Flaming Swords

[xanatos]

What is the most elegant/correct way to model a "flaming sword"? (a sword that is a standard sword and that does a little more fire-damage on top of the standard damage)

I'm pretty sure you already responded to this question, but with the crash of the msg boards I wasn't able to find it.

 

Bye

Max

[Steve Long]

Since this is a "how to" and not a rules question, I've moved it to "HERO System Discussion."

 

What do you think, Herodom Assembled?

[SuperBlue]

1d6 HKA - Sword (15)

1d6 RKA - Flame, No Range, Linked to Sword (15)

 

OAF

Independant (Optional)

 

AP: 30

RC: 12 (or 7 if Independant)

 

EDIT: Suppose I better do the math

 

Non-Independant:

Sword: 15/(1+1) = 7 (OAF)

Flame: 15/(1+2) = 5 (OAF, No Range, Linked to Sword)

Total: 12 Points

 

Independant:

Sword: 15/(1+3) = 4 (OAF, IND)

Flame: 15/(1+4) = 3 (OAF, IND, No Range, Linked to Sword)

Total: 7

[xanatos]

My problem is that this method is not very cost effective (as it had been demostrated plain simple HKA and RKA are the most cost-effective damage powers). But then, the cost is comparable with Reduced Penetration.

At least the AP are not summed (they are not summed, right?) so if I use (as a DM) an AP-cap, your solution is better than the Reduced Penetration one.

As always beatiful ideas are not cost-effective! :-)

[JmOz]

FOR SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT

 

COnsider applying the following advantages to it: Continous, uncontrolled, (0 end as well, but that might be placed on the sword itself) then the sword will continue to burn the person after the attack (The first attak is at 1d6 HKA)

[Blue]

And sticky! Each time someone tries to put them out, they catch fire too! Pretty soon the whole town is running through the streets and crying out in pain.

 

Well, maybe not. I've just been playing with that advantage for a few days to see what else I could do with it.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Assuming the weapon in question is a Long Sword or a Broad Sword, here's how I write up the Flaming Sword:

Flaming Sword: 38pt Multipower.

OAF(-1) Indep(-2) Strmin(-1/2) 10pts

 

1) Sword(non-flame): 1 1/2D6HKA(25) Ultra slot: 1pt Str Min 10

 

2) Sword(Flaming): 2D6HKA(30) +1StunX(+1/4) 37.5act: Reduced Pen(-1/4) Not In Water(-1/4) Ultra slot: 1pt. Str Min 10.

 

Now apply a minor House Rule (its nothing system-busting) that says the 1/2 of the Reduced Pen is vs PD Armor and the other 1/2 of the attack is vs ED Armor and you are good to go. The +1StunX represents the pain of fire damage. I didn't figure in 0End into the mix, but thats not too difficult to add in if you require it.

 

This represents your basic magical Flame Brand sword as seen in D&D and other such fantasy RPG's. Since the SFX of the flaming sword is fire, it can light flamables and other such "effects" for free...it shouldn't light people and creatures afire unless they are specifically susceptible to flame These Weapons don't blaze much brighter/hotter than a lit torch and in most fantasy games, you get to carry those for free....

[Legendsmiths]

Referring to SuperBlue's 1d6/1d6 sword. Are defenses applied once or twice? That is, am I essentially rolling 2d6 damage or am I rolling 2 1d6 damage effects, which is obviously much easier to defend against.

[Heroman]

One thing, more supporting the Linked solution than others, is that the sword is a Physical killing attack, while fire is usually considered Energy (at least in the desc of 'ED'), so different defenses will probably be applied for each component of the flaming sword. Depending on how napalm-like the fire is, you can probably handle the spread of fire as a SFX if it just catches stuff which is normally flammable...

[Killer Shrike]

Sword: HKA 1d6 HKA (plus STR) [sFX: Edged]

OAF (-1)

15 AP 7 RC

plus

Flamebrand: 1d6 RKA [sFX: Fire]

0 END Continuous Uncontrolled Sticky (+2 1/2)

No Range, OAF, Linked to Sword (-1 3/4)

52 AP 17 RC

 

Total Cost: 67 AP, 24 RC

 

The Flamebrand can be activated or not at the wielders option. For a Sword that is always flaming:

 

Sword: HKA 1d6 HKA (plus STR) [sFX: Edged]

OAF, Linked to Flamebrand (-1 1/4)

15 AP 7 RC

plus

Flamebrand: 1d6 RKA [sFX: Fire]

0 END Continuous Uncontrolled Sticky (+2 1/2)

No Range, OAF, Linked to Sword (-1 3/4)

52 AP 17 RC

 

Total Cost: 67 AP, 24 RC

 

Same price thanx to rounding, so its a matter of choice.

 

Alternately, if the Sword is INDEPENDENT:

 

Sword: HKA 1d6 HKA (plus STR) [sFX: Edged]

OAF, IND (-3)

15 AP 4 RC

plus

Flamebrand: 1d6 RKA [sFX: Fire]

0 END Continuous Uncontrolled Sticky (+2 1/2)

No Range, OAF, IND, Linked to Sword (-3 3/4)

52 AP 11 RC

 

Total Cost: 67 AP, 15 RC

 

or if the Sword is literally ON FIRE:

 

Sword: HKA 1d6 HKA (plus STR) [sFX: Edged]

OAF (-1)

15 AP 7 RC

plus

Flamebrand: 1d6 RKA [sFX: Fire]

0 END Continuous Offensive Damage Shield, Sticky (+2 3/4)

OAF, Linked to Sword (-1 1/4)

56 AP 25 RC

 

Total Cost: 71 AP, 32 RC

 

INDEPENDENT:

Sword: HKA 1d6 HKA (plus STR) [sFX: Edged]

OAF, IND (-3)

15 AP 4 RC

plus

Flamebrand: 1d6 RKA [sFX: Fire]

0 END Continuous Offensive Damage Shield, Sticky (+2 3/4)

OAF, IND, Linked to Sword (-3 1/4)

56 AP 13 RC

 

Total Cost: 71 AP, 17 RC

 

I dont have my book with me, so Im going on memory here; IIRC Dmg Shield is +1/2, must be Constant, you dont get No Range for ranged, you dont get No Strength for HKA/HA, and is +1/4 for Offensive use. If any of that is not true, recalc the Dmg Shield.

 

 

This would shred unprotected commoners, leather armor types, etc. The termination for the 0 END Contin Uncon is to douse the flame, which can be established by Stop Drop and Roll, application of water or dirt, or any other reasonable means of extinguishing a fire.

 

As part of the SFX of Fire, use of Lamp Oil or other flammable liquid could result in an augmentation of the damage. I would probably adjudicate that as either an Aid to the Flame, or perhaps treat it like a boostable charge, with the uses of the flammable applied treated as +1 DC each. This would also make it harder to douse the flame for a short period of time. That sort of thing is all handled by SFX.

 

 

For a Flamebrand that would hurt heavily armored characters in Platemail, apply Penetrating to the Power Construct.

[pinecone]

Last time I did this I just went with "It's a special effect" so Sword:+1 OCV 1D6+1 HKA...Flaming:+2 OCV 2D6 HKA no price break as you can always do less than max dam if you want. It was actually a paracite demon in a swords form that "fed" on rage and pain....

[Koshka]

When I wrote up a similar sword (it didn't burn, it just heated up to 700 degrees Fahrenheit whenever drawn), I used Damage Shield. It's pricey, at 38 points for the complete sword, but it made sense for the sword to burn anyone who came in contact with it regardless of whether or not it was the sword holder's phase.

[pinecone]

And of course in an heroic campain characters don't pay for equip so cost is only an issue if you want to make one with the independant lim usually...

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by pinecone

And of course in an heroic campain characters don't pay for equip so cost is only an issue if you want to make one with the independant lim usually...

Flaming swords are not usually considered 'equipment' in any campaign Ive run, played in, or heard of.

[pinecone]

Dude you make players pay for found items? Man I have always let a player treat a item o' power as equipment...what else? "Dude ,sorry you cannot pick up the dark lords mace...you can't afford it" Although with the flamming sword "The wrath of Sullorn" the player acually did pay for it with a part of her soul (sold of a few points of characteristics) bartered to a big a**ed demon but that just meant it was a part of the character and even if stolen or sold would find it way back to the character eventually...sort of a "signature weapon" it also made her easy to find with mind scan because she in effect had "two" souls her own and the sword ,that held her rage and pain at those who had wronged her etc....

[Killer Shrike]

Thats not what I said; I said Flaming Swords (and by inference other Magic items) are not "EQUIPMENT". They are Power Constructs. If the item is constructed with Independent, then of course characters gain them for free when 'found' by the definition of Independent.

 

As a side note, even Equipment must be expressed as a Power, so either way such effects should be statted out.

[Legendsmiths]

Just fishing for an answer.

 

Do you apply the flame effects separately against defenses or combined? If separately, I think buying a large power and making it reduced pen might be more appropriate, but that seems to cheapen the power significantly.

 

Stepping back and looking at it from a meta standpoint (not realism or anything else), the flaming sword should be more deadly than a regular sword, and simply do more damage because of it.

[Killer Shrike]

You apply the damage seperately, the Sword (Edged) vs PD, the Flamebrand (Fire) vs ED.

 

Fire does not make Swords cut better and Swords dont make Fire burn better.

 

Vs an unprotected foe, it does do more damage. A protected foes defenses must be surrmounted. If you want the fire to be deadlier, add Penetrating to represent the heat damage. It will destroy most armor fairly quickly, and ensure that massive damage is inflicted.

 

Read the rules on FOCI and Body damage. Even assuming Armor is by its nature Durable, a Penetrating attack that is Continuous Uncontrolled is going to melt or burn away almost all Armor fast.

[pinecone]

Oh...got ya...I guess in my mind Big flammin swords are a part and parcel of the genera so I think of them the same way I would an X-ray laser or a suit of power armor in Star hero. What I was expressing is there is no need to get too jumpy about the correct way or the cheapest way if no one is going to have to pay....Just get into the ball park and then fine tune and it's good....

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Flaming Swords

 

Thats not what I said; I said Flaming Swords (and by inference other Magic items) are not "EQUIPMENT". They are Power Constructs. If the item is constructed with Independent, then of course characters gain them for free when 'found' by the definition of Independent.

 

As a side note, even Equipment must be expressed as a Power, so either way such effects should be statted out.

 

RESSURECTION!

 

I must answer this.

 

Equipment that the GM writes up DOES NOT have to be expressed as a Power and fully statted out. I do this all the time. In my fantasy games, I write up "Flame Brand" swords as +2 OCV, 1-1/2D6K, +1 StunX. They get +1DC because they are magic and they get +1 Stun multiplier because burns are freaking painful. The real advantage of the Flame Brand is that due to its SFX it can cast light as if it were a torch and it can light flammables (no need for flint and steel or rubbing some sticks together) and does extra damage to creatures vulnerable to fire attacks. I don't stat out any of that except the OCV bonus, damage and stun X. The rest is implied.

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

Re: Flaming Swords

 

Equipment that the GM writes up DOES NOT have to be expressed as a Power and fully statted out. I do this all the time. In my fantasy games' date=' I write up "Flame Brand" swords ... (Snip.) I don't stat out any of that except the OCV bonus, damage and stun X. The rest is implied.[/quote']

 

Considering that you could spend hours 'statting up' stupid stuff ("Rope? You statted out rope?!?"), yes, some aspects aren't necessary to be deliberately statted -- the fire damage, the light, the extra damage to creatures vulnerable to fire attacks. (That's an SF/X call, taken care of by a) your statement that it's a fire brand, and the monster's disad of 'Vulnerable to Fire'.) The serious, game-affecting stuff should be, and clearly was -- but you shouldn't NEED to create stats for your 10' pole or your horse's shoes. Or your own shoes, for that matter...

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Flaming Swords

 

I agree with both of you about the need, or lack there of, of statting everythin; but I don't think that is exactly what KS meant. The original post was generic and didn’t say if it was for a PC or not. If someone asks how to make something don’t you usually assume it’s something that should be statted out UNLESS they say it’s for an NPC or some such reason?

 

KS gave stats for doing it five different ways depending on how it would be used, without even looking in the book. I’m newer to the system and I like to stat out a fair amount of things I don’t really need to (things like plot-point gimmicks I could hand-wave, but don’t because I like the experience). It’s useful to see fully statted things, especially weapons, even “found weapons” that seem campaign specific. Comparing statting a rope or horseshoe to A FLAMING SWORD is like comparing statting a backpack to Superman’s Heat Vision. It’s ridiculous and does nothing to help either of you folk’s point.

 

Also, everything in KS’s build has a reason that fits with what was requested, a flaming sword. Why does your flaming sword have +1OCV? Because it’s magic? Are we assuming all objects on fire increase your chance to hit? Is your 1-1/2d6K damage against PD or ED? I’m assuming ED because it’s on fire. So what happens if you meet a fire resistant/impervious character? You can’t hurt him with the sword just because it’s on fire?

 

 

While your point about not needing to stat everything is true, I think your example actually hurts your argument. KS’s build could be used cross genre much more easily than yours, and could even be used by a PC as a power in pretty much any game while someone would have to go back, stat out your construct to figure out points, define the type of damage (as I mentioned above), etcetera.

 

P.S. Reviving a 5 year old thread to go "YOUR WRONG" to someone, seems a little snarky at best. Especially if you're point is a) commonly known and accepted and not supported well by explanation or example.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Flaming Swords

 

...

In my fantasy games, I write up "Flame Brand" swords as ....

 

Note that this is the HERO System Discussion forum (non-genre specific).

That plus the fact that you're responding to a post that is 5 years old is just a little odd.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Flaming Swords

 

Note that this is the HERO System Discussion forum (non-genre specific).

That plus the fact that you're responding to a post that is 5 years old is just a little odd.

 

 

I've been exercising my Necromantic powers lately. You'll likely see more undead threads shambling about in the near future.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Flaming Swords

 

I agree with both of you about the need' date=' or lack there of, of statting everythin; but I don't think that is exactly what KS meant. The original post was generic and didn’t say if it was for a PC or not. If someone asks how to make something don’t you usually assume it’s something that should be statted out UNLESS they say it’s for an NPC or some such reason? [/quote']

 

Please keep in mind that there is this mentality amongst Hero gamers (especialy the old guard) that absolutely everything must be fully statted out. And by that I mean every aspect fleshed out, using powers and advantages and limitations keeping full track of both active and real point costs.

Of corse, when it comes to important weapons and equipment, you need the stats, but do you really need to write out everything? We know its an OAF. We know its Independant. Do we need to know the active points on a .45 in a Pulp game, or the real cost of a Phased Plasma Rifle with a 40 watt range in our post apocalyptic game? No, I don't think we do. As long as we have the game stats and the weapon/equipment is playable, the rest is just filler.

 

KS gave stats for doing it five different ways depending on how it would be used, without even looking in the book. I’m newer to the system and I like to stat out a fair amount of things I don’t really need to (things like plot-point gimmicks I could hand-wave, but don’t because I like the experience). It’s useful to see fully statted things, especially weapons, even “found weapons” that seem campaign specific. Comparing statting a rope or horseshoe to A FLAMING SWORD is like comparing statting a backpack to Superman’s Heat Vision. It’s ridiculous and does nothing to help either of you folk’s point.

 

I occasionally run a Space Opera style game in HERO. I spent probably 4 or 5 years working on this campaign setting before I ran it. I had statted out about 300 weapons and about 100 different types of armor and armor options. I didn't have the active or real costs on a single one. I just had a big-ass chart of the equipments combat effects. (OCV, Rmod, Damage, StunX, Ammo, Rate of fire, Range, SFX and relevant Advantages/Limitations. In the case of armor, its Defense, which hit locations it covers, weight and the number of options slots it had) You know what? It worked beautifully.

 

Also, everything in KS’s build has a reason that fits with what was requested, a flaming sword. Why does your flaming sword have +1OCV? Because it’s magic? Are we assuming all objects on fire increase your chance to hit? Is your 1-1/2d6K damage against PD or ED? I’m assuming ED because it’s on fire. So what happens if you meet a fire resistant/impervious character? You can’t hurt him with the sword just because it’s on fire?

 

It has +1OCV because I like to give "magic" weapons additional OCV bonuses. Makes them better than non-magic weapons of the same kind. I also usually add +1 or +2 Damage Classes to the equation, sometimes.

In general, the weapon would go against PD. However, against a creature significantly vulnerable to fire, I might allow it to go against ED, if the ED is lower than the PD. For a creature resistant to fire, yes, the damage would be reduced, so it would be to the characters interest to extinguish the flames and fight with the sword without them. (notice I said "reduced" not nullified. Some damage would still get through)

As a GM, I'm flexible like that.

 

While your point about not needing to stat everything is true, I think your example actually hurts your argument. KS’s build could be used cross genre much more easily than yours, and could even be used by a PC as a power in pretty much any game while someone would have to go back, stat out your construct to figure out points, define the type of damage (as I mentioned above), etcetera.

 

Yeah, I have no problem with this.

 

P.S. Reviving a 5 year old thread to go "YOUR WRONG" to someone, seems a little snarky at best. Especially if you're point is a) commonly known and accepted and not supported well by explanation or example.

 

I've just been on a resurrection rampage lately, thats all. And I'm not about "You're Wrong!" posts, I just feel the need to oppose "Everything must be fully statted out!" posts. Big difference.