The Genesis of +5 = 2x power?

[SteveZilla]

Re: The Genesis of +5 = 2x power?

 

Eh. I grew tired of fumbles in the last D&D campaign I was in. On average, every 20th time my character swung his sword, it went flying. Not very heroic, and not something one sees in a lot of heroic literature.

[SteveZilla]

Re: The Genesis of +5 = 2x power?

 

Lower left of page 364 in 5ER.

 

But that's a DCV chart, not a damage/Knockback or OCV chart. Other than being more or less geometric (with a starting level of 32" of movement!), I don't see how it would help.

[Warp9]

Re: The Genesis of +5 = 2x power?

 

Because it's firmly entrenched in a massive amount of Earth as well as the fact that (more importantly) I would assume it's a rather dense force wall (not mechanically speaking) as its hull.

I hadn't really thought about how far down into the Earth the ship had gone when it had landed. But I can agree that it would be a factor.

[Warp9]

Re: The Genesis of +5 = 2x power?

 

Coming back to my example, and I respect yours/schir1964's point in return, I view it as really like targeting a hex, and if you miss, you're just going to hit another. If the PC were attempting to hit a part of Galactus (such as what they believed to be his eye), then I would in fact be applying the penalty and they'd probably miss the eye. But they're also super-high level, so they also might hit, depending on their precise approach.

If I understand your standard, I might miss his eye, but I'd still hit the more general target. So you'd be OK with the 100d6 Move Through as a general tactic vs large targets?

 

It seems to me that having this type of thing in the game would cause some problems. Obviously there is a price to be paid for a 100d6 Move Through, but as I pointed out, with a high STUN and BODY, 75% Damage Reduction, and assuming some KB is done, the tactic is very survivable (although it might be good to have some Regeneration if the tactic is to be used very often).

 

 

 

Gee, this thread is hitting rather close to home...

 

Yep. Gotta be careful about that.

[Warp9]

Re: The Genesis of +5 = 2x power?

 

Actually, that did occur to me as well. But in this instance, I didn't bring it up because I figured the City-Killer ships had a real low DEX to begin with. Like in the 3 range. But even if it is at it's original 10, that means that only 3 of the -27 DCV modifier is accounted for because vehicle DCV can't be adjusted below zero due to size. I could see applying the *remainder* as a positive OCV modifier for the attacker (a +24 in that case).

 

This might make for a good question to ask Steve Long.

I've never heard that rule about not being able to be adjusted below 0 DCV before.

 

Is it in the TUV, or did I just miss it in the main book?

[Warp9]

Re: The Genesis of +5 = 2x power?

 

Where is this chart?

If I knew where my copy of FREd was, I could give you a page number. Off hand I'm thinking 281 or maybe 291.

 

The chart I'm thinking about converts inches per turn into an exponential based Velocity Factor (VF) . The VF is then used for damage and things like penalties for Move Through.

[Warp9]

Re: The Genesis of +5 = 2x power?

 

Personally, I found there to be a bit of a dichotomy between the low SPD and the high Movement. Every other car in TUV has at least a 3 SPD, and most don't have that much ground movement. So I went "by the book" and used the stats for a car from the book.

Still that dichotomy is simply part of the standard rules. A character, or vehicle, with a 1 SPD would do vast amounts of damage by going at relatively low objective speeds. A 1 SPD character going at 30 mph will do around 30d6 damage on a move through.

 

Using a higher speed vehicle will make the situation look a bit better, but even a vehicle with a 4+ SPD will do Mega Damage from a move through at 200 mph.

 

 

 

 

That is a good point. Truth be told, I'm not that familiar with the Vehicle rules. To give my combat analysis above took me many hours. It may be possible that the Vehicle rules could use some more work.

Based on what you've said, I'm not sure that it is a problem with the Vehicle Rules specifically. It seems to me that somebody noticed that a fast moving super hero can't hit much of anything and realized that a car should be able hit objects at a similar speed. Rather than actually fixing the rules in a general fashion, a cludge was tacked on for the TUV.

 

 

True, though I cannot find a water vehicle example that has that much movement.

I was assuming that the aircraft carrier was "parked up on dry land"

 

Perhaps if we took part of the target vehicle's STR and said it was always resisting knockback just because it's a vehicle? I believe that would pretty much fix the problem of knockback against a large vehicle.

Then you'd still have the problem with knockback on other large objects or creatures. And with a name like "SteveZilla" how could you be in favor of that?

 

Or we could just assign a larger Knockback Resistance value to each size increment.

That could fix the specific problem mentioned in my example, but I believe that such a fix might serve to create other problems (a -1 KB per X2 Mass is at least consistent with a number of other factors in the game).

 

And a linear KB resistance value vs a linear growth in damage for velocity will eventually lead to results which are just as bad. Although I will admit that the problem would be pushed back a bit further from the common realm of people and cars.

 

 

But then that wouldn't be linear either. And we'd either need a chart or a formula to determine the price break. Which is another level of complexity.

The actual combat system would still be fully linear. The system used to price the characters' abilities would not have to be. The only problem here is that there are abilities like power pools where the actual point price of abilities is a factor during the game; that aspect of the rules would have to be addressed.

 

30" of movement isn't "high-speed" enough?

No. It is not fast enough for my Superpowered Characters.

 

Assuming that I have a 2 SPD, I can go faster than 30" on my bike (that is about 20 mph for a 2 SPD character).

 

30" would be faster for a character with higher SPD, but even at 6 SPD it would only be about 60 mph.

 

If you can have a character who can lift an aircraft carrier, I'd like to have a character who is able to go Mach 3 in combat.

 

 

It might not affect games that normally use large values (like Superheroes), but for normals (like in Fantasy games), it would make them even more alike than they are now. It takes 5 points of value on a stat (barring rounding) to make a difference on an identically purchased skill, or 3 pts of value on DEX to make a difference in CV. Converting to a geometric system would "squash" everything down to smaller numbers. A 60 STR now might become, say, a 20 to pick a number at RND(). What effect would that have on the "normal" range for STR?

You say that: "a 60 STR now might become, say, a 20," how would that happen?

 

Going to exponential doesn't have to mean "+1 = X2" that is just how DC Heroes does its exponential progression.

 

In Hero, it would probably mean in many cases "+5 = X2" or 2 to the power of (Stat / 5).

 

But it could also mean "+10 = X2" or 2 to the power of (Stat / 10).

[SteveZilla]

Re: The Genesis of +5 = 2x power?

 

I've never heard that rule about not being able to be adjusted below 0 DCV before.

 

Is it in the TUV, or did I just miss it in the main book?

 

It's in both. 5ER p 472, TUV p 182

[SteveZilla]

Re: The Genesis of +5 = 2x power?

 

If I knew where my copy of FREd was, I could give you a page number. Off hand I'm thinking 281 or maybe 291.

 

The chart I'm thinking about converts inches per turn into an exponential based Velocity Factor (VF) . The VF is then used for damage and things like penalties for Move Through.

 

I found it! It's in the Falling section of FREd (p 293) and 5ER (p 436) as "Optional Velocity Damage". It's based on Inches per Turn (thus allowing high SPD, low Inches characters an 'equal' chance at damage). An object traveling 92" per Phase with a SPD of 3 (the SUV from TUM) moves 276" per Turn, giving a Velocity Factor of 9. The Velocity Damage Table lists the Move Through as: -(VF) OCV, -3 DCV, and STR + (VF)d6. So instead of having a -18 to his OCV and doing 92"/3 = 30d6 from movement, it's only 9d6 from movement, and only -9 OCV.

 

It's a weird chart, however. It isn't uniform. It does seem to be based on multiples of 8" of movement (per turn), but it skips certain increments. The top bit of the chart is analyzed below:

Inches/Turn    VF
8*1=8"          0
8*3=24"         1
8*4=32"         2
8*6=48"         3
8*8=64"         4
8*12=96"        5
8*16=128"       6
8*24=192"       7

 

As shown, the multiple of 8 doesn't increase uniformly. It effectively starts it's pattern with x3 and the next entry of x4, then each *pair* of entries following is double (x6 & x8, then x12 & x16, etc.). I have no idea why this pattern was chosen.

[Warp9]

Re: The Genesis of +5 = 2x power?

 

I found it! It's in the Falling section of FREd (p 293) and 5ER (p 436) as "Optional Velocity Damage". It's based on Inches per Turn (thus allowing high SPD, low Inches characters an 'equal' chance at damage). An object traveling 92" per Phase with a SPD of 3 (the SUV from TUM) moves 276" per Turn, giving a Velocity Factor of 9. The Velocity Damage Table lists the Move Through as: -(VF) OCV, -3 DCV, and STR + (VF)d6. So instead of having a -18 to his OCV and doing 92"/3 = 30d6 from movement, it's only 9d6 from movement, and only -9 OCV.

 

It's a weird chart, however. It isn't uniform. It does seem to be based on multiples of 8" of movement (per turn), but it skips certain increments. The top bit of the chart is analyzed below:

Inches/Turn    VF
8*1=8"          0
8*3=24"         1
8*4=32"         2
8*6=48"         3
8*8=64"         4
8*12=96"        5
8*16=128"       6
8*24=192"       7

 

As shown, the multiple of 8 doesn't increase uniformly. It effectively starts it's pattern with x3 and the next entry of x4, then each *pair* of entries following is double (x6 & x8, then x12 & x16, etc.). I have no idea why this pattern was chosen.

It is based upon an exponential map of Kinetic Energy. And Kinetic Energy is related to velocity in the following manner KE = 1/2 Mass * (Velocity^2)

 

This chart follows the premise that +1 VF = X 2 KE (which is the pattern that the fire arms damage also follows).

 

But the catch is that 2 X Velocity is not equal to 2 X KE.

 

2 X Velocity = 4 X KE.

 

And if +1 VF = X 2 KE then it follows that +2 VF = X 4 KE

 

 

Which means that when velocity doubles you get +2 VF (which is basically +2DCs)

 

That is why

32" = 2 VF

64" = 4 VF

128" = 6 VF

and each doubling of velocity should give you +2 VF

 

Inches/Turn        VF      Kinetic Energy
24"                1             X 2
32"                2             X 4

48"                3             X 8
64"                4             X16

96"                5             X32
128"               6             X64

192"               7             X128

[zornwil]

Re: The Genesis of +5 = 2x power?

 

If I understand your standard, I might miss his eye, but I'd still hit the more general target. So you'd be OK with the 100d6 Move Through as a general tactic vs large targets?

 

It seems to me that having this type of thing in the game would cause some problems. Obviously there is a price to be paid for a 100d6 Move Through, but as I pointed out, with a high STUN and BODY, 75% Damage Reduction, and assuming some KB is done, the tactic is very survivable (although it might be good to have some Regeneration if the tactic is to be used very often).

 

 

 

 

 

Yep. Gotta be careful about that.

If it were up against a Galactus type the size of a planet, sure.

[SteveZilla]

Re: The Genesis of +5 = 2x power?

 

Still that dichotomy is simply part of the standard rules. A character' date=' or vehicle, with a 1 SPD would do vast amounts of damage by going at relatively low objective speeds. A 1 SPD character going at 30 mph will do around 30d6 damage on a move through.[/quote']

 

A 1 SPD character would have to have 81" of movement to achieve 30 MPH! Unless he has several NCMs -- which means it would take him many Turns to get going. In TUV, even a School Bus has a SPD of 2, and all the cars have at least a 3 SPD.

 

Using a higher speed vehicle will make the situation look a bit better' date=' but even a vehicle with a 4+ SPD will do Mega Damage from a move through at 200 mph.[/quote']

 

That makes it sound like Rifts. If we use the standard method for determining damage from Move Throughs, SPD doesn't enter into the equation. Apparently deliberately choosing a small SPD so that the Inches of movement can be pumped up (to achieve a certain MPH/KPH), and thus claim more damage is my concern.

 

The Velocity Factor table levels the playing field between high SPD+low Inches characters and low SPD+high Inches characters. As well as flattening the increase in damage from velocity.

 

Based on what you've said' date=' I'm not sure that it is a problem with the Vehicle Rules specifically. It seems to me that somebody noticed that a fast moving super hero can't hit much of anything and realized that a car should be able hit objects at a similar speed. Rather than actually fixing the rules in a general fashion, a kludge was tacked on for the TUV.[/quote']

 

That strikes me as very likely. While I'm not fond of kludges, I dislike those that don't really work.

 

I was assuming that the aircraft carrier was "parked up on dry land"

 

Grounded? Well, it's definitely stuck deep in the ground then! I'd call that braced.

 

Then you'd still have the problem with Knockback on other large objects or creatures. And with a name like "SteveZilla" how could you be in favor of that?

 

I bought lots of extra Knockback Resistance.

 

That could fix the specific problem mentioned in my example, but I believe that such a fix might serve to create other problems (a -1 KB per X2 Mass is at least consistent with a number of other factors in the game).

 

And a linear KB resistance value vs a linear growth in damage for velocity will eventually lead to results which are just as bad. Although I will admit that the problem would be pushed back a bit further from the common realm of people and cars.

 

Well, Growth and Density Increase and Vehicle Size are all consistent that for every x2 mass there is -1 KB. That works for small values (like in a 60 AP limit game). But it strikes me as inconsistent. Why would the force that throws 100kg back X" be able to throw twice the mass only 1" less?

 

But to use double mass to mean double the KB resistance would mean that characters with 60 pts of Growth or Density Increase would have about -2048" of KB Resistance (the first x2 giving -1" KB). Way too high for game balance reasons in character-character combat IMO.

 

The actual combat system would still be fully linear. The system used to price the characters' abilities would not have to be. The only problem here is that there are abilities like power pools where the actual point price of abilities is a factor during the game; that aspect of the rules would have to be addressed.

 

Would such a system require moving to a die system that produces a flat probability distribution as opposed to the bell curve by using multiple dice?

 

If the price of buying abilities lowers as one buys more of it, wouldn't one reach a point where it become free to buy more?

 

No. It is not fast enough for my Superpowered Characters.

 

Assuming that I have a 2 SPD, I can go faster than 30" on my bike (that is about 20 mph for a 2 SPD character).

 

IMO the average person has a SPD of 3, and a large percentage of the population has a 4 SPD. A 2 SPD is IMO a fairly slow person.

 

30" would be faster for a character with higher SPD' date=' but even at 6 SPD it would only be about 60 mph.[/quote']

 

That's pretty darn fast considering the fastest runner in the world, Michael Johnson, only achieved an average speed of 23.1 MPH in the 200 meter race.

 

If you can have a character who can lift an aircraft carrier' date=' I'd like to have a character who is able to go Mach 3 in combat.[/quote']

 

That would take 110 points of Strength, as well as the suspension of some real-world rules that says that exerting that much force on two small (hand-sized) points will just poke holes in the hull. But even so, what says that Mach 3 = Lift Aircraft Carrier? 110 points gets one 61" of Running (total). That's a heck of a lot.

 

You say that: "a 60 STR now might become, say, a 20," how would that happen?

 

Going to exponential doesn't have to mean "+1 = X2" that is just how DC Heroes does its exponential progression.

 

In Hero, it would probably mean in many cases "+5 = X2" or 2 to the power of (Stat / 5).

 

But it could also mean "+10 = X2" or 2 to the power of (Stat / 10).

 

Well, would STR's lifting ability and it's damage remain the same, and in the same ratio? +5 points of STR means only +1d6, which seems linear to me, while lifting capacity is definitely geometric.

 

Would every purchase of whatever cost increment of Flight double the flight speed? Does every "point" of speed make the character twice as fast? How would this affect stat-based skills?

[Warp9]

Re: The Genesis of +5 = 2x power?

 

A 1 SPD character would have to have 81" of movement to achieve 30 MPH! Unless he has several NCMs -- which means it would take him many Turns to get going. In TUV, even a School Bus has a SPD of 2, and all the cars have at least a 3 SPD.

 

That makes it sound like Rifts. If we use the standard method for determining damage from Move Throughs, SPD doesn't enter into the equation. Apparently deliberately choosing a small SPD so that the Inches of movement can be pumped up (to achieve a certain MPH/KPH), and thus claim more damage is my concern.

I did sort of use a small SPD intentionally; but it was for a good cause. Actually I took the example from a car in the 4th edition main book (that was a book which I was able to locate after the move).

 

However, I would suggest that the problems which I'm pointing out would still exist at higher SPD, they would just be less obvious.

 

The Velocity Factor table levels the playing field between high SPD+low Inches characters and low SPD+high Inches characters. As well as flattening the increase in damage from velocity.

I like the VF stuff!

 

 

That strikes me as very likely. While I'm not fond of kludges, I dislike those that don't really work.

Agreed.

 

 

Well, Growth and Density Increase and Vehicle Size are all consistent that for every x2 mass there is -1 KB. That works for small values (like in a 60 AP limit game). But it strikes me as inconsistent. Why would the force that throws 100kg back X" be able to throw twice the mass only 1" less?

This is actually one of the things I'm complaining about.

 

If everything was exponential including KB, you wouldn't have that problem. A point of KB resistance would not equate to 1" less KB. It would probably cut the KB in half (or maybe 2 points would cut KB in half, this situation would be more in line with the +2 VF per X2 velocity) .

 

But to use double mass to mean double the KB resistance would mean that characters with 60 pts of Growth or Density Increase would have about -2048" of KB Resistance (the first x2 giving -1" KB). Way too high for game balance reasons in character-character combat IMO.

In a fully linear game 60 points of growth would not give you thousands of times to mass of a normal person.

 

But what I was trying to suggest is the following. . . . Any process where you match two factors, each of which progress on different scales (linear and exponential), will eventually produce bizzare results. It may not be noticable at first but the situation will get worse and worse as you progress further along the scales.

 

Adding 1 point of KB resistance per each time you double mass is not really compatable with adding +1d6 per each 3" of velocity. It may look acceptable within a limited range, but eventually you'll reach a point where it no longer makes any sense.

 

 

Would such a system require moving to a die system that produces a flat probability distribution as opposed to the bell curve by using multiple dice?

That would make sense, but GURPS 3rd was linear and they still used 3d6.

 

If the price of buying abilities lowers as one buys more of it, wouldn't one reach a point where it become free to buy more?

COM cost less than 1 point per point, but that doesn't make it free.

 

I'd say you'd just start buying it in batches, say maybe 10 points per point, or 20 points per point. The batches would just get larger.

 

 

 

 

IMO the average person has a SPD of 3, and a large percentage of the population has a 4 SPD. A 2 SPD is IMO a fairly slow person.

Hmm. I always thought that an average person had a SPD of 2. The average being SPD 3 is definitely news to me.

 

 

That's pretty darn fast considering the fastest runner in the world, Michael Johnson, only achieved an average speed of 23.1 MPH in the 200 meter race.

Fast for a normal person, yes. Fast for a superhuman, not so much.

 

 

Well, would STR's lifting ability and it's damage remain the same, and in the same ratio? +5 points of STR means only +1d6, which seems linear to me, while lifting capacity is definitely geometric.

To do a translation to full exponential, I'd change the way damage works.

 

 

 

Would every purchase of whatever cost increment of Flight double the flight speed? Does every "point" of speed make the character twice as fast? How would this affect stat-based skills?

I would say that + 10 points of Flight = 2 X Velocity in Combat Flight.

 

And I'd keep the Non-Combat multiples as +5 points per X2 Velocity out of combat.