New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

Unless otherwise noted in a Movement Power's description' date=' all movement powers cost END at the rate of 1 END per 10 active points in the Movement Power.[/quote']

Which means that

 

Running, Flight, Teleport cost 1 END/5"

Leaping, Swimming, Swinging cost 1 END/10"

and Tunneling costs 1 END/2" or more if you can Tunnel through higher DEF materials, and 1 END more if you can close the tunnel behind you (unless this is another exception to the "Adders always cost END" rule).

 

Which is something that I hadn't noticed before. I've been using 1 END/5" for all movement types. Or did this change between FREd and 5ER?

[schir1964]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

Which is something that I hadn't noticed before. I've been using 1 END/5" for all movement types. Or did this change between FREd and 5ER?

Yes, Hero 4th Edition used 1 END/5" of movement, but Hero 5th Edition changed it to 1 END/10 Active Points.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Dust Raven]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

Me too. Though that makes NCMs different from other adders, which always add to the END cost (like Force Field with the Protects Carried Items adder).

 

Will your house rule be that NCMs (and maybe all adders) only cost END when actually being used, or go back to 4th ed.'s NCMs don't cost END at all?

It makes it the same as other Adders in my campaign. If you're not forced to use the Adder, you're not forced to pay END for it if you don't use it. I consider it an official rule, and what's in the book is just a fancy published house rule.

[SteveZilla]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

To me, that is the most logical way. You pay END for what you use, and only what you use.

 

With a certain few exceptions, I tend to hold the book above house rules. Partly because I figure a lot more thought (and testing) has gone into the book than into any one person's (or group's) house rules.

 

Though I realize that if I'm going to play in game X, I will need to abide by game X's house rules (or convince them to change/discard the house rules).

 

Several times in my total Hero System/Champions history I've run across house rules that made no sense and the only justification for it was "That's how we've always done it". To which I say "Then you should still be using stone knives and bearskins by that reasoning."

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

Yes' date=' Hero 4th Edition used 1 END/5" of movement, but Hero 5th Edition changed it to 1 END/10 Active Points.[/quote']

Gasp! You're right! Holy cow! I've been doing it wrong this whole time! Please don't tell anyone!

 

But I have to agree with Dust Raven and others on the "Don't pay END for Adders you aren't using" rule. And I would apply it to other Adders besides NCM. F'rinstance: You shouldn't have to pay END for Position Shift if you're not using it, nor for the Extra DEF you can Tunnel through if you aren't using it, or the option to Fill in the Tunnel behind you if you aren't doing so.

 

So if GopherMan has 6" Tunneling, +4 DEF (10 DEF Total Tunnelable), +Fill In Behind, but he's only currently tunneling through normal dirt (less than 6 DEF) at his full normal speed and not filling in the tunnel behind him, he pays 3 END per phase. For an additional 1 END/phase, he can fill in the tunnel behind him. And if he comes across some DEF 10 material he wants to tunnel through, it will cost him another 1 END/phase.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

I guess it's up to me to be devil's advocate here...

 

back to the original non-combat multiple example.

 

let's use the F-14 and it's swept wing to represent the non-com or speed of sound capability.

 

What happens if you build an F-14 that doesn't have the 'sweeping' capability? Instead the wing is constructed in a more solid (and probably lighter) non-swept configuration. Now, assuming everything else is the same, the new plane has lost some high speed capability but also gained some slow speed performance due to the weight loss.

 

This is very similar to:

 

40 Flight 20" END=4

vs

60 Flight 20", x32 Noncombat - END=6

 

To do otherwise makes Adders too much like Naked Advantages.

[SteveZilla]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

let's use the F-14 and it's swept wing to represent the non-com or speed of sound capability.

 

What happens if you build an F-14 that doesn't have the 'sweeping' capability? Instead the wing is constructed in a more solid (and probably lighter) non-swept configuration. Now, assuming everything else is the same, the new plane has lost some high speed capability but also gained some slow speed performance due to the weight loss.

 

This is very similar to:

 

40 Flight 20" END=4

vs

60 Flight 20", x32 Noncombat - END=6

 

To do otherwise makes Adders too much like Naked Advantages.

 

I'm not sure if you are in favor of Adders only costing END when they are used, or going the way they are written (costing END all the time)?

 

Can you elaborate on how "doing otherwise" makes them too much like Naked Advantages?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

I'm not sure if you are in favor of Adders only costing END when they are used, or going the way they are written (costing END all the time)?

 

Can you elaborate on how "doing otherwise" makes them too much like Naked Advantages?

 

I guess I am in favor of them costing END all the time. Naked Advantages would not since by definition they don't have to be used when the Power (or Characteristic) they modify is used.

[SteveZilla]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

I guess I am in favor of them costing END all the time. Naked Advantages would not since by definition they don't have to be used when the Power (or Characteristic) they modify is used.

 

Adders don't have to be used all the time either. A "Costs END even when not being used" for Adders would mean that even if one's Force wall can be made opaque, but currently isn't, the power still costs more END than normal? It also means the FW's END cost is irrelevant to being opaque or not.

 

I am in favor of keeping the END usage calculations simple -- one pays END for what they are using (if it costs END, of course). There are some significant differences between this rule for adders, and the book rules for Naked Advantages.

 

Naked Advantages can't be put in a framework, even in the same slot as the power they are for. Adders must be part of the power they are for -- they can't be bought "naked".

[Checkmate]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

Something else about all this. If I present my players with several different engines they can buy for their cars' date=' the normal rules would say to build it as "+X of Running". But this would mean the very same engine would be 50% faster in a SPD 3 car than a SPD 2. Let's take it a bit further shall we? A vehicle can decelerate at 5" per hex of movement, up to the combat running per Phase. Let's say vehicle A has 30" of Running and SPD 2 while vehicle B has 30" of Running and SPD 4. Both vehicles are going the full 4x non-combat velocity of 120" and the drivers of both cars decide to slam on the brakes to a dead stop at the same time. On Segment 12, both vehicles drop by 30" to 90" of velocity. Now, here's where it gets strange. On Segment 3, vehicle B will drop down to 60" while vehicle A remains at 90". Continuing this out, vehicle A will come to a stop one full turn after vehicle B does. Now, why should the SPD of the car affect how the brakes work?...snip[/quote']

 

I'm doing a quick lurk-through so sorry if this has been mentioned, but I wanted to comment on this:

 

A Farrari doing 100mph can stop in less distance than a Ugo going 60mph (if you can actually get a a Ugo to do 60). I actually like this part of the whole speed/running thing. IMO a car with a higher speed is a higher performance car. Sure other cars can go as fast, but they don't handle as well. Your example simulates that perfectly.

[Dust Raven]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

I guess it's up to me to be devil's advocate here...

 

back to the original non-combat multiple example.

 

let's use the F-14 and it's swept wing to represent the non-com or speed of sound capability.

 

What happens if you build an F-14 that doesn't have the 'sweeping' capability? Instead the wing is constructed in a more solid (and probably lighter) non-swept configuration. Now, assuming everything else is the same, the new plane has lost some high speed capability but also gained some slow speed performance due to the weight loss.

 

This is very similar to:

 

40 Flight 20" END=4

vs

60 Flight 20", x32 Noncombat - END=6

 

To do otherwise makes Adders too much like Naked Advantages.

 

And the F-14 uses the same fuel to go 20" as it does to go 640"? Somehow I doubt it.

[Dust Raven]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

Naked Advantages can't be put in a framework, even in the same slot as the power they are for. Adders must be part of the power they are for -- they can't be bought "naked".

 

Of course, we gotta be sure we know what's an Adder and what's not. Is the bonus to OCV or ECV with Missile Deflection or Mind Scan Adders, or just CSLs? What about Fixed Locations with Teleport? They must not be, because I've seen published characters buy them separately from their Teleport. Really makes me wonder what else is an Adder and what else isn't.

 

If you buy an Entangle that has extra dice of BODY, do you always have to pay END for those extra dice even when not using them, while not having to pay END for the regular dice you have if you don't use all of them? Where's the sense in that?

 

Anyway, I'm done ranting now. I know this system forwards and backwards and sometimes it gives me whiplash.

[SteveZilla]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

Of course' date=' we gotta be sure we know what's an Adder and what's not.[/quote']

 

Naturally.

 

Is the bonus to OCV or ECV with Missile Deflection or Mind Scan Adders' date=' or just CSLs?[/quote']

 

Missile Deflection bonuses are 2 pt. Combat Skill Levels, and thus are not Adders, even with the GM's permission to put them in the same framework slot as the Missile Deflection (5RE, p208).

 

A Mind Scan Roll Bonus (ECV) is an adder (5RE, p207).

 

What about Fixed Locations with Teleport? They must not be' date=' because I've seen published characters buy them separately from their Teleport.[/quote']

 

Fixed and Floating locations for Teleportation are somewhat unique. They are purchased separately from any & all purchases of Teleportation (and are usable by all). They don't have to have the same Power Modifiers as any of the Teleportation powers, but can have their own, if appropriate. They cannot be put inside any framework, but do add their Active Points to those of the Teleportation power being used for END calculation. Reduced/Zero END bought on the Teleportation power *does* affect the Location's APs (5re, p233-234).

 

Really makes me wonder what else is an Adder and what else isn't.

 

Well, if it's in the "Adder" section of each power, it's probably an Adder, and if not, then it's likely not.

 

If you buy an Entangle that has extra dice of BODY' date=' do you always have to pay END for those extra dice even when not using them, while not having to pay END for the regular dice you have if you don't use all of them? Where's the sense in that?[/quote']

 

Additional DEF or Body for an Entangle are Adders, and thus don't have to be used each time the Power is used. Keeping to the "House Rule" of only paying END for what is being used keeps the Logic of how END costs are determined in the first place.

 

Anyway' date=' I'm done ranting now. I know this system forwards and backwards and sometimes it gives me whiplash.[/quote']

 

Me too! No more ranting for me! I mean it! Really!

 

I know it fairly well as well. Thought I just tend to get double vision, which costs me +5 points.

[SteveZilla]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

And the F-14 uses the same fuel to go 20" as it does to go 640"? Somehow I doubt it.

 

No, it would cost 4 END to go 20" in Combat, or 40" Non-Combat. Because of rounding, it would still cost 4 END to go 80" Non-Combat. But 160" and 320" Non-Combat would cost 5 END, and 6 END to top out at 640".

 

I would like to make a point on something brought up in a previous post. The F/X of the Non-Combat Multiples is irrelevant. It can be NoX, Afterburners, Swing-Wings, or Dynamic Engine Airflow Control -- it doesn't affect how it's used or it's END cost.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

And the F-14 uses the same fuel to go 20" as it does to go 640"? Somehow I doubt it.

 

The analogy was not a direct 1 to 1.

 

The examples were not intended to be accurate models of actual aircraft. If that were the goal I would probably build a normal F-14's flight with the extra non-com portion as a 'naked adder' with an increased END limitation. The non-swept example would just have a higher multiple of increased END.

[SteveZilla]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

The analogy was not a direct 1 to 1.

 

The examples were not intended to be accurate models of actual aircraft. If that were the goal I would probably build a normal F-14's flight with the extra non-com portion as a 'naked adder' with an increased END limitation. The non-swept example would just have a higher multiple of increased END.

 

Just a little nitpick: That would be a Partially-Limited Power, and not a 'naked adder'

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

I've been thinking about how odd it is that SPD affects not only the number of actions one can take in a Phase but also how far they can run. For example:

 

Character A: 2 SPD, 10" Running (40 points, 20" per Phase)

Character B: 3 SPD, 7" Running (44 points, 21" per Phase)

 

OK, so B has spent 4 more points in total but with the much added bonus of having that extra speed. It's like character B bought 1 more SPD for just 4 points, not to mention he can cover 1" more of ground per Phase.

 

What if instead of costing 2 points per 1" of Running, it cost SPD points per 1" of Running. In that case, character A would spend the normal 2 points per inch and character B would be spending 3 points per inch. So now you have:

 

Character A: 2 SPD, 10" Running (40 points, 20" per Phase)

Character B: 3 SPD, 7" Running (51 points, 21" per Phase)

 

So now, the difference in costs is closer to where it should be, with character B getting +1 SPD and +1" Running (for the entire Phase) for 11 points.

 

Most of the time, this isn't a problem but it might get confusing if the SPD of the character changes, either through an Aid, a Drain, or by spending points to increase it. In this case, a simple conversion can adjust Running to the correct value. For example, getting drained from 3 SPD to 2 SPD should increase Running by 50%. For purposes of buying up to a new SPD, the character should sell off all Running at the old cost and buy it back up at the new cost (and I guess keep the leftover points unspent).

 

I'm only mulling this over because I might want to make detailed vehicle rules and "top speed" should be something that isn't necessarily affected by SPD (which more closely represents the handling of the vehicle). So, popping that nitro should have about the same affect on a SPD 4 car as a SPD 2 car as far as increasing it's top speed, rather than having double effect on the SPD 4 car.

 

Any input is appreciated!

 

 

No really straightforward answer other than to have everyone in the campaign use SPD 4 (or whatever) BUT...

 

Buy your movement powers normally at the normal cost. Use this figure for movethrough and moveby damage.

 

Multiply the movement total by 4 and divide by your speed. Use this for movement per phase.

 

Now everyone gets the same cost/utility regardess of speed (actually high speed characters have a slight advantage with aceleration, but it is hardly worth mentioning).

 

Adjustment powers are the problem here. Either do it the simple way (drains and aids work off the per phase move as a base) or the more accurate way (multiply the aid or drain by 4/Your SPD) i.e. you are draining the (movement x4) figure: fair enough as this is the same for everyone.

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

And the F-14 uses the same fuel to go 20" as it does to go 640"? Somehow I doubt it.

 

The problem here is that adders add to the power for END whether or not they are in use (I think).

 

What you could do is build the NCM with a big increase in END cost when it is in use to simulate the larger fuel use.

 

OTOH you are probably running it off a fuel charge anyway, so moveing fast orjinking about all over the place will come to the same in the end: 4 hours flight time (or whatever)

[SteveZilla]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

Adjustment powers are the problem here. Either do it the simple way (drains and aids work off the per phase move as a base) or the more accurate way (multiply the aid or drain by 4/Your SPD) i.e. you are draining the (movement x4) figure: fair enough as this is the same for everyone.

 

What about changes to the character's Speed? Either through +/- adjustment powers, or though direct PC control (like in a Multipower)?

 

Would casting Haste (+4 Speed, UBO, Continuing Charges: 5 @ 1 Minute) make the recipient actually move faster, and thus farther?

[SteveZilla]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

The problem here is that adders add to the power for END whether or not they are in use (I think).

 

That is how they are according to 5RE. I favor house rules that make them only cost their END when they are being used. Which was what several of us were discussing (sorry for the derail) lately.

 

What you could do is build the NCM with a big increase in END cost when it is in use to simulate the larger fuel use.

 

OTOH you are probably running it off a fuel charge anyway, so moving fast or jinking about all over the place will come to the same in the end: 4 hours flight time (or whatever)

 

Which is a potential "failing" of Fuel Charges -- they don't allow for the granularity of graduated usage. Using 1" of flying or 100" of flying for one Phase costs the same to a Fuel Charge.

 

Though in the same way you can apply Costs END to a Continuing Charge, you could apply Increased "END" Cost to a power that uses a Fuel Charge. So that a x2 Increased Fuel Usage would costs twice as much per Phase of use than normal. But it still doesn't allow for graduated usage.

[Dust Raven]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

The analogy was not a direct 1 to 1.

 

The examples were not intended to be accurate models of actual aircraft. If that were the goal I would probably build a normal F-14's flight with the extra non-com portion as a 'naked adder' with an increased END limitation. The non-swept example would just have a higher multiple of increased END.

My point was that the END cost should be different. Under the standard rules, if the F-14 slows down to 20" combat, it still uses the same END as if it were flying at full speed non-combat.

[captainNeda]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

I know this is an old thread, but this is something I’ve been considering for several years now was an alternate to speed. Throw in your input on it.

 

The basic premise is based on the +5 = 2X power concept where +5 STR Doubles lifting capacity and in theory Damage. I used the Kenetic Energy formula f= 1/2MV^2 where doubling mass doubles damage (+1DC), but doubling velocity quadruples damage (+2DC). Try it.

 

Any way using this premise doubling speed adds 2DC I built movement purchased per segment where 10 points doubles velocity. Base movement is 1”/segment and max human is 2” per segment.

 

The changes this has on the system primarily effect damage, turn mode, acceleration and Noncombat movement. Damage becomes easier and consistent in that movement damage is 2DC for every 5 Pts of movement. 60 pts of movement would be 32”/segment and +12DC. I’ll cover Acceleration, turn Mode and Noncombat movement later.

[captainNeda]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

Acceleration

Acceleration is related to Non-combat movement and inversely related to turning. Basically acceleration is 2” / 1” traveled, and turn mode is one evenly spaced 60 degree turn per segment if the full combat movement is used. Every time half the combat movement is used, the character can double the number of EVENLY spaced turns. Every time a non combat multiplier is used, the number of segments to make a 60 degree turn in doubled. Why is that?

 

MATH CONTENT

Well assume that we chunk all acceleration in 1 second/segment blocks. Combat movement assumes all movement/displacement is performed in one segment. Displacement (the distance moved) is velocity over Time. Displacement during acceleration is the initial Velocity in this case 0 + the final velocity over 2 or (0+FV)/2. In other words an object going from 0 to 16” would move 8” (0+16)/2. Hence acceleration is 2” per inch.

[captainNeda]

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

 

Turn Mode

For turning, the circumference of a circle is 2piR. I won’t go into the math, but if the force it takes to accelerate was used for making turns, a character moving at full combat velocity would be able to move in a circle with a circumference roughly 6 (actually 6.28) times that of their movement. This means it would take 6 segments to run a 360 degree circle, or to make one turn every 60 degrees. The nice thing is if the character traveled slower, it doesn’t require as much force to change course, that is why they are able to change their turn mode.

 

In game terms a character moving at full combat speed can make 1 evenly spaced 60 degree turn per segment. If they cut their movement in half, they double the number of evenly spaced turns they could make. In other words if a character with 8” of movement moving 8” could make 1 turn every 8”, but if they decided to move only 4”, they could make 2 turns, 1 every 2”.

 

This turn mode works in reverse as well in that every doubling of movement in noncombat cuts the number of turns by half. A character with 16” of combat movement using the normal X2 Noncombat multiplier to travel 32” can make 1 turn every 2 segments, or every 64”.

 

This concept leaves Noncombat levels are unchanged, however they would change improved acceleration and turning levels. What I’d like to do is build a system where a character can double their acceleration and turn mode for 5 Character points. In other words they could go from the basic 2”/1” acceleration to 4”/1” and from on 60 degree turn to two. This adder would also have the added benefit of allowing the character to increase their movement by 50% of their last increase up to their full Natural noncombat value. In other words a character with 4” of combat movement purchasing this adder once gains 2” of movement, and purchasing it a second time would gain another 1”. This adder could be purchased until they had 8” of movement. If this adder is purchased however, they CAN NOT purchase a Non combat multiplier.

 

Basically doubling the acceleration would assume it takes less time to reach top speed. A character starting from a dead stop with 4” of movement would travel 2” before reaching their top speed, and still have a fraction of a second to move at 4” velocity, traveling an additional 2”. Every increase then would only naturally lend itself to improved movement until they character reaches maximum acceleration which is equal to their non-combat movement in one inch. IE a character with 4” has 8” natural Noncom, would be able to increase acceleration to 8”/1”.