Hero is broken

[Trebuchet]

All of that is true, NSG, but it doesn't alter the fact that the Damage/BODY system fails completely at high levels. Massive objects like mountains, continents, moons and planets need more than +1 BODY/2X MASS. Grond may not be able to punch through that tank's hull, but he can destroy the entire planet it sits on in mere seconds using the current rules. The rules as written were designed to allow superheroes/villains to smash buildings, bridges, and the like. The game designers clearly never extrapolated their formula beyond those levels, and so they missed the rather appalling fact that Earth has only 86 BODY by their own formula. It's like allowing a character to buy unlimited Followers without realizing that for less than 200 points he can have everyone on Earth as a Follower.

 

All I am suggesting is that hyper-large objects gain BODY by a different formula. I suggest 1 BODY per cubic hex (8 cubic meters), which IIRC would give Earth about 137,000,000 BODY. That certainly seems more plausible than 86 BODY.

 

The formula for creating holes is equally flawed. By the rules a 20d6 blow to the ground (assuming dirt with 0 DEF) makes a crater of 524,000 cubic hexes, which would probably level Phoenix. By the HERO rules a character falling and impacting at terminal velocity (30") does 30d6, creating a crater of 536,870,912 cubic hexes. A crater that large would undoubtably destroy North Dakota. What's wrong with this picture? Well, for one thing we know that airplanes that crash don't leave craters the size of Phoenix.

 

While I can certainly see and understand your logic for 2X Mass = +1 BODY and 2X Energy = +1 DC, it fails the test severely when applied at all levels. We need a better method to figure this; one that agrees with real world results as well as the comic book source material. I'm not at all certain a linear method is the right formula, and I'm not enough of a mathemetician to see if some other method such as a logarithmic scale might be better. I'll leave that to those smarter than I am.

 

Does this mean "HERO is broken"? Not really, it just needs a little tweaking occasionally. As do we all.

[Blue Angel]

When encountering the "normals cause too much damage" problem in a Fantasy campaign I am running, an idea popped into my head. When applying damage to something like a wall, or a planet, why not apply the damage as material destroyed instead of total body destroyed.

 

EG: Hero X aproaches a 1m thick concrete wall with DEF 6 and 11 Body. For this example his 10d6 EB is assumed to do average damage every time so 10 body on each shot.

 

By the rules as written it will take three hits to blow a hole in the wall, knocking off 10-6=4 body per hit.

 

Under this suggestion a 10-6=4 body hit is enough to destroy about 125mm thickness of concrete. So instead of having 7 body remaining the wall has 775mm of thickness left which has about 10 body. So under the new math in this particular example 11 body minus 4 body = 10 body.

 

So a single big hit may destroy the wall in a single hit but small hits will have to chip away at it. A single massive attack could destroy the earth in one hit but a sledge hammer becomes less practical as a doomsday device.

[Arthur]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

All of that is true, NSG, but it doesn't alter the fact that the Damage/BODY system fails completely at high levels. Massive objects

 

All too true. In fact, IIRC, that was my first point in this subject. The way damage is exponential, but cumulative damage is not, causes odd results. Also, a geometric progression gets out of hand REAL quick (ask anybody who's tried a Martingale betting system).

 

Grond may not be able to punch through that tank's hull, but he can destroy the entire

 

OT:

No, but he should be able to tear it apart or turn it upside down (as in the Hulk movie, which was disappointing on many levels, but that scene was good).

 

game designers clearly never extrapolated their formula beyond those levels, and so they missed the rather appalling fact that Earth has only 86 BODY by their own formula.

 

You know, I don't think ANY game system has ever handled extreme cases like this well. It's a simplified mathematical model with lots of simplifying assumptions, so it breaks down when extended.

 

All I am suggesting is that hyper-large objects gain BODY by a different formula. I suggest 1 BODY per cubic hex (8 cubic meters), which IIRC would give Earth about 137,000,000 BODY. That certainly seems more plausible than 86 BODY.

 

Now THAT seems like a very good idea.

 

The general rule should start to apply for any object over a certain size (in hexes). Maybe it could be as simple as "divide the number of hexes by 5 and multiply BODY by that much, with a minimum multiple of 1".

 

Are you pondering what I'm pondering?

 

The formula for creating holes is equally flawed. By the rules a 20d6 blow to the ground (assuming dirt with 0 DEF) makes a crater of 524,000 cubic hexes, which would

 

Large attacks shouldn't automatically get a large AE like that. Dunno what the rulebook says, exactly, but that should be clarified or changed. If you are correct, that needs a tweak, too.

 

Does this mean "HERO is broken"? Not really, it just needs a little tweaking occasionally. As do we all.

 

Tweak me! Tweak me!

[NuSoardGraphite]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

All of that is true, NSG, but it doesn't alter the fact that the Damage/BODY system fails completely at high levels.

 

It does get fugly at high levels, but then again, no game system has ever given satisfactory results at this level (none of the one's I've played, anyway...most don't even go into that territory)

 

Massive objects like mountains, continents, moons and planets need more than +1 BODY/2X MASS.

 

Don't forget, that adding +1 Body to an object actually gives it +2 Body. You have to reduce an object to negative its positive Body to completely destroy it. In the case of the Earth with 86 Body, you need to do a total of 172 Body to destroy it.

 

Also, there is a rule in The Ultimate Vehicle that may apply here for those of you who think large objects don't get enough body. In TUV, in order to "Disable" a vehicle, you must reduce it to negative its Body score. In order to completey "Destroy" a vehicle (render it completely irrepairable) you must reduce it to twice that amount. Example:

The Earth has 86 Body.

Reducing the Earth to -86 Body (a total of 172 Body damage done) makes it completely uninhabitable, but it can repair itself over a few millenia (some slow regen as mentioned above)

Reducing the earth to -172 Body (a total of 258 Body damage done) turns the earth into a new Asteroid Belt.

 

Does that sound a bit more reasonable? And thats not even a House Rule, its straight from TUV.

 

Grond may not be able to punch through that tank's hull, but he can destroy the entire planet it sits on in mere seconds using the current rules.the rules as written were designed to allow Heroes/villians to smash buildings, bridges and the like. The game designers clearly never extrapolated their formula beyond those levels and so they missed the rather appalling fact that Earth has only 86 Body by their own formula. It like allowing a character to buy unlimited Followers without realizing that for less than 200 points he can have everyone on Earth as a Follower.

 

Actually, I think this is more of a case of the game designers assuming that the majority of players would be mature enough to use common sense and discretion when encountering situations of this nature. I doubt they saw the necessity of taking their calculations to their illogical extreme and accounting for it, relying on GM's to say things like "No Ralph I don't care how much Body you just rolled for Grond. He can't crack the Earth in half with his Haymaker."

 

All I am suggesting is that hyper-large objects gain BODY by a different formula. I suggest 1 BODY per cubic hex (8 cubic meters), which IIRC would give Earth about 137,000,000 BODY. That certainly seems more plausible than 86 BODY.

 

Personaly, I don't like playing with numbers that high. At that point I just consider large objects of that nature as Plot Devices and say their destroyed when I think they've taken enough damage. Thats one of the reasons I didn't choose GURPS as my main system, because their Vehicles rules do get into numbers that absurd. I don't mind busting out a calc during the design process, but during actual gameplay, I wanna be able to do it all in my head...

 

The formula for creating holes is equally flawed. By the rules a 20d6 blow to the ground (assuming dirt with 0 DEF) makes a crater of 524,000 cubic hexes, which would probably level Phoenix. By the HERO rules a character falling and impacting at terminal velocity (30") does 30d6, creating a crater of 536,870,912 cubic hexes. A crater that large would undoubtably destroy North Dakota. What's wrong with this picture? Well, for one thing we know that airplanes that crash don't leave craters the size of Phoenix.

 

Its less flawed than just giving the Earth a Body of 86 and being done with it. This method requires one to either have an attack with enough Area of effect to effect the majority of an Object to destroy all of it, or to do enough Body damage in a single hit to render it to rubble.

 

As far as people/planes/comets etc crashing into the Earth are concerned, the damage is normally locallized at the impact point. The main damage is done by the physical object to an area the size of the Object itself. In the case of a human, A human only takes up .5 hexes of space, thus when he/she impacts, its only going to do damage to .5 hexes worth of ground. A large comet (say 20" across) would do significantly more damage because it impacts a much larger area.

In the case of Large Impacts, you could probably treat damage beyond the immediate area of the "impact" zone as an explosion-type attack, and use that to calculate the size of your craters. Easy enough to do.

 

Don't forget also, the "Path of least resistance". A human is soft and squishy. Hard-packed earth is not. When this soft/squishy human hits the Hard-packed earth at several hundred meters per second, that soft/squishy human isn't going to do much damage to the ground. The human is going to absorb 90% of the energy of the impact and go SQUISH!. In the case of soft earth, the Human is probably going to leave a nice indention in the ground (and may not actualy go Squish, but probably all kinds of Crunch!)

This is one of those situations Steve was talking about in the 5E when he mentioned something he called "Common Sense".

 

While I can certainly see and understand your logic for 2X Mass = +1 BODY and 2X Energy = +1 DC, it fails the test severely when applied at all levels. We need a better method to figure this; one that agrees with real world results as well as the comic book source material. I'm not at all certain a linear method is the right formula, and I'm not enough of a mathemetician to see if some other method such as a logarithmic scale might be better. I'll leave that to those smarter than I am.

 

Well, my point is that irregardless of the fact that it breaks down at higher levels, the damage system in Hero is most certainly based on the basic principle of X2 Energy = +1DC. I don't think the designers meant for it to be used to cacluate how much damage it takes to destroy a planet or a star or the Galaxy. It was meant to be able to represent high level supers combat, where mountains and entire skyscrapers were in peril when superbeings do battle. Attempting a linear system is madness. You will end up looking like GURPS high level damage (6D6X20 for a Tank cannon? 25,000 Body for an Aircraft Carrier?). Frankly, the current damage system used in Hero is the closest approximation that can be reasonably done without completely re-tooling the entire damage/body system. As long as you aren't trying to regularly destroy planets and Miles-long spacecraft, there no problem with the system whatsoever. However, for those who want to run genres where the planet is in danger of being blown away (Dragon Ball Z comes to mind, where Goku's Kamehameha Wave was capable of destroying small worlds!) then having a body of 86 for the Earth may be exactly what their looking for....

 

Does this mean "HERO is broken"? Not really, it just needs a little tweaking occasionally. As do we all.

 

Very little, IMO. I like the damage system the way it is. I will admit though, that when I first got into hero, the Body system gave me fits. But once I understood the game a bit more and understood about the correlation between DC, Body and Defense, it made a lot more sense. Its just a matter of perspective I suppose.

[Kristopher]

The _system_ is fine. I don't think anyone is unhappy with the system. This is more about the stuff underlying the system and how it connects to reality.

[Vondy]

I think the issue has less to do with the system than whether or not its rational to apply the general underlying premise of exponential value to everything we try to model with the system. We all understand that the exponential system loses granularity and viability for modelling things on the higher end of the specturm (like nukes, planets, etc).

 

The question then becomes: is the general principle of exponents sacred as though it were biblical chapter and verse requiring dogmatic adherence in every circumstance, or does it allow interpretive wiggle room?

 

I think the meta-rules of the system, and the fact that we are encouraged to change what doesn't work for us in the text itself, clearly puts playability over mathematical exercise. This is a role playing game, not a math class. The entire reason we have rules is to provide a rational and equitable resolution of conflict within a shared story. I don't think too many people play role playing games in order to revel in the mathematical glory of it all. They want to be entertained by way of their imagination. Rules are a means to that, nothing more.

 

All general principles and rules have exceptions -- this one has lots.

[TaxiMan]

I play where an attack doesn't destroy more than it hits. If SuperGrond punches the ground for 500 Body, the hex he hit is atomized. All other damage is in GM-discretion land. The ground can crack, sound can deafen, etc. but it's all roleplaying. He can bring down buildings and destroy vehicles (they depend on structural integrity), but the Earth is more resilient. SuperGrond would have to destroy the Earth a piece at a time using his SuperPunch.

 

Similar thing for EB and RKAs. They'd affect whatever area they target first. If there's more destruction remaining after subtracting the damage done, it'd penetrate further. Consider the Earth made up of 1 hex thick Force Walls if you will. Blast through one and proceed to the next, attenuated. Again, very hard to destroy the Earth.

 

So Earth-destroying attacks need mega-area, or continuous uncontrolled, or some other easy-to-spot advantages.

[Mentor]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

No, because there are no physics in a game. That's what we are telling you. Damage and defenses in Hero are relative only to each other. While engineers may well be able to calculate fairly close approximations of structural strength, they cannot look at a blueprint and say "That thing has 17 DEF and 21 BODY, so we need a 38d6 attack to break it." I watched a show earlier this week on the busting of the Rhine dams by the RAF during WW2. Even under carefully controlled conditions and using actual German engineering drawings of those structures, engineers took dozens of attempts to figure out how big an explosive to use and how to place it. It's just not as cut and dried in the real world as you seem to think. It's simple in Champions because this is a game.

Exactly. Are we going to get rid of the game because Steve Long can't give you the physics model on the electromagnetic properties of a force field? The physical damage to a character with Speed 6 flying 20" a phase noncombat? We are on this forum in the first place because Hero System has given as much versatility in power design as any system devised. I have tried most of the others. To be "official", the common sense rule to offset mathematical inconsistencies in what is already a totally fictional genre is part of FRED's "official" language, too. Give the designers some credit for knowing that they are not perfect. Trebuchet has this one right.

[Mentor]

Originally posted by D-Man

I think the issue has less to do with the system than whether or not its rational to apply the general underlying premise of exponential value to everything we try to model with the system. We all understand that the exponential system loses granularity and viability for modelling things on the higher end of the specturm (like nukes, planets, etc).

 

The question then becomes: is the general principle of exponents sacred as though it were biblical chapter and verse requiring dogmatic adherence in every circumstance, or does it allow interpretive wiggle room?

 

I think the meta-rules of the system, and the fact that we are encouraged to change what doesn't work for us in the text itself, clearly puts playability over mathematical exercise. This is a role playing game, not a math class. The entire reason we have rules is to provide a rational and equitable resolution of conflict within a shared story. I don't think too many people play role playing games in order to revel in the mathematical glory of it all. They want to be entertained by way of their imagination. Rules are a means to that, nothing more.

 

All general principles and rules have exceptions -- this one has lots.

D-Man, you have in my opinion hit the heart of the debate. I want to be as consistent as possible to the rules and capability progressions as anybody, but when the intangibles like special effect or rubber science come in to play, I am OK with the fact that it is not possible to perfectly quantify. Our campaign is able to excel in fun, playability, and balance using the rules as written. FAQs and addenda are use at our discretion as applicable to concept. To those who demand the "absolute authority" concept, no "Stop sign powers" or "GM discretion powers" would be used by anyone. How boring.

 

This discussion is more controversial thatn political forums.

[Mentor]

Originally posted by Agent X

That way lies madness!

So what? We are gamers after all.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Originally posted by D-Man

I think the issue has less to do with the system than whether or not its rational to apply the general underlying premise of exponential value to everything we try to model with the system. We all understand that the exponential system loses granularity and viability for modelling things on the higher end of the specturm (like nukes, planets, etc).

 

The question then becomes: is the general principle of exponents sacred as though it were biblical chapter and verse requiring dogmatic adherence in every circumstance, or does it allow interpretive wiggle room?

 

That question is exactly what this issue is about. The answer is within the pages of the 5E.

 

No, it is not sacred. Change what you want for what you need. Ignore anything you believe that doesn't make sense. Use common sense when applying the rules for an effect. In other words, even though the printed rules say the Earth has an 86 Body, in any Heroic level game you are playing (except maybe Sci/fi games where Planet Busters are a reality) nothing will be able to destroy the planet, or at the very least, if something can, its a plot device.

 

Even in a Superheroic level game, the Earth should not be in peril 99.9% of the time. Only in games of extreme power level (like the above mentioned DBZ) should you even consider the body of things like Mountains, humongous skyscrapers and planets. In which case, just use the model supplied by standard Hero math and you will get your Uber-battles where mountains are turned to rubble, mile-wide craters are made when characters impact the earth and entire skyscrapers crumble with but a single hit...

[Demonsong]

You mean apply common since? What an appalling notion!

[Narratio]

Re: Hero is broken

 

Common sense, common sense? I'm not I've got any left, hang on while I check the sock drawer.

 

And NuSoardGraphite sums the whole thing up nicely. The game is designed for midrange comic book effects. Don't expect reality, in any shape or form.

[sbarron]

Re: Hero is broken

 

"Damn, Narratio brought this thread back from the dead. I don't know if I have the power to send it back to thread hell before it starts wrecking havok...but I've got to try!!!"

[Lupaerian]

Re: Hero is broken

 

Narratio,

 

Nice necro you made there

[Warp9]

Re: Hero is broken

 

HAHAHAHAHA

 

It's back again from the grave!

 

And NuSoardGraphite sums the whole thing up nicely. The game is designed for midrange comic book effects. Don't expect reality' date=' in any shape or form.[/quote']

Have you considered that even comic books might incorporate some crude level of "reality" ?

[Fox1]

Re: Hero is broken

 

HAHAHAHAHA

 

It's back again from the grave!

 

 

Have you considered that even comic books might incorporate some crude level of "reality" ?

 

 

I have.

 

About the same amount offered in the HERO core rulebook in fact.

[Warp9]

Re: Hero is broken

 

I have.

 

About the same amount offered in the HERO core rulebook in fact.

 

LOL

 

Of course, once you admit that you are trying to simulate reality (even at a crude level) there are some standards that you'll want to follow.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hero is broken

 

Have you considered that even comic books might incorporate some crude level of "reality" ?

 

Let's asume we hold RPG's to a strict standard of reality. What genres are left?

 

Science fiction? Sure...with no FTL, no transporters, no phase weapons/personal disintogrators, no stargates, no psionics, no mutations, no aliens (too far away with no FTL), no lightsabers, etc. etc. etc. NOt much left.

 

Fantasy? Sure...but no magic, and don't forget to roll for youi 25% chance of surviving childhood, wounds commonly become infected and over 95% of the populace are serfs, so role play that cabbage farming! ["Realistic fantasy" is an oxymoron anyway]

 

Supers? Not likely!

 

Horror? Nope...unless you want to play a game revolviong around serial killers, I suppose. But, realistically, how many serial killers is a single team of crimefighters involved in dealing with?

 

Pulp? No, not really...

 

Modern Action-Adventure? "OK, you dive through the plate glass window. roll roll You're lucky - only one severed artery!"

 

Westerns? How long did the average gunfighter live again?

 

So that leaves "Your bus was on time, so you arrive at work at three minutes to 9. Let me roll to see if the boss is in a bad mood today."

[Warp9]

Re: Hero is broken

 

Let's asume we hold RPG's to a strict standard of reality. What genres are left?

 

Science fiction? Sure...with no FTL, no transporters, no phase weapons/personal disintogrators, no stargates, no psionics, no mutations, no aliens (too far away with no FTL), no lightsabers, etc. etc. etc. NOt much left.

 

Fantasy? Sure...but no magic, and don't forget to roll for youi 25% chance of surviving childhood, wounds commonly become infected and over 95% of the populace are serfs, so role play that cabbage farming! ["Realistic fantasy" is an oxymoron anyway]

 

Supers? Not likely!

You have a pretty limited view of reality

 

For example, can you prove that there couldn't be any teleporters in reality?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hero is broken

 

You have a pretty limited view of reality

 

For example, can you prove that there couldn't be any teleporters in reality?

 

By definition, proving something is not possible is virtually impossible. I also can't prove that magic does not exist, that telepathy does not exist, that dinosaurs oince walked the earth (maybe the skeletons, along with the rest of the universe, was created last Tuesday, complete with all of us and our fictitious memories of what has gone before) or that the moon landing was real, not some elaborate conspiracy.

 

Can you prove there COULD be teleporters in reality? This is normally the category of proof required to ove something beyond a fanciful theory and into "reality" as it is perceived at any given point in time.

 

You can certainly broaden the net to include things you think might be possible. But "a strict standard of reality" (and note that this was where my post started) would, in my opinion, exclude these things.

 

My point isn't that these things cannot exist, only that they do not fall into the strictest sense of "realism". If you don't accept some measure of fantasy and speculation, you probably have no game or, at best, a pretty bleak one.

 

This is a problem at the core of any drive to make the game "realistic". Where "realism" ends is very much a subjective determination, and the point at which you may set the bar (say, Teleporters, FTL, space aliens and time travel COULD exist, and this game posits that they DO exist) may be seen as unrealistic in the extreme by others.

 

How much realism varies with the individual. There is a school of thought, for example, that would separate "Science Fiction" (based on hard science and extrapolations of current knowledge and theories) and "Science Fantasy" (which simply posits unexplained scientific SFX for things we consider impossible under current scientific knowledge). Star Trek and Star Wars fall under the "Science Fantasy umbrella (for teleporters, warb/hyper drives, lightsabers, blasters, phasers and photon torpedos, various unexplained alien species, etc.). [star Wars, to me, is the Sicence Fantasy archetype - wizardly mentors, princesses, pirates, monsters, evil emperors with dark servants, a mystical force, magic sweords, etc. etc. etc.]

 

For myself, I don't really like "hard" Science Fiction much. I prefer the fantasy element. And I prefer my games to err on the side of enjoyable playability, to the expense of "realism".

[stmichaeldet]

Re: Hero is broken

 

So, if Hero is broken because it breaks down in certain extreme situations, is Newtonian physics broken because it breaks down under highly relativistic conditions? Yet, we keep using it because in virtually every practical case, it works just fine.

 

Seems to me, it doesn't matter if the system would assign 86BP (or whatever) to the Earth, 'cause for the most part, it's irrelevant. Grond can't target "the Earth," just some little piece of it that's close to him. And if aliens show up with a big planet-shattering cannon, I certainly don't want to be rolling dice when that thing goes off - that sort of thing is resolved through the storytelling. The only time the Body value of a planet would matter is in a campaign where virtually everyone goes around packin' a Death Star, blowing up real estate left and right.

 

- St. Michael

[Fox1]

Re: Hero is broken

 

Of course' date=' once you admit that you are trying to simulate reality (even at a crude level) there are some standards that you'll want to follow.

 

There are standards I wish to follow. But it does not follow that those standards are the same as yours.

 

I'm happy with the HERO rules as given modified by my own house rules. Further appeals to 'realism' in areas I don't care about have no impact on me.

[Warp9]

Re: Hero is broken

 

By definition, proving something is not possible is virtually impossible. I also can't prove that magic does not exist, that telepathy does not exist, that dinosaurs oince walked the earth (maybe the skeletons, along with the rest of the universe, was created last Tuesday, complete with all of us and our fictitious memories of what has gone before) or that the moon landing was real, not some elaborate conspiracy.

 

Can you prove there COULD be teleporters in reality? This is normally the category of proof required to ove something beyond a fanciful theory and into "reality" as it is perceived at any given point in time.

 

You can certainly broaden the net to include things you think might be possible. But "a strict standard of reality" (and note that this was where my post started) would, in my opinion, exclude these things.

 

My point isn't that these things cannot exist, only that they do not fall into the strictest sense of "realism". If you don't accept some measure of fantasy and speculation, you probably have no game or, at best, a pretty bleak one.

 

This is a problem at the core of any drive to make the game "realistic". Where "realism" ends is very much a subjective determination, and the point at which you may set the bar (say, Teleporters, FTL, space aliens and time travel COULD exist, and this game posits that they DO exist) may be seen as unrealistic in the extreme by others.

 

How much realism varies with the individual. There is a school of thought, for example, that would separate "Science Fiction" (based on hard science and extrapolations of current knowledge and theories) and "Science Fantasy" (which simply posits unexplained scientific SFX for things we consider impossible under current scientific knowledge). Star Trek and Star Wars fall under the "Science Fantasy umbrella (for teleporters, warb/hyper drives, lightsabers, blasters, phasers and photon torpedos, various unexplained alien species, etc.). [star Wars, to me, is the Sicence Fantasy archetype - wizardly mentors, princesses, pirates, monsters, evil emperors with dark servants, a mystical force, magic sweords, etc. etc. etc.]

 

For myself, I don't really like "hard" Science Fiction much. I prefer the fantasy element. And I prefer my games to err on the side of enjoyable playability, to the expense of "realism".

I don't see the point of the "a strict standard of reality" argument. Because nobody is saying that the game should be limited to exact situations which we'd encounter in normal life.

 

But I do believe that there is a point where we may differ. . . .

 

To me, there is a major difference between something like a teleportation device, and something like "sound effects which occur in airless space."

 

A teleportation device is simply an unknown--who knows if it is possible? It might be.

 

But "sound effects in space" actually contradict what I belive to be true about reality.

 

I have no problem with allowing all manner of strange things, as long they do not actually contradict reality without any special explaination.

 

In other words, I do not mind the existance of beings that fly, but normal unaided humans should fall at approx 32 feet/sec/sec when in Earth's gravity.

[Warp9]

Re: Hero is broken

 

Grond can't target "the Earth," just some little piece of it that's close to him.

How much growth will I have to buy before Grond can no longer target my character?

 

With 400 points of Growth my character will be bigger than the Earth.