Solving for Speed

[Force]

Re: Solving for Speed

 

DoT? I'm not familiar with that acronym.

 

It is 3d6 for both a Move By and a Move Through in my example, as the velocity adds the exact damage for both maneuvers. The only difference is the amount that STR adds, which would be the same for both characters on the same maneuvers.

 

I was simply calculating the damage bonus each character received from their respective movement in inches compared to the various manuvers.

 

20" = +7d6 on move thru (v/3) and +4d6 on move by (v/5)

 

30" = +10d6 on move thru (v/3) and +6d6 on move by (v/5)

 

Ergo the 3d6 (move thru) and 2d6 (move by) damage difference.

 

DoT is damage over time. It was a reference that the 10spd character vs the 3spd character will do much more damage over time as they move 3 times more.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Solving for Speed

 

I wouldn't exactly call the movement system' date=' "broken." I would say, instead, that there are a few modifications (probably optional) that would be nice. That was the idea behind my thread (mentioned above); I am personally annoyed that Running has no Turn Mode, and that this can lead to some abuses and some results that just make no intuitive sense without GM intervention. That doesn't mean that I think the whole set of standard movement rules should be overhauled completely.[/quote']

...and I quote:

"With (movement) standard rules, someone on a horse can charge right up to you when you are in a corner, attack with all he is worth utilizing his full velocity, then turn 180 degrees and charge right back the way he came without missing a beat (provided he doesn't decelerate of course ). ) Weeeee!"

...said by some physics guy named *koff* prestidigitator *koff* within the last few days...

 

More realistic Turn Modes will not solve that problem or any of a number of others brought up on these boards related to the movement system... ...and all of us with backgrounds in the "hard" sciences have said as much one way or the other in the history of HERO.

 

Pulsed movement can work, it just doesn't work very well as it is implemented in HERO presently. Hence thread after thread about issues that at their heart are movement system issues.

(Confused) I'm not sure if you were trying to point out a hypocritical POV there, but I don't find the two statements inconsistent. I do believe that more realistic Turn Modes will solve this problem by giving the defender the advantage of tactical positioning. If the defender stands in a corner, the rider couldn't turn instantly around and head in the other direction. In fact, the attacker would be hard pressed to both use his/her velocity for damage and stop in time to avoid smacking into the walls.

 

So an optional rule could fix things like this if the GM finds the rules being abused; just like Velocity Factor can fix velocity damage (not total velocity) when the GM finds that velocity-based damage is being abused. I still find no reason for a complete overhaul of the movement system.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Solving for Speed

 

no insult implied or intended, Presti.

 

Just pointing out that many have noticed multiple problems that all of us "hard science" wonks have traced to a problem in the movement system.

[gojira]

Re: Solving for Speed

 

1) As an alternative to your proposed solution' date=' how about rating a characters maximum velocity as SPD x move" / 12. Their per-segment max velocity would then be the speed they'd use to do things like inflict damage or determine their DCV bonus with the optional speed->DCV rules. Leave everything else as published. This would probably be the minimum needed to work around what you dislike in the current system while leaving as much as possible intact.[/quote']

 

I think this (or something like it) is a pretty neat idea.

 

Is velocity factor something like (MOVE x SPD / 12)? I totally hate that idea. In fact, I think things ought to be left exactly the same as they were in 1984.

 

Except for this: Twilight 2000 has a speed system very much like Hero. They have noobs at speed 1 and a highly trained soldier at a maximum speed of 6, with 6 phases per turn, and each character acting on their phase and below, so experienced soldiers get more turns than civilians.

 

Anyhoow, one thing TW2000 does is allow repeated actions. Like running. Once you start running, you can just keep running, even if you are a speed 1 civilian, on all phases. Because you know, it'd be silly if you just stopped because it wasn't your turn. You can always take an action out of turn to stop what you are doing, or to stop and drop prone. But after that, you have to wait for your phase to come around before you can do anything else.

 

Just a thought.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Solving for Speed

 

I was simply calculating the damage bonus each character received from their respective movement in inches compared to the various manuvers.

 

20" = +7d6 on move thru (v/3) and +4d6 on move by (v/5)

 

30" = +10d6 on move thru (v/3) and +6d6 on move by (v/5)

 

Ergo the 3d6 (move thru) and 2d6 (move by) damage difference.

 

DoT is damage over time. It was a reference that the 10spd character vs the 3spd character will do much more damage over time as they move 3 times more.

 

Oh, I see. In my example though I was using Velocity Factor, which adds equally to both MT (STR/5+VFd6) and MB (STR/10+VFd6). The only difference in the calculation is with STR.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Solving for Speed

 

IMHO there are two main reasons the avg HERO gamer doesn't complain about the movement system

 

1- It's munchkin enough to appeal to them when they have the upper hand since it magnifies any Dex or SPD advantage they have.

And have you noticed the cost of DEX and SPD? There's a reason they cost a lot, and the advantage you get in relation to movement is reflected in that cost.

 

2- They just don't appreciate the price they are paying for 1- above in bad ripple effects throughout the system.

I don't feel like I'm paying the price for anything, or to I feel there are any bad ripple effects. There might be a few hiccups and a few head scratchers, but the game doesn't play itself, and the rules needn't be changed to account for them. In 90%+ cases, there is no problem with the movement rules. In the other less than 10%, you can either live with the odd game effect or a clever GM can simply state an a specific action is impossible or comes with other penalties, as he would in any situation where the rules don't seem to account for something.

 

..and a 3rd minor reason.

 

3- The avg gamer doesn't know enough about game system design to seriously consider how it could or should be fixed. After all, this board is HEAVILY weighted with 20+ year gaming veterans with extensive experience in multiple systems as well as RW proficiencies in pertinent fields and WE are having a hard time solving some of the system issues talked about around here.

True, but it seems the average gamer certainly knows when something is "broken" even though they don't know what fixed would look like. The author of the most current rules has 20+ years gaming experience not only playing and running, but writing for RPGs, and not just Hero. I might not agree with all of Steve Long's rules, but I trust his judgement. If he makes an overhaul of one rules but leaves another completely alone and as is, I trust he's looked it over and considered all of the possibilities before doing so.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Solving for Speed

 

no insult implied or intended, Presti.

 

Just pointing out that many have noticed multiple problems that all of us "hard science" wonks have traced to a problem in the movement system.

Don't worry. I know no insult was intended. It just sounded like you detected a contradiction where I don't think there was one.

 

I think us, "hard science wonks," have proposed solutions a little more in keeping with reality, but I believe the issues we were thus trying to deal with have more to do with game balance than with the realism of the movement system. At least that's the approach I have taken. I like to see the game system model reality somewhat--or at least provide a consistent model of reality--but that's not usually my primary concern; it is simply the method I fall back on to supply an alternative solution.