Hero is broken

[rayoman]

Re: Hero is broken

 

And in the original version of Shadowrun' date=' you could stuff a grenade down your shorts and suffer - at worst - a Moderate Wound (it takes three Moderate Wounds and 1 Light Wound to be killed in SR).[/quote']

 

try this in an elevator and you should be paste. oh, wait, that was 2nd edition shadowrun.

[Warp9]

Re: Hero is broken

 

Anyway, a supertanker is more massive than an Iowa-class battleship, IIRC. They're both vehicles, so by strict mass-to-BODY ratio logic, the supertanker should have more BODY.

 

Which do you think should have more BODY?

I would have no problem going with the more massive vehicle, especially because the battleship could have more defense.

 

I am fine with "ball-park" estimates. And IMO you are being waaay too picky for a game.

 

Strictly tying the ability to absorb damage to mass is a mistake in the same way that strictly tying the ability to inflict damage to energy, force, or momentum delivered is a mistake. It's a tempting but fundamentally flawed simplification that ignores most of what's actually going on during impacts and other damage-inducing events.

You complain about how HERO does things, but you have yet to propose a better model.

[Kristopher]

Re: Hero is broken

 

I would have no problem going with the more massive vehicle, especially because the battleship could have more defense.

 

I am fine with "ball-park" estimates. And IMO you are being waaay too picky for a game.

 

 

You complain about how HERO does things, but you have yet to propose a better model.

 

Ah, the "let's see you do better" defense.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Hero is broken

 

Ah' date=' the "let's see you do better" defense.[/quote']

 

That's actually a pretty good defense, as it puts the "attacker" on the spot as being a troublemaker, more interested in criticizing a problem than actually fixing it.

 

...Oh, hello, Kristopher! Fancy seeing you posting to this thread!

[KawangaKid]

A Time Out

 

This Time Out brought to you by Captain Non-Sequitur:

 

Hero is broken, like the first warning

Black Knight has spoken, like in first ed

Glaze for the singing, Blaze for the morning

Praise for the raising flesh from the dead

 

And now, back to your regularly scheduled thread... already in progress.

[Mister E]

Re: Hero is broken

 

Wow. Was that about that thread over in NGD?

Yeah... Maybe just a little bit.

 

1) You called David Hume, (one of the most influencial and important Empiricists in the history of the human race), a "Master of Navel Gazing."

 

2) you argued that having a telescope was the same as perceiving reality on a macro-scale.

 

3) You argued the same thing about bat sonar.

 

4) Your argued against my definition of the word "knowledge", and then when you were proven wrong, you flippantly disregarded the fact entirely, suggesting that philophers need to twist language in order to come to conclusions.

 

5) You said that your belly button, and the fact that you radiate and receive heat, wasn't evidence that you are connected to the rest of reality.

 

6) And the worst, "...David Hume, a brilliant philosopher, believed that only ideas exist, but not minds. I do too, obviously..." is a total misquote, which takes two different quotes, and splices them together in a way that discredits me. I understand that this probably isn't your fault, and is just an accident, but it bugs me.

 

There's more, but it's just more, nothing else. I don't even know why I'm addressing this here. Probably for the same reason that I argue against Creationism with people I meet on the street, downtown.

 

Anyhow... what was the question?

 

Anyway, a supertanker is more massive than an Iowa-class battleship, IIRC. They're both vehicles, so by strict mass-to-BODY ratio logic, the supertanker should have more BODY.

 

Which do you think should have more BODY?

Okay, well I just cheated, and looked them both up in the HERO System Vehicle Sourcebook. There, the Container Ship is given a size of 21 and a BODY of 31. The Battleship is also given a size of 21, but a BODY of 35. (This, to me, would imply that the Battleship has 16x the virtual BODY of the Containership, but I know you will disagree with that.) The Containership was given the base BODY for a vehicle of its size. The Battleship, not surprisingly, was given +4 BODY beyond its base size. Only considering the full crew of crack sailors aboard the Battleship, should easily double or quadrulpe its survivability. This, coupled with its superior and deliberate military design, accounts for the +4 BODY, in my mind.

 

Do these write-ups jive with you? I'm pretty cool with them.

 

 

Strictly tying the ability to absorb damage to mass is a mistake in the same way that strictly tying the ability to inflict damage to energy, force, or momentum delivered is a mistake. It's a tempting but fundamentally flawed simplification that ignores most of what's actually going on during impacts and other damage-inducing events.

Okay, did anyone here say that we must "strictly" tie the ability to absorb damage to mass? Hm... Did anybody? (I mean seriously, this form of argument is exactly what I was talking about.) Beyond that, I think you are trying to be WAY too realistic... am I to gather that you don't like the Damage Class system either?

 

Okay, to do what you are suggesting, is probably impossible. Once upon a time, I was a Naval Hospital Corpsman, who was Field Medical Service qualified to go out with the Marines, and patch up bullet wounds... among other things. But anybody on this Discussion Board is probably knowledgable enough to understand that there are way too many variables involved in breaking things and wounding people, to even want to simulate this in the HERO System rules.

 

If you need more variables in your combat, use Hit Locations; Wounding; Impairing and Disabling; and/or Bleeding. If that's not enough, well... then the HERO System really is flawed, I guess.

[tesuji]

Re: Hero is broken

 

Okay, did anyone here say that we must "strictly" tie the ability to absorb damage to mass? Hm... Did anybody? (I mean seriously, this form of argument is exactly what I was talking about.) Beyond that, I think you are trying to be WAY too realistic...

 

Well while the word strictly was not used, the response he was replying to was...

 

"You are making this waaay more complex than it has to be. HERO already has a method for relatively accurately determining the BODY of any object from a bicycle to a planet.

 

Just extend the Object Body Chart to anywhere you want to go. Figure out the mass of your object and use +1 BODY per X 2 Mass. That method works fine for me, I don't see what your problem with it is."

 

As this was a reply to a point about the complexity of getting an accurate body determination mechanic, the statement is pretty clearly in meaning going towards this being "the mechanic", not "a baseline and then do other things."

 

I think the word "Just" and the context makes the "strictly" not as out of whack a comment as you want to paint it.

 

If you are going to accept that, after using the mass thingy, we then apply whatever adjustments we consider reasonable" (as in the case of the battleship), then you don't need to add a new system to hero to accomodate mass-to-body relationships. A 120 lb guy can have the body score approaching that of a battleship if the extra +19 body or so is "reasonable" in the eyes of the genre and the character. thats how the system works now.

Its not "broken" that the unspecified variables aren't related to mass.

 

Perhaps, if you feel its not "just" as simple as a case of mapping mass to body as warp9 suggests, you should be disagreeing with his statement, since it seems like you and kristopher both believe in other elements than just mass.

 

that is, if you can step away from whatever grudge match you decided to launch here.

[Warp9]

Re: Hero is broken

 

Ah' date=' the "let's see you do better" defense.[/quote']

Yes, that is it exactly.

 

It is unlikely that any game system is going to give 100 percent perfect results; accuracy is going to be relative. Just saying something is "not accurate" doesn't mean much.

[Warp9]

Re: Hero is broken

 

Well while the word strictly was not used, the response he was replying to was...

 

"You are making this waaay more complex than it has to be. HERO already has a method for relatively accurately determining the BODY of any object from a bicycle to a planet.

 

Just extend the Object Body Chart to anywhere you want to go. Figure out the mass of your object and use +1 BODY per X 2 Mass. That method works fine for me, I don't see what your problem with it is."

 

As this was a reply to a point about the complexity of getting an accurate body determination mechanic, the statement is pretty clearly in meaning going towards this being "the mechanic", not "a baseline and then do other things."

 

I think the word "Just" and the context makes the "strictly" not as out of whack a comment as you want to paint it.

 

If you are going to accept that, after using the mass thingy, we then apply whatever adjustments we consider reasonable" (as in the case of the battleship), then you don't need to add a new system to hero to accomodate mass-to-body relationships. A 120 lb guy can have the body score approaching that of a battleship if the extra +19 body or so is "reasonable" in the eyes of the genre and the character. thats how the system works now.

Its not "broken" that the unspecified variables aren't related to mass.

 

Perhaps, if you feel its not "just" as simple as a case of mapping mass to body as warp9 suggests, you should be disagreeing with his statement, since it seems like you and kristopher both believe in other elements than just mass.

 

that is, if you can step away from whatever grudge match you decided to launch here.

+1 BODY per X2 Mass gives you a method for increasing BODY as mass goes up.

 

It does not tell you that a 1 KG cunck of Qionxite can't have 50 BODY.

 

It does tell you that if a 1 KG cunck of Qionxite has 50 BODY, then a 2 KG chunk will have 51 BODY, and a 1000 KG chunk will have 60 BODY.

[zornwil]

Re: Hero is broken

 

Yeah... Maybe just a little bit.

 

1) You called David Hume, ... (snipped)

 

It's customary to leave NGD issues to NGD. Some of the long-time posters here are bitter rivals in NGD, so to speak, but have fun here without regard to that.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: A Time Out

 

This Time Out brought to you by Captain Non-Sequitur:

 

Hero is broken, like the first warning

Black Knight has spoken, like in first ed

Glaze for the singing, Blaze for the morning

Praise for the raising flesh from the dead

 

And now, back to your regularly scheduled thread... already in progress.

 

Hey! I know this:

 

Morning has broken, like the first morning

Blackbird has spoken, like the first bird

Praise for the singing, praise for the morning

Praise for them springing fresh from the word

 

Sweet the rain's new fall, sunlit from heaven

Like the first dewfall, on the first grass

Praise for the sweetness of the wet garden

Sprung in completeness where His feet pass

 

Mine is the sunlight, mine is the morning

Born of the one light, Eden saw play

Praise with elation, praise every morning

God's recreation of the new day

 

Good song, good song.

[Warp9]

Re: Hero is broken

 

Kristopher's comments about mass, energy, and damage, have made me think of something that he posted on a different thread (about the USS Iowa)

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31293&page=2&pp=15

 

(from Post #28)

 

The problem is that there is simply no easy relationship between energy delivered on target' date=' and lethality. Take the oft-mentioned example of the 120mm Rehinmetall. [b']Create another gun than fires a large, blunt projectile at a slower velocity, but delivers the same energy on target, because of the larger mass (KE = .5mv^2). Equal energy[/b].

 

The 120mm from the Abrams kills the target time tank time after time.

 

The hypothetical bowling-ball gun bounces its projectiles off the tank time after time.

I've been meaning to take on this example for some time. . . .

 

Lets imagine that we are going to take up that challenge and create a gun that fires slower, but larger, projectiles which will have the same KE as the 120mm gun (9 MegaJoules).

 

And to be sure that we have a good example of the difference (we need to be sure our example is different enough), let us work with a much different projectile. This projectile will be much slower and much heavier.

 

This will be a large projectile lobbed at 10 meters/sec. This is pretty slow, but still fast enough to do some damage with the proper collusion.

 

Now how heavy will this projectile have to be? To figure that we can start with the KE formula and solve it for mass, then plug in our other numbers.

 

KE = 0.5 * Mass * Velocity^2

 

Solved for Mass. . . .

 

Mass = KE / (0.5 * Velocity^2 )

 

Now to plug in the proper numbers

 

Mass = 9,000,000 / ( 0.5 * 10^2 )

 

Mass = 9,000,000 / (0.5 * 100)

 

Mass = 9,000,000 / 50

 

Mass = 180,000 KG or 180 tons. (180 tons is a chuck of metal which is far heavier than the tank itself)

 

So this larger heavier (180 ton) projectile (which is actually much heavier than the target) will just bounce right off the tank time after time?

 

Sure Kristopher, of course it will, just like an SUV will bounce right off a motercycle time after time---correct?

[zornwil]

Re: A Time Out

 

Hey! I know this:

 

Morning has broken, like the first morning

Blackbird has spoken, like the first bird

Praise for the singing, praise for the morning

Praise for them springing fresh from the word

 

Sweet the rain's new fall, sunlit from heaven

Like the first dewfall, on the first grass

Praise for the sweetness of the wet garden

Sprung in completeness where His feet pass

 

Mine is the sunlight, mine is the morning

Born of the one light, Eden saw play

Praise with elation, praise every morning

God's recreation of the new day

 

Good song, good song.

Well, let's just say I prefer Kawanga Kid's version better...

[Kristopher]

Re: Hero is broken

 

Kristopher's comments about mass, energy, and damage, have made me think of something that he posted on a different thread (about the USS Iowa)

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31293&page=2&pp=15

 

(from Post #28)

 

 

I've been meaning to take on this example for some time. . . .

 

Lets imagine that we are going to take up that challenge and create a gun that fires slower, but larger, projectiles which will have the same KE as the 120mm gun (9 MegaJoules).

 

And to be sure that we have a good example of the difference (we need to be sure our example is different enough), let us work with a much different projectile. This projectile will be much slower and much heavier.

 

This will be a large projectile lobbed at 10 meters/sec. This is pretty slow, but still fast enough to do some damage with the proper collusion.

 

Now how heavy will this projectile have to be? To figure that we can start with the KE formula and solve it for mass, then plug in our other numbers.

 

KE = 0.5 * Mass * Velocity^2

 

Solved for Mass. . . .

 

Mass = KE / (0.5 * Velocity^2 )

 

Now to plug in the proper numbers

 

Mass = 9,000,000 / ( 0.5 * 10^2 )

 

Mass = 9,000,000 / (0.5 * 100)

 

Mass = 9,000,000 / 50

 

Mass = 180,000 KG or 180 tons. (180 tons is a chuck of metal which is far heavier than the tank itself)

 

So this larger heavier (180 ton) projectile (which is actually much heavier than the target) will just bounce right off the tank time after time?

 

Sure Kristopher, of course it will, just like an SUV will bounce right off a motercycle time after time---correct?

 

A) That's at the other far end of the possibilities, and not what I had in mind, exactly (note the phrase "bowling ball gun").

 

Depends on how it hits the tank. It's only travelling about 22 mph, so striking the Abrams head-on, it might not produce that much damage in the collision. Dropped from above so that it lands doing 10 m/s, I'd expect a lot more damage.

[Mister E]

Re: Hero is broken

 

+1 BODY per X2 Mass gives you a method for increasing BODY as mass goes up.

 

It does not tell you that a 1 KG cunck of Qionxite can't have 50 BODY.

 

It does tell you that if a 1 KG cunck of Qionxite has 50 BODY, then a 2 KG chunk will have 51 BODY, and a 1000 KG chunk will have 60 BODY.

I can't even believe this is under debate.

[zornwil]

Re: Hero is broken

 

I can't even believe this is under debate.

And yet you can believe that reality isn't objective?

 

This is an Internet forum, man, get a hold of yourself!

 

[Mister E]

Re: Hero is broken

 

It's customary to leave NGD issues to NGD. Some of the long-time posters here are bitter rivals in NGD' date=' so to speak, but have fun here without regard to that.[/quote']Yeah, I know. I'm sorry. Let's just forget about that stuff, and move on then.

 

Hello, my name is Mister E.

 

I believe that BODY is exponential.

 

A popular argument people like to bring against exponential BODY, is that they like to arbitrarily apply BODY, without regard to its inherent exponential nature... and that I should "keep my laws off of their BODY." (I just made that up.)

 

This, in effect, nullifies any meaning the attribute has, other than being some kind of meta-game 'killability' score, for min-max'ers who don't really care to simulate jack with their character's stats.

 

People have gone so far as to say that the mass (and/or size) of a character (and/or object) is irrelavant in determining BODY, despite the mountains of evidence, which are promptly ignored.

 

Bold people make comments to the effect that the Object BODY Table is inadequate to simulate the massive number of variables involved in figuring out the BODY of any object, and should therefore be ignored. (This obviously ignores that fact that 5er suggests modifying the BODY of special case objects.) The conclusion is that BODY should be counted out according to personal taste, for it is impossible to have any kind of system of virtual meaning attached to the BODY stat... or that a much more complicated system should be figured out, that incorperates Organ-Systems; Material Strengths; Structural Engineering; completely new systems of dispensing damage; whatever... as long as BODY isn't exponential.

 

Other people believe that the exponential aspect of BODY only relates to its mass (and/or size), and that all other qualities of an object that relate to BODY should be dolled out in a linear fashion, and thus... this discounts any real meaning of BODY... certainly in any kind of exponential "+1 BODY = x2 virtual effective BODY" way.

 

Still other people argue that the +1 BODY doesn't equal x2 effectiveness in all situations. Well, these people are right. But in the end, 20 BODY shouldn't be considered double 10 BODY either... the same that a 20 DC attack shouldn't be considered double the damage of a 10 DC attack. 5 points of Growth gives you +1 BODY, not double whatever BODY you have... The same way that 5 points of Growth gives you +5 STR, allows you to pick up objects twice as heavy, and do +1d6 more Normal Damage per hit (which, amazingly, averages +1 more point of BODY Damage per hit).

 

I believe that a 16 BODY grizzly bear should be considered an object with effectively 8x the BODY of a 13 BODY Volkswagen Beetle; and that a 100kg man, with a nye-superhumanly fierce will to live, which was represented with a BODY of 17, should be considered a being with twice the BODY of the 16 BODY grizzly bear.

 

My new definition for +1 BODY is, "a virtual effective doubling of the total BODY characteristic."

 

I think an even more interesting conversation, would be the relationship between DEF and BODY... especially when comparing the Powers: Density Increase and Growth.

[Mister E]

Re: Hero is broken

 

And yet you can believe that reality isn't objective?

 

This is an Internet forum, man, get a hold of yourself!

 

Please don't start this here... I want to be good, but I'm weak.

 

"True Reality is beyond conception, and cannot be objectified, only subjectively known. You show me a man that has objectifed anything, and I'll show you an imperfect approximation of true reality. I honestly don't see how people can debate this either."

 

... no more, please. I've learned my lesson. I only want to discuss N-NGD topics, here. No spillage. N-NGD forums are pure, clean, virginal gardens of Eden, that must exist without cares for Politics... Cat-Suits... or Military Porn.

[Vorsch]

Re: Hero is broken

 

' date=' virginal gardens of Eden, that must exist without cares for Politics... Cat-Suits... or Military Porn.[/quote']

 

what a weird combo, i aint going to you local political meetings ( well maybe i am kinda curious )

[Warp9]

Re: Hero is broken

 

That's at the other far end of the possibilities,

The fact that you say such a thing shows a lack of imagination.

 

That is NOT the far end of the range, in fact, neither is the actual tank gun.

 

We could have a 18,000,000,000 ton object moving at 1 mm per second. (but that would not do much damage unless it sandwiched you with a different large object, if that happened it would be like the trash compactor scene in StarWars)

 

Or we could have a much smaller object moving much faster that the tank gun projectile.

 

My point was that almost any collusion which injected 9 MegaJoules of energy into the target would have a massive result. A opposed to your point which was that the tank gun would only have an impact due to the very specific nature of its projectile.

 

 

 

 

and not what I had in mind, exactly (note the phrase "bowling ball gun").

Well you did ask for something larger and slower, that is what I gave you. . . . And I assumed that the "bowling ball gun" thing was an error on your part.

 

The shell of the 120mm tank gun weighs in at over 13 lbs (over 6kg in mass). Where as the average bowling ball weighs between 10 to 16 pounds (with an average of 13 lbs) And here is my source on that matter.

 

http://ks.essortment.com/howbowlingball_rgdq.htm

Generally women should use bowling balls ranging from 10 to 14 pounds and men bowling balls from 14 to the maximum of 16 pounds.

 

So you see, it already fires a projectile as heavy as a bowling ball, I assumed the "bowling ball gun" term was a mistake on your part (I gave you a projectile which really was much heavier).

 

As a side note: Obviously a bowling ball would do less damage to some (heavily armored) targets, but it might do more damage to some other types of targets. If we don't know anything about our target the best we can say is that the impact will be 9 MegaJoules, getting more specific than that will require a more complex system (you'll need to know the energy involved, the area which it is focused within, the way the energy spreads out inside the target, the thickness of the target along the attack vector, the inner composition of the target along the attack vector, and that is just to start you off).

 

 

 

 

 

Depends on how it hits the tank. It's only travelling about 22 mph, so striking the Abrams head-on, it might not produce that much damage in the collision.

In any case, it is unlikely to simply "bounce off" as you suggested. The tank is almost sure to go flying back when hit with the much heavier projectile. And this will produce a nasty effects on the people and equipment inside. Cars have crumple zones to protect the passengers from the problems caused by the almost instant acceleration when their rigid vehicle gets into a collusion. I assume that the tank does not have crumple zones (although it still might deform anyway in such a collusion).

 

The point of your post, at least as I understood it, was to illustrate that energy is irrelevant for figuring damage. You have called the energy model "fundimentally flawed" which I assume means that you think energy is as relevant to damage as the color of the projectile (which is something that I would call a "fundimentally flawed approach to damage").

 

However, I think you'll find that it will be hard to get a anti-tank gun with a 50 Joule projectile. And it would be hard to find a 9 GigaJoule projectile which would not do serious damage to the tank (although if it was going slow enough it might have to sandwich the tank with something else).

 

As a simple game model, damage = energy works for me.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hero is broken

 

As a side note: Obviously a bowling ball would do less damage to some (heavily armored) targets' date=' but it might do more damage to some other types of targets. If we don't know anything about our target the best we can say is that the impact will be 9 MegaJoules, getting more specific than that will require a more complex system (you'll need to know the energy involved, the area which it is focused within, the way the energy spreads out inside the target, the thickness of the target along the attack vector, the inner composition of the target along the attack vector, and that is just to start you off).

 

All that the existence of all these variables does, in my view, is support the assertion that thjere's no point trying to get too specific. The current rough model works in play and that's all that really matters.

 

In any case' date=' it is unlikely to simply "bounce off" as you suggested.[/quote']

 

What if it's made of, say, rubber or whatever they make those super-bouncy balls out of?

 

Perhaps it's a 5,000 pound sack of feathers moving at the velocity required to equalize the energy.

 

What if it hits the tank at an angle, rather than dead on, making it more difficult to impart all its energy? That could be attributed to damage rolls, but won't an attack which follows a parabolic arc always hit at a different angle than one that follows a straight line?

 

The point of your post' date=' [i']at least as I understood it[/i], was to illustrate that energy is irrelevant for figuring damage. You have called the energy model "fundimentally flawed" which I assume means that you think energy is as relevant to damage as the color of the projectile (which is something that I would call a "fundimentally flawed approach to damage").

 

To my mind, to say that energy is the only variabke which modifies damage is fundamentaly flawed. Many other variables will have a bearing on the damage. Some may be simulated by advantages (AP, Penetrating), but thee still leave far less variance than reality provides.

 

To be clear, my vanatge point is that the current system works well enough in play. Any proposed change must work equally well, or better, in play, before I would consider making a change. Assuming it meets that first criteria, and I'm not persuaded (yet?) that your "energy is the be all end all" model does, my next criteria would be that the proposed replacement must be more accurate from a "realism" perspective to justify replacing the current system. Given the huge number of variables not accounted for, I am not persuaded that "energy is the sole arbiter" is a replacement worth adopting.

 

In other words, you wuld have to persuade me that "damage = energy" is at at least equal in gaeplay, and superior in theory, to the present, more nebulous, model.

[Kristopher]

Re: Hero is broken

 

I can't even believe this is under debate.

 

If +1 BODY = *2 mass, then it only takes +2 CP to be twice as massive.

 

If +1 BODY = *2 mass, then it only takes +5 CP to be able to destroy an object twice as massive.

 

In other words, it's under debate because people don't like the effect it would have on the game.

[Warp9]

Re: Hero is broken

 

All that the existence of all these variables does, in my view, is support the assertion that thjere's no point trying to get too specific. The current rough model works in play and that's all that really matters.

I believe that Kristopher is the one who wants to get ultra-specific.

 

 

What if it's made of, say, rubber or whatever they make those super-bouncy balls out of?

 

Perhaps it's a 5,000 pound sack of feathers moving at the velocity required to equalize the energy.

My specific example was a 180 ton projectile (which fit Kristopher's request for a larger and slower weapon). When a 180 ton object hits a 50 ton object, it is unlikely that the 180 ton object is going to simply "bounce off." And making the projectile out of rubber will not change that fact. Any more than a 600 pound rubber ball would just bounce off a person.

 

 

 

What if it hits the tank at an angle, rather than dead on, making it more difficult to impart all its energy? That could be attributed to damage rolls, but won't an attack which follows a parabolic arc always hit at a different angle than one that follows a straight line?

 

A parabolic projectile will hit at a different angle depending on where it is in the arc. However, it will always hit at some definite angle, just as a straight line projectile will always hit at some definite angle. It might take a little figuring to make sure that your straight line attack hits at the same angle as your parabolic attack but it can be done (just use Calculus to figure the derivative--that is what it is for). And if you want to keep things simple, you know that a parabolic arc goes "flat line" for an instant right at the top of its curve.

 

 

 

 

To my mind, to say that energy is the only variabke which modifies damage is fundamentaly flawed. Many other variables will have a bearing on the damage. Some may be simulated by advantages (AP, Penetrating), but thee still leave far less variance than reality provides.

 

To be clear, my vanatge point is that the current system works well enough in play. Any proposed change must work equally well, or better, in play, before I would consider making a change. Assuming it meets that first criteria, and I'm not persuaded (yet?) that your "energy is the be all end all" model does, my next criteria would be that the proposed replacement must be more accurate from a "realism" perspective to justify replacing the current system. Given the huge number of variables not accounted for, I am not persuaded that "energy is the sole arbiter" is a replacement worth adopting.

 

In other words, you wuld have to persuade me that "damage = energy" is at at least equal in gaeplay, and superior in theory, to the present, more nebulous, model.

Keep in mind here that it is people like Kristopher who are arguing against the 86 BODY Earth presented in the rules. I am not the one here who is disagreeing with the rules.

 

Also, a simple energy vs mass model (rated on an exponential scale, where it is also assumed that the energy is effectively applied to the target, as opposed to blowing through the target) is totally consistent with the 86 BODY Earth, and the +1 BODY per 2 X Mass model. It is also consistent with the damage from almost all the fire-arms (which are currently almost all based on "energy = damage" values).

 

 

But here is a specific question for you (and Kristopher and/or anybody else).

 

Lets say we have a guass gun which fires metal needles which are 4 mm in diameter, and 100 mm long (mass = 0.01 kg) at a muzzle velocity of 1000 meters/sec.

 

I'd give it a damage rating of 8 DCs (based on its kinetic energy). And I should add that this rating would make the weapon consistent with most of the weapons on the firearms chart.

 

What damage would you give this weapon?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Hero is broken

 

There's an old axiom in the legal profession which states "Hard cases make bad law." I suspect we're seeing something equivalent here: The far ends of the damage/BODY spectrum lead to strange or even ridiculous results. However, for the 99.999% of players and GMs who will never find it necessary to destroy a planet or build the weapon to do so the rules as written are adequate, if simplistic. They make perfectly good starting points. That's fine, because this is a role-playing game, and the GM is explicitly permitted by the rules to modify defenses and BODY as he sees fit in order to tell a dramatic story.

 

My suspicion is that most of the players and GMs who want precise and inalterable rules on this subject have been subjected to "cheating" on the part of a player or GM, and hence want those rules in black and white so they can't get screwed over or BS'ed. That's what comes with a lack of trust in players or the GM.

[Kristopher]

Re: Hero is broken

 

I'm only arguing against the notion that damage should be directly and strictly tied to delivered energy. I overstated the case in saying that energy is irrelevent, but this is an arguement I've had regarding other games as well, and I've grown tired of having to explain the same things over and over again regarding all the other factors involved.

 

I'm arguing against the 86 BODY Earth because even if it has a 10 average DEF thoughout, the typical energy projector could destroy the earth in just under 9 turns (ignoring END for the moment).

 

2 BODY through on average from 12d6

86 BODY / 2 = 43 shots

43 shots / 5 SPD = 8.6 turns

 

Up the average DEF to 14, and there are still supers out there with 16d6 attacks.

 

Obviously, that's a rough example, but I hope my point is fairly clear.