Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

[Fox1]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

That was pretty much editorial fiat that decreed that. You can play there if you want' date=' but I prefer more than a 58 Str Colossus.[/quote']

 

So do I.

 

That's why I changed the STR lift progression. My Colossus has an 85 STR for a 70 ton level (what he had where I was reading the comics, I believe he's grown up some since then).

 

So I'm happy, and I'm also not subject to the problems that started this thread.

 

Much Joy in Fox1 land.

 

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

So do I.

 

That's why I changed the STR lift progression. My Colossus has an 85 STR for a 70 ton level (what he had where I was reading the comics, I believe he's grown up some since then).

 

So I'm happy, and I'm also not subject to the problems that started this thread.

 

Much Joy in Fox1 land.

 

 

Actually, I think that's about where we rated him, as well. We just decided to ignore "Marvel tons". Too often, I've seen people in a Marvel comic stand around and say "Oh wow, that train he's lifting has got to weigh at least 30 tons!!!" Well, duh. That's like saying that Mightybec has had sex with at least 30 sheep. The number (in both cases) is probably closer to 1000.

 

If you don't know Mightybec, you need to head over to the Non-Gaming Discussion boards.

[austenandrews]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Champs players are size queens when it comes to brick STR. I've had several 50 STR bricks that worked out just fine.

[Fox1]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Actually you are correct, last time I did the analysis was in 4th ED. And you'll notice that in 4th edition, the 45 ACP submachinegun was 1d6+1, which was the exact same rating as the Browning HP.

 

I thought that most of the weapons did stay the same between 4th and 5th.

 

However, it seems that I should change my statement a bit:

 

Up until 5th edition, HERO firearms damage followed the pattern of +1DC per doubling of kinetic energy. And most of them still follow that pattern.

 

Hmm...

 

I thought I'd check a few of the handguns and see the result. For those interested, I just selected the same ones that appear on my own website in my house rule HERO values. That is, weapons I considered of interest, not ones selected to prove a point.

 

 

After some math (using common loads for the weapons) and referencing the 5th Edition Revisied I find:

 

Weapon KE Damage Stun Mod

22 Long Rifle 164 1d6-1 0

380 ACP 269 1d6 0

9mm Makarov 382 1d6+1 0

9mm Parabellum 476 1d6+1 0

38 Special 322 1d6 0

357 Magnum 1032 1 1/2d6 0

45 ACP 492 2d6-1 1

44 Magnum 1606 2d6 1

50 AE 2072 2d6+1 1

 

 

 

The 44 Mag has over 4x the energy, but only 1 DC over the 45 ACP. It only has a 60% energy advantage over the .357, but gains +1 DC and a +1 stun mod.

 

The 50 AE gets +1 DC over the 44 mag for only a 25% energy increase, and gets a +2 DC edge for doubling the energy of the .357 Mag.

 

The 9mm Makarov is closer in energy to the .380, but yet does the same damage as the 9mm Parabellum.

 

 

It's not looking good for your rule of thumb here.

 

 

Edit: It doesn't look like I can get the table to format right. Sorry for the reading problem guys, at least it's a small table.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Champs players are size queens when it comes to brick STR. I've had several 50 STR bricks that worked out just fine.

 

Yeah, I've had several 50 Str martial artists and blasters that worked out just fine, too.

[austenandrews]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Yeah' date=' I've had several 50 Str martial artists and blasters that worked out just fine, too. [/quote']

You are so getting coal in your stocking this year.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Just because we have not sent people to Mars yet does not mean that it is "impossible in the real world."

 

And just because there is nobody around with 100 X the STR of a normal man, it does not mean that the situation is actually physically impossible.

 

You are not likely to get a normal human who is that strong, but what about an android, or robot, or some very bizzare alien?

 

Are you saying that in the whole Universe (in all Space and all Time), there is no possiblity to have an entity who is 100 X as strong as an average human? Because IMO that is what it sounds like you are saying.

 

I would say that it is possible, and I would also say that we can extrapolate as to what that level of STR would be like (at least in ball-park terms). We can make an educated guess. Such a being, even one of super-human strength, should still exist within the framework of Physics.

 

With all due respect, Warp9, this is a bit of an apples-and-oranges comparison. I certainly would not say that in all of space and time this is impossible; but we don't know or understand all space and time. We can only measure "reality" by what we do understand, which is what this discussion has been trying to do.

 

A human-sized being who is 100X stronger than a normal human would have to be made of something massively tougher than flesh to keep from tearing itself apart from the force of its own movement. At present we have no knowledge of any living, organic material that would be adequate to that. A robot or android made of metal, plastic etc. is at least conceivable, even if we can't engineer such a construct now; but even if it existed it still couldn't perform the feats that are seen in comic books. Equal and opposite reaction to force, leverage and center of gravity, tensile strength of objects lifted and thrown, and other real-world physical laws are routinely defied to achieve those effects. Now if you want to modify the rules of HERO System away from emulating comic-book conventions and more toward what you conceive "reality" to resemble, you should of course do so until you're satisfied that you have the game you want to play; but that would still be your extrapolation of the real world to situations that are not, at least for now, real.

 

As for Mars exploration, that's not really an applicable example. Our scientists have already calculated the when, where and how for a manned mission to Mars; the technology to construct a vessel exists and many different concrete designs have been proposed. It's just a matter of getting around to building and lauching it.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Inspired by a post in another thread, and by The Ultimate Brick:

 

Str 43 = The Strength of 100 Men.

Str 43 = 8.5d6 punch

 

8.5d6 = Str 13 Martial Artist with Fast Strike and a Bo Staff.

 

So does the fact that a man with the Strength of 100 Men only hits as hard as a fairly athletic guy with a stick bug anyone else?

First, Mr 43 Str does not necessarily have "The Str of 100 Men". He has (1.1487)^33= 97x the Str of the Average Man. Not the same thing. Let's bear in mind that ITRW 25 Str individuals who are 8x stronger than the Average Man do exist.

 

Second, that Str is _Dead Lift_ Str. The entire skeleton and almost all of the body's musculature are involved. Strikes are powered by _Effective Str_. Strikes involve less of the body and therefore can't involve the same amount of Power or do the same amount of Work.

 

Third, HERO's model of "reality" is a simplification for playability and the purpose of having fun. In HERO, Str is Str. ITRW power lifters, linebackers, wrestlers, and boxers are very different even if they are of the same height, weight, and percent fat/muscle/etc (for one thing the kind of muscle they are likely to have is different. For another, their tendons and ligaments are likely to have differences.) Str is not a scalar ITRW.

 

Fourth, as others have noted "Mr 13 Str with a Stick" in this example is the HERO equivalent of a RW MA of at least Sho-Dan (1st degree BB) rank using a MA =weapon=, not a just "a stick" (the Jo staff supposedly is the result of _years_ of study and design). This is NOT just "a guy with a stick". Bear in mind that ITRW a "Mr 13 Str with a Staff or Bat" can shatter every rib in your rib cage at the point of contact with an accurate solid swing. (Put a rack of pork ribs on an fixed vertical stand man high and let someone with a 13 Str hit it as hard as they can with a Bat or Staff. Bye bye ribs.). MA are considerably better at generating force and do it with far more accuracy. Considering what I've seen old emaciated masters do with "a stick", the HERO "2x max damage rule" may be too low to properly simulate reality...

 

Fifth, Mr 43 Str can indeed do many things, in combat and out, that Mr 13 Str MA With a Staff can not. And that's +despite+ the fact the the MA =has= a weapon and Mr 43 Str =is= a weapon. In addition, Mr 43 Str can use a Haymake and do even more damage. Mr MA can't.

 

Sixth, I'm not sure Mr 13 Str MA With Staff can actually do (8.5d6):

13 Str => (2.5d6) => best they could do with a Unarmed Strike is (5d6).

Assuming they buy +2DC (The max they can given their base Str and that "+1/2 DC" doesn't exist), then they can get the (4d6) staff up to (8d6) but no higher given that the weapon's base damage is (4d6) with a Str min of 13.

 

HERO has its problems, but this is not one of them.

 

Side Note: Yes Virginia, Super Str Heroes pull their punches all the time in the comics. Not just Superman and Thor class ones, but also Spidey and Cap and Batman class ones. Supes _doesn't_ go all out against most opponents or in most environments. The comics have plenty of documentation on this fact. Greater power, even just Str, does means greater responsibility (or to be a villain).

[Warp9]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Hmm...

 

I thought I'd check a few of the handguns and see the result. For those interested, I just selected the same ones that appear on my own website in my house rule HERO values. That is, weapons I considered of interest, not ones selected to prove a point.

 

 

After some math (using common loads for the weapons) and referencing the 5th Edition Revisied I find:

 

Weapon KE Damage Stun Mod

22 Long Rifle 164 1d6-1 0

380 ACP 269 1d6 0

9mm Makarov 382 1d6+1 0

9mm Parabellum 476 1d6+1 0

38 Special 322 1d6 0

357 Magnum 1032 1 1/2d6 0

45 ACP 492 2d6-1 1

44 Magnum 1606 2d6 1

50 AE 2072 2d6+1 1

 

 

 

The 44 Mag has over 4x the energy, but only 1 DC over the 45 ACP. It only has a 60% energy advantage over the .357, but gains +1 DC and a +1 stun mod.

 

The 50 AE gets +1 DC over the 44 mag for only a 25% energy increase, and gets a +2 DC edge for doubling the energy of the .357 Mag.

 

The 9mm Makarov is closer in energy to the .380, but yet does the same damage as the 9mm Parabellum.

 

 

It's not looking good for your rule of thumb here.

 

 

Edit: It doesn't look like I can get the table to format right. Sorry for the reading problem guys, at least it's a small table.

 

Here is some of my data:

 

Before going on, my Source for Kinetic Energy values is :

Compendium of Modern Firearms by Kenin Dockery copyright 1991. It was Published by R. Talsorian Games.

 

You'll notice that all the weapons listed fit the pattern I've described. All the weapons I have data for fit into the model I've described. We''ve already discussed the exception of the ACPs which used to fit into the picture at 1d6+1 (as opposed to the new 2d6-1 rating).

 

 

1d6-1 (from 75 J to 150 J)

.22 LR Pistol 103 J

 

1d6 (150 J to 300 J)

PPK/S 199 J

380 ACP 269

 

1d6+1 (300 J to 600 J)

38 Special 322 J

Browning HP 500 J

MP 5 570 J

9mm Makarov 382

9mm Parabellum 476

 

 

1 1/2d6 (600 J to 1200 J)

357 Mag 725 J

 

2d6 (1200 J to 2400 J)

.44 Mag 1530 J

AK-47 2004 J

M-16A1 1847 J

 

2d6+1 (2400 J to 4800 J)

SVD Sniper Rifle 3113 J

FN-FAL 3313 J

M-60 3553 J

 

2.5d6 (4800 J to 9600 J)

 

3d6 (9600 J to 19,200 J)

.50 Cal HMG 18000 J

[Warp9]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

With all due respect, Warp9, this is a bit of an apples-and-oranges comparison. I certainly would not say that in all of space and time this is impossible; but we don't know or understand all space and time. We can only measure "reality" by what we do understand, which is what this discussion has been trying to do.

But do you agree that we can extrapolate from what we do know, in order to find what we do not know? I believe that, as long as I know the principals involved, I can at least make a good estimate of what would happen in a totally hypothetical situation.

 

I also believe that the principals of Force, Energy, and Power, are all well enough understood to take an educated guess at what a being with 100 X Human STR would be like.

[Fox1]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Here is some of my data:

 

Before going on, my Source for Kinetic Energy values is :

Compendium of Modern Firearms by Kenin Dockery copyright 1991. It was Published by R. Talsorian Games.

 

You'll notice that all the weapons listed fit the pattern I've described.

 

Ah the joys of break points.

 

 

I wonder at your sources .22 LR, that seem to be a way under-powered load.

 

I also notice that the .50 AE doesn't fit your progression.

 

Counting the .45 ACP, I see three weapons that don't fit of the few that I selected.

 

Makes me wonder just what they were up to.

 

 

Edit: Oh, add the 45 Long Colt in there. It doesn't fit either. I'll stop now.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

For Warp9 and others worried about damage not increasing fast enough as AP go up:

 

The firearm example is flawed. HERO is logically inconsistent, but by far less than many think. As forensics experts and law enforcement will tell you, damage is far more correlated to Force (F= m[dv/dt]) and Momentum (P= m*v) than it is to KE (KE= .5*m*v^2).

 

HERO says a .22 is 1d6-1K (10 AP) while a .50 HMG is 3d6K with a +1 STUN multiplier (and probably Penetrating as well given what it does to walls, people, etc ITRW). How "real" is this?

 

A .22 slug has ~248 joules of energy at point blank. A .50 cal HMG slug has ~15700 at point blank. Does that mean a HMG should do 15700/246= 63.31x more damage? NO, because P or F, not KE, is more strongly correlated to damage. Thus the HMG should do (15700/248)^.5= 8x more damage than the .22. That's 80AP= 5.5d6K without the +1 STUN multiplier or Penetrating, or 53.33 AP= 3.5d6K with one or the other, or 40AP= 2.5d6K with both Advantages.

Given the difference in mass between the two projectiles, at the least the +1 STUN Ad makes sense, and I'd tend to agree with those who'd argue for both +1 STUN and Penetrating given what RW users with experience in both .22's and HMGs have told me.

 

So from RW experience, physics, and first principles, we get that a .50 cal HMG should do 2.5d6K +1 STUN mod Pentrating or 3.5d6K +1 STUN mod in game. The book lists it as 3d6K +1 STUN mod. Not completely logically consistent, but pretty close. Tweak to taste or not depending on how important Logical Consistency is to you.

[Fox1]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Makes me wonder just what they were up to.

 

Actually I can guess at what they were up to.

 

They wanted to use x2 something for each DC. HERO System was first made in the era of the RII (Relative Incapacitation Index) when some researchers sadly did think KE directly determined results on living targets.

 

After that, they did the same thing I did in my work which appears on my website. Made a progression and selected a starting point (which would determine the following on break points) it so that most weapons fell into the right slot on it.

 

Time passed (and passes still), and they noted that some of the weapons just didn't work as one would expect. The .45 ACP didn't live up to it's legend and the .50 AE didn't live up to it's new billing.

 

So they cheated.

 

Poor guys.

[Warp9]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

For Warp9 and others worried about damage not increasing fast enough as AP go up:

I do NOT have a big problem with the exponential nature of HERO (and I do assume that it is based on an exponential curve).

 

It still seems to me that KE is the best way to rate damage in a generic sense (obviously not everybody agrees with me, including many experts). I also feel that HERO bases its firearm damage on an exponential scale where each extra DC relates to X 2 Kinetic energy.

 

I want to make it clear that while I believe that the .50 cal HMG is on the order of 100 times as powerful as some light pistols, yet I would NEVER suggest that the HMG should do 100d6 RKA. Because it would only take 200 BODY to destroy the Earth in HERO.

 

I have suggested that it might not be a bad idea to have each doubling represent +2 DCs rather than 1. But that is still an exponential system, and I definitely favor an expontial scale over a linear one.

 

I do not think that exponential scales are logical inconsistant; in many ways they are far superior to linear scales. I have no problem with a dozen or so DCs representing an increase on the order of thousands of times.

[Warp9]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Actually I can guess at what they were up to.

 

They wanted to use x2 something for each DC. HERO System was first made in the era of the RII (Relative Incapacitation Index) when some researchers sadly did think KE directly determined results on living targets.

 

After that, they did the same thing I did in my work which appears on my website. Made a progression and selected a starting point (which would determine the following on break points) it so that most weapons fell into the right slot on it.

 

Time passed (and passes still), and they noted that some of the weapons just didn't work as one would expect. The .45 ACP didn't live up to it's legend and the .50 AE didn't live up to it's new billing.

 

So they cheated.

 

Poor guys.

Maybe so.

 

Even if KE is not perfect for determining damage on many targets, it is a simple means for providing a ball park estimate of damage over a wide range of targets both living and non-living.

 

It makes life easier to have one factor to look at. And as long as a relationship between damage and and kinetic energy is not too far off, it works for me (it does not have to be perfect--ball park estimates are good enough).

 

But maybe you'll be able to show me that KE is so far off that it is not useful even for "ball park estimates," until then, kinetic energy is the method I favor.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

OMG, not the old "it takes 200 Bod to destroy the earth" silliness again.

 

The earth is not a wall or other object with one dimension noticably thinner than the others. Those rules were written with such objects in mind, not solid cubes and spheres.

 

The earth is _BIG_. Even given a powerful enough attack, one will not destroy the entire Great Wall of China unless the attack can affect the entire GWoC at once. Destroying the entire earth has a similar issue.

 

The earth is on the average _HARD_. Even the rules as written acknowledge that harder substances take more energy to destroy.

 

Finally, the earth is structured to absorb damage exceptionally well. Take a real good look at the structure of a golf ball and a cut-away of the earth. Consider how well a golf ball takes being swatted. You are far more likely to knock Earth out of orbit than destroy it if you hit it with a big attack.

 

200 Bod doesn't even come close.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Maybe so.

 

Even if KE is not perfect for determining damage on many targets, it is a simple means for providing a ball park estimate of damage over a wide range of targets both living and non-living.

 

It makes life easier to have one factor to look at. And as long as a relationship between damage and and kinetic energy is not too far off, it works for me (it does not have to be perfect--ball park estimates are good enough).

 

But maybe you'll be able to show me that KE is so far off that it is not useful even for "ball park estimates," until then, kinetic energy is the method I favor.

 

All of your comments are just as applicable to Momentum, P, as KE, and P has been shown to better fit RW experimental results. So why not use P as your "one factor" instead?

 

In addition, using P will allow you to be more intelligent in your choice of Ads and Disads for SFX because you can do things explicitly based on the mass differences involved.

 

I think my previously posted example shows just how poorly KE fits the data. And how well P does fit the data.

[Fox1]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Even if KE is not perfect for determining damage on many targets, it is a simple means for providing a ball park estimate of damage over a wide range of targets both living and non-living.

 

It is a simple means, I'll grant you that.

 

If being simple is more important to you than being right, go for it.

 

 

But maybe you'll be able to show me that KE is so far off that it is not useful even for "ball park estimates," until then, kinetic energy is the method I favor.

 

All I know is that I used more rational concepts backed my modern theory and the result was vastly different in game values and more realistic (as measured in moving toward realism, nothing else) than those HERO came up with. I didn't have to cheat on the .45 ACP, .50 AE or .45 Long Colt to make them function as expected compared to other weapons- they just worked.

 

It was far more complex. And I don't think it carries over to any other part of the game. And it does alter game play as well.

 

So it's not a path I suggest everyone take unless you're looking for some of the same things I was.

 

 

All I want out of this is to dispell or at least instill some doubts about some common myths. I've seen too many cases where people think simple game rules actually reflect reality, and I'd like to at least slow that down when it appears.

 

In this thread for example, I find it amazing to see people actually claim that a trained martial artist can hit with the force of a man dozens of times his strength. But I've been more focused on this side of the debate and left that for others.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

OMG, not the old "it takes 200 Bod to destroy the earth" silliness again.

 

The earth is not a wall or other object with one dimension noticably thinner than the others. Those rules were written with such objects in mind, not solid cubes and spheres.

 

The earth is _BIG_. Even given a powerful enough attack, one will not destroy the entire Great Wall of China unless the attack can affect the entire GWoC at once. Destroying the entire earth has a similar issue.

 

The earth is on the average _HARD_. Even the rules as written acknowledge that harder substances take more energy to destroy.

 

Finally, the earth is structured to absorb damage exceptionally well. Take a real good look at the structure of a golf ball and a cut-away of the earth. Consider how well a golf ball takes being swatted. You are far more likely to knock Earth out of orbit than destroy it if you hit it with a big attack.

 

200 Bod doesn't even come close.

LOL. Good point. I believe the book describes the amount of damage it takes to destroy 1" of earth (I assume that means one CUBIC inch, or 8 cubic meters). Do you realize how many of those there are in a whole planet?

 

No. What it takes to destroy the Earth is:

 

RKA: 3d6 (Standard Effect: 9 Body), Area of Effect; MegaScale Area: 1"=10,000 km

 

Might need to fire it a couple times. Could make it 4d6 just to be certain. Not sure what that AP total comes to. I forget where MegaScale starts.

[Warp9]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

OMG, not the old "it takes 200 Bod to destroy the earth" silliness again.

 

The earth is not a wall or other object with one dimension noticably thinner than the others. Those rules were written with such objects in mind, not solid cubes and spheres.

 

The earth is _BIG_. Even given a powerful enough attack, one will not destroy the entire Great Wall of China unless the attack can affect the entire GWoC at once. Destroying the entire earth has a similar issue.

 

The earth is on the average _HARD_. Even the rules as written acknowledge that harder substances take more energy to destroy.

 

Finally, the earth is structured to absorb damage exceptionally well. Take a real good look at the structure of a golf ball and a cut-away of the earth. Consider how well a golf ball takes being swatted. You are far more likely to knock Earth out of orbit than destroy it if you hit it with a big attack.

 

200 Bod doesn't even come close.

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4931&perpage=15&pagenumber=2

 

The rules in Star Hero state that the planet has 86 BODY, so that is the number you need to over come to break the planet into pieces. The rules also state that if you can double the body of an object you can totally destroy it. Thun 177 BODY number is the amount of damage required to "vaporize" the planet.

 

So yes, 200 BODY would destroy the Earth.

[Warp9]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

LOL. Good point. I believe the book describes the amount of damage it takes to destroy 1" of earth (I assume that means one CUBIC inch, or 8 cubic meters). Do you realize how many of those there are in a whole planet?

 

No. What it takes to destroy the Earth is:

 

RKA: 3d6 (Standard Effect: 9 Body), Area of Effect; MegaScale Area: 1"=10,000 km

 

Might need to fire it a couple times. Could make it 4d6 just to be certain. Not sure what that AP total comes to. I forget where MegaScale starts.

I suggest that maybe you should read Star Hero.

 

Also a good understanding of what the rules say on the matter will be of help here as well. The rules clearly state that each +1 BODY represents a doubling of mass. (FREd 302-303 under breaking things) you'll note that it does not say anything about "only applying to 2D objects," it refers to objects in general.

 

But again you can just refer to Star Hero, although you could figure it out yourself using the rules in the main book.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

OMG, not the old "it takes 200 Bod to destroy the earth" silliness again.

 

The earth is not a wall or other object with one dimension noticably thinner than the others. Those rules were written with such objects in mind, not solid cubes and spheres.

 

The earth is _BIG_. Even given a powerful enough attack, one will not destroy the entire Great Wall of China unless the attack can affect the entire GWoC at once. Destroying the entire earth has a similar issue.

 

The earth is on the average _HARD_. Even the rules as written acknowledge that harder substances take more energy to destroy.

 

Finally, the earth is structured to absorb damage exceptionally well. Take a real good look at the structure of a golf ball and a cut-away of the earth. Consider how well a golf ball takes being swatted. You are far more likely to knock Earth out of orbit than destroy it if you hit it with a big attack.

 

200 Bod doesn't even come close.

 

Sorry, but you're wrong. I can blow an Earth-sized hole in a wall as thick as the Earth with far less than 200 Body. It's closer to 100. Of course, that has to be done with one single attack.

 

The Earth is about 13,000 km thick. Let's say the entire Earth is made of the same metals that a vault door is made of. So that's 16 Def. 2 meters of metal has 19 Body. Every doubling of thickness for a wall is +2 Body. So, to put a hex-sized hole through the Earth, you'd need...

 

9 doublings (+18 Body) would make it a kilometer of metal instead of 2 meters.

10 (+20 Body) more doublings would make it 1,000 km.

4 (+8 Body) more doublings would make it 16,000 km, which is 3,000 more than you need.

 

So, given the 19 Body for the initial hex, that's 19+18+20+8=65 Body needed. Add in the 16 Body for Defense, and that's an 81 Body attack to blow a hole through a vault door as thick as the Earth.

 

Now, to blow up the rest of it, we need +1 Body for each doubling of the diameter of the hole. So, we basically need a 13,000 km diameter of the hole. That's (borrowing the above math) 23 more Body. Boom. Earth-sized hole in the Earth.

 

81+23=104. That's 104 Body needed to blow up an armored Earth. So that's a 100D6 EB that you haymaker. No problem.

 

By the way, the rules for blowing up stuff like that can be found on page 304 of 5th Edition (not revised). If you're gonna disagree, I'm gonna need you to cite a rule and have a page cite handy.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

...In this thread for example, I find it amazing to see people actually claim that a trained martial artist can hit with the force of a man dozens of times his strength. But I've been more focused on this side of the debate and left that for others.

 

TBF, AFAICT everyone has been comparing a MA with a staff VS a bare-handed Super Str Brick.

 

Physics-wise, a Staff is a Force Multiplier. It's contact area also smaller and harder than a human fist. That means it hits faster, lot's harder, and in a smaller area (pressure= Force/area) than a fist will. Faster hitting with a harder substance in a smaller area means more damage. Perhaps lots more.

 

A heavy weight boxer can hit with 1000 psi while wearing regulation boxing gloves. I wonder how many psi a 4ft or 6ft staff swung for max effect by a trained user would do? I know I've seen them accelerated and/or decelerated with force to make the air "pop" and the staff visibly undergo a decaying oscillation to immobility when wielded by a skilled enough user.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

The question of proportion was already covered, both here and in the articles I linked. KE doesn't scale in proportion to damage under these cases and can in fact even have an inverse effect. Read the links. Buy a Journal or two from the IWBA (Internation Wound Ballistics Association). If you dig far enough it will even tell you in painful detail where all the KE is being wasted, although you'll have to shell out a few bucks for those reports if you don't want to believe the summaries online.

 

Really guys, this is OLD ground for me. And I hate to point it out, but I'm the only one here who has produced actually backing information of ANY kind that isn't from people's memories of their high school physics class. The real world is a more complex place than high school physics. We're not looking at simple elastic collisions here.

 

Tell me please why you think YOU know more than the people who run those research centers that have produced detail reports backed by experimentation with the real world weapons in question? Why should anyone listen to you for a second on this subject?

I'm sorry, dude, but you completely missed the whole point of my post, and forgot the context in which it was made to boot. The idea is that, in general, it takes energy to destroy material. You do need to destroy some material to hurt someone, EVEN with a bullet ( ). You have also provided nothing to show that increasing kinetic energy does not increase the raw amount of tissue damage.

 

The article you referenced, for example, says nothing to this effect. What it says is that it is not HOW MUCH damage you do, but HOW YOU DO THAT DAMAGE, and that it can be worth sacrificing energy to impart damage in a MORE EFFECTIVE MANNER. I won't argue this point where firearms are concerned. I don't care to. It isn't even necessary, as Strength doesn't apply to firearms. The APs or number of dice in a firearm represent most closely the amount of damage that can be done by that firearm. Nothing else, although energy and such other concerns may be related (I'll give you the range thing. Maximum range can be directly related to kinetic energy--neglecting air resistance, so in a completely unrelated way you could point the finger at APs as an indication of energy, but who cares?). I understand you have a hard on, so to speak, for firearms, but not every topic has to revolve about them. You are free to start another thread if you take issue with the way Hero treats firearms, or the sample firearms given in the main book or other sources.

 

--------

 

The context is how damage should go up with Strength. What does Strength indicate? The amount of force you can exert? The amount of power you can produce? The kinetic energy you can impart to an object? I submit that Strength represents the amount of force you can exert, and in a limited fashion also indicates the amount of power you can produce and the amount of energy you can impart to a weapon. I say, "limited," because the relationship is not direct, and is by no means simple. In the case of thrown objects, it works decently well. Such objects WILL often also depend on the ability to do massive tissue damage to hurt people, since (depending on the type) they tend to cause less rupturing of internal organs without first destroying a significant amount of the body. As for melee weapons? Crushing power? Who knows, but I am comfortable in general with Hero's abstraction.

 

As for characters that people have "reverse engineered" from comic books and such, I think the problems people have with these conversions is USUALLY because the person who wrote down the stats decided them in a fairly arbitrary fashion. Because Strength is best quantified by lifting capability, I think this should be carefully judged as well as possible to determine what a character's Strength should be. Other things, like the amount of damage done and the ability to smash through armored plating is best handled by Hand Attack and other Powers, NOT Strength.

 

--------

 

Fox1 - BTW, not that it really matters for this argument, but I grew up with Physics textbooks and have a BS in Physics. I have taken some graduate classes, in fact. I could give you the differential equations that could be used to model the arm--or body, though that gets ugly--as a set of coupled pendulums with springs used as driving sources. Not a bad model, by the way. The simple truth is that in order to produce models for a game system, only highschool physics is typically needed, and even then has to be applied to relatively limited circumstances, as I believe my earlier argument indicates. Abstractions are good, with rough models to serve as first steps and/or sanity checks.

[Fox1]

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

TBF' date=' AFAICT everyone has been comparing a MA with a staff VS a bare-handed Super Str Brick.[/quote']

 

I'm sorry, I'm still amazed to see anyone debate this from a realism stance.

 

Although I shouldn't be. I've seen worse.

 

 

I suppose I'll be hearing about how the katana can chop barrels off of rifles or some such next...