Assuming Casual Strength

[RDU Neil]

Just wondering...

 

Is the base assumption on use of STR that a character is using casual strength to hold something unless otherwise specified by the player?

 

Example: I'm holding a can of pop... no problem, then suddenly that can becomes 50 pounds. Now, I can curl a fifty pound dumbbell, but I'd still rule that "unprepared" I was using minimum strength necessary (casual STR or less) to hold the can... thus dropping it when it becomes so heavy.

 

(Now... my next action I can use more strength to pick the 50 lb can back up, but initially I drop it.)

 

This is how I would rule as a GM... but just wondering if there is anything specific on "base use of strength is assumed to be minimum needed" or anything like that in the rules.

 

 

And one other thing...

I assume that, if a character has, say, a 50 STR... but has multiple limbs... he can lift a TOTAL of 50 STR worth in all those limbs... NOT 50 STR in each limb. Correct?

 

(This always bugged me with the new rules on TK, which seem to indicate that AE TK allows multiple 50 STR objects... not multiple objects up to a total of 50 STR worth. Or does AE STR, if allowed, let 50 STR be used on every object in that area as well?)

 

Thanks in advance.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Assuming Casual Strength

 

Well on the suddenly massive can of pop question, my answer would be that it depends.

 

If you have 60 strength then your casual strength is 30, but as strength follows an exponential pattern of doubling every 5 points, your casual strength is only 1/32 of your full strength, whereas for a 10 strength normal, casual strength is 1/2 normal strength.

 

Now arguably if you have something that changes mass unexpectedly you might drop it out of shock: that might be an Ego or Dex roll, or even a Strength roll, but for a strong character, even a shift to the maximum casual strength is still only getting to a fraction of their normal strength.

 

For a normal, casual strength is probably set very high. I certainly couldn't lug about a mass equal to half my maximum lift 'casually'

 

It might be worth re-writing 'casual strength' as (say) STR-20, or 1/8 of your max lift: if you can lift 100kg (10 str) then 12.5kg seems a reasonable 'casual' strength. This would make it more consistent both in-game and with reality.

 

As to multiple limb creatures, the strength lift is the maximum strength they can lift using one or all limbs. For common sense purposes I'd generally rule that they needed to use all limbs and if they were using just 1 of 2 arms, for example, this would halve strength, or be at STR-5. The rules concurr on this. If you have a lot of limbs, well, for example, using 4 of 16 arms would give a max lift of STR-10.

 

Even if you let a character lift their max strength with one limb, they are not able to lift anything else with any spare limbs, unless they push.

 

My understanding with TK was that it gave a max lift, and I was not aware that adding AoE changed that: I'll have to look when I get home.

 

While we are on the subject of strength, casual and otherwise, ever noticed how body mass does not seem to figure in the calculation. Assuming a 10 STR normal weighs 100kg, they are using all their strength to remain standing and shouldn't be able to lift anythng else: they get that 10 STR they would need to lift themselves for free. I'm not complaining, I'm just pointing it out...

[RDU Neil]

Re: Assuming Casual Strength

 

Well on the suddenly massive can of pop question, my answer would be that it depends.

 

If you have 60 strength then your casual strength is 30, but as strength follows an exponential pattern of doubling every 5 points, your casual strength is only 1/32 of your full strength, whereas for a 10 strength normal, casual strength is 1/2 normal strength.

 

Now arguably if you have something that changes mass unexpectedly you might drop it out of shock: that might be an Ego or Dex roll, or even a Strength roll, but for a strong character, even a shift to the maximum casual strength is still only getting to a fraction of their normal strength.

 

For a normal, casual strength is probably set very high. I certainly couldn't lug about a mass equal to half my maximum lift 'casually'

 

It might be worth re-writing 'casual strength' as (say) STR-20, or 1/8 of your max lift: if you can lift 100kg (10 str) then 12.5kg seems a reasonable 'casual' strength. This would make it more consistent both in-game and with reality.

 

As to multiple limb creatures, the strength lift is the maximum strength they can lift using one or all limbs. For common sense purposes I'd generally rule that they needed to use all limbs and if they were using just 1 of 2 arms, for example, this would halve strength, or be at STR-5. The rules concurr on this. If you have a lot of limbs, well, for example, using 4 of 16 arms would give a max lift of STR-10.

 

Even if you let a character lift their max strength with one limb, they are not able to lift anything else with any spare limbs, unless they push.

 

My understanding with TK was that it gave a max lift, and I was not aware that adding AoE changed that: I'll have to look when I get home.

 

While we are on the subject of strength, casual and otherwise, ever noticed how body mass does not seem to figure in the calculation. Assuming a 10 STR normal weighs 100kg, they are using all their strength to remain standing and shouldn't be able to lift anythng else: they get that 10 STR they would need to lift themselves for free. I'm not complaining, I'm just pointing it out...

 

 

Yeah... the Casual strength calculation is a clear area where the Linear and Exponential aspects of Hero are in conflict. So... there is no specific ruling on this (logical or not) is what you are saying? That works for me... just wondering if I missed anything. (On the being surprised issue... yeah I'm basically saying that "if surprised, you default to casual STR" which is a game rule to reflect that most people don't go around clutching items with all their focus and concentration and strength... they use just enough to hold unless there is a reason to hold with more.)

 

The TK may be a IIRC situation where I didn't RC. I thought some ruling somewhere indicated that AE on TK was that everything in the AE got the full STR of TK applied. Basically... if your TK can lift 25 tons... you can lift any number of 25 ton objects, assuming they fit in the AoE. I find this rule buh-roken... but may have misremembered.

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

Re: Assuming Casual Strength

 

You misremembered.

 

Like with any Strength, TK can lift an equivalent of X strength, whether that's one ICBM via one-target lifting or ten billion ball bearings in an AoE. AoE simply means you can move ALL the ball-bearings at once, instead of one-by-one, the way someone without AoE has to. (Or just get a broom, eh?)

 

My question would be, 'how would you frame being able to do whatever you want with each individual ball bearing'? Make sure you have Fine Work, then select your AoE with Selective? Maybe you just need Fine Work? It's baffled me for some time. :/

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Assuming Casual Strength

 

It might be worth re-writing 'casual strength' as (say) STR-20, or 1/8 of your max lift: if you can lift 100kg (10 str) then 12.5kg seems a reasonable 'casual' strength. This would make it more consistent both in-game and with reality.

 

I haven't thought this out in detail, but on the surface this seems very reasonable and has potential to be a true enhancement.

[Outsider]

Re: Assuming Casual Strength

 

I think AE TK allows one to lift all the objects in the area that mass the TK's max lift or less individually. So a 10 STR TK AE could lift 20 100kg objects, but not a single 200kg one.

 

If one interprets the other way, why would it be that a 2D6 RKA does 2D6 to each object in the area instead of 2D6 spread out over all of the objects?

[RDU Neil]

Re: Assuming Casual Strength

 

I think AE TK allows one to lift all the objects in the area that mass the TK's max lift or less individually. So a 10 STR TK AE could lift 20 100kg objects, but not a single 200kg one.

 

If one interprets the other way, why would it be that a 2D6 RKA does 2D6 to each object in the area instead of 2D6 spread out over all of the objects?

 

Yah! Exactly... this was the rationalization and ruling I remember.

 

AE attacks do full damage to everything in the AE... not 12d6 divided up among targets... so why shouldn't AE TK get full strength against everything in the AE?

 

This makes more sense from an internal logic... but it is utterly abusive in play... but then that is the case with any power based on STR and all the things STR can do (grab, squeeze, hold, throw, hit, etc.) for so little relative cost.

[Kristopher]

Re: Assuming Casual Strength

 

There's also the issue of breaking things -- even a 60 STR character can only hold on to a can of soda with a limited amount of STR, or he'll crush it.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Assuming Casual Strength

 

Lotta good points here... and I really agree with Sean and Killer that we need to re-write Casual Strength.

 

So I got the book and looked up the three pages listed in the Index (5th Ed... not revised) for Casual Strength. Only pg. 283 has any actual comments about what Casual Strength is, and that focuses mostly on the wacky STR Endurance cost.

 

So... what does it really mean when it says "equal to half his normal strength"?

 

What is "half" of something that is both exponential and linear.

 

Going up the scale, 5 points of STR supposedly "Doubles" how strong a character is... so wouldn't it make sense that "half" would really constitute -5 points of STR... not halving the characteristic stat?

 

This would actually be more consistent... if not intuitive... but then, double strength only adds 1d6 of damage isn't very intuitive either.

 

Should THIS be what is the REAL interpretation of Casual Strength?

 

Should a 60 STR brick have a casual strength of 55... not 30? I'd say there is some argument for it.

 

 

(Also... people have tried to use the exponential concept with other things... arguing that damage is "exponential" as are defenses. So... if somethign cuts your 12d6 EB "in half" shouldn't it be doing 11d6... not 6d6? Should half your 15 PD be 14 PD... not 7.5? Hmmmm...)

[Kristopher]

Re: Assuming Casual Strength

 

Keep in mind that it's lifting that's exponential (along with duration, some areas of effect, and whatnot).

 

 

IMO, there's nothing to indicate that damage or defenses are exponential. 12d6 isn't going to get twice as much damage through on the same defenses as 11d6, nor is it going to get half as much through as 13d6. (Except sometimes when the defense in question happens to be right at a specific point where those dice are just starting to get damage through on an average roll.)

[zornwil]

Re: Assuming Casual Strength

 

Casual STR at -20 seems dangerous in that in supers games a 60 STR brick can just walk through Entanges and so on if his 40 STR suffices. Definitely a huge danger at -5, even if there's some theory behind that.

 

I think "minimum used STR" is a sticky wicket, and I think any ruling on what happens when a 12 ounce can of soda transforms into a 120 pound dense brick of Ultimatium is really game-specific, yielding to how you want such characters and stories to work. If you think about it, you could very easily argue that as a matter of reaction and surprise, that 12 ounce can could easily be dropped by the Hulk if it goes up to a "mere" 120 ounces when he doesn't expect it, since he's only using as much force as he's accustomed to using to hold a 12 ounce can without crushing it, and especially depending on HOW he grips it. It could also matter depending on the SFX of the STR, such as a kinetic force master who is precise with what he employs and likely to be really thrown by such changes as opposed to a mechanical arm that always applies certain minimum pressures, not being sensitive to objects particularly.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Assuming Casual Strength

 

Thinking about it form the Toolkit vs. SFX point of view... the Strength chart as it stands is purely SFX.

 

STR as a mechanic follows the 5 per 1d6 function... adding on a whole lot of extras (PD, ED, Jump, etc.)

 

"Lift" is essentially SFX... as it has no mechanical function, but is purely about "describing interaction with the imaginary space."

 

You could change the scale to linear lift... so a 100 STR is 1900-2000 kgs lift... and the important stuff doesn't change. Still does 20d6, adds 20 PD, etc.

 

So... to the linear vs. exponential... this aspect of exponential is purely an artifact of SFX left over from the Champions days... a SFX interpretation to support a certain style of play... not a mechanic at all.

 

(In my games, the STR chart is the same up to 45 STR or so... then 50 STR is 50 tons... and it goes linearly after that, 51 STR is 51 tons lift... so that 100 STR is 100 tons. This doesn't change the game at all except to define a certain aspect of my world through SFX.)

[zornwil]

Re: Assuming Casual Strength

 

Yeah, I had a different lift chart at one time as well, sloping differently at different break points. It really doesn't matter that I ever saw. I changed it back just for simplicity for players and the fact that it really didn't matter anyway in game effect.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Assuming Casual Strength

 

I can see the lifting capacity of STR to being balanced to the extra mass that Growth or Density Increase gives to a target. 5 points in any doubles the mass that it affects. Change one, and you should change all three (and Shrinking as well) to remain fully consistent.

 

AoE changes the power's effect from a single target to affecting an area. Yes that can be seen as "lots more damage". But it isn't nearly as abusable as letting AoE TK lift it's STR in mass per Hex.

 

Or:

 

3D6 RKA + AoE isn't a *separate* 3D6 for each hex -- it's all the same 3D6, just covering a bigger "target". 30 STR TK + AoE can do 5D6 damage to the whole area, and it's the same 5D6, just covering a bigger "target". In either case if you "stop" the 3D6 RKA or 30 STR TK (say, with a dispel), you've stopped it not in just one hex, but in all the hexes.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Assuming Casual Strength

 

Keep in mind that it's lifting that's exponential (along with duration, some areas of effect, and whatnot).

 

 

IMO, there's nothing to indicate that damage or defenses are exponential. 12d6 isn't going to get twice as much damage through on the same defenses as 11d6, nor is it going to get half as much through as 13d6. (Except sometimes when the defense in question happens to be right at a specific point where those dice are just starting to get damage through on an average roll.)

 

This is a good point, but then it is not exactly linear either: 13d6 will not actually deliver 13/12ths the damage of 12d6, for (say) defences of 25:

 

12d6 average damage 42 points, damage delivered (42-25) = 17

13d6 average damage 45 points, damage delivered (45-25) = 20, or 20/17ths.

 

Probably easier with percentages: 13d6 average damage is 108% of 12d6 damage, but delivered damage for 13d6 (through 25 point defences) is 118% of the delivered damage of 12d6.

 

So, one extra die has a disproportional effect on damage delivered, all else being equal. Makes my head hurt more than normal....

[Sean Waters]

Re: Assuming Casual Strength

 

Casual STR at -20 seems dangerous in that in supers games a 60 STR brick can just walk through Entanges and so on if his 40 STR suffices. Definitely a huge danger at -5' date=' even if there's some theory behind that. .................................[/quote']

 

I do take this point but –20 points is a lot. A 40 point entangle probably shouldn’t have much real effect on a character geared to 60 active point attacks, just like you wouldn’t expect an 8d6 EB to have an effect on a character geared to taking 12d6 hits.

 

The entangle still has an effect: DCV drops until they can apply the casual strength, but assuming that you roll average BODY of 4 for the entangle, then, yes, casual strength of 40 would dispose of the entangle with a time penalty of half a phase, half the time. Mind you full strength would get you out with no time penalty 50% of the time, and far more reliably get you out, and in combat chances are you’ll be using your strength anyway that phase.

 

The weird thing about casual strength at present is this: if you have a tiny character, with a strength of -10, their casual strength is -5.

[Outsider]

Re: Assuming Casual Strength

 

An TK AE is limited per target, not per hex. 2 or 4 targets crammed into one hex each get lifted (or crushed, or whatever). Personally, were I GM, I'd severely limit fine manipulation on an AE TK, as perceiving so many targets simulaneously to direct the fine manipulation would boggle the senses. One can lift (or crush) a crowd of agents, but sorting out the pins on all of their hand grenades and pulling them with a single TK AE action seems a bit unlikely.

 

And yeah, TK AE would have to be watched pretty closely for abuse.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Assuming Casual Strength

 

An TK AE is limited per target, not per hex. 2 or 4 targets crammed into one hex each get lifted (or crushed, or whatever). Personally, were I GM, I'd severely limit fine manipulation on an AE TK, as perceiving so many targets simulaneously to direct the fine manipulation would boggle the senses. One can lift (or crush) a crowd of agents, but sorting out the pins on all of their hand grenades and pulling them with a single TK AE action seems a bit unlikely.

 

And yeah, TK AE would have to be watched pretty closely for abuse.

 

Technically I suppose, to finely manipulate several objects you ought to be doing some sort of sweep, but I might let a character away with it if they had some sort of appropriate sense (perhaps ranged targetting rapid discriminatory touch, defined as TK tendrils?), and they were manipulating basically inanimate objects, like ball bearings. OTOH if they wanted to affect characters or focii I'd definitely require sweep, or require selective on the AoE and probably fine manipulation too. Then I'd be cushty

 

I mean, I can pick up more than one ball bearing at a time without taking -2 OCV for each past the first. Actually I haven't got any handy ball bearings but I just 'swept' up 18d6 without any real problem. Unless I have an OCV of around 20, I don't see any real problem with treating them as basically a single object for many purposes.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Assuming Casual Strength

 

Technically I suppose, to finely manipulate several objects you ought to be doing some sort of sweep, but I might let a character away with it if they had some sort of appropriate sense (perhaps ranged targetting rapid discriminatory touch, defined as TK tendrils?), and they were manipulating basically inanimate objects, like ball bearings. OTOH if they wanted to affect characters or focii I'd definitely require sweep, or require selective on the AoE and probably fine manipulation too. Then I'd be cushty

 

I mean, I can pick up more than one ball bearing at a time without taking -2 OCV for each past the first. Actually I haven't got any handy ball bearings but I just 'swept' up 18d6 without any real problem. Unless I have an OCV of around 20, I don't see any real problem with treating them as basically a single object for many purposes.

 

I'd hazard a guess that those 18d6 were resting on a relatively flat surface, and in close proximity to one another. Attach them to a person's clothing around their torso and waist, and I think it will be a bit trickier. This is one way IMO that AoE can help out.

 

Q: What is the manipulation span for Telekinesis?

 

A: Again per The Ultimate Mentalist, page 57, the “armspan” of a character’s TK is usually the same as that of his regular STR. (5ER specifically notes on 5ER 230 that a Telekinetic Grab only affects two limbs.) However, TUM also goes into the nature of Telekinesis and the possibility of “spreading” it in greater detail than is possible in this FAQ. Until we can get around to addressing it in full in print, we suggest you use common sense and dramatic sense to make your TK fun and plausible, while not unbalancing.

 

Q: Can a character with Telekinesis pick up multiple objects that are in a pile, such as stacked bricks?

 

A: A character can pick up multiple objects with Telekinesis to roughly the same extent that he could with his ordinary STR. The “armspan” of a character’s Telekinesis is the same as his regular STR, i.e., about the span of his arms; if he wants to cover a greater area at once, he should buy Area Of Effect. Consider, for example, a pile of bricks (assuming, for the purposes of this hypothetical, that all the bricks together don’t weigh more than the character’s Telekinesis lifting capacity). If the bricks are neatly stacked on a pallet, the character can easily lift them all by lifting the pallet. If they’re in a big, jumbled pile, he can pick up as many as he can “fit” in his telekinetic “armspan.” The GM should make a final decision as to how a character can telekinetically lift a particular object, group of objects, or the like; obviously the specifics of a situation have a lot of impact on this issue.

 

The “armspan” rules described here do not allow a character to pick up multiple people or differing objects by making a single Attack Roll — they don’t grant any sort of Area Of Effect for free. They apply to attempts to pick up large masses of a specific type of object, such as a hunk of soil or a pile of bricks. As always, the GM has the final say on what a character can do with his Telekinesis based on special effects, game balance, common sense, dramatic sense, the circumstances, and other appropriate considerations.

 

So, given the "armspan" rules, I think I'd allow the same kind of action across multiple targets with a Selective AoE TK. If it's small targets like grenade pins, then I'd call for Fine Manipulation as well.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Assuming Casual Strength

 

I'd hazard a guess that those 18d6 were resting on a relatively flat surface' date=' and in close proximity to one another. Attach them to a person's clothing around their torso and waist, and I think it will be a bit trickier. This is one way IMO that AoE can help out.[/quote']

 

Actually I'd stapled them all to mice.

 

No, you are right, they were an easy grab, and even thought I have big hands (and we all know what that means*) I'm not quite able to claim them as an AoE.

 

 

 

So' date=' given the "armspan" rules, I think I'd allow the same kind of action across multiple targets with a Selective AoE TK. If it's small targets like grenade pins, then I'd call for Fine Manipulation as well.[/quote']

 

Cushty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Big gloves

[SteveZilla]

Re: Assuming Casual Strength

 

What I failed to mention is that because it's Selective, the character would have to make attack rolls against all the grenade pins (-2 OCV for targeting a Focus, IIRC). They probably won't get all of them, but they'll get enough so that it likely won't matter.