Paying points for Falling damage

[Fox1]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

1) It seems to assume the target will attempt no escape or counterattack during the several Phases it takes to execute this type of attack.

 

The example I provided was of an attack on a vehicle that wasn't able to attempt any such action. It just had a high defense and tunneling movement. But Mr. Super Bird wanted it wrecked.

 

The whole example was to show how the x2 strength lift has serious issues compare to it's damage. One being SoD, and the other being actual game effects.

 

If you wishes to extend the example beyond that, one still can. It takes three phases to make the attack and one more phase to escape from any future counter attacks. Assuming Mr. Super Bird can hang on to his target- that's still far better than taking a dozen counter attacks in order to haymaker the vehicle into breaking- and haymakers are easy to disrupt too. Heck the vehicle only needs to move.

 

 

Wouldn't it just make more sense to acknowledge that the environment over the long-term is neutral and therefore it makes more sense to call it even with regard to offense and defense?

 

It make good game sense to do so.

 

And again, that's why I use house rules to adjust the lift levels to the point when this tactic is far less useful. Those same lift rules also solve to some degree the whole MA vs. brick damage issue.

 

I frankly can't see a reason not to adjust the STR scale except for one: You want to do a DC Comics style game but keep the dice count low. Here you're only choice is to depend upon players running style over effective.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

The example I provided was of an attack on a vehicle that wasn't able to attempt any such action. It just had a high defense and tunneling movement. But Mr. Super Bird wanted it wrecked.

 

The whole example was to show how the x2 strength lift has serious issues compare to it's damage. One being SoD, and the other being actual game effects.

 

If you wishes to extend the example beyond that, one still can. It takes three phases to make the attack and one more phase to escape from any future counter attacks. Assuming Mr. Super Bird can hang on to his target- that's still far better than taking a dozen counter attacks in order to haymaker the vehicle into breaking- and haymakers are easy to disrupt too. Heck the vehicle only needs to move.

One can always construct specific cases to justify a desired conclusion. But I prefer to use a broader approach rather than focus on one theoretical model. (Personally, I'd regard a brick lifting an otherwise indestructible vehicle high into the air and dropping it to wreck it as good roleplaying and clever tactics; something to be rewarded and not condemned.)

 

It make good game sense to do so.

 

And again, that's why I use house rules to adjust the lift levels to the point when this tactic is far less useful. Those same lift rules also solve to some degree the whole MA vs. brick damage issue.

 

I frankly can't see a reason not to adjust the STR scale except for one: You want to do a DC Comics style game but keep the dice count low. Here you're only choice is to depend upon players running style over effective.

Fortunately our campaign is blessed with players of precisely that caliber. Concept takes precedence in our game over mere power.

[Fox1]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

Personally' date=' I'd regard a brick lifting an otherwise indestructible vehicle high into the air and dropping it to wreck it as good roleplaying and clever tactics; something to be rewarded and not condemned.[/quote']

 

The vehicle in question wasn't indestructible. It's just enough armor to be certain of stoping M16 rifle fire in fact.

 

And as a result I happen to think that someone who can lift 20 tons should be able to pound the thing nicely.

 

 

Fortunately our campaign is blessed with players of precisely that caliber. Concept takes precedence in our game over mere power.

 

As are mine.

 

We however reach a point where we object to playing stupid in order to make up for the faults of the game. When we reach that point- we act upon the causes the problem.

 

Which is why we change the STR lift rule (and why we don't play DC comics instead of Marvel based ones).

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

The vehicle in question wasn't indestructible. It's just enough armor to be certain of stoping M16 rifle fire in fact.

 

And as a result I happen to think that someone who can lift 20 tons should be able to pound the thing nicely.

 

You might do what I do, and make half of all dice damage done by military and real-world hardware "Standard Effect". It makes an M-16 1D6+3 instead of 2D6. That means you can lower the Def on an M-16 resistant car to 9 instead of 12. That lets a 20 ton character (50 Str) pound through said car fairly easily (1 Body per punch, 5 per haymaker).

[Fox1]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

You might do what I do' date=' and make half of all dice damage done by military and real-world hardware "Standard Effect". It makes an M-16 1D6+3 instead of 2D6. That means you can lower the Def on an M-16 resistant car to 9 instead of 12. That lets a 20 ton character (50 Str) pound through said car fairly easily (1 Body per punch, 5 per haymaker).[/quote']

 

No.

 

I want things on the same scale as much as possible. It's very much part of why I like HERO in the first place.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

No.

 

I want things on the same scale as much as possible. It's very much part of why I like HERO in the first place.

 

That is on the same scale. All you do is flatten out the bell curve. An M-16 ordinarily does 2-12 Body. This makes it 4-9, which is (roughly) the same. Basically, it just assumes that the second die always rolls a 3. It's the same principle behind using a flat stun multiplier of x3 instead of D6-1. It eliminates the freak rolls that require a "bulletproof" character to have much higher defenses than normal.

[Fox1]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

That is on the same scale. All you do is flatten out the bell curve. An M-16 ordinarily does 2-12 Body. This makes it 4-9' date=' which is (roughly) the same. Basically, it just assumes that the second die always rolls a 3. It's the same principle behind using a flat stun multiplier of x3 instead of D6-1. It eliminates the freak rolls that require a "bulletproof" character to have much higher defenses than normal.[/quote']

 

Not really the same scale. For one thing 1d6+3 has a complete different result distribution than 2d6 does. It's also off the average by a half point.

 

Besides I can kill someone with a single shot using a M-16 now, with that method of damage I can't. Not being able to is too much of a break from reality. Can't go there.

 

Beside, in concept I see no real gain- I"m adjusting something no matter my choice. Why not adjust the STR and gain in a number of areas instead of adjusting the damage roll and gaining and losing in a single area?

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

Not really the same scale. For one thing 1d6+3 has a complete different result distribution than 2d6 does. It's also off the average by a half point.

 

That's what standard effect does.

 

Besides I can kill someone with a single shot using a M-16 now, with that method of damage I can't. Not being able to is too much of a break from reality. Can't go there.

 

No, you can put a person to negative Body. The bleeding rules will keep him alive, 'cause it's almost impossible to actually bleed to death in Champions. Besides, I can kill someone with a 9mm, but that's only like 1D6 or 1D6+1.

 

Beside, in concept I see no real gain- I"m adjusting something no matter my choice. Why not adjust the STR and gain in a number of areas instead of adjusting the damage roll and gaining and losing in a single area?

 

If you want to do it that way, that's fine. I prefer to have the chance to use Superman and Thor-level heroes if I want, though. I also don't like the idea of an M-16 shooting through Def 10 materials. Whatever works for you, though.

[Fox1]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

No' date=' you can put a person to negative Body.[/quote']

 

That doesn't kill him. I want him dead if I roll the right hit location. That takes 10+ Body with a Head Hit.

 

 

 

 

If you want to do it that way, that's fine. I prefer to have the chance to use Superman and Thor-level heroes if I want, though. I also don't like the idea of an M-16 shooting through Def 10 materials. Whatever works for you, though.

 

I have Thor in my game. It's not a problem.

 

I don't want Superman in my game.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

That doesn't kill him. I want him dead if I roll the right hit location. That takes 10+ Body with a Head Hit.

 

Then what do you do with a 9mm?

 

I have Thor in my game. It's not a problem.

 

I don't want Superman in my game.

 

They aren't that different. Don't believe the Marvel "100 ton" hype. It's bogus.

[Fox1]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

Then what do you do with a 9mm?.

 

See my website for all the spiffy details. Click on the Firearms link.

 

I was very unhappy with the firearms in HERO and worked out my own construction system for them. Almost nothing in their offical construction please me.

 

The short version?

 

The conversion methods I use mean that the damage a typical 9mm does is 2d6+1 RKA, +0 Stun Mod, Resistant Defense have 1.5x effect against it.

 

 

 

They aren't that different. Don't believe the Marvel "100 ton" hype. It's bogus.

 

Thor doesn't move planets, lift mountains, or pick up oceanliners. At least not in the comics I saw back in the day.

 

The 100 ton hype works fine for our games. I don't want Thor doing things that would make me groan if I was reading his comic- and with the changes he doesn't.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

See my website for all the spiffy details. Click on the Firearms link.

 

I was very unhappy with the firearms in HERO and worked out my own construction system for them. Almost nothing in their offical construction please me.

 

The short version?

 

The conversion methods I use mean that the damage a typical 9mm does is 2d6+1 RKA, +0 Stun Mod, Resistant Defense have 1.5x effect against it.

 

Thanks. I'll have to check it out.

 

 

Thor doesn't move planets, lift mountains, or pick up oceanliners. At least not in the comics I saw back in the day.

 

The 100 ton hype works fine for our games. I don't want Thor doing things that would make me groan if I was reading his comic- and with the changes he doesn't.

 

He does those things (all but the moving planets) in some of the ones I've read. Marvel doesn't trumpet it as much, but those impressive strength feats do happen. If you don't like it, that's cool, and you don't have to have it in your game. But Thor does and has done that kind of crap. But, then again, Superman hasn't done that kind of crap too often since Crisis, either.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

I still really see no reason whatsoever to adjust the Strength chart. If you want to be able to lift things, buy straight Strength. If you want to do HTH damage, buy an HA, which is cheaper anyway, and would better reflect your ability to punch through that armor than pure Strength would.

 

I think the best indicator of Strength is how much you can lift. Nothing more. Not how far you can leap, and not how much damage you can do.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

Oh, and I don't feel too bad about the vehicle example. The vehicle may not be able to react as well to this kind of attack as a character outside a vehicle would (attacking with non-primary limbs such as head and legs, grabbing back, etc.), but the character only payed a fifth the cost for the vehicle, so it works out. Besides, why not pay and extra point (or less, depending on the current point cost of the vehicle) to put a parachute in the thing?

[Fox1]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

He does those things (all but the moving planets) in some of the ones I've read. Marvel doesn't trumpet it as much' date=' but those impressive strength feats do happen. [/quote']

 

As I said, I saw one X-Men issue where Cyclops blew a canyon in a freaking mountain because he was too lazy to have his group climb it or walk around the thing.

 

This doesn't require me to buy his EB up to mountain cracking levels. It requires me to laugh at the bad writing.

 

We all pick what specific things to accept or ignore in the ever changing and generally speaking low quality world of comic books. That means for some of us the STR chart is fine, and for others it worse than simply bad.

[Vondy]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

Asshat.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

This doesn't require me to buy his EB up to mountain cracking levels. It requires me to laugh at the bad writing.

 

LOL

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

Actually I see a good reason for paying points for falling damage.

 

If one of Stuka's 'signature' attacks was to grab someone and dive them into the pavement then I want to be able to do that regularly without all the palavar of grabbing etc etc.

 

If I buy 16D6 EB (physical) only if 30' of headroom available, -1D6 per " of opponents flight, full phase.

 

If I throw this attack then the special effects are that I fly by, grabbing an ankle before divingbombing the ground with my captive. Takes a phase to throw and always works if I make the to hit roll.

 

I have paid the points, I expect to do the damage. So yes, I think there can be a case made....

 

 

Doc

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

Actually I see a good reason for paying points for falling damage.

 

If one of Stuka's 'signature' attacks was to grab someone and dive them into the pavement then I want to be able to do that regularly without all the palavar of grabbing etc etc.

 

If I buy 16D6 EB (physical) only if 30' of headroom available, -1D6 per " of opponents flight, full phase.

 

If I throw this attack then the special effects are that I fly by, grabbing an ankle before divingbombing the ground with my captive. Takes a phase to throw and always works if I make the to hit roll.

 

I have paid the points, I expect to do the damage. So yes, I think there can be a case made....

 

 

Doc

 

This is like most of the brick tricks.... If you want it to be quicker and more reliable than the environmental effect, pay the points. Paying for the attack also insures that you don't run into damage caps for breakable impact surfaces and the like. From that perspective, I totally would support a character wanting to pay for it, tho there would be some discussion, as I tend to prefer a bit more "realistic" (hah) game, and if you write it up like this without a lot more thought, it becomes a "Why can Stuka do this to people in a way that they can't defend themselves?"

So yeah, I can see this, if the GM and player agree.

but requiring it? heck no!

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

If a player was being a pain about using it then I think I might gently suggest it as something I would insist on if he insisted on being a pain! Perhaps as in a multipower with his flight.

 

It would necessarily cost too much but it would make my life as a GM easier - if he wants the attack then let me sort it out so that I don't have to deal with the detail. That's a good use of the toolbox and a nod to the HERO ethos of the game details and the special effects being virtually divorced.

 

 

Doc

[prestidigitator]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

Actually I see a good reason for paying points for falling damage.

 

If one of Stuka's 'signature' attacks was to grab someone and dive them into the pavement then I want to be able to do that regularly without all the palavar of grabbing etc etc.

 

If I buy 16D6 EB (physical) only if 30' of headroom available, -1D6 per " of opponents flight, full phase.

 

If I throw this attack then the special effects are that I fly by, grabbing an ankle before divingbombing the ground with my captive. Takes a phase to throw and always works if I make the to hit roll.

 

I have paid the points, I expect to do the damage. So yes, I think there can be a case made....

 

 

Doc

I guess you could pay for it if you wanted to, or buy some HA to increase it or something, but this just sounds like a way of doing a Move Through or Move By to me.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

Besides I can kill someone with a single shot using a M-16 now' date=' with that method of damage I can't. Not being able to is too much of a break from reality. Can't go there.[/quote']

If you want more realistic firearms, you could use full hit locations and the full bleeding rules. Then your M-16 can very easily cause death if the target gets no medical attention. Sounds decent to me.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

I guess you could pay for it if you wanted to' date=' or buy some HA to increase it or something, but this just sounds like a way of doing a Move Through or Move By to me.[/quote']

 

 

You could buy a move through or move by in the same way - it just takes away all of the working out and complexity of the attack to give you what you want - a 16D6 attack with some limitations. As the Gm I don't have to worry about whether he can accelerate to that speed or anything - he paid the points - of course he can - it's a 16D6 attack.

 

Did he get him high enough? Did he grab him? Of course he did - he paid the points - its a 16D6 attack.

 

Doc "Anything to make my life easier" Democracy

[Sean Waters]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

If you want more realistic firearms' date=' you could use full hit locations and the full bleeding rules. Then your M-16 can very easily cause death if the target gets no medical attention. Sounds decent to me.[/quote']

 

Looked up Fox1's website: lot of good work there, but if you want deadly firearms, just tinker with the namby-pamby rules for disabling. A hit to the head or vitals that exceeds your BODY after the multiplier gets you a CON roll, failure meaning death.

 

You don't need a M-16, just use the rules for hit location and a bog standard derringer can kill in one hit: 6 Body to the head doubled to 12, disables the head and automatically kills if you don't make that CON roll. Take a penalty on it of -1 per negative BODY you're on

 

Bing-banga-boom.

 

Even if it isn't an instant kill you'll be bleeding to death.

 

I mean, why have all these hit location and disabling rules options? Increased realism? Fine. Bullets kill.

 

Oh, and to comment on paying points for falling: no. Just use game mechanics. Why? Well it is all well and good to say the sfx of my 30d6eb is I pick the sucka up, fly high and drop him, but then you get potential silliness about total move distance per phase, other characters catching the 'victim' as he falls, using it to move a character rather than attack him, how you can get someone to fall all that disatnce in a single phase, and so on. You can get round all that with limitations but it's all going to look a bit Heath Robinson by the end and IMO be more trouble than it is worth.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

 

Looked up Fox1's website: lot of good work there, but if you want deadly firearms, just tinker with the namby-pamby rules for disabling. A hit to the head or vitals that exceeds your BODY after the multiplier gets you a CON roll, failure meaning death.

 

You don't need a M-16, just use the rules for hit location and a bog standard derringer can kill in one hit: 6 Body to the head doubled to 12, disables the head and automatically kills if you don't make that CON roll. Take a penalty on it of -1 per negative BODY you're on

Agreed. That' what I was trying to get at. Things can get pretty ugly depending on how many of the optional rules you use.