Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

[Fox1]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

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.

 

I'm actually in the same boat as you here. I build characters signficiantly different from the published sources.

 

But this goes beyond that.

 

It goes into complex character builds (buying HA + STR, breaking the STR/Damage relationship plus being more complex) or redefining the concept of the average-man and the human range (something I don't) and thus moving the starting line of the system.

 

Both these methods are more difficult than redoing the STR lift progession.

 

Unlike using lower speed/higher attacks differences from Long as you and I do, things you can look at a sheet and tell- you actually have to explain major concept differences to people before they can even understand what your numbers mean now.

 

Weird

[Ki-rin]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Don't know who you folks have or have had for PC's or fellow players, but IME players will always push the limits of what is allowed by the rules system until the GM lets them know where the line they can't cross is.

 

If AoE is a volume that can be 8x for every (+1/4) spent, players =WILL= start taking advantage of that 3D nature in ways that are counter-intuitive genre and system-wise and examples of Rules Abuse:

 

PC: "Since AoE is a perfect sphere, I'll buy an N-Ray Vision power with enough AoE (Radius) that I can have perfect visual information on everything above, at, or under sea level for a [insert ridiculous sized volume: city, miles,] region."

Bye bye surprise and initiative rolls. Bye bye most plot devices of the GM.

...And that's not even an example AoE Rules Abuse with a _destructive_ power.

 

PC: "Damn. I tripped the silent alarm and the Black Regiment is fully deployed in the Land, Sea, and Air (maybe even underground as well) around me? Good thing I bought this Flash AoE in a large enough sphere I can blind all of them in the entire volume at once. Mr GM, after I escape what's the next closest city whose economy/resources/etc I can destroy?"

...and again, I'm not even Abusing a damage causing attack.

 

PC: "Damn. That +entire+ superteam is attacking me? Some Fly, some Run, and some are even Tunneling? Good thing they are all in a [insert tactical volume that makes GM wince] hex sphere. This one AoE may not take them all down, but it'll at least serously damage the "soft" targets, and if I mess things up enough for them, I'll never have to worry about any Coordinated Attacks..."

 

...and on and on it will go.

[zornwil]

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.

 

The real question is, how does an increase in volume in AoE Radius and Cone really break the fundamentals of HERO? Many others have stated they've played this way for years. There seems to be no report of problems. Now, I'm NOT suggesting that you should therefore accept this in your game, nor, by any means, am I suggesting that you shouldn't express your opinion that it's a bad thing. But I am saying, how does the game itself break? We already are well aware that there is limited granularity in Advantages and Limitations as well as powers themselves, such that a +1/2 Advantage does not really equal another +1/2, it's just roughly equivalent, and may even need to be revalued according to campaign circumstances.

 

And in addition, there is no 2x mass rule with BOD for non-objects. For organic or complex objects the relationship is tenuous - at best. Since this applies only to inorganic noncomplex objects, yes, it's important, but it's not fundamental in the same manner as, say the scalability of +x Base Points = +y Dice of Effect and +w AP = +w DC.

 

In any event, Line has always been a lesser area in hexes than Radius yet they're costed the same; also true with Cone and other AoE constructs. The trade-offs in the various AoE methods have a lot more to do with non-quantifiable advantage than they do a mathematical construct.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Don't know who you folks have or have had for PC's or fellow players' date=' but IME players will always push the limits of what is allowed by the rules system until the GM lets them know where the line they can't cross is.[/quote']

 

Okay, frankly, that's a problem right there, to osme of us. Why are the players treating this like a wargame? It's not. It's an RPG. I have very little respect for a player with no self-restraint. Even my player who is most forthright about pushing the limits in some respects has voluntarily pulled back his own power level because he felt it wasn't game-conducive/fair. And that is the kind of person I expect to play with. And to this point, 95% of the people I've played with over the last 20 years have been reasonably responsible in this regard. I'm not saying we haven't pushed the rules to the limit or people haven't come up with over-the-line constructs, but the emphasis has always been what it should be in RPGs - how consistent is a character and the concept, regardless of rules.

 

If AoE is a volume that can be 8x for every (+1/4) spent, players =WILL= start taking advantage of that 3D nature in ways that are counter-intuitive genre and system-wise and examples of Rules Abuse:

 

Um, no. Played for 20+ years. Hasn't happened.

 

PC: "Since AoE is a perfect sphere, I'll buy an N-Ray Vision power with enough AoE (Radius) that I can have perfect visual information on everything above, at, or under sea level for a [insert ridiculous sized volume: city, miles,] region."

Bye bye surprise and initiative rolls. Bye bye most plot devices of the GM.

...And that's not even an example AoE Rules Abuse with a _destructive_ power.

 

So don't play with that person. Seriously.

 

All that being said, I see where you're coming from now. If you guys want to deal with that, be my guest. BUT DO NOT EXPECT THE RULES SYTEM, PARTICULARLY HERO, TO COMPENSATE FOR THIS APPROACH!!!!! I say "particularly HERO", because HERO is and always has been rife with abuse potential, and it has to be, because it is a general toolkit meant to allow you to construct almost anything you want. As such, there's no way it can balance in points against every potential abuse.

 

Rest snipped.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

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.

 

I'm actually in the same boat as you here. I build characters signficiantly different from the published sources.

 

But this goes beyond that.

 

It goes into complex character builds (buying HA + STR, breaking the STR/Damage relationship plus being more complex) or redefining the concept of the average-man and the human range (something I don't) and thus moving the starting line of the system.

 

Both these methods are more difficult than redoing the STR lift progession.

 

Unlike using lower speed/higher attacks differences from Long as you and I do, things you can look at a sheet and tell- you actually have to explain major concept differences to people before they can even understand what your numbers mean now.

 

Weird

I think I see what you're saying, but I don't really agree as to the nature of the issue. But I can agree to disagree.

[sbarron]

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

Reading through this old thread, I found myself chiming in with same opinion I have now. Weird! And 5th Edition did provide the clarification I hoped for. My prayers were answered!

 

Yes Lukeal, it does say circular. But the power is actually called "Area Effect (Radius)," which implies 3D. It also says "AE (Cone)," and a cone is 3D. Then it says "AE (Line)," which is 2D.

The rules are not really that confusing. They say you can buy these two as 3D, this one as 2D. That's what everyone has been doing. You are reading into the rules. It does not say "AE (Plane)."

 

Not that I totally disagree with your aurgument, because the rules are poorly written. Hopefully we can get something a little clearer in the 5th Edition.

 

I once built a character called Napalm, his attack was a fire blast like the naplam dropped from jets. I bought it as AE (Line), and definately thought that the attack was in 3D. But if I shot a lightning bolt as AE (Line), I would have thought of that as 1 hex high. Like I said, clarification would be nice.

[Warp9]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

STR damage for punches doesn't make much sense anyway: damage is a function of momentum, so it is more a matter of how fast you can move your fist not how strong you are (although that does play a part).

Acceleration = Force / Mass.

 

If you assume that STR is related to the amount of Force a character is working with, then it makes sense that a character with more STR would be likely to hit "faster."

 

 

 

http://www.cat.cc.md.us/~dhargrov/ppplc/BIOL107LC/Skeletalmuscle/tsld013.htm

 

Types of fibers

• Slow twitch vs. fast twitch
  
• slow twitch: endurance, long duration contraction, contain myoglobin; jogging, biking, swimming
  
• fast twitch: strength, white muscle, short duration contraction: sprinting, weight lifting, tennis
  

You'll note that STR is necessary both for sprinting and weightlifting.

 

Obviously the same sort of muscle development that lets one get the explosive power necessary to lift a great deal of weight quickly, would allow you to sprint quickly.

 

Now in real life, a weight-lifter will have probably developed different areas of his body than the sprinter. But in terms of a general increase in STR (as opposed to increasing the strength of a given body part), you'd lift more and have more speed.

[Warp9]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

If your brick punches someone in the face, do their kneecaps get bruised?

If you hit somebody with the force of 1000 Supernovas (Supernovi ?), I'd say that you'd dinintegrate their entire body.

 

I am assuming that damage increases at an exponential rate.

 

A person with 1000 STR (200d6), who would have enough force in his little finger to move whole galaxies, and could flex his bicepts with more power than all the energy released a supernova. That is why such a character would "fully destroy" the Earth in one hit. And that is why such a character could make a planet sized hole in a Dyson sphere with one hit.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Don't know who you folks have or have had for PC's or fellow players, but IME players will always push the limits of what is allowed by the rules system until the GM lets them know where the line they can't cross is.

 

If AoE is a volume that can be 8x for every (+1/4) spent, players =WILL= start taking advantage of that 3D nature in ways that are counter-intuitive genre and system-wise and examples of Rules Abuse:

 

PC: "Since AoE is a perfect sphere, I'll buy an N-Ray Vision power with enough AoE (Radius) that I can have perfect visual information on everything above, at, or under sea level for a [insert ridiculous sized volume: city, miles,] region."

Bye bye surprise and initiative rolls. Bye bye most plot devices of the GM.

...And that's not even an example AoE Rules Abuse with a _destructive_ power.

 

No way. Buy 360 degree vision on your N-Ray. That's the appropriate power.

 

PC: "Damn. I tripped the silent alarm and the Black Regiment is fully deployed in the Land, Sea, and Air (maybe even underground as well) around me? Good thing I bought this Flash AoE in a large enough sphere I can blind all of them in the entire volume at once. Mr GM, after I escape what's the next closest city whose economy/resources/etc I can destroy?"

...and again, I'm not even Abusing a damage causing attack.

 

Oh, boo-hoo. If your "Black Regiment" can be blinded by a guy with a 3D6 Flash attack, or however large it is after he bought Area Effect on it, then you need to give them Flash Defense. I'm not feeling sympathy here. They don't have any other senses? And he needs to buy it indirect to hit people underground.

 

PC: "Damn. That +entire+ superteam is attacking me? Some Fly, some Run, and some are even Tunneling? Good thing they are all in a [insert tactical volume that makes GM wince] hex sphere. This one AoE may not take them all down, but it'll at least serously damage the "soft" targets, and if I mess things up enough for them, I'll never have to worry about any Coordinated Attacks..."

 

Which superteam is attacking them? The Legion of Flying Super-Pu$$ies? You're talking about a minimum of a +1 Advantage to have Area Effect: Radius, which means that you're attacking with half the dice of a regular attack. "Oh, behold my 6D6 EB fury!" Then you've got to consider that you're increasing the size of the Advantage to increase the Radius, so your dice damage drops even lower!

 

Just because your villains apparently suck balls is no reason to make the rules of the game suck too.

 

...and on and on it will go.

 

Yeah, whatever. These examples are so freakin' pathetic that it's not even funny. Go home and bring back some real examples.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Man, that was brutal!

[Warp9]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Don't know who you folks have or have had for PC's or fellow players, but IME players will always push the limits of what is allowed by the rules system until the GM lets them know where the line they can't cross is.

 

If AoE is a volume that can be 8x for every (+1/4) spent, players =WILL= start taking advantage of that 3D nature in ways that are counter-intuitive genre and system-wise and examples of Rules Abuse:

I've always thought that AreaEffect:Radius is 3D, otherwise how would HERO do a FireBall spell?

 

PC: "Since AoE is a perfect sphere, I'll buy an N-Ray Vision power with enough AoE (Radius) that I can have perfect visual information on everything above, at, or under sea level for a [insert ridiculous sized volume: city, miles,] region."

Bye bye surprise and initiative rolls. Bye bye most plot devices of the GM.

...And that's not even an example AoE Rules Abuse with a _destructive_ power.

There is this exact power which exists in GURPS (at least in 3rd Ed GURPS)--I've had a character with it. I think it was called Sphere of Perception.

 

The character has perfect visual information on everything above, at, or under sea level for a region, and it makes it very clear that the character can even see inside objects. But there is a -1 to the character's perception Roll for each 100 miles away from the center.

 

That same character also had line-of-sight based Psychokinesis--my character rocked!

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Well, I see Champsguy beat me to posting Steve's answer to my question.

 

And I see that, as I guessed, Ki-rin is still in denial. He's just changed his tune from "increasing the radius makes it 2D, and the book says so" (even though it doesn't) to "Well, even if it is supposed to be 3D, that's broken!"

 

Can't say I'm at all surprised...

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

I've always thought that AreaEffect:Radius is 3D, otherwise how would HERO do a FireBall spell?

 

 

There is this exact power which exists in GURPS (at least in 3rd Ed GURPS)--I've had a character with it. I think it was called Sphere of Perception.

 

The character has perfect visual information on everything above, at, or under sea level for a region, and it makes it very clear that the character can even see inside objects. But there is a -1 to the character's perception Roll for each 100 miles away from the center.

 

That same character also had line-of-sight based Psychokinesis--my character rocked!

Obviously, you must be stopped!

[Ki-rin]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

95% of the people I've played with over the last 20 years have been reasonably responsible in this regard. I'm not saying we haven't pushed the rules to the limit or people haven't come up with over-the-line constructs, but the emphasis has always been what it should be in RPGs - how consistent is a character and the concept, regardless of rules.

Same IME. OTOH, the quest to be effective/efficient +is+ part of the game, the genre, and the Meta-genre (RPGs). And Life.

 

A decent acid test as to whether something is game imbalancing is if its existence would fundamentally change the "Rock, Paper, Scissors" balance of the game. AoE being 8x for every (+1/4) spent means that it becomes a "must have" combat advantage. All combat strategy and combat tactics will revolve around it being the Premier Combat Power if such effects are used "properly" by this ruling. -That- means HERO gets broken.

 

When Rules Abuse takes place, a GM can and should rightfully curb it. OTOH, a system that is constantly requiring GM intervention for doing things that are well within the realm of "standard" for the system is seriously flawed.

 

If AoE (Radius) 8x volume for every (+1/4) spent, there are are way too many "standard" AoE constructs that players are well within their rights to make that I'm going to have to rule as being abusive. Under such circumstances, the player(s) in question have every right to cry foul and claim the aren't getting to play what the rules say they paid money to play.

 

Thus, as a GM I have A Problem . The ruling needs to change, or the cost for increasing AoE (Radius) needs to change, or I need to run a nonstandard HERO campaign, or I have to throw HERO out and use another system. As a _player_, if I don't take advantage of AoE's 3D nature, and protect against it when designing defences, I'm Dead Meat in campaigns where AoE works this way.

 

Given the choices and the existing historical and play tested precedent in previous Official HERO material, best alternative is probably that SL's ruling should change. Second best is probably to publish errata AFAFP that makes explicit separate AoE ® and VoE ® Ads at appropriate costs for their each of their efficiency and effectiveness. A distant third is House Rules since bitter experience has taught me just how fragile that solution is. Worst case I "vote with my feet and my dollars" and find a system without such a gaping logical fallacy in it.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Same IME. OTOH, the quest to be effective/efficient +is+ part of the game, the genre, and the Meta-genre (RPGs). And Life.

 

A decent acid test as to whether something is game imbalancing is if its existence would fundamentally change the "Rock, Paper, Scissors" balance of the game. AoE being 8x for every (+1/4) spent means that it becomes a "must have" combat advantage. All combat strategy and combat tactics will revolve around it being the Premier Combat Power if such effects are used "properly" by this ruling. -That- means HERO gets broken.

 

When Rules Abuse takes place, a GM can and should rightfully curb it. OTOH, a system that is constantly requiring GM intervention for doing things that are well within the realm of "standard" for the system is seriously flawed.

 

If AoE (Radius) 8x volume for every (+1/4) spent, there are are way too many "standard" AoE constructs that players are well within their rights to make that I'm going to have to rule as being abusive. Under such circumstances, the player(s) in question have every right to cry foul and claim the aren't getting to play what the rules say they paid money to play.

 

Thus, as a GM I have A Problem . The ruling needs to change, or the cost for increasing AoE (Radius) needs to change, or I need to run a nonstandard HERO campaign, or I have to throw HERO out and use another system. As a _player_, if I don't take advantage of AoE's 3D nature, and protect against it when designing defences, I'm Dead Meat in campaigns where AoE works this way.

 

Given the choices and the existing historical and play tested precedent in previous Official HERO material, best alternative is probably that SL's ruling should change. Second best is probably to publish errata AFAFP that makes explicit separate AoE ® and VoE ® Ads at appropriate costs for their each of their efficiency and effectiveness. A distant third is House Rules since bitter experience has taught me just how fragile that solution is. Worst case I "vote with my feet and my dollars" and find a system without such a gaping logical fallacy in it.

No offense, but you're not getting it. Many (in this thread the majority who've expressed an opinion, even) of us have allowed this for years and years, as long as you've played it the "2d" (and admittedly correct as stated earlier) way. It hasn't become the "must have" combat advantage. In fact, the point here is that no one else is reporting it as a problem! Just you. And it hasn't been coming up in other threads as an issue, at least not beyond very rare instances. Now, I'm not saying that makes you wrong, but it suggests that your experience is aberrant.

 

"Given the choices and the existing historical and play tested precedent in previous Official HERO material" - but, see, that doesn't seem really true. There are too many old-timers here who've been allowing 3D for 2 decades. I daresay the change in 5th was moreso a codification of what had been going on in large part.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Given the choices and the existing historical and play tested precedent in previous Official HERO material' date=' best alternative is probably that SL's ruling should change.[/quote']Don't see that happening.

Second best is probably to publish errata AFAFP that makes explicit separate AoE ® and VoE ® Ads at appropriate costs for their each of their efficiency and effectiveness.

Don't see that happening' date=' either. Feel free to make a request for either of these directly to Steve. He's too polite to laugh in your face.

A distant third is House Rules since bitter experience has taught me just how fragile that solution is.

Whatever. If you can't get your players to stick to the rules you lay down for your game, you can't expect the game system to make up for your lack.

Worst case I "vote with my feet and my dollars" and find a system without such a gaping logical fallacy in it.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

These examples are so freakin' pathetic that it's not even funny. Go home and bring back some real examples.

Yea, well I came up with them all in ~15 secs total. Not surprising that they don't represent most standards of decent.

 

I shudder to think what a _real_ effort at min-maxing using this AoE ruling will result in.

 

AoE was 2D with a min volume in the 1980's. It was 2D with a min volume in the 1990's. It should still be 2D with a min volume now. If it isn't, then it needs to get recosted (and in respect to English, renamed).

[Warp9]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Okay' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

While I grant that there are other factors besides mass that go into BODY. I would say that it would be more likely to form a base from which the mass would add to.

 

For example:

 

Two 100 KG characters can have very different masses. Tom and Jack are both 100 kg characters. Tom has a 20 BODY and Jack has an 8 BODY. You can't just look at mass to find body.

 

However, if we were to apply growth to each of these characters, they would gain +1 BODY per each X 2 mass.

 

5 points Growth (X2 Mass and + 1 BODY): Tom has 21 BODY and Jack has 9 BODY.

15 points Growth (X8 Mass and + 3 BODY): Tom has 23 BODY and Jack has 11 BODY.

 

Each of these characters have other factors which determine BODY, but that does not mean that the +1 BODY per 2 X mass can't be applied to the situation.

 

 

 

Also most many vehicles to fit very closely to the pattern of +1 BODY per 2 X mass. According to the Vehicle column of the Object Body chart (FREd page 304), a Motorcycle (400KG) is 12 BODY; and Battleship (50,000 tons) is 29 BODY.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

AoE was 2D with a min volume in the 1980's. It was 2D with a min volume in the 1990's. It should still be 2D with a min volume now. If it isn't' date=' then it needs to get recosted (and in respect to English, renamed).[/quote']

I see that, as I guessed, Ki-rin is still in denial. He's just changed his tune from "increasing the radius makes it 2D, and the book says so" (even though it doesn't) to "Well, even if it is supposed to be 3D, that's broken!"

 

Can't say I'm at all surprised...

[Ki-rin]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Thanks for the warm welcome. Unfortunate that the old saying is true and "you can't go home again."

 

Thanks to folks like ChampsGuy and you for helping me make my future RPG purchasing choices.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Same IME. OTOH, the quest to be effective/efficient +is+ part of the game, the genre, and the Meta-genre (RPGs). And Life.

 

A decent acid test as to whether something is game imbalancing is if its existence would fundamentally change the "Rock, Paper, Scissors" balance of the game. AoE being 8x for every (+1/4) spent means that it becomes a "must have" combat advantage. All combat strategy and combat tactics will revolve around it being the Premier Combat Power if such effects are used "properly" by this ruling. -That- means HERO gets broken.

 

NO IT DOESN'T!!!

 

The players (and GMs) that I played with took advantage of every advantage they could get. When I first started posting here, I had a converstation with another poster that went something like this:

 

Me: "Hey, I once had a GM who had a villain that was untouchable. We shot him with Area Effect attacks, Affects Desolid attacks, anything and everything. Nothing could touch him. The attacks passed right through. It turns out he bought the villain the power Desolid with Usable Against Others, Personal Immunity, and Area Effect! So we needed Affects Real World on all our powers to hurt him!"

Poster #1: "Man, that's harsh!"

Poster #2: "Damn, I've never seen that. That's f***in' brutal."

Poster #3: "Hey, I thought my GM was the only person to do that! It's good to know there's another psychotic GM out there. I thought Matt was the only one to do that."

Me: "Matt? Our GM was named Matt... who is this?"

Poster #3: "My name's Bryan. I live in Oklahoma City."

Me: "Bryan?!? How you doing, man? Long time no see! I remember the character you played in that game!!!"

 

Area Effect is the absolute least of your worries if you've got rules-abusing gamers. There's a reason that lots of the rules were changed in 5th edition, and much of that was the fact that I posted our characters to this site, and Steve Long changed the rules so they wouldn't be legal anymore! I'm not the Munchkin King for nothing. Area Effect is so freakin' far down the list of "abuses" that it's not even worth taking.

 

If you think AE is busted, take a look at Rapid Fire.

 

When Rules Abuse takes place, a GM can and should rightfully curb it. OTOH, a system that is constantly requiring GM intervention for doing things that are well within the realm of "standard" for the system is seriously flawed.

 

You're like those guys on the radio who think that we faked the moon landing. I've always played that Area Effect is 3D, and I play with the biggest bunch of cock-hole bastards that ever walked the face of the planet. These are ass-wipes who build God on 100 points, who have universes full of followers, who take "Reputation: Hero of Millions" as a disadvantage. Area Effect isn't abusive at all. I know rules-rapes. I game with it every weekend.

 

If AoE (Radius) 8x volume for every (+1/4) spent, there are are way too many "standard" AoE constructs that players are well within their rights to make that I'm going to have to rule as being abusive. Under such circumstances, the player(s) in question have every right to cry foul and claim the aren't getting to play what the rules say they paid money to play.

 

What the hell are you talking about? It's not abusive!!!

 

Thus, as a GM I have A Problem . The ruling needs to change, or the cost for increasing AoE (Radius) needs to change, or I need to run a nonstandard HERO campaign, or I have to throw HERO out and use another system. As a _player_, if I don't take advantage of AoE's 3D nature, and protect against it when designing defences, I'm Dead Meat in campaigns where AoE works this way.

 

What the hell kind of weak-ass characters do you play with? When in the holy hell is this EVER going to put your character at a disadvantage??? You either play with the biggest bunch of pansy-ass characters that have ever lived, or you're bitching and moaning to the extreme because everyone else on this thread was right and you were wrong.

 

So which is it? Sore loser or player of wussy characters?

 

Given the choices and the existing historical and play tested precedent in previous Official HERO material, best alternative is probably that SL's ruling should change.

 

NO IT'S NOT!!! You're just bitching and moaning because the way that everyone else in the universe plays it turns out to be right. Hero isn't going to change its rules just because you're afraid of the dark.

 

Second best is probably to publish errata AFAFP that makes explicit separate AoE ® and VoE ® Ads at appropriate costs for their each of their efficiency and effectiveness. A distant third is House Rules since bitter experience has taught me just how fragile that solution is. Worst case I "vote with my feet and my dollars" and find a system without such a gaping logical fallacy in it.

 

Then go play another system. We'll put a tagline on 6th Edition.

 

HERO: The system for players with balls.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Yea, well I came up with them all in ~15 secs total. Not surprising that they don't represent most standards of decent.

 

I shudder to think what a _real_ effort at min-maxing using this AoE ruling will result in.

 

AoE was 2D with a min volume in the 1980's. It was 2D with a min volume in the 1990's. It should still be 2D with a min volume now. If it isn't, then it needs to get recosted (and in respect to English, renamed).

 

Area Effect has no real place when it comes to true min-maxing. Leave it at the door alongside crap like Change Environment and Clinging. Oh, and you're the only person in the universe who played that AE was 2D. None of our playing styles have changed.

 

 

*sigh*

 

I'm gonna have to post some of our old characters so he can see what real min-maxing is. Perhaps Captain Beat-Down, or Wolf Quai Chang.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Thanks for the warm welcome. Unfortunate that the old saying is true and "you can't go home again."

 

Thanks to folks like ChampsGuy and you for helping me make my future RPG purchasing choices.

 

Happy to be of service. You are Lukeal, aren't you???

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Thanks for the warm welcome. Unfortunate that the old saying is true and "you can't go home again."

 

Thanks to folks like ChampsGuy and you for helping me make my future RPG purchasing choices.

There's only so long people are willing to put up with an attitude like yours. In my case, you've reached that point.

 

You're right...you can't "go home again" if "going home again" means you get to be inflexible, live in the past, proclaim your way is right even though the current version of the rules say you aren't, and argue that because you're incapable of handling your players properly, the official rules must be changed to match your personal ideals and standards, even though the "problem" is one that no one else has ever had with the rules.

 

With that in mind, I can't take any other stance than "So long, good luck, hope you find happiness elsewhere because for you, it's obviously not here."

[Warp9]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Thus, as a GM I have A Problem . The ruling needs to change, or the cost for increasing AoE (Radius) needs to change, or I need to run a nonstandard HERO campaign, or I have to throw HERO out and use another system. As a _player_, if I don't take advantage of AoE's 3D nature, and protect against it when designing defences, I'm Dead Meat in campaigns where AoE works this way.

I've always run my games the 3D way.

 

I assume that you never have.

 

I wonder which one of us would be more likely to have experience with problems that would actually arise in a game using the 3D radius concept.

 

I personally do not see the problem.