Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

In our campaign we've always treated Explosive as 3D, and AoE as either 2D or 3D depending on the Power's SFX. It's never seemed to be particularly critical either way. (And if anyone thinks SFX should not help determine how what effect an attack has, kindly explain to me why it costs more to deflect a "Laser" than a "bullet" with Missile Deflection when both are bought as RKA?)

[Gary]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Area effect isn't abusive unless you start piling on loads of advantages on it. Or use Megascale...

[nexus]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

(And if anyone thinks SFX should not help determine how what effect an attack has' date=' kindly explain to me why it costs more to deflect a "Laser" than a "bullet" with Missile Deflection when both are bought as RKA?)[/quote']

 

Off topic, but I honestly never really thought about that before. It is a case of SFX making a fairly noticable difference.

[Warp9]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Off topic' date=' but I honestly never really thought about that before. It is a case of SFX making a fairly noticable difference.[/quote']

Would you be happier if it was written as:

 

Missile Deflection Base Cost 20, with a limitation (only vs thrown items, sling stones, arrows, and other non-gunpowder projectiles, -1) Real cost: 10

 

I could also buy the full missile deflection (20 points) and make it so that it could be used to deflect only lasers, and other energy based attacks.

 

When limitations are involved, SFX can make a big difference. You can think of the more "limited" versions of missile deflection as having actual limitations. And even if they are not written up in the book as limitations, it amounts to the same thing (IMO).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

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

 

Even if I agreed 3d was even remotely problematic (I don't), the worst flaw you can find is 3d area effect radius, and you think you'll find games that are more complete with less issues? Good luck with that!

[nexus]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Would you be happier if it was written as:

 

Missile Deflection Base Cost 20, with a limitation (only vs thrown items, sling stones, arrows, and other non-gunpowder projectiles, -1) Real cost: 10

 

I could also buy the full missile deflection (20 points) and make it so that it could be used to deflect only lasers, and other energy based attacks.

 

When limitations are involved, SFX can make a big difference. You can think of the more "limited" versions of missile deflection as having actual limitations. And even if they are not written up in the book as limitations, it amounts to the same thing (IMO).

 

I wasn't unhappy to begin with. I just never actually thought about it in depth before. I didn't say that it didn't make sense or was broken and I had no desire to see it changed.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

I wasn't unhappy to begin with. I just never actually thought about it in depth before. I didn't say that it didn't make sense or was broken and I had no desire to see it changed.

Me neither; it's fine as is. I was simply using it as an illustration that there is official precedent for using sfx to determine costs.

[lemming]

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. 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.[/quote']

My old group had a bunch of math, physics, and computer people in it. We could get incredibly complex stuff going at times, but it was usually for fun. But yeah, the trig of figuring out how far a flyer was came up a lot.

[lemming]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

For that matter' date=' 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![/quote']

Sam had lift STR double every 10 STR in his fantasy game. It didn't detract from play and got rid of some granularity at the low levels.

[lemming]

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.

 

< snip >

 

...and on and on it will go.

Amateurs. I think Champsguy covered it well enough.

[lemming]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

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.

 

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.

I'll just add that the games that have the least abuse potential tend to be the ones that lock you in the most to one approach. Which is pretty counter to what Hero offers. Multiple approaches to Multiple destinations.

[lemming]

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...

Woo Hoo! I was right! So house rule it Ki-rin if you care that much, we don't think it's as broken as you make it because we play with more responsible players.

[Trebuchet]

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.

You jump into a game system's official site, tell everyone they're doing everything wrong and you alone possess the One True Way and the rest of us are idiots despite a collective millenium of Hero gaming experience, and now you're going to whine about how poorly you've been treated by us benighted ignoramuses?

 

Now that's chutzpah.

[lemming]

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.

Hmm, I thought the quest was to have a fun time. Not to try to be superior to my friends.

 

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.

You need less whiny players. I've been playing this for a long time and the only time ever came across this attitude was during a bad con game in the early 80s.

 

My basic houserule is "Don't annoy the GM". From there, everything else falls into place pretty well.

 

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.

See, you're getting all bent out of shape by something that others have played with for a long time. I don't even recall ever playing outside of Radius meaning a sphere and several other people outside of my own group had the same experience. (zornwil is part of current group, but I'm thinking back to early 80s Santa Cruz)

 

I saw some horrible constructs being done, but area effect radius was usually not part of it.

[lemming]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

Nice post. So you're one of the 5th edition red flags! I think the group I was in was the red flag for a bunch of changes for 4th.

Or at least we pushed some over the edge. End Battery was just one of the items. (Though we pointed out flaws with the replacement during playtest.)

[prestidigitator]

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']

Ah, I see the literal use of the word, "Area," is giving you problems. Perhaps this alternate English definition of the word, taken straight from the dictionay, will help:

 

ar-e-a

...

3. A distinct part or section, as of a building, set aside for a specific function: a storage area in the basement.

...

I prefer to think of, "Area of Effect," as representing a distinct section of reality that is being effected by the Power. I'm not a big D&D fan, but I've never had a problem with all the spell descriptions saying things like, "Area of Effect: 1 creature" (What?! A creature isn't an area!!!).

[Trebuchet]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Given that an Area of Effect: 1 Hex attack will still hit someone hovering a foot off the ground and not just someone standing on it, I think it's safe to assume that in at least some circumstances AoE can be three-dimensional. I just take it on a case by case basis, with sfx being the main consideration.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

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' date=' 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![/quote']

:sigh: Back in 4th ed. days I made a character with something like:

Body 20

PowD 20; Hardended; Always On

Full Life Support; Major Side Effects: incapacitating pain (basically whenever it was necessary for his survival, including on his birthday

); Always On

Armor: 30 PD/ED; Hardened; Always On; Not vs. Stun

Damage Reduction: 75% vs. Physical and Energy; Always On; Not vs. Stun

Aid: 8d6 to Body; 0 End; Persistent; Trigger (character dropped below full Body--I know, pushing the rules a little); Always On; Not vs. Stun

Vulnerability: x2 Stun vs. HTH attacks

I believe it was all in an EC. He was, "nigh invulnerable," but could do very little. He got depressed occaisionally and tried his best to kill himself. He would show up in all kinds of games and genres after being frozen in agony in the middle of space for eons, underground, sent through time to get rid of him (he was quite and annoying fellow). The other PCs would use him as a weapon, throw him into machinery to clog the works until more could be done, etc. He was so fun! I could even play him in low-powered herioc games because he was a pussy, unskilled wimp. Now Healing has been fixed.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

The whole Area Effect thing is not strictly proper English, but it is conventional. For us poor land-bound mortals, pretty much anything on the ground that takes up volume also takes up area, much in the same way that pretty much everything that has mass also has weight.

 

Or should we all threaten to boycott Hero Games because the lift tables all deal with mass, without taking into account that there is more to the ability to lift an object than its mass?

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

:sigh: Back in 4th ed. days I made a character with something like:

 

Not bad. But he's not...

 

Wolf Quai Chang

The Kung Fu Werewolf

 

15/45 STR 5

20/30 DEX 30

18/33 CON 16

13 BODY 6

10 INT 0

10 EGO 0

20/30 PRE 10

12 COM 1

9/15 PD 6

9/12 ED 5

4/7 SPD 0

7/16 REC 0

36/66 END 0

30/53 STUN 0

Characteristics Cost: 79

 

5 1 Levels: martial arts,related group

 

37 PKG,"Martial Arts"

(4) Martial Block

(4) Martial Dodge

(3) Martial Grab

(4) Martial Escape

(4) Fast Strike

(4) Killing Strike

(5) Off Strike

(5) Passing Strike

(3) Martial Throw

(1) Weapon Groups,Open-Hand,Claws

 

30 Shape Shift,0 END Persistent(+1),x4 Difficult to Dispel(+1) 0

 

10 EC (Magic) (15),"werewolf",Linked(-1/2),"to Shapeshift"

9a) 2D6 HKA,vs physical defense,No Knockback(-1/4) 3

4b) 1D6 Transform (Magic),major,cumulative,No Range(-1/2),

Linked(-1/2),"to bite",14- Activation(-1/2),only if bite

does body(-1/2),0 END(+1/2) 0

7c) 50% Damage Reduction (ED) (Magic),resistant,not vs fire

(-1/2)

7d) 50% Damage Reduction (PD) (Magic),resistant,not vs silver

(-1/2)

10e) PKG (Magic),"enhanced senses",Tracking Scent (Magic),UV

Vision (Magic),+5 Enhanced PER (Magic),with all senses

7f) 20/0 Armor (Magic),not vs silver(-1/2)

7g) 0/20 Armor,not vs fire(-1/2)

10h) 45 STR 3

10i) 30 DEX

10j) 33 CON

10k) 7.0 SPD

10l) 13- Find Weakness,any group of attacks,Desc: Wolf-fu

10m) PKG,"Wolfy bonuses",11" Running (Magic),10 Lack Of Weakness,

12 Mental Defense 2

7 30 PRE,Linked(-1/2),"to Shapeshift"

5 1 BODY Regen,not vs silver or fire(-1)

 

3 Breakfall 15-

3 Stealth 15-

3 Concealment 11-

3 Tactics 11-

0 Climbing 8-

0 Conversation 8-

0 Deduction 8-

2 KS: Lycanthropy 11-

2 KS: Streetfighter Circuits 11-

 

Powers Cost: 221

Total Cost: 300

 

Base Points: 150

15 Accidental Chg,"full moon",uncommon,occur 14-

20 Accidental Chg,"takes body",common,occur 14-

20 Berserk,"when he takes body",common,occur 11-,recover 11-

20 Distinctive,"WEREWOLF!!!",concealable,extreme

20 Rep,"WEREWOLF!!!",occur 14-,extreme reputation

15 Psych Lim,"aggressive",common,strong

15 Psych Lim,"protective of innocents",common,strong

15 Secret ID,"Lawrence 'Larry' Talbot"

10 Hunted,"fearless werewolf hunters",less powerful,harsh,

appear 11-

 

Disadvantages Total: 150

Experience Spent: 0

Total Points: 300

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Note: Wolf Quai Chang is responsible for many of the changes that exist in 5th Edition today.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

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.

I think that's a fair point and I'm not dismissing it. I would just say, though, that the complexity of BOD for characters makes it so nonstraightforward as to be barely useful (but not useless, don't get me wrong) in and of itself for characters. Bear in mind that particularly now you can build a character with great mass and 1 BOD if you like.

 

I'm mulling over why this matters, beyond as a guideline, a "low priority mechanic". The really important thing, I believe, is that ultimately we need to have a way to scale damage properly. The underlying axiom in HERO is that all transactions are scalable, and scalable from a fairly granular point to infinity, with only a few absolute exceptions. In order to manifest this value, among many other methods, is the assignment of both scalable inflicting of damage and scalable ability to take damage. The most important thing is not SO MUCH +1 BOD/x2 Mass, but rather that at least we are able to scale properly. Naturally, this suggests a mechanic that is logarithmic or exponential or some other "curve" (believe it or not, I was once actually pretty decent at math but didn't retain my calculus so please forgive my terminology here). So the +1 BOD/x2 Mass factors in there, and it does matter, don't get me wrong. But there are other values, too, that play in here.

 

The most important is probably that we have a mission to replicate heroic fiction. That means characters must have "glass bodies" as well as be able to be amazingly incapable of being damaged normally. Defensive barriers can represent this, but fudging that mechanic is certainly quite another issue. So we resort to "messing" with the notion of mass and sustaining damage.

 

Then by extension, again respecting heroic fiction, we must do something SIMILAR but NOT the same for vehicles and "big computers" and the like.

 

Finally, objects are even more removed. And, interestingly enough, of somewhat less interest because mundanities are, I believe, also of a lesser order of "interest"/attention according to the system's core values.

 

I think by resorting back to the core values of the system we can at least begin to address why there are APPARENT contradictions which in fact may not be contradictory at all. My rambling here is not well-formulated, I'm thinking as I type. But it's a METHOD of analysis that is important and even if in the method we cannot agree on the axioms and how they build to mechanics and how those build to rules (because the system has not been so explicated, sadly), we can at least dig deeper as to WHY we feel as we do. We can find out why this matters so much to Kir-in or you or me, and at least discover that, for example (this is a purely made-up one), that Kir-in feels that heroic fiction is a lesser priority than rigorous physics simulation. This allows us to realize where we must then agree to disagree, as there is then more clearly no room to maneuver and we have discovered at least that we each do have logical beliefs.

[zornwil]

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.

Now now, I can understand being upset but that isn't the gaming system you're reacting to. If you want to play HERO with 2d AoE, go for it. And you don't have to play with Champsguy or others here, sounds like you have a group and they also like going 2d. So go and play, nobody's trying to deprive you of that. People are trying to disabuse you of a notion, but that's hardly the same thing.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

I'll just add that the games that have the least abuse potential tend to be the ones that lock you in the most to one approach. Which is pretty counter to what Hero offers. Multiple approaches to Multiple destinations.

Sure, go ahead and say something I said in 5 paragraphs in one sentence.

 

Seriously, that is very well said.

[zornwil]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

You jump into a game system's official site, tell everyone they're doing everything wrong and you alone possess the One True Way and the rest of us are idiots despite a collective millenium of Hero gaming experience, and now you're going to whine about how poorly you've been treated by us benighted ignoramuses?

 

Now that's chutzpah.

My God, and it's A TEXAN who said that!

 

 

(Sorry, Treb, couldn't resist - and yeah, I remember you're not really "from" Texas, but you're a Texan in my book, and I mean that in a GOOD way.)