Exponential VS Linear ?

[Agent X]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

I'm from the camp that thinks that it's difficult for characters to fly at high enough speeds in Champs games w/o basically flying too fast with megascale.

 

Is half-speed(move) really the speed at which someone can be fully effective in combat?

 

Should non-com start with a base x2 multiplier for flight?

 

Should there be something in between combat movement and non-combat movement?

[RDU Neil]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

Not being math-man, I'm not even going to try. I'm just going to point out the one Play Experience place where I feel the exponential aspect breaks down.

 

It is similar to what Hugh (I think) mentioned, in that it requires a doubling of a stat (+5 points) to get an actual game altering improvement (extra d6 of damage). And unless I'm missing something... you have an exponential scale that provides a linear game benefit.

 

Five d6 is not double the damage of 4d6... 8d6 is double... and if you double the power, the only really important aspect is "double damage" for purposes of the game play.

 

Whatever rationalizations that come up... it just doesn't feel right (and is very non-intuitive to new players and old players like me) that when I double my power, I only add 1d6. That is just crap beyond 0-20 STR or whatever.

 

Again... even if you can rationalize that twice the power doesn't automatically equal twice the damage... it should still be a lot more than just an extra d6 of damage.

 

This is the biggest break-down IMO... because it makes the game just feel wrong during play.

 

 

(As for the Growth/Size issue... I'm along the lines of the camp that say attacks damage within a hex... the whole "attacking the door of the aircraft carrier, not the whole ship" I also realize that the classic super-growth character screws with this... and thus THAT is the area I don't go. I don't allow growth characters beyond a few levels (keeping them roughly with a comprehensible scale of a hex or two.) If I did... I'd figure out surface area damage effects for the growth guy, just like I would for a vehicle or a building/city/planet.)

 

I'm also confused as to why folks are against linear scales that stack. By this I mean, linear up to a point... then beyond that, start going into a second level of linear... like mega-damage or mega-scale. Not saying this wouldn't take work... but for implementation in the game play, this seems to make the most intuitive sense. Then again, I'm not married to a system that uniformly scales to all levels. I think "scaling with a certain limited range" is just fine. Then have a scaling for a number of ranges.)

[RDU Neil]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

I'm from the camp that thinks that it's difficult for characters to fly at high enough speeds in Champs games w/o basically flying too fast with megascale.

 

Is half-speed(move) really the speed at which someone can be fully effective in combat?

 

Should non-com start with a base x2 multiplier for flight?

 

Should there be something in between combat movement and non-combat movement?

 

One of the things I've considered is "relative speeds" in a hand-waving kind of way. Basically, for really high speed combat, if both combatants are considered to be an Non-Combat speed, then that is combat speed for the sake of these to fighting. Thus, you just compare relative non-combat speeds the same way you'd look at combat speeds of 25" vs. 35" etc.

 

Yes, this has it's faults... and vehicles in the books aren't built this way... but then current rules have faults and current vehicles are the worst part of Hero... so this is hardly worse.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

It is similar to what Hugh (I think) mentioned, in that it requires a doubling of a stat (+5 points) to get an actual game altering improvement (extra d6 of damage). And unless I'm missing something... you have an exponential scale that provides a linear game benefit.

 

Five d6 is not double the damage of 4d6... 8d6 is double... and if you double the power, the only really important aspect is "double damage" for purposes of the game play.

 

Whatever rationalizations that come up... it just doesn't feel right (and is very non-intuitive to new players and old players like me) that when I double my power, I only add 1d6. That is just crap beyond 0-20 STR or whatever.

 

Realistically, the whole "5 pts is a doubling" comes from the need for a vast scale. We set Joe Normal at 10 (going back to 1e). He can lift 100 kg. We want to be able to have characters who cal lift 100 tonnes (100,000 kg). On a linear scale, this requires 10,000 STR. That's 2,000 d6 damage. Playable? NO!

 

Hence, we get the "doubles every +5". Now a 60 STR lifts

about 100 tonnes, and rolls 12d6. Workable!

 

The old Mayfair Games did the same thing, with a 2 base stat and doubling every point. I don't expect any Supers game has damage capacity move linearly with lifting capacity, given how quickly the damage would have to rise at Super level lifts.

[casualplayer]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

The meta-rule, based off the STR chart, says that 5d6 damage is twice that of 4d6. 8d6 costs in meta-rule character points twice as much but is 2^8 times as much damage, according to that same pesky STR chart benchmark. That STR chart is cause of more trouble than it's worth, primarily because people confuse lift capability with foot/pounds of force.

 

It's hard to make a game that can do Batman and Superman. You have to make genre concessions. If the damage classes climbed linearly proportional to the corresponding STR's lift capability, no one would ever survive a glancing blow from any brick. No one would play anything but.

 

There was a choice that needed to be made: exponential power curve-linear point costs or vice versa. HERO chose the former. I've played RPGs based on the latter and HERO made the right choice.

[Warp9]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

First off, thanks for posting with your point of view . This gets to the points I really wanted to discuss by starting this thread.

 

 

Not being math-man, I'm not even going to try. I'm just going to point out the one Play Experience place where I feel the exponential aspect breaks down.

 

It is similar to what Hugh (I think) mentioned, in that it requires a doubling of a stat (+5 points) to get an actual game altering improvement (extra d6 of damage). And unless I'm missing something... you have an exponential scale that provides a linear game benefit.

 

Five d6 is not double the damage of 4d6... 8d6 is double... and if you double the power, the only really important aspect is "double damage" for purposes of the game play.

You are right in that damage does stack up linearly. 20d6 may supposed to be 1024 X as powerful as 10d6. However, against somebody with 0 defense, 2X10d6 is the same thing as 20d6.

 

So it sounds like you are only getting a linear game benefit. But before we make up our minds, lets look as some other examples.

 

Lets compare a 5d6 attack vs a 20d6 attack when used against an armored wall (13 DEF 7 BODY).

 

Question: do we get more than 4 times the game effect from the 20d6 EB when we are shooting at the wall?

 

On an average shot, the 20d6 will blow a human sized hole through the wall the first time.

 

However the 5d6 attack will never get through the wall. The max damage it could ever do is 10 BODY, and that will not make it past the 13 DEF. So, against this type of target, the 20d6 is infinitely more effective.

 

It sounds like a more than linear increase in game benefit to me. That is one of the reasons that GMs often try to keep the PCs to some DC limits for their attacks. Higher power attacks will become to unbalancing to the campaign, because too much damage will get through the bad guys' defenses. Once you get beyond the defenses of a target, every singe d6 after that goes over the defenses.

 

And there are other examples: if you look at the kind of objects which can be taken out by each attack you'll see that the 5d6 EB is going to be limited to destroying things like Personal Computers and Bicycles, where as the 20d6 will wreck almost anything with a few applications. The 20d6 has far more than a 4 X Net Effect on many targets.

 

 

But, again, in some cases (like NNDs) 20d6 is no better than 20 X 1d6, which can create a huge problem with autofire NND attacks.

 

My point here is not that you are wrong, but that the situation is not as simple as it might appear.

 

 

 

Whatever rationalizations that come up... it just doesn't feel right (and is very non-intuitive to new players and old players like me) that when I double my power, I only add 1d6. That is just crap beyond 0-20 STR or whatever.

 

Again... even if you can rationalize that twice the power doesn't automatically equal twice the damage... it should still be a lot more than just an extra d6 of damage.

 

This is the biggest break-down IMO... because it makes the game just feel wrong during play.

Here we are in agreement. Probably the single biggest change in going "fully exponential" would be to do away with the current linear method for damage accumulation.

 

If we did what I'm suggesting, an EB would no longer be rated 12d6 damage. Instead it would have a power level rated on an exponential scale. Damage would actually only occur when the power was used on a given target.

 

I'm also confused as to why folks are against linear scales that stack. By this I mean, linear up to a point... then beyond that, start going into a second level of linear... like mega-damage or mega-scale. Not saying this wouldn't take work... but for implementation in the game play, this seems to make the most intuitive sense. Then again, I'm not married to a system that uniformly scales to all levels. I think "scaling with a certain limited range" is just fine. Then have a scaling for a number of ranges.)

I'll try to explain my aversion to the multiple linear scales. . . .

 

I've seen this sort of thing in Rifts (I'd say that it is likely that you are also aware of Palladium, given your examples above) , and I did not like it.

 

My problem with multiple scales is that there are then multiple damage tables (more charts to look up, or more rules to memorize). And then there is the difficulty of translating between Str Values.

 

In Rifts, you can have a group with characters who have the following strengths: 50 Normal Str, 45 Robotic Str, 20 Supernatual Str. Which one is strongest?

 

And, in the end, for all its multiple scales, Rifts can't handle the same range of power that a single exponential scale could.

[Warp9]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

I'm from the camp that thinks that it's difficult for characters to fly at high enough speeds in Champs games w/o basically flying too fast with megascale.

 

Is half-speed(move) really the speed at which someone can be fully effective in combat?

 

Should non-com start with a base x2 multiplier for flight?

 

Should there be something in between combat movement and non-combat movement?

First, I'd get rid of Mega-Scale movement; we don't need two methods of increasing non-combat speed.

 

Then I'd suggest making the extra multiples cost less, or perhaps decreasing in cost as you buy more of them.

[Warp9]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

Realistically, the whole "5 pts is a doubling" comes from the need for a vast scale. We set Joe Normal at 10 (going back to 1e). He can lift 100 kg. We want to be able to have characters who cal lift 100 tonnes (100,000 kg). On a linear scale, this requires 10,000 STR. That's 2,000 d6 damage. Playable? NO!

 

Hence, we get the "doubles every +5". Now a 60 STR lifts

about 100 tonnes, and rolls 12d6. Workable!

 

The old Mayfair Games did the same thing, with a 2 base stat and doubling every point. I don't expect any Supers game has damage capacity move linearly with lifting capacity, given how quickly the damage would have to rise at Super level lifts.

I agree with what you've said, and I'd like to add that the need to use an exponential/logarithmic scale is not just limited to SuperHero games. It is used very often in science (although not always +5 = X2). The scales for Earthquakes and for sound are exponential, and it would be hard to make it work any other way.

[Warp9]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

The meta-rule, based off the STR chart, says that 5d6 damage is twice that of 4d6. 8d6 costs in meta-rule character points twice as much but is 2^8 times as much damage, according to that same pesky STR chart benchmark.

If you're comparing 4d6 and 8d6, 8d6 is 2^4 times as much (not 2^8).

 

That STR chart is cause of more trouble than it's worth, primarily because people confuse lift capability with foot/pounds of force.

I'm not sure what you mean here. . . . It sounds like they are connected to me.

 

If I can lift an aircraft carrier (100 Ktons) to shoulder height (1.5 m), under Earth gravity, in a reasonable amount of time (say 3 seconds). We can use that data to figure almost anything we'd need: Force, Energy, and/or Power.

[Mister E]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

I just discovered something I hadn't noticed before, and it's driving me nuts, because it just seems so ridiculously stupid...

 

Okay, an object's BODY get's +1 when it doubles in size... but the BODY of a wall, doesn't. I don't have my books on me, right now... but if I recall, most walls get something like +2 when they double in thickness. WHY? Is it just to mess with me? Are the game designers trying to drive me crazy? It's just so feaking inconsistant, I can't get over it.

[casualplayer]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

If you're comparing 4d6 and 8d6' date=' 8d6 is 2^4 times as much (not 2^8).[/quote']

 

Did I type that? Must be stupid.

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean here. . . . It sounds like they are connected to me.

 

If I can lift an aircraft carrier (100 Ktons) to shoulder height (1.5 m), under Earth gravity, in a reasonable amount of time (say 3 seconds). We can use that data to figure almost anything we'd need: Force, Energy, and/or Power.

 

Actually I agree entirely but you are incorporating two variables that aren't based on STR in HERO. Case in point: I hit Superman with a Speed Drain (as opposed to a SPD Drain) and now he looks like he is starring in his own slow motion movie. How much damage should his punch do now? Full STR? A proportional fraction? Should I have to Link up a STR Drain also? You nailed it on the head; force is derived when you have mass, distance and time. HERO STR only gauges the ability to move mass, and as a figured characteristic you get HTH dmg. Shouldn't work that way, causes problems.

 

Someone else finally pegged the exponential-linear transition that you get when you cross the defense threshold. Impervious to a point and then everything afterward is gravy. It's non-intuitive because we just don't think about things with 0 DEF. We are also far too accustomed to the dice smiling and having David occasionally cut down Goliath with a sling stone even though there is no way he should have been able to hurt him at all.

[Kristopher]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

One of the things that keeps coming up is the fallacy that energy/force and damage are directly proportional -- in the real world, that's just not true. There are so many other factors involved, and there are many examples in which increasing energy or force delivered onto the target has diminishing returns.

[casualplayer]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

One of the things that keeps coming up is the fallacy that energy/force and damage are directly proportional -- in the real world' date=' that's just not true. There are so many other factors involved, and there are many examples in which increasing energy or force delivered onto the target has diminishing returns.[/quote']

 

Did you mean a fallacy in game or in thread? Because I agree with you either way. For example HERO's AP attacks should be miserable for volume property damage, blowing through but with little residual damage. You can swiss cheese something but it's going to take a long time to get through that vault door. But then again Armor Piercing isn't real-life armor piercing; Penetrating is. Anyone else still use Penetrating points (basically standard effect dice bought to get through defenses but doesn't increase damage potential.) HERO's Armor Piercing really should be called Focused (too similar to Foci) or Coherent. Refined? Finesse?

[Warp9]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

One of the things that keeps coming up is the fallacy that energy/force and damage are directly proportional -- in the real world' date=' that's just not true. There are so many other factors involved, and there are many examples in which increasing energy or force delivered onto the target has diminishing returns.[/quote']

Give me some examples where you can say that you'll have increasing energy or force delivered onto the target with diminishing returns, without knowing anything about a specific target. (in other words, you have no reason to believe that there will be blow through or anything like that).

[Mister E]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

You just named an example.

[Warp9]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

You just named an example.

 

Blow through?

 

That depends on the target not the attack.

 

Without knowing anything about the target, there is no way to know if there will be blow-through or not.

[Warp9]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

Actually it depends on both target and attack.

 

But there is no way to be sure with out also knowing what the target is.

[Warp9]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

I'm not sure that I communicated my intent clearly above.

 

My point is that the system doesn't really deal with stuff like "blow through."

 

If you want the system to deal with blow through, you're going to need rewrite the whole "breaking things" section of the book, and you're going to need some more data on both attacks and targets.

 

For Attacks: you need to know raw Power, Area in which that Power is focused, and how the energy of the attack will spread out once inside the target.

 

For Targets: Object Resistance, Object Overall Size, and Object Thickness (along attack vector). You also need to know if the Object has a homogenous composition (like a Borg Cube), or has Specialized vulnerable areas/organs.

 

At that point, you'll have a basis for talking about Blow-Through. Otherwise it's all "hand-waving."

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

I'm not sure that I communicated my intent clearly above.

 

My point is that the system doesn't really deal with stuff like "blow through."

 

If you want the system to deal with blow through, you're going to need rewrite the whole "breaking things" section of the book, and you're going to need some more data on both attacks and targets.

 

For Attacks: you need to know raw Power, Area in which that Power is focused, and how the energy of the attack will spread out once inside the target.

 

For Targets: Object Resistance, Object Overall Size, and Object Thickness (along attack vector). You also need to know if the Object has a homogenous composition (like a Borg Cube), or has Specialized vulnerable areas/organs.

 

At that point, you'll have a basis for talking about Blow-Through. Otherwise it's all "hand-waving."

 

If you lean too far towards simulationism, though, you can end up severely bogging down the gameplay. I feel your sensible and careful analysis of the rules -- which has been going on for quite some time since this thread started -- is admirable and accurate, but scrutinizing and tweaking to the degree you suggest probably isn't worth the trade-off in terms of realism vs. speed of play.

[Warp9]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

If you lean too far towards simulationism' date=' though, you can end up severely bogging down the gameplay. I feel your sensible and careful analysis of the rules -- which has been going on for quite some time since this thread started -- is admirable and accurate, but scrutinizing and tweaking to the degree you suggest probably isn't worth the trade-off in terms of realism vs. speed of play. [/quote']

People don't have to adopt all that stuff about figuring those kind of specifics; they can just ignore blow-through.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

People don't have to adopt all that stuff about figuring those kind of specifics; they can just ignore blow-through.

 

Or they can ignore the possibility there will be no blow through.

 

You're quite correct that there are numerous variables which will impact damage done by any specific attack to any specific target, even if force is constant. To bring all of these variables into game rules would create charts that make the Law series look like brochures. That wouold make for complexity which doesn't enhance the gaming experience enough to make it worthwhile IMO. The tradeoff between ease/speed of play and realism of results is one everyone decides for themselves, so anyone else may come to a different conclusion as to where they wish to draw the line.

 

Hero has made no secret that drama/good gameplay is prioritized over realism.

 

And, frankly, if I need a degree in physics to assess which approach is most "appropriate", then it's too much work. Just like any lawyer could likely blow holes through the entire Champs (Dark or not) legal system, and pretty much every courtroom drama on TV. Frankly, reality is pretty boring.

[zornwil]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

To paraphrase:

 

The Earth appears to be, "a little too easy to destroy." This section comes up with two possible solutions, that basically involve GM fiat:

 

1) Consider most attacks to have the Beam Limitation when used against the Earth, to simulate the fact that they only puncture relatively small holes in the planet, that don't have the potectial to endanger its structural integrity.

 

2) Usume that surface AoE/Explosion attacks, "take the path of least resistance and conform to the planet's surface (otherwise, nuclear test explosions might have cracked "the" Earth open!). Thus, only weapons specifically designed to effect huge swaths of a planet at once, or to burrow deep within it before taking effect, have a serious change of destroying it."

 

Also, as far as the 86 BODY of the Earth... this assumes quite a bit, appearantly. (, mostly, that the Earth is made of stone [19 BODY, 5 DEF]) For GM's that wish to more accurately represent the Earth's BODY, and such, they are encouraged to re-calculate, the Earth, and "account for the molten and solid metals at the Earth's core". Now, I haven't tried to figure this out yet, (and I would dig it if someone would do it for me, and save me the trouble), but IMO, this also doesn't take into consideration all of the other forces involved in keeping the Earth together... primarily gravity (which I could see being built as some kind of cosmic level Power Defense/Force Field/ or some such thing).

 

The following is a brainstorming excersize...

 

When you start thinking of something the size of the Earth as a single, targetable, object... you are stepping into a whole new level of reality. It's not necessary, but using the Beam Limitation, as an example, you chould perhaps come up with a few "stop-sign" Power Advantages to simulate the Earth's defenses, and the attacks required to damage it. Likewise, you could think of the Earth on a macro-cosmic scale, in comparison with people, and have it exist on another dimension, size-wise. You could even say that the Earth is Desolid to all normal attacks, except those specifically bought with the Affects Desolid: "Planetary Threat" Advantage.

 

I am just spit-balling... an official ruling would really solve everything, and I think "Target: Earth!" on page 197 of Star Hero, is all we are going to get. Maybe the Ultimate Brick has something in it. I've only glanced through it, so far, in the store.

I actually took this whole issue a different way, but related to the "pinpoint" idea, in Cyber Ninja Pirates. Basically, the Size Level matters. If a Size Level (X) with a weapon mounted appropriate to its size level (fudgy, yeah...) shoots at a larger Size Level (Y), then there are really two damage effects. The overall damage effect, the one we normally talk about, the one that affects the target's BOD, of what actually gets through is reduced by 1 for each difference in Size Level. You could also simply take this as comparing the total area affected by the attack (which is much better, I did it a different way for mere simplicity in the game setting) and the Size Level of that attack against the Size Level of the target. So if you have something that affects an area of, say, Size Level 3 and it strikes a Size Level 8 target, and it does 27 damage, 12 of which gets through the DEF of the SL 8 target, then that 12 is reduced by 5 - the SL 8 minus SL 3. So only 7 actually gets through. But I do call for a minimum of 1 BOD to get through - but this also scales down if the size difference is very great. The rule for this reads: "Beyond a size difference of 10 the minimum is only inflicted if on a d10 roll the result is equal to or greater than the difference divided by 5, dropping any fraction. For example, if the Size Level difference is 11, 1 BOD is inflicted on a d10 roll of 2 or better as 11 divided by 5 equals 2 (with the fraction dropped). A Size Level difference of 19 would require a d10 roll of 3 or better (19/5 = 2 with the fraction dropped), and so on. This means that a Size Level difference of 55 inhibits any real damage at all."

 

The rule goes on, though, about the pinpoint effect:

 

"This does not mean that the damage indicated prior to the Size Level adjustment is irrelevant. In fact, it is very important, simply in a smaller area which has little importance in the overall “life†of the vehicle but is quite important to breaching it if desired. If the damage done prior to the Size Level adjustment is half or more of the target’s BOD, a hole is breached that is big enough for the attacking object to move through without collision, though requiring a Piloting or vehicle Agility skill roll (as normal with any vehicular Agility roll as described above regarding vehicle skills) if a vehicle is attacking or a character’s Agility roll if an individual is attacking. It is natural where the damage was less than half for characters to attempt to expand the hole by striking adjacent to the first blow; this however invokes a -5 penalty to the attack roll, and if the roll succeeds by 4 or less the new damage (if any) may be added to the prior for this determination. If the roll succeeds by 5 or better and so long as at least 1 BOD penetrates the hole is automatically large enough for the vehicle or character to penetrate, assuming the Piloting or Agility roll. GMs who wish to streamline this process and eliminate tracking the damage may simply set the penalty to 8 and success (again, assuming any BOD damage gets through DEF) automatically allows for the Piloting/Agility roll."

 

That was my own solution. You can substitute "planet" for "vehicle" above.

[zornwil]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

On the larger issue, personally, I would actually want a scale that curves up somewhat rapidly then less and less, so that it takes a lot more to be sgnificantly greater with the same points beyond a certain level, to simulate that there are diminished returns. That's sort of how I did STR, I had a formula more complex than Fox1's in that it really depended on break points and a fairly complex formula, all for Lift and related.

 

I abandoned that for compatiblity and ease, though. In actual Play Experience, I just don't have an issue with the exponential and linear dichotomy EXCEPT that at higher and higher levels char and skill rolls become almost meaningless compared to "average" and, furthermore, just as cheap to double every 5 points, which seems a bit much. That's where I have flirted with the idea of schema such as multiple "maxima" that double the cost every level, so that (just as an example) at 20 we double the CP cost for a char, at 30 we double it again, and so on. So at each quadrupling of effect we double the cost, basically.

 

But that all doesn't seem necessary, in the end, to model most heroic fiction. It gets wonky (IME) only on the edges, in the higher edges, and it's usually almost necessary to deal more case by case as the efforts and results get more esoteric at that point and usually more SFX-laden.

 

Then again, I haven't given it enough thought largely because I'm not so disenchanted with the Play Experience. So I think it's certainly worth talking about as it's a fundamental under-pinning and there's certainly been ongonig issues and confusion on multiple related points.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

I actually took this whole issue a different way, but related to the "pinpoint" idea, in Cyber Ninja Pirates. Basically, the Size Level matters. If a Size Level (X) with a weapon mounted appropriate to its size level (fudgy, yeah...) shoots at a larger Size Level (Y), then there are really two damage effects. The overall damage effect, the one we normally talk about, the one that affects the target's BOD, of what actually gets through is reduced by 1 for each difference in Size Level. You could also simply take this as comparing the total area affected by the attack (which is much better, I did it a different way for mere simplicity in the game setting) and the Size Level of that attack against the Size Level of the target. So if you have something that affects an area of, say, Size Level 3 and it strikes a Size Level 8 target, and it does 27 damage, 12 of which gets through the DEF of the SL 8 target, then that 12 is reduced by 5 - the SL 8 minus SL 3. So only 7 actually gets through. But I do call for a minimum of 1 BOD to get through - but this also scales down if the size difference is very great. The rule for this reads: "Beyond a size difference of 10 the minimum is only inflicted if on a d10 roll the result is equal to or greater than the difference divided by 5, dropping any fraction. For example, if the Size Level difference is 11, 1 BOD is inflicted on a d10 roll of 2 or better as 11 divided by 5 equals 2 (with the fraction dropped). A Size Level difference of 19 would require a d10 roll of 3 or better (19/5 = 2 with the fraction dropped), and so on. This means that a Size Level difference of 55 inhibits any real damage at all."

 

The rule goes on, though, about the pinpoint effect:

 

"This does not mean that the damage indicated prior to the Size Level adjustment is irrelevant. In fact, it is very important, simply in a smaller area which has little importance in the overall “life†of the vehicle but is quite important to breaching it if desired. If the damage done prior to the Size Level adjustment is half or more of the target’s BOD, a hole is breached that is big enough for the attacking object to move through without collision, though requiring a Piloting or vehicle Agility skill roll (as normal with any vehicular Agility roll as described above regarding vehicle skills) if a vehicle is attacking or a character’s Agility roll if an individual is attacking. It is natural where the damage was less than half for characters to attempt to expand the hole by striking adjacent to the first blow; this however invokes a -5 penalty to the attack roll, and if the roll succeeds by 4 or less the new damage (if any) may be added to the prior for this determination. If the roll succeeds by 5 or better and so long as at least 1 BOD penetrates the hole is automatically large enough for the vehicle or character to penetrate, assuming the Piloting or Agility roll. GMs who wish to streamline this process and eliminate tracking the damage may simply set the penalty to 8 and success (again, assuming any BOD damage gets through DEF) automatically allows for the Piloting/Agility roll."

 

That was my own solution. You can substitute "planet" for "vehicle" above.

 

Nice work Zorn!

You and I are thinking along the same lines here... while your system is a little too "non-HERO-ish" in structure for my tastes (and thats mostly a style thing, really), this is the same line of reasoning I've been following. It helps address some of the weirder possible results from the vehicle system, for one thing, while perserving combat functionality. This way muskets won't hurt the "superstructure" of a pirate ship(vehicle BODY), for instance, but might well punch through a bulkhead and inflict some internal damage or biff a crew member or somesuch. It'd also mean that to hurt something like the Iowa you'd need an appropriately big attack.

[zornwil]

Re: Exponential VS Linear ?

 

Nice work Zorn!

You and I are thinking along the same lines here... while your system is a little too "non-HERO-ish" in structure for my tastes (and thats mostly a style thing, really), this is the same line of reasoning I've been following. It helps address some of the weirder possible results from the vehicle system, for one thing, while perserving combat functionality. This way muskets won't hurt the "superstructure" of a pirate ship(vehicle BODY), for instance, but might well punch through a bulkhead and inflict some internal damage or biff a crew member or somesuch. It'd also mean that to hurt something like the Iowa you'd need an appropriately big attack.

Agreed, I was building a game from HERO but not a HERO game, if you know what I mean, using the HERO system as purely a toolkit.

 

To HERO-ize it, though, I think it becomes a comparison of area affected versus Size Level and some sort of Coverage or Damage Reduction or reuse of an existing mechanic.

 

PS - and thanks!