Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

And it's a different matter entirely from the AoE debate.

You mean the AoE "debate"?

 

Sorry, sorry, still...

[lemming]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Ok. I'll acknowledge that Radius before 5th was Circular as described. We never played it that way since 1982 that I can remember. (Just looked up in 3rd and BBB)

 

However, Fifth edition is pretty clear. Most of the time it won't matter at all. I hardly ever have Agent teams doing human pyramids in combat. what they do on their off time, i don't want to know

[Ki-rin]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

A Trip Down Memory Lane:

 

I've pulled my 1984 copy of FH and my 1982-1988 copies of C1, C2, and C3 out of storage to get the exact wordings in each regarding AoE attacks and the various Ads associated with them.

 

I shit you not folks. We played AoE as a 2D construct while using miniatures and hex paper. I'm not trying to prevaricate by even a little, and we learned the game from people who were in AA and SP's campaigns.

 

OTOH, I had already been playing Runequest, DnD, and Arduin Grimore (Deodanths or Star Mages anyone?) for years at that point. God I feel old.

 

Things were more innocent then. No "min volume" rule. No "other obvious protections from the Rules Lawyers" rules or rules mods. *sigh*.

 

I'll post it all when I get it organized. It'll be long.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

I'll post it all when I get it organized. It'll be long.

Why bother? I don't see anyone debating prior editions here. What I see is everyone saying that as of 5th Edition, it's 3D, and you keep saying that it's not 3D in 5th Edition.

 

So why bother quoting from prior versions of the game? It's not going to help your "stand" in regards to the 5th Edition rules.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Sure, I can admit I was wrong about the prior editions.

[lemming]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Why bother? I don't see anyone debating prior editions here. What I see is everyone saying that as of 5th Edition' date=' it's 3D, and [b']you[/b] keep saying that it's not 3D in 5th Edition.

 

So why bother quoting from prior versions of the game? It's not going to help your "stand" in regards to the 5th Edition rules.

Actually I'm not even sure he's debating that the rule in 5th is 3D. I think at this point he's saying the 3D rule is broken in terms of AOE Radius when applying Increased Area.

 

I'm of the opinion it just doesn't matter if the increased area is spherical. Heck, it's how I've played it since the begining.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

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).

The point I was trying to make is that the each +5 AP= +(1d6)= +1 Body= 2x effect to the same amount of mass= the same amount of effect to 2x the mass is the cornerstone Game Balance Equation of HERO and has been since Day One in 1980 mumble.

 

Constructs that are more efficient than this are system abusive.

 

That means a "(+1/4)n for each 8x in mass" Ad is going to be system abusive.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Actually, I must admit, now that I think about it, I don't know that it ever came up before!!! I don't recall an AoE radius going off and someone insisting they hit a flying character, at least not in my older campaigns.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

The point I was trying to make is that the each +5 AP= +(1d6)= +1 Body= 2x effect to the same amount of mass= the same amount of effect to 2x the mass is the cornerstone Game Balance Equation of HERO and has been since Day One in 1980 mumble.

 

Constructs that are more efficient than this are system abusive.

 

That means a "(+1/4)n for each 8x in mass" Ad is going to be system abusive.

Okay, I see what you mean and in most part think you're right fundamentally, but bear in mind that 2x mass is not destroyed/damaged on human or vehicular objects. BOD damage can be very SFX-based. I think "2x effect" is a rather vague concept and doesn't precisely apply in damage, though I'm not dismissing it, either. The issue is that setting aside theoretical KE arguments it's difficult to assess that the scale of damage that occurs acts in the way doubling would act.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

The real "icky" with Breaking Objects is that DEF is a +very+ abstract concept, particularly when applied to living and/or animate objects. Our lives would've been much simpler if Objects had Passive and Active Defenses just like PC's do.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

The real "icky" with Breaking Objects is that DEF is a +very+ abstract concept' date=' particularly when applied to living and/or animate objects. Our lives would've been much simpler if Objects had Passive and Active Defenses just like PC's do.[/quote']

Interestingly, and perhaps you've seen it here, some have argued the reverse - that it would be better if everything (including characters) just had DEF.

 

Anyway, it's odd/interesting that the rules recommend that you can add to BOD for certain subsances instead of associating that with DEF.

[David Blue]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

If takes, on average, a 12d6 attack to one-punch an agent. The way for a 43 strength hero to do that is to haymaker. (This would be true whether you use a +4d6 modern haymaker, or the antique 1.5 x damage haymaker)

 

It seems to me like it would make sense if the base figured damage from a lifting capacity of 10 tons was enough to one-punch an agent without needing to buy any hand attack to go with it, and without using a haymaker. But honestly I can't see this as a problem.

 

If it is a problem, isn't it a problem with the toughness of normals? Maybe both the 43 strength brick and the 13 strength martial artist with the stick should be doing enough damage to drop an agent and keep him down?

 

If you want frailer agents, build frailer agents.

 

(I'm still firmly in the "strength ain't broken" camp.)

 

Or possibly think about making haymakers easier to do, now that they don't do as much damage for many characters as they used to?

 

Thanks to the guy (or girl) who suggested thinking of strength damage as just a figured extra to lifting capacity like any other. That was insightful. I will rep you when I find you again - but this thread is very cluttered with off-topic comments.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Steve Long says:

 

Originally posted by the Dark Overlord:

If a character expands the size of an Area Of Effect, the expansion takes place in all dimensions the AoE effects that can vary based on how the Area is defined by the rules, and/or any special rules for expansion listed under that form of the Advantage. For example, an Area Of Effect (Radius) expands in all three dimensions — it maintains its shape as a sphere — because the rules for Radius define it in all three dimensions by the variable of Active Points divided by 10. On the other hand, an Area Of Effect (Line) only doubles in length, width, or height (pick one) because that’s how the rules define that form of expansion as working.

 

I think that should settle it.

 

And for all the complaining about "oh, this is soooo effective and abusive", I have one word for you: Megascale. I can put a +1/4 Megascale advantage on my AE hex attack, and now it's a kilometer wide and a kilometer high.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

The Master Game Balance Equation of HERO is that

 

+5AP= +(1d6)= +1 Body= 2x the effect on the same amount of mass= that same effect on 2x the mass.

 

Always has been. Always will be. Or HERO breaks.

 

I'm not supporting or allowing =ANY= game effect that is more efficient or effective than this. Ever.

 

If the means that I agree with the "Old Gods" of MacDonald and Patterson et al and must disagree with the "New Gods" of Long et al, then So Be It.

 

I will make House Rules that respect the Master Game Balance Equation of HERO accordingly. If I'm told I'm not allowed to play HERO anymore, then someone else gets my money (Hello Steve Jackson) and HERO loses the financial support I've been giving them since the 1980's.

 

MegaScale is a different kind of fish and a decent way of dealing with certain problems IMHO. It's one of the Good New Ideas. Although I'm sure we're going to be struggling with making sure it stays game balanced in actual use for some time.

[Vondy]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

It depends how much strength you have, I guess.

 

More seriously, damage isn't the limit of strength's utility. While its one point of comparison, it doesn't take into account a character with high strength's lift and throw ability, their jumping ability, or the benefit to secondary characteristics strength provides. So, when you compare the cost, I'm of opinion, stregnth remains a better deal than hand-attack, damage being beside the point. Hand attacks don't allow you to throw cars or swing telephone poles and they can be taken away. What's more, in games where the real weapon limitation is enforced on many objects, superstrength won't be penalized, while a bo staff will be.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Actually' date=' I must admit, now that I think about it, [b']I don't know that it ever came up before!!![/b] I don't recall an AoE radius going off and someone insisting they hit a flying character, at least not in my older campaigns.

 

Funny...we've always counted "up" in radius effects. After all, to create a Fireball with the toolkit, you would use either Explosion or AoE. Only AoE keeps the damage constant, so a perfect replication requires that approach. If the AoE was flat, that wouldn't work. But we also work out range between characters at varying altitudes using trigonometry, so maybe our game has always thought more in three dimensions than the norm.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

The Master Game Balance Equation of HERO is that

 

+5AP= +(1d6)= +1 Body= 2x the effect on the same amount of mass= that same effect on 2x the mass.

 

Always has been. Always will be. Or HERO breaks.

 

I've played that AE was 3 dimensional for 10 years, and it's not broken.

 

"Hero breaks, Hero breaks". No, it doesn't. At all. You just want something to complain about because now the official ruling is against the way you've been doing it for so long.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

I've played that AE was 3 dimensional for 10 years, and it's not broken.

 

"Hero breaks, Hero breaks". No, it doesn't. At all. You just want something to complain about because now the official ruling is against the way you've been doing it for so long.

 

It's funny, isn't it, that the people who cry out a rule is, or would be, broken are so often the ones who have never played it that way, so have no experience to assess whether it does break the game. I think I'm guilty of that myself on occasion.

[Fox1]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

If it is a problem, isn't it a problem with the toughness of normals? Maybe both the 43 strength brick and the 13 strength martial artist with the stick should be doing enough damage to drop an agent and keep him down?

 

If you want frailer agents, build frailer agents.

 

Why in the world would someone want to completely rebuild agents and who knows what else and make their character write ups vastly non-standard (compared to published resources) to solve a problem that a easy change in a single table can do?

 

Same thing with the whole buy Hand-to-Hand DCs and other suggestions I've seen put forth.

 

A good general operating rule is to take the least complex path to correct a problem. Complex or restructured character builds is not the least complex path.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Funny...we've always counted "up" in radius effects. After all' date=' to create a Fireball with the toolkit, you would use either Explosion or AoE. Only AoE keeps the damage constant, so a perfect replication requires that approach. If the AoE was flat, that wouldn't work.[/quote']

 

Yeah, if it did come up I would have just assumed a spherical radius, I think, although tempered by SFX. For example, the Urban Druid (my first character) had various "urban weather" attacks including Smog (Darkness) and Acid Rain (NND EB). I never really thought of these as spherical so much as circular on one plane and extending up in a cone. Of course for that to work and not exceed the volume consumed by a sphere of the same radius as the circle, the assumption I always had was that it didn't extend up very far. But the thing is, as strange as it sounds, we had no aerial battles as such and only a small number of characters in the air, usually sniping from up there and staying a bit out of range of AoEs from the ground. In fact even my current group is pretty much like that. I guess it's just happenstance. Personally, btw, I've never run a flying character as a PC until one just starting up now in a PBEM - isn't that weird?

 

But we also work out range between characters at varying altitudes using trigonometry

 

 

, so maybe our game has always thought more in three dimensions than the norm.

 

No, I think a lot of people have 3D stuff, I think I'm more the exception.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Why in the world would someone want to completely rebuild agents and who knows what else and make their character write ups vastly non-standard (compared to published resources) to solve a problem that a easy change in a single table can do?

 

Same thing with the whole buy Hand-to-Hand DCs and other suggestions I've seen put forth.

 

A good general operating rule is to take the least complex path to correct a problem. Complex or restructured character builds is not the least complex path.

To be fair, a lot of us don't use the published material at all when it comes to characters and settings, other than as an "interesting reference". I'll tell you one thing, I sure as heck don't build to Steve Long's notion of weaker defenses. No disrespect to him, that's his game, and that's cool, and I have no objection to the subtle influence of that on HERO (it's an inevitable development, if I ran the company the tint would change as well). But that's not how I run. So to me it's actually easier just to adjust NPC levels.

 

Now, PERSONALLY, I think it's easier to adjust character power levels anyway in respect to genre and damage and other considerations. Where I have reused a published character I find scaling up and down to be no issue. Obviously, YMMV.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

It's funny' date=' isn't it, that the people who cry out a rule is, or would be, broken are so often the ones who have never played it that way, so have no experience to assess whether it does break the game. I think I'm guilty of that myself on occasion.[/quote']

I've certainly been guilty of thinking that something is really wrong or in and of itself broken and insisting on such unduly until finding out that it's me who was wrong.

 

I will say, though, that I really don't get into "this breaks HERO" mode. In fact, I've become much more liberal, even, on that front. I think you have to really do a lot of damage to break HERO. That opinion comes from reading all of the whacko interpretations ( ) on these boards and realizing that these people all have games they and their players regard as highly functional.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Oh wait, actually, I DID deal with 3 dimensions, and actually I always used to do it purely on SFX. I had forgotten our "dark energy" PC with his Darkness field, that did come up and it was spherical. This was under 3E/4E hybrid rules. And, yes, when in bases or such Urban Druid's attacks would usually fill the room, up to the ceiling. I just did on SFX alone.

 

The way it's supposed to be done, the true, honest way. :halo:

 

Seriously, though, I think people MUST - as Steve Long has wisely counselled and the one thing I really respect him for stressing throughout 5ER - absolutely be taking SFX into account HEAVILY. Now, I'm not saying to give something for nothing...not precisely, anyway. But a good conception, particularly in-genre, deserves in-game support "at the expense" of the rules to some reasonable degree. It's up to the GM to also balance things so the players feel equally valued.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Why in the world would someone want to completely rebuild agents and who knows what else and make their character write ups vastly non-standard (compared to published resources) to solve a problem that a easy change in a single table can do?

 

Same thing with the whole buy Hand-to-Hand DCs and other suggestions I've seen put forth.

 

A good general operating rule is to take the least complex path to correct a problem. Complex or restructured character builds is not the least complex path.

 

Some might say changing the system is more complex than changing the writups under the syatem in one game. Those published resources presumably also assume a character with the sample 43 SR can lift objects in accordance with the tables in FReD, so some adjustments may need to be made there as well. If that character's standard tactic is, say, to throw an automobile (and maybe he has this as a Brick Trick power), and the modified table says the best he can do is stagger a few steps after lifting an auto, character modification is still required.

 

For that matter, a 20 STR flyer who commonly carries two teammates into battle will probably need adjustment if the table doubles carrying every 10 STR - now he can only lift 200 kg and stagger a few steps - hardly a character who can fly two teamates into battle!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Oh wait' date=' actually, I DID deal with 3 dimensions, and actually I always used to do it purely on SFX. [/quote']

 

Just by the way, "range modifier by trigonometry" isn't as math-intensive as it sounds. It just means if my target is 4" away and 3: up, I'm 5" away. Any calculator with a square root function can handle it very easily.