine, and as if we were childish fools for even daring to question it.

 

The first cited sentence defines the minimum space affected by the power. This is a volume.

 

The second and third continues that definition.

 

The fourth sentence does NOT imply that 2x the radius increases the height of the effect in any way.

 

In fact, the use of the word "area" rather than "volume" strongly suggests otherwise.

 

No, the fourth says that the radius is doubled. The third defines that the radius is spherical, reaching up and down. If you only increased the footprint, without increasing the height, it would no longer be spherical, thus invalidating the third sentence.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Oh, and in case there's any doubt that "spherical" means a sphere, or that a sphere's radius is the same length in all 3 dimensions:

 

 

 

spher·i·cal adj.

 

1. Having the shape of a sphere

 

 

sphere n.

 

1. A three-dimensional surface, all points of which are equidistant from a fixed point.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

You've been condescending and arrogant, and you've tried to play it off that you've been polite. You've avoided questions and posted as if your word were divine, and as if we were childish fools for even daring to question it.

On The Contrary, I've tried to be polite and logical while disagreeing with you. If you read that as "condescending and arrogant", that's YOUR problem, not mine. As is your personal attacks and sewage mouth. Back to Solving The Problem...

 

No, the fourth (sentence) says that the radius is doubled. The third defines that the radius is spherical, reaching up and down. If you only increased the footprint, without increasing the height, it would no longer be spherical, thus invalidating the third sentence.

What shape the AoE has after the Ad is applied is unrelated to what shape the AoE originally was. In addition, 2x r in 3D is a _volume_ change. 2x r in 2D is an _area_ change. The Ad clearly calls itself "Area Effect". Finally, the Ad would be too cheap at (+1/4) per 2r if it was 3D rather than 2D.

 

The AoE Ad starts off occupying a minimum volume to avoid 2D Rules Lawyering, not because the authors got the definitions of "area" and "volume" incorrect.

 

My best read on this is that the Area starts off as a sphere and becomes a cylinder as we apply the (+1/4) Ad. YMMV.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

On The Contrary' date=' I've tried to be polite and logical while disagreeing with you. If you read that as "condescending and arrogant", that's YOUR problem, not mine. As is your personal attacks and sewage mouth. Back to Solving The Problem...[/quote']

 

I'm not the only one who's read you this way.

 

What shape the AoE has after the Ad is applied is unrelated to what shape the AoE originally was. In addition, 2x r in 3D is a _volume_ change. 2x r in 2D is an _area_ change. The Ad clearly calls itself "Area Effect". Finally, the Ad would be too cheap at (+1/4) per 2r if it was 3D rather than 2D.

 

The AoE Ad starts off occupying a minimum volume to avoid 2D Rules Lawyering, not because the authors got the definitions of "area" and "volume" incorrect.

 

My best read on this is that the Area starts off as a sphere and becomes a cylinder as we apply the (+1/4) Ad. YMMV.

 

My mileage does vary. Area Effect has always been called "Area Effect". Before 5th edition, there was no mention of it being 3 dimensional. Then a guy came on this board and argued exactly the same thing you're arguing now. He used the exact same arguments, and the exact same logic. I believe that you are that same individual.

 

After THAT argument, the text about AE being 3 dimensional was included to prevent this from ever being a problem again. And it worked, until now.

 

You can read it however you want, and make whatever assumptions you want. But AE is not 2 dimensional.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

For The Love of God, I have +NEVER+ said the original AoE was 2D. I helped kill that piece of Rules Abuse in my local games a LONG time ago when Champions was still distributed in a softcover book... By the time 4th ed came out, it was a non issue in my area because we had all adopted the "minimum volume" rule.

 

That has =NOTHING= to do with what happens to that original volume once we start applying shape changing Ads to it.

 

Game balance and logical consistency, as well as little things like English Definitions, mean that a (+1/4) Ad called "Area blah" that 8x _volume_ is GROSS and Rules Abuse.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

What shape the AoE has after the Ad is applied is unrelated to what shape the AoE originally was. In addition' date=' 2x r in 3D is a _volume_ change. 2x r in 2D is an _area_ change. The Ad clearly calls itself "Area Effect". Finally, the Ad would be too cheap at (+1/4) per 2r if it was 3D rather than 2D.[/quote']

So...your position is that if you buy the "basic" AoE it's one shape, but if you buy the expanded version it's another, even though the text doesn't tell you to change the shape?

 

Or that since one line defines the term Area of Effect as being spherical, and the next line, which uses that term, and doesn't re-define it, somehow changes the definition of the term (without actually doing so) in order to make the expanded version of Area of Effect something other than a sphere?

 

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

That has =NOTHING= to do with what happens to that original volume once we start applying shape changing Ads to it.

An Area of Effect (Radius) is spherical' date=' [u']reaching "up" and "down" in addition to the four cardinal directions[/u].

(Emphasis mine.)

Game balance and logical consistency' date=' as well as little things like [u']English Definitions[/u],

(Emphasis mine.)

spher·i·cal adj.

 

1. Having the shape of a sphere

 

 

sphere n.

 

1. A three-dimensional surface, all points of which are equidistant from a fixed point.

You were saying...?

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

I don't know how much clearer 5ER can be.

 

"An Area of Effect (Radius) is spherical, reaching "up" and "down" in addition to the four cardinal directions. ...A character can double the radius..."

 

The center hex is where the radius (not diameter, either) begins from. It counts out in ALL DIRECTIONS. Or if you want to be hyper-literal but nonsensical, it goes up, down, north, south, east, and west. I suppose you could say that somehow it's pinched inbetween those, but that doesn't compute.

 

So let's say this by example...a 32 hex radius would go 32 hexes EVERY DIRECTION from the center hex. The AoE goes off throughout that entire area, centered on a hex, and EVERY hex that is up to 32 hexes away from the center is affected. No matter what direction. As long as it's 32 hexes away, it will be affected. Period.

 

Ki-rin, are you saying this is not how the radius works?

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Ki-rin' date=' are you saying this is not how the radius works?[/quote']You got it. Pretty loudly, too. Well, I just posted the question for Steve to look at, and asked him straight up: When you purchase increased radius for Area of Effect (Radius), does it double the radius in all three dimensions? In other words, does AoE (Radius) remain spherical even if you purchase increased radius for +1/4?

 

I'm pretty sure I know what he's going to say, but I figured the only way to "settle" this in the mind of "some people" might be to have it straight from the game designer's own mouth...

[lemming]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Seems clear to me. +1/4 doubles the measurement of the Area effect.

 

This does make a AOE Radius expand more in volume than a AOE Hexes. If this bugs you, in your game charge +1/2 for increased area on Radius.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

So...your position is that if you buy the "basic" AoE it's one shape' date=' but if you buy the expanded version it's another, even though the text [u']doesn't tell you[/u] to change the shape?

My position is that AoE is essentially 2D and that the "minimum volume" rule was created specifically to deal with a Rules Abuse issue (I think my first run-in was when some Rules Lawyer wanted to define their attack as extra lethal given the "mono-filament" like SFX of AoE. My second run-in was another FRL claiming how easy it was to avoid a 2D SFX AoE. We adopted a minimum volume rule post haste and spread it to every local GM we knew by email.)

 

Now I'm seeing the _opposite_ kind of Rules Abuse. And once again, AoE is being made more efficient/effective than its point cost should allow.

 

One of the cornerstones of HERO is that "2x mass is +1 Body" rule. It's implications are =everywhere=. Any construction that is more efficient breaks HERO and is Rules Abuse.

 

The 2x r in 2D Ad for (+1/4) has been around since the 1980's. Making it a 2x r in 3D Ad for (+1/4) is Game Unbalancing and therefore Rules Abuse.

 

As I've said, I'd have no problem with there being a "Volume Effect (Radius)" where 2x r in 3D cost (+1/2).

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

As I've said' date=' I'd have no problem with there being a "Volume Effect (Radius)" where 2x r in 3D cost (+1/2).[/quote']

Then you need to acknowledge that as a house rule, because that's not what the official game rules say, no matter how much you might like to believe otherwise.

[lemming]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

That's a new one for Rules Abuse. Then again, I don't think we ever thought of AOE's being 2D unless limited that way.

 

So you're complaining about a "Rules Abuse" that has been around since the 80s? ok. Hasn't been a problem I've encountered in 20 years.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

One More Time.

 

The "min volume" rule for AoE was adopted because of Rules Abuse. AoE was originally and has always been a 2D construct with the sole exception of the "min volume" rule.

 

The only "house rule" was "min volume".

 

Evidently history repeated itself around here and then the pendulum kept swinging past "correction" and into a different kind of Rules Abuse.

 

The in general 2D nature of AoE was Official going back as far as the 1980's. Back then, I would have killed to be able to use a (+1/4)n Ad to repeatedly 8x the volume or mass affected of my wizard's AoE attacks. Thank God no such temptation existed.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Here's the thread. Some guy named "Lukeal" was making these very same arguments. They weren't convincing then, and they aren't convincing now.

 

http://www.herogames.com/oldForum/Rules/000172.html

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

One More Time.

 

The "min volume" rule for AoE was adopted because of Rules Abuse. AoE was originally and has always been a 2D construct with the sole exception of the "min volume" rule.

 

The only "house rule" was "min volume".

 

Evidently history repeated itself around here and then the pendulum kept swinging past "correction" and into a different kind of Rules Abuse.

 

The in general 2D nature of AoE was Official going back as far as the 1980's. Back then, I would have killed to be able to use a (+1/4)n Ad to repeatedly 8x the volume of my wizard's AoE attacks. Thank God no such temptation existed.

 

You talk and talk, and we point out what the book says. Then you talk and talk some more, and we point out what the book says. It never ends with you.

 

Talk all you want about what you were doing in the 80s. You've been playing it wrong for 20 years, and seem very reluctant to change. Fine. Do it your way. But Steve Long will respond to Dr Anomaly's question tomorrow, and we'll have the official answer. Will that finally convince you of the error of your ways? I don't believe it will.

 

I can still blow up the planet with a 100D6 Energy Blast that I haymaker. I don't even have to buy Area of Effect.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

One More Time.

 

The "min volume" rule for AoE was adopted because of Rules Abuse. AoE was originally and has always been a 2D construct with the sole exception of the "min volume" rule.

 

The only "house rule" was "min volume".

 

Evidently history repeated itself around here and then the pendulum kept swinging past "correction" and into a different kind of Rules Abuse.

 

The in general 2D nature of AoE was Official going back as far as the 1980's. Back then, I would have killed to be able to use a (+1/4)n Ad to repeatedly 8x the volume of my wizard's AoE attacks. Thank God no such temptation existed.

Okay, no offense, but the way you guys played it is just plain aberrant. It just is. That doesn't mean it's wrong...for YOU. But it is both entirely atypical and not what the rules intended.

 

Heck, I know a couple people who've gamed with the original designers and your "2d" interpretation has NEVER come up (not for radius).

 

As to +1 BOD = x2 Mass being a "cornerstone", I think that's a bit extreme. The rules themselves allow this to be altered for certain circumstances, though I FULLY grant they indicate that as an ADDITION. But the major reason I think you're exaggerating is this rule is cited for OBJECTS and NOT: characters, vehicles, machinery... You get the idea. BOD is as much subject to SFX as any other element of HERO. And for better and worse the meaning of BOD itself is a bit loose, as discussed in other threads (life force, sustainability, mass, etc. all come into play).

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

(snip)

 

I can still blow up the planet with a 100D6 Energy Blast that I haymaker. I don't even have to buy Area of Effect.

 

Still, I'm not sure I agree with this particular contention.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Still' date=' I'm not sure I agree with this particular contention. [/quote']And it's a different matter entirely from the AoE debate.